Some years ago I took a regular desktop enclosure and covered it in wood-grain contact paper, just for the fun of it. The results were surprisingly good, and the machine seemed to disappear into my office ("where's your computer? What... that's your computer? I didn't even notice it.") with entertaining results. The front panel wasn't shaped in a way that was amenable to more contact paper, so I just painted it a matching shade of brown. Overall it was a pleasing effect.
That also didn't take me any 1000 hours. About one, as I recall. And no trees gave their lives in the construction of that case.
Before established as a law, it's commonly called "industry standards," which, while not a law, is quite a good argument in court.
Well, at one point in my career I was involved in laboratory testing systems for automotive components. In one case, I did a control system for a hydraulic test fixture that would slowly tear apart car seats, and measure precisely how much force was required to do that. The test series was known as FMVSS 207/210 (Federal Motor Vehicle Seat Specification 207/210), and all seats on cars sold in the U.S. are made to that spec. At least, that was true ten years ago. In any event, I was surprised by how much the seats being tested (both this manufacturer's and their competition's) exceeded this spec. The lab supervisor told me that the government requirements were too lax, and that believed seats made to FMVSS 207/210 wouldn't be safe in a crash. Legal liabilities being what they are, they made the seats to a higher standard.
Bit offtopic, I suppose, but the principle you're talking about does apply elsewhere, I think.
More to the point, taxes are paid to support public works, which so far as I understand the term means things such as roads, bridges and other infrastructure. Nobody in their right mind would consider BMG, Vivendi, Universal, Sony or any of the rest of the big studios to be public works. They're corporations, non-governmental organizations that have to survive in whatever economic climate they happen to find themselves. Or, maybe they don't survive. Either way, that's their problem, not ours, and certainly not our government's problem. Put it this way, there used to be a lot of companies in the United States producing all sorts of goods: the Federal Government provided them with no economic shield at all, in fact actively encouraged their destruction with artifices such as "Free Trade". Why is it, exactly, that the media companies (the bulk of whom aren't even U.S. corporations and take their profits elsewhere) feel that we should provide them from some special protection against the winds of change? Do they really believe that they are one of God's most important gifts to Man? It does look that way.
Every company since the dawn of the Industrial Age that has been faced with obsolescence has found itself at a crossroads: adapt or die. Some went one way, some went the other. Now a few have found a third way: conscript the power of as many major world governments as possible to prop up your failing businesses. That's bad enough in and of itself, but the collateral damage to various legal systems makes this behavior simply intolerable. So no, I don't feel I have to compromise with these people.
Besides, a blank media tax simply diverts tax funds (and yes, if I have to pay it involuntarily it's a tax) to private entities, known corrupt entities at that. Personally, that bothers me. Heck, I'd rather spend the money on the Iraq war than any of the big studios or their mouthpieces.
On the other hand, these aren't criminal cases. They're civil cases. I don't believe that "beyond a reasonable doubt" applies here... something about a preponderance of evidence, which is a lower standard. But then again, I'm not a lawyer.
Yes, but there's also the issue of profit. The individual running that torrent makes no money, earns himself nothing, could be seen as a net loss if he has to pay any bandwidth charges. Anti-piracy laws, so far as I understand, were targeted at large-scale copying operations selling copyrighted works for profit, i.e. the true pirates. Such pirates had to invest substantial sums in equipment (printing presses and so forth) and all the other expenses a big business incurs. Consequently, it was decided that similarly large penalties were needed to provide an adequate deterrent effect and/or punishment.
The idea that a single individual could replicate a copyrighted work on a similarly massive scale worldwide with a few taps on a keyboard, with no investment in personnel or physical plant, was never considered when those old laws were penned. Yet, the penalties meant for illegal production facilities are being applied to individuals, which is insane. At least, the threat of such penalties is being used, which I guess is why so many people settle their cases out of court.
In the United States, I believe the RIAA already gets a cut from blank media sales, as it is presumed they'll be used for copyright infringement (the MPAA/RIAA's default position always seems to be that there is no "substantial non-infringing use" for any new technology.) Was it the Audio Home Recording Act that authorized this? Can anyone enlighten us as to the facts there (I haven't had any coffee yet and I'm too tired to Google.)
It's the other way around, actually. They are the ones who have taken the extreme position (many extreme positions) and need to accept a reasonable compromise, and so far I don't see that happening. The fact is, the big copyright holders and their "industry trade organizations" want it all their own way. Period. End of statement. There ultimately is no dealing rationally with criminal cartels that do not care who they hurt and absolutely will not stop. Might as well try to use logic and reason on a mafia hit man bent on taking you down. His goals and yours are diametrically opposed... if you don't have the means to defend yourself or are unwilling to use them, you're lunchmeat. You don't reason with him. You pull the trigger, unless he's quicker on the draw. And so far, the media conglomerates have been quicker on the draw, when it comes to the law, and are having it all their own way. From their point of view, it's too bad that they didn't find a way squelch that whole Arpanet project all those years ago. And they would have if they had thought of it, you know that: it's their pattern. They don't perceive technological progress as beneficial, any change is a potential threat.
Don't believe me? Let's see what can be laid at their feet. Let's start with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Sonny Boneless Copyright Extension Act, 99 year copyrights, shrinking of the public domain, damage to our cultural history. DRM, watermarking, the RIAA lawsuit machine and terrorized grandmothers and children. CSS, Region codes, SCM. Price gouging/fixing of Biblical proportions, the destruction or attempted elimination of every new technology that could conceivably threaten their hegemony, all down the line since the invention of the player piano. Clear Channel. Payola. undue influence (e.g. bribes) in Congress, purchased law, influence peddling, government corruption. "The VCR will be the destruction of the motion picture industry -- Jack Valenti" Intimidation of scientists and security researchers. "Looking out for the interests of the artists (yah, there's a good one)" Fair use... doesn't matter because who the hell needs that. Rootkits. And let us not forget Disney. Yes, Disney, and that little bastard Mickey, who's been at the heart of so much evil lately. And you want to compromise with these people? Are you nuts, or do you just work for them?
So, sorry, no. I don't have to accept a "compromise" (generally synonymous with "screw the consumer again.") These corporations are members of organized crime, besuited gangsters. Period. End of statement. "Reasonable" is simply not a word that can be put on the table at this point. "Jail sentence" I would probably willing to go for, if it involved some high-level RIAA or music studio exectives. A couple of Sony's people come to mind.
Besides, "Industries built on IP" sounds all well and good, but usually translates to old-guard corporations that want to maintain the status quo. That isn't going to happen, cannot be allowed to happen, or all the progress we made so far will go for nought just to keep a tiny fraction of the U.S. economy in gravy. Nor, I might add, is it the United States Federal Government's goddamn job to keep them in gravy! If the industries of which you speak are truly in danger of decimation (and they simply aren't, in spite of all their famous dissembling) why should the Feds bail them out? Why should our tax dollars bail them out? Given the damage that has been done to our legal system by these bastards, I say let them go the way of the dinosaurs they are, and see what some truly creative minds can come up with to replace them!
Furthermore, most of the companies we're talking about (those that comprise the music and motion-picture cartels) aren't even American companies, so your argument there is unfortunately somewhat specious. Again, why should the United States exert protectionist influence to maintain cash flow
Yes, you gave them the idea that they can sell you a premium "unlisted" account, then turn around and sell your data anyway. I mean, so far as I'm concerned an honest ISP wouldn't be selling my information in the first place, so why should I believe them when they say they aren't? A decent company would at least have let me know up front, or maybe offered a piece of the action. A discount for the use of my personal information would be nice, hell, my local grocery store does that much.
Bloodsucking leeches. For some reason (maybe because a lot of ISP managers used to work at SBC or something) communications providers in this country are just, well, sleazy. I used to like Illinois Bell / Ameritech. Always played fair with me. Then SBC picked them and they repeatedly shafted me, overall to the tune of about $3,000. So when Comcast came around with their Digital Phone service in my neighborhood, I switched to them.. and they shafted me (I watched my phone bill grow from $49.95 for two lines to $90 for two lines). Now I'm back to SBC (sorry, I meant AT&T) experimenting with their VoIP offering (very impressive, actually) and I'm waiting for them to somehow shaft me again. I know they will: I just don't think they can resist the temptation. Kinda makes me want to throw up.
People smoking pot don't have to motivation to kill anybody. Or believe somebody's religion, or believe what a TV ad tells them or, really, much of anything else anybody in power has to say. That's probably what scares those people the most.
Perhaps they should try installing a goddamn FIREWALL on their networks, and block all outgoing ports by default. If a P2P program can access outside resources, so can some real malware.
People are complacent, and have learned to accept a (imho) fairly high level of suck in exchange for not having to think.
To a significant degree, I think you're correct. Look at what Microsoft foisted upon the world, in the form of Win9X. Talk about your high level of suck... and we accepted it! However, at a certain point you have to improve matters because too much suck causes lost sales, and gives the competition an edge. The problem with the entertainment people is that they don't want any competition, thereby allowing them a free hand to shove as much as suck at us as they want. People would probably scream bloody murder if they were told that, by Federal law, only Windows boxes could be used or sold in the United States. They don't, however, seem to have as much of a problem with having that level of control applied to their software or their entertainment (which is, after all, just more software.)
My computer is my entertainment, far more so than television. When it becomes outdated and no longer capable of providing me with the entertainment I require, should I be provided a new computer, gratis?
People will entertain themselves, if all television sets went off for good tomorrow. They might not be happy about it, but they would. For sure there'd be a mini-baby-boom nine months from that point. Probably a lot of wives would find their husbands much more attentive. Besides, there is no specific entitlement that guarantees that we will be provided entertainment and I still haven't seen a good explanation of why the Feds are forcing this issue. What significant social benefit is derived from the reallocation and sale of the old spectrum? More to the point, who is actually benefiting from it? Not John Q. Public.
This is all about politicians not wanting their re-election prospects shattered because they disenfranchised fifteen or twenty million couch potatoes over a piece of expensive graft.
Just as an aside, the phrase "American entertainment giants" belies the fact that many of those giants are actually not U.S. companies. So it isn't just a bunch of American corporations that are pulling this crap, it's a multinational cartel. At least two cartels that I know of, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Some years ago I took a regular desktop enclosure and covered it in wood-grain contact paper, just for the fun of it. The results were surprisingly good, and the machine seemed to disappear into my office ("where's your computer? What ... that's your computer? I didn't even notice it.") with entertaining results. The front panel wasn't shaped in a way that was amenable to more contact paper, so I just painted it a matching shade of brown. Overall it was a pleasing effect.
That also didn't take me any 1000 hours. About one, as I recall. And no trees gave their lives in the construction of that case.
Maybe that seemed smart at the time, but the professor, admitting that he won't see a dime of Google's cash, now seems regretful.
Major bummer.
Inconspicuous guy passes by. Next thing you know, you love big brother..
More likely, he now knows you like underage women.
Kharma whoring - here's the text.
Also known as the "Instant +5, just add water" technique.
Worked pretty well too, I see.
No, I think Damn is still producing cracks, but I could be wrong.
That will probably happen just after the media (and everyone else) stops misconstruing the word "hacker".
In other words, not soon.
Before established as a law, it's commonly called "industry standards," which, while not a law, is quite a good argument in court.
Well, at one point in my career I was involved in laboratory testing systems for automotive components. In one case, I did a control system for a hydraulic test fixture that would slowly tear apart car seats, and measure precisely how much force was required to do that. The test series was known as FMVSS 207/210 (Federal Motor Vehicle Seat Specification 207/210), and all seats on cars sold in the U.S. are made to that spec. At least, that was true ten years ago. In any event, I was surprised by how much the seats being tested (both this manufacturer's and their competition's) exceeded this spec. The lab supervisor told me that the government requirements were too lax, and that believed seats made to FMVSS 207/210 wouldn't be safe in a crash. Legal liabilities being what they are, they made the seats to a higher standard.
Bit offtopic, I suppose, but the principle you're talking about does apply elsewhere, I think.
More to the point, taxes are paid to support public works, which so far as I understand the term means things such as roads, bridges and other infrastructure. Nobody in their right mind would consider BMG, Vivendi, Universal, Sony or any of the rest of the big studios to be public works. They're corporations, non-governmental organizations that have to survive in whatever economic climate they happen to find themselves. Or, maybe they don't survive. Either way, that's their problem, not ours, and certainly not our government's problem. Put it this way, there used to be a lot of companies in the United States producing all sorts of goods: the Federal Government provided them with no economic shield at all, in fact actively encouraged their destruction with artifices such as "Free Trade". Why is it, exactly, that the media companies (the bulk of whom aren't even U.S. corporations and take their profits elsewhere) feel that we should provide them from some special protection against the winds of change? Do they really believe that they are one of God's most important gifts to Man? It does look that way.
Every company since the dawn of the Industrial Age that has been faced with obsolescence has found itself at a crossroads: adapt or die. Some went one way, some went the other. Now a few have found a third way: conscript the power of as many major world governments as possible to prop up your failing businesses. That's bad enough in and of itself, but the collateral damage to various legal systems makes this behavior simply intolerable. So no, I don't feel I have to compromise with these people.
Besides, a blank media tax simply diverts tax funds (and yes, if I have to pay it involuntarily it's a tax) to private entities, known corrupt entities at that. Personally, that bothers me. Heck, I'd rather spend the money on the Iraq war than any of the big studios or their mouthpieces.
On the other hand, these aren't criminal cases. They're civil cases. I don't believe that "beyond a reasonable doubt" applies here ... something about a preponderance of evidence, which is a lower standard. But then again, I'm not a lawyer.
Yes, but there's also the issue of profit. The individual running that torrent makes no money, earns himself nothing, could be seen as a net loss if he has to pay any bandwidth charges. Anti-piracy laws, so far as I understand, were targeted at large-scale copying operations selling copyrighted works for profit, i.e. the true pirates. Such pirates had to invest substantial sums in equipment (printing presses and so forth) and all the other expenses a big business incurs. Consequently, it was decided that similarly large penalties were needed to provide an adequate deterrent effect and/or punishment.
The idea that a single individual could replicate a copyrighted work on a similarly massive scale worldwide with a few taps on a keyboard, with no investment in personnel or physical plant, was never considered when those old laws were penned. Yet, the penalties meant for illegal production facilities are being applied to individuals, which is insane. At least, the threat of such penalties is being used, which I guess is why so many people settle their cases out of court.
In the United States, I believe the RIAA already gets a cut from blank media sales, as it is presumed they'll be used for copyright infringement (the MPAA/RIAA's default position always seems to be that there is no "substantial non-infringing use" for any new technology.) Was it the Audio Home Recording Act that authorized this? Can anyone enlighten us as to the facts there (I haven't had any coffee yet and I'm too tired to Google.)
P.P.P.S. Doesn't even take a change of management, just hard times.
It's the other way around, actually. They are the ones who have taken the extreme position (many extreme positions) and need to accept a reasonable compromise, and so far I don't see that happening. The fact is, the big copyright holders and their "industry trade organizations" want it all their own way. Period. End of statement. There ultimately is no dealing rationally with criminal cartels that do not care who they hurt and absolutely will not stop. Might as well try to use logic and reason on a mafia hit man bent on taking you down. His goals and yours are diametrically opposed ... if you don't have the means to defend yourself or are unwilling to use them, you're lunchmeat. You don't reason with him. You pull the trigger, unless he's quicker on the draw. And so far, the media conglomerates have been quicker on the draw, when it comes to the law, and are having it all their own way. From their point of view, it's too bad that they didn't find a way squelch that whole Arpanet project all those years ago. And they would have if they had thought of it, you know that: it's their pattern. They don't perceive technological progress as beneficial, any change is a potential threat.
... doesn't matter because who the hell needs that. Rootkits. And let us not forget Disney. Yes, Disney, and that little bastard Mickey, who's been at the heart of so much evil lately. And you want to compromise with these people? Are you nuts, or do you just work for them?
Don't believe me? Let's see what can be laid at their feet. Let's start with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Sonny Boneless Copyright Extension Act, 99 year copyrights, shrinking of the public domain, damage to our cultural history. DRM, watermarking, the RIAA lawsuit machine and terrorized grandmothers and children. CSS, Region codes, SCM. Price gouging/fixing of Biblical proportions, the destruction or attempted elimination of every new technology that could conceivably threaten their hegemony, all down the line since the invention of the player piano. Clear Channel. Payola. undue influence (e.g. bribes) in Congress, purchased law, influence peddling, government corruption. "The VCR will be the destruction of the motion picture industry -- Jack Valenti" Intimidation of scientists and security researchers. "Looking out for the interests of the artists (yah, there's a good one)" Fair use
So, sorry, no. I don't have to accept a "compromise" (generally synonymous with "screw the consumer again.") These corporations are members of organized crime, besuited gangsters. Period. End of statement. "Reasonable" is simply not a word that can be put on the table at this point. "Jail sentence" I would probably willing to go for, if it involved some high-level RIAA or music studio exectives. A couple of Sony's people come to mind.
Besides, "Industries built on IP" sounds all well and good, but usually translates to old-guard corporations that want to maintain the status quo. That isn't going to happen, cannot be allowed to happen, or all the progress we made so far will go for nought just to keep a tiny fraction of the U.S. economy in gravy. Nor, I might add, is it the United States Federal Government's goddamn job to keep them in gravy! If the industries of which you speak are truly in danger of decimation (and they simply aren't, in spite of all their famous dissembling) why should the Feds bail them out? Why should our tax dollars bail them out? Given the damage that has been done to our legal system by these bastards, I say let them go the way of the dinosaurs they are, and see what some truly creative minds can come up with to replace them!
Furthermore, most of the companies we're talking about (those that comprise the music and motion-picture cartels) aren't even American companies, so your argument there is unfortunately somewhat specious. Again, why should the United States exert protectionist influence to maintain cash flow
Yes, you gave them the idea that they can sell you a premium "unlisted" account, then turn around and sell your data anyway. I mean, so far as I'm concerned an honest ISP wouldn't be selling my information in the first place, so why should I believe them when they say they aren't? A decent company would at least have let me know up front, or maybe offered a piece of the action. A discount for the use of my personal information would be nice, hell, my local grocery store does that much.
.. and they shafted me (I watched my phone bill grow from $49.95 for two lines to $90 for two lines). Now I'm back to SBC (sorry, I meant AT&T) experimenting with their VoIP offering (very impressive, actually) and I'm waiting for them to somehow shaft me again. I know they will: I just don't think they can resist the temptation. Kinda makes me want to throw up.
Bloodsucking leeches. For some reason (maybe because a lot of ISP managers used to work at SBC or something) communications providers in this country are just, well, sleazy. I used to like Illinois Bell / Ameritech. Always played fair with me. Then SBC picked them and they repeatedly shafted me, overall to the tune of about $3,000. So when Comcast came around with their Digital Phone service in my neighborhood, I switched to them
Ha. I wish I were bloated with that kind of money.
That may be, but for the most part they're both drivel.
I'd describe most of Microsoft's efforts outside of Windows and Office as "cute" as well.
... I hope every member on the panel gets herpes.
I'd hold out for a resistant strain of gonorrhea.
Personally, I'm attracted to her. Definitely a Mother I'd Like to Format.
People smoking pot don't have to motivation to kill anybody. Or believe somebody's religion, or believe what a TV ad tells them or, really, much of anything else anybody in power has to say. That's probably what scares those people the most.
Perhaps they should try installing a goddamn FIREWALL on their networks, and block all outgoing ports by default. If a P2P program can access outside resources, so can some real malware.
People are complacent, and have learned to accept a (imho) fairly high level of suck in exchange for not having to think.
... and we accepted it! However, at a certain point you have to improve matters because too much suck causes lost sales, and gives the competition an edge. The problem with the entertainment people is that they don't want any competition, thereby allowing them a free hand to shove as much as suck at us as they want. People would probably scream bloody murder if they were told that, by Federal law, only Windows boxes could be used or sold in the United States. They don't, however, seem to have as much of a problem with having that level of control applied to their software or their entertainment (which is, after all, just more software.)
To a significant degree, I think you're correct. Look at what Microsoft foisted upon the world, in the form of Win9X. Talk about your high level of suck
That bothers me.
My computer is my entertainment, far more so than television. When it becomes outdated and no longer capable of providing me with the entertainment I require, should I be provided a new computer, gratis?
People will entertain themselves, if all television sets went off for good tomorrow. They might not be happy about it, but they would. For sure there'd be a mini-baby-boom nine months from that point. Probably a lot of wives would find their husbands much more attentive. Besides, there is no specific entitlement that guarantees that we will be provided entertainment and I still haven't seen a good explanation of why the Feds are forcing this issue. What significant social benefit is derived from the reallocation and sale of the old spectrum? More to the point, who is actually benefiting from it? Not John Q. Public.
This is all about politicians not wanting their re-election prospects shattered because they disenfranchised fifteen or twenty million couch potatoes over a piece of expensive graft.
Well. There's always TorrentSpy.
One state is chemically-induced, the other is not.
Just as an aside, the phrase "American entertainment giants" belies the fact that many of those giants are actually not U.S. companies. So it isn't just a bunch of American corporations that are pulling this crap, it's a multinational cartel. At least two cartels that I know of, anyway.