Definitely. Slashdot is not just a site, but a phenomenon. Everyone knows about it, and despite its bad reputation, it is still popular. This could be because of things like this. The jokes that run again and again, with small variations. It causes people to dedicate entire pages to explaining or discussing Slashdot related issues. It's Slashdot.
No, because Slashdot links to those sites, which means that people will see the ads on the site which is being linked to, if it has them. This is not comparable to using "unauthorized" clients on an IM network.
"And yet, I'm not forced to pick up the phone. Or even have a phone. Or listen to them once I do pick up the phone. There's still no compulsion."
No one was forcing you to stand in that exact spot as my baseball bat swung and smashed your head.
"Actually I find all advertising intolerable."
I don't. I find spam intolerable for the reasons I have already outlined. A billboard does not flood my inbox, potentially hiding important mail.
"Except they're not. Sending me a whole truck full of junk mail does not mean that I am being forced to read it. Volume does not equal compulsion."
No, but the fact that they use deceptive subjects and try to get around spam filters does. See why spam is different?
"I didn't say that. I said the recipient wanted to receive it. I didn't say he announced that."
In that case, he should sign up for it. No need to bother the rest of us.
"Spam probably does not cost a sufficient amount of time or money to justify the evil of government intrusion into the realm of free speech"
Spam is not about free speech. Spam is advertising, and there are certain rules. You cannot use deceptive advertising to sell your product.
"No one ever said that living in a free society would be all sweetness and light. You're going to have to tolerate the fact that other people who you don't like are here too, and are just as free."
There are rules for me, and for commercial entities. Spam is a commercial thing, and as such, is regulated by rules that are different from those that regulate what I can say/do.
"Battery certainly isn't a free speech issue. It's insane to even say that it is."
Spam isn't a free speech issue. It's insane to even say that it is.
Re:why don't they just stop downloading the songs?
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
You are absolutely correct.
I don't have to sacrifice anything. And why should I? If I can take down the RIAA and gain from it, why not?
And the morality question can be seen from many angles. For example, I could claim it to be immoral not to use any means necessary to fight the RIAA's attempts to take away our rights.
Morals and conviction does not necessarily mean that you have to sacrifice something.
Re:Time to take matters into our own hands?
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
"how bout you "take into your own hands" by not buying CD's from RIAA member companies. and be public about it."
Because everyone else will still be buying from them. But we can perhaps prevent that by giving them the music for free instead. It might be illegal, but the RIAA sure isn't fighting a clean fight here.
We've been trying to do this by not buying, but those who refuse to buy from RIAA members are a tiny minority. It just doesn't hit them where it hurts - in their wallets.
If legal means don't bring the RIAA down, then what are the alternatives?
Re:why don't they just stop downloading the songs?
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The RIAA is a cartel set up to protect the interests of the music industry. It exists only to push on those in power to make sure more money flows into the industry. It spreads lies and deception, such as trying to link P2P and child pornography.
The RIAA exists for the music industry, against the customer. It sees us as a means to increase profits, and rather than adapting to a new world, it tries to lobby for laws that take away our rights.
That they are right in protecting what they can according to the law, they are not right when they fight to take away our rights and use FUD and scare tactics to keep an outdated industry alive.
The RIAA was convicted of illegal price fixing wasn't it?
Those with a sense of common decency have a problem with what the RIAA is doing. The RIAA is trying to become the judge, jury and executioner. It is trying to take away our rights.
As I wrote elsewhere, it is time to go to war. The RIAA fights dirty. Well, so can we.
Re:Time to take matters into our own hands?
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
Come to think of it, there are actually signs that the good fight is getting dirty. The EFF petition uses the 12 year old girl as a "tool" to show everyone how evil the RIAA is. But the fact is that the girl did break the law.
Don't get me wrong, though. I think it is perfectly fine to appeal to people's sense of decency by using dirty tricks, such as this 12 year old girl being used to trigger emotions of disgust against the RIAA - even though they are technically right according to the law.
But maybe this needs to be taken further. Maybe we need to spread lies about the RIAA. Sure, the truth is more than enough to people who inform themselves about this, but the RIAA is using things like child pornography to outlaw P2P technologies. So we need to lie too. If we can get away with making people believe that the RIAA is really an organized child porn syndicate, we should do it!
Right?
Time to take matters into our own hands?
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The EFF petition is a move in the right direction, but does it really make a difference? What is it that keeps the RIAA going? It's the fact that people still buy music from its members. Why do people buy this music? Because they want to listen to it. Because there is a demand.
Breaking the law is bad. But so is working to take away our rights. The RIAA is an organization which exists to work for record labels, in order to maximize profit. It is basically an organization which works for the industry, against the customer (or "consumer" which we are today).
Perhaps it is time to take matters into our own hands and really strike them where it hurts the most. If they don't make any money, they can't afford lawsuits and lobbying to take away our rights as individuals and as customers. They cannot spread lies about P2P and other useful technologies.
If as many people as possible spread music for free as much as possible, fewer would buy music. That's right, we are fighting this fight by breaking the law. We are trying to force the RIAA out of business.
A normal argument from RIAA apologists is that it is "morally wrong" to "steal music". I would say that the only morally right thing to do is to fight for one's rights! And this fight must be taken on a number of levels. From nice petitions that most likely will not make a difference, to breaking the law. Standing by and accepting that one's rights are taken away is a true sign of a "morally challenged" individual!
With several angles of attack, maybe the RIAA will eventually disappear.
RIAA should realize that tor many people, this is war. And wars are dirty. But it would benefit everyone except the RIAA members if it died, including the artists!
Would it be a good thing to form an organization with a single purpose - distribute as much as possible for free to prevent money from ending up in RIAA members' hands? The RIAA is already spreading lies and deception, so we don't really have much to lose do we?
You clearly do not understand this at all, so I will stop wasting my time on trying to educate ignorant individuals such as yourself, who continue to spew out their misguided drivel.
I tried to explain to you that filtering is simply not an option to many, because they have to be absolutely sure that no mail is trashed without being verified as spam. Your inability to understand this simple issue shows me that you are not ready for a continued debate about spam.
"It costs you time and money if you are a fucking idiot, as I've illustrated."
No, you have not illustrated this. You have illustrated that you are ignorant about the facts of the matter.
Consider for one second someone who cannot set up a filter because filters can trash mail that should have been read. As such, filtering is not a solution.
Now please read up on some of the facts at hand before you continue your flow of misplaced attacks.
"All the spammers in the world can't actually force me to read my email. They can _send_ me email, but they're capable of guaranteeing nothing further."
They clog up my inbox, potentially drowning legitimate mail. It's like phone salesmen calling you up all the time so no real calls can get through. I think you would find that somewhat annoying. No, you would find it intolerable and would want it to stop immediately.
"spam can be blocked or ignored at any time after it has been sent"
No. First, spammers do everything they can to avoid spam filters, forcing their way into your mailbox. Also, not everyone has the luxury of being able to filter mail, and has to read through every single mail, as they cannot afford deleting legitimate mail.
"Commercial speech is free speech."
But you cannot force anyone to listen, which is what spammers are trying to do. Like a salesman screaming into your ear to make sure you get the point. You have the right to express yourself, but you do not have the right to force people to listen to you.
"there are individual people that send spam as well, who would be affected negatively"
Irrelevant. They represent a business selling a product. Their rights as individuals would not be affected negatively by anti-spam laws.
"bans on spam could be dangerously far-reaching which is why whenever restrictions on speech appear, we must be extraordinarily cautious to ensure that they're benign, or at least as minimally malignant as possible"
Banning spam would not limit your ability to freely express your opinions.
"companies have free speech rights as well"
But they do not have the right to force people to listen to them, which is what spam is all about.
"the rights of individual recipients who WANT to receive spam (and spammers wouldn't spam if someone were not responding positively to it) would be harmed if you banned spam"
No, because if the recipient asked to receive it, it is no longer spam.
Just because _you_ don't like spam, or even because _most people_ don't like spam is not itself enough reason to ban it.
Spam costs us time and money, and it is forced down our throats. That is why it has to be banned.
"The first amendment is all about protecting unpopular minorities. Spammers qualify as one."
Similarly, the Mafia qualifies as an unpopular minority. We must therefore defend its right to bust kneecaps and force "protection" money out of people.
No, the reason why we don't like spam is because it's annoying, costs us time and money, and because it is being forced down our throats. It's got nothing to do with free speech either. Banning spam does not affect free speech.
"How the hell can you not choose which mails to receive? Ever hear of a whitelist? Or a blacklist? Or filtering?"
I have to spend time setting up those filters. And spammers do everything they can to force me to read their mails.
"I can send you a postcard every day for the rest of your life saying, "Hi, I hope you are doing well today." and you cannot stop me."
Except I could probably sue you for harassment. But if not, it still isn't the same because you would have to pay for sending those postcards. When spammers spam me, I pay for my own bandwidth, and I have to spend a lot of time filtering and working to get rid of the spam.
"Figure out a way to get rid of spam that doesn't jeopardize free speech, and I'd be all for it."
Banning spam wouldn't affect free speech at all. Banning spam means banning forced speech. Spam is all about forcing people to listen to you. Spam is not free speech. Spam is forced speech. Spam is commercial speech. Banning spam does not affect people negatively, it affects companies that make a living by forcing people to receive mail from them.
It is still not even close. My e-mail address is mine. Slashdot belongs to the people running it. I can choose to stop visiting Slashdot and I'll never hear from whoever I don't want to hear from again. But spammers won't stop sending me mail, and they even try to get around my filters. How you can even compare these is beyond me.
An RIAA spokesperson that was also present said that they were taking serious looks at SCO's proposal for fighting piracy in the music industry. "I think this will be a great deterrent. It will force parents to talk to their kids about the evils of intellectual piracy. In a free economy, this kind of thing is a must."
Actually, Australia is the home of a few sleezeballs in the porn industry who, at least three years ago, were a big part of the International porn industry:
Quote: "Australian Porn Mafia" is a term used by many pornographers to refer to their "mates" in Brisbane, Queensland, who control a disproportionate amount of the planet's internet porn trade.
So they are big in porn, and they are spammers and scammers. This means that the porn spam you are receiving could well be from one of them. In other words, after this, Australia will not be a safe haven for spammers. In fact, this could lead to good things, such as bringing these sleazeballs out of business. Fine, do porn all you want, but spam me and you are on my hate list.
Wild idea which I've mentioned a few times already... Never pay for movies or music. Download it illegally instead. Then make sure to distribute it to as many people as possible. Burn CDs. Get it out to your non-geek friends to prevent them from paying the entertainment industry.
Someone will probably say that if I don't want to pay for it, I shouldn't have a copy either. Well, the whole point is to make as many people as possible stop paying the entertainment industry, ultimately leading to its collapse.
This is just wishful thinking, however, and will probably never happen...
But yeah, you are right on one account. Spam costs for all parts of the chain, but almost nothing for the actual spammer.
Again, if my ISP has to buy more bandwidth, servers, disk space, and personnel to handle spam, who ultimately has to pay for all of this? That's right, it's me, the customer of the ISP. The money doesn't just appear from nowhere. The ISP has to pay, and it gets money from its customers.
"It drives up the ISP's costs some, but it's the spammers and relay owners, and mailserver owners who pay most of those costs."
Yeah? And where does that money come from? Does it magically appear to cover the cost? Or does the ISP have to use the money it gets from paying customers to cover the cost?
Try to think before you post, ok?
Your arguments in this entire thread are flawed, and your comparisons useless.
Not only that, but people who rape children are actually dealt with by the legal system. If a pedo rapes a child he is hopefully caught and punished. And that's it. After that, he has done his time and can go free. No reason to post his personal details everywhere or kill him. He has served his time for his crime.
Why can we not joke about killing spammers? And why can we not make it a reality?
Abortion doctors are people who do a service to people. They are there to help. Someone gains something from it. Spammers, on the other hand, abuse network resources, lie and deceive, and generally are a pain in the ass for everyone else.
If a spammer was slaughtered down, I would not shed a single tear. Why not? Because the spammer has put himself in that situation. He is abusing my network. There are no laws available to deal with these scumbags.
Now, child rapists are dealt with by the justice system. They go to court and are convicted. They do their time. There is no need for people to kill them or publish their details everywhere.
But spammers never do their time. They don't have to face the consequences of their actions.
If someone starts killing spammers because of a list someone posted, I won't care. If anything, I might think that finally, justice has come.
You see, spammers affect me directly. I hate spammers. If I could kill a spammer and get away with it, who knows... I might actually do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Definitely. Slashdot is not just a site, but a phenomenon. Everyone knows about it, and despite its bad reputation, it is still popular. This could be because of things like this. The jokes that run again and again, with small variations. It causes people to dedicate entire pages to explaining or discussing Slashdot related issues. It's Slashdot.
No, because Slashdot links to those sites, which means that people will see the ads on the site which is being linked to, if it has them. This is not comparable to using "unauthorized" clients on an IM network.
Read the discussion: 80% runs BIND, what runs on the remaining 20%?
I don't have to sacrifice anything. And why should I? If I can take down the RIAA and gain from it, why not?
And the morality question can be seen from many angles. For example, I could claim it to be immoral not to use any means necessary to fight the RIAA's attempts to take away our rights.
Morals and conviction does not necessarily mean that you have to sacrifice something.
We've been trying to do this by not buying, but those who refuse to buy from RIAA members are a tiny minority. It just doesn't hit them where it hurts - in their wallets.
If legal means don't bring the RIAA down, then what are the alternatives?
The RIAA exists for the music industry, against the customer. It sees us as a means to increase profits, and rather than adapting to a new world, it tries to lobby for laws that take away our rights.
That they are right in protecting what they can according to the law, they are not right when they fight to take away our rights and use FUD and scare tactics to keep an outdated industry alive.
The RIAA was convicted of illegal price fixing wasn't it?
Those with a sense of common decency have a problem with what the RIAA is doing. The RIAA is trying to become the judge, jury and executioner. It is trying to take away our rights.
As I wrote elsewhere, it is time to go to war. The RIAA fights dirty. Well, so can we.
Don't get me wrong, though. I think it is perfectly fine to appeal to people's sense of decency by using dirty tricks, such as this 12 year old girl being used to trigger emotions of disgust against the RIAA - even though they are technically right according to the law.
But maybe this needs to be taken further. Maybe we need to spread lies about the RIAA. Sure, the truth is more than enough to people who inform themselves about this, but the RIAA is using things like child pornography to outlaw P2P technologies. So we need to lie too. If we can get away with making people believe that the RIAA is really an organized child porn syndicate, we should do it!
Right?
Breaking the law is bad. But so is working to take away our rights. The RIAA is an organization which exists to work for record labels, in order to maximize profit. It is basically an organization which works for the industry, against the customer (or "consumer" which we are today).
Perhaps it is time to take matters into our own hands and really strike them where it hurts the most. If they don't make any money, they can't afford lawsuits and lobbying to take away our rights as individuals and as customers. They cannot spread lies about P2P and other useful technologies.
If as many people as possible spread music for free as much as possible, fewer would buy music. That's right, we are fighting this fight by breaking the law. We are trying to force the RIAA out of business.
A normal argument from RIAA apologists is that it is "morally wrong" to "steal music". I would say that the only morally right thing to do is to fight for one's rights! And this fight must be taken on a number of levels. From nice petitions that most likely will not make a difference, to breaking the law. Standing by and accepting that one's rights are taken away is a true sign of a "morally challenged" individual!
With several angles of attack, maybe the RIAA will eventually disappear.
RIAA should realize that tor many people, this is war. And wars are dirty. But it would benefit everyone except the RIAA members if it died, including the artists!
Would it be a good thing to form an organization with a single purpose - distribute as much as possible for free to prevent money from ending up in RIAA members' hands? The RIAA is already spreading lies and deception, so we don't really have much to lose do we?
I tried to explain to you that filtering is simply not an option to many, because they have to be absolutely sure that no mail is trashed without being verified as spam. Your inability to understand this simple issue shows me that you are not ready for a continued debate about spam.
Come back when you have educated yourself.
Consider for one second someone who cannot set up a filter because filters can trash mail that should have been read. As such, filtering is not a solution.
Now please read up on some of the facts at hand before you continue your flow of misplaced attacks.
No, the reason why we don't like spam is because it's annoying, costs us time and money, and because it is being forced down our throats. It's got nothing to do with free speech either. Banning spam does not affect free speech.
Also, mail and web are still different in that I choose which pages to open, while I cannot choose which mails to receive.
And I can stop people from sending me snail mail advertising.
It is still not even close. My e-mail address is mine. Slashdot belongs to the people running it. I can choose to stop visiting Slashdot and I'll never hear from whoever I don't want to hear from again. But spammers won't stop sending me mail, and they even try to get around my filters. How you can even compare these is beyond me.
Yes, in the older days and so on and so on. But what about today? You have to look at the situation today. Do the Mormons charge their own members?
Someone will probably say that if I don't want to pay for it, I shouldn't have a copy either. Well, the whole point is to make as many people as possible stop paying the entertainment industry, ultimately leading to its collapse.
This is just wishful thinking, however, and will probably never happen...
But yeah, you are right on one account. Spam costs for all parts of the chain, but almost nothing for the actual spammer.
Again, if my ISP has to buy more bandwidth, servers, disk space, and personnel to handle spam, who ultimately has to pay for all of this? That's right, it's me, the customer of the ISP. The money doesn't just appear from nowhere. The ISP has to pay, and it gets money from its customers.
Try to think before you post, ok?
Your arguments in this entire thread are flawed, and your comparisons useless.
Not only that, but people who rape children are actually dealt with by the legal system. If a pedo rapes a child he is hopefully caught and punished. And that's it. After that, he has done his time and can go free. No reason to post his personal details everywhere or kill him. He has served his time for his crime.
Abortion doctors are people who do a service to people. They are there to help. Someone gains something from it. Spammers, on the other hand, abuse network resources, lie and deceive, and generally are a pain in the ass for everyone else.
If a spammer was slaughtered down, I would not shed a single tear. Why not? Because the spammer has put himself in that situation. He is abusing my network. There are no laws available to deal with these scumbags.
Now, child rapists are dealt with by the justice system. They go to court and are convicted. They do their time. There is no need for people to kill them or publish their details everywhere.
But spammers never do their time. They don't have to face the consequences of their actions.
If someone starts killing spammers because of a list someone posted, I won't care. If anything, I might think that finally, justice has come.
You see, spammers affect me directly. I hate spammers. If I could kill a spammer and get away with it, who knows... I might actually do it.