I feel obligated to point you to another response which has led me to reconsider my initial stance. Conflation of "copyright infringement" with "theft" in the bill is worthy of notice. I believe I will ask Mr. Wexler to fix this error.
While I agree that the gist of the bill appears harmless, the use and insertion of the word theft into the bill could very well be a 'backdoor bill' attempt.
Thank you. This is exactly the kind of insight that will convince me to act. Striking use of the word theft, in fact any implication that copyright infringement and theft can be equated, from the bill is truly a wise choice.
I am embarrased to have missed that. I will start preparing my letter forthwith.
how do you know that to speed the dissemination of information to Law Enforcement, they won't just have the **AA's send them their hitlist of everybody who has ever downloaded a file off the internet?
A very legitimate point, and one that should be addressed by repeal of DMCA provisions that allow copyright holders to obtain that information in the first place. In other words, what I referred to when I said that law enforcement should be handling this instead of corporate vigilantes.
When I download music using peer to peer services, I download songs that I have already purchased in the form of CD, cassette tape or album.
AFAIK, that is legal fair use.
To the emphasised point, I'm pretty sure the statute refers to copying the works you purchased, not to copying what was purchased by others because you also once purchased a copy.
To the larger point, if every user of P2P networks employed them honestly as you describe. Do you really believe we would be in this situation right now? I've heard all the rants about how the *AAs are just control freaks who want to restrict everything (in fact I largely agree) but would they really burn so much time and money pursuing people if the only traded copies were by people who had already purchased the content?
I still do not understand statements (such as yours) that imply that the means themselves consititue a criminal act.
That you do not understand is exactly correct. The means do not constitute a criminal act. I have spent considerable time trying to convince Mr. Wexler of that fact.
My statement did not endorse, and I did not see in the bill, any mandate for unrestricted monitoring of all P2P traffic. I merely said that if a case can be made that individuals are engaged in criminal copyright infringement, then the right body to be investigating that was law enforcement, not corporate vigilantes.
From what in my post to do infer that I think P2P implies criminality.
That would indeed be a tragic false positive, and one I can't defend.
In practice, however, the only vision disability I detect in most AC posts is willful blindness to basic human decency. AC is far more frequently used as cover for trolling or flaming than out of any physical necessity. Also, ACs are not notified (of course you can turn notification off but I assume most sincere posters will use one form or another of it) when a reply is posted, so it is very easy to flame and run without having to accept a response.
In reality, I usually do end up reading most AC posts. If they are sincere, then I occassionally even respond.
Perhaps you should take up the issue of denial of service to the visually impaired with slashdot for their use of the humanconf system. Perhaps they can offer an alternative validation mechanism?
Will any of you actually write your congress critters about this?
Actually, having read the text of the bill, I'm not entirely sure I will. While I don't see it as a particularly useful bit of legislation, I don't see it as dreadful enough that I would squander my communication capital with my rep to decry it.
I have spent considerable time educating the Honorable Mr. Wexler about the technological and civil implications of ill-conceived copyright legislation (a recent sample) but I'm not convinced that this bill really has that much substance of concern. Unless I'm missing something, it directs the FBI (1) to engage in a public education campaign (which I imagine will be about as effective and thorough as the leader warnings on videotapes and anti-drug commercials) and (2) to share information among law enforcement agencies about infringement activities. Frankly, I think if people were better informed about copyright issues and laws it would be a Good Thing(TM), and I'd much rather have an accountable law enforcement agency policing copyright infringement (which is, whatever your personal ethical position, a crime according to the US Code) than RIAA and MPAA vigilantes.
If someone can educate me as to why this bill is so horrible, and what substantial harm it does to consumer rights or technological progress, then I will change my mind and dash out another missive to my rep. ACs need not reply. Nothing of relevance posted in response to this question would you endanger your life or liberty by signing, and and if you do not offer me the respect of knowing my communicant, I will not read your post...
A huge problem with the law is that filters which don't tell you they're filtering are OK
I would expect that in most cases you will be able to rely on the librarians to tell you when filters are enabled. The American Library Association has already denounced the decision and, unlike the PATRIOT act, I don't believe CIPA puts librarians under a gag order with respect to disclosing the existence of filters.
Actually, I discussed this with someone else in a different thread.
My suggesiton was to house the tank in a completely dark room (which, now that I think of it, I would need to enter through a "light lock") and sit for 30-60 minutes until fully dark adapted so I could enjoy the faint luminescence of the fishes.
I think it was on that same thread I concluded it would be cheaper to just buy a submarine.
This post is a perfect example of why I wish we could disable anonymous replies.
Punchcardz gave an informed answer to my question above, in which it was made clear that pollenation from a terminated plant can occur, though it produces sterile seeds in the pollenated plant.
This AC came along and yammered out some presumptious BS about a topic which he clearly knows even less than I, and protected his ignorance behind the AC shield.
Why does this require implicit copying? Why not just set up indexes of which frames to skip?
An excellent point. I guess I was still stuck on the model of the resellers who burn the edited copies to new DVDs.
I had guessed the DG's legal arguments would be based on some aspect of copyright, but it turns out it's a question of "false designation of origin" (as far as I don't think artistic vision is protected by law so I suppose that's the best they could do). Personally, I find that argument pretty ridiculous. If I buy a DVD and edit it, or go out of my way to purchase it from one of those sanitizing companies, I must be a pretty well-informed consumer.
For the record, I wouldn't do either. I like my violence so intense I have bruises when the film is over...:-)
The problem is that "stick" is slang for a firearm, hence the conundrum of him coming out with the exact thing he was not coming out with. Whoever made that edit really dropped the ball...
It's easy. Just make a tank as high as the Eiffel tower. You can put the fish in and you don't have to pressurize it.
I like the way you think! Not only could I have my deep-sea species, but all the higher strata as well. I think it would need to be a little taller, though, because the ocean is considerably deeper than the Eiffel Tower is tall, and there would be a minor difference in the gravitational contribution when building up instead of down...
I'm thinking at this point it would be a lot cheaper to just buy a submarine.:-)
You are, of course, correct. I should have confined my comments to the studios and left directors out of it. I just meant to suggest that when an economic incentive is involved, most of them seem to cave a lot sooner than when the only benefit is to their audience.
More likely the studios who really control the work and hired the director okay the changes. Sure, there are directors with the muscle and standards to keep their stuff unmodified or off the small screen, but I bet there aren't that many.
And do you mean to tell me that Coppola OK'ed the line "I don't want my brother coming out of that bathroom with just a stick in his hand".
I don't see why empowering the customer in this way would be bad for Hollywood. The customer wins, but I don't see the flipside loss.
The argument I've heard is that the film's directors disapprove of their work being "altered" so as to change the artistic vision. This was in connection not with software for consumers but in the context of companies that were reselling modified discs to consumers, but if all copyright conditions are fulfilled (paying for each copy of the disc up front) I don't see why the cases would be different.
I for one don't recall hearing any directors or studios complaining about the damage to their artistic vision when their films get edited for TV audiences and they get a big royalty check...
My guess is the real motive for opposing this technology is that the implicit copying involved would be a step onto a slippery slope that undermines their draconian stance on copy control.
The *global* crop will never be a monoculture. We can engineer new diversity in as needed.
As I told another poster, I hope you're right, because the genie is apparently out of the bottle.
I really don't mean to be a Luddite on this issue. GM is very promising if well managed. However, having lived in a place (Cincinnati) where they introduced something so relatively simple as "reformulated" gasoline in order to clean the air, only to pull it off the market a few years later when it was discovered it poisoned the ground water, I am not necessarily so optimistic about our ability to move forward safely and wisely with our environmental technologies.
I wonder how long you'd have to sit in the dark to really appreciate the beauty of those type of fish?
Conventional wisdom in observational astronomy circles (where I am much more knowledgable than in marine biological ones!) is that it takes 30-60 minutes to become fully dark adapted.
Well worth it to watch a deep sea angler in action, IMO.
The entire point behind the "Terminator" technology is that it can't make little terminator plants, so in fact, they are sterile.
I assume you read my previous disclaimer, so bear with me.
My understanding was that terminated plants produce nonviable seeds. Do they also not produce pollen? Is it certain (I took special note of your "effectively", which is often informal shorthand for "almost certain", but perhaps you meant it differently) that pollen from a terminated plant could not be introduced into a species that is viable and pass that gene to its offspring?
I wasn't complaining about the problem solvers, that part is fun. I was talking about the people who wanted to tell me why it was a ridiculous idea.:-)
Disclaimer: I'm a computer scientist, not a biologist.
so the only real solution would be to increase diversity in the world and these GM species aren't really a problem
I certainly hope you're right, but I fear you may not be because modern human activity, particularly when economics are involved as they are in modern farming, isn't easily checked by the natural diversity of the planet. The Irish potato famine is frequently cited as an example of where a human-engineered monoculture led to ecological disaster.
Because of the economics of factory farming and the engineered preferences in most consumers for specific varieties of vegetables (and meats, in fact), it seems to me like the dominant recent trend has been for us to eliminate much more diversity than we promote. As I mentioned in the original post, what took nature millenia to produce we can undo in a few decades.
Then there's another famous Monsanto GM gene: the terminator. Imagine that taking hold in a biodiverse world!
Slashdot Mirror
After some discussion with other users, I have reconsidered my statement above. You will find the text of my letter to Mr. Wexler in my journal.
I feel obligated to point you to another response which has led me to reconsider my initial stance. Conflation of "copyright infringement" with "theft" in the bill is worthy of notice. I believe I will ask Mr. Wexler to fix this error.
Thank you. This is exactly the kind of insight that will convince me to act. Striking use of the word theft, in fact any implication that copyright infringement and theft can be equated, from the bill is truly a wise choice.
I am embarrased to have missed that. I will start preparing my letter forthwith.
A very legitimate point, and one that should be addressed by repeal of DMCA provisions that allow copyright holders to obtain that information in the first place. In other words, what I referred to when I said that law enforcement should be handling this instead of corporate vigilantes.
To the emphasised point, I'm pretty sure the statute refers to copying the works you purchased, not to copying what was purchased by others because you also once purchased a copy.
To the larger point, if every user of P2P networks employed them honestly as you describe. Do you really believe we would be in this situation right now? I've heard all the rants about how the *AAs are just control freaks who want to restrict everything (in fact I largely agree) but would they really burn so much time and money pursuing people if the only traded copies were by people who had already purchased the content?
That you do not understand is exactly correct. The means do not constitute a criminal act. I have spent considerable time trying to convince Mr. Wexler of that fact.
My statement did not endorse, and I did not see in the bill, any mandate for unrestricted monitoring of all P2P traffic. I merely said that if a case can be made that individuals are engaged in criminal copyright infringement, then the right body to be investigating that was law enforcement, not corporate vigilantes.
From what in my post to do infer that I think P2P implies criminality.
That would indeed be a tragic false positive, and one I can't defend.
In practice, however, the only vision disability I detect in most AC posts is willful blindness to basic human decency. AC is far more frequently used as cover for trolling or flaming than out of any physical necessity. Also, ACs are not notified (of course you can turn notification off but I assume most sincere posters will use one form or another of it) when a reply is posted, so it is very easy to flame and run without having to accept a response.
In reality, I usually do end up reading most AC posts. If they are sincere, then I occassionally even respond.
Perhaps you should take up the issue of denial of service to the visually impaired with slashdot for their use of the humanconf system. Perhaps they can offer an alternative validation mechanism?
Actually, having read the text of the bill, I'm not entirely sure I will. While I don't see it as a particularly useful bit of legislation, I don't see it as dreadful enough that I would squander my communication capital with my rep to decry it.
I have spent considerable time educating the Honorable Mr. Wexler about the technological and civil implications of ill-conceived copyright legislation (a recent sample) but I'm not convinced that this bill really has that much substance of concern. Unless I'm missing something, it directs the FBI (1) to engage in a public education campaign (which I imagine will be about as effective and thorough as the leader warnings on videotapes and anti-drug commercials) and (2) to share information among law enforcement agencies about infringement activities. Frankly, I think if people were better informed about copyright issues and laws it would be a Good Thing(TM), and I'd much rather have an accountable law enforcement agency policing copyright infringement (which is, whatever your personal ethical position, a crime according to the US Code) than RIAA and MPAA vigilantes.
If someone can educate me as to why this bill is so horrible, and what substantial harm it does to consumer rights or technological progress, then I will change my mind and dash out another missive to my rep. ACs need not reply. Nothing of relevance posted in response to this question would you endanger your life or liberty by signing, and and if you do not offer me the respect of knowing my communicant, I will not read your post...
I would expect that in most cases you will be able to rely on the librarians to tell you when filters are enabled. The American Library Association has already denounced the decision and, unlike the PATRIOT act, I don't believe CIPA puts librarians under a gag order with respect to disclosing the existence of filters.
Jeremiah Cornelius
"Funny"
smirk...
Ow. You got me. Maybe I should preview more carefully... :-)
And I'm fed up with people who leave nouns out of their sentences!
Assuming you meant "know the meaning", you have a point, though...
Actually, I discussed this with someone else in a different thread.
:-)
My suggesiton was to house the tank in a completely dark room (which, now that I think of it, I would need to enter through a "light lock") and sit for 30-60 minutes until fully dark adapted so I could enjoy the faint luminescence of the fishes.
I think it was on that same thread I concluded it would be cheaper to just buy a submarine.
A lot of mileage for a joke post, no?
This post is a perfect example of why I wish we could disable anonymous replies.
Punchcardz gave an informed answer to my question above, in which it was made clear that pollenation from a terminated plant can occur, though it produces sterile seeds in the pollenated plant.
This AC came along and yammered out some presumptious BS about a topic which he clearly knows even less than I, and protected his ignorance behind the AC shield.
An excellent point. I guess I was still stuck on the model of the resellers who burn the edited copies to new DVDs.
I had guessed the DG's legal arguments would be based on some aspect of copyright, but it turns out it's a question of "false designation of origin" (as far as I don't think artistic vision is protected by law so I suppose that's the best they could do). Personally, I find that argument pretty ridiculous. If I buy a DVD and edit it, or go out of my way to purchase it from one of those sanitizing companies, I must be a pretty well-informed consumer.
For the record, I wouldn't do either. I like my violence so intense I have bruises when the film is over...
The problem is that "stick" is slang for a firearm, hence the conundrum of him coming out with the exact thing he was not coming out with. Whoever made that edit really dropped the ball...
I like the way you think! Not only could I have my deep-sea species, but all the higher strata as well. I think it would need to be a little taller, though, because the ocean is considerably deeper than the Eiffel Tower is tall, and there would be a minor difference in the gravitational contribution when building up instead of down...
I'm thinking at this point it would be a lot cheaper to just buy a submarine.
You are, of course, correct. I should have confined my comments to the studios and left directors out of it. I just meant to suggest that when an economic incentive is involved, most of them seem to cave a lot sooner than when the only benefit is to their audience.
More likely the studios who really control the work and hired the director okay the changes. Sure, there are directors with the muscle and standards to keep their stuff unmodified or off the small screen, but I bet there aren't that many.
And do you mean to tell me that Coppola OK'ed the line "I don't want my brother coming out of that bathroom with just a stick in his hand".
The argument I've heard is that the film's directors disapprove of their work being "altered" so as to change the artistic vision. This was in connection not with software for consumers but in the context of companies that were reselling modified discs to consumers, but if all copyright conditions are fulfilled (paying for each copy of the disc up front) I don't see why the cases would be different.
I for one don't recall hearing any directors or studios complaining about the damage to their artistic vision when their films get edited for TV audiences and they get a big royalty check...
My guess is the real motive for opposing this technology is that the implicit copying involved would be a step onto a slippery slope that undermines their draconian stance on copy control.
As I told another poster, I hope you're right, because the genie is apparently out of the bottle.
I really don't mean to be a Luddite on this issue. GM is very promising if well managed. However, having lived in a place (Cincinnati) where they introduced something so relatively simple as "reformulated" gasoline in order to clean the air, only to pull it off the market a few years later when it was discovered it poisoned the ground water, I am not necessarily so optimistic about our ability to move forward safely and wisely with our environmental technologies.
Conventional wisdom in observational astronomy circles (where I am much more knowledgable than in marine biological ones!) is that it takes 30-60 minutes to become fully dark adapted.
Well worth it to watch a deep sea angler in action, IMO.
I assume you read my previous disclaimer, so bear with me.
My understanding was that terminated plants produce nonviable seeds. Do they also not produce pollen? Is it certain (I took special note of your "effectively", which is often informal shorthand for "almost certain", but perhaps you meant it differently) that pollen from a terminated plant could not be introduced into a species that is viable and pass that gene to its offspring?
I wasn't complaining about the problem solvers, that part is fun. I was talking about the people who wanted to tell me why it was a ridiculous idea. :-)
I certainly hope you're right, but I fear you may not be because modern human activity, particularly when economics are involved as they are in modern farming, isn't easily checked by the natural diversity of the planet. The Irish potato famine is frequently cited as an example of where a human-engineered monoculture led to ecological disaster.
Because of the economics of factory farming and the engineered preferences in most consumers for specific varieties of vegetables (and meats, in fact), it seems to me like the dominant recent trend has been for us to eliminate much more diversity than we promote. As I mentioned in the original post, what took nature millenia to produce we can undo in a few decades.
Then there's another famous Monsanto GM gene: the terminator. Imagine that taking hold in a biodiverse world!
Finally someone who gets it! I can't believe how many serious retorts I got for this post...