So basically what you're telling me is not that I'm missing something about the broadcast flag but the slippery slope argument that it's a foot in the door for those evil thought control media corporations that own the Congress. I see.
Dang, and I thought my tinfoil hat was tight...:-)
How do you reconcile the fact that hardware/software vendors and consumer groups with an interest in innovating technologies are also large contributors to political campaigns? This is a big complicated issue, and the fact that it's taken this long to get this "mandate" tells me that it's a long way from over. There are just too many diverse interests in the mix.
I'm very worried about technological mandates, and I don't like the broadcast flag because I think it puts unnecessary inhibitions in the path of users, but I think your conclusion here is a little tenuous and contrary to pretty much all of recent consumer, technological, legislative, and judicial history.
For myself, if I can't get the use I want out of a device or content, then it's irrelevant because I just won't buy the shit. DVX comes to mind as a perfect example of how consumers voted with their wallets to give a big FU to an overly restrictive technology.
The more I think about it the more I agree this is [i]exactly[/i] what the broadcast flag is about. It's not about stopping piracy*. It's about stopping low-budget Mac-wielding filmmakers from threatening Hollywood... Amazing consumer-level media tools do no good if they can't record anything. *I love how the article positions the broadcast flag as a "magic bullet" against internet piracy. As if one bit is going to stop anyone from doing anything...
The poster has a point about the DAT, and I'm not unconvinced that raising barriers to entry to the market was an underhanded motivation of the music industry sharks in the run up to AHRA-92.
But can you please explain to me what difference the broadcast flag will have on indie filmmakers? Everything I've heard so far has indicated that machines will have to honor the restrictions in playback/transmission that are placed in the content "upstream", but there is no mandate for any producer to use the broadcast flag in material they create. If you don't turn it on in your recording, then nothing should stop you from making copies. If you wanted to distribute uncopyable (yes, I know that's a joke) content, you would turn it on for the output of the final "print".
Philosophical arguments against copy-protection aside, is there a part of the broadcast flag that I don't understand? AHRA-92 mandated that "consumer" DATs add copy protection to unprotected sources, but since the content is secured at the source, why would HDTV "recorders" be required to imprint it in original content?
Yawn. I'll leave the Bush slag alone (I don't go for shooting fish in barrels) but there is something interesting about that OpenSecrets chart.
[Tinfoil Hat] It looks like over time they are contributing mostly against the entrenched party. Could it be that they are engaged in a deliberate campaign to keep the government politically destabilized and therefore incapable of concerted action against them? [/Tinfoil Hat]
I've already deleted the email so I can't paste the exact quote, but I also liked the bit about how GPL was "Bad for Linux". Funny, it seems to have served it well so far...
His attempt to paint himself as having Linux's interest at heart is even more pitiful than his initial ill-informed rant...
It's worth noting that unlike your friendly neighborhood congressman, Forbes magazine is not beholden to you.
You've obviously never read the mail I receive from my congressman (R. Wexler, D FL 19, co-sponsor of P2PPPA and other monstrosities of "intellectual property").:-)
Back on topic: if Forbes makes the assumption you suggest, they will be wrong. The article has soured me to reading anything but a retraction by this Lyons fellow and reduced the editorial credibility of Forbes itself in my eyes. If they draw an opposite conclusion based on my (hopefully clear) letter, then they are mistaken. I can't help that.
Nice job, but I feel obliged to argue with this statement:
Observe that at this point, the GPL already provides more freedoms than traditional copyright law.
The GPL is founded on traditional copyright law. Copyright law per se just permits authors a time-limited monopoly of control over their work. This does not require putting remunerative or overly restrictive conditions on access to the works. That is more along the lines of copyright-law-as-traditionally-employed.
Here's what I sent Forbes via their comment function:
I'd like to be diplomatic, but the tone of this article is just ridiculous.
Since when is it an onerous act to expect a licensee to comply with the terms of the license? These companies used GPL-protected code and then wanted to balk at the license by not distributing the changes as required. How is that different from a software purchaser deciding it is acceptable to copy and redistribute proprietary software protected by a more "traditional" license?
While it may be an affront to the proprietary software industry's ways of doing business, the GPL is a sound contract that anyone is free to accept or reject as conditions for use of the protected software. The payment for receiving the "free" GPL software is that modifications must be released back to benefit the public. If that isn't acceptable, then these companies should not use GPL code and should either create or purchase another operating system.
Spare us the "comrade" and "dark side" nonsense. This is a simple contract dispute based on U.S. copyright law. Your mockery of it reflects poorly on your journalistic credibility.
Thanks for that citation, if not for your editorializing about whether it makes a difference to me. Believe it or not, I didn't ask the question to start a flame war over gender politics, but because I have an interest in linguistics.
The usage essay at the bottom of that page was an interesting read. I recall once hearing about an attempt to force the evolution of the language with a third gender neutral pronoun (I think the substitution for he/she was te) but that obviously never got far enough along to even warrant mention.
I threw away my second grade english book a long time ago, sorry.
Guess you threw away the history book that said Columbus discovered America, too...
Are you always such a dismissive ass to people who ask questions? You must be the light of the party. Of course, noone will recognize you with that AC bag on your head, so flame away.
I have better things to do than correct people's spelling. I meant it was funny that you chose "knashing" because of the KDE obsession with preceding everything with a K. I just wondered if it was a deliberate choice, Freudian slip, or just coincidence...
Even if most spam does currently originate in America, if the U.S. somehow passes and enforces an effective anti-spam law, there is effectively zero cost involved in these spammers moving there business out of the States and still spamming Americans.
As much as I find balkanizing the network to be philosophically repugnant, there is a second step that is not often discussed in the context of US legislation against spam.
Once spam is banned in the US, we (the network operators) have to block traffic from netblocks assigned to countries that are friendly to spam. The legitimate business and communications needs of those countries will then drive them to enact their own anti-spam policies to get off the block lists. If their only need for the network is to send spam, then they will soon find themselves isolated and ineffective.
I don't like it, but to me it looks more and more like the lesser of evils...
SCO's attempt to try this case in the tech media through "open letters" makes it increasingly obvious that this is a FUD campaign inteaded to impress investors and easily cowed corporations who will heel to their extortion. If they had a legitimate case, they would be filing new and improved court documents, not open letters...
Take a philosophy of science course and you will find that what we believe and what our models and empirical data can verify are not necessarily as disjoint as the received view perpetuates. The history of science is littered with unworkable models (not opinions or beliefs, but theories developed with the scientific method) that were falsified by observational and theoretical advances but were in their time accepted as truths about the Universe.
Every mathematical model and piece of emperical data available to Newton couldn't explain the precession of Mercury's perihelion, either, until the relativitistic theory you cite as dogma was developed early last century. For the record, we also now have emperical data that strongly suggest f.t.l. phenomena. Someone else has already mentioned quantum entanglement in this thread...
I've just looked at your recent posts. Only one was moderated greater than +2, and several were modded down. You don't gain karma just by posting, you get it by having your posts modded up (excluding funny mods, sad to say, as I appreciate a good laugh as much as a good insight), having stories accepted, and the like. If your karma is marginal (i.e. good or better by just a few points) and you get modded down, the impact is more significant.
I just don't buy your argument about kiss-ass-linux socialist crap because I see many opinions that do not fit that mold modded to +5 daily.
As for the randomness of moderation assignment, I just assumed it was delegated randomly to high-karma users but perhaps it is not random. Perhaps it is based on karma. Perhaps it's round-robin with frequency determined by karma (I usually get it once or twice a month) but it's not some elite gift of the maji to a cabal of vicous troglodytes as you seem to imply. At any rate, a look at the slashcode just settle that easily.
If your karma is poor you will not get mod access. Simple as that. (Come to think of it, by participating in this OT thread, we are both endangering our prospects at near-future moderator access by inviting -1 mods.) Spending your time railing against the unfairness of the system just pushes your karma down more.
This reply is not intended for the poster per se, who has just been singled out as a sample of the people who are always bitching about the moderation system. I hope that before this post gets OT'ed out of existence, that some of the mod-haters will chime in and explain to me what the big deal is...
What I've gleaned from reading the FAQs is that the moderation system randomly selects people based on karma, and that though the editors have unlimited mod points, their moderations account to only 3% of total mod points expended on the site.
I can understand (I don't agree, but I understand) people who oppose the notion of moderation in principle, but what's with all the complaints about how moderation is done here? It seems to me a fairly equitable system that grants mod access to all non-trolls in a pretty even-handed fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
But does it have the broadcast flag set?
So basically what you're telling me is not that I'm missing something about the broadcast flag but the slippery slope argument that it's a foot in the door for those evil thought control media corporations that own the Congress. I see.
:-)
Dang, and I thought my tinfoil hat was tight...
How do you reconcile the fact that hardware/software vendors and consumer groups with an interest in innovating technologies are also large contributors to political campaigns? This is a big complicated issue, and the fact that it's taken this long to get this "mandate" tells me that it's a long way from over. There are just too many diverse interests in the mix.
I'm very worried about technological mandates, and I don't like the broadcast flag because I think it puts unnecessary inhibitions in the path of users, but I think your conclusion here is a little tenuous and contrary to pretty much all of recent consumer, technological, legislative, and judicial history.
For myself, if I can't get the use I want out of a device or content, then it's irrelevant because I just won't buy the shit. DVX comes to mind as a perfect example of how consumers voted with their wallets to give a big FU to an overly restrictive technology.
The poster has a point about the DAT, and I'm not unconvinced that raising barriers to entry to the market was an underhanded motivation of the music industry sharks in the run up to AHRA-92.
But can you please explain to me what difference the broadcast flag will have on indie filmmakers? Everything I've heard so far has indicated that machines will have to honor the restrictions in playback/transmission that are placed in the content "upstream", but there is no mandate for any producer to use the broadcast flag in material they create. If you don't turn it on in your recording, then nothing should stop you from making copies. If you wanted to distribute uncopyable (yes, I know that's a joke) content, you would turn it on for the output of the final "print".
Philosophical arguments against copy-protection aside, is there a part of the broadcast flag that I don't understand? AHRA-92 mandated that "consumer" DATs add copy protection to unprotected sources, but since the content is secured at the source, why would HDTV "recorders" be required to imprint it in original content?
Yawn. I'll leave the Bush slag alone (I don't go for shooting fish in barrels) but there is something interesting about that OpenSecrets chart.
[Tinfoil Hat]
It looks like over time they are contributing mostly against the entrenched party. Could it be that they are engaged in a deliberate campaign to keep the government politically destabilized and therefore incapable of concerted action against them?
[/Tinfoil Hat]
Boy, do I know what you're talking about!
Who is your rep? Wanna trade examples of congressional pablum?
I've already deleted the email so I can't paste the exact quote, but I also liked the bit about how GPL was "Bad for Linux". Funny, it seems to have served it well so far...
His attempt to paint himself as having Linux's interest at heart is even more pitiful than his initial ill-informed rant...
Er... You're welcome?
:-)
I do get the joke.
You've obviously never read the mail I receive from my congressman (R. Wexler, D FL 19, co-sponsor of P2PPPA and other monstrosities of "intellectual property").
Back on topic: if Forbes makes the assumption you suggest, they will be wrong. The article has soured me to reading anything but a retraction by this Lyons fellow and reduced the editorial credibility of Forbes itself in my eyes. If they draw an opposite conclusion based on my (hopefully clear) letter, then they are mistaken. I can't help that.
Same here. It's sad we've all had to turn into armchair attorneys.
The GPL is founded on traditional copyright law. Copyright law per se just permits authors a time-limited monopoly of control over their work. This does not require putting remunerative or overly restrictive conditions on access to the works. That is more along the lines of copyright-law-as-traditionally-employed.
It's called a Saturn dealership.
He better do it fast, as that quantity is fast approaching zero...
What are you proposing as an alternative?
Thanks for that citation, if not for your editorializing about whether it makes a difference to me. Believe it or not, I didn't ask the question to start a flame war over gender politics, but because I have an interest in linguistics.
The usage essay at the bottom of that page was an interesting read. I recall once hearing about an attempt to force the evolution of the language with a third gender neutral pronoun (I think the substitution for he/she was te) but that obviously never got far enough along to even warrant mention.
Not much point in it anyway, is there.
Guess you threw away the history book that said Columbus discovered America, too...
Are you always such a dismissive ass to people who ask questions? You must be the light of the party. Of course, noone will recognize you with that AC bag on your head, so flame away.
I'd be interested in a citation for those rules...
I assume you are accusing me of witlessness?
I have better things to do than correct people's spelling. I meant it was funny that you chose "knashing" because of the KDE obsession with preceding everything with a K. I just wondered if it was a deliberate choice, Freudian slip, or just coincidence...
Was that misspelling of "gnashing" deliberate, cause one way or the other, it was really funny!
As much as I find balkanizing the network to be philosophically repugnant, there is a second step that is not often discussed in the context of US legislation against spam.
Once spam is banned in the US, we (the network operators) have to block traffic from netblocks assigned to countries that are friendly to spam. The legitimate business and communications needs of those countries will then drive them to enact their own anti-spam policies to get off the block lists. If their only need for the network is to send spam, then they will soon find themselves isolated and ineffective.
I don't like it, but to me it looks more and more like the lesser of evils...
SCO's attempt to try this case in the tech media through "open letters" makes it increasingly obvious that this is a FUD campaign inteaded to impress investors and easily cowed corporations who will heel to their extortion. If they had a legitimate case, they would be filing new and improved court documents, not open letters...
Take a philosophy of science course and you will find that what we believe and what our models and empirical data can verify are not necessarily as disjoint as the received view perpetuates. The history of science is littered with unworkable models (not opinions or beliefs, but theories developed with the scientific method) that were falsified by observational and theoretical advances but were in their time accepted as truths about the Universe.
Every mathematical model and piece of emperical data available to Newton couldn't explain the precession of Mercury's perihelion, either, until the relativitistic theory you cite as dogma was developed early last century. For the record, we also now have emperical data that strongly suggest f.t.l. phenomena. Someone else has already mentioned quantum entanglement in this thread...
I've just looked at your recent posts. Only one was moderated greater than +2, and several were modded down. You don't gain karma just by posting, you get it by having your posts modded up (excluding funny mods, sad to say, as I appreciate a good laugh as much as a good insight), having stories accepted, and the like. If your karma is marginal (i.e. good or better by just a few points) and you get modded down, the impact is more significant.
I just don't buy your argument about kiss-ass-linux socialist crap because I see many opinions that do not fit that mold modded to +5 daily.
As for the randomness of moderation assignment, I just assumed it was delegated randomly to high-karma users but perhaps it is not random. Perhaps it is based on karma. Perhaps it's round-robin with frequency determined by karma (I usually get it once or twice a month) but it's not some elite gift of the maji to a cabal of vicous troglodytes as you seem to imply. At any rate, a look at the slashcode just settle that easily.
If your karma is poor you will not get mod access. Simple as that. (Come to think of it, by participating in this OT thread, we are both endangering our prospects at near-future moderator access by inviting -1 mods.) Spending your time railing against the unfairness of the system just pushes your karma down more.
This reply is not intended for the poster per se, who has just been singled out as a sample of the people who are always bitching about the moderation system. I hope that before this post gets OT'ed out of existence, that some of the mod-haters will chime in and explain to me what the big deal is...
What I've gleaned from reading the FAQs is that the moderation system randomly selects people based on karma, and that though the editors have unlimited mod points, their moderations account to only 3% of total mod points expended on the site.
I can understand (I don't agree, but I understand) people who oppose the notion of moderation in principle, but what's with all the complaints about how moderation is done here? It seems to me a fairly equitable system that grants mod access to all non-trolls in a pretty even-handed fashion.