Some people like to call him a fanatic. Now, personally I define a fanatic as someone who sticks to his guns... whether they're loaded or not. Granted, there are plenty of people in the public eye nowadays who long ago ran out of bullets, but the problem with trying to attribute fanaticism to Richard Stallman is that he's got plenty of ammo. That is why he gets to speak at such august institutions as Yale while barefoot, and the rest of us never will no matter how presentable we happen to be.
He has something to say that more people need to hear, and you don't need to swallow every word to get something of value. Even the Stallman-bashers in the crowd should be willing to admit that he did get a lot of things right.
That was true even before the Internet went public. I ran a large BBS at one point (sixteen lines, basement full of computers) and there was a time when I suffered a severe case of sysop burnout. We eventually became a pay operation, but I gotta tell you, keeping all the line servers up, updating the file library, making sure the email was flowing (we were on all the major mail relay networks, and unlike most other boards we ran mail updates every quarter hour) was a lot of work. At one point, I just said "Aaaaaaaaaagh!" and went away for a week. Fortunately, everything was still running when I got back (we put a lot of work into reliability and redundancy) but I just had to get away from the thing.
Even though it meant losing the income from the board, looking back, when the Internet came along and killed off that entire industry almost overnight... I was kind of relieved when I finally pulled the main switch.
Some years ago Disney's lawyers were sending cease-and-desist letters to kindergartens that were playing Disney videos for their children, because they weren't paying for a "public performance" or some such. After a couple of Congresscritters threatened Disney with legislation they backed off. They're assholes to the n'th degree, no question.
Well, I disagree. An outfit whose sole purpose is to protect intellectual property interests should have been more competent in the IT department, and protected their own domain a little better. They screwed up. Let them take their lumps, just like anyone else that forgets to fork over a few bucks to their registrar.
So, if you're trying to imply that The Pirate Bay hacked into their site and took it over that's just wrong. They got hold of a lapsed domain name and apparently they're using it. The fact that they torqued off the IFPI (not a pleasant bunch to begin with) is just too bad. Furthermore, it's exactly the sort of thing that The Pirate Bay would do... keep in mind that they have just as much of an agenda as the IFPI and their ilk. Raising awareness of these rather important issues is one of the things that The Pirate Bay likes to do, and this is one hell of a way to do it.
Besides, I think it's hysterical. And I wouldn't be too sure of the WIPO business either.
I just flew both American and United this past week. American gave me a mixed bag of sticky dried stuff, and United offered to sell me a "snack box" for the princely sum of five dollars ("Buy-Onboard service", they called it.) Both offered a free soft drink, so I suppose that's something.
A copyright holder can't demand cash keep flowing to him, he can only demand that for a limited number of years he have a monopoly on publishing his work as granted by the Constitution.
The current duration of copyright is effectively infinite, and will be extended as necessary by the likes of Disney. You can no longer use the "limited duration" of copyright in any rational discourse on this subject. Also, since you brought up the Constitution, I feel compelled to point out that the Founders did not intend copyright to provide an unlimited cash flow to content creators. They certainly did not intend it to have the dramatic negative effects that modern copyright law is having on the whole of our society. No sir. The intent was to enrich the public domain, so that all can benefit from the creative minds among us.
So, copyright holders got a limited time to make a buck: the presumption (and it was only a presumption) was that potential remuneration was required to encourage the production of such works. The fact that you believe that to be true has little to do with the primary function of American copyright, which was to make more creative works available to all. Jefferson himself considered copyright to be a loan from the public domain! Ideas and creative works were never meant to be kept under private control indefinitely, yet that is precisely what has happened. It's my belief that we would be far better off abolishing copyright completely rather than maintain the current state of affairs. Modern copyright is diametrically opposed in purpose and effect to what the Founders wanted: a vibrant public domain that enriches us all.
I'm thinking that, when future generations look back on this period of time, it will be known as "The Age of Unreason". Perhaps, given the number of attorneys involved in the ongoing fall of Western civilization it will be known as the "Shark Ages". Either way, it's really remarkable.
and why not? The days of telecom provider lock-in on subscriber equipment were supposed to have been over when old AT&T was broken up. Comcast doesn't require that I purchase my computer and operating system from them (and if they tried, their customers would scream bloody murder.) I do rent my VoIP gateway from AT&T, true... but I can use any compatible POTS equipment with it that I want. I fail to see why the cellular companies have reacquired the privilege of screwing their customers this way (other than the same reason that dogs lick their balls.)
Well... let's hope you're right. I just don't see much concern for the future in the system anymore, and it's obvious that whoever has the biggest lobbying budget wins. The Monsantos and big pharmacoms of the country would love to have their investments patented forever. Consequently, what you're banking on is that the people that want access to those patents can continue to prevent them from being extended. Personally, I don't feel comfortable depending upon that: in the past fifteen years or so Congress has made sweeping changes to the patent system and the U.S. PTO, with more on the way, and so far none of them have been good. I don't trust the corporations to do what's right for society, and I don't trust Congress either.
Only for now. Look at what's been going on worldwide in terms of (ahem) "intellectual property" legislation and harmonization with U.S. law. I would expect patents to be extended indefinitely in much the same way as copyright. Too many people want to own "their" inventions forever. Now that's not good for society (any society) but it is good for the rightsholders. Or at least, they think it is... long-term I think they'll find it's not.
They're playing with fire, no argument. I don't think you're giving enough credit to the Founders themselves, so far as our needle-threading is concerned, but you're right that we were remarkably fortunate they were there at that point in history. In any event, avoiding the violent fate suffered by so many other national governments depends upon our continuing ability to influence our government via legal process. That's being taken away from us, at an accelerating pace. Granted, it's our own fault, but that is what is happening. So what do we do? About the only influence most of us have are a. casting our votes and b. writing our Congresspersons. That doesn't seem to be enough anymore, although I certainly I agree that we're better off with a political solution rather than a violent one.
What concerns me is the common attitude that "This is America, such things just can't happen here!" We're not bulletproof, our economy isn't powered by magic. Right now most of us have far too much to lose to even consider armed overthrow of the United States Federal Government. I know I do: the political and economic collapse of my country wouldn't do me personally any good. But, what happens when a significant number of us don't have anything left to lose? There's plenty of historical examples of what happens when an economy fails to provide for its people.
Short of armed revolution, which is not something that any sane person should want to become necessary
Most people wouldn't consider Thomas Jefferson to be insane, and yet he would consider us long overdue for a rebellion. I think the problem may have gone too far, the rot set in too deep, for political/legal measures alone to have much effect. I know some people that left the FBI because of what they saw happening there, because of the kind of people that are working there now. It's not good, and if the only real hope we have for improvement rests with Congress I fear all is already lost.
Not necessarily. Agreeing to not sue each other over patent violations is one thing (they can assign patent rights any way they like): but when the big boys collectively use those portfolios and their legal teams to suppress legitimate competition they've crossed the line. The end result of this anticompetitive activity is that their profitability goes up at our expense, as our options disappear. That's what they're doing, and they aren't supposed to be allowed to do that.
Part of the function of government is to provide a bulwark against such behavior and keep those bastards in line, but that's just not happening. Our politico-economic system is failing on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin fixing it. I can say, with some assurance, that allowing the likes of Edward J. "those are my pipes!" Whitacre to continue running the show is a big mistake. People like him are going to have us back on dial-up, fondly reminiscing about the days of "broadband" to our grandkids.
They are motivated to keep their jobs. Wouldn't you be?
Well, the way the system was originally set up, they weren't supposed to be concerned about that. The idea was that individuals (from all walks of life) would serve a term in Congress, go back to whatever it was they did prior to that, and then live under the laws they made. It was a natural negative feedback loop, and it was brilliant: chalk up another one for the Founders. Then the idea of a "career politician" or a "professional politician" came into play, and now we see these bastards subverting the law and doing everything they can to get re-elected. There's one, and only one way to solve that particular governmental problem: term limits. Congress did it for the office of President, now it's time they do it for themselves.
Don't see that happening in the near future though. They're too motivated to keep their jobs and that's the problem.
The problem is that it bypasses due process...a punitive action is taken solely by law enforcement with little judicial oversight, and without the alleged criminal ever seeing a day in court. Really, that's abusive: only the courts are allowed to mete out punishment, yet the police have arrogated that power to themselves.
Anyone involved in such activities should be ashamed. And then fired.
Slashdot Mirror
They used to have those services. They don't anymore. This whole thread is about airlines reducing service levels and increasing prices.
Some people like to call him a fanatic. Now, personally I define a fanatic as someone who sticks to his guns ... whether they're loaded or not. Granted, there are plenty of people in the public eye nowadays who long ago ran out of bullets, but the problem with trying to attribute fanaticism to Richard Stallman is that he's got plenty of ammo. That is why he gets to speak at such august institutions as Yale while barefoot, and the rest of us never will no matter how presentable we happen to be.
He has something to say that more people need to hear, and you don't need to swallow every word to get something of value. Even the Stallman-bashers in the crowd should be willing to admit that he did get a lot of things right.
Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman has called for an industry standard to filter copyrighted material.
Phooey on that. What we really need is an international standard to filter out people like Mr. Dauman. The world would be a much better place.
That was true even before the Internet went public. I ran a large BBS at one point (sixteen lines, basement full of computers) and there was a time when I suffered a severe case of sysop burnout. We eventually became a pay operation, but I gotta tell you, keeping all the line servers up, updating the file library, making sure the email was flowing (we were on all the major mail relay networks, and unlike most other boards we ran mail updates every quarter hour) was a lot of work. At one point, I just said "Aaaaaaaaaagh!" and went away for a week. Fortunately, everything was still running when I got back (we put a lot of work into reliability and redundancy) but I just had to get away from the thing.
... I was kind of relieved when I finally pulled the main switch.
Even though it meant losing the income from the board, looking back, when the Internet came along and killed off that entire industry almost overnight
Some years ago Disney's lawyers were sending cease-and-desist letters to kindergartens that were playing Disney videos for their children, because they weren't paying for a "public performance" or some such. After a couple of Congresscritters threatened Disney with legislation they backed off. They're assholes to the n'th degree, no question.
Well, I disagree. An outfit whose sole purpose is to protect intellectual property interests should have been more competent in the IT department, and protected their own domain a little better. They screwed up. Let them take their lumps, just like anyone else that forgets to fork over a few bucks to their registrar.
... keep in mind that they have just as much of an agenda as the IFPI and their ilk. Raising awareness of these rather important issues is one of the things that The Pirate Bay likes to do, and this is one hell of a way to do it.
So, if you're trying to imply that The Pirate Bay hacked into their site and took it over that's just wrong. They got hold of a lapsed domain name and apparently they're using it. The fact that they torqued off the IFPI (not a pleasant bunch to begin with) is just too bad. Furthermore, it's exactly the sort of thing that The Pirate Bay would do
Besides, I think it's hysterical. And I wouldn't be too sure of the WIPO business either.
I just flew both American and United this past week. American gave me a mixed bag of sticky dried stuff, and United offered to sell me a "snack box" for the princely sum of five dollars ("Buy-Onboard service", they called it.) Both offered a free soft drink, so I suppose that's something.
A copyright holder can't demand cash keep flowing to him, he can only demand that for a limited number of years he have a monopoly on publishing his work as granted by the Constitution.
The current duration of copyright is effectively infinite, and will be extended as necessary by the likes of Disney. You can no longer use the "limited duration" of copyright in any rational discourse on this subject. Also, since you brought up the Constitution, I feel compelled to point out that the Founders did not intend copyright to provide an unlimited cash flow to content creators. They certainly did not intend it to have the dramatic negative effects that modern copyright law is having on the whole of our society. No sir. The intent was to enrich the public domain, so that all can benefit from the creative minds among us.
So, copyright holders got a limited time to make a buck: the presumption (and it was only a presumption) was that potential remuneration was required to encourage the production of such works. The fact that you believe that to be true has little to do with the primary function of American copyright, which was to make more creative works available to all. Jefferson himself considered copyright to be a loan from the public domain! Ideas and creative works were never meant to be kept under private control indefinitely, yet that is precisely what has happened. It's my belief that we would be far better off abolishing copyright completely rather than maintain the current state of affairs. Modern copyright is diametrically opposed in purpose and effect to what the Founders wanted: a vibrant public domain that enriches us all.
I'm thinking that, when future generations look back on this period of time, it will be known as "The Age of Unreason". Perhaps, given the number of attorneys involved in the ongoing fall of Western civilization it will be known as the "Shark Ages". Either way, it's really remarkable.
and why not? The days of telecom provider lock-in on subscriber equipment were supposed to have been over when old AT&T was broken up. Comcast doesn't require that I purchase my computer and operating system from them (and if they tried, their customers would scream bloody murder.) I do rent my VoIP gateway from AT&T, true ... but I can use any compatible POTS equipment with it that I want. I fail to see why the cellular companies have reacquired the privilege of screwing their customers this way (other than the same reason that dogs lick their balls.)
No kidding ... his one remark about "a countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats" says a lot about his opinion of attorneys.
Yes, but that was the "old" IBM. The "new" IBM would never think of doing anything like that, I'm sure (cough.)
Well ... let's hope you're right. I just don't see much concern for the future in the system anymore, and it's obvious that whoever has the biggest lobbying budget wins. The Monsantos and big pharmacoms of the country would love to have their investments patented forever. Consequently, what you're banking on is that the people that want access to those patents can continue to prevent them from being extended. Personally, I don't feel comfortable depending upon that: in the past fifteen years or so Congress has made sweeping changes to the patent system and the U.S. PTO, with more on the way, and so far none of them have been good. I don't trust the corporations to do what's right for society, and I don't trust Congress either.
Only for now. Look at what's been going on worldwide in terms of (ahem) "intellectual property" legislation and harmonization with U.S. law. I would expect patents to be extended indefinitely in much the same way as copyright. Too many people want to own "their" inventions forever. Now that's not good for society (any society) but it is good for the rightsholders. Or at least, they think it is ... long-term I think they'll find it's not.
and before we know it, we'll be patenting life. :-/
... anyone that tries to find me in violation of such a patent will find himself no longer a candidate for infringement.
Yeah, well
Yeah ... looks like he jinxed both of them simultaneously.
They're playing with fire, no argument. I don't think you're giving enough credit to the Founders themselves, so far as our needle-threading is concerned, but you're right that we were remarkably fortunate they were there at that point in history. In any event, avoiding the violent fate suffered by so many other national governments depends upon our continuing ability to influence our government via legal process. That's being taken away from us, at an accelerating pace. Granted, it's our own fault, but that is what is happening. So what do we do? About the only influence most of us have are a. casting our votes and b. writing our Congresspersons. That doesn't seem to be enough anymore, although I certainly I agree that we're better off with a political solution rather than a violent one.
What concerns me is the common attitude that "This is America, such things just can't happen here!" We're not bulletproof, our economy isn't powered by magic. Right now most of us have far too much to lose to even consider armed overthrow of the United States Federal Government. I know I do: the political and economic collapse of my country wouldn't do me personally any good. But, what happens when a significant number of us don't have anything left to lose? There's plenty of historical examples of what happens when an economy fails to provide for its people.
Short of armed revolution, which is not something that any sane person should want to become necessary
Most people wouldn't consider Thomas Jefferson to be insane, and yet he would consider us long overdue for a rebellion. I think the problem may have gone too far, the rot set in too deep, for political/legal measures alone to have much effect. I know some people that left the FBI because of what they saw happening there, because of the kind of people that are working there now. It's not good, and if the only real hope we have for improvement rests with Congress I fear all is already lost.
Not necessarily. Agreeing to not sue each other over patent violations is one thing (they can assign patent rights any way they like): but when the big boys collectively use those portfolios and their legal teams to suppress legitimate competition they've crossed the line. The end result of this anticompetitive activity is that their profitability goes up at our expense, as our options disappear. That's what they're doing, and they aren't supposed to be allowed to do that.
Part of the function of government is to provide a bulwark against such behavior and keep those bastards in line, but that's just not happening. Our politico-economic system is failing on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin fixing it. I can say, with some assurance, that allowing the likes of Edward J. "those are my pipes!" Whitacre to continue running the show is a big mistake. People like him are going to have us back on dial-up, fondly reminiscing about the days of "broadband" to our grandkids.
Bloodsucking leeches.
Plus which if you were stoned and playing with that vest you probably wouldn't get much out of it anyway. "Whoa, dude ... I thought I felt something."
They are motivated to keep their jobs. Wouldn't you be?
Well, the way the system was originally set up, they weren't supposed to be concerned about that. The idea was that individuals (from all walks of life) would serve a term in Congress, go back to whatever it was they did prior to that, and then live under the laws they made. It was a natural negative feedback loop, and it was brilliant: chalk up another one for the Founders. Then the idea of a "career politician" or a "professional politician" came into play, and now we see these bastards subverting the law and doing everything they can to get re-elected. There's one, and only one way to solve that particular governmental problem: term limits. Congress did it for the office of President, now it's time they do it for themselves.
Don't see that happening in the near future though. They're too motivated to keep their jobs and that's the problem.
I wouldn't bank on that. If anyone knows how to manipulate Congress it's AT&T.
All this just goes to show why Internet Service Providers should never have been allowed to weasel out of being considered Common Carriers.
The problem is that it bypasses due process ...a punitive action is taken solely by law enforcement with little judicial oversight, and without the alleged criminal ever seeing a day in court. Really, that's abusive: only the courts are allowed to mete out punishment, yet the police have arrogated that power to themselves.
Anyone involved in such activities should be ashamed. And then fired.
Comcast Broadband
... in other words, it still works, just not as well as it used to.
Actually, I think Comcast is more of a brownout