isn't this a lot like the tv commerical public
service announcement where a student asks the
librarian for some books, she says 'Oh! These
are not allowed anymore.' and someone in dark
glasses and a dark coat comes up behind the
student and helps escort him away to be interviewed.
No, it's actually nothing like that. No books are banned, and no warrants shall issue except upon probable cause.
How long before we have a Slashdot story about how it's Microsoft's fault when someone steals credit card numbers from a business sending them unencrypted over a wide-open network.
At least now we only have to read mainstream news stories about how it's the fault of the guy with the chalk.
Just because someone leaves the door open doesn't mean I have the right to enter.
Unless it's a store.
The fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of years of history backing up the common sense notion that people don't want you coming in their house without permission. But that's just not the case with WiFi. Some businesses don't mind, others do. Obviously Nokia has interest in stopping the spread of P2P WiFi networks, and branding people as criminals is a good way to do it. But personally I disagree. In any case, we should come up with a simple request/response mechanism to allow computers to ask each other whether the network is open to the public. Whether or not the system should be opt-in or opt-out - well, that's ultimately going to be for the courts to decide.
So if I don't put locks on my doors, when someone walks into my house and makes a 1-900 call on my phone, eats some of the food in my fridge, takes a dump in my crapper, sits on my couch and watches cable, and otherwise utilizes my home without authorization, they're not stealing right?
Its not really theft, but it could be tresspassing.
Nope, the courts have held that EM-waves are generally covered under nuisance laws, not trespassing laws.
If the business can show that its pipes were filled and that their access subsequently slowed down, they can probably sue under trespass of chattel, but it's unlikely that this is the case.
Most likely though this would fall under hacking laws.
<hemos_>Alterslash is illegal. And is violating copyright.
<CmdrTaco> Oh, this is a real site?
<CmdrTaco> Thats totally a copyright violation. [....] I wish people wouldn't steal.
In any case, this is probably just shitty reporting, and what Nokia probably said was that "anyone who sits outside an office and uses a company's wireless network to do their own web surfing is stealing," not "warchalking". Or has the term "warchalking" changed to include those actually surfing as well? Damn Internet, new words get coined one day and their meaning gets perverted the next.
Art is aesthetic in nature, whereas software is functional in nature. There may be art underlying the actual code, such as the layout of the icons on the screen (and obviously the icons themselves), but the algorithms themselves are merely functional. This becomes clear when you consider software such as database software or webserving software, where the artistry is absent completely and only the functionality remains.
My question is, what kind of selling schemes/licenses would work to allow the individual to learn and use the product, but still allow the publisher to make a profit from corporate sales?
Simple. Make everything illegal, and then selectively enforce against corporations, but not individuals. That's pretty much what companies do already, and it's why you're a sucker if you follow every license agreement to a T.
This is what Netscape did with Navigator for instance. They made it illegal to use the software after a 30-day trial period, knowing that individuals would ignore that restriction en masse, while corporations would be forced to pay up or face the BSA.
Duh, the library. Google has news as old as what, 1985 for the most part? The library has newspapers, magazines, and books from the 1800s. You cannot come anywhere near the breadth of information contained in a good library by doing a search on google.
I really hate when people compare the sharing of mp3 files to software piracy. Why? Because the two are totally different.
Yeah, one (music), is an art, while the other (software) isn't. So Federal copyright protection of one (music) is Constitutional, and copyright protect of the other (software) isn't.
Finally, somebody in the entertainment industry is attempting to adapt to the changing market rather than rushing to protect an outdated business model.
Isn't DRM adapting to the changing market rather than rushing to protect an outdated business model?
Q: Do you think the RIAA and the government should be going after the Napsters of the world they way they are?
AD (as in Adam Duritz): Yeah, I do. I'll tell you why....well, I don't know. The fact is, it is illegal, so if you want to go after Napster, you can go after Napster. But there's always going to be another one. It's just too easy to make them. I mean, now there are nine Napsters, or 20 Napsters. What I didn't like about Napster was the way they took on that mob mentality. Because you know you're doing something wrong, right? Let's face it: Everybody loved it, but let's not lie about it. It was wrong. So don't pretend that you're the Great White Hope, or that you're this great rebel, because the only people you're ripping off are the artists you supposedly love.
And what I really hated about Shawn Fanning and those guys is that they really whipped up a mob mentality toward the artists who spoke out against them, as if they were these rich corporate types. You know, Lars Ulrich was this guy who had the decency and the guts to speak out, and they really jumped on him. I thought, "Man, that is so wrong." I mean, do what you want to do, be a fan, whatever. I'm cool with that. But where do you get off lecturing him when you know you're wrong. It's just too easy to shout somebody down when you have the majority with you. I always feel like that's wrong, no matter whether you're Napster and MTV, or whether you're Joe McCarthy at the Communist trials in the '50s. It's just too easy to shout someone down when everyone's on your side. It's always wrong. It's just never right to be in a mob. Never.
But, I don't know, the government...See, I really think it's just a world. I mean, we've got countries, and they're not going anywhere. But they're just these things we made up. Really, it's just a world. We've made up these countries, and I'm not sure how much good they've done us. It's just because our nature is to become a mob and gang up on each other, so we make these boundaries to sort of scare ourselves into not doing it. Maybe it's the only way we keep ourselves from slaughtering each other daily. And we still do that, but the great thing about the Web is that it's sort of this untamed thing. It crosses all natural boundaries, it is lawless. It just doesn't belong to anybody. There are no rules, in a world that's so obsessed with rules, there aren't any. I kind of think that's cool. I really do appreciate that part of it. And regardless of what I think about things like Napster, I'd be really hesitant to involve our government, because I'm hard pressed to think of examples in which our government gets involved and does a particularly good job of it. They generally step in there and do it all wrong. Because who are they, really? Where are their interests? They're not with me and you. They just generally aren't. If the government had to choose between me and your and Universal/Vivendi - and I've got nothing against my record company, they've been great to me - but they're going to choose Universal/Vivendi.
The perfect example was when the record companies got that law passed that music was a work-for-hire a couple of years ago, and they did it effortlessly even though it was clearly unconstitutional and wrong. The fact is that all it takes is a vote of the government, and when you're the biggest company in the world, it's easy. It's not that hard to get it passed. We're an unorganized group of artists, you know? It couldn't be more unorganized. Thank God for people like Sheryl (Crow), Don Henley, and people that organized against it. But we're not the union types. It's not in our nature to be organized, and to be, like, a union. It's not the nature of anyone in this business to do it. As a result, the companies run roughshod over us at times. I'm very lucky, you know? I'm part of a very, very small percentage of people who do what I do who make a living at it. Generally, they've made it almost impossible to make a living doing what we do. Very hard. You get paid almost no money, percentage-wise. So if you're small, you just can't do it.
Doesn't it piss you off that people like Dmitry get the support of the EFF while copyright infringers like you get called thieves by even seemingly progressive thinkers like CmdrTaco?
the Web is not the Internet. The Internet is not the Web. An IP client is not necessarily a web browser.
Who said anything about the Internet or IP? I'm thinking about setting one of these up, and it'll only offer proxied web and email. In fact, I'm still debating whether or not to even offer full web access for free. Probably won't even bother until some local businesses throw me some monetary support.
And what's the problem if the mugger is beating up the old lady across the street and not us?
I certainly see a difference between beating up an old lady and entering into a contract with a bad singer that happens to benefit myself more than that singer.
Seriously, I don't have a problem with it, but unless someone does some complaining and people stop making it worth it to rip off artists and consumers, then nothing will change.
I just don't see how the record companies are ripping off anyone. I mean, do you consider the government to be ripping off the public by offering lottery tickets?
Like microsoft - I don't like their business practices and I don't buy their software.
I don't either, though I do "steal" their operating system.
If we compare the situation to the recording industry, it's not that I want Warner Brothers or Sony and anyone else to go out of business, but we should act in a way that will force them to make the industry more consumer and artist friendly.
Well, I do that. I haven't bought from an RIAA artist in over 10 years. But I don't preach that opinion upon anyone else. If others think it's worth it to buy their CDs, that's their right. If artists think it's worth it to enter into contracts with them, it's worth it. But I'm not going to buy those CDs, and I'm not going to enter into those contracts.
Think of how much money they could save by forgetting about all these hokey protection schemes and firing 90% of their lawyers?
I don't know about that. If I were going to run a record company, I'd rely heavily on DRM. Maybe not lawyers, but definately DRM.
But the fact of the matter is that I don't have the dough to waste on unproven artists. So I don't run a record company.
Anyway, my point is most landlords don't make all that much money. The vast majority of it is given to the banks.
Yes, I make a profit, but the bank gets most of it, I lose a lot more to inflation, and when you subtract what my investment would make if I invested it in stocks or bonds, adjust by a risk factor, and divide by the number of hours I spend maintaining the property, I make per hour somewhere between a burger flipper and a software engineer.
if those profits are made using a method that i do not agree with, on a moral basis, then i do not think i would want the stock.
So do you accept interest from the bank, or do you have no moral problems with their usury? What about stocks of companies which invest in stocks of other companies which make their profits immorally? Is that OK, or it that wrong too? Would you invest in a company run by me, or does the fact that I invest in Microsoft taint that?
I just don't see how it's immoral to buy stock. Buying stock does not in any way support the company from which you are buying the stock.
the point is that i could invest based solely on the ability of a company to provide returns. if that were the case, then the media giants that are members of the riaa would be good to invest in.
Well, frankly, that's just not true.
i have other constraints which would prevent me from making those investments. while you, in your eloquent demeanor, consider this to be a stupid reason, i do not.
Well, maybe if you'd explain your reason other than just some constraint which comes from no where then maybe I'd change my mind, but I doubt it. Investing in companies doesn't harm anyone. So, I don't see how there can be a moral problem with it.
i suppose i was confused by your homepage (slashdotsucks.org) which i found to be misleading if you do not think slashdot sucks. since you appeared to own this domain, i simply inferred that you indeed thought slashdot sucks.
Bad inference.
also, i still think you are a troll.
And I think you make statements without backing them up.
Where I live, the vast majority of the population rents their housing. The reason more people aren't in the business is that more property isn't available.
I own a 7 unit apartment building in Pitman, NJ. If you're interested in purchasing it, let me know.
Slashdot Mirror
isn't this a lot like the tv commerical public service announcement where a student asks the librarian for some books, she says 'Oh! These are not allowed anymore.' and someone in dark glasses and a dark coat comes up behind the student and helps escort him away to be interviewed.
No, it's actually nothing like that. No books are banned, and no warrants shall issue except upon probable cause.
Due process is important.
What does this have to do with taking away life, liberty, or property?
It might just be a much simpler option to affect his ability to do this, like banning his IP if he has a static one.
Presumably he's getting them through a proxy or a very dynamic IP, cause he's been around for many months now. Maybe anonymizer?
How long before we have a Slashdot story about how it's Microsoft's fault when someone steals credit card numbers from a business sending them unencrypted over a wide-open network.
At least now we only have to read mainstream news stories about how it's the fault of the guy with the chalk.
Just because someone leaves the door open doesn't mean I have the right to enter.
Unless it's a store.
The fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of years of history backing up the common sense notion that people don't want you coming in their house without permission. But that's just not the case with WiFi. Some businesses don't mind, others do. Obviously Nokia has interest in stopping the spread of P2P WiFi networks, and branding people as criminals is a good way to do it. But personally I disagree. In any case, we should come up with a simple request/response mechanism to allow computers to ask each other whether the network is open to the public. Whether or not the system should be opt-in or opt-out - well, that's ultimately going to be for the courts to decide.
Where are you when we're arguing about whether or not spam is theft?
So if I don't put locks on my doors, when someone walks into my house and makes a 1-900 call on my phone, eats some of the food in my fridge, takes a dump in my crapper, sits on my couch and watches cable, and otherwise utilizes my home without authorization, they're not stealing right?
No, they stole food from your fridge.
Its not really theft, but it could be tresspassing.
Nope, the courts have held that EM-waves are generally covered under nuisance laws, not trespassing laws.
If the business can show that its pipes were filled and that their access subsequently slowed down, they can probably sue under trespass of chattel, but it's unlikely that this is the case.
Most likely though this would fall under hacking laws.
You seem to have no problem calling Jonathan Hedley a theif, and what's he's done doesn't even affect you directly.
In any case, this is probably just shitty reporting, and what Nokia probably said was that "anyone who sits outside an office and uses a company's wireless network to do their own web surfing is stealing," not "warchalking". Or has the term "warchalking" changed to include those actually surfing as well? Damn Internet, new words get coined one day and their meaning gets perverted the next.
Art is aesthetic in nature, whereas software is functional in nature. There may be art underlying the actual code, such as the layout of the icons on the screen (and obviously the icons themselves), but the algorithms themselves are merely functional. This becomes clear when you consider software such as database software or webserving software, where the artistry is absent completely and only the functionality remains.
My question is, what kind of selling schemes/licenses would work to allow the individual to learn and use the product, but still allow the publisher to make a profit from corporate sales?
Simple. Make everything illegal, and then selectively enforce against corporations, but not individuals. That's pretty much what companies do already, and it's why you're a sucker if you follow every license agreement to a T.
This is what Netscape did with Navigator for instance. They made it illegal to use the software after a 30-day trial period, knowing that individuals would ignore that restriction en masse, while corporations would be forced to pay up or face the BSA.
So, where do you go for answers (besides Google)?
Duh, the library. Google has news as old as what, 1985 for the most part? The library has newspapers, magazines, and books from the 1800s. You cannot come anywhere near the breadth of information contained in a good library by doing a search on google.
I'd like to see how you managed that, given that you copied and pasted it from somewhere else, uncredited.
It was credited. Adam Duritz said it, as I mentioned.
Somewhat ironic in a discussion about IP...
Really, why you not expect a discussion about IP to have examples of copyright infringement in it?
Yes, it would be malicious to contact this party with the information that I have, but am I morally obliged to?
Depends if your morality follows "eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek".
I really hate when people compare the sharing of mp3 files to software piracy. Why? Because the two are totally different.
Yeah, one (music), is an art, while the other (software) isn't. So Federal copyright protection of one (music) is Constitutional, and copyright protect of the other (software) isn't.
Finally, somebody in the entertainment industry is attempting to adapt to the changing market rather than rushing to protect an outdated business model.
Isn't DRM adapting to the changing market rather than rushing to protect an outdated business model?
Doesn't it piss you off that people like Dmitry get the support of the EFF while copyright infringers like you get called thieves by even seemingly progressive thinkers like CmdrTaco?
I dont think it would cost nearly as much to run a monthly wireless if you owned all the access points.
And you could probably convince people to allow you to set up repeaters on their roofs in return for extending their free access radius.
Think of it similarly to the "laws" of physics.
So morality is all just probability waves?
the Web is not the Internet. The Internet is not the Web. An IP client is not necessarily a web browser.
Who said anything about the Internet or IP? I'm thinking about setting one of these up, and it'll only offer proxied web and email. In fact, I'm still debating whether or not to even offer full web access for free. Probably won't even bother until some local businesses throw me some monetary support.
And what's the problem if the mugger is beating up the old lady across the street and not us?
I certainly see a difference between beating up an old lady and entering into a contract with a bad singer that happens to benefit myself more than that singer.
Seriously, I don't have a problem with it, but unless someone does some complaining and people stop making it worth it to rip off artists and consumers, then nothing will change.
I just don't see how the record companies are ripping off anyone. I mean, do you consider the government to be ripping off the public by offering lottery tickets?
Like microsoft - I don't like their business practices and I don't buy their software.
I don't either, though I do "steal" their operating system.
If we compare the situation to the recording industry, it's not that I want Warner Brothers or Sony and anyone else to go out of business, but we should act in a way that will force them to make the industry more consumer and artist friendly.
Well, I do that. I haven't bought from an RIAA artist in over 10 years. But I don't preach that opinion upon anyone else. If others think it's worth it to buy their CDs, that's their right. If artists think it's worth it to enter into contracts with them, it's worth it. But I'm not going to buy those CDs, and I'm not going to enter into those contracts.
Think of how much money they could save by forgetting about all these hokey protection schemes and firing 90% of their lawyers?
I don't know about that. If I were going to run a record company, I'd rely heavily on DRM. Maybe not lawyers, but definately DRM.
But the fact of the matter is that I don't have the dough to waste on unproven artists. So I don't run a record company.
Why do you have to transplant it to rent it out?
Anyway, my point is most landlords don't make all that much money. The vast majority of it is given to the banks.
Yes, I make a profit, but the bank gets most of it, I lose a lot more to inflation, and when you subtract what my investment would make if I invested it in stocks or bonds, adjust by a risk factor, and divide by the number of hours I spend maintaining the property, I make per hour somewhere between a burger flipper and a software engineer.
if those profits are made using a method that i do not agree with, on a moral basis, then i do not think i would want the stock.
So do you accept interest from the bank, or do you have no moral problems with their usury? What about stocks of companies which invest in stocks of other companies which make their profits immorally? Is that OK, or it that wrong too? Would you invest in a company run by me, or does the fact that I invest in Microsoft taint that?
I just don't see how it's immoral to buy stock. Buying stock does not in any way support the company from which you are buying the stock.
the point is that i could invest based solely on the ability of a company to provide returns. if that were the case, then the media giants that are members of the riaa would be good to invest in.
Well, frankly, that's just not true.
i have other constraints which would prevent me from making those investments. while you, in your eloquent demeanor, consider this to be a stupid reason, i do not.
Well, maybe if you'd explain your reason other than just some constraint which comes from no where then maybe I'd change my mind, but I doubt it. Investing in companies doesn't harm anyone. So, I don't see how there can be a moral problem with it.
i suppose i was confused by your homepage (slashdotsucks.org) which i found to be misleading if you do not think slashdot sucks. since you appeared to own this domain, i simply inferred that you indeed thought slashdot sucks.
Bad inference.
also, i still think you are a troll.
And I think you make statements without backing them up.
Where I live, the vast majority of the population rents their housing. The reason more people aren't in the business is that more property isn't available.
I own a 7 unit apartment building in Pitman, NJ. If you're interested in purchasing it, let me know.