If people are really good artists, I'd call it a waste if they were forced to work a 9-5 job just to do what they're really good at.
Surely if the market isn't offering artists a 9-5 job to create their art then there really isn't that much demand for it.
Think how much art he could produce if he wasn't distracted by mundane tasks!
Think of how much of that art we don't want. I can apply this argument for anything. Think of how many waves I could surf if I wasn't distracted by a 9-5 job.. Think of how many nasty letters to KD Lang I could write if I wasn't distracted by a 9-5 job. Before you decide to offer an economic incentive for an activity you really have to ask what the value of that activity is.
Your other points demonstrate what I've been saying for about a decade now.. There's simply too many existing works for copyright to be used as anything more than a means to suppress their appreciation. There's a reason why the vast majority of books only remain in print for 12 to 18 months. It's not because everyone who would want to read that book has bought a copy in the limited period of time.
What's the reason behind copyright? To give authors and creative artists an incentive to produce
You still didn't answer the question.
let's limit it to, say, 20 years and see if people stop creating content. My money is on "they won't stop".
Now you're getting closer.
Assumption: There's creative works which we want people to create (books, songs, movies, whatever). Assumption: Without some economic incentive, they won't create them. The Problem: What is the minimum incentive that we can give them to encourage production?
Thing is, both of those assumptions are simply wrong. The first assumption is wrong because it doesn't actually specify in quantity, quality or kind exactly what it is that we want. This means that any solution we come up with is going to have to include a well functioning market, cause its an observed fact that, on occasion, markets can answer these questions for us. The second assumption is wrong because its an observed fact that people do make these things we're interested in without any financial incentive. "Starving artist" is a cliche because many artists make an economic choice to do their art rather than do something much more economically sensible. It was never observed that there was a shortage of art, books, songs, movies, whatever. For as long as these things have existed they have existed in abundance.
So trying to solve this problem with these false assumptions is folly, but ok, let's give it a go. For a start, we need a well functioning market to determine the quantity, quality or kind of goods we're trying to economically encourage. Great. Let's give artists a monopoly.... hey, how the hell do you get a well functioning market from giving people monopolies? That seems pretty stupid doesn't it?
Well, it's not my opinion, so I can't really give a fair explanation.. but what Sonny Bono said was that copyright should never expire, it should have no fair use exceptions, it should attract criminal charges for violations, and be investigated by the police. I find this absurd, of course, but I guess he would have been in favour of the scenario where ripping a CD to create an mp3 is detected by some DRM mechanism in the OS, sends a message to the police, who then come knock on your door and charge you with a crime. His justification for this would be that copying = theft and so why isn't it prosecuted as such. Whether or not everyone who makes the stupid implication that copyright infringement is the same thing as theft believes that the police should investigate and arrest copyright infringers is an open question.
-1 Characterizes Slashdot as just a single opinion.
I'm a copyright abolitionist. Other folks on here are copyright reformists. Other folks on here like copyright just the way it is thank you. Other folks on here think copyright should be strengthened. Other folks on here think copyright should be more like regular property laws.
I think you just described one of those "Make $$$ From Home" schemes that the botnets run.
Yes, that's right, there's scams that are not being run by *people* but by a network of infected computers. Depending on how many contingencies and upgrade paths for command and control there are, these things can be insanely difficult to shut down. There's something about computers hiring people to perform jobs that seem legitimate with no concept of the overall scam that is strangely erotic.
A new creative way to get cash off credit cards. Woop. At least it's better than getting goods delivered to a drop house and selling them at a pawn shop.
Meh, the whole point of choice-of-venue is to pick the rules under which the case will be tried. If you want your private investigators licensed in a particular venue, you don't allow evidence from unlicensed investigators outside your venue.. it just undermines your regulation.
It's right there in the first demonstrated attack.. if you control the server end of the VPN you can control where DNS traffic goes and so redirect any url to any IP.
Yes, if you control the server end of a VPN connection you can tell the other end what to route you.. assuming the client has been configured that way. Why are VPN connections configured that way? Because the admin is considered the trusted party. The user (typically an employee) trusts the admin to be more secure than he is.
If the server was setup to route whatever the client said to route, that would be bad, but it's mostly not the case.
If something was working yesterday and it isn't working today, you broke it.
For example, email. Why does email go down? Why? What's so hard about running a mail server? It was working yesterday, I come in this morning, it's not working.. what did you do? Don't say you did nothing, you did. It was working. You stuck your grubby little paws in there and messed with it, didn't you? Fix it.
Currently, users still need to wear stereoscopic glasses for the 3D to be effective, however, Acer is developing a model without the need for glasses, although it still has quiet a few technological obstacles to overcome, Kan noted.
So basically they're just throwing a pair of shutter glasses into the box.
Slashdot Mirror
copyright reformist.
If people are really good artists, I'd call it a waste if they were forced to work a 9-5 job just to do what they're really good at.
Surely if the market isn't offering artists a 9-5 job to create their art then there really isn't that much demand for it.
Think how much art he could produce if he wasn't distracted by mundane tasks!
Think of how much of that art we don't want. I can apply this argument for anything. Think of how many waves I could surf if I wasn't distracted by a 9-5 job.. Think of how many nasty letters to KD Lang I could write if I wasn't distracted by a 9-5 job. Before you decide to offer an economic incentive for an activity you really have to ask what the value of that activity is.
Your other points demonstrate what I've been saying for about a decade now.. There's simply too many existing works for copyright to be used as anything more than a means to suppress their appreciation. There's a reason why the vast majority of books only remain in print for 12 to 18 months. It's not because everyone who would want to read that book has bought a copy in the limited period of time.
What's the reason behind copyright? To give authors and creative artists an incentive to produce
You still didn't answer the question.
let's limit it to, say, 20 years and see if people stop creating content. My money is on "they won't stop".
Now you're getting closer.
Assumption: There's creative works which we want people to create (books, songs, movies, whatever).
Assumption: Without some economic incentive, they won't create them.
The Problem: What is the minimum incentive that we can give them to encourage production?
Thing is, both of those assumptions are simply wrong. The first assumption is wrong because it doesn't actually specify in quantity, quality or kind exactly what it is that we want. This means that any solution we come up with is going to have to include a well functioning market, cause its an observed fact that, on occasion, markets can answer these questions for us. The second assumption is wrong because its an observed fact that people do make these things we're interested in without any financial incentive. "Starving artist" is a cliche because many artists make an economic choice to do their art rather than do something much more economically sensible. It was never observed that there was a shortage of art, books, songs, movies, whatever. For as long as these things have existed they have existed in abundance.
So trying to solve this problem with these false assumptions is folly, but ok, let's give it a go. For a start, we need a well functioning market to determine the quantity, quality or kind of goods we're trying to economically encourage. Great. Let's give artists a monopoly.... hey, how the hell do you get a well functioning market from giving people monopolies? That seems pretty stupid doesn't it?
Well, it's not my opinion, so I can't really give a fair explanation.. but what Sonny Bono said was that copyright should never expire, it should have no fair use exceptions, it should attract criminal charges for violations, and be investigated by the police. I find this absurd, of course, but I guess he would have been in favour of the scenario where ripping a CD to create an mp3 is detected by some DRM mechanism in the OS, sends a message to the police, who then come knock on your door and charge you with a crime. His justification for this would be that copying = theft and so why isn't it prosecuted as such. Whether or not everyone who makes the stupid implication that copyright infringement is the same thing as theft believes that the police should investigate and arrest copyright infringers is an open question.
I thought we were for copyright reform here
-1 Characterizes Slashdot as just a single opinion.
I'm a copyright abolitionist. Other folks on here are copyright reformists. Other folks on here like copyright just the way it is thank you. Other folks on here think copyright should be strengthened. Other folks on here think copyright should be more like regular property laws.
Maybe you are.
We're talking about restrictions on free speech.
Debating how Copyright should work is like debating who should be king. If you accept to be ruled does it really matter how?
I think you just described one of those "Make $$$ From Home" schemes that the botnets run.
Yes, that's right, there's scams that are not being run by *people* but by a network of infected computers. Depending on how many contingencies and upgrade paths for command and control there are, these things can be insanely difficult to shut down. There's something about computers hiring people to perform jobs that seem legitimate with no concept of the overall scam that is strangely erotic.
If you're a moron, yes.
Money laundering is all about getting suckers to do your banking.
A new creative way to get cash off credit cards. Woop. At least it's better than getting goods delivered to a drop house and selling them at a pawn shop.
Meh, the whole point of choice-of-venue is to pick the rules under which the case will be tried. If you want your private investigators licensed in a particular venue, you don't allow evidence from unlicensed investigators outside your venue.. it just undermines your regulation.
Damn you Robbie Williams!
Ya.. I don't really get why this attack would be of much concern to anyone, but that's not a requirement for security research these days :)
It's right there in the first demonstrated attack.. if you control the server end of the VPN you can control where DNS traffic goes and so redirect any url to any IP.
Yes, if you control the server end of a VPN connection you can tell the other end what to route you.. assuming the client has been configured that way. Why are VPN connections configured that way? Because the admin is considered the trusted party. The user (typically an employee) trusts the admin to be more secure than he is.
If the server was setup to route whatever the client said to route, that would be bad, but it's mostly not the case.
require a signed stack and other DRM-like tricks
Which is simply impossible to do with open source.
Oh, and obligatory:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/6/5/
Where does Slashdot get it's information?
From the firehose... which is filled by user contributions... like every other social news site.
cross-meme joke completed.
If something was working yesterday and it isn't working today, you broke it.
For example, email. Why does email go down? Why? What's so hard about running a mail server? It was working yesterday, I come in this morning, it's not working.. what did you do? Don't say you did nothing, you did. It was working. You stuck your grubby little paws in there and messed with it, didn't you? Fix it.
You can't handle the truth.
Sigh. Clearly, you are a moron and talking to you anymore would be a waste of my time. Tip for ya: leave security to the people with a clue.
Ya kidding right? The intranet/internet distinction is DEAD. Malware runs on the client, the client is on the intranet, end of story.
Are you retarded? If americans start warezing these games, and like them, that firmly establishes that there is a market for them.
It was bullshit.. which anyone with half a clue could see.
Slashdot editors doing editing, shocking I know.
Currently, users still need to wear stereoscopic glasses for the 3D to be effective, however, Acer is developing a model without the need for glasses, although it still has quiet a few technological obstacles to overcome, Kan noted.
So basically they're just throwing a pair of shutter glasses into the box.