No, apparently what's driving down this innovation is the war on drugs. Americans just can't seem to get all those ideas on the dream car without them.
Libraries are usually subject to local, state or federal funding to a certain extent....so I guess it depends on your locally purchased, ehrr, I mean elected officials.
But that's where this whole thing gets ridiculous. Whole books ARE available on-line and publishers are fighting that too without realizing it's still POSSIBLE to copy without repercussion. The next generation of music sharing will not be as obvious or traceable as it is today through P2P. Come to think of it, I think I'm anal and patient enough to spend the $100 to copy 'War and Peace' at my local library and send it to the publisher; hell, I'll copy it twice and send a copy to the RIAA. Sue me.
The founding fathers did not have downloading music or Xerox machines in mind when drafting the Constitution, granted, however the idealism behind intellectual property and copyright still stands (which are different, mind you). Copyright was INTENDED to be limited so information could eventually be shared with the masses in a timely manner while still affording the original author some form of monetary gain on their work(s). Believe it or not, this does promote creativity within the masses that these works are distributed. When companies like Disney or the RIAA have a perpetual lock on these rights and can afford to extend them indefinitely through our legal system, society has a real problem and eventually these companies own EVERYTHING with no hope of societal release, compromise or recourse. Example: should I not be able to download Beethoven because Sony has the most current license on copyright? How about Glenn Miller, or The Doors? How 'new' or 'old' does a work have to be before the masses don't have to "pay" without some conglomerate saying (or paying) for the rights only to yet again rape the masses? Obviously I'm not talking about Brittany's latest single release; however that's the very beginning of the battlefield where the first shot is fired by companies with money versus copyright law. If it's a 'hit' they claim all rights; if it's not, they claim all rights 50-100 years from now. Win-win for big business. That was not the intention of the fathers or their interpretation of copyright law; nor will it ever be.
This is also known as 'Activity Based Costing' (ABC). The theory and concept are solid but tend to ignore recessional activities; kinda' like the RIAA. They claim their 'activity' (customer purchases) are performing poorly because of piracy practices, when in fact it may be recessional. ABC is just like any other statistical tool; you have to actually analyze the data and not just interpret it.
Great, just what the US needs; geeks controlling the internet. It's not like Joe Sixpack knows how to program or set-up a Linux box, right? Besides, wouldn't your solution be just as dangerous? It would just be a different set of assholes in charge of something they shouldn't be in charge of to begin with.
I'm not sure I understand....to a point you say we don't need better legislation and in the next you say lock them up. Actual spam content in this law has nothing to do with the penalties; unless it's a felony, which already has it's own penalties in place.
Exactly...let's rescind ourselves to the first century. That will clear things right up. As a matter of fact, we won't have to deal with spam then, either!
I love when people complain because of the sentencing on a 'not really important' piece of legislation. At what point should an offender not be morally or legally responsible for his/her actions in breaking the law? Sometimes that's left up to a jury to decide, however then we have situations like O.J. He was found not guilty, so be it. The system isn't 100% perfect and never claimed to be, however running a stop light and smoking pot (right or wrong) have their penalties. What those penalties are, usually, is a culmination of years (decades?) of pissed off people changing the laws. Take MADD for example: a bunch of pissed off Mom's rally together, organize themselves, lobby the government and show Congress a bunch of graphic photos showing dismembered children. They obtain stiffer penalties for drunk driving and a headlight on the problem. Now that they have power, they lobby to get the legal limit dropped and they get it. Then, WHOA, the president of MADD gets herself caught doing what? Drinking and driving? Now she's subjected to the same legislation she helped create and cries foul ("it was only 2 glasses of wine!"). If people really want to change things, they need to organize and lobby (hard). Sitting back in a chair and sending emails doesn't work; hell even lobbying may not work, but at the end of the day my conscience is clear, knowing that at least I tried to establish change.
Whew...I'm glad we got that settled because we all know that here on Slashdot the 'cool' things prevail over technology and society; especially since we all go jogging and workout to show off our new iPods. Crap, now that means I have to actually buy one.
Easy to use...errr, no. They seem to change formats and playability (incompatible at that) every 3 months (my perception anyway). This always leaves me 'upgrading' to the next best Real solution with even more advertising asking me to upgrade for the 'better features'. But even so, just because it can be installed on multiple platforms doesn't make it 'good' software.
I pay for satellite television and basically all I get is either 120 channels of commercial ladden crap or I have to pay extra for premium channels that blow their monthly wad of new programming in the first week of the month and show the same stuff over the next 3 weeks. Serously, what's the point in having pay-tv if you just pay for MORE advertising channels? What nonsense; I think I'll review my satellite bill and sleep on this one.
OH THANKS A LOT!!!!! Now I have to go d/l the damn song because it's stuck in my head.....I had to read your comment twice before I got it though. Damn.
Holy crap....how has mankind survived as long as it has without it? I like and depend on the internet as well, but if it all ended tomorrow I think we could still all make life work; as inconvenient as it would be. The internet is not the end-all, be-all solution to ANYONE'S problems; and certainly not life.
And in 'Herman's Head', she was actually getting 'face time'! Actually she's had plenty of face time in a lot of 'B' movies (Maximum Overdrive comes immediately to mind) but I think she's probably more well known for her voice...
OMG......I couldn't agree more! It amazes me that this crap even GETS ratings and it's not just the little teenie Brittany wannabees that watch it, either. I am proud to say that the longest glimpse of that show I've ever seen was about 5 seconds...and THAT only happened because I was channel surfing.
I just printed out and gave your response to my daughter and several of her friends. After reading it, I had to explain what 'home school' is. They thought it would be 'cool'. I also explained that it would be required to do homework assigned by her father. Needless to say, not so 'cool'. Her first response after that was: 'Then what's the point? I'd rather just go to school.' I then showed the printed message to my son (in pre-med) and he was less obtuse. He read your response and again, asked 'What's the point?' I have 2 children: one in college and one almost there. I don't have all the answers and I can't go back in time to prove an experiment. What I CAN say is that whatever I did worked, apparently, and they weren't home-schooled. I guess I took your argument too true to heart, however I will NEVER spend an hour alone in a room with a 7 year old; home schooled or not.
Slashdot Mirror
No, apparently what's driving down this innovation is the war on drugs. Americans just can't seem to get all those ideas on the dream car without them.
Libraries are usually subject to local, state or federal funding to a certain extent....so I guess it depends on your locally purchased, ehrr, I mean elected officials.
But that's where this whole thing gets ridiculous. Whole books ARE available on-line and publishers are fighting that too without realizing it's still POSSIBLE to copy without repercussion. The next generation of music sharing will not be as obvious or traceable as it is today through P2P. Come to think of it, I think I'm anal and patient enough to spend the $100 to copy 'War and Peace' at my local library and send it to the publisher; hell, I'll copy it twice and send a copy to the RIAA. Sue me.
No, if you were not paid then it's attempted murder; if you were paid (and the guy didn't die), it's assault.
The founding fathers did not have downloading music or Xerox machines in mind when drafting the Constitution, granted, however the idealism behind intellectual property and copyright still stands (which are different, mind you). Copyright was INTENDED to be limited so information could eventually be shared with the masses in a timely manner while still affording the original author some form of monetary gain on their work(s). Believe it or not, this does promote creativity within the masses that these works are distributed. When companies like Disney or the RIAA have a perpetual lock on these rights and can afford to extend them indefinitely through our legal system, society has a real problem and eventually these companies own EVERYTHING with no hope of societal release, compromise or recourse. Example: should I not be able to download Beethoven because Sony has the most current license on copyright? How about Glenn Miller, or The Doors? How 'new' or 'old' does a work have to be before the masses don't have to "pay" without some conglomerate saying (or paying) for the rights only to yet again rape the masses? Obviously I'm not talking about Brittany's latest single release; however that's the very beginning of the battlefield where the first shot is fired by companies with money versus copyright law. If it's a 'hit' they claim all rights; if it's not, they claim all rights 50-100 years from now. Win-win for big business. That was not the intention of the fathers or their interpretation of copyright law; nor will it ever be.
Oh, OK then. I guess I just didn't get....hmmm. After re-reading it, I still don't. Are you sure it's sarcasm?
I like that idea...maybe then legislators will have a clue.
I think we've seen plenty of outrage at Microsoft on Slashdot.
That's only successful for 5 months out of the year...what then?
This is also known as 'Activity Based Costing' (ABC). The theory and concept are solid but tend to ignore recessional activities; kinda' like the RIAA. They claim their 'activity' (customer purchases) are performing poorly because of piracy practices, when in fact it may be recessional. ABC is just like any other statistical tool; you have to actually analyze the data and not just interpret it.
Off topic, but kinda' like Cipher in the Matrix seeing images out of binary code?
Great, just what the US needs; geeks controlling the internet. It's not like Joe Sixpack knows how to program or set-up a Linux box, right? Besides, wouldn't your solution be just as dangerous? It would just be a different set of assholes in charge of something they shouldn't be in charge of to begin with.
DAMN! I was hoping I could get through this thread without someone attributing spam to Windows. Acchh, I should have known better.
I'm not sure I understand....to a point you say we don't need better legislation and in the next you say lock them up. Actual spam content in this law has nothing to do with the penalties; unless it's a felony, which already has it's own penalties in place.
Exactly...let's rescind ourselves to the first century. That will clear things right up. As a matter of fact, we won't have to deal with spam then, either!
I love when people complain because of the sentencing on a 'not really important' piece of legislation. At what point should an offender not be morally or legally responsible for his/her actions in breaking the law? Sometimes that's left up to a jury to decide, however then we have situations like O.J. He was found not guilty, so be it. The system isn't 100% perfect and never claimed to be, however running a stop light and smoking pot (right or wrong) have their penalties. What those penalties are, usually, is a culmination of years (decades?) of pissed off people changing the laws. Take MADD for example: a bunch of pissed off Mom's rally together, organize themselves, lobby the government and show Congress a bunch of graphic photos showing dismembered children. They obtain stiffer penalties for drunk driving and a headlight on the problem. Now that they have power, they lobby to get the legal limit dropped and they get it. Then, WHOA, the president of MADD gets herself caught doing what? Drinking and driving? Now she's subjected to the same legislation she helped create and cries foul ("it was only 2 glasses of wine!"). If people really want to change things, they need to organize and lobby (hard). Sitting back in a chair and sending emails doesn't work; hell even lobbying may not work, but at the end of the day my conscience is clear, knowing that at least I tried to establish change.
Whew...I'm glad we got that settled because we all know that here on Slashdot the 'cool' things prevail over technology and society; especially since we all go jogging and workout to show off our new iPods. Crap, now that means I have to actually buy one.
Easy to use...errr, no. They seem to change formats and playability (incompatible at that) every 3 months (my perception anyway). This always leaves me 'upgrading' to the next best Real solution with even more advertising asking me to upgrade for the 'better features'. But even so, just because it can be installed on multiple platforms doesn't make it 'good' software.
I pay for satellite television and basically all I get is either 120 channels of commercial ladden crap or I have to pay extra for premium channels that blow their monthly wad of new programming in the first week of the month and show the same stuff over the next 3 weeks. Serously, what's the point in having pay-tv if you just pay for MORE advertising channels? What nonsense; I think I'll review my satellite bill and sleep on this one.
OH THANKS A LOT!!!!! Now I have to go d/l the damn song because it's stuck in my head.....I had to read your comment twice before I got it though. Damn.
Holy crap....how has mankind survived as long as it has without it? I like and depend on the internet as well, but if it all ended tomorrow I think we could still all make life work; as inconvenient as it would be. The internet is not the end-all, be-all solution to ANYONE'S problems; and certainly not life.
And in 'Herman's Head', she was actually getting 'face time'! Actually she's had plenty of face time in a lot of 'B' movies (Maximum Overdrive comes immediately to mind) but I think she's probably more well known for her voice...
OMG......I couldn't agree more! It amazes me that this crap even GETS ratings and it's not just the little teenie Brittany wannabees that watch it, either. I am proud to say that the longest glimpse of that show I've ever seen was about 5 seconds...and THAT only happened because I was channel surfing.
I just printed out and gave your response to my daughter and several of her friends. After reading it, I had to explain what 'home school' is. They thought it would be 'cool'. I also explained that it would be required to do homework assigned by her father. Needless to say, not so 'cool'. Her first response after that was: 'Then what's the point? I'd rather just go to school.' I then showed the printed message to my son (in pre-med) and he was less obtuse. He read your response and again, asked 'What's the point?' I have 2 children: one in college and one almost there. I don't have all the answers and I can't go back in time to prove an experiment. What I CAN say is that whatever I did worked, apparently, and they weren't home-schooled. I guess I took your argument too true to heart, however I will NEVER spend an hour alone in a room with a 7 year old; home schooled or not.
So is working in a mortuary.