Sorry, I just get more and more annoyed that artists are buying into the "Don't STEAL my music" when they are getting screwed by the RIAA more than they are by even professional pirates. It blows my mind that it's just a given that you can't make any money off even well performing records because of "distrobution fees" and that all the money is made off touring, when it's touring that's expensive, and distrobution and promotion can be done essentially free, if the business model was every actually looked at instead of just blindly protected.
Or, perhaps, he was saying "Many Americans" because he is an American, the article was written by an American for a largely American audience, you are at a website dominated by Americans, and he simply didn't give enough of a crap to include the rest of the world when he generalized "many of us" into "many Americans".
Take your knee-jerk victimization trolling elsewhere.
I'm sorry the rest of you had to read that. I put self-victimizers above people who confuse your and you're on my pet peeve list.
Like, you know, driving to your house and personally kidnapping one of your children to be donated to the "music industry", defined as "No one who actually makes music, because people who make music are idiots"
Y'know, I've seen Linux run on a washing machine. I've even seen Linux run on a toaster, but I ain't never seen Linux run on no phantom Atomchip laptop.
Re:Porn in a puritan society
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure comparing the US to a place that has some of the highest cosmetic surgery rates in the world and quite possible the most appearance obsessed culture in in the world is helping your argument much.
I know exactly what you mean. However, it's a good thing you pointed out which words to emphasize or we could have gotten confused with all the letters.
If we focus on the hard problems (one of which is improving the interaction with disabled users) the easy ones will simply fall into place.
Bull. Disabled users aren't the same as normal users and designing for them isn't the same. I'm willing to bet blind users would prefer a text only computer, with the information organized in table form so it's easy to follow the hierarchy of information. The CLI, I'd think, would be ideal for blind users.
The real problem right now is that people who are technophobes don't like to admit how good of a tool the computer really is, and how well suited for it's purpose it is. Nearly every solution I've ever seen isn't practical for how computers are actually used. Voice activation in cubicles? 3D immersion just to check your mail?
HCI isn't going to improve vhastly until there's a good system for direct mental interaction, and even then it'll take a long time for people to trust it.
Not to mention, they have to be able to afford to innovate. These designs don't come to engineers in their sleep (well, not all of them). They have to be able to make a living while they work on a design that can beat the big guy. If there is illegal behavior going on, it could create an environment where they have a better product but are financially unable to bring it to market.
There's a big difference between calling for reasonable proposals and saying we need to prepare for the worst case.
Reasonable: Ignoring the two faced bastards blocking wind power and solar power plants from being built in their backyards because they are "ugly" and "may hurt birds".
Worst Case: Shutting down all oil refineries and letting chaos reign until replacements are in place or society regresses until we don't need cars anymore.
See the difference? Only true hypocrites are against reasonable proposals, but it's only extremists that get the media inches. It isn't until we get extremists like Greenpeace and bastards like the Kennedys out of the way that we'll ever be able to take reasonable steps that actually have some prayer of both being effective and having minimal impact on our lives.
Hints: 1) The ANWR is a hell hole that a couple of well managed oil pumps aren't going to spoil, even if it only moderately reduces the demand in the short term. Anyone who says this would take too long to build the infrastructure needs to realize without idiots like them they'd already have been built. We should allow asshats to win by virtue of stalling tactics.
2) 99% of the nation doesn't give a flying flip about whether the scenic vista from various coastal luxury homes are "ruined" by windmills being placed miles out to sea near them.
3) Biodeisal is inefficient. Nuclear power is super efficient. Pebble reactor + corn + biodeisal cars = Screw OPEC.
Also, assuming you are in the US, you may have another problem...the DMCA. You are circumventing a copy-protection scheme to make that copy, assuming of course we are talking about a DVD. Unless that has changed in the last couple years...I haven't been following it much.
You are correct here, which is why the fair use portion desporately needs to be tested in the courts, even though I don't want to be the one that has to do it! If it's fair use, than in this case the DMCA ought to be tested as to whether it's preventing fair use, and whether that's really legal.
Not if the contract doesn't stipulate it, and it doesn't that I can find. They agreed to loan me the media that the material is on. After that, it would appear my fair use rights to format shift and time shift, as established in decisions for the RIO MP3 player and for Sony Betamax, would appear to kick in. If I had the right to view it then, and I did, I should have the right to view it when it's convenient in the format that it's convenient.
This is what the RIAA/MPAA are trying to prevent by saying nuh-uh licensing blah blah, but my contract with their contracted distributor doesn't specify anything about that, so until it does, it's all their whining.
They don't have to be, the terms of their license is what governs the terms of the license they offer me. They have a contract to distribute, and created a contract with me as a result of that. What we are arguing here is whether or not my interpretation of the license to view is correct. If I have a license to view the materials, then the Supreme Court has already ruled several times that I've got a right to format shift and time shift. My contract with Blockbuster most certainly enters into it, because they are the ones with the contract to distribute the content to me.
No, I rented a physical medium and bought the right to view. Blockbuster's terms are very specific about the physical medium, but do not address the right to view at all. If you want to argue that I'm distributing to myself, you have to also argue that I'm broadcasting to myself and that I bought the right to broadcast to myself, which would actually protect me under ADDITIONAL fair use rules, not less.
That's because there is no technical solution and there doesn't need to be. The law is about preserving rights for people, not enforcing restrictions through technology. Consider that copyright violations are supposed to be civil torts anyway. That means the police and the FBI shouldn't be involved because it's none of their business, it's the responsibility of the person who owns the works to decide if they are worth protecting and seek reperations if people are abusing their rights.
Right now the RIAA/MPAA are trampling on our rights because people like you think it's okay to tell people not to exercise rights they traditionally have had because it may encourage someone to incorrectly sue. While I personally would prefer not to be sued, if I was sued specifically for this situation (not the couple of movies I tried to download before deciding it wasn't worth the effort) I most certianly would fight it as hard as I could, even if it meant begging lawyers for pro bono work and representing myself in court.
I didn't volunteer for the military like some of my friends did, but I was called I'd serve. For me, this is exactly the same thing. I wouldn't choose to pick a fight with the MPAA/RIAA and risk losing everything, but if I were sued I'd fight with everything I've got for the privacy rights of all Americans. Feel free to wave a flag if you'd like, I'm not sure if I'm being patriotic or pissy at the moment.
107 is the four factor test. Again, I'm not a legal genious, so I'll refer generously to Stanford and the EFF for help in this matter.
1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Personal use is clearly non-commercial. 2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
In this case, the work is creative which is a point for their side. 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
In my case, it's a whole copy of the work, another point for their side, however it's a reduced quality copy which is a point for my side. 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
With Blockbuster's particular business model, I've already demonstrated it's actually MORE profitable for them to have me rent a movie rip it in 20 minutes and return it. As for future sales loss, that's not relevant to this argument because of a crucial factor - I delete them after I've watched them. The Supreme Court (Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)) ruled that a time shifted copy does not deprive them of revenue, and that was for a broadcast, not even a paid rental as in my case. I firmly believe that the courts would uphold my arguement that I rented the media that it's on but bought a license to watch the movie. In fact, Blockbuster's terms and conditions does not stipulate how many times you may watch a movie that you've rented, it merely stipulates how long you can keep the media. I've time-shifted the right to watch the movie until after the media is returned, but that doesn't negate my right to watch it, and the Supreme Court upheld my right to time shift it.
Thanks for giving the RIAA/MPAA justification.
Actually, before you level an accusation like that, you'd need to point how how my logic is flawed. Blockbuster makes the same money they would otherwise, thus the MPAA makes the same money they would otherwise, and I watch the movie when it's convenient. I can't see how this is illegal, except for the fact I have to use deCSS to do it. I don't even make a perfect digital copy, which was part of the stipulation of the Sony Beta case. I make a reduced quality copy.
The only thing I have telling me it's "wrong" is some vague sense of the RIAA/MPAA wanting me to officially "buy" a copy of it. I can't even put my finger on the law that would make it "wrong" (Again, other than the DMCA). It would seem to my untrained nonlegal mind that the Supreme Court would uphold my right to make a reduced quality backup for the purpose of time shifting. Reading Blockbuster's membership terms, I can't even find where they say I'm prohibited from making a personal copy, except where it says I have to obey copyright law, which I've already explained I can't find where I'm not.
In short, my logic may be flawed, but I can't personally find where. The MPAA doesn't have to like it, if it's legal.
At least, that was the impression I came to after I tried to use eDonkey for a while. After a half dozen or so downloads, I finally said screw it and went to Blockbuster.
I figure, in a way, I'm doing Blockbuster a favor. I typically watch movies only once or twice, so I'm just taking their "No Late Fees" policy to the extreme. They are pretty clear that the return refers to the rental, and doesn't terminate your right to view. So I figure as long as I don't distribute I can maintain a moral ambiguity long enough to justify ripping the movie and returning it, on time, to watch when it's more convenient. That way, unlike with a movie purchase, they have the hard copy to rent to someone else, and it's back in the store the day. As long as I don't distribute, it seems to be exactly the same as established precedent law on time shifting.
Flawed logic, perhaps, but a nifty bit of justification I'd say.
Because any given flop can only be spent on a single process?
You can't crunch numbers for both at the exact same time. This, of course, is indicative in my belief that the SETI project is a complete waste of time anyway.
Calling it a resource hog may not be the right term depending on what resources you are talking about. The whole point of the programs is to run your CPU to max when it would be otherwise idle. In that sense you are deliberately contributing to the wear and tear of your system, as well as any heating issues you may be concerned about. You are choosing to offset this against the value of the research, which is why I can't understand why people will donate cycles to SETI and not to something more directly useful like folding@home, but that's a value judgement.
It, however, should NOT be a resource hog in the sense of Microsoft Office, in that it slows down other programs. These programs are designed to utilize any resources you aren't using, and immediately give them back if you need to use them. This is done by setting the priority of the process just over system idle. Any cycles that would be spent idle are spent on processing instead, but when a program wants cycles, it gives them up.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I just get more and more annoyed that artists are buying into the "Don't STEAL my music" when they are getting screwed by the RIAA more than they are by even professional pirates. It blows my mind that it's just a given that you can't make any money off even well performing records because of "distrobution fees" and that all the money is made off touring, when it's touring that's expensive, and distrobution and promotion can be done essentially free, if the business model was every actually looked at instead of just blindly protected.
Or, perhaps, he was saying "Many Americans" because he is an American, the article was written by an American for a largely American audience, you are at a website dominated by Americans, and he simply didn't give enough of a crap to include the rest of the world when he generalized "many of us" into "many Americans".
Take your knee-jerk victimization trolling elsewhere.
I'm sorry the rest of you had to read that. I put self-victimizers above people who confuse your and you're on my pet peeve list.
Like, you know, driving to your house and personally kidnapping one of your children to be donated to the "music industry", defined as "No one who actually makes music, because people who make music are idiots"
It has to exist first!
Y'know, I've seen Linux run on a washing machine. I've even seen Linux run on a toaster, but I ain't never seen Linux run on no phantom Atomchip laptop.
It will not run Linux.
I'm not sure comparing the US to a place that has some of the highest cosmetic surgery rates in the world and quite possible the most appearance obsessed culture in in the world is helping your argument much.
I know exactly what you mean. However, it's a good thing you pointed out which words to emphasize or we could have gotten confused with all the letters.
If we focus on the hard problems (one of which is improving the interaction with disabled users) the easy ones will simply fall into place.
Bull. Disabled users aren't the same as normal users and designing for them isn't the same. I'm willing to bet blind users would prefer a text only computer, with the information organized in table form so it's easy to follow the hierarchy of information. The CLI, I'd think, would be ideal for blind users.
The real problem right now is that people who are technophobes don't like to admit how good of a tool the computer really is, and how well suited for it's purpose it is. Nearly every solution I've ever seen isn't practical for how computers are actually used. Voice activation in cubicles? 3D immersion just to check your mail?
HCI isn't going to improve vhastly until there's a good system for direct mental interaction, and even then it'll take a long time for people to trust it.
Not to mention, they have to be able to afford to innovate. These designs don't come to engineers in their sleep (well, not all of them). They have to be able to make a living while they work on a design that can beat the big guy. If there is illegal behavior going on, it could create an environment where they have a better product but are financially unable to bring it to market.
I believe that would be backed up by the "Rubber v. Glue" decision of 1996, and the "Pot v Kettle" of 2001.
Or, you could just delete it from the history and turn off autocomplete for forms.
Not that I do that. Er, it works.
There's a big difference between calling for reasonable proposals and saying we need to prepare for the worst case.
Reasonable: Ignoring the two faced bastards blocking wind power and solar power plants from being built in their backyards because they are "ugly" and "may hurt birds".
Worst Case: Shutting down all oil refineries and letting chaos reign until replacements are in place or society regresses until we don't need cars anymore.
See the difference? Only true hypocrites are against reasonable proposals, but it's only extremists that get the media inches. It isn't until we get extremists like Greenpeace and bastards like the Kennedys out of the way that we'll ever be able to take reasonable steps that actually have some prayer of both being effective and having minimal impact on our lives.
Hints:
1) The ANWR is a hell hole that a couple of well managed oil pumps aren't going to spoil, even if it only moderately reduces the demand in the short term. Anyone who says this would take too long to build the infrastructure needs to realize without idiots like them they'd already have been built. We should allow asshats to win by virtue of stalling tactics.
2) 99% of the nation doesn't give a flying flip about whether the scenic vista from various coastal luxury homes are "ruined" by windmills being placed miles out to sea near them.
3) Biodeisal is inefficient. Nuclear power is super efficient. Pebble reactor + corn + biodeisal cars = Screw OPEC.
The worst case scenario: Any possible source of carbon dioxide or methane is a significant danger to the environment.
Solution: Exterminate all non-plant life on this planet, for the good of the ozone.
What a day to be without mod points.
Also, assuming you are in the US, you may have another problem...the DMCA. You are circumventing a copy-protection scheme to make that copy, assuming of course we are talking about a DVD. Unless that has changed in the last couple years...I haven't been following it much.
You are correct here, which is why the fair use portion desporately needs to be tested in the courts, even though I don't want to be the one that has to do it! If it's fair use, than in this case the DMCA ought to be tested as to whether it's preventing fair use, and whether that's really legal.
Not if the contract doesn't stipulate it, and it doesn't that I can find. They agreed to loan me the media that the material is on. After that, it would appear my fair use rights to format shift and time shift, as established in decisions for the RIO MP3 player and for Sony Betamax, would appear to kick in. If I had the right to view it then, and I did, I should have the right to view it when it's convenient in the format that it's convenient.
This is what the RIAA/MPAA are trying to prevent by saying nuh-uh licensing blah blah, but my contract with their contracted distributor doesn't specify anything about that, so until it does, it's all their whining.
Blockbuster is NOT the copyright owner.
They don't have to be, the terms of their license is what governs the terms of the license they offer me. They have a contract to distribute, and created a contract with me as a result of that. What we are arguing here is whether or not my interpretation of the license to view is correct. If I have a license to view the materials, then the Supreme Court has already ruled several times that I've got a right to format shift and time shift. My contract with Blockbuster most certainly enters into it, because they are the ones with the contract to distribute the content to me.
Not the same at all. I paid for the right to watch it. You have no rights to the media in the first place.
No, I rented a physical medium and bought the right to view. Blockbuster's terms are very specific about the physical medium, but do not address the right to view at all. If you want to argue that I'm distributing to myself, you have to also argue that I'm broadcasting to myself and that I bought the right to broadcast to myself, which would actually protect me under ADDITIONAL fair use rules, not less.
That's because there is no technical solution and there doesn't need to be. The law is about preserving rights for people, not enforcing restrictions through technology. Consider that copyright violations are supposed to be civil torts anyway. That means the police and the FBI shouldn't be involved because it's none of their business, it's the responsibility of the person who owns the works to decide if they are worth protecting and seek reperations if people are abusing their rights.
Right now the RIAA/MPAA are trampling on our rights because people like you think it's okay to tell people not to exercise rights they traditionally have had because it may encourage someone to incorrectly sue. While I personally would prefer not to be sued, if I was sued specifically for this situation (not the couple of movies I tried to download before deciding it wasn't worth the effort) I most certianly would fight it as hard as I could, even if it meant begging lawyers for pro bono work and representing myself in court.
I didn't volunteer for the military like some of my friends did, but I was called I'd serve. For me, this is exactly the same thing. I wouldn't choose to pick a fight with the MPAA/RIAA and risk losing everything, but if I were sued I'd fight with everything I've got for the privacy rights of all Americans. Feel free to wave a flag if you'd like, I'm not sure if I'm being patriotic or pissy at the moment.
107 is the four factor test. Again, I'm not a legal genious, so I'll refer generously to Stanford and the EFF for help in this matter.
1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Personal use is clearly non-commercial.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
In this case, the work is creative which is a point for their side.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
In my case, it's a whole copy of the work, another point for their side, however it's a reduced quality copy which is a point for my side.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
With Blockbuster's particular business model, I've already demonstrated it's actually MORE profitable for them to have me rent a movie rip it in 20 minutes and return it. As for future sales loss, that's not relevant to this argument because of a crucial factor - I delete them after I've watched them. The Supreme Court (Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)) ruled that a time shifted copy does not deprive them of revenue, and that was for a broadcast, not even a paid rental as in my case. I firmly believe that the courts would uphold my arguement that I rented the media that it's on but bought a license to watch the movie. In fact, Blockbuster's terms and conditions does not stipulate how many times you may watch a movie that you've rented, it merely stipulates how long you can keep the media. I've time-shifted the right to watch the movie until after the media is returned, but that doesn't negate my right to watch it, and the Supreme Court upheld my right to time shift it.
Thanks for giving the RIAA/MPAA justification.
Actually, before you level an accusation like that, you'd need to point how how my logic is flawed. Blockbuster makes the same money they would otherwise, thus the MPAA makes the same money they would otherwise, and I watch the movie when it's convenient. I can't see how this is illegal, except for the fact I have to use deCSS to do it. I don't even make a perfect digital copy, which was part of the stipulation of the Sony Beta case. I make a reduced quality copy.
The only thing I have telling me it's "wrong" is some vague sense of the RIAA/MPAA wanting me to officially "buy" a copy of it. I can't even put my finger on the law that would make it "wrong" (Again, other than the DMCA). It would seem to my untrained nonlegal mind that the Supreme Court would uphold my right to make a reduced quality backup for the purpose of time shifting. Reading Blockbuster's membership terms, I can't even find where they say I'm prohibited from making a personal copy, except where it says I have to obey copyright law, which I've already explained I can't find where I'm not.
In short, my logic may be flawed, but I can't personally find where. The MPAA doesn't have to like it, if it's legal.
At least, that was the impression I came to after I tried to use eDonkey for a while. After a half dozen or so downloads, I finally said screw it and went to Blockbuster.
I figure, in a way, I'm doing Blockbuster a favor. I typically watch movies only once or twice, so I'm just taking their "No Late Fees" policy to the extreme. They are pretty clear that the return refers to the rental, and doesn't terminate your right to view. So I figure as long as I don't distribute I can maintain a moral ambiguity long enough to justify ripping the movie and returning it, on time, to watch when it's more convenient. That way, unlike with a movie purchase, they have the hard copy to rent to someone else, and it's back in the store the day. As long as I don't distribute, it seems to be exactly the same as established precedent law on time shifting.
Flawed logic, perhaps, but a nifty bit of justification I'd say.
Because any given flop can only be spent on a single process?
You can't crunch numbers for both at the exact same time. This, of course, is indicative in my belief that the SETI project is a complete waste of time anyway.
Calling it a resource hog may not be the right term depending on what resources you are talking about. The whole point of the programs is to run your CPU to max when it would be otherwise idle. In that sense you are deliberately contributing to the wear and tear of your system, as well as any heating issues you may be concerned about. You are choosing to offset this against the value of the research, which is why I can't understand why people will donate cycles to SETI and not to something more directly useful like folding@home, but that's a value judgement.
It, however, should NOT be a resource hog in the sense of Microsoft Office, in that it slows down other programs. These programs are designed to utilize any resources you aren't using, and immediately give them back if you need to use them. This is done by setting the priority of the process just over system idle. Any cycles that would be spent idle are spent on processing instead, but when a program wants cycles, it gives them up.