Re:Playing it like the Raelians...
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
I think the Raelian comparison is quite valid. Except that instead of a human clone, SCO refuses to come forward with the code in question.
Not a good idea...
on
Gator Examined
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"A contract is (or ought to be) invalid if a party does not understand its terms."
Sounds to me like an easily-abused out for people who either didn't read the EULA, or simply want to get out of a contract they regret entering.
Being able to claim ignorance as a reason to get out of a contract is a terrible idea because it puts the burden on the other party to prove that you did in fact understand the terms.
"Clearchannel "killed" radio, so should itself receive the death penalty as a punishment."
That's your assessment of the situation, however the antitrust laws in this country apparently don't see it that way.
"Ever heard of payola? Y'know, that system of semi-legal extortion by which radio stations prevents artists without decently large budgets from getting radio play, thus effectively destroying their livelyhood because they don't agree to get down on their knees for the company?"
Hardly an accurate comparison. You say that as if ClearChannel is out blackballing bands that don't submit to their demands, and we both know that's not even close.
"How about Unions and/or guilds, whereby totally compentent tradesmen can find themselves unable to ply their trade because they didn't go through the "right" system?"
That's why I don't like unions, so I think we'll agree there.
"Ever heard of Iraq, where we recently destroyed the livelyhood of the semi-democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation because we didn't agree with his politics?"
A bit trollish, but I'll bite. Semi- democratically elected? Please take your head out of the sand. Or are you comparing ClearChannel with a man who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens?
"The first amendment. Perhaps currently unpopular, but read it some time."
Way to only quote half of what I said. I have no problem with you SAYING anything, and I never suggested otherwise. You as an individual don't, however, have the right to deprive anyone of their livelihood just because you morally disagree with it. Leave that up to the market (boycott).
"Feel free to say that he's wrong, but challenging his right to say it is an insult to the very free society you seem to like."
I never once said he didn't have the right to say anything. I simply disagreed with his idea that the public should be allowed to destroy/outlaw everything they don't like.
"Yeah, that would be like making the sale of alcohol illegal. Or sale of marijuana. Or sale of sex. Or sale of porn. Or making junk faxes. Or making telemarketting calls at 1 in the morning."
Sales and marketing, which you seem to have confused here, are two completely different things. As a libertarian, I don't think that selling such things as alcohol, drugs, or sex should be illegal, as it only (potentially) hurts the buyer.
Now marketing, on the other hand, is a completely different issue. Junk faxes and 1AM phone calls should be illegal because they are intrusive (ie. cannot be avoided). TV, radio, or magazine ads aren't illegal because they can be avoided.
I believe that making sure that businesses don't intrude on the rights of consumers is a valid role of government. In no way is ClearChannel's behavior intrusive, or violating anyone's rights in any way.
"Clearchannel, as an "experiment" in media conglomeration, should end. Revoke its corporate charter, dissolve it, return control and ownership to each individual station."
And what right do YOU have to say that a corporate entity (or any other entity for that matter) should be destroyed simply because you don't like it. If they break the law, then fine, go after them then. But since when, in a free society, are people allowed to destroy someone's livelihood simply because they don't agree with it?
Funny thing is that if Microsoft introduced a similar service (with same features/limitations) for us on the PC side, the froth glands would be churning it up in overdrive.
A lot of people harp on about how the DMCA is stifling innovation (ie. making downloading free music illegal), but you all seem to have forgotten what Apple has accomplished with its new music service, despite the DMCA.
If such an innovative, practical, and quality service is available and legal under the DMCA, what are we really complaining about? I think Apple has debunked a lot of myths about the DMCA, and some of us here just can't deal with that.
Put it this way, if I had a 1 in 60 chance of getting into a fatal crash every time I took my car onto the interstate, I'd be much less inclined to drive.
"If you're excerpting a very small part of another work and using it in a work that is substantially of your own creation, isn't that the point of fair use?"
As long as you're properly citing your sources, it's fine.
I beleive the point here is that Dre didn't properly credit the original entertainer's work/contribution to his own.
"I liked it so much that I went to their website and tried to find ANY method to pay them directly because I REFUSE to give any money to the RIAA. There is no way to do it there."
That's not the fault of the RIAA; it's the fault of the entertainers who whore themselves to the RIAA. If entertainers wanted to maintain control over the music they create, and sell it via their website, they wouldn't sign contracts with the RIAA.
Don't blame the RIAA because entertainers make foolish deals with them.
Re:How do the artists feel??
on
The Law and P2P
·
· Score: 1
If the artists weren't getting their fair share, they'd stop whoring themselves to the RIAA. When you buy a car, are you just as worried that the guy who sewed the seats together got as fair a share as the CEO of the company?
I know you mean well, but I think you're worrying too much. If the artists didn't feel they were getting a good, let alone fair deal, the market wouldn't be saturated with every kid who ever picked up a guitar in their parents' garage.
Just be happy that music buyers now have a much better alternative to overpriced CDs.
"The existence of a "balanced" solution that succeeds in the market means the general public will not feel compelled to challenge awful laws like the DMCA."
Maybe that suggests that if a legal, convenient, and "balanced" online music distribution system can exist under the DMCA, then perhaps the DMCA isn't as evil and restrictive as some here would like us to believe.
"If they could get it down to more like 10 cents a track maybe people wouldn't bother with Kazaa anymore."
The people who won't pay $.99 for a song aren't likely to be any more willing to pay $.10 either, as long as they can still get it for free.
Personally I like the idea of being able to get a CD full of the music I want for a quarter of what I'd normally pay to have all of those songs. Isn't this exactly what we wanted??
I think a lot of honest folks out there will do the right thing and actually use this service now that it's available, but I suspect that many will abandon their supposed principles and continue downloading music illegally.
"A big article on Wired.com talks about the new House Bill 495 that would legalize the innocent stumbling upon open wireless networks."
What about deliberate and intentional intrusions? I can understand how people can accidentally connect to a different network than they intended, but wardriving doesn't even come close.
"Here, this guy is proposing something along the lines of eliminating car locks so that noone will be arrested for carrying burgulary tools."
Not quite, it's more like saying that if you don't have bulletproof glass windows and 10 deadbolts on all your doors, any intrusion that occurs is YOUR fault, not the fault of the intruder.
Granted, people should be more security conscious (homeowners as well as sysadmins) but in the end we have to properly assign the blame to the people who commit the intrusion.
Personal Responsibility Today
on
The Virus Did It
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
OK first of all I'm not going to judge whether or not this guy's defense is valid. I guess they'll have to take a look at the supposed 'virus' to determine if that was in fact the cause of the porn downloads.
With that out of the way, I find it amazing the lengths people will go to to blame anybody or anything for their actions but themselves. "I didn't download pictures of naked children, the computer did it!" or "I didn't willingly throw myself upon a flaming mattress, that show on MTV made me do it! or "I didn't want to get pregnant, it was HIS fault!"
I apologize for this somewhat offtopic rant, but it's this kind of lack of personal responsibility that's eroding our society.
"Your credit card example is theft, because nobody cares about the "copying" of credit card numbers; they care about the thief removing your money from your possession."
But following the grandparent's logic, no money is being 'stolen'. No physical transfer of cash is taking place, and really, it's not even YOUR money that's involved, but the credit line extended by the bank. No transfer of money from you means no theft, right?
And whatever happened to information wanting to be FREE!
Call it what you want, but using commercial software you didn't pay for is illegal, and should be held to the same penal statue as theft.
Care to share your credit card numbers with us so we can 'copy' it?
I'm SO tired of the "if you're not physically taking anything from them, it's not financially hurting them" argument. I suppose you believe that bootlegging cable and using blackboxes to make free phone calls should be legal as well, since you're not physically taking anything, right?
Let me explain it to you in terms you may be able to comprehend. If you acquire something, whether via copying or physically taking, you are denying that company the money they are rightfully owed for that product or service.
...but in today's marketing world, the only way to get something to "the masses" is advertising.
And something tells me that "Small Press Comics" don't have the kind of money to put into serious ad campaigns.
Now I suppose some of the more successful ones like UserFriendly are an exception to this, but unless these comics get a lot of free press/exposure, they will remain "Small Press".
Slashdot Mirror
I think the Raelian comparison is quite valid. Except that instead of a human clone, SCO refuses to come forward with the code in question.
Sounds to me like an easily-abused out for people who either didn't read the EULA, or simply want to get out of a contract they regret entering.
Being able to claim ignorance as a reason to get out of a contract is a terrible idea because it puts the burden on the other party to prove that you did in fact understand the terms.
That's your assessment of the situation, however the antitrust laws in this country apparently don't see it that way.
"Ever heard of payola? Y'know, that system of semi-legal extortion by which radio stations prevents artists without decently large budgets from getting radio play, thus effectively destroying their livelyhood because they don't agree to get down on their knees for the company?"
Hardly an accurate comparison. You say that as if ClearChannel is out blackballing bands that don't submit to their demands, and we both know that's not even close.
"How about Unions and/or guilds, whereby totally compentent tradesmen can find themselves unable to ply their trade because they didn't go through the "right" system?"
That's why I don't like unions, so I think we'll agree there.
"Ever heard of Iraq, where we recently destroyed the livelyhood of the semi-democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation because we didn't agree with his politics?"
A bit trollish, but I'll bite. Semi- democratically elected? Please take your head out of the sand. Or are you comparing ClearChannel with a man who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens?
"The first amendment. Perhaps currently unpopular, but read it some time."
Way to only quote half of what I said. I have no problem with you SAYING anything, and I never suggested otherwise. You as an individual don't, however, have the right to deprive anyone of their livelihood just because you morally disagree with it. Leave that up to the market (boycott).
I never once said he didn't have the right to say anything. I simply disagreed with his idea that the public should be allowed to destroy/outlaw everything they don't like.
"Yeah, that would be like making the sale of alcohol illegal. Or sale of marijuana. Or sale of sex. Or sale of porn. Or making junk faxes. Or making telemarketting calls at 1 in the morning."
Sales and marketing, which you seem to have confused here, are two completely different things. As a libertarian, I don't think that selling such things as alcohol, drugs, or sex should be illegal, as it only (potentially) hurts the buyer.
Now marketing, on the other hand, is a completely different issue. Junk faxes and 1AM phone calls should be illegal because they are intrusive (ie. cannot be avoided). TV, radio, or magazine ads aren't illegal because they can be avoided.
I believe that making sure that businesses don't intrude on the rights of consumers is a valid role of government. In no way is ClearChannel's behavior intrusive, or violating anyone's rights in any way.
And what right do YOU have to say that a corporate entity (or any other entity for that matter) should be destroyed simply because you don't like it. If they break the law, then fine, go after them then. But since when, in a free society, are people allowed to destroy someone's livelihood simply because they don't agree with it?
Hasn't he done enough to us already???
Funny thing is that if Microsoft introduced a similar service (with same features/limitations) for us on the PC side, the froth glands would be churning it up in overdrive.
If such an innovative, practical, and quality service is available and legal under the DMCA, what are we really complaining about? I think Apple has debunked a lot of myths about the DMCA, and some of us here just can't deal with that.
Put it this way, if I had a 1 in 60 chance of getting into a fatal crash every time I took my car onto the interstate, I'd be much less inclined to drive.
As long as you're properly citing your sources, it's fine.
I beleive the point here is that Dre didn't properly credit the original entertainer's work/contribution to his own.
Sure it doesn't say a lot about his... talent (*chuckle*), but at least he did it the legal way.
That's not the fault of the RIAA; it's the fault of the entertainers who whore themselves to the RIAA. If entertainers wanted to maintain control over the music they create, and sell it via their website, they wouldn't sign contracts with the RIAA.
Don't blame the RIAA because entertainers make foolish deals with them.
I know you mean well, but I think you're worrying too much. If the artists didn't feel they were getting a good, let alone fair deal, the market wouldn't be saturated with every kid who ever picked up a guitar in their parents' garage.
Just be happy that music buyers now have a much better alternative to overpriced CDs.
Maybe that suggests that if a legal, convenient, and "balanced" online music distribution system can exist under the DMCA, then perhaps the DMCA isn't as evil and restrictive as some here would like us to believe.
As always, links to pictures will be posted.
The people who won't pay $.99 for a song aren't likely to be any more willing to pay $.10 either, as long as they can still get it for free.
Personally I like the idea of being able to get a CD full of the music I want for a quarter of what I'd normally pay to have all of those songs. Isn't this exactly what we wanted??
I think a lot of honest folks out there will do the right thing and actually use this service now that it's available, but I suspect that many will abandon their supposed principles and continue downloading music illegally.
What about deliberate and intentional intrusions? I can understand how people can accidentally connect to a different network than they intended, but wardriving doesn't even come close.
That's two of these 'revisited' stories today. Is that just a cover-up/excuse for dupes now?
The maturity demonstrated here doesn't suggest more than a snowball's chance in Hell.
If someone can call the Virgin Mary covered in elephant shit 'art', I don't see any reason why HTML can't be.
Not quite, it's more like saying that if you don't have bulletproof glass windows and 10 deadbolts on all your doors, any intrusion that occurs is YOUR fault, not the fault of the intruder.
Granted, people should be more security conscious (homeowners as well as sysadmins) but in the end we have to properly assign the blame to the people who commit the intrusion.
With that out of the way, I find it amazing the lengths people will go to to blame anybody or anything for their actions but themselves. "I didn't download pictures of naked children, the computer did it!" or "I didn't willingly throw myself upon a flaming mattress, that show on MTV made me do it! or "I didn't want to get pregnant, it was HIS fault!"
I apologize for this somewhat offtopic rant, but it's this kind of lack of personal responsibility that's eroding our society.
But following the grandparent's logic, no money is being 'stolen'. No physical transfer of cash is taking place, and really, it's not even YOUR money that's involved, but the credit line extended by the bank. No transfer of money from you means no theft, right?
And whatever happened to information wanting to be FREE!
Call it what you want, but using commercial software you didn't pay for is illegal, and should be held to the same penal statue as theft.
Care to share your credit card numbers with us so we can 'copy' it?
I'm SO tired of the "if you're not physically taking anything from them, it's not financially hurting them" argument. I suppose you believe that bootlegging cable and using blackboxes to make free phone calls should be legal as well, since you're not physically taking anything, right?
Let me explain it to you in terms you may be able to comprehend. If you acquire something, whether via copying or physically taking, you are denying that company the money they are rightfully owed for that product or service.
And something tells me that "Small Press Comics" don't have the kind of money to put into serious ad campaigns.
Now I suppose some of the more successful ones like UserFriendly are an exception to this, but unless these comics get a lot of free press/exposure, they will remain "Small Press".