"System scans license plate->finds plate for someone who's criticized the cops->cops pull him over and plants a dime bag on him."
So by your reasoning, technology that has a potential for abuse should not be legal. Therefore, DeCSS and any DVD copying SW should be illegal, cd burners should be illegal, etc. If you think technology is being misused, prosecute those misusing it, but don't condemn technology because it could be used for bad purposes.
"2) A lot of them are also "libertarians" who don't like needless laws or nuisance litigation."
This is false. Libertarians do not like big govt. getting involved in regulating business. They do believe in the protection of individual rights, however, including copyright. Therefore, laws against copyright infringement are supported, and prosecuting offenders does not amount to nuisance nuisance lawsuits. They do not believe in antitrust laws, also, Therefore the there are not many/.ers that could call themselves libertarians.
"Some lady in New Jersey is suing the RIAA on racketeering laws, saying that the RIAA is extorting money from filesharers by filing these mass suits and then settling because there is no way these people can legally fight the RIAA."
This is crap. It's not the RIAA's fault lawyers are so expensive. If you're innocent, no one's denying you your day in court. So if people aren't defending themselves because lawyers cost too much, that's not the RIAA's problem. If this woman can hire a lawyer to sue the RIAA, she can hire a lawyer to defend herself if she's innocent. In summary, another frivolous lawsuit. Saying there is no way to legally fight the RIAA is nonsense propogated by people who can't win their cases because they are guilty.
"In most African countries for example, governments first priority is to feed, clothe and house people and public libraries (If there are any) come very low down on the list of priorities."
The problem is that most African govts. are more interested in maintaining power, rather than granting individual rights. In the 1st world, there is no need for the govt. to feed, clothe, and house most people. If you give people freedom, they will be able to do this themselves. The govt is not your parents. There only real job is to protect your rights.
"Apple DOES own FairPlay, though, so it's their DRM system that's been cracked. Surely they have a right to defend their patents and/or trade secrets."
The DVD consortium DOES own CSS, though, so it's their DRM system that's been cracked. Surely they have a right to defend their patents and/or trade secrets.
I hope you agree with the above if you're defending Apple's actions.
Home recording laws are an exception to copyright that allow people to record stuff from the radio or TV for their own use without paying any royalties. Congress decided this was fair because taping from the radio was poor quality anyway, and a hassle, so it didn't affect the value of a song in terms of sales.
Now, as people on/. attest, people want individual songs of the internet, not albums. Also, digital technology makes it easy to sort out the songs you like from a stream relatively easily. Therefore, even though people say it's unfair, home recording laws will not allow recording of digital radio, because it will eat into profits from legitimate sales online, and therefore, is at odds with copyright law. Remember that copyright is a constitutional right in the United States before you start screaming about how ther RIAA is going to bribe congress to take away your rights. Your standing on thin ice if you think you have the right to record internet streaming audio just because you could do it before with analog radio.
"What the RIAA/MPAA doesn't seem to realize is that their biggest long-term problem is not that people will 'steal' their product, it's that people will become so uninterested in their product that they won't be able to give it away even if they tried."
Yes, despite the fact that music and theater have been around as long as recorded history, people are going to suddenly lose interest in both, despite the fact that it's more convenient than ever to get both legally.
"Who cares where it comes from? The fact is that I, today, believe that people should be free to rule themselves to the greatest extent possible. The Nazi's or Taleban (*) did not believe this. What makes me "right" and them "wrong"? NOTHING."
No. There is a reason your beliefs are right and theirs are wrong. Your beliefs are rooted in the rational idea that there is an objective morality that gives individuals inalienable rights. You are correct that it doesn't matter whether the idea comes out of ancient Greece or a dissident in N. Korea, it's the right answer.
The problem with your statement is that you assume moral rights cannot be objective, but are inherently based on beliefs. Morality can and should be objective, and should be based on facts and logic, in short, reason.
"Since there is no absolute source of right and wrong in the universe, our own beliefs are the best we've got. And there are certain things that we believe so strongly, that we are willing to impose them on others. What gives us the right to do this? That we are stronger. Nothing else."
There are fundamental human rights that can be determined through REASON, the same way science is able to determine objective principles. These are objective principles, relying on facts, not beliefs. The include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fact is, you do not have a right that infringes on the rights of another. I'm not going to claim another culture is right if they claim the Earth is flat, so why should I respect another cultures right to infringe on the basic rights of its citizens?
"Are they defending human rights, or simply trying to impose their own beliefs on people from other cultures?"
I think it is a mistake to assume that you cannot defend basic human rights simply because the leaders of other cultures refuse to grant these rights to their citizens. The concept that morality is relative, and that there is no objective standard for morality, is flawed. It assumes the majority of people in a particular area, based on history, have the right to impose their collective will on the individual. Instead, the world need to recognise the objective morality of preserving basic human rights, even if the majority in that region (although usually it's a ruling minority) object. Freedom of speech is a basic human right, and no govt. has the right to to take it away, especially if it is critical of the govt. in question.
In the computer industry, compatibility is the number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 important features. If MS has taught us anything, It's this. Competitors to Apple are not going to disappear. If Apple doesn't make fairplay AAC the standard for digital music, both iTMS and iPOD are doomed ultimately. By choosing not to allow other players to license fairplay Apple is insuring their own failure.
"the iTunes Music Store works with the No. 1 digital-music player in the world. The No. 2s are so far behind already. Why would we want to work with No. 2?'"
The Lack of options to play WMA on iPODs, and allow other companies to sell Fairplay AAC files (to make sure only iTMS can sell files directly compatible with iPod without jumping through hoops) will eventually kill Apple's market in both areas. They haven't learned from past mistakes, which have doomed them to a less than 5% marketshare in the personal computer market. These new tactics to dominate the digital music market are the same tactics that caused them to lose the pc market. When will Apple learn? People will reject their products as cheaper alternatives in noth markets become more widespread and ultimately ubiquitous.
Yes. Steve Forbes once said in a talk that one fat, lazy American with a bulldozer can perform more productive labor than a whole crew of hard working Africans equipped only with shovels. Technology is athe key to making labor more productive, which in turn brings up the standard of living for a country.
"According to several US Supreme Court decisions (see U.S. v Guest, Shapiro v Thomson, et. al.), the right to travel freely is enjoyed by all citizens."
Your logic is flawed. The right to travel does not imply the right to drive. There are other means of travel including mass transit, biking, and walking. Driving on public roads is a privilege provided by the govt. under certain conditions, an obvios one being you must be at least 16.
"It just allows the rich companies to continue to abuse the system and break rules that other smaller companies have to follow. Once you're in power, it's much easier to stay in power."
Actually, Microsoft is only "breaking rules" that no other company software company on the planet has to follow. The rules were made specifically for MS. For example, every other OS on the planet can ship with a web browser and media player without any govt. scrutiny.
The Howard Stern muzzle award should go to the FCC, not Clear Channel. How can you be guilty of violating your own free speech, which is what you're suggesting with Clear Channel? They have the right to pick and choose who they want to represent them. They've decided the fines and bad publicity as a result of FCC actions are not worth it. Stern is criticizing Bush, and doesn't blame Clear Channel, since it's the FCC that's causing the problem.
Considering that iTunes has a huge market share in legal music downloading, I think that it's safe to say that the reason that cd sales are declining is because you no longer have to buy an entire CD when all that you want it 1 song. I (for one) will never buy an entire CD again unless I'm really into the artist and I actually want the entire CD. From now on I'll be buying my music on iTunes only.
The revenue generated by Itms, even if multiplied by 20, to match 1 song sale to 1 cd sale, doesn't make a dent in the 7.6% revenue decline.
"no it's not, the best system that we've been able to come up with is a mixed economy in which there exists elements from capitalism (private ownership of means of production) and elements of socialism (social security, free education/health care)"
Of course, social security is a pyramid scheme that relys on population growth to sustain itself. Also, it's no cooincidence that teachers are one of the worst paid professionals in the US, and it is one of the feww socialist services in the US. Note that doctors are striking in France on threats of cutting heathcare, which means cutting doctors salaries. Free market economies work much better at soving problems than governments, because there is strong feedback that either makes a company successful or bankrupts it based on performance. Governments services are at best adequate because the only feedback is that if things get really bad, you might lose an election. It's no cooincidence that the US develops most live saving medication, and the US doesn't regulate drug prices. People aren't smarter in the US, but our system gives people a profit motive to pursue noble goals, whereas Europe scorns profit in favor of need, and therefore no one is interested in investing in health care. To put it simply, Europe has reduced the reward for developing new prescription drugs, but hasn't reduced the risk, so of course there's more research in the US in prescription drugs. Capitalism is an assertion of individual freedom, while socialism is a sacrificing of individual freedom to satisfy the needs of the collective.
Capitalism relies more on cooperation than competition. That is why a contract is a respected agreement in a capitalist societies. Most complex products require not only the cooperation of the individuals in a company, but also the cooperation of several companies. The competition aspect is necessary also, to increase quality and efficiency, allowing the consumer choices in price and quality for a particular product.
" Just because a single wage could support five Indians doesn't mean it's going to. If the needs of the project are ONE peson, they will hire ONE Indian at 1/5 the cost, and someone with an ownership deed will pocket the other 4/5 as profit. So the tally sheet is: one person loses a job, one person gains a job, and ownership keeps more of the fruits of labor for themselves. That seems a more reasonable assumption than thinking more people will get jobs out of this."
Wrong, the company will hire the one Indian worker, cut cost, and reduce the price of the product to the point where it is competitve with other international companies, thereby avoiding bankruptcy.
Slashdot Mirror
" How do I get the gold key?"
I'd like to see him try and convince Mayor Bloomberg to give him the key to the city if he clears enough boards.
"System scans license plate->finds plate for someone who's criticized the cops->cops pull him over and plants a dime bag on him."
So by your reasoning, technology that has a potential for abuse should not be legal. Therefore, DeCSS and any DVD copying SW should be illegal, cd burners should be illegal, etc. If you think technology is being misused, prosecute those misusing it, but don't condemn technology because it could be used for bad purposes.
"2) A lot of them are also "libertarians" who don't like needless laws or nuisance litigation."
/.ers that could call themselves libertarians.
This is false. Libertarians do not like big govt. getting involved in regulating business. They do believe in the protection of individual rights, however, including copyright. Therefore, laws against copyright infringement are supported, and prosecuting offenders does not amount to nuisance nuisance lawsuits. They do not believe in antitrust laws, also, Therefore the there are not many
"Some lady in New Jersey is suing the RIAA on racketeering laws, saying that the RIAA is extorting money from filesharers by filing these mass suits and then settling because there is no way these people can legally fight the RIAA."
This is crap. It's not the RIAA's fault lawyers are so expensive. If you're innocent, no one's denying you your day in court. So if people aren't defending themselves because lawyers cost too much, that's not the RIAA's problem. If this woman can hire a lawyer to sue the RIAA, she can hire a lawyer to defend herself if she's innocent. In summary, another frivolous lawsuit. Saying there is no way to legally fight the RIAA is nonsense propogated by people who can't win their cases because they are guilty.
"In most African countries for example, governments first priority is to feed, clothe and house people and public libraries (If there are any) come very low down on the list of priorities."
The problem is that most African govts. are more interested in maintaining power, rather than granting individual rights. In the 1st world, there is no need for the govt. to feed, clothe, and house most people. If you give people freedom, they will be able to do this themselves. The govt is not your parents. There only real job is to protect your rights.
"Apple DOES own FairPlay, though, so it's their DRM system that's been cracked. Surely they have a right to defend their patents and/or trade secrets."
The DVD consortium DOES own CSS, though, so it's their DRM system that's been cracked. Surely they have a right to defend their patents and/or trade secrets.
I hope you agree with the above if you're defending Apple's actions.
Home recording laws are an exception to copyright that allow people to record stuff from the radio or TV for their own use without paying any royalties. Congress decided this was fair because taping from the radio was poor quality anyway, and a hassle, so it didn't affect the value of a song in terms of sales.
/. attest, people want individual songs of the internet, not albums. Also, digital technology makes it easy to sort out the songs you like from a stream relatively easily. Therefore, even though people say it's unfair, home recording laws will not allow recording of digital radio, because it will eat into profits from legitimate sales online, and therefore, is at odds with copyright law. Remember that copyright is a constitutional right in the United States before you start screaming about how ther RIAA is going to bribe congress to take away your rights. Your standing on thin ice if you think you have the right to record internet streaming audio just because you could do it before with analog radio.
Now, as people on
"What the RIAA/MPAA doesn't seem to realize is that their biggest long-term problem is not that people will 'steal' their product, it's that people will become so uninterested in their product that they won't be able to give it away even if they tried."
Yes, despite the fact that music and theater have been around as long as recorded history, people are going to suddenly lose interest in both, despite the fact that it's more convenient than ever to get both legally.
"Who cares where it comes from? The fact is that I, today, believe that people should be free to rule themselves to the greatest extent possible. The Nazi's or Taleban (*) did not believe this. What makes me "right" and them "wrong"? NOTHING."
No. There is a reason your beliefs are right and theirs are wrong. Your beliefs are rooted in the rational idea that there is an objective morality that gives individuals inalienable rights. You are correct that it doesn't matter whether the idea comes out of ancient Greece or a dissident in N. Korea, it's the right answer.
The problem with your statement is that you assume moral rights cannot be objective, but are inherently based on beliefs. Morality can and should be objective, and should be based on facts and logic, in short, reason.
"Since there is no absolute source of right and wrong in the universe, our own beliefs are the best we've got. And there are certain things that we believe so strongly, that we are willing to impose them on others. What gives us the right to do this? That we are stronger. Nothing else."
There are fundamental human rights that can be determined through REASON, the same way science is able to determine objective principles. These are objective principles, relying on facts, not beliefs. The include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fact is, you do not have a right that infringes on the rights of another. I'm not going to claim another culture is right if they claim the Earth is flat, so why should I respect another cultures right to infringe on the basic rights of its citizens?
"Are they defending human rights, or simply trying to impose their own beliefs on people from other cultures?"
I think it is a mistake to assume that you cannot defend basic human rights simply because the leaders of other cultures refuse to grant these rights to their citizens. The concept that morality is relative, and that there is no objective standard for morality, is flawed. It assumes the majority of people in a particular area, based on history, have the right to impose their collective will on the individual. Instead, the world need to recognise the objective morality of preserving basic human rights, even if the majority in that region (although usually it's a ruling minority) object. Freedom of speech is a basic human right, and no govt. has the right to to take it away, especially if it is critical of the govt. in question.
In the computer industry, compatibility is the number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 important features. If MS has taught us anything, It's this. Competitors to Apple are not going to disappear. If Apple doesn't make fairplay AAC the standard for digital music, both iTMS and iPOD are doomed ultimately. By choosing not to allow other players to license fairplay Apple is insuring their own failure.
"the iTunes Music Store works with the No. 1 digital-music player in the world. The No. 2s are so far behind already. Why would we want to work with No. 2?'"
The Lack of options to play WMA on iPODs, and allow other companies to sell Fairplay AAC files (to make sure only iTMS can sell files directly compatible with iPod without jumping through hoops) will eventually kill Apple's market in both areas. They haven't learned from past mistakes, which have doomed them to a less than 5% marketshare in the personal computer market. These new tactics to dominate the digital music market are the same tactics that caused them to lose the pc market. When will Apple learn? People will reject their products as cheaper alternatives in noth markets become more widespread and ultimately ubiquitous.
Yes. Steve Forbes once said in a talk that one fat, lazy American with a bulldozer can perform more productive labor than a whole crew of hard working Africans equipped only with shovels. Technology is athe key to making labor more productive, which in turn brings up the standard of living for a country.
"According to several US Supreme Court decisions (see U.S. v Guest, Shapiro v Thomson, et. al.), the right to travel freely is enjoyed by all citizens."
Your logic is flawed. The right to travel does not imply the right to drive. There are other means of travel including mass transit, biking, and walking. Driving on public roads is a privilege provided by the govt. under certain conditions, an obvios one being you must be at least 16.
When 802.16 is deployed, wireless VoIP phones that are also PDAs will take over, allowing both high speed wireless voice and data links.
"its rivals : less than 1/10th the cash and less lawyers and energy plus hit badly in the tech slump."
The govt. has lots of fighter planes, tanks, lawyer, etc. MS is definitely outmatched and must submit to whatever the govt. decides.
"It just allows the rich companies to continue to abuse the system and break rules that other smaller companies have to follow. Once you're in power, it's much easier to stay in power."
Actually, Microsoft is only "breaking rules" that no other company software company on the planet has to follow. The rules were made specifically for MS. For example, every other OS on the planet can ship with a web browser and media player without any govt. scrutiny.
The Howard Stern muzzle award should go to the FCC, not Clear Channel. How can you be guilty of violating your own free speech, which is what you're suggesting with Clear Channel? They have the right to pick and choose who they want to represent them. They've decided the fines and bad publicity as a result of FCC actions are not worth it. Stern is criticizing Bush, and doesn't blame Clear Channel, since it's the FCC that's causing the problem.
The album format is dead. People are too stupid to like anything they haven't been programmed to like through hearing it repeatedly on the radio.
Considering that iTunes has a huge market share in legal music downloading, I think that it's safe to say that the reason that cd sales are declining is because you no longer have to buy an entire CD when all that you want it 1 song. I (for one) will never buy an entire CD again unless I'm really into the artist and I actually want the entire CD. From now on I'll be buying my music on iTunes only.
The revenue generated by Itms, even if multiplied by 20, to match 1 song sale to 1 cd sale, doesn't make a dent in the 7.6% revenue decline.
"no it's not, the best system that we've been able to come up with is a mixed economy in which there exists elements from capitalism (private ownership of means of production) and elements of socialism (social security, free education/health care)"
Of course, social security is a pyramid scheme that relys on population growth to sustain itself. Also, it's no cooincidence that teachers are one of the worst paid professionals in the US, and it is one of the feww socialist services in the US. Note that doctors are striking in France on threats of cutting heathcare, which means cutting doctors salaries. Free market economies work much better at soving problems than governments, because there is strong feedback that either makes a company successful or bankrupts it based on performance. Governments services are at best adequate because the only feedback is that if things get really bad, you might lose an election. It's no cooincidence that the US develops most live saving medication, and the US doesn't regulate drug prices. People aren't smarter in the US, but our system gives people a profit motive to pursue noble goals, whereas Europe scorns profit in favor of need, and therefore no one is interested in investing in health care. To put it simply, Europe has reduced the reward for developing new prescription drugs, but hasn't reduced the risk, so of course there's more research in the US in prescription drugs. Capitalism is an assertion of individual freedom, while socialism is a sacrificing of individual freedom to satisfy the needs of the collective.
Capitalism relies more on cooperation than competition. That is why a contract is a respected agreement in a capitalist societies. Most complex products require not only the cooperation of the individuals in a company, but also the cooperation of several companies. The competition aspect is necessary also, to increase quality and efficiency, allowing the consumer choices in price and quality for a particular product.
" Just because a single wage could support five Indians doesn't mean it's going to. If the needs of the project are ONE peson, they will hire ONE Indian at 1/5 the cost, and someone with an ownership deed will pocket the other 4/5 as profit. So the tally sheet is: one person loses a job, one person gains a job, and ownership keeps more of the fruits of labor for themselves. That seems a more reasonable assumption than thinking more people will get jobs out of this."
Wrong, the company will hire the one Indian worker, cut cost, and reduce the price of the product to the point where it is competitve with other international companies, thereby avoiding bankruptcy.