I've had math professors who could barely speak English because they were foreign countries. And the ones raised speaking English still had trouble communicating. It's a difficult subject and there are often big disagreements over the best way to present the material. Some think you should start from a high-level theory and work your way down. Others think you should start with basic examples and eventually get to the theory. Naturally, I've found that professors in one camp think those in the other camp are "bad".
This guy just sounds like a tenured member of the college industrial complex who is deathly afraid that people will stop subsidizing his way of life. I wouldn't be surprised to find that 90% of the people taking college calculus don't need the material and never use it again. Math departments are kept afloat with distribution requirements. There's a lot of money at stake. If these big online courses catch on, the professoriate will be out on the street. Of course they're going to hate it.
Another option is that some third agency, as yet unnamed, officially owns the UDID values, and they were just sharing them with this guy. The agencies always play this game. They'll say "No one at ABC did this" knowing full well it was someone at the XYZ agency who was assigned to ABC. In the mean time, XYZ will deny authorizing anyone to do it, knowing full well that the authorization was done by someone at ABC.
I feel bad about pirating some software and music, but it seems much less bad to pirate some BitTorrent code, right? And by pirate, I mean installing some ad-blocking software so I don't need to watch their crazy ads and waste some bandwidth on the ads when that bandwidth could be torrenting even more content.
Okay. Since iTunes doesn't have that particular song, you are now given a license to torrent every single song, movie, book or whatever for the REST OF YOUR LIFE. It's a-okay because your feelings have been hurt by iTunes. Go to it. Oh wait, I'm guessing you're already doing that anyway.
Their mission is very flexible and the way they respond is flexible. Both Google and NSA spy on Americans, but the EFF really protests about one of them. The other gets forgotten or put on the back burner. Can you guess which one?
These places have to pay their bills. They can't be too picky or too earnest.
Sure. Whatever. Like the $500k check showed up and just a few weeks later the EFF announced a big increase in their effort to stop SOPA? I'm sure the Google folks went back in time with a time machine.
It doesn't matter. The judge just wants to know who was paid, not the order of payment and article.
What a jerk. He probably wants to eat food, buy a house, see a doctor, and raise a family.:-)
Open source sharing is great with programmers, but with the rest of the world it's a one-way street. Money is the only way that 99.9% of the world can support software because they can't code or do anything but complain about bugs. So money it's got to be. I would barter, but it's rather inefficient. Thank goodness for cash.
So you will only pay your money directly to the artist? Can the artist hire someone to collect the money for him or her? That's sort of what the old music companies are. And if you see the Beatles' mansions, it's clear that they did pass some of that money along to the Beatles.
I liked David Lowery's piece. He's right. Record companies do pay people. They may not be as much as anyone wants, but the solution is not to just steal things. It's to pay more for content.
The irony is that companies like NPR routinely bring in unpaid interns. She's really the one being exploited. I wonder how she feels about people listening to NPR without paying?
Not that the Foreign Legion engages in violence.
http://www.legion-recrute.com/en/
How do they distinguish between good violence and bad? I guess they mean state-sponsored versus free-market. Oh wait. Isn't "free market" something good?
Small fines are better than strange random law suits, right? The big law suits were full of silly numbers. At least these numbers do a better job of fitting the crime-- and I do think that downloading is a crime.
Innovation? That's always the claim but as far as I could tell, Megaupload was an FTP server and not a very stable one at that. That's 20+ year old technology.
Unless you have permission.
It's called freedom of speech. It's for expressing your opinions. It's for communicating your thoughts. It's not for sitting on your rear end and downloading some movie without paying for it. Calling downloading a "human right" is an insult to Martin Luther King, Peter Zenger, and everyone else who fought for our right to express ourselves.
Paying royalties and not cloning doesn't seem very open source to me. Open source licenses explicitly allow not paying royalties and cloning. If you don't allow that, someone will say it's not open source.
So why bother calling it open source if we'll just get in trouble for not paying royalties or creating something that's too much of a clone?
I know people like to make a distinction between physical and non-physical goods, but I'm less and less impressed by them. Potash is just stuff in the ground. It's almost as free as software. Yet just like information it takes work to organize it, refine it and bring it to market. So I increasingly don't see a difference.
Oh, I know the old saw that you can make infinite copies of a digital file, but that ignores how expensive it can be to produce the first copy. We need to find a good way of protecting the folks who invest in that first copy. If that means patents, I think that's fine.
Uh, no. Not theirs. The other files. There are other files on that server and I would be surprised if less than 80% of the data was "legitimate". Oh, I'm sure there are a few Linux distros there but I would be really pretty freaked out if I were one of those people who drew a paycheck from uploading things to Megaupload. The evidence is all there.
If I were a lawyer representing any of the major Big Content companies, I would subpoena that information pronto. Then I would get the credit card and payment records from the government. Voila. You can probably convict most of the top N uploaders of willful infringement and maybe even get a criminal conviction too. Those files are direct evidence of a crime.
Is the EFF really thinking through what they're doing?
Wow. If you don't pay off the guy, it sounds like he distributes software that breaks your Terms of Service and helps people cheat your site. Gotta love the web.
The irony is killing me. Google is so happy to frame other people's content with their own ads. It's going to be funny to see them spin up some kind of tortuous distinction between their advertisements and the ones that the Sambreel uses.
Yup. You're spot on. Some people just don't want to come to grips that there's something morally wrong with taking someone else's work product without paying the given price. So they turn to tenured radicals like Geist to come up with the sophistry to justify not paying.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had math professors who could barely speak English because they were foreign countries. And the ones raised speaking English still had trouble communicating. It's a difficult subject and there are often big disagreements over the best way to present the material. Some think you should start from a high-level theory and work your way down. Others think you should start with basic examples and eventually get to the theory. Naturally, I've found that professors in one camp think those in the other camp are "bad". This guy just sounds like a tenured member of the college industrial complex who is deathly afraid that people will stop subsidizing his way of life. I wouldn't be surprised to find that 90% of the people taking college calculus don't need the material and never use it again. Math departments are kept afloat with distribution requirements. There's a lot of money at stake. If these big online courses catch on, the professoriate will be out on the street. Of course they're going to hate it.
Another option is that some third agency, as yet unnamed, officially owns the UDID values, and they were just sharing them with this guy. The agencies always play this game. They'll say "No one at ABC did this" knowing full well it was someone at the XYZ agency who was assigned to ABC. In the mean time, XYZ will deny authorizing anyone to do it, knowing full well that the authorization was done by someone at ABC.
I feel bad about pirating some software and music, but it seems much less bad to pirate some BitTorrent code, right? And by pirate, I mean installing some ad-blocking software so I don't need to watch their crazy ads and waste some bandwidth on the ads when that bandwidth could be torrenting even more content.
Okay. Since iTunes doesn't have that particular song, you are now given a license to torrent every single song, movie, book or whatever for the REST OF YOUR LIFE. It's a-okay because your feelings have been hurt by iTunes. Go to it. Oh wait, I'm guessing you're already doing that anyway.
Their mission is very flexible and the way they respond is flexible. Both Google and NSA spy on Americans, but the EFF really protests about one of them. The other gets forgotten or put on the back burner. Can you guess which one? These places have to pay their bills. They can't be too picky or too earnest.
Sure. Whatever. Like the $500k check showed up and just a few weeks later the EFF announced a big increase in their effort to stop SOPA? I'm sure the Google folks went back in time with a time machine. It doesn't matter. The judge just wants to know who was paid, not the order of payment and article.
Look at the money flowing into the EFF from Sergei Brin: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/join-now-and-eff-gets-4x-power http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/give-to-eff-today-and-your-do.html https://www.eff.org/pages/eff-mission And then there are the fun private parties: https://www.eff.org/event/eff-mixer-google Didn't you get an invite? Face it. A big part of their budget come from Google billionaires and so it shouldn't be surprising that they're seeing eye to eye.
This is going to be an interesting list... I know that Google funds a number of so-called non-profits to campaign for their needs. I wonder if they count as "media". They all have blogs where they take positions like these: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/05/oracle-v-google-and-dangerous-implications-treating-apis-copyrightable
What a jerk. He probably wants to eat food, buy a house, see a doctor, and raise a family. :-)
Open source sharing is great with programmers, but with the rest of the world it's a one-way street. Money is the only way that 99.9% of the world can support software because they can't code or do anything but complain about bugs. So money it's got to be. I would barter, but it's rather inefficient. Thank goodness for cash.
So you will only pay your money directly to the artist? Can the artist hire someone to collect the money for him or her? That's sort of what the old music companies are. And if you see the Beatles' mansions, it's clear that they did pass some of that money along to the Beatles.
I liked David Lowery's piece. He's right. Record companies do pay people. They may not be as much as anyone wants, but the solution is not to just steal things. It's to pay more for content. The irony is that companies like NPR routinely bring in unpaid interns. She's really the one being exploited. I wonder how she feels about people listening to NPR without paying?
That's what I read on the Internet.
Not that the Foreign Legion engages in violence. http://www.legion-recrute.com/en/ How do they distinguish between good violence and bad? I guess they mean state-sponsored versus free-market. Oh wait. Isn't "free market" something good?
Small fines are better than strange random law suits, right? The big law suits were full of silly numbers. At least these numbers do a better job of fitting the crime-- and I do think that downloading is a crime.
Innovation? That's always the claim but as far as I could tell, Megaupload was an FTP server and not a very stable one at that. That's 20+ year old technology.
Unless you have permission. It's called freedom of speech. It's for expressing your opinions. It's for communicating your thoughts. It's not for sitting on your rear end and downloading some movie without paying for it. Calling downloading a "human right" is an insult to Martin Luther King, Peter Zenger, and everyone else who fought for our right to express ourselves.
Paying royalties and not cloning doesn't seem very open source to me. Open source licenses explicitly allow not paying royalties and cloning. If you don't allow that, someone will say it's not open source. So why bother calling it open source if we'll just get in trouble for not paying royalties or creating something that's too much of a clone?
I know people like to make a distinction between physical and non-physical goods, but I'm less and less impressed by them. Potash is just stuff in the ground. It's almost as free as software. Yet just like information it takes work to organize it, refine it and bring it to market. So I increasingly don't see a difference. Oh, I know the old saw that you can make infinite copies of a digital file, but that ignores how expensive it can be to produce the first copy. We need to find a good way of protecting the folks who invest in that first copy. If that means patents, I think that's fine.
Uh, no. Not theirs. The other files. There are other files on that server and I would be surprised if less than 80% of the data was "legitimate". Oh, I'm sure there are a few Linux distros there but I would be really pretty freaked out if I were one of those people who drew a paycheck from uploading things to Megaupload. The evidence is all there.
If I were a lawyer representing any of the major Big Content companies, I would subpoena that information pronto. Then I would get the credit card and payment records from the government. Voila. You can probably convict most of the top N uploaders of willful infringement and maybe even get a criminal conviction too. Those files are direct evidence of a crime. Is the EFF really thinking through what they're doing?
Yup. Google is sending O'Reilly and No Starch searchers to the torrent sites. http://wayner.org/node/80
It looks like O'Reilly and No Starch-- two sites that went dark-- get to watch Google send the traffic to the torrent sites. http://wayner.org/node/80
Wow. If you don't pay off the guy, it sounds like he distributes software that breaks your Terms of Service and helps people cheat your site. Gotta love the web.
The irony is killing me. Google is so happy to frame other people's content with their own ads. It's going to be funny to see them spin up some kind of tortuous distinction between their advertisements and the ones that the Sambreel uses.
Yup. You're spot on. Some people just don't want to come to grips that there's something morally wrong with taking someone else's work product without paying the given price. So they turn to tenured radicals like Geist to come up with the sophistry to justify not paying.