"The viewer is not making those choices for themselves. And yes, it is the same as when a network chops up a film for TV broadcast. I don't happen to agree with that either."
How exactly are the viewers not making choices for themselves? They chose to get the DVD player that will automatically skip certain parts of the movie. When the network chops up a film for TV broadcast, it's not the viewers choice, which is why they have to get permission from the owners of the film.
I'd love to be able to make my own masks for movies. For The Phantom Menance it could turn the volume way down whenever Jar Jar speaks so that it doesn't hurt my ears. For La Femme Nikita it could turn on the subtitles for the parts where the French is too fast for me to follow and turn them off the rest of the time so they don't mar the beauty of the film. For Pitch Black, it could skip the really bright flashes of light in the opening sequence which always give me a headache.
"I can say that I don't want edited versions of anything of mine going around"
In this case, the edited version is not "going around" Are you saying it should be illegal for me to white out every instance of "God is dead" from my copy of Nietzsche?
Yes, some films would be destroyed if you expurgated them. So what? If you watch _American Beauty_ with the language set to one you don't understand, it pretty much ruins the movie also. Does the mean the studios can demand that I pass a Spanish comprehension test before I can watch it? What about idiots who totatlly misunderstand the point of a work of art? Should people who don't understand that Frost's "Mending Wall" is an argument against walls not be allowed to read the poem? When you release a work of art, you lose some control over it. You can demand that people not release derivative versions, but you can't demand that they appreciate it or watch it a certain way.
"I agree here. Should we lower all speed limits to 25, become some people don't want to drive fast (or can't and still be safe)?"
This is a really poor analogy. Roads are public, and changing the speed limit effects everyone. This is like saying you can't paint your own car, even if you never take it out of the driveway.
"Directors. If I was a director, I would be pretty upset with 3rd party disruption of my vision of a movie"
They have every right to get upset, they don't have a right to stop it. I'm sure certain directors would be upset if they knew I watched their movies drunk off my ass and made fun of them the whole time. Should it therefore be illegal for me to do so?
"Boy, if that isn't a case for Open Source, I really do not know what it"
It's not actually a good case for Open Source at all. Open Source is great for small customers who want to make sure that they can hack around in the source of a product even after the company discontinues it. However, it's not going to suffice for a huge automaker, they'd have to train their own team of programs to take over the support if that fails, at high expense.
Far better for a big car company is to sign a long term support contract with someone who has access to the source and is going to be around in 10 years. Microsoft is almost certain to be around in 10 years. Embedded Linux companies have been dropping like flies lately. In a few years, I think there will be some established players. Until then, Embedded Linux will have problems as an "off the shelf" option for people who need long term support.
You do have a trust relationship with other drivers on the road. It's not 100% reliable, but law enforcement is supposed to ensure that everyone is: insured, licensed, sober, and driving a reasonably maintained car. In the cases where this is likely to break down (early morning new years, cities with high rates of uninsured drivers) I tend not to drive.
I feel the same way about computing. No, I don't have to trust every other machine and every piece of code out there, but I don't run random code or let random machines connect to mine.
Wow, I've clearly been hitting the bottle too hard myself. Mudd does have magnetized ID cards, just not door readers. Sadly, I don't think the school would go for the idea of using flex money for drinks.
It'll be a very sad day when solicitors start calling my cell using my minutes that I pay for
Well, a sad day unless you are happy at the prospect of suing them for violating the law. It is already illegal to make a solicitation to a cellular phone, and you can collect $500 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater. (see here for the relevant legalese).
Suppose one day a hacker takes over your machine and uses it to host a large file for P2P... what do you think the cable company will do?
Probably either suspend my account or charge me money. Why is this such a big problem? If someone took a joyride in my leased car, I'd be responsible for the mileage unless they caught the guy. It's no different here. Yeah, it's unfair, but it's the hacker's fault, not the cable companies.
I suspect that very few clients (such as games or vide streaming clients) minimize the bandwidht used... you leave one of these things overnight and it can screw you over by feeding ads all night.
Yeah, and if you leave the downstairs lights on all night they can screw you over by running up your electric bill. It doesn't matter if your not seeing the content, you're still using the bandwidth.
So did the copyright for a fixed period of 28 years that the 1790 act provided. So do modern-day patents, which last 20 years after filing.
I agree. A parent to my post had wondered why copyrights should last beyond the author's death at all.
So if an author wants to use the structure of a corporation to reap the reward that drives the progress of science and useful arts, then let an author provide a short-term exclusive license to a corporation.
Yes. That is what I meant when I said it would result in a more favorable balance of power. Now, if a little-known author wants a corporation to market his work, he often must give them the copyright over it.
Copyright beyond the author's death gives protection to an author's dependants if he dies suddenly. It adds to the incentive for an author to produce works since people care about their heirs.
Copyright generally lasts for the life of the author because author's prefer to retain control over their works. Whether or not it actually encourages the production of creative work is in doubt. I don't see ease of checking when something becomes public domain to be a compelling argument.
I favor much shorter periods for corporate owned copyrights than individually owned copyrights. Corporations are structured much better to reap economic benefits from the work. They should therefor be able to recoup their investment faster. Furthermore, this encourages corporations to let creators keep the copyright on their work, which produces a more favorable balance of power for the creators.
"I'm quite regretful that such stupidical comments can make the NYT"
Why? He's just shown to a large audience exactly how big an idiot he is. Really, you should hope for as broad an exposure as possible for every statement showing how ludicrous and extreme the RIAA's positions are.
Of course the mechanism by which he obtained the information is important. Reverse engineering is legal (in most cases) because it relies only on publically available information. The technical documents he stole were not public information.
A 5 modded post on slashdot revealed a complete lack of knowledge about how the back button works. If you don't understand something, it will in general be harder to use. I think that this makes it a legitimate subject for research.
Many people have CD players where it won't be a problem, but would be scared away by an up-front warning. Futhermore, some people won't bother to return the CD. Together, these probably outway the expense of processing returns for Target.
It would be interesting to see if they'd show you the list if you asked.
The judge specifically considered defamation a special case. If you write an article, it is clear who you are potentially libeling. Therefore, the judge said, you can determine what laws would apply. This is not the case with most other restrictions on speech, so Saudi Arabia could not shut down porn. It does, however, seem to imply that Saudi Arabia could try foreign web journalists for insulting the Saudi government, which IIRC is illegal there.
It would be much more sensible to create a domain of non-kid-"safe" content
No it wouldn't. That wouldn't be at all useful. Sure, you couldn't block children from going there, but you can't force everything non "kid-safe" into that one corner. This way, you can have an inclusion only filter, which is always easier to set up. I don't see a few "redundant" registrations as being a problem, they don't exactly eat up a noticible amount of money or Internet resources.
You're thinking of Glorfindel who got killed by the Balrog during the fall of Gondolin, n'est-ce pas? The Glorfindel who in Lord of the Rings is a different elf of the same name, also mentioned in the Silmarillion.
Slashdot Mirror
"The viewer is not making those choices for themselves. And yes, it is the same as when a network chops up a film for TV broadcast. I don't happen to agree with that either."
How exactly are the viewers not making choices for themselves? They chose to get the DVD player that will automatically skip certain parts of the movie. When the network chops up a film for TV broadcast, it's not the viewers choice, which is why they have to get permission from the owners of the film.
I'd love to be able to make my own masks for movies. For The Phantom Menance it could turn the volume way down whenever Jar Jar speaks so that it doesn't hurt my ears. For La Femme Nikita it could turn on the subtitles for the parts where the French is too fast for me to follow and turn them off the rest of the time so they don't mar the beauty of the film. For Pitch Black, it could skip the really bright flashes of light in the opening sequence which always give me a headache.
"I can say that I don't want edited versions of anything of mine going around"
In this case, the edited version is not "going around" Are you saying it should be illegal for me to white out every instance of "God is dead" from my copy of Nietzsche?
Yes, some films would be destroyed if you expurgated them. So what? If you watch _American Beauty_ with the language set to one you don't understand, it pretty much ruins the movie also. Does the mean the studios can demand that I pass a Spanish comprehension test before I can watch it? What about idiots who totatlly misunderstand the point of a work of art? Should people who don't understand that Frost's "Mending Wall" is an argument against walls not be allowed to read the poem? When you release a work of art, you lose some control over it. You can demand that people not release derivative versions, but you can't demand that they appreciate it or watch it a certain way.
"I agree here. Should we lower all speed limits to 25, become some people don't want to drive fast (or can't and still be safe)?"
This is a really poor analogy. Roads are public, and changing the speed limit effects everyone. This is like saying you can't paint your own car, even if you never take it out of the driveway.
"Directors. If I was a director, I would be pretty upset with 3rd party disruption of my vision of a movie"
They have every right to get upset, they don't have a right to stop it. I'm sure certain directors would be upset if they knew I watched their movies drunk off my ass and made fun of them the whole time. Should it therefore be illegal for me to do so?
"Boy, if that isn't a case for Open Source, I really do not know what it"
It's not actually a good case for Open Source at all. Open Source is great for small customers who want to make sure that they can hack around in the source of a product even after the company discontinues it. However, it's not going to suffice for a huge automaker, they'd have to train their own team of programs to take over the support if that fails, at high expense.
Far better for a big car company is to sign a long term support contract with someone who has access to the source and is going to be around in 10 years. Microsoft is almost certain to be around in 10 years. Embedded Linux companies have been dropping like flies lately. In a few years, I think there will be some established players. Until then, Embedded Linux will have problems as an "off the shelf" option for people who need long term support.
You do have a trust relationship with other drivers on the road. It's not 100% reliable, but law enforcement is supposed to ensure that everyone is: insured, licensed, sober, and driving a reasonably maintained car. In the cases where this is likely to break down (early morning new years, cities with high rates of uninsured drivers) I tend not to drive.
I feel the same way about computing. No, I don't have to trust every other machine and every piece of code out there, but I don't run random code or let random machines connect to mine.
Do you have a project code for the time spent filling out the TRS information?
Wow, I've clearly been hitting the bottle too hard myself. Mudd does have magnetized ID cards, just not door readers. Sadly, I don't think the school would go for the idea of using flex money for drinks.
I have a feeling the ASPCA is going to be helping out with the liquor costs. (ASPCA--Alumni Society for Promoting the Consumption of Alchohol).
I'm not one of them, but they're all from West.
WIBSTR
Sadly, Mudd doesn't have magnetic id cards. Besides, you can just set up a cron job to order the drinks for you.
Been building houses since 1678, and the only joins I've ever needed were:
pegs
Seriously, an over-reliance on nails and screws is something I've *definitely* seen come into this industry.
Bah. Chimps.
Well, a sad day unless you are happy at the prospect of suing them for violating the law. It is already illegal to make a solicitation to a cellular phone, and you can collect $500 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater. (see here for the relevant legalese).
"I don't even WANT to see the ads! They can't force me to look at something and then charge me for it"
No one's forcing you to look at anything. If a site pushes too many ads on you, don't visit it.
Probably either suspend my account or charge me money. Why is this such a big problem? If someone took a joyride in my leased car, I'd be responsible for the mileage unless they caught the guy. It's no different here. Yeah, it's unfair, but it's the hacker's fault, not the cable companies.
I suspect that very few clients (such as games or vide streaming clients) minimize the bandwidht used... you leave one of these things overnight and it can screw you over by feeding ads all night.
Yeah, and if you leave the downstairs lights on all night they can screw you over by running up your electric bill. It doesn't matter if your not seeing the content, you're still using the bandwidth.
I agree. A parent to my post had wondered why copyrights should last beyond the author's death at all.
So if an author wants to use the structure of a corporation to reap the reward that drives the progress of science and useful arts, then let an author provide a short-term exclusive license to a corporation.
Yes. That is what I meant when I said it would result in a more favorable balance of power. Now, if a little-known author wants a corporation to market his work, he often must give them the copyright over it.
Copyright beyond the author's death gives protection to an author's dependants if he dies suddenly. It adds to the incentive for an author to produce works since people care about their heirs.
Copyright generally lasts for the life of the author because author's prefer to retain control over their works. Whether or not it actually encourages the production of creative work is in doubt.
I don't see ease of checking when something becomes public domain to be a compelling argument.
I favor much shorter periods for corporate owned copyrights than individually owned copyrights. Corporations are structured much better to reap economic benefits from the work. They should therefor be able to recoup their investment faster. Furthermore, this encourages corporations to let creators keep the copyright on their work, which produces a more favorable balance of power for the creators.
"I'm quite regretful that such stupidical comments can make the NYT"
Why? He's just shown to a large audience exactly how big an idiot he is. Really, you should hope for as broad an exposure as possible for every statement showing how ludicrous and extreme the RIAA's positions are.
Of course the mechanism by which he obtained the information is important. Reverse engineering is legal (in most cases) because it relies only on publically available information. The technical documents he stole were not public information.
A 5 modded post on slashdot revealed a complete lack of knowledge about how the back button works. If you don't understand something, it will in general be harder to use. I think that this makes it a legitimate subject for research.
Many people have CD players where it won't be a problem, but would be scared away by an up-front warning. Futhermore, some people won't bother to return the CD. Together, these probably outway the expense of processing returns for Target.
It would be interesting to see if they'd show you the list if you asked.
Say you had an allergic reaction to Novacaine. Then they'll use something else.
The judge specifically considered defamation a special case. If you write an article, it is clear who you are potentially libeling. Therefore, the judge said, you can determine what laws would apply. This is not the case with most other restrictions on speech, so Saudi Arabia could not shut down porn. It does, however, seem to imply that Saudi Arabia could try foreign web journalists for insulting the Saudi government, which IIRC is illegal there.
No it wouldn't. That wouldn't be at all useful. Sure, you couldn't block children from going there, but you can't force everything non "kid-safe" into that one corner. This way, you can have an inclusion only filter, which is always easier to set up. I don't see a few "redundant" registrations as being a problem, they don't exactly eat up a noticible amount of money or Internet resources.
You're thinking of Glorfindel who got killed by the Balrog during the fall of Gondolin, n'est-ce pas? The Glorfindel who in Lord of the Rings is a different elf of the same name, also mentioned in the Silmarillion.