This chapter shall not prohibit the conveyance or transmission of letters or packets by private hands without compensation, or by special messenger employed for the particular occasion only. Whenever more than twenty-five such letters or packets are conveyed or transmitted by such special messenger, the requirements of section 601 of title 39, shall be observed as to each piece
That's what encryption is for. Plus, the fact that people only have a single email address linked to their name, address, and social security number would be a good thing, as this could be used to stop people from creating multiple accounts.
It would cost us money per email
I highly doubt it. But even if so, the price would be absolutely miniscule. I'd much rather have the U.S. government charging me for email and not making a profit off it than a private corpoation making a profit off it.
It isn't a free market when in order to sell a single item of work you have to build an entire vertical market from scratch with new products from the ground up (which is what you were recommending in your original post I replied to) because it's illegal to use the existing infrastructure without being a member of the cartel that paid for the laws.
Agreed. But this law does not make it illegal to use the existing infrastructure without being a member of the cartel that paid for the law.
Choosing to play some music you *purchased* in a way the producers didn't anticipate (such as on a niche operating system they didn't choose to target with their official approved playing hardware) is not piracy.
It also has zero to do with this law.
And, trying to get your own work out for sale in the public without paying a 'tax' to a cartel is also not piracy.
Nor does that.
If you believe this is actually about piracy like the cartel claims, you are gullable.
You are the one who is gullable, believing what a few paranoid freaks on slashdot claim. RTFB.
Mozilla is open source. I'm not yet willing to drop Windows and start using linux, but I'd like to wean myself off proprietary software as much as possible.
Of course then there's reason number 2. Slashdot's Big Fucking Ads.
So, in our view all artisans (tubists, mechanicians, carpenters), free-lance professionals (engineers, writers), small shop owners etc should either behave as corporations (i.e. maximise profits, not caring for customers) or become a charity?
Not only should they, they are required to by law. But there are two other possibilities: become a nonprofit, or become a sole proprietorship.
Maybe you're right. But in my view of the world (a little idealistic, maybe) there are also people which just want what to get from their work a decent living, and don't care about getting rich.
I believe LWN mandate is just "do someting useful for people (possibly enjoying doing it) and make a decent living out of it". Which translates in "get a job", and is actually my mandate, also.
If that's the case then they should be a charity. People who work for charities get paid, you know?
But since I didn't look at LWN constitution act (if they have one), you may be right in LWN being a coroporation.
But this is the real world, where people buy lock-in products without even knowing it or having the attention span to give a damn.
So what? They don't get to hear the crappy music that your underground band produced. That's the way free markets work. If you don't have money to advertise, no one uses your product.
The point of these laws, however, is to get rid of the free market by way of the "average joe" ignorant consumer who doesn't realize the consequences of what he's buying. Free market arguments are irrelevant in a world where the free market economy has been prevented via law.
I don't see how the free market has been prevented, unless you mean the market in pirating copyrighted works.
Not to mention those two-way televisions in each of our houses. Oh, wait a second, I was talking about laws which were actually being considered by congress.
So the fact that the RIAA has been lobbying for legislation to require watermarks and other DRM restrictions is considered to be at the same level of logical reality as claims that Jesus will return?
Pretty much, but the important issue is that if either happens we're pretty much all screwed anyway. And neither has anything to do with this particular piece of legislation.
It's being used to study what tools they use and probably thier habits.
"Furthermore, we have found that WiFi hackers tend to inundate the served webpages with messages such as 'First Hack!' and 'Hot Grits!' A secondary wave of hacks shortly follows discussing why 'First Hack!' should actually say 'First Crack'."
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you actually point us toward the regulation that says this?
No problem.
Only if you're paid for it.
We would still get spam
Spam would be easier to filter out.
Probably, yes.
Email would be more closely monitored.
That's what encryption is for. Plus, the fact that people only have a single email address linked to their name, address, and social security number would be a good thing, as this could be used to stop people from creating multiple accounts.
It would cost us money per email
I highly doubt it. But even if so, the price would be absolutely miniscule. I'd much rather have the U.S. government charging me for email and not making a profit off it than a private corpoation making a profit off it.
Also, in the US Code, here.
Nowadays, they wouldn't, but if the USPS had come out with E-mail in 1970, they probably would. And it would probably have been a good thing.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =UTF-8&q=post+office+monopoly
What is he suggesting? That any other systems of E-mail aside from ones controlled by the USPS would be *illegal*?
Yep. It's already illegal to compete with the U.S. Postal Service for non-expedited personal mail.
Tell me what to do.
It isn't a free market when in order to sell a single item of work you have to build an entire vertical market from scratch with new products from the ground up (which is what you were recommending in your original post I replied to) because it's illegal to use the existing infrastructure without being a member of the cartel that paid for the laws.
Agreed. But this law does not make it illegal to use the existing infrastructure without being a member of the cartel that paid for the law.
Choosing to play some music you *purchased* in a way the producers didn't anticipate (such as on a niche operating system they didn't choose to target with their official approved playing hardware) is not piracy.
It also has zero to do with this law.
And, trying to get your own work out for sale in the public without paying a 'tax' to a cartel is also not piracy.
Nor does that.
If you believe this is actually about piracy like the cartel claims, you are gullable.
You are the one who is gullable, believing what a few paranoid freaks on slashdot claim. RTFB.
Prejudice is when you judge someone before knowing the facts. It sounds like your employer knows all the facts in this case.
The Inverse Square Law?
The whole HDTV push is starting to look like Vietnam to me. HDTV failed. It's time to put up the white flag.
Mozilla is open source. I'm not yet willing to drop Windows and start using linux, but I'd like to wean myself off proprietary software as much as possible.
Of course then there's reason number 2. Slashdot's Big Fucking Ads.
So, in our view all artisans (tubists, mechanicians, carpenters), free-lance professionals (engineers, writers), small shop owners etc should either behave as corporations (i.e. maximise profits, not caring for customers) or become a charity?
Not only should they, they are required to by law. But there are two other possibilities: become a nonprofit, or become a sole proprietorship.
Maybe you're right. But in my view of the world (a little idealistic, maybe) there are also people which just want what to get from their work a decent living, and don't care about getting rich.
Sure, they're called employees.
I believe LWN mandate is just "do someting useful for people (possibly enjoying doing it) and make a decent living out of it". Which translates in "get a job", and is actually my mandate, also.
If that's the case then they should be a charity. People who work for charities get paid, you know?
But since I didn't look at LWN constitution act (if they have one), you may be right in LWN being a coroporation.
They are most definately a corporation. "Copyright (©) 2002, Eklektix, Inc." I don't blame them for that. There's nothing wrong with starting a corporation. But if I have a choice to donate my money to a corporation which exists to make a profit and a charity which exists to help society, I'm going to choose the charity. And that's the way it is. Every dollar I give to them is a dollar I can't give to someone else.
But this is the real world, where people buy lock-in products without even knowing it or having the attention span to give a damn.
So what? They don't get to hear the crappy music that your underground band produced. That's the way free markets work. If you don't have money to advertise, no one uses your product.
The point of these laws, however, is to get rid of the free market by way of the "average joe" ignorant consumer who doesn't realize the consequences of what he's buying. Free market arguments are irrelevant in a world where the free market economy has been prevented via law.
I don't see how the free market has been prevented, unless you mean the market in pirating copyrighted works.
http://www.osdn.com/terms.shtml
SSSCA! CBDTPA!
Not to mention those two-way televisions in each of our houses. Oh, wait a second, I was talking about laws which were actually being considered by congress.
Even if I could "make my own player" something like the SSSCA would be used to throw me in a pound-me-in-the-ass-prison.
If the SSSCA gets passed, I'm moving to another country.
Be sure to tell this theory to your psychologist.
Yeah? Are you saying my PC is a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes?
So the fact that the RIAA has been lobbying for legislation to require watermarks and other DRM restrictions is considered to be at the same level of logical reality as claims that Jesus will return?
Pretty much, but the important issue is that if either happens we're pretty much all screwed anyway. And neither has anything to do with this particular piece of legislation.
It's being used to study what tools they use and probably thier habits.
"Furthermore, we have found that WiFi hackers tend to inundate the served webpages with messages such as 'First Hack!' and 'Hot Grits!' A secondary wave of hacks shortly follows discussing why 'First Hack!' should actually say 'First Crack'."
Bull. It's the player owned by the CUSTOMER you want to distribute TO that matters here, not the one YOU bought.
So now it's the job of the software companies to make players for you? If you don't like the players out there, make your own.