It's funny you say that. When I was reading his responses, all I read was "It's illegal blah blah blah. Would you steal a car? Blah blah blah. You theif blah blah blah." I could quote him exactly, but I'd have to use more blah's.
My wife and I both loved this series, so when the DVDs came out we snatched them up. Corney, over(and under)acted, and predictable, but still very entertaining. If this really happens, I can't wait.
Don't I have the right to profit for the rest of my life from my work?
More than likely what will happen is your book might(might!) be profitable for a couple of years. Then it will be forgotten. Your grandchildren will say "Hey, I think Grandpa wrote a book once upon a time." And that will be the end of it. Years later, a researcher will find your book and think that it is pretty good and will want to archive it, and maybe share this long lost forgotten tome with others. But he won't, because he couldn't track down your heirs, or if he did they will want outrageous sums of money for the republication of this commercially valueless work. Goodbye immortality. Hello pit of obscurity to which 99% (or more) of all books will go before their copyright expires.
I bet the DTV executives are sitting up there saying...
And why is it that I should care what the DTV execs are saying in their board room? Why should they be able to tell me what I can do with equiptment that I own in my own backyard? Once again: They are beaming the signal to my home. It is all around me whether I decode it or not. If they don't like the idea of people decoding their signal, they shouldn't broadcast it to everyone. Especially into Canada, where they can't pay for it.
I guess I should rephrase that. If you can't tell the difference between watching TV and eavesdropping on phone calls, I don't know what to tell you.
...in one case a company is being victimized...
Victimized how, exactly? Because I don't give them money? For a service I would never pay for? Once again, the signal is there whether I use it or not. There is no impact to DirectTV if I "listen in".
OT, I believe the words victim and victimized are used way to often.
I just don't get how intercepting a signal that is running through my own routers, using equiptment that I own...
Do you seriously think that sending information over the internet is somehow private? Your ISP can monitor your surfing habits, read your email, and tell if you use P2P sharing or not, and probably have it in their Terms of Use that all that is allowed. I have no illusions about the so-called privacy of the internet.
Give me a break. You have as little right to hack satellite transmissions as you have to spy on military communications, cell phones, etc...
Give me a break. We are talking about completely different types of information. It's TV for heaven's sake!
It is the same as hacking WEP to gain access to a company's 802.11x network
No it isn't. As soon as I start accessing their network I am directly impacting their network and their resourses, not to mention accessing information which is more than likely private and confidential. What I am talking about is intercepting TV. And there is no impact to their resources when I tap in.
But what if we start talking about police frequencies? Governmental organisations? The military? Don't you, your neighbour, your local anti-government militia or a terrorist cell have the same "right" to intercept and decrypt those signals too?
Keeping perspective here... What I am talking about is intercepting TV broadcasts. I think separate laws should apply to intercepting private conversations, and military communication.
Face facts, it's a private frequency and if you're not authorised to be using it (ie, if you're not DirecTV, one of their representatives, agents or customers then you're breaking the law.
I have no doubt that it is illegal. I'm just not sure why this should be any worse then speeding on the freeway. Speeding can kill people. I haven't heard about anyone dying from Sattelite TV theft. Another reason, I guess, why spectrum should be commons.
BTW, has Canada signed off on those same laws? I really have no idea.
I usually don't reply to AC's but what the heck...
I think there is a distinct difference between intercepting publically broadcast information, and eavesdropping on cell calls. If you can't see that, then I don't know what I can tell you.
I just don't get how intercepting a signal that is located in my own yard, using equiptment that I own, that would just go into the dirt anyway, could be considered theft. Cable theft I can understand. They have physical equiptment that they own that is used to get the signal directly to my tv. The satellite signal is going to be there whether I use it or not.
Yes I know the difference between port 25 and port 110. How useful is POP3 mail when you can't reply? And no, using the ISP's SMTP server is not the solution. The ones they are using will not permit any mail that has a different reply address than the one they've signed in with. So grandma can can receive mail from grandma@mydomain.com but she has to send from grandma23432@evil-isp.com. Not a good solution.
They block port 25 because they don't want to be an open relay.
No, they block port 25 because they don't want anyone using any email but theirs. They require authentication for sending email through their smtp servers because they don't want to be used as a relay. I also require authentication when sending mail through my smtp server because I don't want to be used as a relay. (BTW my ISP knows I run a mail server. They regularly check to see if I am running an open relay. I didn't tell them I was running a server. I only know they are running a relay test because I see it in the logs. I think that is a more responsible way of running an ISP than just blocking port 25.)
So what was your point again? Mine was that the internet is being locked down. I don't think you know what you are taling about. Next time you want to insult me, please log in first.
If you've read his books Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace and The Future of Ideas, then you know that the future is turning out even more bleak than predicted. Even right now, more than half of my family can't use the pop mail server I set up for our use because their ISP's block port 25. I had to set up a webmail interface for them, which is too cumbersome to use as a main address. Stupid and frustrating, but true.
Lessig would probably be the first to tell you that he absolutely respects copyright. From what I've read from him, he believes in copyright, but also believes that it has become unbalanced. His solution is to create creativecommons.org which artists and publishers can use to voluntarily limit the length of their copyright or set the terms by which others can duplicate their work.
Ever seen the movie Proof of Life? Takes place in a country where kidnapping and ransome is a business. This would be usefull for executives or other potential targets in areas like that.
Re:"the embetterment of the human race"?
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 1
In a previous post someone said "Ideas are not property. Inventions are not property" and you replied "Yes, they are." So my remarks were directed to that comment.
If you copy it, then you have taken something from me without my permission.
What have I taken from you? You still have your manuscript. All the pages are there. Every single word you typed is still present. So I repeat: What are you now missing?
What matters is whether you GOT something, not whether you DEPRIVED ME of something.
Interesting idea. I have stolen from you without depriving you of anything. If you are missing nothing, how does it even matter that I now have something?
Have you been to a public library recently? You can get all the books you want for free. Copyrighted ones, too. You just can't keep them.
Personally, I like the definition of free that lets me keep something. I don't own the library's books. I will own that CD.
Maybe you can help me out here. You state that you can own an idea. That an idea is property. How does that work?
From your comment, it appears that you are a writer. Are you saying that all the ideas you use in your works are original-never-before-thought-of? If so, then Congratulations! Good for you! Pretty much all of the books I read contain ideas that the authors have drawn from elsewhere, either from other novels or other's experiences etc.
I don't think it's possible to own an idea in the same way you can own a car or house or pencil. Even your manuscript you have for your most recent novel. If come in and take your manuscript, I have taken your property. If I copy it, you still have your manuscript, so I haven't stolen anything. I have violated your legally given exclusive right for reproduction and distribution of your novel. I have infringed your copyright, which is entirely different.
If copyrights effectively limited ACCESS to works, you might have a point. But they don't. In fact, copyrights ENCOURAGE access to works, by giving publishers a profit motive to print more copies of them.
That may have been true at one point, when publishing a novel was a cumbersome and expensive process, but not anymore. I think I read earlier today that I can get 500 novels on a cd for free! It might be a bit more difficult for the publisher to give me access to all these books if they had to get permission from each of the authors' estates.
I don't know where you are buying CDs, but they are very reasonably priced.
Let's see...
Picking a store at random...
Picking the first movie that popped into my head...
DVD is $20.24
VHS is $9.94
Soundtrack on CD is $18.98
What exactly do you consider to be reasonable? For just the music from the movie you pay twice as much as the entire movie on VHS, or for $1.26 more you can get the DVD. We must have different definitions of the word reasonable. Personally, I'd go for the DVD over the cd everytime.
If you buy an SJ22 Sony Clie from Staples and use one of the $30 off $150 coupons that are floating around. $170 + tax isn't too bad for sweet little PDA.
You always hear about the free vs. bottled water comparison. Basically people will pay for something they can get free if they see it as superior somehow. So why do subscription download sites keep trying to give us bottled water with floaties in it?
"We've been restricted to the same speed for 40 years," Mr O'Keefe said. "With the new technology, where we go next will be limited only by our imagination."
I think what he meant was, where we go will be limited only by our imagination, and the speed of light.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out QBasic News. They also have a book section here.
It's funny you say that. When I was reading his responses, all I read was "It's illegal blah blah blah. Would you steal a car? Blah blah blah. You theif blah blah blah." I could quote him exactly, but I'd have to use more blah's.
My wife and I both loved this series, so when the DVDs came out we snatched them up. Corney, over(and under)acted, and predictable, but still very entertaining. If this really happens, I can't wait.
Don't I have the right to profit for the rest of my life from my work?
More than likely what will happen is your book might(might!) be profitable for a couple of years. Then it will be forgotten. Your grandchildren will say "Hey, I think Grandpa wrote a book once upon a time." And that will be the end of it. Years later, a researcher will find your book and think that it is pretty good and will want to archive it, and maybe share this long lost forgotten tome with others. But he won't, because he couldn't track down your heirs, or if he did they will want outrageous sums of money for the republication of this commercially valueless work. Goodbye immortality. Hello pit of obscurity to which 99% (or more) of all books will go before their copyright expires.
I bet the DTV executives are sitting up there saying...
And why is it that I should care what the DTV execs are saying in their board room? Why should they be able to tell me what I can do with equiptment that I own in my own backyard? Once again: They are beaming the signal to my home. It is all around me whether I decode it or not. If they don't like the idea of people decoding their signal, they shouldn't broadcast it to everyone. Especially into Canada, where they can't pay for it.
Maybe you should write to... blah blah blah...
Now you are just being silly.
I guess I should rephrase that. If you can't tell the difference between watching TV and eavesdropping on phone calls, I don't know what to tell you.
...in one case a company is being victimized...
Victimized how, exactly? Because I don't give them money? For a service I would never pay for? Once again, the signal is there whether I use it or not. There is no impact to DirectTV if I "listen in".
OT, I believe the words victim and victimized are used way to often.
I just don't get how intercepting a signal that is running through my own routers, using equiptment that I own...
Do you seriously think that sending information over the internet is somehow private? Your ISP can monitor your surfing habits, read your email, and tell if you use P2P sharing or not, and probably have it in their Terms of Use that all that is allowed. I have no illusions about the so-called privacy of the internet.
Give me a break. You have as little right to hack satellite transmissions as you have to spy on military communications, cell phones, etc...
Give me a break. We are talking about completely different types of information. It's TV for heaven's sake!
It is the same as hacking WEP to gain access to a company's 802.11x network
No it isn't. As soon as I start accessing their network I am directly impacting their network and their resourses, not to mention accessing information which is more than likely private and confidential. What I am talking about is intercepting TV. And there is no impact to their resources when I tap in.
But what if we start talking about police frequencies? Governmental organisations? The military? Don't you, your neighbour, your local anti-government militia or a terrorist cell have the same "right" to intercept and decrypt those signals too?
Keeping perspective here... What I am talking about is intercepting TV broadcasts. I think separate laws should apply to intercepting private conversations, and military communication.
Face facts, it's a private frequency and if you're not authorised to be using it (ie, if you're not DirecTV, one of their representatives, agents or customers then you're breaking the law.
I have no doubt that it is illegal. I'm just not sure why this should be any worse then speeding on the freeway. Speeding can kill people. I haven't heard about anyone dying from Sattelite TV theft. Another reason, I guess, why spectrum should be commons.
BTW, has Canada signed off on those same laws? I really have no idea.
I usually don't reply to AC's but what the heck...
I think there is a distinct difference between intercepting publically broadcast information, and eavesdropping on cell calls. If you can't see that, then I don't know what I can tell you.
I just don't get how intercepting a signal that is located in my own yard, using equiptment that I own, that would just go into the dirt anyway, could be considered theft. Cable theft I can understand. They have physical equiptment that they own that is used to get the signal directly to my tv. The satellite signal is going to be there whether I use it or not.
Yes I know the difference between port 25 and port 110. How useful is POP3 mail when you can't reply? And no, using the ISP's SMTP server is not the solution. The ones they are using will not permit any mail that has a different reply address than the one they've signed in with. So grandma can can receive mail from grandma@mydomain.com but she has to send from grandma23432@evil-isp.com. Not a good solution.
They block port 25 because they don't want to be an open relay.
No, they block port 25 because they don't want anyone using any email but theirs. They require authentication for sending email through their smtp servers because they don't want to be used as a relay. I also require authentication when sending mail through my smtp server because I don't want to be used as a relay. (BTW my ISP knows I run a mail server. They regularly check to see if I am running an open relay. I didn't tell them I was running a server. I only know they are running a relay test because I see it in the logs. I think that is a more responsible way of running an ISP than just blocking port 25.)
So what was your point again? Mine was that the internet is being locked down. I don't think you know what you are taling about. Next time you want to insult me, please log in first.
If you've read his books Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace and The Future of Ideas, then you know that the future is turning out even more bleak than predicted. Even right now, more than half of my family can't use the pop mail server I set up for our use because their ISP's block port 25. I had to set up a webmail interface for them, which is too cumbersome to use as a main address. Stupid and frustrating, but true.
Lessig would probably be the first to tell you that he absolutely respects copyright. From what I've read from him, he believes in copyright, but also believes that it has become unbalanced. His solution is to create creativecommons.org which artists and publishers can use to voluntarily limit the length of their copyright or set the terms by which others can duplicate their work.
Ever seen the movie Proof of Life? Takes place in a country where kidnapping and ransome is a business. This would be usefull for executives or other potential targets in areas like that.
Embetterment is a perfectly cromulent word.
I said that works are property.
In a previous post someone said "Ideas are not property. Inventions are not property" and you replied "Yes, they are." So my remarks were directed to that comment.
If you copy it, then you have taken something from me without my permission.
What have I taken from you? You still have your manuscript. All the pages are there. Every single word you typed is still present. So I repeat: What are you now missing?
What matters is whether you GOT something, not whether you DEPRIVED ME of something.
Interesting idea. I have stolen from you without depriving you of anything. If you are missing nothing, how does it even matter that I now have something?
Have you been to a public library recently? You can get all the books you want for free. Copyrighted ones, too. You just can't keep them.
Personally, I like the definition of free that lets me keep something. I don't own the library's books. I will own that CD.
Maybe you can help me out here. You state that you can own an idea. That an idea is property. How does that work?
From your comment, it appears that you are a writer. Are you saying that all the ideas you use in your works are original-never-before-thought-of? If so, then Congratulations! Good for you! Pretty much all of the books I read contain ideas that the authors have drawn from elsewhere, either from other novels or other's experiences etc.
I don't think it's possible to own an idea in the same way you can own a car or house or pencil. Even your manuscript you have for your most recent novel. If come in and take your manuscript, I have taken your property. If I copy it, you still have your manuscript, so I haven't stolen anything. I have violated your legally given exclusive right for reproduction and distribution of your novel. I have infringed your copyright, which is entirely different.
If copyrights effectively limited ACCESS to works, you might have a point. But they don't. In fact, copyrights ENCOURAGE access to works, by giving publishers a profit motive to print more copies of them.
That may have been true at one point, when publishing a novel was a cumbersome and expensive process, but not anymore. I think I read earlier today that I can get 500 novels on a cd for free! It might be a bit more difficult for the publisher to give me access to all these books if they had to get permission from each of the authors' estates.
I don't know where you are buying CDs, but they are very reasonably priced.
Let's see...
Picking a store at random...
Picking the first movie that popped into my head...
DVD is $20.24
VHS is $9.94
Soundtrack on CD is $18.98
What exactly do you consider to be reasonable? For just the music from the movie you pay twice as much as the entire movie on VHS, or for $1.26 more you can get the DVD. We must have different definitions of the word reasonable. Personally, I'd go for the DVD over the cd everytime.
If you buy an SJ22 Sony Clie from Staples and use one of the $30 off $150 coupons that are floating around. $170 + tax isn't too bad for sweet little PDA.
How telling is it that you just named my four favorite shows (and the only ones my wife and I watch every week)?
You always hear about the free vs. bottled water comparison. Basically people will pay for something they can get free if they see it as superior somehow. So why do subscription download sites keep trying to give us bottled water with floaties in it?
Formication. Something you don't want your parents to catch you doing?
To watch Superbowl commercials, just go to AdCritic. Not only do they usually have the commercials available, but they also let you rate them.
"We've been restricted to the same speed for 40 years," Mr O'Keefe said. "With the new technology, where we go next will be limited only by our imagination."
I think what he meant was, where we go will be limited only by our imagination, and the speed of light.