"What can we, as individuals, really do? We honestly live in what appears to be the most well managed, well thought out, and well prepared oppressive regime in history."
Move to North Korea and if you ever get back, write me a report comparing the Bush administration with Kim Jong Il's regime.
"Do tell, if you are so impoverished that you cannot afford a $100 computer, are you going to take the time to dig up an extra TV and a network connection for this?"
Because cell phones aren't already connected to a data network, right?
It sounds like the $4 fee would have to be a mandatory fee that anyone with an internet connection would pay. That's the only way the system would work well for the recording industry given the low price. I don't think it's fair that people who never download music should be forced to subsidize those that do. I already pay enogh for internet access. If I wanted a subscription music service, I could choose to pay for it from a number of providers, and the DRM doesn't bother me because I'm just renting the music anyway with a subscription service. I don't worry about burning songs either, since I'd buy a 60GB mp3 player and just load it up.
"Are these companies stupid? Do they think we're stupid? Why ask us to pay the same price, or similar to a store purchased DVD when there's no manufacturing, packaging or physical distribution to pay for?"
"This is where the grey area lies. The airlines should have the right to refuse to allow you to board... as long as they refund your ticket with no penalty.
If a company accepts payment for a service (such as transportation from point A to point B), then either they must provide that service or refund the payment in full."
If the contract you agreed to says you need to identify yourself when you paid the money, then you broke the contract, and therefore don't get a refund.
"So, I guess Judge Paez lives in that fantasy world where the rights of the people must be explicitly given within the Constitution, or they don't have them."
No, he lives in the real world where you have rights decided explicitly and inplicitly by the constitution, as well as additional rights and restrictions granted by lawmakers. Restrictions by lawmakers can't contradict the constitution. Beyond that, anything goes. Welcome to democracy (two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner).
"Great, so I'm breaking the law every time I borrow a pen from the bank and hand it to the person behind me. I'm surprised they don't have any signs posted on that."
Without permission. Why aren't dumbass commnets like that modded as flamebait.
"Theft: Dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive. "
Making available copyrighted works online lowers the monetary value of the work, since it gives people an alternative source at a lower cost ($0). So it is indeed theft.
Explain the phrase "You stole my idea." while you're at it.
Your R v Lloyd case is irrelevent since the cinema doesn't own the copyright to the film.
Yes there's a legal distinction between stealing something physical, but my English is correct.
"I agree with some earlier comments regarding a bad defence. There are many reasons that the judge in this case got away with deciding them in this manner:"
"I don't see it making a dent in the effect the RIAA's terrorist tactics have."
I remember when/.ers said the RIAA should sue individual copyright infringers, instead of Kazaa, Limewire, etc., back before there were individual lawsuits. Now someone suing someone based on reasonable evidence that they are commtting copyright infringement is a terrorist activity. yeah, ok, whatever.
Yes, lets mindlessly bash Microsoft for providing a DRM audio format that many companies can license and use, and praise Apple for creating a completely closed system that doesn't let other parties participate in, whether it's making an mp3 player or selling music online.
I like that with video, Google let the content owner decide how much to sell for, and Google just added their own fees on top. Much better than the Steve Jobs I think all songs are worth $0.99 model, and don't you dare contradict me, even if it's your music I'm selling model. However, as others have said, if they can't sell fairplay drm'ed aac files to iPod owners, they're market will be small.
"Finally, a frivolous lawsuit that got its just desserts. We can only hope that will herald a new age, where the insanely stupid lawsuits are going to fianlly the death they so rightly deserve."
They could have said he was right, but then not awarded any monetary damages. This sets a bad precedent. Copyright used to be automatic. Now, if I don't put the right tag in my html, I forfeit copyright to search engines.
"Now whose "evil" are we talking about? In the US, it's clear from our constitution and bill of rights what we, as a country, hold valuable and consider "evil".
However, as so many people like to say, the US is not the rest of the world. There are other countries, with other values, and they aren't necessarily the same as ours. Are they "wrong"? What makes ours "right"? Because we like them?
Who is trying to push morals/values/ethics on someone else now? Or is this just what we say when we don't like the morals/values/ethics in question?"
Moral relativism is bullshit. Morals need to be based on rational principles that support the freedom of the individual.
"Did it occur to you that maybe they'll do more Good by being a western influence in China than by not being there at all? Filtering ALL of the Internet is impossible. Stuff will slip through, even if it's only a little, even if it's shut off as soon as authorities detect that it has. "
Actually, I bet Google is better at filtering than most other search engines, so they'll better enforce Chinese govt. policy than anyone else. It would be better if they stayed out of the market.
When GNU stuff uses GPLv3, it will be incompatible with Linux for DRM applications. So is someone going to rewrite GNU code and put it under a less restrivctive license? It would be ironic(?) since Stallman started GNU because of restrictions placed on him by unix vendors.
"At the same time the mp3 player market and video game market are completely different. While somebody who buys a portable game system might use built in mp3 player functionality, somebody looking for an mp3 player would not be interested in the overhead of a gaming system."
Yes. In fact I'm always annoyed that my PC can play games. I wish it would only play mp3's. All that overhead is so annoying. The iPod will never play video either.
Slashdot Mirror
"What can we, as individuals, really do? We honestly live in what appears to be the most well managed, well thought out, and well prepared oppressive regime in history."
Move to North Korea and if you ever get back, write me a report comparing the Bush administration with Kim Jong Il's regime.
"Do tell, if you are so impoverished that you cannot afford a $100 computer, are you going to take the time to dig up an extra TV and a network connection for this?"
Because cell phones aren't already connected to a data network, right?
It sounds like the $4 fee would have to be a mandatory fee that anyone with an internet connection would pay. That's the only way the system would work well for the recording industry given the low price. I don't think it's fair that people who never download music should be forced to subsidize those that do. I already pay enogh for internet access. If I wanted a subscription music service, I could choose to pay for it from a number of providers, and the DRM doesn't bother me because I'm just renting the music anyway with a subscription service. I don't worry about burning songs either, since I'd buy a 60GB mp3 player and just load it up.
"Are these companies stupid? Do they think we're stupid? Why ask us to pay the same price, or similar to a store purchased DVD when there's no manufacturing, packaging or physical distribution to pay for?"
What's that, like a dollar per DVD?
"This is where the grey area lies. The airlines should have the right to refuse to allow you to board... as long as they refund your ticket with no penalty.
If a company accepts payment for a service (such as transportation from point A to point B), then either they must provide that service or refund the payment in full."
If the contract you agreed to says you need to identify yourself when you paid the money, then you broke the contract, and therefore don't get a refund.
"So, I guess Judge Paez lives in that fantasy world where the rights of the people must be explicitly given within the Constitution, or they don't have them."
No, he lives in the real world where you have rights decided explicitly and inplicitly by the constitution, as well as additional rights and restrictions granted by lawmakers. Restrictions by lawmakers can't contradict the constitution. Beyond that, anything goes. Welcome to democracy (two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner).
"Great, so I'm breaking the law every time I borrow a pen from the bank and hand it to the person behind me. I'm surprised they don't have any signs posted on that."
Without permission. Why aren't dumbass commnets like that modded as flamebait.
"Theft: Dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive.
"
Making available copyrighted works online lowers the monetary value of the work, since it gives people an alternative source at a lower cost ($0). So it is indeed theft.
Explain the phrase "You stole my idea." while you're at it.
Your R v Lloyd case is irrelevent since the cinema doesn't own the copyright to the film.
Yes there's a legal distinction between stealing something physical, but my English is correct.
Explain the phrase "You stole my idea". It is correct English and doesn't fit your /, definition of steling. Get a clue.
"War Is Peace
/., stupidity is insightful
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength"
and on
"I agree with some earlier comments regarding a bad defence. There are many reasons that the judge in this case got away with deciding them in this manner:"
7. They're guilty.
I hope this clarifies things even more.
"Why should a guild be limited to GLBT?"
from TFA:
"Andrews' original posting read: "OZ [the name of her guild] is recruiting all levels ¦ We are not 'GLBT only,' but we are 'GLBT friendly'!"
"As for the opinion that most music today just isn't that great (IMHO) and therefore leads to declining CD sales - was never mentioned."
Not another person saying music today is not as good as the crap I listened to growing up. Give me a break.
"Copyright infringement is NOT STEALING!!!!
Grrr..."
Quit stealing my idea!!!!. Oh wait...
"I don't see it making a dent in the effect the RIAA's terrorist tactics have."
/.ers said the RIAA should sue individual copyright infringers, instead of Kazaa, Limewire, etc., back before there were individual lawsuits. Now someone suing someone based on reasonable evidence that they are commtting copyright infringement is a terrorist activity. yeah, ok, whatever.
I remember when
"t is now RMS (Rights Management Services).
By changing the name they made it less evil. Yea Microsoft!"
So is PGP evil too?
"They have it backward and this is why their competitors who have it the right way are doing so well. And IMHO, it is unremediable at this point."
You mean like Apple, that can't be bothered to patch known 10 year old exploits?
Yes, lets mindlessly bash Microsoft for providing a DRM audio format that many companies can license and use, and praise Apple for creating a completely closed system that doesn't let other parties participate in, whether it's making an mp3 player or selling music online.
I like that with video, Google let the content owner decide how much to sell for, and Google just added their own fees on top. Much better than the Steve Jobs I think all songs are worth $0.99 model, and don't you dare contradict me, even if it's your music I'm selling model. However, as others have said, if they can't sell fairplay drm'ed aac files to iPod owners, they're market will be small.
"Finally, a frivolous lawsuit that got its just desserts. We can only hope that will herald a new age, where the insanely stupid lawsuits are going to fianlly the death they so rightly deserve."
They could have said he was right, but then not awarded any monetary damages. This sets a bad precedent. Copyright used to be automatic. Now, if I don't put the right tag in my html, I forfeit copyright to search engines.
"Now whose "evil" are we talking about? In the US, it's clear from our constitution and bill of rights what we, as a country, hold valuable and consider "evil".
However, as so many people like to say, the US is not the rest of the world. There are other countries, with other values, and they aren't necessarily the same as ours. Are they "wrong"? What makes ours "right"? Because we like them?
Who is trying to push morals/values/ethics on someone else now? Or is this just what we say when we don't like the morals/values/ethics in question?"
Moral relativism is bullshit. Morals need to be based on rational principles that support the freedom of the individual.
"Did it occur to you that maybe they'll do more Good by being a western influence in China than by not being there at all? Filtering ALL of the Internet is impossible. Stuff will slip through, even if it's only a little, even if it's shut off as soon as authorities detect that it has. "
Actually, I bet Google is better at filtering than most other search engines, so they'll better enforce Chinese govt. policy than anyone else. It would be better if they stayed out of the market.
When GNU stuff uses GPLv3, it will be incompatible with Linux for DRM applications. So is someone going to rewrite GNU code and put it under a less restrivctive license? It would be ironic(?) since Stallman started GNU because of restrictions placed on him by unix vendors.
"At the same time the mp3 player market and video game market are completely different. While somebody who buys a portable game system might use built in mp3 player functionality, somebody looking for an mp3 player would not be interested in the overhead of a gaming system."
Yes. In fact I'm always annoyed that my PC can play games. I wish it would only play mp3's. All that overhead is so annoying. The iPod will never play video either.
"Exactly which part is anti-business?"
There's a reason why Apple isn't using Linux. They'd never be able to use any GPLv3 under their current business model.