Hehe... I love the way you turn this into an extortion scenario (complete with the Mafia) when I hear extortion justified on/. every day (If only CDs were cheaper, I'd stop ripping them off).
And I love the way you complain about drone workers looking to find any way to get through the meaninglessness of the day, when the/. campaign against patents, copyright, and proprietary software endangers any job that involves the least bit of creativity.
The "crime" we are talking about is called "Copyright Violation". It's not stealing. When I make a copy of something I don't deprive anyone of anything.
You're using an obsolete definition of the word "stealing".
Yeah, but on my last Linux laptop, the backtick key was so inconveniently located (beneath the 'v') that it practically gave me carpal tunnel syndrome all by itsself
Capitalism is certainly vulnerable to this phenomenon. A bunch of companies are sharing a multi-billion dollar market, when one of them tries to grab a bigger piece of the pie by lowering margins. A price war ensues.
Actually, according to some theories, the evolutionary pressure would keep them at a certain length. The existence of telomers (or, rather, the cell divisions reducing them) stops mutated cells from runaway divisions for example.
I had thought about this, but didn't give it much credance since I didn't know the bit about cancer cells replenishing the telomeres. Of course, if you're going around cloning things then it might be a good idea to re-set the telomer on the clone cell.
If we have the technology to do that, then it should be pretty easy to verify the above theory on cloned rats, etc.
Indeed, the organism that bred successfully into their 70's (or 170's or 2525's) would be highly successful in an evolutionary sense.
Not necessarily. An organism like that would eventually have hundreds of grandchildren and great-grandchildren, meaning that its own individual contribution to the breeding process would become insignificant.
Natural selection doesn't optimize for long life. It optimizes for making babies. The long-lived old couple that is no longer breeding is actualy detrimental to evolution, as they are using up resources that could have been used by breeders. Horrible as it may sound, us dying after getting old is not a mistake of evolution, it's an actual goal of it.
You're misunderstanding natural selection. Us dying after getting old is not a specific goal of evolution, it's just that letting us get old is a non-goal.
That old adage about the prey "needing" the predators in order to cull the herd of the sick and weak is just BS.
Organisms don't have a "clock" to keep track of their age. That's ridiculous. What happens is that natural selection finds a solution that is good enough, not necessarily the optimal solution. After the telomeres reach a certain length, there is simply not enough selective power to make them any longer.
I read in one of your other abortive attempts at a conversation that you were a "last-worder", so I was surprised not to get your "ha, no you suck" message sooner.
Wouldn't it be better for the OS movement to win in a forum of free discussion, than to say, "This is MY point of view, and it's the right one. No, I won't let you speak and defend yourself, because I'm right." How childish does that seem?
Yeah, we know all about forums of free discussion. On/., you don't usually get modded down for stating an anti-OSS point (maybe about 20% of the time), but you don't get modded up either. On the other hand, a lot of idiotic, nonsensical postings get modded up because they reach the "correct" conclusion. Thus, any dissenting opinions get lost in the noise. It's a subtle form of censorship. Open Source != Open Minds. Now go ahead and mod me down, lest the dangerous words get out.
I don't think they need all that fancy evidence. When someone is sharing copyrighted material, all the evidence against them is out there on the Internet. The RIAA could use logs from their own ISP or they could have a notary public witness the downloads. Whatever. Remember -- a jury awarded HOW many millions to a woman who spilled McDonald's coffee in her lap?
a) McDonald's coffee really is too hot. b) The award was reduced dramatically on appeal. A jury determined OJ Simpson was not guilty.
A jury found a celebrity not guilty in a murder case. He was found guilty in a civil suit where the standard of proof is lower. A jury though 7 armed police officers who were taped beating an unarmed, unresisting black man (Rodney King) for 5+ minutes were "not guilty".
2 of them were later convicted. They were given reduced sentences partly because they had received death threats.
Anyway, surely you realize that the rules for celebrity justice and other high profile cases are different. You've got high priced defense attourneys and expert witnesses. Juries act differently because they feel as if they are "making history".
as much as they fight it, AOL/RIAA/whatever are only shooting themselves in the foot. embrace digital content as a viable content delivery mechanism or die....
I find it funny when people phrase it as "do X or die" because then it sounds even more like extortion than it already is!
Wow, I could really use this. Find the IP of someone who pisses me off for some reason or another. Go get a subpeona claiming they have downloaded something of mine that is copyrighted, tada, have name and address, can now open can of whoop ass.
In my mind, this is not even an unclear issue. The Verizon ruling is going to stand and ISPs are going to be forced to reveal customer data. Realistically speaking, they ought to be monitoring their networks and issuing warnings pre-emptively.
Interesting how they can monitor their networks for spammers, VPN users, people running web servers, etc. but they choose not to monitor P2P. There is legal precedent for forcing industries that provide services that facilitate criminal activities to participate in the prevention and monitoring of said activities.
However, given that there have been some reports of false positives, the bot software needs some work. Clearly, rather than simply analyzing the name of the file, they also need to download the song and check that it is what it appears to be.
Good luck proving successful downloads of songs for copyright infringement. Not to mention proving the downloads were of the SONGS claimed, and not some other file with the same name. Even if the file "baby_one_more_time.mp3" exists on the subject's machine, and the RIAA downloaded it and tracked back to to the subject that is only ONE violation. There is no way they can legally prove other infringements -- maybe the person was sharing a copy of bible reading masquerading as Brittany Who's-Dumping-Me-Today Spears? Maybe the RIAA was the only one that got the real thing?
That's about the most cockamamie story I've ever heard.
I agree with the sentiments of the poster who said "thanks for providing us with a 3rd grader's legal opinion." Judges and juries aren't as dumb as you think they are, and when they see "imperfect" evidence, they are still able to read between the lines. If you put up a file called "baby_one_more_time.mp3" and the RIAA downloads it and finds out what it is, not one single person, not even your mother will believe that 99% of the time that file is a bible reading and 1% of the time it is a copyrighted song. And if you try to claim that that's the one and only copyrighted song on your HD and all the other files are bible readings in disguise, no one is going to believe that either. Get a grip!
I hope you don't ever get caught committing a crime, cuz the "I was just standing there when a guy walked by, grabbed the jewelry, and stuck it in my pocket, and you can't prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt" defense doesn't usually hold up in court.
The reason the guy in India/Mexico/Nebraska/whereever makes $5/hr and is worth it is because he does a job that is only worth $5/hr. If the job is worth $55/hr, then a $55/hr person will get that job.
Sorry, that's just fucking dumb. Apparently, you don't understand that different countries (cities even) have wholly different economies. There is no intinsic value of a job, independent of where the job is performed. I mean, c'mon! The great U.S. of A. is gonna remain on top of the world by "obscurity" ?
More likely, the great US of A is not going to remain on top of the world.
Hey, didn't the republicans shut down congress a few years back in an attempt to pass a balanced budget resolution? It seems that the republicans only support such measures when the democrats are in power.
Yet again, the idealists are proved wrong, but they will never admit it. 5 years from now,/. readers will be claiming that the BIAA has destroyed blogging, and if it weren't from them all blogs would be equal.
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't he make his money off first sale? That's a laugh. Your voodoo economics doesn't work on me.
-a
Britney's job doesn't require that much creativity anyway. But what about the guy who writes the music that she sings?
-a
Hehe... I love the way you turn this into an extortion scenario (complete with the Mafia) when I hear extortion justified on /. every day (If only CDs were cheaper, I'd stop ripping them off).
/. campaign against patents, copyright, and proprietary software endangers any job that involves the least bit of creativity.
And I love the way you complain about drone workers looking to find any way to get through the meaninglessness of the day, when the
-a
The "crime" we are talking about is called "Copyright Violation". It's not stealing. When I make a copy of something I don't deprive anyone of anything.
You're using an obsolete definition of the word "stealing".
-a
Yeah, but on my last Linux laptop, the backtick key was so inconveniently located (beneath the 'v') that it practically gave me carpal tunnel syndrome all by itsself
-a
Capitalism is certainly vulnerable to this phenomenon. A bunch of companies are sharing a multi-billion dollar market, when one of them tries to grab a bigger piece of the pie by lowering margins. A price war ensues.
-a
Actually, according to some theories, the evolutionary pressure would keep them at a certain length. The existence of telomers (or, rather, the cell divisions reducing them) stops mutated cells from runaway divisions for example.
I had thought about this, but didn't give it much credance since I didn't know the bit about cancer cells replenishing the telomeres.
Of course, if you're going around cloning things then it might be a good idea to re-set the telomer on the clone cell.
If we have the technology to do that, then it should be pretty easy to verify the above theory on cloned rats, etc.
Indeed, the organism that bred successfully into their 70's (or 170's or 2525's) would be highly successful in an evolutionary sense.
Not necessarily. An organism like that would eventually have hundreds of grandchildren and great-grandchildren, meaning that its own individual contribution to the breeding process would become insignificant.
-a
Natural selection doesn't optimize for long life. It optimizes for making babies. The long-lived old couple that is no longer breeding is actualy detrimental to evolution, as they are using up resources that could have been used by breeders. Horrible as it may sound, us dying after getting old is not a mistake of evolution, it's an actual goal of it.
You're misunderstanding natural selection. Us dying after getting old is not a specific goal of evolution, it's just that letting us get old is a non-goal.
That old adage about the prey "needing" the predators in order to cull the herd of the sick and weak is just BS.
-a
Organisms don't have a "clock" to keep track of their age. That's ridiculous. What happens is that natural selection finds a solution that is good enough, not necessarily the optimal solution. After the telomeres reach a certain length, there is simply not enough selective power to make them any longer.
-a
I read in one of your other abortive attempts at a conversation that you were a "last-worder", so I was surprised not to get your "ha, no you suck" message sooner.
-a
Wouldn't it be better for the OS movement to win in a forum of free discussion, than to say, "This is MY point of view, and it's the right one. No, I won't let you speak and defend yourself, because I'm right." How childish does that seem?
Yeah, we know all about forums of free discussion. On
-a
Its not as if there is going to be a Hollywood movie of the week to celebrate your cause - Hollywood doesn't like copyright infringers, remember?
The amazing thing to me is that someone in Hollywood greenlighted "Anti-Trust".
-a
I don't think they need all that fancy evidence. When someone is sharing copyrighted material, all the evidence against them is out there on the Internet. The RIAA could use logs from their own ISP or they could have a notary public witness the downloads. Whatever.
Remember -- a jury awarded HOW many millions to a woman who spilled McDonald's coffee in her lap?
a) McDonald's coffee really is too hot.
b) The award was reduced dramatically on appeal.
A jury determined OJ Simpson was not guilty.
A jury found a celebrity not guilty in a murder case. He was found guilty in a civil suit where the standard of proof is lower.
A jury though 7 armed police officers who were taped beating an unarmed, unresisting black man (Rodney King) for 5+ minutes were "not guilty".
2 of them were later convicted. They were given reduced sentences partly because they had received death threats.
Anyway, surely you realize that the rules for celebrity justice and other high profile cases are different. You've got high priced defense attourneys and expert witnesses. Juries act differently because they feel as if they are "making history".
-a
as much as they fight it, AOL/RIAA/whatever are only shooting themselves in the foot. embrace digital content as a viable content delivery mechanism or die....
I find it funny when people phrase it as "do X or die" because then it sounds even more like extortion than it already is!
-a
Wow, I could really use this. Find the IP of someone who pisses me off for some reason or another. Go get a subpeona claiming they have downloaded something of mine that is copyrighted, tada, have name and address, can now open can of whoop ass.
And get nailed for perjury?
-a
In my mind, this is not even an unclear issue. The Verizon ruling is going to stand and ISPs are going to be forced to reveal customer data. Realistically speaking, they ought to be monitoring their networks and issuing warnings pre-emptively.
Interesting how they can monitor their networks for spammers, VPN users, people running web servers, etc. but they choose not to monitor P2P. There is legal precedent for forcing industries that provide services that facilitate criminal activities to participate in the prevention and monitoring of said activities.
However, given that there have been some reports of false positives, the bot software needs some work. Clearly, rather than simply analyzing the name of the file, they also need to download the song and check that it is what it appears to be.
-a
Good luck proving successful downloads of songs for copyright infringement. Not to mention proving the downloads were of the SONGS claimed, and not some other file with the same name. Even if the file "baby_one_more_time.mp3" exists on the subject's machine, and the RIAA downloaded it and tracked back to to the subject that is only ONE violation. There is no way they can legally prove other infringements -- maybe the person was sharing a copy of bible reading masquerading as Brittany Who's-Dumping-Me-Today Spears? Maybe the RIAA was the only one that got the real thing?
That's about the most cockamamie story I've ever heard.
I agree with the sentiments of the poster who said "thanks for providing us with a 3rd grader's legal opinion." Judges and juries aren't as dumb as you think they are, and when they see "imperfect" evidence, they are still able to read between the lines. If you put up a file called "baby_one_more_time.mp3" and the RIAA downloads it and finds out what it is, not one single person, not even your mother will believe that 99% of the time that file is a bible reading and 1% of the time it is a copyrighted song. And if you try to claim that that's the one and only copyrighted song on your HD and all the other files are bible readings in disguise, no one is going to believe that either. Get a grip!
I hope you don't ever get caught committing a crime, cuz the "I was just standing there when a guy walked by, grabbed the jewelry, and stuck it in my pocket, and you can't prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt" defense doesn't usually hold up in court.
-a
The reason the guy in India/Mexico/Nebraska/whereever makes $5/hr and is worth it is because he does a job that is only worth $5/hr. If the job is worth $55/hr, then a $55/hr person will get that job.
Sorry, that's just fucking dumb. Apparently, you don't understand that different countries (cities even) have wholly different economies. There is no intinsic value of a job, independent of where the job is performed.
I mean, c'mon! The great U.S. of A. is gonna remain on top of the world by "obscurity" ?
More likely, the great US of A is not going to remain on top of the world.
-a
Hey, didn't the republicans shut down congress a few years back in an attempt to pass a balanced budget resolution? It seems that the republicans only support such measures when the democrats are in power.
-a
I've met a million grammar nazis, but you're the first to actually put it in his .sig.
-a
Yet again, the idealists are proved wrong, but they will never admit it. 5 years from now, /. readers will be claiming that the BIAA has destroyed blogging, and if it weren't from them all blogs would be equal.
-a
Yes, that's right. No prohibation against making analogies as long as the argument does not hang upon them.
Wow. Accused twice in one day.
-a
Was I arguing by analogy? Upon further review, I still don't think I crossed that line.
-a
"All other encryption methods have been compromised in the last five to six years."
Oh really? I must have missed the press release when they broke 3DES.
"So far, two million people have attempted to crack the code, but none have managed."
2 million... that's a lot. How does one determine how many people have tried to crack the code anyway?
-a