Ok, so the research may come for 'free' (from governments, or gas companies etc), but building the original car which is to be copied will cost money (development).
That could likewise be funded by the government or gas companies.
A similar problem to the GPL actually.
No, the problem with the GPL is that it's competing against proprietary licenses. If we didn't have Windows, then everyone would use Linux (and most of the problems with Linux, which are compatibility related, would disappear).
If you factor in the fact that a simple press mold costs about $100.000, and then you figure out that avery body part and a hell of a lot of engine parts etc need such molds, you might be able to understand the fact that making cars is expensive
You don't need a press mold though. Once you make the prototype, the rest of the copies are free.
The DMCA is like outlawing a book about how to open a gate.
C'mon now, be fair. It's like outlawing a book about how to pick a lock on a gate.
Another big difference between trespass law and copyright law is that property owners have to pay taxes on their property. This encourages them to put it to good use, or sell it to someone else who will. It also compensates the public for taking land which would otherwise be free to all. Intellectual property, on the other hand, is not taxed.
Actually, I think there's still room for the RIAA in this day and age. Record companies are awefully good at marketing, after all. Sure, it won't make them as much as they're making now, but they'll still manage to make a nice hefty profit.
Well, it should be obvious. No more new cars, no research and development into more efficient designs etc.. your stuck with copies of what you have now and will never see anything better.
Right... Just like there have been no advances in mathematics in the last 1000 years. C'mon, there's more than one way to fund progress. We could raise the gasoline tax and use it to fund new car development, for instance.
No, but the majority of the R&D goes into the assembly line process. If you only had to make a car once, you'd eliminate the vast majority of the expense.
If someone spends a year writing music, buys six months time in a studio, and releases a CD of music as a result, they're stealing from you because they "increased" the value of their product?
No, they're not stealing from me until they sue me in court for copying their music.
You're stealing from them when you diminish the value because you're preventing them from being able to sell their product.
I'm not preventing them from selling their product.
Now, you can argue about overpricing, but that is not a free ride to break the law.
Your moral system differs from mine. I don't believe it is immoral to break an unjust law.
So, here's what you do: take the digital stream and translate the binary data to tones (hi, low) and convert those tones to analog, make your copy using only analog, band pass out the gibbs artefacts, convert the tones back to digital, run through a decoder with a touch o' error correction. Done.
Here's the thing. Mr. Lackey was oversimplifying the law. You have to use certain devices, and use them with certain media. If you have an old Apple IIe, and you record your mp3s onto cassette tape, then even if you downloaded them from Kazaa, it's perfectly legal. Same thing with downloading straight to Audio CD-R. But you have to make sure it doesn't touch your hard drive on the way there.
I'm by no means "Pro-RIAA", but if you just spent $30,000 on a new vehicle, there's no way that you would honestly let someone else "make a copy" of it for themselves.
Of course not, I'd make 30,000 copies and sell them for $1 each.
One last thing, why is it that copying a song off of the radio (or any analog source) legal, besides the fact (that if i read it correctly) that the law says so, as well as with a few other forms of multimedia?
Copying a song off the radio isn't necessarily legal. Copying a song onto a cassette tape is legal. That's true because a portion of every cassette tape you buy goes to the RIAA.
If it doesn't matter whether non-employees have access, then why do you advocate implementing a company policy about rogue APs and going around once a month scanning for them?
I don't. I was merely giving Yossarian2000 advice on how to get rid of rogue APs. I wasn't saying that getting rid of them is something useful.
Excellent point. I don't know if that's what you're getting at or not, but this would be a great argument for Lessig's (?) proposal that copyright holders should pay up before they're allowed to extend their copyright.
I am sick and tired of people comparing the sharing of music and movies as the same shoplifting or stealing a car.
You're right, it's much more like trespassing. If I come sleep in your bed while you're at work, as long as I make the bed and clean the sheets before I leave, you haven't suffered any actual financial loss. You've only suffered an opportunity loss, if indeed someone would have been willing to rent that room from you.
It says: If you can't trust your employees, then why does it matter if non-employees have access. It implies that: If you can't trust your employees, then it doesn't matter if non-employees have access.
Now, there are two parts here:
1) If you can't trust your employees
I am stating that this part is correct.
2) then it doesn't matter if non-employees have access.
I am also stating that this part is correct.
However, I am leaving open the possibility that one could trust him employees. Then it would matter if non-employees had access, but it wouldn't be necessary to check for rogue access points, you could just tell your employees, whom you trust, to check for them for you.
Now do you understand? I tried to take it nice and slow, because you seem to have a problem understanding basic logic.
Maybe, but if copying cars was as easy as copying music you'd probably have paid $15 billion for it.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't cost anywhere near $15 billion to build one single car. Sure, mass production is going to lower the per-car price somewhat, but you could easily create a car for under $100K. Now add the fact that most cars are just "derivative works" of their parts, and that parts can be recycled from year to year while still upgrading other parts, and the price of a new car is going to go down to just the price of the added feature. And that's just for one, the rest can be mass produced for no cost from there.
Matt Oppenheim (from the RIAA): Intellectual property should not be treated any differently than other property. Unless you buy it, you should not copy it for your own use.
Umm, the whole point of intellectual property is that it is treated differently than other property. If you buy something, absent copyright or patent law, you can copy it.
If intellectual property shouldn't be treated any differently from other property, why can't I take it apart and examine it without violating the DMCA? If they are to be treated the same, why can't I charge an admission fee to show it to my friends? After all, I could do that with my brand new Porshe, right?
Don't make it easy for anyone, not even the employee's.
Absolutely. Access to the network should be on a need to know basis. There shouldn't be any servers laying around with no passwords. Preferably everything will be access controlled down to the MAC address of each individual machine that's allowed to access it.
All that's a lot of work. Far too much work to be worrying about rogue access points. Sure, you should be randomly checking for them every once in a while, and firing those who have set them up despite company policy, but there's no need for a system to do it automatically.
You could even check on a daily basis if you want, just have someone with a laptop and a WiFi card check it out.
Slashdot Mirror
However, society decides which laws are just and unjust. You'd better get convincing society.
Considering the vast numbers of people who use Kazaa, I think we've made our decision.
Society may decide which laws are just and unjust, but it's the rich who decide which laws become law and which don't.
Ok, so the research may come for 'free' (from governments, or gas companies etc), but building the original car which is to be copied will cost money (development).
That could likewise be funded by the government or gas companies.
A similar problem to the GPL actually.
No, the problem with the GPL is that it's competing against proprietary licenses. If we didn't have Windows, then everyone would use Linux (and most of the problems with Linux, which are compatibility related, would disappear).
I'd love to, except that some nefarious individual seems to have "copy protected" some of my CDs.
Really? Which ones do you own that are copy protected? Or were you lying?
If you factor in the fact that a simple press mold costs about $100.000, and then you figure out that avery body part and a hell of a lot of engine parts etc need such molds, you might be able to understand the fact that making cars is expensive
You don't need a press mold though. Once you make the prototype, the rest of the copies are free.
Seems to me (IANA-stinkin-L) that once the 'data' is converted to analog, it is done.
Have you ever read the Audio Home Recording Act? I'm not a lawyer either, but I have read the AHRA.
The DMCA is like outlawing a book about how to open a gate.
C'mon now, be fair. It's like outlawing a book about how to pick a lock on a gate.
Another big difference between trespass law and copyright law is that property owners have to pay taxes on their property. This encourages them to put it to good use, or sell it to someone else who will. It also compensates the public for taking land which would otherwise be free to all. Intellectual property, on the other hand, is not taxed.
Are you willing to go to jail?
Of course not. But no one has ever gone to jail simply for downloading music off a P2P network.
The RIAA in its current form is irrelevant.
Actually, I think there's still room for the RIAA in this day and age. Record companies are awefully good at marketing, after all. Sure, it won't make them as much as they're making now, but they'll still manage to make a nice hefty profit.
Well, it should be obvious. No more new cars, no research and development into more efficient designs etc.. your stuck with copies of what you have now and will never see anything better.
Right... Just like there have been no advances in mathematics in the last 1000 years. C'mon, there's more than one way to fund progress. We could raise the gasoline tax and use it to fund new car development, for instance.
No, but the majority of the R&D goes into the assembly line process. If you only had to make a car once, you'd eliminate the vast majority of the expense.
If someone spends a year writing music, buys six months time in a studio, and releases a CD of music as a result, they're stealing from you because they "increased" the value of their product?
No, they're not stealing from me until they sue me in court for copying their music.
You're stealing from them when you diminish the value because you're preventing them from being able to sell their product.
I'm not preventing them from selling their product.
Now, you can argue about overpricing, but that is not a free ride to break the law.
Your moral system differs from mine. I don't believe it is immoral to break an unjust law.
So, here's what you do: take the digital stream and translate the binary data to tones (hi, low) and convert those tones to analog, make your copy using only analog, band pass out the gibbs artefacts, convert the tones back to digital, run through a decoder with a touch o' error correction. Done.
Here's the thing. Mr. Lackey was oversimplifying the law. You have to use certain devices, and use them with certain media. If you have an old Apple IIe, and you record your mp3s onto cassette tape, then even if you downloaded them from Kazaa, it's perfectly legal. Same thing with downloading straight to Audio CD-R. But you have to make sure it doesn't touch your hard drive on the way there.
I'm by no means "Pro-RIAA", but if you just spent $30,000 on a new vehicle, there's no way that you would honestly let someone else "make a copy" of it for themselves.
Of course not, I'd make 30,000 copies and sell them for $1 each.
One last thing, why is it that copying a song off of the radio (or any analog source) legal, besides the fact (that if i read it correctly) that the law says so, as well as with a few other forms of multimedia?
Copying a song off the radio isn't necessarily legal. Copying a song onto a cassette tape is legal. That's true because a portion of every cassette tape you buy goes to the RIAA.
Why am I stealing from them by diminishing the value? Why aren't they stealing from me by increasing the value?
The value of a product is supposed to be determined by supply and demand, not by demand alone.
If it doesn't matter whether non-employees have access, then why do you advocate implementing a company policy about rogue APs and going around once a month scanning for them?
I don't. I was merely giving Yossarian2000 advice on how to get rid of rogue APs. I wasn't saying that getting rid of them is something useful.
Excellent point. I don't know if that's what you're getting at or not, but this would be a great argument for Lessig's (?) proposal that copyright holders should pay up before they're allowed to extend their copyright.
I am sick and tired of people comparing the sharing of music and movies as the same shoplifting or stealing a car.
You're right, it's much more like trespassing. If I come sleep in your bed while you're at work, as long as I make the bed and clean the sheets before I leave, you haven't suffered any actual financial loss. You've only suffered an opportunity loss, if indeed someone would have been willing to rent that room from you.
If you are a car dealer, you're done for.
OK, so we'd have no more car dealers in the world. And this is a bad thing how?
the point is if everybody will be copying cars for free, who'll spen lots of $$ for producing them?
Rich people.
It says: If you can't trust your employees, then why does it matter if non-employees have access. It implies that: If you can't trust your employees, then it doesn't matter if non-employees have access.
Now, there are two parts here:
1) If you can't trust your employees
I am stating that this part is correct.
2) then it doesn't matter if non-employees have access.
I am also stating that this part is correct.
However, I am leaving open the possibility that one could trust him employees. Then it would matter if non-employees had access, but it wouldn't be necessary to check for rogue access points, you could just tell your employees, whom you trust, to check for them for you.
Now do you understand? I tried to take it nice and slow, because you seem to have a problem understanding basic logic.
I know this. You know this. A lot of other slashdotters know this. Why is it that Matt Oppenheim doesn't get it?
Rules without enforcement are worse than useless.
So go around once a month on a random day with a laptop.
And severe penalties just make the joke a sad one.
Hmm, I don't think the penalty is severe at all. Intentionally poking a hole in a corporation's security is a very severe crime.
Gee, here we are throwing nasty threats at our employees. What happened to trust?
When did I ever say an employer should trust his employees? He shouldn't.
Maybe, but if copying cars was as easy as copying music you'd probably have paid $15 billion for it.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't cost anywhere near $15 billion to build one single car. Sure, mass production is going to lower the per-car price somewhat, but you could easily create a car for under $100K. Now add the fact that most cars are just "derivative works" of their parts, and that parts can be recycled from year to year while still upgrading other parts, and the price of a new car is going to go down to just the price of the added feature. And that's just for one, the rest can be mass produced for no cost from there.
Matt Oppenheim (from the RIAA): Intellectual property should not be treated any differently than other property. Unless you buy it, you should not copy it for your own use.
Umm, the whole point of intellectual property is that it is treated differently than other property. If you buy something, absent copyright or patent law, you can copy it.
If intellectual property shouldn't be treated any differently from other property, why can't I take it apart and examine it without violating the DMCA? If they are to be treated the same, why can't I charge an admission fee to show it to my friends? After all, I could do that with my brand new Porshe, right?
Don't make it easy for anyone, not even the employee's.
Absolutely. Access to the network should be on a need to know basis. There shouldn't be any servers laying around with no passwords. Preferably everything will be access controlled down to the MAC address of each individual machine that's allowed to access it.
All that's a lot of work. Far too much work to be worrying about rogue access points. Sure, you should be randomly checking for them every once in a while, and firing those who have set them up despite company policy, but there's no need for a system to do it automatically.
You could even check on a daily basis if you want, just have someone with a laptop and a WiFi card check it out.