That pays the rent for a lot of decent 1 bedroom apartments. Hell, that would cover most of my mortgage. I'd love to have my mortgage paid for by an hour's worth of work.
"They could. Too bad we're so far down the "mine! all mine!" patent/copyright route that we don't know how anymore."
So do you pay your rent/mortgage, cable, utilities, phone, etc. bills with good will and happy thoughts? Why are you so opposed to paying people for producing a product?
Why is it that when someone gets busted for copyright infringement, the Slashbot hive buzzes with the effort of finding the next "viable defense" to justify copyright infringement.
Wouldn't a better way to preserve P2P fair use be to actively discourage abuse of the tools?
Or isn't the actual goal here the preservation of fair use?
Of course, if you knew shit about shit, you'd realize that it is not the job of the FBI to hunt for terrorists abroad. That's what the CIA is primarily responsible for, and to a lesser extent, the NSA.
"Ah, I didn't know it was a quote (there was no attribution)."
Damn 120 character limit...
"His quote (going on how you've described it) ridicules such an idea as social progress."
Perhaps Mr. Powell and I have a differing view of "social progress" than you do. I don't believe that confiscating wealth from one group to give to another is a just way to achieve an illusion of equality. In fact, the concept of "equality" in itself is injustice, because not everyone is the same person, and thus should not be treated as if they are.
Now I'm all about enabling people to achieve and accumulate wealth on their own (hence we have "equal opportunity"), but simply taking from those who have, and handing it (whatever IT is) over to those who don't doesn't serve a just cause, IMHO.
And I think the most important part of Powell's quote is the last part. It's not the government's job to provide "things" to people just because they want them. Health insurance and financial safety nets may be one thing (we could probably go round-and-round on that one), but "technology" is still something people can do just fine without.
I honestly believe "Lawn Jarts" (as our family's set was called) was a Darwinist conspiracy by the government and toy industry to cull the herd a bit.
Fortunately my brother and I made the cut. Society is probably better off without those who didn't. Now we have these confounded safety commissions that prevent us from shedding our weak links.
I think you're reading a little more into my post than I actually wrote. My point was simply that irregardless of my (or Slashdotters') personal opinions of the MPAA, nobody should have been surprised that the MPAA went after these websites, and least of all the owners of them.
As to my sig; again, it's not social commentary. It's a (and rather witty, IMHO) quote by FCC Chairman Michael Powell, as a sarcastic response to a question about the percieved "technology gap" separating "the disadvantaged poor" and "the priveliged elite".
Story after story, month after month, year after year, I read on Slashdot about how worried Microsoft should be about OSS Competitor X, but after all of these posts, Microsoft remains dominant.
I think these "MS is worried" posts need to wait until these OSS competitors start taking significant market share away from Microsoft.
Sure, the likes of Firefox et. al. could eventually challenge Microsoft, but lets wait until it actually starts happening, OK?
It should read something like "Bittorent Site Operators Invite Lawsuits". Seriously, who could have predicted that posting so many links to copyrighted works would draw the ire of the MPAA?
Deep pockets doesn't have anything to do with it. "I just post links" simply isn't a valid defense for copyright infringement. And although IANAL, IMHO posting links constitutes distribution. The courts would probably see it that way as well.
Piracy (ARR!) of music and movies, even as a protest (yeah, right) isn't going to help eliminate DRM. In fact, it only strengthens the case of those industries trying to foist DRM on us in the first place.
It's only logical; the more people "pirate", the tighter the industries are going to try to clamp down. All at the expense of legitimate users who just want to watch/listen to what they paid for.
Let's face it, folks. DRM didn't just will itself into existence. It was the industries' response to people who wantonly ignored copyright laws for the sake of getting something without paying for it. Simply doing more of the same isn't going to make it go away.
Want to get rid of DRM? Stop buying CDs. Stop going to concerts. Stop buying DVDs. Stop going to the theatre. Cutting off revenue isn't going to be enough, as the industries can simply blame it on "piracy". Cutting off DEMAND would force them to address the true problem.
So you're telling me that you compulsively feed at the consumption trough, without any will of your own?
If you don't like the music industry, then simply don't buy or listen to anything the RIAA backs.
If you don't like the film industry, then simply don't buy or watch anything the MPAA backs.
There are plenty of independent alternatives out there. Claiming that you are somehow a victim of the industries you willingly buy from doesn't lend yourself much credibility.
"She is proof that the passion of the homebrew electronic hobbyist is still a viable force in an age when well-funded and well-staffed corporate design teams dominate chip design."
You forgot well-lawyered, for when an uppity innovator dares challenge the corporate status quo. Sadly, all it would take is one lawsuit (ore even the threat thereof) to shut her down.
Google puts out a perfectly dandy little tool, and Windows has to come along and ruin it!
Why can't Micor$oft clean up their act? Maybe if they weren't driven so hard by profits, benevolent organizations like Google wouldn't be forced to release insecure software.
Slashdot Mirror
That pays the rent for a lot of decent 1 bedroom apartments. Hell, that would cover most of my mortgage. I'd love to have my mortgage paid for by an hour's worth of work.
So do you pay your rent/mortgage, cable, utilities, phone, etc. bills with good will and happy thoughts? Why are you so opposed to paying people for producing a product?
Why is it that when someone gets busted for copyright infringement, the Slashbot hive buzzes with the effort of finding the next "viable defense" to justify copyright infringement.
Wouldn't a better way to preserve P2P fair use be to actively discourage abuse of the tools?
Or isn't the actual goal here the preservation of fair use?
Of course, if you knew shit about shit, you'd realize that it is not the job of the FBI to hunt for terrorists abroad. That's what the CIA is primarily responsible for, and to a lesser extent, the NSA.
Should read "From the finally-going-after-the-lawbreakers dept."
We pissed and moaned when the authorities went after the makers of P2P software, crying that they should go after the people doing the infringement.
Predictably, now that authorities are actually going after the infringers, we have something new to piss and moan about. Let's get consistent, can we?
So at Microsoft, either something works and isn't secure, or is secure and doesn't work.
I know, this isn't really news, but it's not every day you hear it from Microsoft.
...that this guy is more likely going to win a Darwin Award than survive his fall.
Oh well, I guess something's got to thin the herd...
Damn 120 character limit...
"His quote (going on how you've described it) ridicules such an idea as social progress."
Perhaps Mr. Powell and I have a differing view of "social progress" than you do. I don't believe that confiscating wealth from one group to give to another is a just way to achieve an illusion of equality. In fact, the concept of "equality" in itself is injustice, because not everyone is the same person, and thus should not be treated as if they are.
Now I'm all about enabling people to achieve and accumulate wealth on their own (hence we have "equal opportunity"), but simply taking from those who have, and handing it (whatever IT is) over to those who don't doesn't serve a just cause, IMHO.
And I think the most important part of Powell's quote is the last part. It's not the government's job to provide "things" to people just because they want them. Health insurance and financial safety nets may be one thing (we could probably go round-and-round on that one), but "technology" is still something people can do just fine without.
NORTH POLE
Leader: Big red guy.
Employees: Countless little people.
Labor Conditions: Servituude
Cost of Product: Zero
COMMUNIST CHINA
Leader: Big red government.
Employees: Countless little people.
Labor Conditions: Servitude
Cost of Product: Next to Zero
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Support capitalism, debunk the myth of Santa!
I honestly believe "Lawn Jarts" (as our family's set was called) was a Darwinist conspiracy by the government and toy industry to cull the herd a bit.
Fortunately my brother and I made the cut. Society is probably better off without those who didn't. Now we have these confounded safety commissions that prevent us from shedding our weak links.
I think you're reading a little more into my post than I actually wrote. My point was simply that irregardless of my (or Slashdotters') personal opinions of the MPAA, nobody should have been surprised that the MPAA went after these websites, and least of all the owners of them.
As to my sig; again, it's not social commentary. It's a (and rather witty, IMHO) quote by FCC Chairman Michael Powell, as a sarcastic response to a question about the percieved "technology gap" separating "the disadvantaged poor" and "the priveliged elite".
Story after story, month after month, year after year, I read on Slashdot about how worried Microsoft should be about OSS Competitor X, but after all of these posts, Microsoft remains dominant.
I think these "MS is worried" posts need to wait until these OSS competitors start taking significant market share away from Microsoft.
Sure, the likes of Firefox et. al. could eventually challenge Microsoft, but lets wait until it actually starts happening, OK?
It should read something like "Bittorent Site Operators Invite Lawsuits". Seriously, who could have predicted that posting so many links to copyrighted works would draw the ire of the MPAA?
Deep pockets doesn't have anything to do with it. "I just post links" simply isn't a valid defense for copyright infringement. And although IANAL, IMHO posting links constitutes distribution. The courts would probably see it that way as well.
Apple's subpoenas broaden to include geek blog Slashdot.
One man's propaganda is another man's editorial opinion.
Why must we use such slanted terms to describe the views of people we disagree with?
perhaps I just answered my own question.
I know that hypocrisy is chic on Slashdot, but it's unusual even here for one to contradict himself in a mere three words.
Piracy (ARR!) of music and movies, even as a protest (yeah, right) isn't going to help eliminate DRM. In fact, it only strengthens the case of those industries trying to foist DRM on us in the first place.
It's only logical; the more people "pirate", the tighter the industries are going to try to clamp down. All at the expense of legitimate users who just want to watch/listen to what they paid for.
Let's face it, folks. DRM didn't just will itself into existence. It was the industries' response to people who wantonly ignored copyright laws for the sake of getting something without paying for it. Simply doing more of the same isn't going to make it go away.
Want to get rid of DRM? Stop buying CDs. Stop going to concerts. Stop buying DVDs. Stop going to the theatre. Cutting off revenue isn't going to be enough, as the industries can simply blame it on "piracy". Cutting off DEMAND would force them to address the true problem.
So you're telling me that you compulsively feed at the consumption trough, without any will of your own?
If you don't like the music industry, then simply don't buy or listen to anything the RIAA backs.
If you don't like the film industry, then simply don't buy or watch anything the MPAA backs.
There are plenty of independent alternatives out there. Claiming that you are somehow a victim of the industries you willingly buy from doesn't lend yourself much credibility.
...don't watch them at all. Why give them any money at all if you are that unsatisfied with their product/service?
You forgot well-lawyered, for when an uppity innovator dares challenge the corporate status quo. Sadly, all it would take is one lawsuit (ore even the threat thereof) to shut her down.
...is to treat your e-mail address like you treat other personal, abusable personal information.
Do what I do: create a Yahoo (or some other free e-mail) account and use that address for all questionable forms you fill out.
I've had the same address now for almost three years now and receive about five spams per week, at most.
Google puts out a perfectly dandy little tool, and Windows has to come along and ruin it!
Why can't Micor$oft clean up their act? Maybe if they weren't driven so hard by profits, benevolent organizations like Google wouldn't be forced to release insecure software.
Targetshooting, mostly. A lot of people who own a firearm for home defense want to make sure they can hit their target in the event of a break-in.
Hunting is probably second.
Ahh yes, because we all know that big companies only file valid lawsuits.