I'm not saying piracy is ok, I'm not saying it's not ok either, what I am saying is that the way that copyright law is currently implemented goes very much against the idea of why it was created.
I will say it again, COPYRIGHT AND PATENTS WERE DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO CREATE THINGS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, THEY WERE GRANTED A SHORT TERM EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY IN EXCHANGE COPYRIGHT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO CONTROL CONTENT IN THE LONG TERM.
If ideas never make into the public domain(which seems likely) or if the monopoly is used to prevent access to the knowledge then it is providing no value to the public and need not be protected. The whole idea of copyright was to encourage people to create and invent so that it would benefit not only me, but you and everyone else.
Well first of all, not selling something to someone who wants to buy it is just plain moronic.
Secondly it's debatable as to whether we have an inherent to this content. Copyright law exists(or at least existed) to provide a financial insentive to content creators so that more content would be created to benefit the population as a whole, if you can't get hold of the content then what's the point of subsidizing its creation(which is essentially what copyright does).
Why bother promoting the creation of content if the creators won't distribute it. There should be a stipulation in copyright law that if I want to buy it you have to sell it to me(preferably at a preset price), because otherwise there isn't any purpose to having copyright law in the first place.
In the US if you throw something away you no longer own it. You can get it back out(which reinstates your property rights), and I can't throw something away for you and then retrieve it out of the garbage(this usually applies to people like cleaners and whatnot), but if you toss it and I take it it isn't theft. If you change your m ind after I've already taken it then it's your tough luck.
There are of course some restricitions, if I have to enter your property to obtain said item you can get me for trespassing, and if it is illegal to possess such an item for other reasons it's still illegal, but it is not theft.
This of course doesn't apply to things you just left outside your house, but trash has no owner, if I can prove it was trashed by you then I can take it, especially if it's made it out to the street.
This, like nearly every single copyright issue on the face of the planet these days boils down to one thing, what are you buying.
Consumers tend to believe that when you buy a game, a book, a car, for that matter any item where you plonk down money and take something away in your hands, that you have bought a product and are allowed to do anything you want with said product within some limitations. Copyright and patent law both restrict these rights somewhat, but they don't in and of themselves change the fact that you should be able to modify your own legally purchased chunk item in anyway you want.
Producers(at least in the digital media world) tend to believe that when you pay your $XX the only physical product you get is the cd itself and you only get a license for the software on it. If this is true, they have the right to tell you not to do anything to what they have. The DMCA gives some credence to the latter view, but as the DMCA is either reviled or ignored by pretty well the entire population over which it holds sway this is probably not an ideal solution.
Generally the people have to decide through their representatives which view they like(evidence seems to suggest that it is the former) and then deal with whatever consequences may arise therefrom. If it really does drive the producers out of business then people will either have to voluntarily revise their opinions or else live without these goods, but it seems unlikely that this will happen. You cannot create law to convince people of something they do not believe to be true, no matter how much you may want to.
The argument actually has nothing to do with re-victimization(well not much at least). The argument is that so long as there is a demand for these pictures there will be a supply(there are people out there who make child pornography who are not actually interested in the children themselves).
In order to make these photos someone has to be, possibly irreparably, harmed. That's why child pornography is illegal whereas simulated child pornography(animation, fiction, etc) is not.
On the one hand this sounds really neat and when it's far enough along that I can play with it I probably will.
On the other hand, every so often, even the linux kernel devs get sort of rabid and out of control. I don't like proprietary software any more than the next guy, but if it's the best tool for the job then that's life, and it should run. I shudder to imagine what HURD will be like in this regard, we'll none of us be allowed to run anything at all if RMS has his way.
Just as a minor point, but "skin" has been selling star trek, often more than stories, since TOC, every single series has at least one attractive female character in a skimpy uniform, and sex has been important since Kirk screwed half the galaxy.
It's not really an issue of willing, but an issue of unable to do otherwise. I really personally don't mind competing with other educated candidates so long as I'm competing on a fair playing field. H1-b don't offer this because bosses know that the person wanted to live in the US and that if they lose their jobs they won't get to stay.
Continued residency becomes part of the salary package meaning that they have to work for much less, and even if I'm willing to work for that the employer will assume(probably correctly) that 3 years down the line I won't be anymore, whereas someone on an H1-b visa has to.
The way I figure it is that we open up the damn doors, it's not like we've got to worry about providing government health benefits or anything like that because the US doesn't do that, let em all come, they'll have to fight for work on the same level as the rest of us.
For that matter if we could smack the world bank and the IMF for being asshats, prevent US companies from buying up everything in the 3rd world some of them might want to stay at home and build a better economy there.
Well if they just made you pay for the cd there would be no deterrance at all. You could pirate something instead of buying it, and if they caught you you pay what you'd have had to pay anyway and go on your merry way.
I'm far more annoyed with rich folks who avoid paying taxes(other than through charitable donation and other beneficial systems) than I am about some computer consultant schmuck who if he's really lucky these days might be making $60,000 a year, again that's if he's really lucky. Whatever he saves spread over everyone else is bugger all.
I think you need to reread your history, nobility, and even when it comes right down to it the king, had very little to do with the objections to Brittish rule. Well at least beyond the fact that the American ruling class wanted to be nobility and couldn't be, but since they didn't enoble themselves(just give themselves massive amounts of power) that's not so important.
The problem with the US an Britain was a combination of colonial paternalism by parliament and obnoxious whining by colonists.
Regardless it wasn't ever about not being a "subject" because the Brits had taken care of getting rid of the idea of being completely subject to the whim of the crown well prior.
One could also make the argument that the fundamental laws of the US strictly prohibit Bush from being able to do what he has been doing to people and that all the legal wrangling and fuzzy terminology in the world doesn't give us the right to deny even non citizens fundamental human rights.
Actually the government does tax illegal activities. You're supposed to pay income tax on any money you get regardless of the source and, in theory, the tax department(at least here) isn't supposed to care, so long as you pay your taxes.Al Capone went down for tax evasion not for illegal activities.
As an amusing side note, and an example of sticking it to the man, we had a local drug dealer here who got caught by the police, and sent to jail. The tax department wanted to tax him on his ill gotten income, and this guy, enterprising fellow that he was decided that if they were going to tax him he could claim a deduction for a deal which went sour and lost him $2,000,000. The tax department took him to court and lost.
Perhaps, but if you're a qualified admin with test machines and all that sort of thing you've probably got some basic security which will keep things reasonably safe in the first place, patches or no patches.
Of course given that you haven't even tried SP2 yet then you're obviously not a qualified admin(leastways not for windows) because you have no idea of whether it causes problems for your system or not.
Try gentoo and dispatch-conf. It actually uses subversion to version configuration files(well assuming you set it up properly, but that's life). Emerge is also a pretty damned good package manager(not perfect, but it's getting better).
The problem, is that our society is really only vaguely fair when there are new fronteirs. About the only way for people, western or otherwise, to change their status in this world is to go where people(or at least people who matter in the cases of early colonization) aren't, or do things people haven't yet done.
There's virtually none of the former and the latter os only applicable if your country can keep other people who have done those things from taking over.
As such, if we could actually colonize space we'd not only reduce the strain on our planet, but we'd provide more opportunity than even the best social welfare programs can.
There are tonnes of RIAA approved sites where you can view music videos. After all a music video is an advertizement for an album and a band. These sites use streaming rather than downloadable media. Neither the article nor the parent ever specified that the people wanted to keep the music video.
I dunno about you, but I've used bittorrent for perfectly legal uses. I've used it to download perfectly legal game demos(this is the demo released by the company). I've used it to download GPL'd software(Gentoo, Redhat, FreeBSD). I've even gotten some of those links of suprnova. I've used it(off of Blizzards website mind you) to video demos of world of warcraft.
Bittorrent is probably the best technology currently available for distributing media since the only time you really have issues with download speed is when there are far more leechers than there are seeders. Any company which wants to distribute a file could set up a tracker link and seriously decrease their bandwidth usage.
Copyright was not always a bad law, when terms of copyright were reasonable and it served to protect small creators instead of the blood sucking parasites who feed of both them and us, it was a good law. Copyright law was designed to provide a short term benefit to content producers to encourage them to produce without detracting too much from the public good.
Problem is none of those things are true. We know that most media is overpriced and most actual content creators(artists, programmers, etc) are underpaid(at least comparatively, famous actors/actresses are an exception of course since they don't usually do multi-picture deals and their name has brand power).
This means that someone is getting the money and it is neither the content creator nor the public, who are the people these laws were initially designed to support.
It's probably not an "acceptance quota", but there is almost certainly a "processing quota", almost everyone in the world is required to quantify their productivity for management.
Of course since I'm assuming that the default state of a patent is acceptable and rejection requires research and evidence such a quota probably works out to be a de facto "acceptance quota" if not de jour.
Slashdot Mirror
They've fixed most of the google problems, but it did used to suck as badly as the user described.
I will say it again, COPYRIGHT AND PATENTS WERE DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO CREATE THINGS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, THEY WERE GRANTED A SHORT TERM EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY IN EXCHANGE COPYRIGHT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO CONTROL CONTENT IN THE LONG TERM.
If ideas never make into the public domain(which seems likely) or if the monopoly is used to prevent access to the knowledge then it is providing no value to the public and need not be protected. The whole idea of copyright was to encourage people to create and invent so that it would benefit not only me, but you and everyone else.
Secondly it's debatable as to whether we have an inherent to this content. Copyright law exists(or at least existed) to provide a financial insentive to content creators so that more content would be created to benefit the population as a whole, if you can't get hold of the content then what's the point of subsidizing its creation(which is essentially what copyright does).
Why bother promoting the creation of content if the creators won't distribute it. There should be a stipulation in copyright law that if I want to buy it you have to sell it to me(preferably at a preset price), because otherwise there isn't any purpose to having copyright law in the first place.
There are of course some restricitions, if I have to enter your property to obtain said item you can get me for trespassing, and if it is illegal to possess such an item for other reasons it's still illegal, but it is not theft.
This of course doesn't apply to things you just left outside your house, but trash has no owner, if I can prove it was trashed by you then I can take it, especially if it's made it out to the street.
Consumers tend to believe that when you buy a game, a book, a car, for that matter any item where you plonk down money and take something away in your hands, that you have bought a product and are allowed to do anything you want with said product within some limitations. Copyright and patent law both restrict these rights somewhat, but they don't in and of themselves change the fact that you should be able to modify your own legally purchased chunk item in anyway you want.
Producers(at least in the digital media world) tend to believe that when you pay your $XX the only physical product you get is the cd itself and you only get a license for the software on it. If this is true, they have the right to tell you not to do anything to what they have. The DMCA gives some credence to the latter view, but as the DMCA is either reviled or ignored by pretty well the entire population over which it holds sway this is probably not an ideal solution.
Generally the people have to decide through their representatives which view they like(evidence seems to suggest that it is the former) and then deal with whatever consequences may arise therefrom. If it really does drive the producers out of business then people will either have to voluntarily revise their opinions or else live without these goods, but it seems unlikely that this will happen. You cannot create law to convince people of something they do not believe to be true, no matter how much you may want to.
In order to make these photos someone has to be, possibly irreparably, harmed. That's why child pornography is illegal whereas simulated child pornography(animation, fiction, etc) is not.
On the other hand, every so often, even the linux kernel devs get sort of rabid and out of control. I don't like proprietary software any more than the next guy, but if it's the best tool for the job then that's life, and it should run. I shudder to imagine what HURD will be like in this regard, we'll none of us be allowed to run anything at all if RMS has his way.
Jellied or fermented is however an entirely different story.
Just as a minor point, but "skin" has been selling star trek, often more than stories, since TOC, every single series has at least one attractive female character in a skimpy uniform, and sex has been important since Kirk screwed half the galaxy.
Continued residency becomes part of the salary package meaning that they have to work for much less, and even if I'm willing to work for that the employer will assume(probably correctly) that 3 years down the line I won't be anymore, whereas someone on an H1-b visa has to.
The way I figure it is that we open up the damn doors, it's not like we've got to worry about providing government health benefits or anything like that because the US doesn't do that, let em all come, they'll have to fight for work on the same level as the rest of us.
For that matter if we could smack the world bank and the IMF for being asshats, prevent US companies from buying up everything in the 3rd world some of them might want to stay at home and build a better economy there.
Well if they just made you pay for the cd there would be no deterrance at all. You could pirate something instead of buying it, and if they caught you you pay what you'd have had to pay anyway and go on your merry way.
If I someone a sheep fucker and it causes them financial damage, that's slander, but not if I have pictures.
Well I can use any channel I damned well please, but then I don't live in any of the places you've listed.
I'm far more annoyed with rich folks who avoid paying taxes(other than through charitable donation and other beneficial systems) than I am about some computer consultant schmuck who if he's really lucky these days might be making $60,000 a year, again that's if he's really lucky. Whatever he saves spread over everyone else is bugger all.
Entirely true, but unrelated to the king(well beyond the fact that the king didn't provide them with relief).
The problem with the US an Britain was a combination of colonial paternalism by parliament and obnoxious whining by colonists.
Regardless it wasn't ever about not being a "subject" because the Brits had taken care of getting rid of the idea of being completely subject to the whim of the crown well prior.
One could also make the argument that the fundamental laws of the US strictly prohibit Bush from being able to do what he has been doing to people and that all the legal wrangling and fuzzy terminology in the world doesn't give us the right to deny even non citizens fundamental human rights.
As an amusing side note, and an example of sticking it to the man, we had a local drug dealer here who got caught by the police, and sent to jail. The tax department wanted to tax him on his ill gotten income, and this guy, enterprising fellow that he was decided that if they were going to tax him he could claim a deduction for a deal which went sour and lost him $2,000,000. The tax department took him to court and lost.
Of course given that you haven't even tried SP2 yet then you're obviously not a qualified admin(leastways not for windows) because you have no idea of whether it causes problems for your system or not.
Try gentoo and dispatch-conf. It actually uses subversion to version configuration files(well assuming you set it up properly, but that's life). Emerge is also a pretty damned good package manager(not perfect, but it's getting better).
There's virtually none of the former and the latter os only applicable if your country can keep other people who have done those things from taking over.
As such, if we could actually colonize space we'd not only reduce the strain on our planet, but we'd provide more opportunity than even the best social welfare programs can.
There are tonnes of RIAA approved sites where you can view music videos. After all a music video is an advertizement for an album and a band. These sites use streaming rather than downloadable media. Neither the article nor the parent ever specified that the people wanted to keep the music video.
Bittorrent is probably the best technology currently available for distributing media since the only time you really have issues with download speed is when there are far more leechers than there are seeders. Any company which wants to distribute a file could set up a tracker link and seriously decrease their bandwidth usage.
Problem is none of those things are true. We know that most media is overpriced and most actual content creators(artists, programmers, etc) are underpaid(at least comparatively, famous actors/actresses are an exception of course since they don't usually do multi-picture deals and their name has brand power).
This means that someone is getting the money and it is neither the content creator nor the public, who are the people these laws were initially designed to support.
Oh wait......
Of course since I'm assuming that the default state of a patent is acceptable and rejection requires research and evidence such a quota probably works out to be a de facto "acceptance quota" if not de jour.