to you home theatre buffs out there, as good as any home theatre experience can be (and there are many good systems out there), home theatre will never be the same as going to the theatre. The whole theatre experience is what I love. As nice as home theatres can be...my wife will never allow me to convert any room in our home into anything that will rival a good theatre. The experience of getting your ticket, getting the snacks and enjoying a film continues to bring me back. Especially on opening night for a Star Wars film. Yes, you pay too much for the popcorn, drinks, and candy. Yes, there are unruly people (btw - the silent mode on your cell phone if it rings near me during a movie is between my shoe and the floor), who should get an awesome home theatre and stay home. But its the theatre experience that I enjoy and makes my favorite movies that much better. IMHO.
Yes, and government interference in business is inherently socialistic which fails to ever address the real needs of the people. The point I was trying to make is that the government is only going to listen to those who have campaign contributions to make, and that is not in the best interests of anybody. We need a compromise between "content is king" copyright laws that don't recognize fair-use, and the fair-use extreme where no one gets to profit from their creative works.
You're wrong. Pure capitalism does not require the use of government intervention. Remember the term "laissez-faire" from your civics class? Most pure capitalists would prefer no government intervention. Government intervention is by definition socialist.
I beg to differ. In this day and age, the intent of the law is of much less importance than the financial stamina of the two litigants. Big Content has shown that they are willing to do what it takes to win absolute control over the internet. With the armies of lawyers at the disposal of Big Content they can protect their aging business models by burying people under the financial weight of lengthy litigation. Does the EFF use FUD tactics to wake sheeple up? Of course they do. But so does Hilary Rosen when she uses perjorative terms (like hacker and pirate) for computer users simply exercising their fair-use rights. So does the MPAA when they say that all that is separating us and the TV on demand utopia is a bunch of software pirates and other assorted riff-raff. There is plenty of disinformation sent out by both camps.
So how is one to separate out the fact from the fiction. I would say look at the actions of both camps. Those on the side of less restrictive fair use rights seem to spend a lot of time ranting and raving incoherently (of which I'm guilty too). Crowds of rowdy geeks jeer and heckle when public discussions related to this topic appear. They are often times misinformed at best and at worst are unable to counter the blantly bad logic of people like Hilary Rosen. The fact that she can say in public that sales of CD-R's exceeded sales of records in 2000 shows how uneducated the vast majority of the press (and by extension the public) is on this issue. Where was the person pointing out that CD-R's are used for more than music? On the other side, Big Content has proven by multiple lawsuits that they fully intend to use the DMCA to prevent anything that even remotely resembles competition. As for our esteemed Justice Department? They have shown conclusively that they intend to side with Big Content here and imprision and prosecute people who appear to have violated the vauge wording of the DMCA.
Is the answer an intelligent debate on the issue? Normally, my quick answer is 'yes'. However, after watching what passes for intelligent debate these days, the reality of getting Big Content to sit down with groups like the EFF and simply talk about a reasonable and, more importantly, pragmatic compromise seems less likely to be seen than Pat Robertson doing the Lambada with Hilary Clinton. Unfortunately, I'm too cynical to think there will be a happy ending here.
Is there an organization involved in organizing a boycott of every record label that is associated with the RIAA? This is really starting to get out of hand. The RIAA has been taunting the market for several years now and its obvious now who took the first swing. Hilary Rosen is convinced that p2p is destroying the recording industry. Just like the RIAA and MPAA do whenever a new technology surfaces. Remember folks Ms. Rosen, no matter how much you hate her, is a paid lobbiest for the recording industry. What is needed is an opposing voice (and unfortunately opposing dollars) who will refute Ms. Rosen's claims with the truth. What is needed is an organized effort on the part of those consumers who like freedom. Until there is that voice and effort, the steady decline in production values will be the least of our concerns.
BTW - was I the only one who thought it would have been funnier if Austin Powers caught a silicon packet when fembot Britney Spears was shooting at him from her boobs?
I wonder how far this proposed legislation will go to protect the technology used to make "Fair Use" rights a reality? It seems like the DMCA and the CBDTPA both are aimed not at the "Fair Use" rights themselves but aimed at outlawing the technology that allows us the ability to exercise those rights. The RIAA and the MPAA have been allowed to have their cake and eat it to by saying that they support "Fair Use" but pushing for legislation that makes the vehicle for exercising those rights illegal.
Does this mean that when I go get a soda from the fridge during the commercials that I'm a thief too? After all I'm not glued intently to the commercials.
I find it odd that this one guy commits suicide and we have to have warning labels. I admit, I've never played EverQuest, but come on... How about the other million or so players that play every day, and still have productive lives and healthy normal relationships. This goes way beyond the "Doom killed my kid" argument. This is the designated bottom-feeders screwing it for the rest of us. He was an adult. He killed himself. I highly doubt that EverQuest put the idea in his head to kill himself. These blood-sucking parasite lawyers really need to start looking at what these cases do to every adult's God-given right to make what he/she wants out of their life. If you want to build your life around EverQuest, fine. Just don't expect me to have pitty for you when you kill yourself because some other character screwed you out of some gold pieces. The mother should be ashamed of herself for feeling as though she should warn me every time I attempt to purchase a game that might be addictive. Whatever happened to common sense?
It is amazing. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, Americans declared war the next day, rolled up their sleves and got to work. They defeated Fascism by sending citizens off to fight, and those left behind went to work building the implements of war. Scientists were brought together to keep us ahead of our enemies technologically (remember the Germans had jet aircraft way before we did).
It seems to me that now American's would rather legislate and litigate rather than create and innovate. Just look at pre 9/11. The RIAA would rather crush Napster under a mountain of legal bills rather than accept the change and try to stay one step ahead. Now in post 9/11 America, we would rather create new laws (how many did the terrorists break again?) in a vain attempt to curtail the activities of those who don't plan on obeying the law in the first place, rather than building on the infrastructure of our law enforcement agencies. If the FBI wants to hire more agents...great. Should our law enforcement agencies be slowed by stupid "rules of evidence" which allow the guilty to get away...of course not.
However, as a law abiding citizen of this country, I am tired of the lazy way our system of legislators, judges, and executives attempts to infringe on people's rights to satisfy their own lusts. The reality is that congress had to act. They had to prove to the world that they aren't completely useless. They dropped the ball by gutting the CIA/NSA/FBI and now to protect the cash flow their positions afford them, the Bill of Rights is conveniently forgotten and our freedoms trampled. I hate to quote Trek at a time like this, but Picard said it best..."With the first link, the chain is forged. The first thought forbidden. The first speech censured. The first freedom denied, binds us all irrevocably." Remember that when your children ask about freedoms.
With all this discussion about internet and online privacy, perhaps this is the time for open-souce community to step up to the plate and help provide for both national security and online privacy. Why don't we start a massive project that is not as invasive a carnivore, but should the "red flags" go up then this monitoring project could forward information on to officials. I realize that there is an incredible amount of information that flows over the internet, and that filtering all of that information would be no small feat. However, a decentralized approach to this would save both millions in taxpayer dollars, but also save us from the creation of a new government agency to police the internet (paid for by internet taxes). Everyone questions the viability of the open-source model, but if the open-souce community could create a solution that actually works and keeps people happy, who would be able to question that viability?
This cowardly act is unfortunately carried out by people who believe that the taking of innocent life is completely justified. These people, unfortunately, only understand violence. Incarcerating these people will only elevate them to "wrongly imprisoned" status and will serve encourage other terrorist attacks. We cannot negotiate with them, because they belive that we are the ones who are in need of correction. Should the United States fail to act strongly here, that will only serve to make America an even greater target for further violence. Should we kill the people who are responsible...absolutely. It is unfortunate that we would have to resort to such an action, but it is the only one that terrorists understand.
I'm still kinda new at all this open source stuff, so bear with me. If all the encoding for audio and video are patented, how is one supposed to write open source device drivers for things like DVD drives?
I understand the need for companies to protect the technology they create. However, if every new thing that comes down the road (technologically speaking) is patented, where are we (the computer enthusiasts) allowed to innovate and build on what is already available. It sorta takes all the fun out of tinkering with one's computer if you have to reinvent technology that is already available, but out of reach due to overly restrictive patent laws.
Slashdot Mirror
to you home theatre buffs out there, as good as any home theatre experience can be (and there are many good systems out there), home theatre will never be the same as going to the theatre. The whole theatre experience is what I love. As nice as home theatres can be...my wife will never allow me to convert any room in our home into anything that will rival a good theatre. The experience of getting your ticket, getting the snacks and enjoying a film continues to bring me back. Especially on opening night for a Star Wars film. Yes, you pay too much for the popcorn, drinks, and candy. Yes, there are unruly people (btw - the silent mode on your cell phone if it rings near me during a movie is between my shoe and the floor), who should get an awesome home theatre and stay home. But its the theatre experience that I enjoy and makes my favorite movies that much better. IMHO.
capitalism is ownership(capital)
Yes, and government interference in business is inherently socialistic which fails to ever address the real needs of the people. The point I was trying to make is that the government is only going to listen to those who have campaign contributions to make, and that is not in the best interests of anybody. We need a compromise between "content is king" copyright laws that don't recognize fair-use, and the fair-use extreme where no one gets to profit from their creative works.
You're wrong. Pure capitalism does not require the use of government intervention. Remember the term "laissez-faire" from your civics class? Most pure capitalists would prefer no government intervention. Government intervention is by definition socialist.
I beg to differ. In this day and age, the intent of the law is of much less importance than the financial stamina of the two litigants. Big Content has shown that they are willing to do what it takes to win absolute control over the internet. With the armies of lawyers at the disposal of Big Content they can protect their aging business models by burying people under the financial weight of lengthy litigation. Does the EFF use FUD tactics to wake sheeple up? Of course they do. But so does Hilary Rosen when she uses perjorative terms (like hacker and pirate) for computer users simply exercising their fair-use rights. So does the MPAA when they say that all that is separating us and the TV on demand utopia is a bunch of software pirates and other assorted riff-raff. There is plenty of disinformation sent out by both camps.
So how is one to separate out the fact from the fiction. I would say look at the actions of both camps. Those on the side of less restrictive fair use rights seem to spend a lot of time ranting and raving incoherently (of which I'm guilty too). Crowds of rowdy geeks jeer and heckle when public discussions related to this topic appear. They are often times misinformed at best and at worst are unable to counter the blantly bad logic of people like Hilary Rosen. The fact that she can say in public that sales of CD-R's exceeded sales of records in 2000 shows how uneducated the vast majority of the press (and by extension the public) is on this issue. Where was the person pointing out that CD-R's are used for more than music? On the other side, Big Content has proven by multiple lawsuits that they fully intend to use the DMCA to prevent anything that even remotely resembles competition. As for our esteemed Justice Department? They have shown conclusively that they intend to side with Big Content here and imprision and prosecute people who appear to have violated the vauge wording of the DMCA.Is the answer an intelligent debate on the issue? Normally, my quick answer is 'yes'. However, after watching what passes for intelligent debate these days, the reality of getting Big Content to sit down with groups like the EFF and simply talk about a reasonable and, more importantly, pragmatic compromise seems less likely to be seen than Pat Robertson doing the Lambada with Hilary Clinton. Unfortunately, I'm too cynical to think there will be a happy ending here.
Here is the link to the RIAA's membership list. These are labels only.
http://www.riaa.org/About-Members-1.cfm
My computer feels so dirty after this...I think I'll write zeros to hard drive and rebuild my system just to get the bad taste out of my mouth.
Is there an organization involved in organizing a boycott of every record label that is associated with the RIAA? This is really starting to get out of hand. The RIAA has been taunting the market for several years now and its obvious now who took the first swing. Hilary Rosen is convinced that p2p is destroying the recording industry. Just like the RIAA and MPAA do whenever a new technology surfaces. Remember folks Ms. Rosen, no matter how much you hate her, is a paid lobbiest for the recording industry. What is needed is an opposing voice (and unfortunately opposing dollars) who will refute Ms. Rosen's claims with the truth. What is needed is an organized effort on the part of those consumers who like freedom. Until there is that voice and effort, the steady decline in production values will be the least of our concerns.
BTW - was I the only one who thought it would have been funnier if Austin Powers caught a silicon packet when fembot Britney Spears was shooting at him from her boobs?
I wonder how far this proposed legislation will go to protect the technology used to make "Fair Use" rights a reality? It seems like the DMCA and the CBDTPA both are aimed not at the "Fair Use" rights themselves but aimed at outlawing the technology that allows us the ability to exercise those rights. The RIAA and the MPAA have been allowed to have their cake and eat it to by saying that they support "Fair Use" but pushing for legislation that makes the vehicle for exercising those rights illegal.
Does this mean that when I go get a soda from the fridge during the commercials that I'm a thief too? After all I'm not glued intently to the commercials.
I find it odd that this one guy commits suicide and we have to have warning labels. I admit, I've never played EverQuest, but come on... How about the other million or so players that play every day, and still have productive lives and healthy normal relationships. This goes way beyond the "Doom killed my kid" argument. This is the designated bottom-feeders screwing it for the rest of us. He was an adult. He killed himself. I highly doubt that EverQuest put the idea in his head to kill himself. These blood-sucking parasite lawyers really need to start looking at what these cases do to every adult's God-given right to make what he/she wants out of their life. If you want to build your life around EverQuest, fine. Just don't expect me to have pitty for you when you kill yourself because some other character screwed you out of some gold pieces. The mother should be ashamed of herself for feeling as though she should warn me every time I attempt to purchase a game that might be addictive. Whatever happened to common sense?
I don't know if we will be in, but ABC Family is showing the first 6 episodes of "Alias". Good time to jump in if you haven't watched.
It is amazing. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, Americans declared war the next day, rolled up their sleves and got to work. They defeated Fascism by sending citizens off to fight, and those left behind went to work building the implements of war. Scientists were brought together to keep us ahead of our enemies technologically (remember the Germans had jet aircraft way before we did).
It seems to me that now American's would rather legislate and litigate rather than create and innovate. Just look at pre 9/11. The RIAA would rather crush Napster under a mountain of legal bills rather than accept the change and try to stay one step ahead. Now in post 9/11 America, we would rather create new laws (how many did the terrorists break again?) in a vain attempt to curtail the activities of those who don't plan on obeying the law in the first place, rather than building on the infrastructure of our law enforcement agencies. If the FBI wants to hire more agents...great. Should our law enforcement agencies be slowed by stupid "rules of evidence" which allow the guilty to get away...of course not.
However, as a law abiding citizen of this country, I am tired of the lazy way our system of legislators, judges, and executives attempts to infringe on people's rights to satisfy their own lusts. The reality is that congress had to act. They had to prove to the world that they aren't completely useless. They dropped the ball by gutting the CIA/NSA/FBI and now to protect the cash flow their positions afford them, the Bill of Rights is conveniently forgotten and our freedoms trampled. I hate to quote Trek at a time like this, but Picard said it best..."With the first link, the chain is forged. The first thought forbidden. The first speech censured. The first freedom denied, binds us all irrevocably." Remember that when your children ask about freedoms.
With all this discussion about internet and online privacy, perhaps this is the time for open-souce community to step up to the plate and help provide for both national security and online privacy. Why don't we start a massive project that is not as invasive a carnivore, but should the "red flags" go up then this monitoring project could forward information on to officials. I realize that there is an incredible amount of information that flows over the internet, and that filtering all of that information would be no small feat. However, a decentralized approach to this would save both millions in taxpayer dollars, but also save us from the creation of a new government agency to police the internet (paid for by internet taxes). Everyone questions the viability of the open-source model, but if the open-souce community could create a solution that actually works and keeps people happy, who would be able to question that viability?
Jon
wyseguyteach@hotmail.com
This cowardly act is unfortunately carried out by people who believe that the taking of innocent life is completely justified. These people, unfortunately, only understand violence. Incarcerating these people will only elevate them to "wrongly imprisoned" status and will serve encourage other terrorist attacks. We cannot negotiate with them, because they belive that we are the ones who are in need of correction. Should the United States fail to act strongly here, that will only serve to make America an even greater target for further violence. Should we kill the people who are responsible...absolutely. It is unfortunate that we would have to resort to such an action, but it is the only one that terrorists understand.
I'm still kinda new at all this open source stuff, so bear with me. If all the encoding for audio and video are patented, how is one supposed to write open source device drivers for things like DVD drives?
I understand the need for companies to protect the technology they create. However, if every new thing that comes down the road (technologically speaking) is patented, where are we (the computer enthusiasts) allowed to innovate and build on what is already available. It sorta takes all the fun out of tinkering with one's computer if you have to reinvent technology that is already available, but out of reach due to overly restrictive patent laws.