"Blame all problems with the educational system on greedy teachers' unions. Do not provide sufficient funding for building upkeep and course materials, let alone enough to attract a wider range of more highly qualified teachers. Count on philanthropic parents in rich neighborhoods to chip in to keep their kids' schools going, and let schools in poor neighborhoods go to hell. "
His point has nothing to do with teacher's salary. He's saying that whoever decides the criteria for passing a particular grade should not dumb down the material to make it easier for kids to pass, which is what is happening. The typical democrat says throw more money at the problem. Really what is needed is more involvement of parents in their kids education.
"Allow large corporations to buy unlimited influence in government. Have any legislation that affects a particular industry be written by the lobbyists for that industry's entrenched players. Assume that anyone currently making a profit has a God-given right to their business model, and structure the intellectual property laws appropriately. Claim marketing expenses as R&D. "
Typical slashdot speak. Pretend donations to govt. count more than votes on election day. Claim intellectual property is not property, and free to whoever can get his hands on it.
There so mouch bs in the rest of your statements, I don't feel like addressing them all, but, for one, the tax code favors the poor, not the rich. When was the last time a poor person paid half his income in taxes? The marriage penalty you allude to is not supported by the right wing. On Immigration, he's talking about keeping out illegal immigrants, who may be criminals or terrorists, for all we know. Comment 9 is completly irrelevant and fabricated by you for God knows what purpose. Finally, socialized medicine is the best way to insure that the brightest Americans pursue other more profitable fields than medicine.
I think Ben Stein might be arguing against prosecuting MS, in his diatribe against suing everybody else rather than taking personal responsibility. Look at whos started the antitrust lawsuits. Not consumers, but companies like Netscape and Sun, which are looking for govt. protection because they can't compete in a free market.
Amsuing how the register turns a legitimate copyright bust into anti-RIAA diatribe. Thank you for ever present spin on copyright issues. The fact that this crap made slashdot shows that slashdot moderators are just as guilty.
"Of authorship and publishing, copyright favors the former. Without copyright there'd be even more publishers active. We don't need it to help them. (not that it's intended to help authors either, particularly)"
Without copyright, publishers couldn't risk moeny on printing books, because if a book was successful, other publishers would jump in and sell cheaply, since then the risk is low. This causes the publisher who introduced the book to lose money. The end result, less books are published. I don't think this is good for publishers.
I agree. The US tax system is socialist in nature. I've been in favor of a flat tax system for some time now. Not sure what that has to do with record labels and how they treat musicians. Record contracts are voluntary. Taxes are not.
I agree that you can reverse engineer it. That's what's wrong with the DMCA. You can't release the code arbitrarily, however, without opening yourself up to liabilty. If your software has no legitimate purpose, as in this case since Adobe claims to give you the tools to make fair use possible, then it's illegal. It's no different than giving away a box to descramble cable channels, for example.
Nobody is forcing Adobe now. People who oppose DRM claim it's illegal because they have a right to fair use. This type of arguement is bs since it claims Adobe must release stuff in a form that is copyable, which is not true
It has nothing to do with protocols. It's basic physics. 1000 hops of receiving and transmitting is going to take a lot longer than a packet going through a fiber at 10Gb/s over 3 km.
Your effecient example is not a common case. I rarely get more than a few kb from friends in the form of email, while i receive a lot more data from commercial sites in the form of downloads. Your siz degree of separation using wireless gets you less than a mile from your node, BTW, so your friends better live close by.
You've all missed the point (everyone responding to my parent post). If you like cool technology like DVD, you should compensate the inventors. The encryption algorithm was trivial and not even the issue. The issue is, that by providing a free dvd player without compensation, you are lowering the incentive to make new technology, because it has been shown to be less profitable, and therefore, more risky for investors. Anyway, here's some legal bs regarding trade secrets, since that's what CSS falls under.
"The patent monopoly is a reward to the inventor. But such is not the case with a trade secret. Its protection is not based on a policy of rewarding or otherwise encouraging the development of secret processes or devices. The protection is merely against breach of faith and reprehensible means of learning another's secret. For this limited protection it is not appropriate to require also the kind of novelty and invention which is a requisite of patentability. The nature of the secret is, however, an important factor in determining the kind of relief that is appropriate against one who is subject to liability under the rule stated in this Section. Thus, if the secret consists of a device or process which is a novel invention, one who acquires the secret wrongfully is ordinarily enjoined from further use of it and is required to account for the profits derived from his past use. If, on the other hand, the secret consists of mechanical improvements that a good mechanic can make without resort to the secret, the wrongdoer's liability may be limited to damages, and an injunction against future use of the improvements made with the aid of the secret may be inappropriate."
Actually, patents prevent people from profiting off reverse engineering a product and selling a knock-off product. The fact that you need to reveal your ideas to the public is because it's the only good way to stake your claim to an idea. The fact that the knowledge becomes public domain is a side effect really.
And how is this different from university research? There is just as much pressure to produce results, both to continue receiving funding and to gain tenure. Therefore, there is the same incentive to for "lots of people cutting corners, falsifying data, and generally doing things against the great principles of science". At least in industry, if your product is bs you will usually fail (ionic bracelets excluded).
The article is trying to argue that open source science is better than closed source science. The problem with the arguement is that closed source science gets strong feedback. That is, bs won't hold up when trying to create a product with it, and the company will ultimately fail. However, open source science in universities doesn't have as strong a feedback mechanism. At a university, the product is the published paper, and it results in funding for the university to do more research and for profs to get tenure. Therefore, there is as much temptation to falsify data at a university, but it's more difficult to catch the fraud. This is because when someone publishes a paper, it gets circulated and most people assume it's correct since it's usually difficult and expensive to reproduce the data. Therefore, a lot of papers are complete bs, but the authors get more funding from the govt and private grants anyway because nobody checks to see if the data is reaaly accurate. I would go so far as to say some profs have made a career out of this sort of thing.
If I write something, and the law says you don't have the write to copy it without my permission, I don't care if you copy it electronically or by hand, it's still illegal. No one did it by hand before because it was too troublesome. Now that technology makes it easy, people assume they have a right to do it, and actually go so far as to say DRM is wrong because it infringes on their rights. The arguements are flawed because they assume consumer rights that don't exist and reject laws on the books regarding copyright. In short, just because technology makes something easy, it doesn't make it right to use this technology, or blackmail copyright holders into lowering their prices with the threat or stealing it if they don't
The author owns the copyright initially. If he chooses a contract where he gets 0.00000001% royalty per read, he does so freely. Why are you complaining about the publisher making all the money. The contract was entereed into by both entities freely. If the publisher wasn't necessary, it wouldn't be in the equation. Obviously, the publisher plays some key role in selling books.
"Now if people could download legitimate MP3s (read: no DRM) of their favorite band, get a JPEG of the cover, XML of the lyrics to plug into their favorte MP3-player's Karoke add-in, and were registered to get preferred tickets at concerts, sneak previews of upcoming albums, etc... all for say $0.50, I think a lot of piracy would be curbed."
No. Then they'd sell two dozen copies in this format, and they'd end up on kazaa. Then 2 million copies would be downloaded for free of the higher quality digital copy. This system doesn't work without DRM.
Ayn Rand saw Robin Hood as a villian. Your attitude is essentially communist. That is you feel your own needs justify enslaving those who are able to produce. This tends to destroy the desire to produce, and you end up in a situation like that found in the USSR, where the whole country went bankrupt because people weren't rewarded for their work, but instead given what the govt felt they needed.
There is no legal use for ElcomSoft's software that can't be done in the adobe software, is the arguement the prosecution is using. They're not after Sklyarov, they're after ElcomSoft.
If you give someone a bomb, and he kills someone with it, then you are liable. Manufacturers of stuff that has legal uses, however, can get out of liability. For instance, guns can legally be used for self defence/hunting. Shoes can be worn to aid in walking. The best defense in this case is to stick to the arguement that the software is only intended to facilitet fair use copying. However, since the Adobe software already has such features, their case is weak, and they will lose.
No You are wrong. There is no law that says the copyright holder has to make it easy for you to copy something for your own use. You have no right to demand something in a particular format. That infringes on the rights of the copyright holder. If you don't like the terms, don't buy it.
Hmm, how many hops would that take to get a packet across the US on such a network, and how many would get lost? Even if it was a mile per hop, that's a lot of hops. I don't see that as being a very good network.
Slashdot Mirror
"Blame all problems with the educational system on greedy teachers' unions. Do not provide sufficient funding for building upkeep and course materials, let alone enough to attract a wider range of more highly qualified teachers. Count on philanthropic parents in rich neighborhoods to chip in to keep their kids' schools going, and let schools in poor neighborhoods go to hell. "
His point has nothing to do with teacher's salary. He's saying that whoever decides the criteria for passing a particular grade should not dumb down the material to make it easier for kids to pass, which is what is happening. The typical democrat says throw more money at the problem. Really what is needed is more involvement of parents in their kids education.
"Allow large corporations to buy unlimited influence in government. Have any legislation that affects a particular industry be written by the lobbyists for that industry's entrenched players. Assume that anyone currently making a profit has a God-given right to their business model, and structure the intellectual property laws appropriately. Claim marketing expenses as R&D. "
Typical slashdot speak. Pretend donations to govt. count more than votes on election day. Claim intellectual property is not property, and free to whoever can get his hands on it.
There so mouch bs in the rest of your statements, I don't feel like addressing them all, but, for one, the tax code favors the poor, not the rich. When was the last time a poor person paid half his income in taxes? The marriage penalty you allude to is not supported by the right wing. On Immigration, he's talking about keeping out illegal immigrants, who may be criminals or terrorists, for all we know. Comment 9 is completly irrelevant and fabricated by you for God knows what purpose. Finally, socialized medicine is the best way to insure that the brightest Americans pursue other more profitable fields than medicine.
I think Ben Stein might be arguing against prosecuting MS, in his diatribe against suing everybody else rather than taking personal responsibility. Look at whos started the antitrust lawsuits. Not consumers, but companies like Netscape and Sun, which are looking for govt. protection because they can't compete in a free market.
The internet was invented in America.
"There is no mention of a opt in/opt out agreement when the cd is inserted on the website and none was displayed in a personal demonstration."
Then what do you call this:
Installation:
1. Insert you Bandlink CD into your Internet
Connected PC. (Bandlink should autostart on Windows).
2. Agree to the Bandlink License and
select "Connect" to install Bandlink.
3. Bandlink should detect your CD, begin CD
playback, and display artist content.
Amsuing how the register turns a legitimate copyright bust into anti-RIAA diatribe. Thank you for ever present spin on copyright issues. The fact that this crap made slashdot shows that slashdot moderators are just as guilty.
"Of authorship and publishing, copyright favors the former. Without copyright there'd be even more publishers active. We don't need it to help them. (not that it's intended to help authors either, particularly)"
Without copyright, publishers couldn't risk moeny on printing books, because if a book was successful, other publishers would jump in and sell cheaply, since then the risk is low. This causes the publisher who introduced the book to lose money. The end result, less books are published. I don't think this is good for publishers.
I agree. The US tax system is socialist in nature. I've been in favor of a flat tax system for some time now. Not sure what that has to do with record labels and how they treat musicians. Record contracts are voluntary. Taxes are not.
I agree that you can reverse engineer it. That's what's wrong with the DMCA. You can't release the code arbitrarily, however, without opening yourself up to liabilty. If your software has no legitimate purpose, as in this case since Adobe claims to give you the tools to make fair use possible, then it's illegal. It's no different than giving away a box to descramble cable channels, for example.
Nobody is forcing Adobe now. People who oppose DRM claim it's illegal because they have a right to fair use. This type of arguement is bs since it claims Adobe must release stuff in a form that is copyable, which is not true
It has nothing to do with protocols. It's basic physics. 1000 hops of receiving and transmitting is going to take a lot longer than a packet going through a fiber at 10Gb/s over 3 km.
Your effecient example is not a common case. I rarely get more than a few kb from friends in the form of email, while i receive a lot more data from commercial sites in the form of downloads. Your siz degree of separation using wireless gets you less than a mile from your node, BTW, so your friends better live close by.
You've all missed the point (everyone responding to my parent post). If you like cool technology like DVD, you should compensate the inventors. The encryption algorithm was trivial and not even the issue. The issue is, that by providing a free dvd player without compensation, you are lowering the incentive to make new technology, because it has been shown to be less profitable, and therefore, more risky for investors. Anyway, here's some legal bs regarding trade secrets, since that's what CSS falls under.
"The patent monopoly is a reward to the inventor. But such is not the case with a trade secret. Its protection is not based on a policy of rewarding or otherwise encouraging the development of secret processes or devices. The protection is merely against breach of faith and reprehensible means of learning another's secret. For this limited protection it is not appropriate to require also the kind of novelty and invention which is a requisite of patentability. The nature of the secret is, however, an important factor in determining the kind of relief that is appropriate against one who is subject to liability under the rule stated in this Section. Thus, if the secret consists of a device or process which is a novel invention, one who acquires the secret wrongfully is ordinarily enjoined from further use of it and is required to account for the profits derived from his past use. If, on the other hand, the secret consists of mechanical improvements that a good mechanic can make without resort to the secret, the wrongdoer's liability may be limited to damages, and an injunction against future use of the improvements made with the aid of the secret may be inappropriate."
Actually, patents prevent people from profiting off reverse engineering a product and selling a knock-off product. The fact that you need to reveal your ideas to the public is because it's the only good way to stake your claim to an idea. The fact that the knowledge becomes public domain is a side effect really.
And how is this different from university research? There is just as much pressure to produce results, both to continue receiving funding and to gain tenure. Therefore, there is the same incentive to for "lots of people cutting corners, falsifying data, and generally doing things against the great principles of science". At least in industry, if your product is bs you will usually fail (ionic bracelets excluded).
The article is trying to argue that open source science is better than closed source science. The problem with the arguement is that closed source science gets strong feedback. That is, bs won't hold up when trying to create a product with it, and the company will ultimately fail. However, open source science in universities doesn't have as strong a feedback mechanism. At a university, the product is the published paper, and it results in funding for the university to do more research and for profs to get tenure. Therefore, there is as much temptation to falsify data at a university, but it's more difficult to catch the fraud. This is because when someone publishes a paper, it gets circulated and most people assume it's correct since it's usually difficult and expensive to reproduce the data. Therefore, a lot of papers are complete bs, but the authors get more funding from the govt and private grants anyway because nobody checks to see if the data is reaaly accurate. I would go so far as to say some profs have made a career out of this sort of thing.
If I write something, and the law says you don't have the write to copy it without my permission, I don't care if you copy it electronically or by hand, it's still illegal. No one did it by hand before because it was too troublesome. Now that technology makes it easy, people assume they have a right to do it, and actually go so far as to say DRM is wrong because it infringes on their rights. The arguements are flawed because they assume consumer rights that don't exist and reject laws on the books regarding copyright. In short, just because technology makes something easy, it doesn't make it right to use this technology, or blackmail copyright holders into lowering their prices with the threat or stealing it if they don't
The author owns the copyright initially. If he chooses a contract where he gets 0.00000001% royalty per read, he does so freely. Why are you complaining about the publisher making all the money. The contract was entereed into by both entities freely. If the publisher wasn't necessary, it wouldn't be in the equation. Obviously, the publisher plays some key role in selling books.
"Now if people could download legitimate MP3s (read: no DRM) of their favorite band, get a JPEG of the cover, XML of the lyrics to plug into their favorte MP3-player's Karoke add-in, and were registered to get preferred tickets at concerts, sneak previews of upcoming albums, etc... all for say $0.50, I think a lot of piracy would be curbed."
No. Then they'd sell two dozen copies in this format, and they'd end up on kazaa. Then 2 million copies would be downloaded for free of the higher quality digital copy. This system doesn't work without DRM.
Ayn Rand saw Robin Hood as a villian. Your attitude is essentially communist. That is you feel your own needs justify enslaving those who are able to produce. This tends to destroy the desire to produce, and you end up in a situation like that found in the USSR, where the whole country went bankrupt because people weren't rewarded for their work, but instead given what the govt felt they needed.
Because if it doesn't match, my friends will think I'm a total dork.
There is no legal use for ElcomSoft's software that can't be done in the adobe software, is the arguement the prosecution is using. They're not after Sklyarov, they're after ElcomSoft.
If you give someone a bomb, and he kills someone with it, then you are liable. Manufacturers of stuff that has legal uses, however, can get out of liability. For instance, guns can legally be used for self defence/hunting. Shoes can be worn to aid in walking. The best defense in this case is to stick to the arguement that the software is only intended to facilitet fair use copying. However, since the Adobe software already has such features, their case is weak, and they will lose.
No You are wrong. There is no law that says the copyright holder has to make it easy for you to copy something for your own use. You have no right to demand something in a particular format. That infringes on the rights of the copyright holder. If you don't like the terms, don't buy it.
I guess they weren't kidding when they said not free as in beer.
Hmm, how many hops would that take to get a packet across the US on such a network, and how many would get lost? Even if it was a mile per hop, that's a lot of hops. I don't see that as being a very good network.