They can't shut down Kazaa Lite software already deployed. However, they can probably shut down the web sites that distribute kazaa lite, or at least get them blocked if host countries are uncooperative.
" Copyright is Government interference in the free market. Compulsory licensing limits the extent of that interference."
Copyright is a protection of property. Saying it interferes with free market is like saying laws against theft interfere with free market. Free market means a buyer and seller reach a mutual agreement on a price. The seller has no say on the price of his product if buyers choose instead to copy it for free.
"To call compulsory licensing "socialism" betrays a lack of understanding of copyright."
Compulsory licensing give the govt. exclusive power to charge money for music, and then decides how much and to whom this money goes to. Maybe it's not socialism by strict definition, but it certainly stinks of socialism. It's certainly not captialsm.
When Kazaa is properly policed, say in a few months, the few people who are able to crack DRM schemes still won't be able to broadcast the music elsewhere easily.
Socialism is a system whereby the rights of an individual are placed second to the rights of the collective. In this case the collective is the music listening public and the individual is the author. Yes, in anarchy, a person could steal your music, but they could steal your car as well. The US constitution protects you from both types of threats. Any system where the govt, controls pricing will be corrupt since pricing is completely artificial and now it's who you know in the govt that counts, not how good your music is. That's obvious. Your statement that "intellectual property is fascism" isn't meaningless. You just don't understand what you're saying. Fascism is a system whereby the state is more important than the individual, so your statement is irrational, but it does have a meaning.
"> I'm not too bothered if someone is tracking where I go and where my car goes within a city
Sure, because only criminals have something to hide. And you never do anything illegal in your car. You never speed, you never pick up a hooker, you never go and buy drugs, you never pick up anything that you've paid cash for and not asked about the sales tax."
It's amazing how many people claim they need a police system to avoid anarchy, but then protest at the idea of a perfect police system. It's like people think they have a right to a good probability of not getting caught when they break the law. The goal should be 100% law enforcement. What's the point of making laws if you cripple law enforcement. This is just one more article trying to link surveilance with 1984, showing ignorance of the book and what it was trying to say. Show some proff of abuse before going on your witchhunt. In the meatime, Id love a system that could have caught the DC sniper a lot sooner indtead of looking for a white van because of unreiable witness data.
"Empty rhetoric won't console the Afghan and Iraqi orphans we created. Yes, Saddam created more, but that won't console the ones that we created."
Both the Afghan and Iraqui govt. are responsible for the deaths of Afghan and Iraqi citizens by US troops. It's their actions that prompted US retaliation. Are you going to blame the US for deaths of German citizens during WWII. This situation is no different. Blaming Israel for suide attacks against its citizens is sick. I can't believe you think they had it coming to them.
Maybe the goal is less sinster than you'd believe. Maybe they want to prevent 3000 people from dying in a terrorist attack in the future? Your account of 1984 is accurate, but claiming the US has turned into this state is ludicrous. Look at N. Korea. That's the 1984 Orwell was talking about.
The courts sided with grokster and morpheus because they merely wrote p2p software and had no control over what users did with it. By including IP blocking technologies, the courts may interpret that as contributing to copyright infringement since this software actively prevents searching by entities trying to detect copyright infringement. The result is the court may shut down and fine Kazaa Lite, PeerGaurdian, or both.
"I'm quite sure the EFF never claimed a compulsory licensing scheme would be perfect. It's a least bad kind of thing."
Compulsory licensing is socialism. I'll take DRM over it any day of the week. I'd rather not be able to look at certain memory locations in my computer for data that Im not supposed to have free access to anyway (except for fair use purposes, which can be accomodated) than not be able to write a song and sell it at a price of my choosing.
The only mistake the RIAA made was not using strong-encryption on cds in the 1st place. How do you think all those songs got onto napster, etc. in the 1st place. It's because there was no DRM and people have proven they can't be trusted. Sure DRM can be cracked, but if it prevents 90% of piracy, that less lost revenue than before.
To follow up on this post before I get beaten up too badly. I think the real issue is, "What data is the govt. allowed to monitor?", and under what circumstances. Whether or not it's stored in a computer database as opposed to a filing cabinet is somewhat of a non-issue in comparison.
Actually, my poorly worded point is that sometimes people are simply wrong. Even the French did not say there were no WMD in Iraq. There were various opinions about what Iraq probably had. Most evidence was to the effect of, "they had such and such chemicals, but can't account for what happended to them." Saying now that there are no WMD in Iraq does not automatically mean that the US and Britian lied about it. To impeach a president, you need to present proof that he lied about the evidence. I'm all for the Democrats investigating the issue. I just get annoyed with people condemning the president without any proof.
Interesting how people defend p2p networks despite the fact that they have been abused, but strike down TIA before it has even gotten started, assuming it will be abused. God forbid someone put information in their possesion into a database and try to correlate it.
"lying to the public about the evidence for taking the country to war."
Isn't there a saying that goes, don't attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by stupidity (this is GW Bush after all). Just because they're wrong, doesn't mean they lied.
IMHO the lesson should be, "At least be able to show real damages, before claiming a sw comanies product is a tool for copyright infringement.". Then again IANAL
"When my friends ask to borrow a CD, I generally burn them a copy, rather than risk them losing or destroying the original. The RIAA thinks this is illegal. Do you?"
Do your friends eventually return the burned copies that they borrowed? If so, did they make their own copies first?
"However, I have little doubt the DoJ will not want to touch that one with a 10-foot-C&D, since the RIAA would say "no way in hell" but US law says "probably". Mustn't step on the toes of one's corporate masters, after all."
They didn't have any trouble stepping on MS's toes.
"Can you summarize the public good performed by your efforts that a taxpayer, who is neither a stockholder nor employee of the content industry, can realize and should support as a necessary function of the federal government?"
I'm sure the recovery of lost tax revenue from people pirating music is more than enough to pay for their "billable hours".
Anyone else notice the picture in the article shows an Apple 1-button mouse, even though the article claims the voting system will only work under Windows?
"Secondly, in what conceivable way would an Itanium or an Opteron be at the heart of a PERSONAL computer? They're both server/workstation chips, and designed and marketed as such."
I would buy one today, if it didn't cost $2000. One reason I'm not buying an Apple 64-bit "pc".
Exactly my point. So why does Apple go out of their way to market having the 1st 64-bit pc, especially when it costs $2000, which is about the price of an Opteron workstation?
Why do people criticize frivolous patents on/., but when Apple files one, they don't criticize Apple, but say instead they're doing it to protect themselves? Reminds me of when Apple put a number of clone makers out of business. If MS had done that, theat would be evil, but Apple was just doing it to protect themselves.
The main danger, claims the author, is that a sw developer developing for a proprietary OS could be forced out of the market by the OS maker providng that software for free as in beer (gives Sherlock example). Isn't that same danger even more prevalent with OSS? Last time I checked, OSS was trying to replace just about every useful program with a free as in beer version (Linux, open office, gimp, etc.). Anybody trying to make money writing software needs to be as concerned about a free version coming out of the OSS community as they are with a proprietary vendor making the same software and forcing them out of the market.
Slashdot Mirror
They can't shut down Kazaa Lite software already deployed. However, they can probably shut down the web sites that distribute kazaa lite, or at least get them blocked if host countries are uncooperative.
" Copyright is Government interference in the free market. Compulsory licensing limits the extent of that interference."
Copyright is a protection of property. Saying it interferes with free market is like saying laws against theft interfere with free market. Free market means a buyer and seller reach a mutual agreement on a price. The seller has no say on the price of his product if buyers choose instead to copy it for free.
"To call compulsory licensing "socialism" betrays a lack of understanding of copyright."
Compulsory licensing give the govt. exclusive power to charge money for music, and then decides how much and to whom this money goes to. Maybe it's not socialism by strict definition, but it certainly stinks of socialism. It's certainly not captialsm.
When Kazaa is properly policed, say in a few months, the few people who are able to crack DRM schemes still won't be able to broadcast the music elsewhere easily.
Socialism is a system whereby the rights of an individual are placed second to the rights of the collective. In this case the collective is the music listening public and the individual is the author. Yes, in anarchy, a person could steal your music, but they could steal your car as well. The US constitution protects you from both types of threats. Any system where the govt, controls pricing will be corrupt since pricing is completely artificial and now it's who you know in the govt that counts, not how good your music is. That's obvious. Your statement that "intellectual property is fascism" isn't meaningless. You just don't understand what you're saying. Fascism is a system whereby the state is more important than the individual, so your statement is irrational, but it does have a meaning.
"> I'm not too bothered if someone is tracking where I go and where my car goes within a city Sure, because only criminals have something to hide. And you never do anything illegal in your car. You never speed, you never pick up a hooker, you never go and buy drugs, you never pick up anything that you've paid cash for and not asked about the sales tax."
It's amazing how many people claim they need a police system to avoid anarchy, but then protest at the idea of a perfect police system. It's like people think they have a right to a good probability of not getting caught when they break the law. The goal should be 100% law enforcement. What's the point of making laws if you cripple law enforcement. This is just one more article trying to link surveilance with 1984, showing ignorance of the book and what it was trying to say. Show some proff of abuse before going on your witchhunt. In the meatime, Id love a system that could have caught the DC sniper a lot sooner indtead of looking for a white van because of unreiable witness data.
"Empty rhetoric won't console the Afghan and Iraqi orphans we created. Yes, Saddam created more, but that won't console the ones that we created."
Both the Afghan and Iraqui govt. are responsible for the deaths of Afghan and Iraqi citizens by US troops. It's their actions that prompted US retaliation. Are you going to blame the US for deaths of German citizens during WWII. This situation is no different. Blaming Israel for suide attacks against its citizens is sick. I can't believe you think they had it coming to them.
Maybe the goal is less sinster than you'd believe. Maybe they want to prevent 3000 people from dying in a terrorist attack in the future? Your account of 1984 is accurate, but claiming the US has turned into this state is ludicrous. Look at N. Korea. That's the 1984 Orwell was talking about.
1984 has been true in N. Korea for some time now. You can't even buy a television set that tunes to stations other than govt. stations.
The courts sided with grokster and morpheus because they merely wrote p2p software and had no control over what users did with it. By including IP blocking technologies, the courts may interpret that as contributing to copyright infringement since this software actively prevents searching by entities trying to detect copyright infringement. The result is the court may shut down and fine Kazaa Lite, PeerGaurdian, or both.
"I'm quite sure the EFF never claimed a compulsory licensing scheme would be perfect. It's a least bad kind of thing."
Compulsory licensing is socialism. I'll take DRM over it any day of the week. I'd rather not be able to look at certain memory locations in my computer for data that Im not supposed to have free access to anyway (except for fair use purposes, which can be accomodated) than not be able to write a song and sell it at a price of my choosing.
The only mistake the RIAA made was not using strong-encryption on cds in the 1st place. How do you think all those songs got onto napster, etc. in the 1st place. It's because there was no DRM and people have proven they can't be trusted. Sure DRM can be cracked, but if it prevents 90% of piracy, that less lost revenue than before.
To follow up on this post before I get beaten up too badly. I think the real issue is, "What data is the govt. allowed to monitor?", and under what circumstances. Whether or not it's stored in a computer database as opposed to a filing cabinet is somewhat of a non-issue in comparison.
Actually, my poorly worded point is that sometimes people are simply wrong. Even the French did not say there were no WMD in Iraq. There were various opinions about what Iraq probably had. Most evidence was to the effect of, "they had such and such chemicals, but can't account for what happended to them." Saying now that there are no WMD in Iraq does not automatically mean that the US and Britian lied about it. To impeach a president, you need to present proof that he lied about the evidence. I'm all for the Democrats investigating the issue. I just get annoyed with people condemning the president without any proof.
Interesting how people defend p2p networks despite the fact that they have been abused, but strike down TIA before it has even gotten started, assuming it will be abused. God forbid someone put information in their possesion into a database and try to correlate it.
"lying to the public about the evidence for taking the country to war."
Isn't there a saying that goes, don't attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by stupidity (this is GW Bush after all). Just because they're wrong, doesn't mean they lied.
IMHO the lesson should be, "At least be able to show real damages, before claiming a sw comanies product is a tool for copyright infringement.". Then again IANAL
"When my friends ask to borrow a CD, I generally burn them a copy, rather than risk them losing or destroying the original. The RIAA thinks this is illegal. Do you?"
Do your friends eventually return the burned copies that they borrowed? If so, did they make their own copies first?
"However, I have little doubt the DoJ will not want to touch that one with a 10-foot-C&D, since the RIAA would say "no way in hell" but US law says "probably". Mustn't step on the toes of one's corporate masters, after all."
They didn't have any trouble stepping on MS's toes.
"Can you summarize the public good performed by your efforts that a taxpayer, who is neither a stockholder nor employee of the content industry, can realize and should support as a necessary function of the federal government?"
I'm sure the recovery of lost tax revenue from people pirating music is more than enough to pay for their "billable hours".
Anyone else notice the picture in the article shows an Apple 1-button mouse, even though the article claims the voting system will only work under Windows?
" Firstly, AMD DON'T MAKE computers."
excuse me. AMD based 64-bit computer.
"Secondly, in what conceivable way would an Itanium or an Opteron be at the heart of a PERSONAL computer? They're both server/workstation chips, and designed and marketed as such."
I would buy one today, if it didn't cost $2000. One reason I'm not buying an Apple 64-bit "pc".
Exactly my point. So why does Apple go out of their way to market having the 1st 64-bit pc, especially when it costs $2000, which is about the price of an Opteron workstation?
Why do people criticize frivolous patents on /., but when Apple files one, they don't criticize Apple, but say instead they're doing it to protect themselves? Reminds me of when Apple put a number of clone makers out of business. If MS had done that, theat would be evil, but Apple was just doing it to protect themselves.
The main danger, claims the author, is that a sw developer developing for a proprietary OS could be forced out of the market by the OS maker providng that software for free as in beer (gives Sherlock example). Isn't that same danger even more prevalent with OSS? Last time I checked, OSS was trying to replace just about every useful program with a free as in beer version (Linux, open office, gimp, etc.). Anybody trying to make money writing software needs to be as concerned about a free version coming out of the OSS community as they are with a proprietary vendor making the same software and forcing them out of the market.
" As much as we'd all love to see Apple successfully sue Microsoft, It won't happen."
So frivolous patents are bad unless someone uses them against MS?