First, you are right that no one is saying anything new, except I think people are very interested to hear a main player in this ordeal answer questions more to the heart of the subject.
I think/. posted the story because it was unresolved. You can't say "We'll have the answers for you on friday." and then never mention the subject again.
I don't see the hypocracy. The general rule the US goes by is "Your right to swing your fist, stops at the end of my nose."
You are comparing words to bullets. You can say you hate my guts, wish I were dead and I am subhuman, etc, but you can't do anything past that. US allows you to blabber your fool head off, but won't allow you to touch me in any way.
Milosevicz is using government resources to kill a select portion of it's population.
I will say lots of bad things about the US, and very few things I will say are the best in the world, but our free speech laws are the best in the world.
Also you are not making your moral argument very strong when you start off by bragging about causing someone else to lose their job so that you can financially profit from it.
Canada? Listen, you may be able to say "beaver" with a straight face, but down here in the civilized country we expect everyone to follow our laws whether they live here or not, and have a good belly laugh whenever a beaver comes on the tv.
I speak only for myself, but my problem would be with someone else using my stuff and saying it is their own, or making money off of it. Also, perhaps I made a good comment, but hate the author (in this case Katz) and don't want to help him in any way. Just saying there may be other reasons besides copyright.
"On the other side, some people seem to hate his articles so much that simply seeing a link to one on the front page causes them distress. That doesn't sound normal to me."
Blah blah blah, everyones crying like babies. Read my fucking first post. All I said was, I hope it is marked as "Katz" so I don't have to read it. What is the problem? There have in the past been Katz articles, (about, by, whatever) that still appear even with "No Katz" checked in preferences. I was mostly interested in/. making it's catagorizations accurate. (I see Hemos responded to a similar post to mine just below saying that they would be marked as "Katz".)
If I have my preferences marked as "No Apple" articles, I would have made the same post if an Apple article appeared on my front page. This article I posted to is fine, because it has to do with users rights to their comments, but the articles it "warns" us are coming should be marked accordingly and thats all I said.
Everyone else can have all the teen angst they want, more power to you.
If it upsets you that some people don't want to read Katz, then you honestly have an problem you need to deal with.
AbsoluteMatter, I totally feel for you. I'm not being sarcastic. But people have the right to not give a shit about other people if they want. It's sad but true. I did not say Katz should be removed from/., but marked as "Katz" so those who don't want to read it don't have to. Others argue that Katz belongs on a self help site rather than a page about "News for Nerds", which they are probably right about in my book, but again I don't think anyone is saying he should be quashed, just put in the appropriate place. Hemos and CmdrTaco may like Britney Spears, but that doesn't mean that/. is the place to discuss it. Love to all, Mr_Winkee
I guess I was wrong and your right. We don't need that "preferences" code in Slashdot at all. We can just sort through every bit of BS that comes across the front page. I didn't know it was like medicine. It disgusts you, but you should take it anyway because it's good for you, right?
Also thank you for correcting me about Crapmouth. I also didn't know that Katz was "somehow related" to Crapmouth. I was under the impressions that it is another gem WRITTEN by him.
Maybe this is stupid, but can't Andover provide a server in Brazil or somewhere where the DMCA doesn't mean anything, and put all "questionable" material/posts there with no copy, cache any bit of it in the US and then just seemlessly compile the page and post it to the users? Tell me where I'm wrong.
Here's what I don't get. So they have user ID's or whatever of 330,000 people who are trading Metallica mp3's. OR, is it people who have a file with the name Metallica in it, or one of their song title's. How about I put out a copy of the dictionary, out there titled "Metallica - Holier than Thou.mp3"? Did they download 330,000 mp3's and play them to see that the are copyrighted material. I have a file called "Metallica Sucks My Dick.mp3", on Napster. Am I on their list?
I got it to work, and it is exactly like I remember. On Defender, it even draws the shitty little Williams logo at the beginning. Breif thrill, I miss the arcaded controls though.
I think if you are filing a multimillion dollar lawsuit that will effect hundreds of thousands of people, and possibly bankrupt a company, you need to get your shit together. "Regular" people can talk out their butts all they want, people filing serious lawsuits can't.
I went in and out of three different chat rooms at the Metallica chat. There were about 15-20 people in the rooms. 10% were slobbering ass-kissers, "Lars type my name! I love you!", and the other 90% were there to get some answers and they were pissed. By the type of questions asked, we thought the moderator was their P.R. manager. Each question that appeared was greeted by cussing like "What the fuck kind of question is that? Answer the real fucking questions!" Many fans didn't think it was really the band because the answers sounded like a lawyer. At the end the people in the chat rooms with me were twice as mad as they were when it started. I think it was a miserable failure if it was for PR benefit.
You are right, my cop example was crap. I appologize for not thinking it through more before posting.
However, without a lawyer here I'll press on. I think we all agree that linking to illegal content is not illegal if you don't house the content yourself.
I also think that me putting my MP3's of Oasis' "Morning Glory" in Napster and then telling my friends who own a legal copy of this same CD, that I have ripped the songs and they can download them so they don't have to do the same work, would be legal. Now the fact that someone else can get them is irrelevant to me. I have made legal copies, and am distributing them legal to friends that own this CD. When do I become responsible for making sure other people I don't know, not commit a crime by downloading them? Should I have some responsiblity or none? I am not the copyright holder. Some would say some kind of attempt, I would say none. I don't think the copyright law says anywhere that as a consumer I need to protect their rights? Another true example: In college I had a drawing class in a studio. Bored I walked through an empty studio next door. Someone had a stack of tapes there on their work desk. One of the tapes was a Husker Du tape I had wanted for a long time. I took it home, copied it, and returned it to the person. What I did was totally illegal. I don't think they did anything illegal.
Thank you, your example with the VHS is better. But I think I am TRYING to live in the spirit of the law. I'll give a real example. I and my friend Ringo both have purchased a copy of John Lennon's "Double Fantasy". We both hate Yoko Ono's crap on there. I tell him I am making a CD that cuts her stuff out. He says, "great make one for me, too." I make a copy for him. Is this illegal? If it is it is technology illegal, but does not violate the spirit of the law. This is how I originally meant the question I asked at the top. What is the point of 1,000,000 people sitting there ripping, and compressing the same songs to MP3?
I don't think your right here. Making it "available" does not constitute a violation. It would be the act of someone who doesn't own the CD downloading it that would be the violation. Cops go under cover as drunks with golds chains on and money coming out of their pockets in subways. Making it available is not the crime, it is the people that take what doesn't belong to them that is illegal. In the music arena, if you are purchasing the pattern of 0's and 1's, which according the fair use law you are (since you can copy it to any media you want, not just a CD), then copying that pattern from someone else would be perfectly legal.
Legally you have the right to sue people who make unauthorized copies of your work and distribute it to others. I would also make the observation that a vast majority of your fans are pimply faced teens, having menial, unpleasant jobs to make what little money they have. Do you think getting another $13.99 out of them, is morally right when you already have more money than you could spend in a lifetime? Could you speak on how you balance these two wrongs and why you feel harassing (possibly suing in the future) these kids weighs against how the wrong you feel they are doing.
Do you feel that the small financial gain (or "control" as you call it) you will achieve with this lawsuit will outweigh the loss of revenue from alienating a large percentage of your fans?
How much money do you get from the sale of each CD, and how much goes to the record company?
Would you be interested in a system that allows you to circumvent the record company, sell your music for half the price you do now, and get quadruple the cut that Metallica gets on each sale? The internet has the potential to offer such a system.
The fair use law says that I can make copies of a Metallica CD I buy for my own personal use. An example being I copy onto a tape because I only have a tape player in my car. This is legal. Along the same lines, do you think it's wrong for me to download that same Metallica CD that I have purchased, using Napster to my MP3 player so I can take it to class? It's true that if I were technically savy, I could convert all of the CD myself to MP3's, but logically is this not a legal use of Napster, so that 100,000 people don't have to waste time and effort doing this conversion when it's already been done?
With other programs such as Gnutella, Freenet, etc. that are anonymous and are not controlled by a centralized company which you could sue, like Naptser, don't you think that you should be spending your time and money developing your own Internet solutions from which you can profit, rather than trying to push back the flow of technology which will only become more and more difficult to combat?
Slashdot Mirror
First, you are right that no one is saying anything new, except I think people are very interested to hear a main player in this ordeal answer questions more to the heart of the subject.
/. posted the story because it was unresolved. You can't say "We'll have the answers for you on friday." and then never mention the subject again.
I think
Hey! This is the Internet! Speak English!
I don't see the hypocracy. The general rule the US goes by is "Your right to swing your fist, stops at the end of my nose."
You are comparing words to bullets. You can say you hate my guts, wish I were dead and I am subhuman, etc, but you can't do anything past that. US allows you to blabber your fool head off, but won't allow you to touch me in any way.
Milosevicz is using government resources to kill a select portion of it's population.
I will say lots of bad things about the US, and very few things I will say are the best in the world, but our free speech laws are the best in the world.
Also you are not making your moral argument very strong when you start off by bragging about causing someone else to lose their job so that you can financially profit from it.
Thats what meta moderation should take care of. Dumb asses don't get the right to moderate a second time.
Canada? Listen, you may be able to say "beaver" with a straight face, but down here in the civilized country we expect everyone to follow our laws whether they live here or not, and have a good belly laugh whenever a beaver comes on the tv.
I speak only for myself, but my problem would be with someone else using my stuff and saying it is their own, or making money off of it. Also, perhaps I made a good comment, but hate the author (in this case Katz) and don't want to help him in any way.
Just saying there may be other reasons besides copyright.
"On the other side, some people seem to hate his articles so much that simply seeing a link to one on the front page causes them distress. That doesn't sound normal to me."
You must not have read my post.
(Yeah, I'm responding to my own post...)
/. making it's catagorizations accurate. (I see Hemos responded to a similar post to mine just below saying that they would be marked as "Katz".)
Blah blah blah, everyones crying like babies. Read my fucking first post. All I said was, I hope it is marked as "Katz" so I don't have to read it. What is the problem?
There have in the past been Katz articles, (about, by, whatever) that still appear even with "No Katz" checked in preferences. I was mostly interested in
If I have my preferences marked as "No Apple" articles, I would have made the same post if an Apple article appeared on my front page. This article I posted to is fine, because it has to do with users rights to their comments, but the articles it "warns" us are coming should be marked accordingly and thats all I said.
Everyone else can have all the teen angst they want, more power to you.
If it upsets you that some people don't want to read Katz, then you honestly have an problem you need to deal with.
AbsoluteMatter, I totally feel for you. I'm not being sarcastic. But people have the right to not give a shit about other people if they want. It's sad but true. /., but marked as "Katz" so those who don't want to read it don't have to. /. is the place to discuss it.
I did not say Katz should be removed from
Others argue that Katz belongs on a self help site rather than a page about "News for Nerds", which they are probably right about in my book, but again I don't think anyone is saying he should be quashed, just put in the appropriate place.
Hemos and CmdrTaco may like Britney Spears, but that doesn't mean that
Love to all,
Mr_Winkee
I guess I was wrong and your right. We don't need that "preferences" code in Slashdot at all. We can just sort through every bit of BS that comes across the front page. I didn't know it was like medicine. It disgusts you, but you should take it anyway because it's good for you, right?
Also thank you for correcting me about Crapmouth. I also didn't know that Katz was "somehow related" to Crapmouth. I was under the impressions that it is another gem WRITTEN by him.
Thanks
I would hope that "No Katz" in preferences will keep this series from appearing. He's seems to slip by sometimes on stuff like this.
I should moderate both of you OFFTOPIC, but instead I will tell you that I just read they are still cleaning up after the DDoS
Maybe this is stupid, but can't Andover provide a server in Brazil or somewhere where the DMCA doesn't mean anything, and put all "questionable" material/posts there with no copy, cache any bit of it in the US and then just seemlessly compile the page and post it to the users?
Tell me where I'm wrong.
Here's what I don't get. So they have user ID's or whatever of 330,000 people who are trading Metallica mp3's.
OR, is it people who have a file with the name Metallica in it, or one of their song title's. How about I put out a copy of the dictionary, out there titled "Metallica - Holier than Thou.mp3"?
Did they download 330,000 mp3's and play them to see that the are copyrighted material.
I have a file called "Metallica Sucks My Dick.mp3", on Napster. Am I on their list?
I got it to work, and it is exactly like I remember. On Defender, it even draws the shitty little Williams logo at the beginning.
Breif thrill, I miss the arcaded controls though.
I think if you are filing a multimillion dollar lawsuit that will effect hundreds of thousands of people, and possibly bankrupt a company, you need to get your shit together. "Regular" people can talk out their butts all they want, people filing serious lawsuits can't.
I went in and out of three different chat rooms at the Metallica chat. There were about 15-20 people in the rooms. 10% were slobbering ass-kissers, "Lars type my name! I love you!", and the other 90% were there to get some answers and they were pissed. By the type of questions asked, we thought the moderator was their P.R. manager. Each question that appeared was greeted by cussing like "What the fuck kind of question is that? Answer the real fucking questions!" Many fans didn't think it was really the band because the answers sounded like a lawyer. At the end the people in the chat rooms with me were twice as mad as they were when it started.
I think it was a miserable failure if it was for PR benefit.
You are right, my cop example was crap. I appologize for not thinking it through more before posting.
However, without a lawyer here I'll press on. I think we all agree that linking to illegal content is not illegal if you don't house the content yourself.
I also think that me putting my MP3's of Oasis' "Morning Glory" in Napster and then telling my friends who own a legal copy of this same CD, that I have ripped the songs and they can download them so they don't have to do the same work, would be legal. Now the fact that someone else can get them is irrelevant to me. I have made legal copies, and am distributing them legal to friends that own this CD. When do I become responsible for making sure other people I don't know, not commit a crime by downloading them? Should I have some responsiblity or none? I am not the copyright holder. Some would say some kind of attempt, I would say none. I don't think the copyright law says anywhere that as a consumer I need to protect their rights?
Another true example: In college I had a drawing class in a studio. Bored I walked through an empty studio next door. Someone had a stack of tapes there on their work desk. One of the tapes was a Husker Du tape I had wanted for a long time. I took it home, copied it, and returned it to the person. What I did was totally illegal. I don't think they did anything illegal.
Thank you, your example with the VHS is better. But I think I am TRYING to live in the spirit of the law. I'll give a real example.
I and my friend Ringo both have purchased a copy of John Lennon's "Double Fantasy". We both hate Yoko Ono's crap on there. I tell him I am making a CD that cuts her stuff out. He says, "great make one for me, too." I make a copy for him. Is this illegal? If it is it is technology illegal, but does not violate the spirit of the law. This is how I originally meant the question I asked at the top. What is the point of 1,000,000 people sitting there ripping, and compressing the same songs to MP3?
I don't think your right here. Making it "available" does not constitute a violation. It would be the act of someone who doesn't own the CD downloading it that would be the violation. Cops go under cover as drunks with golds chains on and money coming out of their pockets in subways. Making it available is not the crime, it is the people that take what doesn't belong to them that is illegal.
In the music arena, if you are purchasing the pattern of 0's and 1's, which according the fair use law you are (since you can copy it to any media you want, not just a CD), then copying that pattern from someone else would be perfectly legal.
Legally you have the right to sue people who make unauthorized copies of your work and distribute it to others. I would also make the observation that a vast majority of your fans are pimply faced teens, having menial, unpleasant jobs to make what little money they have. Do you think getting another $13.99 out of them, is morally right when you already have more money than you could spend in a lifetime? Could you speak on how you balance these two wrongs and why you feel harassing (possibly suing in the future) these kids weighs against how the wrong you feel they are doing.
Do you feel that the small financial gain (or "control" as you call it) you will achieve with this lawsuit will outweigh the loss of revenue from alienating a large percentage of your fans?
How much money do you get from the sale of each CD, and how much goes to the record company?
Would you be interested in a system that allows you to circumvent the record company, sell your music for half the price you do now, and get quadruple the cut that Metallica gets on each sale? The internet has the potential to offer such a system.
The fair use law says that I can make copies of a Metallica CD I buy for my own personal use. An example being I copy onto a tape because I only have a tape player in my car. This is legal. Along the same lines, do you think it's wrong for me to download that same Metallica CD that I have purchased, using Napster to my MP3 player so I can take it to class? It's true that if I were technically savy, I could convert all of the CD myself to MP3's, but logically is this not a legal use of Napster, so that 100,000 people don't have to waste time and effort doing this conversion when it's already been done?
With other programs such as Gnutella, Freenet, etc. that are anonymous and are not controlled by a centralized company which you could sue, like Naptser, don't you think that you should be spending your time and money developing your own Internet solutions from which you can profit, rather than trying to push back the flow of technology which will only become more and more difficult to combat?