I think you're missing the point - some people might vote for this party as a protest vote, but they do have some policies (you know, the ones about copyright law), so aren't comparable to the MRLP in that sense, and aren't a duplication of any existing party.
And perhaps some people might want a protest vote without voting for racists. I don't understand your reasoning - just because something is a "shock" doesn't make it a good shock. If the main parties do feel they have to change their stance in response to BNP members being elected, how do you think that work? Do you think they'll go "Oh yes, we better stop with those draconian three strikes laws etc"? Or do you think there'll be more likely to be xenophobic and anti-immigration policies, in order to cater to those voters?
Whereas their competitor Apple is using OS X variants for their computers,
Two OSs that run the same kernel, you mean. I'm not sure it's obvious if the connection is greater than that between the different versions of Windows.
MS has tried to leverage the "Windows" name brand by putting it on different software in name only.
Yes, it's not like Apple would ever do something like that... except for the fact that "Mac OS" is a brand name that they put on "Mac OS X", sharing nothing but the name - and indeed "Mac" itself is a brandname that's been used for computers that have nothing in common, hardware or software, with the original.
I don't think there's anything wrong with it - using trademarks is commonplace both in computing (e.g., today's "Pentiums" are just a brandname for a lower end Intel Core Duo, and aren't anymore closely related to the original Pentium) and outside (e.g., car brandnames being used for different kinds of cars). But let's not pretend that Apple are immune to this, or that it's unique to Microsoft.
So a Java application isn't cross-platform, because it's "all Java"?
A C++ program using SDL and OpenGL isn't cross-platfrom, because it's "all the same technologies"?
Obviously it's the same technologies, that's what cross-platform means - being able to use the same technologies on multiple platforms.
Btw, can I run OS X applications on an Iphone? They're always telling me how the Iphone runs OS X, so if this is something that should be expected, and wouldn't be anything special, surely the almighty Iphone can run all OS X applications, and vice-versa, right?
In addition, they still have other terms we have to agree to like EULAs and terms of use.
The only plausible argument for EULs being a valid contract is based on copyright: namely, you need permission to even copy it from disk to memory, so you'll be committing copyright infringement if you don't accept the licence.
So if it was no longer copyrighted, you could simply use it without accepting the licence.
making a mix tape is entirely ethical and should be legal
Indeed, take for example UK artist Lily Allen - she believes that people who download are thieves, and was a vocal support of UK plans to disconnect people suspected of downloading. But even she seems to think it's fine to distribute mix tapes, on her record company's website, using other artists' material, in order to promote her own commercial material...
I agree - politics basically works by middle ground. In many cases, it's an argument to moderation fallacy, and it's poor for many reasons (including the fact that it rewards people for taking extreme positions), but despite being a fallacy, it's how politics works.
If some people say "Copyright should be life plus 70 years, be extended whenever Mickey Mouse might become public domain, we should have laws criminalising telling people how to circumvent protections even if you legally bought the material, and anyone suspected of downloading should be banned from the Internet", and on the other hand you have an already compromising and reasonable stance, say, "Copyright should last 50 years, and maybe some of these other laws are too strict", what will happen? We won't get "Ah yes, the latter guy talks sense", instead at best will be a compromise between those two positions.
Also it's worth remembering that even the Pirate party's "extreme" position still believes in copyright for commercial use (IIRC, 10 years for the UK party?) The OP refers to the GPL, but most outrages of GPL violations seem to be about commercial use, in my experience.
In the same way that one can create a model defining the fraction of folks exposed to a TV ad who watch it, you can create a model defining the fraction of folks with webblockers. The analogy is a good one, and Ars Technica, as usual, is full of shit.
Mod parent up - I know that "shit" is a naughty word, and might be offensive to some, but the point he was making is spot on. Once again, the few who get mod points these days are using "-1" for "I disagree". If the parent's logic was wrong, then you should post explaning why it's wrong, instead of hiding behind your mod account.
So they should update their broken model, and do the same estimates that if X number are visiting, Y will likely see the ad.
The analogy fits perfect. I don't see that whining that ad blockers mean you have to have a more complex model is in any way different to the fact that they need more complex models for TV etc.
The point is that if you like ars technica, you should view the ads because that is how they pay the bills. If you don't want to watch the ads, then don't visit their site.
If you really like a site, do you sit and hit reload repeatedly, to give them extra ad revenue? Surely, if we've decided we want to maximise the revenue they get from the ad company, even if we have no intention of even looking at the ad with our eyes, this is entirely fair behaviour?
And for all the sites I don't like - you'll agree using ad blockers is fine?
Perfect. The ad gave you knowledge of a product you were unaware of before. That's the whole point of advertising.
Perfect, eh? That's the whole point?
Well, I wonder why advertisers bother with this whole idea of targeted marketing at all. I mean, if a man learns about a new tampon product; if a gay person reading a gay magazine learns about a new contraceptive product or say a Russian brides website; and if Slashdotters learn about the latest product from My Little Pony, it's done its job, right?
All this is missing the point of the article. Ars gets paid by the view. If you don't view ads, they don't get paid. That means they have to get rid of staff, reduce content, etc. If you like Ars, you should view the ads.
But that money doesn't come from nowhere - if they get less money, then the product advertising also has to spend money. So I could equally argue in the reverse - viewing those ads means it costs the company more money, they have to reduce staff.
Note that the specific issue here, I presume, is whether the ads are downloading - not that I have to see them. So, you're arguing that I should collude with a website, to download adverts even if I have no intention of viewing them with my eyes, just so they get paid more money? Okay, I suppose if I like the website it might be in my interest, but I fail to see how this is more ethical than not downloading the ads.
I mean, if I like a website, should I sit and hit reload repeatedly, so that they get even more ad revenue?
This argument also misses the point that in many cases, I don't give a damn about the website. E.g., when someone links me to an abysmal article by tabloids like the Daily Mail, I read it to see what the hell they're saying, but I'm wary that by doing so, they make money from advertising. If there's a way to stop downloading the ads, then for those sites I fail to see the problem.
If you read a site with ads, you're just as much "freeloading" - you're getting benefit, of something that's paid for by someone else.
Your post is a straw man anyway - who are you arguing against? Who holds these views, or are you just making up a viewpoint to argue against, to get modded up on a first post?
I don't run an ad blocker btw (nor do I disable them from Slashdot, even though they give me the choice). But equally, I don't see how this argument couldn't also apply to say, people who go to the toilet or make a cup of coffee during TV ad breaks. To suggest that they are the cause of people losing jobs, or that they believe that things are free to make, is ludicrous.
You choose put a site on the Internet available to the public, I'll read it how I like. If you don't like "freeloaders", then the ad-supported model is not for you - switch to a paid for model instead (which doesn't mean you have to pay - many sites have operated on a basis where you can use it for free, but pay for extra features, e.g., LiveJournal was like this for many years, although they've now switched to an ad supported model).
It's difficult to find a photographer that agrees, because its a false legal assumption.
His first statement might have been false, but it's not a false legal assumption to pay someone with the understanding that you have rights to the photos in return.
Also note that it isn't even necessary that the copyright be transferred (even thought that's how the rest of the world works - I don't see why photographers are so special) - it would be good enough that a married couple can have a licence to the photos they paid for. You know, so they aren't breaking the law when they decide to make a copy of their own wedding photos.
How is a photographer's reputation damaged if a married couple make a dodgy print at home for themselves, their parents, or whatever? The public will see the photographer's website and portfolio, which will only contain what he wants.
The only example I can think of is if the couple put dodgy images up on a website, and then said "Taken by such-and-such" - but then I have no problem with that being illegal, that would be a case of false or misleading information. But if they just put up the images, how's that a problem?
a DVD of low resolution images
Wait, all that waffle about reputation, yet they're happy to give out low resolution images for public websites?! Why not high quality ones - both for the benefit of the married couple, and so that the photographer's poor little reputation isn't tarnished?
(I write code for a living. Should I retain copyright, so my "reputation" isn't harmed if my company does something stupid with it?)
Indeed, it seems to be the norm. And I don't think that's wrong if you're being paid (in the case of programmers, for example). It's more dubious for musicians and possibly authors, because of the way that they aren't guaranteed a salary, and AIUI only get money if they sell enough.
An obvious example where it seems to be the norm to keep their copyright, even after payment, is photographers. And this can be very frustrating - for example, people pay money for wedding photographers, but don't actually own the copyright. At the most basic level, it means that they have to pay more money for every copy or reprint. But I think there's a more insidious aspect, the very idea that you don't own the rights to photos of the most important day of your life, even when you've paid them for their work; and the idea that if a couple made a copy (even for personal use) of their own wedding photos, they're guilty of copyright infringement.
When my brother got married, the photographer did give them the full set of photos that were taken, but I was shocked to see them stamped with a large and ugly copyright notice across them (presumably the idea being that they'd have to pay for any copies free of that).
Actually, I wonder how things like model release rights might work with this - although the laws seem rather vague on this. But maybe next time a wedding photographer shoves a camera in our face, we should tell him we only consent if he gives us rights to the image.
Again, all of your objections are specific to some particular societies that you've read about, and you're confusing this with the concept of multiple marriages in general. As I said, many people practice multiple relationships in our society - and some might get married if it was possible. If all you can do is throw ad hominems about child abuse, I'm not interested in debating.
There's no "lost boys", as you can have women marrying multiple men too. You're confusing polygamy with polygyny. (And anyhow, no one has a right to a wife - if you can't find one because people are preferring to be with someone else, that's life. I speak as someone who isn't married.)
And as for the suggestion of linking multiple marriages to child abuse - that's no better to those people who try to link homosexuality with child abuse.
whether these practices are inherently part of polygamy or incident to the marginalization and ostracization of these groups is open to debate.
No, it isn't.
Just because one culture practices child abuse doesn't mean that anyone else who shares an unrelated feature with that culture is going to commit child abuse. Not to mention there's plenty of child abuse in mainstream Western society, from people who are single or in a monogamous marriage.
Evidently Microsoft cared, if they decided to ban someone for it.
(And again, I find it amusing to have Anonymous Cowards saying "I don't see the point in putting info about yourself online". Well duh - we kind of figured you guys don't see the point.)
(More generally, you don't need to because people can assume it by default. You don't have to worry about getting a fist in the face when you chat up a member of the opposite sex, for example.)
Plus, since you're happily posting as Anonymous Coward, I think it's kind of obvious that you don't see the point in having any kind of profile! But not everyone is like that, straight, bi or gay.
Except polygamy hurts society, especially men in general.
Er no - his comparison is not logical, but let's not defend gay people by trying to demonise other groups.
Certain religious groups might hurt society (although even there, I find it laughable that men are harmed - how exactly?), but there is nothing wrong in having multiple relationships, including wanting that to be recognised legally. There are many people who practice this for non-religious reasons (more generally called things like polyamory). I speak as someone who's both bi and poly.
(I also find it ironic that, usually with marriage, doing it for religious reasons is seen as better, or even, the primary reason why marriage should be allowed. Yet for poly unions, religion is suddenly a bad reason. Which is it?
All the arguments for straight marriage are transferable to polygamous marriage and marriage to physical objects.
FTFY.
As it happens, I support poly unions too, but that's got nothing to do with straight or gay. And last time I looked, physical objects can't enter legal contracts (nor can child or animals, before anyone brings that straw man up).
Sorry, we don't care that you've "got enough crap in your own life". You're now banned from Slashdot for saying something that isn't approved of, and that no one cares about.
Don't go whining about it - there are more important things to worry about than a Slashdot account, right?
So I guess it's okay for me to distribute Internet Explorer, and also distribute Linux in violation of the GPL? I mean, I find it on a public website, obviously copyright doesn't apply, right?
In most countries, including the US, putting something on the web doesn't make it public domain - this is a surprisingly common myth. It would make sense to allow an exception for search and archive purposes (subject to obeying the robots.txt file - i.e., still allowin opt-out), but your argument is nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're missing the point - some people might vote for this party as a protest vote, but they do have some policies (you know, the ones about copyright law), so aren't comparable to the MRLP in that sense, and aren't a duplication of any existing party.
And perhaps some people might want a protest vote without voting for racists. I don't understand your reasoning - just because something is a "shock" doesn't make it a good shock. If the main parties do feel they have to change their stance in response to BNP members being elected, how do you think that work? Do you think they'll go "Oh yes, we better stop with those draconian three strikes laws etc"? Or do you think there'll be more likely to be xenophobic and anti-immigration policies, in order to cater to those voters?
Whereas their competitor Apple is using OS X variants for their computers,
Two OSs that run the same kernel, you mean. I'm not sure it's obvious if the connection is greater than that between the different versions of Windows.
MS has tried to leverage the "Windows" name brand by putting it on different software in name only.
Yes, it's not like Apple would ever do something like that ... except for the fact that "Mac OS" is a brand name that they put on "Mac OS X", sharing nothing but the name - and indeed "Mac" itself is a brandname that's been used for computers that have nothing in common, hardware or software, with the original.
I don't think there's anything wrong with it - using trademarks is commonplace both in computing (e.g., today's "Pentiums" are just a brandname for a lower end Intel Core Duo, and aren't anymore closely related to the original Pentium) and outside (e.g., car brandnames being used for different kinds of cars). But let's not pretend that Apple are immune to this, or that it's unique to Microsoft.
So a Java application isn't cross-platform, because it's "all Java"?
A C++ program using SDL and OpenGL isn't cross-platfrom, because it's "all the same technologies"?
Obviously it's the same technologies, that's what cross-platform means - being able to use the same technologies on multiple platforms.
Btw, can I run OS X applications on an Iphone? They're always telling me how the Iphone runs OS X, so if this is something that should be expected, and wouldn't be anything special, surely the almighty Iphone can run all OS X applications, and vice-versa, right?
which the buyer then can copy and sell as many times as he wants
No, that wouldn't come under non-commercial.
In addition, they still have other terms we have to agree to like EULAs and terms of use.
The only plausible argument for EULs being a valid contract is based on copyright: namely, you need permission to even copy it from disk to memory, so you'll be committing copyright infringement if you don't accept the licence.
So if it was no longer copyrighted, you could simply use it without accepting the licence.
making a mix tape is entirely ethical and should be legal
Indeed, take for example UK artist Lily Allen - she believes that people who download are thieves, and was a vocal support of UK plans to disconnect people suspected of downloading. But even she seems to think it's fine to distribute mix tapes, on her record company's website, using other artists' material, in order to promote her own commercial material...
I agree - politics basically works by middle ground. In many cases, it's an argument to moderation fallacy, and it's poor for many reasons (including the fact that it rewards people for taking extreme positions), but despite being a fallacy, it's how politics works.
If some people say "Copyright should be life plus 70 years, be extended whenever Mickey Mouse might become public domain, we should have laws criminalising telling people how to circumvent protections even if you legally bought the material, and anyone suspected of downloading should be banned from the Internet", and on the other hand you have an already compromising and reasonable stance, say, "Copyright should last 50 years, and maybe some of these other laws are too strict", what will happen? We won't get "Ah yes, the latter guy talks sense", instead at best will be a compromise between those two positions.
Also it's worth remembering that even the Pirate party's "extreme" position still believes in copyright for commercial use (IIRC, 10 years for the UK party?) The OP refers to the GPL, but most outrages of GPL violations seem to be about commercial use, in my experience.
In the same way that one can create a model defining the fraction of folks exposed to a TV ad who watch it, you can create a model defining the fraction of folks with webblockers. The analogy is a good one, and Ars Technica, as usual, is full of shit.
Mod parent up - I know that "shit" is a naughty word, and might be offensive to some, but the point he was making is spot on. Once again, the few who get mod points these days are using "-1" for "I disagree". If the parent's logic was wrong, then you should post explaning why it's wrong, instead of hiding behind your mod account.
So they should update their broken model, and do the same estimates that if X number are visiting, Y will likely see the ad.
The analogy fits perfect. I don't see that whining that ad blockers mean you have to have a more complex model is in any way different to the fact that they need more complex models for TV etc.
The point is that if you like ars technica, you should view the ads because that is how they pay the bills. If you don't want to watch the ads, then don't visit their site.
If you really like a site, do you sit and hit reload repeatedly, to give them extra ad revenue? Surely, if we've decided we want to maximise the revenue they get from the ad company, even if we have no intention of even looking at the ad with our eyes, this is entirely fair behaviour?
And for all the sites I don't like - you'll agree using ad blockers is fine?
Perfect. The ad gave you knowledge of a product you were unaware of before. That's the whole point of advertising.
Perfect, eh? That's the whole point?
Well, I wonder why advertisers bother with this whole idea of targeted marketing at all. I mean, if a man learns about a new tampon product; if a gay person reading a gay magazine learns about a new contraceptive product or say a Russian brides website; and if Slashdotters learn about the latest product from My Little Pony, it's done its job, right?
All this is missing the point of the article. Ars gets paid by the view. If you don't view ads, they don't get paid. That means they have to get rid of staff, reduce content, etc. If you like Ars, you should view the ads.
But that money doesn't come from nowhere - if they get less money, then the product advertising also has to spend money. So I could equally argue in the reverse - viewing those ads means it costs the company more money, they have to reduce staff.
Note that the specific issue here, I presume, is whether the ads are downloading - not that I have to see them. So, you're arguing that I should collude with a website, to download adverts even if I have no intention of viewing them with my eyes, just so they get paid more money? Okay, I suppose if I like the website it might be in my interest, but I fail to see how this is more ethical than not downloading the ads.
I mean, if I like a website, should I sit and hit reload repeatedly, so that they get even more ad revenue?
This argument also misses the point that in many cases, I don't give a damn about the website. E.g., when someone links me to an abysmal article by tabloids like the Daily Mail, I read it to see what the hell they're saying, but I'm wary that by doing so, they make money from advertising. If there's a way to stop downloading the ads, then for those sites I fail to see the problem.
If you read a site with ads, you're just as much "freeloading" - you're getting benefit, of something that's paid for by someone else.
Your post is a straw man anyway - who are you arguing against? Who holds these views, or are you just making up a viewpoint to argue against, to get modded up on a first post?
I don't run an ad blocker btw (nor do I disable them from Slashdot, even though they give me the choice). But equally, I don't see how this argument couldn't also apply to say, people who go to the toilet or make a cup of coffee during TV ad breaks. To suggest that they are the cause of people losing jobs, or that they believe that things are free to make, is ludicrous.
You choose put a site on the Internet available to the public, I'll read it how I like. If you don't like "freeloaders", then the ad-supported model is not for you - switch to a paid for model instead (which doesn't mean you have to pay - many sites have operated on a basis where you can use it for free, but pay for extra features, e.g., LiveJournal was like this for many years, although they've now switched to an ad supported model).
It's difficult to find a photographer that agrees, because its a false legal assumption.
His first statement might have been false, but it's not a false legal assumption to pay someone with the understanding that you have rights to the photos in return.
Also note that it isn't even necessary that the copyright be transferred (even thought that's how the rest of the world works - I don't see why photographers are so special) - it would be good enough that a married couple can have a licence to the photos they paid for. You know, so they aren't breaking the law when they decide to make a copy of their own wedding photos.
How is a photographer's reputation damaged if a married couple make a dodgy print at home for themselves, their parents, or whatever? The public will see the photographer's website and portfolio, which will only contain what he wants.
The only example I can think of is if the couple put dodgy images up on a website, and then said "Taken by such-and-such" - but then I have no problem with that being illegal, that would be a case of false or misleading information. But if they just put up the images, how's that a problem?
a DVD of low resolution images
Wait, all that waffle about reputation, yet they're happy to give out low resolution images for public websites?! Why not high quality ones - both for the benefit of the married couple, and so that the photographer's poor little reputation isn't tarnished?
(I write code for a living. Should I retain copyright, so my "reputation" isn't harmed if my company does something stupid with it?)
Indeed, it seems to be the norm. And I don't think that's wrong if you're being paid (in the case of programmers, for example). It's more dubious for musicians and possibly authors, because of the way that they aren't guaranteed a salary, and AIUI only get money if they sell enough.
An obvious example where it seems to be the norm to keep their copyright, even after payment, is photographers. And this can be very frustrating - for example, people pay money for wedding photographers, but don't actually own the copyright. At the most basic level, it means that they have to pay more money for every copy or reprint. But I think there's a more insidious aspect, the very idea that you don't own the rights to photos of the most important day of your life, even when you've paid them for their work; and the idea that if a couple made a copy (even for personal use) of their own wedding photos, they're guilty of copyright infringement.
When my brother got married, the photographer did give them the full set of photos that were taken, but I was shocked to see them stamped with a large and ugly copyright notice across them (presumably the idea being that they'd have to pay for any copies free of that).
Actually, I wonder how things like model release rights might work with this - although the laws seem rather vague on this. But maybe next time a wedding photographer shoves a camera in our face, we should tell him we only consent if he gives us rights to the image.
Again, all of your objections are specific to some particular societies that you've read about, and you're confusing this with the concept of multiple marriages in general. As I said, many people practice multiple relationships in our society - and some might get married if it was possible. If all you can do is throw ad hominems about child abuse, I'm not interested in debating.
There's no "lost boys", as you can have women marrying multiple men too. You're confusing polygamy with polygyny. (And anyhow, no one has a right to a wife - if you can't find one because people are preferring to be with someone else, that's life. I speak as someone who isn't married.)
And as for the suggestion of linking multiple marriages to child abuse - that's no better to those people who try to link homosexuality with child abuse.
whether these practices are inherently part of polygamy or incident to the marginalization and ostracization of these groups is open to debate.
No, it isn't.
Just because one culture practices child abuse doesn't mean that anyone else who shares an unrelated feature with that culture is going to commit child abuse. Not to mention there's plenty of child abuse in mainstream Western society, from people who are single or in a monogamous marriage.
Mod abuse - who the hell got mod points today? It's not redundant.
I see that plover doesn't want people to tell him things, but it's okay for him to tell everyone about things in his life.
Evidently Microsoft cared, if they decided to ban someone for it.
(And again, I find it amusing to have Anonymous Cowards saying "I don't see the point in putting info about yourself online". Well duh - we kind of figured you guys don't see the point.)
"I'm heterosexual."
You just did tell us.
(More generally, you don't need to because people can assume it by default. You don't have to worry about getting a fist in the face when you chat up a member of the opposite sex, for example.)
Plus, since you're happily posting as Anonymous Coward, I think it's kind of obvious that you don't see the point in having any kind of profile! But not everyone is like that, straight, bi or gay.
Except polygamy hurts society, especially men in general.
Er no - his comparison is not logical, but let's not defend gay people by trying to demonise other groups.
Certain religious groups might hurt society (although even there, I find it laughable that men are harmed - how exactly?), but there is nothing wrong in having multiple relationships, including wanting that to be recognised legally. There are many people who practice this for non-religious reasons (more generally called things like polyamory). I speak as someone who's both bi and poly.
(I also find it ironic that, usually with marriage, doing it for religious reasons is seen as better, or even, the primary reason why marriage should be allowed. Yet for poly unions, religion is suddenly a bad reason. Which is it?
All the arguments for straight marriage are transferable to polygamous marriage and marriage to physical objects.
FTFY.
As it happens, I support poly unions too, but that's got nothing to do with straight or gay. And last time I looked, physical objects can't enter legal contracts (nor can child or animals, before anyone brings that straw man up).
I got enough crap in my own life to worry about.
Sorry, we don't care that you've "got enough crap in your own life". You're now banned from Slashdot for saying something that isn't approved of, and that no one cares about.
Don't go whining about it - there are more important things to worry about than a Slashdot account, right?
Unless the UK has no fair use provision at all
We have no fair use provision, that's correct. Copying a CD you bought to your mp3 player is copyright infringement, according to the law.
So I guess it's okay for me to distribute Internet Explorer, and also distribute Linux in violation of the GPL? I mean, I find it on a public website, obviously copyright doesn't apply, right?
In most countries, including the US, putting something on the web doesn't make it public domain - this is a surprisingly common myth. It would make sense to allow an exception for search and archive purposes (subject to obeying the robots.txt file - i.e., still allowin opt-out), but your argument is nonsense.
Bot requests access to a public page. Server authorises access to that bot.
Sorry, what does robots.txt has to do with anything?