="My thoughts about this award is that it makes it quite clear that the average person posting on slashdot does not know anything about law."
yep. what should be clear to folks by now is that sharing files over the 'Net is not going to be excused as "private, non-commercial use". Sharing files on the net will be treated as copyright infringement: stare decisis: this matter is settled.
Viacom is, basically, trying to hold YouTube responsible for any videos on it that have Viacom-represented copyrights
not exactly
go back and read the article referenced in the lead post. Viacom is going after U-tube for contributory infringement, their argument being that U-tube is picking up readership and thus advertising revenue by winking at infringement. whether this is true or not will be up to the court to determine
after reading the referenced article it is my impression that VIACOMs actions are directed more against improper activity that is attempting to use DMCA as a shield that it is against DMCA per se
the general attitude on this site seems to be "anything goes" out on the internet,-- for whatever reason,-- perhaps the 'net seems intangible and for some this may translate to thinking "stuff on the net has no real value so I can do as I please"
digital assets are of the same nature as similar material expressed on traditional media. that the courts are trending to favor the copyright holders is simply an expression of society's recognition if this fact
we should return to the mechanical voting machine.
computers could work if we gave everyone a copy of their ballot to take home and to check against the precinct voting records on their computer. but this would be easy for the vote goons to enforce vote policies: ("lemme see yer ballot buddy or we gonna break yer legs")
we all know how much trouble paper ballots cause, in their various forms
One thing does occur to me here, and perhaps this is what I've been looking for: in order to audit the vote each voter needs to be able to check their own vote record in the precinct votes file and also to roll up the totals of their precinct, and then of their state
but giving them a printed copy of their ballot to take home from the polling place would play directly into the hands of goons who "persuade" people to vote one way or another
however: by letting folks vote on their own computer we might be able to insure privacy and auditability at the same time. unless the goon comes over "pull up yer vote file, buddy!"
yeah. not a pretty thought
but to you a computer system it must be auditable otherwise there will be no confidence in it.
the old mechanical voting machine certainly has merit
copyright violations and piracy is just a bunch of hot-air excuses and band width is the same. VOIP, audio and video streaming eat a lot of bandwidth pro0bably so much p2p traffic is insignificant
but p2p makes the internet like the bbs network of 1985: anyone can put up a server and ISP no longer control content of data available over the net
that is the real issue, piracy and bandwidth don't mean nothing to the system owners
an essay I read eleswhere on this topic points out that ISPs need to look at the complete use picture examining ALL use of bandwidth not limiting their examination to the use of P2P
there's spamming and botnets and voip and video streaming broadcasts you name it it's out there
and i agree with the other writer: it all has to be taken into consideration
you guys are getting just exactly what you deserve. thought you could steal everybody's music with your clever little p2p set up. well guess what: what goes around comes around and now the IP cops are gonna clean you guys out.
==> "Forces of organized interests that do not play by the rules, like malware peddlers, identity thieves and spammers are allowing another army of interests -- corporate protectionists, often -- to demand centralized, authoritarian solutions. This is the future of the Net unless we stop it.'"
At least the author is in touch with reality
Thomas Paine wrote "Because bad men will not, good men dare not cast aside the sword"
His note is a living truth, although one which many good people often have trouble accepting. But bad guys do exist, and they do not play by the rules: they do whatever they can, given an opportunity
I'm not going very far with my note this morning because you guys have made it clear I'm not welcome here. But suffice to say: there is a lot of commercial interest in the internet because of the speed and low cost of transactions. At the same time there is a mounting opposition to doing business on the internet due to the ineffective security measures.
That is the situation and it is going to be interesting to see where this goes.
Microsoft is a lot like the "Chevy" of computing: everything fits and everyone has parts. that's one big reason why so many good folks run MS/Windows
I sense the beginning of a shift in attitude about the whole security problem though, especially in this thread. the shift being in several notes,-- --that current a/methods really havn't worked good enough where good enough= 100% ; -- that current a/v business may have become a racket in some ways ;
the inevitable conclusion is that a better approach to security is required.
It's hard to hunt for something when you do not know what it looks like.
With 1,500 or so new virus coming out every day including ploy-morphic codes and "fast flux" codes it appears to me a change in security philosophy is needed
excluding malware hasn't worked and it doesn't appear that it is going to work
the other method is to "white list" the authorized software on an access list and allow only that authorized software to run
you wanna mod me back into a black hole again for this, go ahead.
==> "When you get right down to it, my computer still basically works the same way as System 1.0 Mac"
there could be more than one reason for this
One possibility would be that the incentive for progress has been removed and that progress has then ended due to a lack of interest
Historically if you examine the development of a variety of devices you will note an initial burst of activity with many players involved followed by a consolidation into the hands of a few big players as innovation and development efforts wind down
This might be the result of monopolistic product control or it could be that products are developed to a point past which we really can't do that much more with them, or perhaps to a point of diminishing returns
The auto industry has been used as an example of this trend but I think we could identify other good examples as well
Is our computer industry approaching a point of diminishing returns for developers? If so cost competition will stiffen as one widget will be just about as good as another, feature for feature and also in performance. And so purchasing decisions will focus on cost where the widgets are equivalent in application
In what areas does the computer (hardware, & software) still need to improve?
one obvious area is security while another is inter-operability: insuring that we can exchange various material not only from system to system but across time as well. Another area for improvement is in breaking the software/hardware inflation cycle so that we can realize a longer life expectancy from our systems.
but are these areas that interest the corporations with respect to building their core business? not necessarily. so as a customer I have to shop for those features. and where I have real options to choose from my shopping activity will encourage development in the industry along the lines of "what sells". but when the widgets are all functionality equivalent in the way that I use them then I can only shop for price instead of features and the industry will reach its end-phase
John Kenneth Galbraith said: "In any large organization it is far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right and alone"
and the mod scores on/. demonstrate this as noted in the post above
there are things wrong in the computer business that are in desperate need of attention and which should serve as a great embarrassment to us all, especially the big manufacturers.
It is not at all acceptable for the police to break the law in working a case and when they do the judge will dis-allow any evidence obtained illegally
RIAA is only acting to protect their copy-rights, which is their source of income. Some of their actions appear excessive; I'll be the first to agree in that.
Opposition to their copyright law is being presented in the form of civil disobedience
perhaps this will succeed, perhaps not. This remains to be seen.
Copyright and patent law however form the protection of intellectual property. These laws are beneficial to society in that they encourage investment in development by securing for the investors access to resulting profit. Combined with free market economics these serve to form the Lamp by the Golden Door and provide the environment in which the United States, with 6% of the world's population controlled 50% of the world's wealth by 1950.
With this in view I do not see success in the future of the civil disobedience movement against the protection of intellectual property
basically all this is about is a demand for the right to freely copy music and video
that issue was settled when copyright law was established and it isn't going to change
it doesn't matter that you are able to crack the encryption codes. what matters is that the encryption codes are there and that the DMCA forbids anyone to defeat those codes
so if you crack the codes and crow about it you may as well yell "hey! come and get me" same as if you advertise rip copies of music/video over the net. defeating the encryption violates DMCA and if ya advertise rip copies ya may as well advertise "hey! come and get me"
The Internet is an important world resource. we should do whatever we need to do to prevent ABUSE such as SPAM, DoS attacks, hacking, pirating, and such.
content filtering is another level
It occurs to me that the FCC kept smutt and sleaze -- bad language, lewd pictures and such -- off the air for quite some time. it certainly would not hurt to continue that basic policy
at the same time we do not want any two-bit tin-horn dictators arresting their political opposition and closing their sites down.
Slashdot Mirror
="My thoughts about this award is that it makes it quite clear that the average person posting on slashdot does not know anything about law."
yep. what should be clear to folks by now is that sharing files over the 'Net is not going to be excused as "private, non-commercial use". Sharing files on the net will be treated as copyright infringement: stare decisis: this matter is settled.
not exactly
go back and read the article referenced in the lead post. Viacom is going after U-tube for contributory infringement, their argument being that U-tube is picking up readership and thus advertising revenue by winking at infringement. whether this is true or not will be up to the court to determine
after reading the referenced article it is my impression that VIACOMs actions are directed more against improper activity that is attempting to use DMCA as a shield that it is against DMCA per se
the general attitude on this site seems to be "anything goes" out on the internet,-- for whatever reason,-- perhaps the 'net seems intangible and for some this may translate to thinking "stuff on the net has no real value so I can do as I please"
digital assets are of the same nature as similar material expressed on traditional media. that the courts are trending to favor the copyright holders is simply an expression of society's recognition if this fact
we should return to the mechanical voting machine.
computers could work if we gave everyone a copy of their ballot to take home and to check against the precinct voting records on their computer. but this would be easy for the vote goons to enforce vote policies: ("lemme see yer ballot buddy or we gonna break yer legs")
we all know how much trouble paper ballots cause, in their various forms
One thing does occur to me here, and perhaps this is what I've been looking for: in order to audit the vote each voter needs to be able to check their own vote record in the precinct votes file and also to roll up the totals of their precinct, and then of their state
but giving them a printed copy of their ballot to take home from the polling place would play directly into the hands of goons who "persuade" people to vote one way or another
however: by letting folks vote on their own computer we might be able to insure privacy and auditability at the same time. unless the goon comes over "pull up yer vote file, buddy!"
yeah. not a pretty thought
but to you a computer system it must be auditable otherwise there will be no confidence in it.
the old mechanical voting machine certainly has merit
copyright violations and piracy is just a bunch of hot-air excuses and band width is the same. VOIP, audio and video streaming eat a lot of bandwidth pro0bably so much p2p traffic is insignificant but p2p makes the internet like the bbs network of 1985: anyone can put up a server and ISP no longer control content of data available over the net that is the real issue, piracy and bandwidth don't mean nothing to the system owners
they want the privilege to interrupt you and to re-direct you to their issue. but they call it 'multi-tasking' to be politically polite
an essay I read eleswhere on this topic points out that ISPs need to look at the complete use picture examining ALL use of bandwidth not limiting their examination to the use of P2P
there's spamming and botnets and voip and video streaming broadcasts you name it it's out there
and i agree with the other writer: it all has to be taken into consideration
you guys are getting just exactly what you deserve. thought you could steal everybody's music with your clever little p2p set up. well guess what: what goes around comes around and now the IP cops are gonna clean you guys out.
==> "Forces of organized interests that do not play by the rules, like malware peddlers, identity thieves and spammers are allowing another army of interests -- corporate protectionists, often -- to demand centralized, authoritarian solutions. This is the future of the Net unless we stop it.'"
At least the author is in touch with reality
Thomas Paine wrote "Because bad men will not, good men dare not cast aside the sword"
His note is a living truth, although one which many good people often have trouble accepting. But bad guys do exist, and they do not play by the rules: they do whatever they can, given an opportunity
I'm not going very far with my note this morning because you guys have made it clear I'm not welcome here. But suffice to say: there is a lot of commercial interest in the internet because of the speed and low cost of transactions. At the same time there is a mounting opposition to doing business on the internet due to the ineffective security measures.
That is the situation and it is going to be interesting to see where this goes.
Microsoft is a lot like the "Chevy" of computing: everything fits and everyone has parts. that's one big reason why so many good folks run MS/Windows
I sense the beginning of a shift in attitude about the whole security problem though, especially in this thread. the shift being in several notes,-- --that current a/methods really havn't worked good enough where good enough= 100% ; -- that current a/v business may have become a racket in some ways ;
the inevitable conclusion is that a better approach to security is required.
It's hard to hunt for something when you do not know what it looks like.
With 1,500 or so new virus coming out every day including ploy-morphic codes and "fast flux" codes it appears to me a change in security philosophy is needed
excluding malware hasn't worked and it doesn't appear that it is going to work
the other method is to "white list" the authorized software on an access list and allow only that authorized software to run
you wanna mod me back into a black hole again for this, go ahead.
just like C41, POTS, and business air travel.
==> "When you get right down to it, my computer still basically works the same way as System 1.0 Mac"
there could be more than one reason for this
One possibility would be that the incentive for progress has been removed and that progress has then ended due to a lack of interest
Historically if you examine the development of a variety of devices you will note an initial burst of activity with many players involved followed by a consolidation into the hands of a few big players as innovation and development efforts wind down
This might be the result of monopolistic product control or it could be that products are developed to a point past which we really can't do that much more with them, or perhaps to a point of diminishing returns
The auto industry has been used as an example of this trend but I think we could identify other good examples as well
Is our computer industry approaching a point of diminishing returns for developers? If so cost competition will stiffen as one widget will be just about as good as another, feature for feature and also in performance. And so purchasing decisions will focus on cost where the widgets are equivalent in application
In what areas does the computer (hardware, & software) still need to improve?
one obvious area is security while another is inter-operability: insuring that we can exchange various material not only from system to system but across time as well. Another area for improvement is in breaking the software/hardware inflation cycle so that we can realize a longer life expectancy from our systems.
but are these areas that interest the corporations with respect to building their core business? not necessarily. so as a customer I have to shop for those features. and where I have real options to choose from my shopping activity will encourage development in the industry along the lines of "what sells". but when the widgets are all functionality equivalent in the way that I use them then I can only shop for price instead of features and the industry will reach its end-phase
I remember when the first ever patent was issued for software: for PKZIP, as I recall.
James Watt had patented the simple crank at one time for use in his steam engine and that wasn't as complex a mechanism as Zip
the idea behind patent protection is that developing inventions should be potentially profitable
the concept is to encourage progress
John Kenneth Galbraith said: "In any large organization it is far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right and alone"
/. demonstrate this as noted in the post above
and the mod scores on
there are things wrong in the computer business that are in desperate need of attention and which should serve as a great embarrassment to us all, especially the big manufacturers.
it would be a big success + more efficient + better security making it fatter will just make it into a big flop
It is not at all acceptable for the police to break the law in working a case and when they do the judge will dis-allow any evidence obtained illegally
RIAA is only acting to protect their copy-rights, which is their source of income. Some of their actions appear excessive; I'll be the first to agree in that.
Opposition to their copyright law is being presented in the form of civil disobedience
perhaps this will succeed, perhaps not. This remains to be seen.
Copyright and patent law however form the protection of intellectual property. These laws are beneficial to society in that they encourage investment in development by securing for the investors access to resulting profit. Combined with free market economics these serve to form the Lamp by the Golden Door and provide the environment in which the United States, with 6% of the world's population controlled 50% of the world's wealth by 1950.
With this in view I do not see success in the future of the civil disobedience movement against the protection of intellectual property
1 write your congress-critter and ask him to have the law changed
2 bring suit in federal court claiming the law is un-constitutional
share your own material rather than someone else' material and you'll be fine
basically all this is about is a demand for the right to freely copy music and video
that issue was settled when copyright law was established and it isn't going to change
it doesn't matter that you are able to crack the encryption codes. what matters is that the encryption codes are there and that the DMCA forbids anyone to defeat those codes
so if you crack the codes and crow about it you may as well yell "hey! come and get me" same as if you advertise rip copies of music/video over the net. defeating the encryption violates DMCA and if ya advertise rip copies ya may as well advertise "hey! come and get me"
don't worry: they'll be there for ya. Enjoy.
The Internet is an important world resource. we should do whatever we need to do to prevent ABUSE such as SPAM, DoS attacks, hacking, pirating, and such.
content filtering is another level
It occurs to me that the FCC kept smutt and sleaze -- bad language, lewd pictures and such -- off the air for quite some time. it certainly would not hurt to continue that basic policy
at the same time we do not want any two-bit tin-horn dictators arresting their political opposition and closing their sites down.
yer fulla shit idiot
you people have no respect for privacy or security
there is no way this can be appropriate
==> There are plenty of legitmate uses for bit torrent. Blizzard uses it to distribute patches, and vuze uses it to distribute liscensed content.
Yeah yeah, them are few and far between. p2p is mainly used for pirating and violating copyright law. ISP should kill it completely
you don't "decide" to have an affair. It happens when you least expect it