99% of artists would say "yeah man, our record company is a drag, don't give em a dime" and if they didn't I wouldn't fuckin' listen to em in the first place, because that's the rock and roll attitude. Of course, if you're into rap music they probably wouldn't have let you back stage without paying $899 already. In *any* case, you're not going to see musicians who are actually *hurt* by copyright infringement because *none of them are*.
It's not just about that. Look, even if you buy into the mainstream lie that copyright is good for society, you are still faced with this stark moral choice. Should you do what is best for society or what is best for your friend? Does the local, immediate situation in which you are involved trump the intellectual, greater good?
Allow me to make an example (note: THIS IS NOT AN ANALOGY).
Most people would agree that eating other human beings is a bad thing, for society. If you are starving to death and there's nothing else to eat, would you eat another human being? What if you had to kill them first?
It's not a question of whether or not you should be held accountable for these actions. That's a different issue. It's about whether or not you choose the greater thing over your friend. Again, to some people it is obvious, you always put society's needs above your own and your friends. To others it's equally obvious, society can go hang, a friend in need is a friend in deed.
Which would clearly seem to indicate that kid's consider copying not to be the same as stealing. I'm sure they'd feel the same way about lending. If you lend me your copy of Time Cop that you bought from the supermarket I would feel that was a-ok (even though the MPAA would say it wasn't). If you lend me your copy of Time Cop that you stole from the local video store, I would feel that wasn't a-ok. Maybe this is because kids have been exposed to less ant-copying propaganda than you.
What we need is anti-campaigns. Here's my idea. Show the victims of theft.. like a woman who has just had her handbag stolen. Crying, shocked, trying to tell a police officer what happened. Show someone freaking out when they discover that their car has been hot wired. Show people being laid off because the factory they worked in is being shutdown. For each one you have a caption that lists the crime. "Bag Snatch." "Grand Theft Auto." "Corporate Embezzlement." Then, finally, show a music executive, laughing, having lunch at some expensive restaurant, drinking fine wine, getting some young artist to sign on the dotted line. "Copyright Infringement" [fade to black] "It's NOT theft."
Is it right to deny your friend a copy of your CD because some company claims to own the right to make copies of it? It's a stark moral choice: do you help your friend or do you defend the rights of the owner? It's pretty obvious to me which one is right. Unfortunately it's probably just as obvious to others that I'm wrong.
Nice to see someone clearly and unapologetically proffer their opinion. Many people feel the same way as you. Personally I think you're on crack, but I'm in the minority. Just so we're clear, do you believe Spider Robinson or Robert Ludlum or Tom Clancy should have the right to veto any film based on one of their books too?
"Properly due or merited" and combine with "democracy" to get "Law. Valid within the law; lawful:".. that is unless, of course, your policital system has been completely gamed by the rich.
Why is it so hard for you to understand? "The people" want to copy. Any law that prevents "the people" from doing what they want to do is unjust. Simple as that. Yes. That means laws that prohibit recreational drugs are unjust. Yes. That means laws that prevent people from riding motocycles without a helmet are also unjust. And yes, that means any law the prevents the people from overthrowing or resisting governments that enact unjust laws are also unjust.
If you go to Intel and ask for one unit of their latest embedded processor, they'll sell you a technology demonstrator kit. It's cost more per unit than if you were buying 200,000 units, but you can actually get one. The same pretty much goes for RAM chips or USB chips or whatever. Not for displays though. For some reason you can only buy displays by the thousands, unless you buy one from someone who has already bought them by the thousands. Most of the time it is cheaper to buy some consumer electronics device which has the component you're interested in it and pull it apart.
As if they didn't already know. I remember back in '98 when the whitehat community just stopped looking for security flaws in the Linux kernel because it was just too damn easy to find em. Then we had the short lived anti-sec movement which actively encouraged blackhats to look for exploits and stockpile them. Ahh, thems were the days.
neutrons are always observed by those with neutron detectors and the levels of those readings are mostly random. As such, any spike in those readings can be interpreted as being a result of your experiment if you so choose. No-one has detected any massive deviations from the standard doing these experiments.
Pathetic. I can buy a £5000 bottle of scotch online but I can't buy a 17" TFT monitor with eye tracking? Here's hoping someone with bigger aspirations comes up with a cheaper technique and goes and gets buy-in from games companies so the next AAA shooter title supports it. Nothing lowers prices like 10 million gamers ordering a unit - perhaps from a website that actually has a shopping cart.
Ya know what really pisses me off. You get a link to a web site. You go there and read all this interesting product information. You look at all the pretty pictures and decide you want to buy. Then you discover there's no "Buy Now" button. There's no shopping cart. There's just a Contact tab with a form for you to submit your details. Like you've got to beg to buy their product. Dickheads.
I like Peter F. Hamilton's rejuvenation and memory storage crystal technology. He invented the technology in one book, Misspent Youth, and then carried it over to his Commonwealth Saga. His space travel technology in the Night's Dawn trilogy isn't as interesting, but the neural implant and artificial intelligence technologies he describes in Fallen Dragon is phenomonal.
Nah. The shuttle was a bad idea in the first place. They need to finish the job they promised to do and then scrap it. Then they need to offer prizes and contracts to industry for competing launch services (note: actual products, not bids, not designs) to seperately launch humans and payloads.
Slashdot Mirror
99% of artists would say "yeah man, our record company is a drag, don't give em a dime" and if they didn't I wouldn't fuckin' listen to em in the first place, because that's the rock and roll attitude. Of course, if you're into rap music they probably wouldn't have let you back stage without paying $899 already. In *any* case, you're not going to see musicians who are actually *hurt* by copyright infringement because *none of them are*.
It's not just about that. Look, even if you buy into the mainstream lie that copyright is good for society, you are still faced with this stark moral choice. Should you do what is best for society or what is best for your friend? Does the local, immediate situation in which you are involved trump the intellectual, greater good?
Allow me to make an example (note: THIS IS NOT AN ANALOGY).
Most people would agree that eating other human beings is a bad thing, for society.
If you are starving to death and there's nothing else to eat, would you eat another human being?
What if you had to kill them first?
It's not a question of whether or not you should be held accountable for these actions. That's a different issue. It's about whether or not you choose the greater thing over your friend. Again, to some people it is obvious, you always put society's needs above your own and your friends. To others it's equally obvious, society can go hang, a friend in need is a friend in deed.
Which would clearly seem to indicate that kid's consider copying not to be the same as stealing. I'm sure they'd feel the same way about lending. If you lend me your copy of Time Cop that you bought from the supermarket I would feel that was a-ok (even though the MPAA would say it wasn't). If you lend me your copy of Time Cop that you stole from the local video store, I would feel that wasn't a-ok. Maybe this is because kids have been exposed to less ant-copying propaganda than you.
What we need is anti-campaigns. Here's my idea. Show the victims of theft.. like a woman who has just had her handbag stolen. Crying, shocked, trying to tell a police officer what happened. Show someone freaking out when they discover that their car has been hot wired. Show people being laid off because the factory they worked in is being shutdown. For each one you have a caption that lists the crime. "Bag Snatch." "Grand Theft Auto." "Corporate Embezzlement." Then, finally, show a music executive, laughing, having lunch at some expensive restaurant, drinking fine wine, getting some young artist to sign on the dotted line. "Copyright Infringement" [fade to black] "It's NOT theft."
That's the most bazaar line of reasoning I've ever heard.
Is it right to deny your friend a copy of your CD because some company claims to own the right to make copies of it? It's a stark moral choice: do you help your friend or do you defend the rights of the owner? It's pretty obvious to me which one is right. Unfortunately it's probably just as obvious to others that I'm wrong.
Nice to see someone clearly and unapologetically proffer their opinion. Many people feel the same way as you. Personally I think you're on crack, but I'm in the minority. Just so we're clear, do you believe Spider Robinson or Robert Ludlum or Tom Clancy should have the right to veto any film based on one of their books too?
"Properly due or merited" and combine with "democracy" to get "Law. Valid within the law; lawful:".. that is unless, of course, your policital system has been completely gamed by the rich.
Why is it so hard for you to understand? "The people" want to copy. Any law that prevents "the people" from doing what they want to do is unjust. Simple as that. Yes. That means laws that prohibit recreational drugs are unjust. Yes. That means laws that prevent people from riding motocycles without a helmet are also unjust. And yes, that means any law the prevents the people from overthrowing or resisting governments that enact unjust laws are also unjust.
If you go to Intel and ask for one unit of their latest embedded processor, they'll sell you a technology demonstrator kit. It's cost more per unit than if you were buying 200,000 units, but you can actually get one. The same pretty much goes for RAM chips or USB chips or whatever. Not for displays though. For some reason you can only buy displays by the thousands, unless you buy one from someone who has already bought them by the thousands. Most of the time it is cheaper to buy some consumer electronics device which has the component you're interested in it and pull it apart.
As if they didn't already know. I remember back in '98 when the whitehat community just stopped looking for security flaws in the Linux kernel because it was just too damn easy to find em. Then we had the short lived anti-sec movement which actively encouraged blackhats to look for exploits and stockpile them. Ahh, thems were the days.
neutrons are always observed by those with neutron detectors and the levels of those readings are mostly random. As such, any spike in those readings can be interpreted as being a result of your experiment if you so choose. No-one has detected any massive deviations from the standard doing these experiments.
Dozens of people already do, and yes, I could.
How the hell is that not fair?
In other words: to prevent fair competition.
Pathetic. I can buy a £5000 bottle of scotch online but I can't buy a 17" TFT monitor with eye tracking? Here's hoping someone with bigger aspirations comes up with a cheaper technique and goes and gets buy-in from games companies so the next AAA shooter title supports it. Nothing lowers prices like 10 million gamers ordering a unit - perhaps from a website that actually has a shopping cart.
Ya know what really pisses me off. You get a link to a web site. You go there and read all this interesting product information. You look at all the pretty pictures and decide you want to buy. Then you discover there's no "Buy Now" button. There's no shopping cart. There's just a Contact tab with a form for you to submit your details. Like you've got to beg to buy their product. Dickheads.
No, that would be saying "RMS has done nothing to build the community". He does try, he's just insanely inadequate.
I do give the man some credit. I just don't give him too much credit, like everyone else does.
RMS. Build community. Riiight.
I remember reading that they need 10 million to even be able to produce them. They are still a long way off.
Seems to me they're about half way there.
This guy obviously works for Microsoft. Don't people recognise astroturf anymore?
I like Peter F. Hamilton's rejuvenation and memory storage crystal technology. He invented the technology in one book, Misspent Youth, and then carried it over to his Commonwealth Saga. His space travel technology in the Night's Dawn trilogy isn't as interesting, but the neural implant and artificial intelligence technologies he describes in Fallen Dragon is phenomonal.
Schneier's take and Penny Arcade's take. Just give up and enter junk for the questions. If you lose your password, call someone.
Nah. The shuttle was a bad idea in the first place. They need to finish the job they promised to do and then scrap it. Then they need to offer prizes and contracts to industry for competing launch services (note: actual products, not bids, not designs) to seperately launch humans and payloads.