Hey don't let this guy get to you, GungaDan, this blind isolationist doofus just doesn't understand that war solves nothing. As soon as we realize that we just need to better understand those who practice a different kind of Islam (admittedly a bit more aggressive), the sooner we will have all this straightened out. These people have very legitimate grievances, and if we had engaged in more communication, perhaps Sept 11 would have been more peaceful. Remember, we don't want to lower ourselves to the level, a diplomatic solution is best.
Well, from what we've been learning about the Taliban, they probably would care if someone were downloading N-Sync. First, internet use is illegal there, and second, listening to N-Sync probably is as well.
...
I suppose I could get on board with the latter, though.
Downloading files and sharing them is NOT theft. There is no natural property right in intellectual "property", unlike tangible property. At least, not in the US. Art. I sec. II clause 8 of the US constitution is the source of authority for IP law. That clause was never meant to establish ideas or even the expressions of ideas as property like real property or chattel. If it had, rights holders would retain their rights indefinitely, passing them down from generation to generation just like the family farm.
IP law was intended basically to be a bribe to induce people to create. Copyright law is a restriction on speech, but the trade-off was accepted as promoting more speech overall. What burns me is when you read transcripts of testimony in the Senate or House concerning extensions of the copyright term, they don't say the term needs to be lengthened to promote more speech, they claim that the greater term is needed to protect the rights-holders, basically to protect the industry.
This looks less like Congress is trying to promote the creation of works, and more like Congress is just trying to preserve a huge industry. Sure, the US derives tremendous economic benefit from maxed out copy protection terms and rigorous enforcement, but Congress has no business curtailing speech to prop up an industry.
Music execs are all for free speech when it means Eminem can appeal to millions of suburban "G"s, but when something like napster comes along, they fold up their pocket constitutions, whip out their cell phones and hit their lawyer's number on speed-dial.
Re:Ronnie Reagan doesn't know he was president�
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 1
I fail to see how recent events have demonstrated that faith and beliefs are just as transient as we are. People of faith are involved in more than just suicide bombings, many are greatly involved in charity work. Blaming all believers for what has happened is no different from blaming all Muslims or all Arabs.
You dont have to junk your mp3 collection. ogg files may someday become the format of choice, but I doubt that music players, including portable players, will stop supporting the mp3 format. Instead, you will have a lot of "old" songs in mp3 format, and your "new" songs will be encoded in the ogg format. You will be able to listen to both. Napster became the phenomenon it was because it was free and had a huge amount of content. If using mp3 files begins to cost money, the pressure will be on for a movement to ogg files.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey don't let this guy get to you, GungaDan, this blind isolationist doofus just doesn't understand that war solves nothing. As soon as we realize that we just need to better understand those who practice a different kind of Islam (admittedly a bit more aggressive), the sooner we will have all this straightened out. These people have very legitimate grievances, and if we had engaged in more communication, perhaps Sept 11 would have been more peaceful. Remember, we don't want to lower ourselves to the level, a diplomatic solution is best.
Your Friend,
Neville Chamberlain
Well, from what we've been learning about the Taliban, they probably would care if someone were downloading N-Sync. First, internet use is illegal there, and second, listening to N-Sync probably is as well.
...
I suppose I could get on board with the latter, though.
Downloading files and sharing them is NOT theft. There is no natural property right in intellectual "property", unlike tangible property. At least, not in the US. Art. I sec. II clause 8 of the US constitution is the source of authority for IP law. That clause was never meant to establish ideas or even the expressions of ideas as property like real property or chattel. If it had, rights holders would retain their rights indefinitely, passing them down from generation to generation just like the family farm.
IP law was intended basically to be a bribe to induce people to create. Copyright law is a restriction on speech, but the trade-off was accepted as promoting more speech overall. What burns me is when you read transcripts of testimony in the Senate or House concerning extensions of the copyright term, they don't say the term needs to be lengthened to promote more speech, they claim that the greater term is needed to protect the rights-holders, basically to protect the industry.
This looks less like Congress is trying to promote the creation of works, and more like Congress is just trying to preserve a huge industry. Sure, the US derives tremendous economic benefit from maxed out copy protection terms and rigorous enforcement, but Congress has no business curtailing speech to prop up an industry.
Music execs are all for free speech when it means Eminem can appeal to millions of suburban "G"s, but when something like napster comes along, they fold up their pocket constitutions, whip out their cell phones and hit their lawyer's number on speed-dial.
I fail to see how recent events have demonstrated that faith and beliefs are just as transient as we are. People of faith are involved in more than just suicide bombings, many are greatly involved in charity work. Blaming all believers for what has happened is no different from blaming all Muslims or all Arabs.
You dont have to junk your mp3 collection. ogg files may someday become the format of choice, but I doubt that music players, including portable players, will stop supporting the mp3 format. Instead, you will have a lot of "old" songs in mp3 format, and your "new" songs will be encoded in the ogg format. You will be able to listen to both. Napster became the phenomenon it was because it was free and had a huge amount of content. If using mp3 files begins to cost money, the pressure will be on for a movement to ogg files.