Irrelevant. Them doing it to each other doesn't make it right for us to do it to them.
Another common argument is that at the time it was considered right for us to do it to them, but there was a moral conscience that objected to it, albeit a minority and not particularly influential group.
The thing is, I'm not saying we should leave America and give it back. I just want to learn from history and apply its lessons, a feat we're not accomplishing very well. Whatever native american groups might want now is also mostly irrelevant (beyond the fact that there is a certain amount of oppression in that direction), the same way these folks coming out wanting payment for being enslaved in the South. The sons do not answer for the sins of the fathers, that wouldn't be right either. But we should learn from it all and avoid making those mistakes in the future. That's all.
Furthermore, whether or not there were already weird black guys with boomerangs when the ancestors of the current Native Americans arrived is completely irrelevant to the history of european conquest of native american tribes. It was still mean, genocidal, and all those other things that W would go to war over if it happened today.
These findings don't take away from the last 500 years of history in the Americas the same way finding the Viking villages didn't take away from Columbus's idiocy (or greatness) when he stumbled onto the new world.
On a side note, I want to learn Columbus's trick. "So, you're saying that if we don't turn around, you're going to kill me and take over the ship?"
Heh, we're not likely to see eye to eye on the whole, but for this part:
Footnote: I also have a knee-jerk reaction when anyone says 'performance isn't a problem'. That's the sort of thinking that means iTunes runs like a total dog on my 800MHz PC.
He's referring to the "respected in the world" part of the Democratic platform. It's pretty nebulous, but given recent events, it can only mean giving in to France and Germany when they say "stop."
It's always faulty logic when you take a statement or a few facts and conclude 'it can only mean' whatever.
France and Germany didn't say "Don't go to war", they said "Give us more time to work on a diplomatic solution, and if it doesn't work, we'll go with you". That's a lot different than what Bush is saying. (I don't actually think France would've gone with us at all, but Germany might have. At the very least when the time came they would have been the ones to lose face, not US)
Now, as an exercise in deduction, how many other meanings can you come up with for policies to deal with terrorism based on the statements you have given?
It also means giving up the long-term strategy for getting rid of terrorism, bringing back appeasement tactics, and again treating terrorism as a criminal act.
First you say "it can only mean", now you say "It also means". Which is it? The two statements are either mutually exclusive, or you have failed to consider all possible solutions.
Nobody in the world disagrees that we should be fighting terrorism and putting a stop to it. Nobody. Except the terrorists, and their friends. The disagreement is on how. Now, there's no doubt that Bush can continue on his path and ultimately defeat terrorism (ok, there's some doubt). but it's not a black and white issue. Bush is likely to bankrupt America in the process. He has also sold out American first-strike values in favor of striking out in fear. Desperation, even.
Now, Kerry seems to be saying "let's just take a step back and rethink it", and that sounds damn smart to me. But Bush is right about Kerry being wishy-washy, and I sure in the hell don't want to vote for a wimp.
On the other hand, Bush does have a hard time accepting responsibility for really bad things. He can say "Yeah, maybe I didn't have the right information, but it was still the right thing to do" and be pretty damn convincing.
Until you see that the people he appointed, following instructions he gave, instituted a policy of torturing prisoners of war. And that he dodges like nuts, trying to avoid blame and trying to pick out scapegoats.
So who's the better president? I think we might well be better off voting for Hitler right now. At least we know for sure he's evil, and we also know that he'd get us defeated in a world war within 8 years, so we'd know for certain we'd have liberty again in our time.
He was just the only candidate on the ticket, that's all. But an election was held and he beat his opponents! Then he slaughtered everyone who voted against him, and a whole bunch of other people.
Any reasons why you would vote for Bush, please post them.
Kerry.
Any reasons why you would NOT vote for Bush, please post them too.
Well, he is Bush, after all.
Decisions, decisions. To tel lyou the truth, with recent events in Russia being what they are, I think it's now become too late to avert a global disaster (world war maybe, thermonuclear war maybe, something serious, something that makes what's happened in the last three years look like Act 1 of a Shakespearean tragedy).
Kerry or Bush, doesn't matter anymore. We're already fucked.
The article doesn't say anything about launching the volunteers into space, just that volunteers are needed for the projects. More than likely it will be for manual labor-type jobs, like cleaning up afterwards.
I don't know why I get my hopes up when Captain Obvious here is just going to come along and beat them with a tennis racquet.
You could have typed "Gay African-American Association of America", and I'm sure the idiot could have figured it out. *And* it would have been riotously funny.
Nothing! The Tejanos are the descendants of the Spaniards and Mexicans that originally took the land away from the natives. Geez, Texas is 40% Hispano, it would do you some good to learn a little Spanish!
Hablo pequito espanol, bendejo.
Besides that, either you've just answered my question "yes", or you've just answered my question with "No, I'm not descended from the native americans who originally lived in Texas, instead I've chosen a label that contributes to the global problems of racism". If the answer is the first, hats off to you. If the answer is the second, it's not surprising that you have thus far assumed I am both white and ignorant. I know more spanish than many who actually have lineage to spaniards, and I'm not exactly white. You see, I take issue with the usage of many words used to describe ethnic membership. We'd be much better off if we all realized we're part of one race, not one of many races.
It is obvious that you have never read the real history of Texas preferring instead to believe the myths and legends called Texas history by the Anglos. If you had you would know that after the Alamo the Mexicans spared Anglo women and children, while after San Jacinto the Texans you seem to idolize massacared Mexican women and children. And I don't even want to get into how the Spanish land grant records "mysteriously" burned after the Anglos took over Texas.
Santa Ana's history speaks for itself, I think. A great general, but a generally bad guy. Now, I'm not saying the tactics of the revolutionists in Texas were the best either. American history is one hypocrisy after another, and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we'll figure out that we haven't learned from our history either. Oppression and conquest is the American Way.
In an attempt to get this back on topic, what in the hell does the Alamo have to do with Miguel de Icaza???
Heh, it all started as a joke, and would have safely remained a joke had you not popped off indignantly.;) (It's not too late to save the joke, though, or at least turn it around to me popping off indignantly)
Re:Downloading music itself is not illegal...
on
NYT Promotes File Sharing
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Wait, so the sentiment around here, as you see it, is that sharing copyrighted materials is only ok if they're older than 28 years old, and I can develop a closed-source version of GNU emacs in 2012?
I took what he said to mean "Yes", in answer to your question. I would support what he said, as well.
You see, copyright is evil, in its most basic form. Its evil because it grants a Creator huge rights over the public, by giving the Creator a monopoly. This act of evilness is considered acceptable because in exchange for this monopoly, the Creator must agree to place his work in the public domain after a certain period of time.
However, the RIAA and MPAA (and many so-called artists) would have you think that Creative Works are never supposed to go into the public domain, and they will take action to prevent it (the most notorious being Disney who lobbies for changes in the law everytime Mickey Mouse comes up for expiration). This is in violation of the first principles of copyright, and if you were to ask me (which you haven't) should result in the complete revocation of copyright on anybody who tries to prevent their work from going into the public domain. DRM of any sort is exactly such an attempt.
Hmmm, I remember reading somewhere that downloading was considered by the courts to be copyright infringement. I admit I was using a possibly flawed memory by invoking Napster. Maybe I should dig around for it.;)
An argument can be made that a download isn't copying, that the file has to be copied by the server and the client is just storing the copy it receives. An argument can also be made that the copy is made by the client, because the server is just reading the file like it would any other file. The truth is, copyright went down the tubes when the courts supported a software copyright holder giving a license to copy the program for the purposes of executing it on the computer. *That* is when electronic storage and copyright went down the tubes.;(
both of you are suffering from a severe lack of reading comprehension. I will now exercise my fair use rights to quote from the article:
The first paragraph says:
DOWNLOADING music from the Internet is not illegal. Plenty of music available online is not just free but also easily available, legal and -- most important -- worth hearing.
The article goes on to say:
But the fine print of those lawsuits makes clear that fans are being sued not for downloading but for unauthorized distribution: leaving music in a shared folder for other peer-to-peer users to take.
Further discussion:
Recording companies have tried and failed to shut down decentralized file-sharing networks the way they closed the original Napster.
I avoided placing my own commentary since you guys both either a) didn't RTFA in the first place or b) can't read, in which case this post won't help you either.
The Napster decision is what determined that uploading is illegal, but downloading is not. The RIAA are going after people who are sharing files. If you don't want to get caught, don't share. You can still download as much as you want (except for users that will kill you for leeching). Downloading is legal, always has been, and hopefully always will be. That's not considered distribution. Uploading is, however, considered distribution.
It's times like this I wish the OMR had been more of a success (meaning, that I had more time and energy to make it so). Then again, 70,000+ downloads of independent artists' music isn't too shabby either.
What's the real holdup? You could start from scratch with the same code, just add a few things that require the musician to confirm the listing. Also, add some stuff that require the person submitting the listing to claim liability, so if you do get into any trouble you can push it off on the user that submitted the music. (Naturally a lawyer is the person who tell you if that'll work or not)
I'd be willing to help. I mean, if you had 70k downloads then you had some users, that's an audience.
It's not a black and white issue about feeding the artists, or the artists want to make a living, or anything like that. The simple fact is that with a major label deal, a band still doesn't make any more money than they did before, and in many cases they wind up hugely in debt.
Very very few bands make any real money with the majors. If you actually care about the musicians, then supporting the RIAA members is supporting a system that preys upon the musicians as much as it preys upon the fans.
Simple fact is, if you *really* want to support the musicians, you're better off supporting musicians who aren't RIAA-affiliated, because those guys actually have a chance of getting the money you paid for their record.
Oh wait, you can't buy their records. Thanks to the major labels' predatory practices. I forgot about that. I guess you'll have to fileshare instead and find another way to give the band your money.
Tejano? So what exactly does the Mexicans winning at the Alamo have to do with someone descended from the native tribes originally living in Texas, anyway? Do you like the idea that a foreign imperialistic power sought to prevent Texas from achieving independence (and ultimately lost, individual battle victories notwithstanding)?
Heh, yeah, that's the one. They meet most of my requirements for a good radio station. (They still play a lot of the crap that goes around, but even in the Austin market radio stations that play unpopular stuff don't last. K-Nac isn't around anymore...)
Of course, i don't actually listen to radio that much, if at all. Only when I drive my Celica, since it has a tape deck and I don't have tapes anymore. (when I put enough money together, the Celica's getting a CD player, because I really can't stand radio, even when it's KLBJ, but if I'm going to listen to radio, it's going to be KLBJ because as bad as they are, they are still the best out there)
You already had a distribution channel, silly. It's called OpenNap, Kazaa, GNUtella, Grokster, Audiogalaxy, and a whole slew of others.
As a musician, don't shy away from the P2P that the RIAA hates. As a matter of fact, if you want to see those places survive, use them. Give your permission on your recordings to be distributed over them, don't hold anything back. Every single musician that puts up files on their P2P app of choice and gives permission to distribute them does more to legitimize those networks than any combination of rhetoric will ever accomplish.
Also, take public domain music and record it and stick it up there. Take public domain books and stick them on there. C'mon! Lots of work to do...
Not as long as your player has to contact Apple (or whoever) to find out if you can play it still.
DRM is completely and irrevocably incompatible with copyright law due to the fact that copyright is supposed to expire, and DRM makes it possible to prevent that. Or rather, the copyright may expire, but DRM makes it possible to require you still pay for the song.
Whatever rights DRM may leave intact, it's still wrong unless it can completely conform to copyright law. In my not-so-humble-but-completely-honest opinion, anyone that uses DRM to "Manage their copy rights" should have their copyright immediately revoked and the work placed immediately into the public domain. You can have DRM only in the absence of copyright. Otherwise, the two don't play together.
Slashdot Mirror
Irrelevant. Them doing it to each other doesn't make it right for us to do it to them.
Another common argument is that at the time it was considered right for us to do it to them, but there was a moral conscience that objected to it, albeit a minority and not particularly influential group.
The thing is, I'm not saying we should leave America and give it back. I just want to learn from history and apply its lessons, a feat we're not accomplishing very well. Whatever native american groups might want now is also mostly irrelevant (beyond the fact that there is a certain amount of oppression in that direction), the same way these folks coming out wanting payment for being enslaved in the South. The sons do not answer for the sins of the fathers, that wouldn't be right either. But we should learn from it all and avoid making those mistakes in the future. That's all.
Furthermore, whether or not there were already weird black guys with boomerangs when the ancestors of the current Native Americans arrived is completely irrelevant to the history of european conquest of native american tribes. It was still mean, genocidal, and all those other things that W would go to war over if it happened today.
These findings don't take away from the last 500 years of history in the Americas the same way finding the Viking villages didn't take away from Columbus's idiocy (or greatness) when he stumbled onto the new world.
On a side note, I want to learn Columbus's trick. "So, you're saying that if we don't turn around, you're going to kill me and take over the ship?"
"Yes, sir"
"Look, a New World!"
Heh, we're not likely to see eye to eye on the whole, but for this part:
Footnote: I also have a knee-jerk reaction when anyone says 'performance isn't a problem'. That's the sort of thinking that means iTunes runs like a total dog on my 800MHz PC.
Same problem here. ;)
Twelve years wasn't enough?
Considering that 8 of those years was Clinton ignoring him, then yes, it wasn't enough.
He's referring to the "respected in the world" part of the Democratic platform. It's pretty nebulous, but given recent events, it can only mean giving in to France and Germany when they say "stop."
It's always faulty logic when you take a statement or a few facts and conclude 'it can only mean' whatever.
France and Germany didn't say "Don't go to war", they said "Give us more time to work on a diplomatic solution, and if it doesn't work, we'll go with you". That's a lot different than what Bush is saying. (I don't actually think France would've gone with us at all, but Germany might have. At the very least when the time came they would have been the ones to lose face, not US)
Now, as an exercise in deduction, how many other meanings can you come up with for policies to deal with terrorism based on the statements you have given?
It also means giving up the long-term strategy for getting rid of terrorism, bringing back appeasement tactics, and again treating terrorism as a criminal act.
First you say "it can only mean", now you say "It also means". Which is it? The two statements are either mutually exclusive, or you have failed to consider all possible solutions.
Nobody in the world disagrees that we should be fighting terrorism and putting a stop to it. Nobody. Except the terrorists, and their friends. The disagreement is on how. Now, there's no doubt that Bush can continue on his path and ultimately defeat terrorism (ok, there's some doubt). but it's not a black and white issue. Bush is likely to bankrupt America in the process. He has also sold out American first-strike values in favor of striking out in fear. Desperation, even.
Now, Kerry seems to be saying "let's just take a step back and rethink it", and that sounds damn smart to me. But Bush is right about Kerry being wishy-washy, and I sure in the hell don't want to vote for a wimp.
On the other hand, Bush does have a hard time accepting responsibility for really bad things. He can say "Yeah, maybe I didn't have the right information, but it was still the right thing to do" and be pretty damn convincing.
Until you see that the people he appointed, following instructions he gave, instituted a policy of torturing prisoners of war. And that he dodges like nuts, trying to avoid blame and trying to pick out scapegoats.
So who's the better president? I think we might well be better off voting for Hitler right now. At least we know for sure he's evil, and we also know that he'd get us defeated in a world war within 8 years, so we'd know for certain we'd have liberty again in our time.
Ooo, Ooo, technically Stalin was elected.
He was just the only candidate on the ticket, that's all. But an election was held and he beat his opponents! Then he slaughtered everyone who voted against him, and a whole bunch of other people.
Any reasons why you would vote for Bush, please post them.
Kerry.
Any reasons why you would NOT vote for Bush, please post them too.
Well, he is Bush, after all.
Decisions, decisions. To tel lyou the truth, with recent events in Russia being what they are, I think it's now become too late to avert a global disaster (world war maybe, thermonuclear war maybe, something serious, something that makes what's happened in the last three years look like Act 1 of a Shakespearean tragedy).
Kerry or Bush, doesn't matter anymore. We're already fucked.
The article doesn't say anything about launching the volunteers into space, just that volunteers are needed for the projects. More than likely it will be for manual labor-type jobs, like cleaning up afterwards.
I don't know why I get my hopes up when Captain Obvious here is just going to come along and beat them with a tennis racquet.
They have weight limits, you know.
You could have typed "Gay African-American Association of America", and I'm sure the idiot could have figured it out. *And* it would have been riotously funny.
Then why did I have to install a bunch of Gnome libraries that I previously didn't have installed?
Nothing! The Tejanos are the descendants of the Spaniards and Mexicans that originally took the land away from the natives. Geez, Texas is 40% Hispano, it would do you some good to learn a little Spanish!
Hablo pequito espanol, bendejo.
Besides that, either you've just answered my question "yes", or you've just answered my question with "No, I'm not descended from the native americans who originally lived in Texas, instead I've chosen a label that contributes to the global problems of racism". If the answer is the first, hats off to you. If the answer is the second, it's not surprising that you have thus far assumed I am both white and ignorant. I know more spanish than many who actually have lineage to spaniards, and I'm not exactly white. You see, I take issue with the usage of many words used to describe ethnic membership. We'd be much better off if we all realized we're part of one race, not one of many races.
It is obvious that you have never read the real history of Texas preferring instead to believe the myths and legends called Texas history by the Anglos. If you had you would know that after the Alamo the Mexicans spared Anglo women and children, while after San Jacinto the Texans you seem to idolize massacared Mexican women and children. And I don't even want to get into how the Spanish land grant records "mysteriously" burned after the Anglos took over Texas.
Santa Ana's history speaks for itself, I think. A great general, but a generally bad guy. Now, I'm not saying the tactics of the revolutionists in Texas were the best either. American history is one hypocrisy after another, and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we'll figure out that we haven't learned from our history either. Oppression and conquest is the American Way.
In an attempt to get this back on topic, what in the hell does the Alamo have to do with Miguel de Icaza???
Heh, it all started as a joke, and would have safely remained a joke had you not popped off indignantly. ;) (It's not too late to save the joke, though, or at least turn it around to me popping off indignantly)
Wait, so the sentiment around here, as you see it, is that sharing copyrighted materials is only ok if they're older than 28 years old, and I can develop a closed-source version of GNU emacs in 2012?
I took what he said to mean "Yes", in answer to your question. I would support what he said, as well.
You see, copyright is evil, in its most basic form. Its evil because it grants a Creator huge rights over the public, by giving the Creator a monopoly. This act of evilness is considered acceptable because in exchange for this monopoly, the Creator must agree to place his work in the public domain after a certain period of time.
However, the RIAA and MPAA (and many so-called artists) would have you think that Creative Works are never supposed to go into the public domain, and they will take action to prevent it (the most notorious being Disney who lobbies for changes in the law everytime Mickey Mouse comes up for expiration). This is in violation of the first principles of copyright, and if you were to ask me (which you haven't) should result in the complete revocation of copyright on anybody who tries to prevent their work from going into the public domain. DRM of any sort is exactly such an attempt.
Err, what I meant was "I remember reading somewhere that downloading was not considered by the courts..."
Sorry for the typo that totally changed the meaning of what I said. ;)
Hmmm, I remember reading somewhere that downloading was considered by the courts to be copyright infringement. I admit I was using a possibly flawed memory by invoking Napster. Maybe I should dig around for it. ;)
An argument can be made that a download isn't copying, that the file has to be copied by the server and the client is just storing the copy it receives. An argument can also be made that the copy is made by the client, because the server is just reading the file like it would any other file. The truth is, copyright went down the tubes when the courts supported a software copyright holder giving a license to copy the program for the purposes of executing it on the computer. *That* is when electronic storage and copyright went down the tubes. ;(
both of you are suffering from a severe lack of reading comprehension. I will now exercise my fair use rights to quote from the article:
The first paragraph says:
The article goes on to say:
Further discussion:
I avoided placing my own commentary since you guys both either a) didn't RTFA in the first place or b) can't read, in which case this post won't help you either.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Kodos the Executioner? That Kodos?
You guys are on crack.
The Napster decision is what determined that uploading is illegal, but downloading is not. The RIAA are going after people who are sharing files. If you don't want to get caught, don't share. You can still download as much as you want (except for users that will kill you for leeching). Downloading is legal, always has been, and hopefully always will be. That's not considered distribution. Uploading is, however, considered distribution.
It's times like this I wish the OMR had been more of a success (meaning, that I had more time and energy to make it so). Then again, 70,000+ downloads of independent artists' music isn't too shabby either.
What's the real holdup? You could start from scratch with the same code, just add a few things that require the musician to confirm the listing. Also, add some stuff that require the person submitting the listing to claim liability, so if you do get into any trouble you can push it off on the user that submitted the music. (Naturally a lawyer is the person who tell you if that'll work or not)
I'd be willing to help. I mean, if you had 70k downloads then you had some users, that's an audience.
This is your answer.
It's not a black and white issue about feeding the artists, or the artists want to make a living, or anything like that. The simple fact is that with a major label deal, a band still doesn't make any more money than they did before, and in many cases they wind up hugely in debt.
Very very few bands make any real money with the majors. If you actually care about the musicians, then supporting the RIAA members is supporting a system that preys upon the musicians as much as it preys upon the fans.
Simple fact is, if you *really* want to support the musicians, you're better off supporting musicians who aren't RIAA-affiliated, because those guys actually have a chance of getting the money you paid for their record.
Oh wait, you can't buy their records. Thanks to the major labels' predatory practices. I forgot about that. I guess you'll have to fileshare instead and find another way to give the band your money.
Tejano? So what exactly does the Mexicans winning at the Alamo have to do with someone descended from the native tribes originally living in Texas, anyway? Do you like the idea that a foreign imperialistic power sought to prevent Texas from achieving independence (and ultimately lost, individual battle victories notwithstanding)?
Heh, yeah, that's the one. They meet most of my requirements for a good radio station. (They still play a lot of the crap that goes around, but even in the Austin market radio stations that play unpopular stuff don't last. K-Nac isn't around anymore...)
Of course, i don't actually listen to radio that much, if at all. Only when I drive my Celica, since it has a tape deck and I don't have tapes anymore. (when I put enough money together, the Celica's getting a CD player, because I really can't stand radio, even when it's KLBJ, but if I'm going to listen to radio, it's going to be KLBJ because as bad as they are, they are still the best out there)
Copyright is already supposed to secure this stuff for the public, through the mechanism commonly referred to as expiration.
So, uh, your point isn't totally defeated, just that we need to focus on a different problem.
not that I disagree with you, just pointing out how recordings of the performances are already secured for the public domain. ;)
You already had a distribution channel, silly. It's called OpenNap, Kazaa, GNUtella, Grokster, Audiogalaxy, and a whole slew of others.
As a musician, don't shy away from the P2P that the RIAA hates. As a matter of fact, if you want to see those places survive, use them. Give your permission on your recordings to be distributed over them, don't hold anything back. Every single musician that puts up files on their P2P app of choice and gives permission to distribute them does more to legitimize those networks than any combination of rhetoric will ever accomplish.
Also, take public domain music and record it and stick it up there. Take public domain books and stick them on there. C'mon! Lots of work to do...
Not as long as your player has to contact Apple (or whoever) to find out if you can play it still.
DRM is completely and irrevocably incompatible with copyright law due to the fact that copyright is supposed to expire, and DRM makes it possible to prevent that. Or rather, the copyright may expire, but DRM makes it possible to require you still pay for the song.
Whatever rights DRM may leave intact, it's still wrong unless it can completely conform to copyright law. In my not-so-humble-but-completely-honest opinion, anyone that uses DRM to "Manage their copy rights" should have their copyright immediately revoked and the work placed immediately into the public domain. You can have DRM only in the absence of copyright. Otherwise, the two don't play together.