"What we really need though, is a system to be able to vote on issues that are important to us. If we combined a system that took the parliamentary vote, along with combined citizen votes (net-votes, etc) - at least we'd have more say in things."
The last thing we need is your average citizens enacting laws. The supreme court is already overworked. Imagine if they had to strike down 99% of voter enacted laws that would undoubtably turn out to be unconstitutional. Slashdot readers alone puts out a fair number of assertions that if turned into laws ould strangle most businesses.
Wow! The lengths he won't go to to avoid capture, and the lengths the US won't go to to get rid of this guy. Even sending bunker busters to the moon.
Re:No I think you missed the point.
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
No. Linux will need kernal and driver support for hardware drm that will be in new systems soon, and be useless without OS support, or at least kernal modules. CSS was a different story since it didn't deal directly with hardware. Of course, if licensing of drm technology is necessary, that would create the same problems in implementing srm under linux as css under linux faced.
Re:DRM will be *needed* by linux
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
DRM is inevitable as long as priacy is inevitable. People use locks even though they aren't perfect. Companies will use DRM to limit losses, and your average consumer will agree that the security is necessary as a result of the actions of pirates. If you want to blame someone, blame the pirates, but quit demonizing companies for trying to protect their property.
My question to you is, how do you define "us"? Frre trading of music does NOT make the record companies or artists more productive. It makes investment in artists more risky, and therefore, less likely. Thus artists must work day jobs and be less productive at creating music. You cannot simply take their work for free just because technology makes it easy. Similarly, private information that can be used for criminal purposes is also not free to the public. One cannot argue that p2p should be exempt from some laws (i.e. copyright infringement) but must obey other laws (information privacy).
By your analogy, no store should succeed, because it's always cheaper to steal something than pay for it. Laws and to an increasing extent technology, enforce property rights. If you don't like DRM, blame piracy. It has forced DRM to be the only practical way to sell music online.
"Stealing music is immoral and illegal? Wow, that's nice. You enjoy those morals of yours; I'll be over here listening to hundreds of hours of high quality free music. It seems everyone else will be joining me. Maybe the companies of the RIAA can come live in your fantasy world with you. It sounds like they'd like it there."
The music won't be high quality for long. If no one's paying for music, no ones paying to produce music, and you're left with a million garage bands to sort through to find one badly produced gem worth listening to. You get what you pay for.
I've been saying for some time now that if Linux didn't adopt DRM, they'd be left behind. Linus also understands that Linux is simply a tool. He simply gives the user the freedom to use his creation for their own endeavors whether or not he agrees with them. If you're going to say no one should use Linux for DRM, you might as well start supporting restrictions on guns, the Patriot act, etc., since you clearly believe you have the right to dictate others freedoms.
No your wrong. A person has always had the ability to share information freely if he wants to in modern history. Linux didn't need RMS, but without Linus, there certainly wouldn't be Linux. Give credit to the real hero, Linus Torvalds. RMS is just another communist who believes people like Linus are obligated to sacrifice their work for the masses, rather than having a choice. Linus had a choice and decided to freely share his information. This is based on modern philosophy since perverted by RMS. By your arguement BSD shouldn't exist. It's not under GPL.
The proletariat have not lost their voice. People just stopped guilty about being more productive than the proletariat stopped believing that they are obligated to sacrifice themselves for the proletariat.
"Let me quote Bruce Schneier:
"... it is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-- Secrets & Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World, 2000"
Then we should stop inventing new technology altogether. Most technology makes a police state easier to maintain and make it more difficult to remove the state. Look at Iraq for instance. In 1991 an internal rebellion cost 200K lives in Basra and was unsuccessful, mostly due to the overwhelming technology Saddam's forces possessed with respect to the general population. Technology is simply a tool. Most technologies can be abused in the wrong hands. Linus has a better understanding of technology and politics than either Schneier or you.
No. A police state starts when the people in charge place their own agendas before the rights of the people they serve. If cameras exist on every corner, that does not mean they will be used to persecute someone unless someone in charge decides to use them for this purpose. A security camera can be good at preventing crime without abusing civil liberties if the govt. laws are just and obeyed properly.
His point is that a govt. should protect the rights of individuals, which basically allows an individual to do whatever he wnats so long as is doesn't interfere with the rights of another. This is an objective morality which is understood by reasonable people. Anything beyond this involve providing for someone at the expense of someone else (e.g. welfare, social security). He is not implying that everyone should be able to make up their own rules, i.e. moral relativism
Your analogy assumes that finding equals ownership. In reality, the govt. finds and owns the land initially (or steals it, but that's another issue), and sells it to individuals, ideally. That way, your "selfish" individual doesn't have the right to own the stuff he finds, but instead the people tending the wounded could get paid in fruit and land for doing something productive.
You are failing to make the distinction between investing in a bad idea, which results in bankruptsy protection, and investing in an illegal idea, which costs someone else money. They have the right to recoup their losses caused by the illegal action.
Give me a service which has nearly all the songs p2p networks has (ie the big 4 labels and all the smaller ones) for betwen £5 and £10 per month for nonDRM's downloads (ie in mp3 or ogg format) either in unlimited ammount of downloads or limited - 50 songs per month??? and i will pay now
Luckily, in a civilized world, the seller has a right to refuse your offer. Offering nonDRM songs has proven unpracitcal given the rapant piracy that alsready exists. Such a demand is unrealistic, and stealing the music if you can't strike a bargain is immoral and illegal.
It's funny how slashdotters don't want any restrictions on p2p services, but they want the govt. to clamp down on trading of information when it's their personal data, even if it was collected in public settings (e.g. public security camera) or voluntarily given information (e.g. when you purchase a product with a credit card, you've voluntarily told the company who you are and what product you've purchased). So I guess information wants to be free, unless it's your personal information. What a bunch of hypocrites.
This is the worst idea I've heard on the subject. Socializing the movie and music industry will not help artists or the labels. If the govt. starts taxing internet users, who decides how the money is divided? The govt. certainly should NOT be involved in this. If this happens, how much money your company makes will be based on how well you lobby congress instead of how many people actually like the artists you're promoting. It's a terrible socialist idea that is also unfair to users. Users now have to pay the same amount whether they want 1 movie or 100 movies. If I only want 1 movie, I shouldn't have to subsidize someone elses 100 movies.
In China, you only get to publish something if the govt. agrees with it. Aside from the DMCA, there are almost no restrictions in the US. Saying China has more freedom is ridiculous. In China you don't even have the freedom to own what you produce.
People weren't being hauled away for exercising free speech. They were being arrested for blocking traffic. You might think this is trivial, but when a whole city is shut down because nobody can get to work, there are serious consequences, some of them life and death. If an ambulance can't get through because people are blocking traffic someone could die. Blocking traffic in general violates the rights of people because they are trapped against their will. People should be arrested for this because they are the ones violating the rights of others. In China people die for demonstrating (look at Tienaman Square). Your post is divorced from reality. You should get a clue and stop posting such nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
"What we really need though, is a system to be able to vote on issues that are important to us. If we combined a system that took the parliamentary vote, along with combined citizen votes (net-votes, etc) - at least we'd have more say in things."
The last thing we need is your average citizens enacting laws. The supreme court is already overworked. Imagine if they had to strike down 99% of voter enacted laws that would undoubtably turn out to be unconstitutional. Slashdot readers alone puts out a fair number of assertions that if turned into laws ould strangle most businesses.
Wow! The lengths he won't go to to avoid capture, and the lengths the US won't go to to get rid of this guy. Even sending bunker busters to the moon.
No. Linux will need kernal and driver support for hardware drm that will be in new systems soon, and be useless without OS support, or at least kernal modules. CSS was a different story since it didn't deal directly with hardware. Of course, if licensing of drm technology is necessary, that would create the same problems in implementing srm under linux as css under linux faced.
DRM is inevitable as long as priacy is inevitable. People use locks even though they aren't perfect. Companies will use DRM to limit losses, and your average consumer will agree that the security is necessary as a result of the actions of pirates. If you want to blame someone, blame the pirates, but quit demonizing companies for trying to protect their property.
Wow! I've been modded down as a troll for making similar comments about Linux, i.e. the possibility that it should support DRM if people want it.
My question to you is, how do you define "us"? Frre trading of music does NOT make the record companies or artists more productive. It makes investment in artists more risky, and therefore, less likely. Thus artists must work day jobs and be less productive at creating music. You cannot simply take their work for free just because technology makes it easy. Similarly, private information that can be used for criminal purposes is also not free to the public. One cannot argue that p2p should be exempt from some laws (i.e. copyright infringement) but must obey other laws (information privacy).
By your analogy, no store should succeed, because it's always cheaper to steal something than pay for it. Laws and to an increasing extent technology, enforce property rights. If you don't like DRM, blame piracy. It has forced DRM to be the only practical way to sell music online.
"Stealing music is immoral and illegal? Wow, that's nice. You enjoy those morals of yours; I'll be over here listening to hundreds of hours of high quality free music. It seems everyone else will be joining me. Maybe the companies of the RIAA can come live in your fantasy world with you. It sounds like they'd like it there."
The music won't be high quality for long. If no one's paying for music, no ones paying to produce music, and you're left with a million garage bands to sort through to find one badly produced gem worth listening to. You get what you pay for.
I've been saying for some time now that if Linux didn't adopt DRM, they'd be left behind. Linus also understands that Linux is simply a tool. He simply gives the user the freedom to use his creation for their own endeavors whether or not he agrees with them. If you're going to say no one should use Linux for DRM, you might as well start supporting restrictions on guns, the Patriot act, etc., since you clearly believe you have the right to dictate others freedoms.
No your wrong. A person has always had the ability to share information freely if he wants to in modern history. Linux didn't need RMS, but without Linus, there certainly wouldn't be Linux. Give credit to the real hero, Linus Torvalds. RMS is just another communist who believes people like Linus are obligated to sacrifice their work for the masses, rather than having a choice. Linus had a choice and decided to freely share his information. This is based on modern philosophy since perverted by RMS. By your arguement BSD shouldn't exist. It's not under GPL.
The proletariat have not lost their voice. People just stopped guilty about being more productive than the proletariat stopped believing that they are obligated to sacrifice themselves for the proletariat.
"Let me quote Bruce Schneier: "... it is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state." -- Secrets & Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World, 2000"
Then we should stop inventing new technology altogether. Most technology makes a police state easier to maintain and make it more difficult to remove the state. Look at Iraq for instance. In 1991 an internal rebellion cost 200K lives in Basra and was unsuccessful, mostly due to the overwhelming technology Saddam's forces possessed with respect to the general population. Technology is simply a tool. Most technologies can be abused in the wrong hands. Linus has a better understanding of technology and politics than either Schneier or you.
No. A police state starts when the people in charge place their own agendas before the rights of the people they serve. If cameras exist on every corner, that does not mean they will be used to persecute someone unless someone in charge decides to use them for this purpose. A security camera can be good at preventing crime without abusing civil liberties if the govt. laws are just and obeyed properly.
His point is that a govt. should protect the rights of individuals, which basically allows an individual to do whatever he wnats so long as is doesn't interfere with the rights of another. This is an objective morality which is understood by reasonable people. Anything beyond this involve providing for someone at the expense of someone else (e.g. welfare, social security). He is not implying that everyone should be able to make up their own rules, i.e. moral relativism
Your analogy assumes that finding equals ownership. In reality, the govt. finds and owns the land initially (or steals it, but that's another issue), and sells it to individuals, ideally. That way, your "selfish" individual doesn't have the right to own the stuff he finds, but instead the people tending the wounded could get paid in fruit and land for doing something productive.
The question is, have they already lost all their investment, or did they get some of their money back when Napster was liquidated?
You are failing to make the distinction between investing in a bad idea, which results in bankruptsy protection, and investing in an illegal idea, which costs someone else money. They have the right to recoup their losses caused by the illegal action.
Napster's business plan was based on screwing the record industry. They have plenty of evidence to show this.
If you leave the RIAA, how does that stop people from illegally downloading your music using p2p networks?
Give me a service which has nearly all the songs p2p networks has (ie the big 4 labels and all the smaller ones) for betwen £5 and £10 per month for nonDRM's downloads (ie in mp3 or ogg format) either in unlimited ammount of downloads or limited - 50 songs per month??? and i will pay now
Luckily, in a civilized world, the seller has a right to refuse your offer. Offering nonDRM songs has proven unpracitcal given the rapant piracy that alsready exists. Such a demand is unrealistic, and stealing the music if you can't strike a bargain is immoral and illegal.
So by your arguement, if China starts shooting Americans at random, it's ok because it's part of their culture.
It's funny how slashdotters don't want any restrictions on p2p services, but they want the govt. to clamp down on trading of information when it's their personal data, even if it was collected in public settings (e.g. public security camera) or voluntarily given information (e.g. when you purchase a product with a credit card, you've voluntarily told the company who you are and what product you've purchased). So I guess information wants to be free, unless it's your personal information. What a bunch of hypocrites.
This is the worst idea I've heard on the subject. Socializing the movie and music industry will not help artists or the labels. If the govt. starts taxing internet users, who decides how the money is divided? The govt. certainly should NOT be involved in this. If this happens, how much money your company makes will be based on how well you lobby congress instead of how many people actually like the artists you're promoting. It's a terrible socialist idea that is also unfair to users. Users now have to pay the same amount whether they want 1 movie or 100 movies. If I only want 1 movie, I shouldn't have to subsidize someone elses 100 movies.
In China, you only get to publish something if the govt. agrees with it. Aside from the DMCA, there are almost no restrictions in the US. Saying China has more freedom is ridiculous. In China you don't even have the freedom to own what you produce.
People weren't being hauled away for exercising free speech. They were being arrested for blocking traffic. You might think this is trivial, but when a whole city is shut down because nobody can get to work, there are serious consequences, some of them life and death. If an ambulance can't get through because people are blocking traffic someone could die. Blocking traffic in general violates the rights of people because they are trapped against their will. People should be arrested for this because they are the ones violating the rights of others. In China people die for demonstrating (look at Tienaman Square). Your post is divorced from reality. You should get a clue and stop posting such nonsense.