>DirecTV is merely a content provider...and you >certainly get something for your money when you >subscribe (instead of the RIAA, where you pay >$18 for a CD that costs $1 to manufacture >comprised of filler plus one single that you >actually like).
Do you wish us to legislate rights based upon the current opinion of who (though equal in all other respects) should have them and who should not have them?
Or is it instead the case that we should see, as you do, that not decoding a signal being sent into your house is simply the morally logical (yes, that is what you imply) thing to do?
Your statement implies that you would be fine in not paying for content from the RIAA who has distribution rights to it, but that you do (by appeal to emotion) support paying for the content that DirectTV has distribution rights to.
Yes, that's right. Mod me down as offtopic, but leave the parent, that is itself just as offtopic at 4-insightful.
Moderating is not to be done on the basis of promoting your own opinion.
In this case, given that both I and the parent are equally offtopic, moderating ethics demand that you moderate the parent down first, given that at 4-insightful, their display of offtopic'ness has to be viewed by those purposely browsing at 3+ to avoid such discussions.
If you disagree with my opinion, then reply to me and tell my why you disagree with it.
If you first moderate the parent down, then moderate me down also.
Now mind you, I have no great desire to have more channels whether or not I could get them for free. It is insulting, sitting in front of that box, being fed a steady stream of well, whatever someone else decides they want me to see.
That said, on a common sense level it seems absolutely absurd that if a signal is being broadcast to my house, that I should not be able to do whatever I choose with it. I do not believe that anyone, upon considering the nature of this, can have a reasonable expectation that their signal will not be used without their explicit acknowledgement.
If I throw naked pictures of myself (humour me) onto all the lawns in my neighborhood, then it would be absurd to think that I could have a reasonable expectation that people would not look at them, or not do whatever they wished with them.
Yes, I quite fully realize that the grouns for laws allowing this are largely economic. Though the resource is abundant, the laws create an artificial scarcity. However, I think that it is a blow at basic human dignity to say that I can not recieve and do whatever I wish with that signal. Yes, I will accept on economic grounds that I should not sell completed equipment whose sole purpose is to "pirate" a signal. However, because I am a human being, and because I truly do have private property, I should be able to, for my own personal (or family) use, create a device to recieve and decode that signal.
Yet of course, I would rather choke myself to death with a handful of tacks than bring that crap into my home.
If they didn't like the content, why would they bother wasting their time opposing legislation that they see as preventing their enjoyment of the content?
Now I personally am offended if not repulsed my the mere suggestion that I should find it enjoyable to give anyone my money in exchange for 85minutes of shiny things, but to each his own.
The people opposing this legislation are, as you should expect, people that LIKE the content that these companies produce. They do NOT want the companies to be unable to produce future content.
If each page adds to the counter, then if you browse comments at a threshold of 3 or 4, every time you click to read lower rated comments associated with a particular parent, you will lose another page.
I would suggest a system where the entire text of the comments (except for those marked as troll, offtopic, or -1), perhaps xml formatted was sent to the clients computer. The client computer would then rebuild the comment tree structure locally, thus allowing the user to still browse in the typical manner, but not having to pay when they wish to read sub-comments.
Additionally, when the user clicks reload, this structure would allow a check to be made wherein the client would only need to be send the changes to the structure, rather than the entire comment tree.
I see this as an option for people that aggresively use the comment system by regularly participating in the dialogue. The default option would still be the current way.
Would the server processing to send only the changes rather than the entire comment tree for additional reloads be prohibative?
This I can agree with. It seems to me that this illustrates a necessary gap between what laws we must have on the books, and what laws the individual (even supporters of said laws) will feel morally obligated to enforce. If you get caught violating them, the most you will probably get is a warning, but they need to be around regardless for cases where the common sense opinion is that the offender is violating the spirit of the law.
From the article, several of the people interviewed suggested that what was at stake in not enforcing the protections on their intellectual property, was their ability to enforce protections on future, derivative intellectual property. Is this a real issue? I am not well versed in the laws that would affect this.
If what they say is true (though I somehow doubt it), then game publishers would stand to lose something that business app publishers do not; things such as a persona, a character, or a gaming fantasy world being protectable in future games.
I would be very interested to see the truth of the claims of these publishers evaluated.
Do you at least support the reality of copyright creating a market (artifical scarcity) for off-the-shelf software.
If so, when do you determine that you are justified in taking software for free? Are you certain that you would be unwilling to pay for the product by legal means if it were not available for free? The problem is that its free availability taints your ability to make an unbiased decision.
Certainly then, unless you would have us abandon software copyright entirely, you must realize that we can not have both viable copyright protections and individuals being the arbitors of their viability.
At least in the article, the maintainer of one of the larger Abandonware sites noted that she regularly removes titles upon request from copyright holders.
It wasn't clear whether she would do this for products that were not available any other way, however.
>I abandonware because I can't find these games any other way, because the publishers won't do it
Are you certain that you are sincere in this statement? How hard to you truly look before downloading a desired "abandonware" title for free?
I challenge you to post a list of "abandonware" titles that you currently possess illegally. If someone can point you to a place to purchase a title legally, will you truly be willing to either erase the product from your harddrive and/or purchase a copy?
It's very easy to lay claim to such seemingly admirable intentions, but I ask you to consider what you have said.
Clearly the viability of copyright protection must in some way be related to the commercial value of a product.
If the problem is that, as publishers claim, that they will lose the ability to enforce claims against future derivative intellectual property, then the law needs to be changed to prevent this.
The integrity of the publishers should be judged by their willingness to support such legislation.
I am suspicious of the motives of the Abandonware community.
I believe, in keeping with the spirit of copyright, if a publisher no longer makes a copyrighted work available, then so long as this is the case, there should be no legal recourse against those taking the software for free.
However, I must question the motives of Abandonware supporters. If indeed these companies were to make software from 10 years ago available today (via a website or mailorder) and a small price according to the cost of doing so, would Abandonware supporters be willing to pay?
The real question is, are they truly supportive of it as a matter of principle, or do they simply enjoy getting something for free; being unwilling to pay for it if it was available through legal means?
If I do not daily have privelage of learning how I too can enlarge my member by up to 6 inches,...then, my fellow Americans, the terrorists have already won.
The key point to remember in this, is that a law need to be logically consistent with the pie-in-the-sky ideal of free markets.
The only justification that need exist for a law, moral, financial, or otherwise, is that a majority of the popolous, as testified to through our reprsentative form of government, wish something to be.
We do not want advertising mail. We do not need to consider the consequences of not recieving beyond the obvious: we do not want it, and will, as a result of legislation that we may see enacted, not have it.
I have never ordered a product that was advertised to me through the mail.
I have never purchased a product as a result of recieving mail telling me about it.
I have never purchased a product or service as a result of telemarketing.
Unless the outside of the envelope says, "Jay, physically enclosed within this envelope is $10 U.S. legal tender," it goes directly to the trash.
As much as some of you cutthroat coporatists want free reign take money from the vulnerable any way that you can, so also in reality is it the case, as demonstrated by this legislation, that the many are not subject to the will of the few (with large bank accounts).
This seems rather unreasonable. Though the existence of the internet as a publishing medium raises some interesting issues, I think that we should be wary of what precedent we set.
A verdict from this line of reasoning presupposes that the internet is to be used in a certain way, and that by using the internet, I must consent to using it in this manner.
Will this open the door for more restrictive legislation (whether from the Congress of from the bench) having to do with linking in general?
"Framing" may indeed be an unfortunate result of the technology by which the masses interact with the internet, but as a hypothetical site operator, the act can only be seen to be unfair on my part if we ignore the technical realities masked by the veil of the browser.
This verdict is borne of ignorance and a refusal to acknowledge personal accountability; a testament to the same that is rampant amongst the populous.
Given the target audience of your post, I find it curious that you choose to compare the price of these macs to Dell PCs as I would think that you would realize what an unfair comparison it is. Had you considered the possibility, or perhaps probability that the average Slashdot user builds his/her computer rather than buying a prepacked one?
I think it fair to assume that a considerable number of slashdot users are enrolled at either a college or university. For such people, this is indeed, "Stuff that matters."
The question, "Will I be able to find a job in my field, or will I be working manual labor for the next five years in order to pay back my loans?" is quite daunting.
However, that is not to say that we are ungrateful. I for one am eager to amass much advice and as many opinions as I can. Hopefully, doing this in addition to dilligently working on personal programming projects in my free-time will help to save me from some of the bad job-searching experiences I have heard about.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you wish us to legislate rights based upon the current opinion of who (though equal in all other respects) should have them and who should not have them?
Or is it instead the case that we should see, as you do, that not decoding a signal being sent into your house is simply the morally logical (yes, that is what you imply) thing to do?
Your statement implies that you would be fine in not paying for content from the RIAA who has distribution rights to it, but that you do (by appeal to emotion) support paying for the content that DirectTV has distribution rights to.
Moderating is not to be done on the basis of promoting your own opinion.
In this case, given that both I and the parent are equally offtopic, moderating ethics demand that you moderate the parent down first, given that at 4-insightful, their display of offtopic'ness has to be viewed by those purposely browsing at 3+ to avoid such discussions.
If you disagree with my opinion, then reply to me and tell my why you disagree with it.
If you first moderate the parent down, then moderate me down also.
Is it truly that difficult to implement an editable comment system?
That said, on a common sense level it seems absolutely absurd that if a signal is being broadcast to my house, that I should not be able to do whatever I choose with it. I do not believe that anyone, upon considering the nature of this, can have a reasonable expectation that their signal will not be used without their explicit acknowledgement.
If I throw naked pictures of myself (humour me) onto all the lawns in my neighborhood, then it would be absurd to think that I could have a reasonable expectation that people would not look at them, or not do whatever they wished with them.
Yes, I quite fully realize that the grouns for laws allowing this are largely economic. Though the resource is abundant, the laws create an artificial scarcity. However, I think that it is a blow at basic human dignity to say that I can not recieve and do whatever I wish with that signal. Yes, I will accept on economic grounds that I should not sell completed equipment whose sole purpose is to "pirate" a signal. However, because I am a human being, and because I truly do have private property, I should be able to, for my own personal (or family) use, create a device to recieve and decode that signal.
Yet of course, I would rather choke myself to death with a handful of tacks than bring that crap into my home.
Now I personally am offended if not repulsed my the mere suggestion that I should find it enjoyable to give anyone my money in exchange for 85minutes of shiny things, but to each his own.
The people opposing this legislation are, as you should expect, people that LIKE the content that these companies produce. They do NOT want the companies to be unable to produce future content.
I would suggest a system where the entire text of the comments (except for those marked as troll, offtopic, or -1), perhaps xml formatted was sent to the clients computer. The client computer would then rebuild the comment tree structure locally, thus allowing the user to still browse in the typical manner, but not having to pay when they wish to read sub-comments.
Additionally, when the user clicks reload, this structure would allow a check to be made wherein the client would only need to be send the changes to the structure, rather than the entire comment tree.
I see this as an option for people that aggresively use the comment system by regularly participating in the dialogue. The default option would still be the current way.
Would the server processing to send only the changes rather than the entire comment tree for additional reloads be prohibative?
That is all.
This I can agree with. It seems to me that this illustrates a necessary gap between what laws we must have on the books, and what laws the individual (even supporters of said laws) will feel morally obligated to enforce. If you get caught violating them, the most you will probably get is a warning, but they need to be around regardless for cases where the common sense opinion is that the offender is violating the spirit of the law.
If what they say is true (though I somehow doubt it), then game publishers would stand to lose something that business app publishers do not; things such as a persona, a character, or a gaming fantasy world being protectable in future games.
I would be very interested to see the truth of the claims of these publishers evaluated.
If so, when do you determine that you are justified in taking software for free? Are you certain that you would be unwilling to pay for the product by legal means if it were not available for free? The problem is that its free availability taints your ability to make an unbiased decision.
Certainly then, unless you would have us abandon software copyright entirely, you must realize that we can not have both viable copyright protections and individuals being the arbitors of their viability.
It wasn't clear whether she would do this for products that were not available any other way, however.
Are you certain that you are sincere in this statement? How hard to you truly look before downloading a desired "abandonware" title for free?
I challenge you to post a list of "abandonware" titles that you currently possess illegally. If someone can point you to a place to purchase a title legally, will you truly be willing to either erase the product from your harddrive and/or purchase a copy?
It's very easy to lay claim to such seemingly admirable intentions, but I ask you to consider what you have said.
If the problem is that, as publishers claim, that they will lose the ability to enforce claims against future derivative intellectual property, then the law needs to be changed to prevent this.
The integrity of the publishers should be judged by their willingness to support such legislation.
I believe, in keeping with the spirit of copyright, if a publisher no longer makes a copyrighted work available, then so long as this is the case, there should be no legal recourse against those taking the software for free.
However, I must question the motives of Abandonware supporters. If indeed these companies were to make software from 10 years ago available today (via a website or mailorder) and a small price according to the cost of doing so, would Abandonware supporters be willing to pay?
The real question is, are they truly supportive of it as a matter of principle, or do they simply enjoy getting something for free; being unwilling to pay for it if it was available through legal means?
Unfortunately, a handful of 15-25 year-old "video gamers" does not represent approval ratings, nor will your congressman believe them to.
Won't *somebody* think of the children?
The only justification that need exist for a law, moral, financial, or otherwise, is that a majority of the popolous, as testified to through our reprsentative form of government, wish something to be.
We do not want advertising mail. We do not need to consider the consequences of not recieving beyond the obvious: we do not want it, and will, as a result of legislation that we may see enacted, not have it.
I have never purchased a product as a result of recieving mail telling me about it.
I have never purchased a product or service as a result of telemarketing.
Unless the outside of the envelope says, "Jay, physically enclosed within this envelope is $10 U.S. legal tender," it goes directly to the trash.
As much as some of you cutthroat coporatists want free reign take money from the vulnerable any way that you can, so also in reality is it the case, as demonstrated by this legislation, that the many are not subject to the will of the few (with large bank accounts).
The system does occasionally work.
A verdict from this line of reasoning presupposes that the internet is to be used in a certain way, and that by using the internet, I must consent to using it in this manner.
Will this open the door for more restrictive legislation (whether from the Congress of from the bench) having to do with linking in general?
"Framing" may indeed be an unfortunate result of the technology by which the masses interact with the internet, but as a hypothetical site operator, the act can only be seen to be unfair on my part if we ignore the technical realities masked by the veil of the browser.
This verdict is borne of ignorance and a refusal to acknowledge personal accountability; a testament to the same that is rampant amongst the populous.
Whether or not this is relevant to the validity of his paper I do not feel can be determined.
Unemployment checks?
Given the target audience of your post, I find it curious that you choose to compare the price of these macs to Dell PCs as I would think that you would realize what an unfair comparison it is. Had you considered the possibility, or perhaps probability that the average Slashdot user builds his/her computer rather than buying a prepacked one?
The question, "Will I be able to find a job in my field, or will I be working manual labor for the next five years in order to pay back my loans?" is quite daunting.
However, that is not to say that we are ungrateful. I for one am eager to amass much advice and as many opinions as I can. Hopefully, doing this in addition to dilligently working on personal programming projects in my free-time will help to save me from some of the bad job-searching experiences I have heard about.
Jay.