What would be be saying if Ellison was bitching about how he doesn't have the right to stop parody's or criticisms of my work.
``Goddamned it! I have the right to stop people from parodying or criticizing my work. I made it. It's all mine!''
or
``Goddamned it! I worked hard on that book. By what right does a library have to LOAN it out to people.''
Copyright is, regardless, a limited right, intended to benefit the public. It's duty is not to insure the maximum rate of return to the copyright holder. (And, in the beginning, when the maximum term was 28 years, it actually fulfilled that duty.) The public is benefitted most by having the public domain be as large as possible. Santa Clause, Uncle Sam, etc. [Thomas Nast] None of which would have left copyright until the last decade, had they been created under the current laws.
PS: I have not read his rant. THe webserver 503's on me for maximum-bandwidth.
People have gotten money for canning human (or animal) shit and calling it art.
So, if art is to be government funded... DAMN.. Talk about a reason for starting a HIGH-fiber diet!
(No, I doubt government-funded art would work.. Besides, what business DOES the government have deciding what is art and what isn't.... And why is the solution to any problem ``government funding''?)
This code is a reimplementation of the algorithm that sits inside of every DVD player. It allows anyone to access their DVD movies with the flexibility and fair use rights that the movie studio's do not want you to have. Movie studio's do not want you to: fast forward through commercials, be able to backup your expensive movies, or be able to use imported DVD's.
I have no idea where this misinfomation came from, but, here goes.....
Bill gate's father is a well-known family in Seatle. Bill Gate's had a million dollar trust fund before he even went to Harvard. Of course, before he even went to Harvard, he graduated from a prep school (who's tuition was 3x harvard's). His father was, and is ``one of the richest and most prominent lawyers in the state of washington.''
http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/
If that's not a privileged family, I'm not sure what is.:)
What I do care is the newer draconian user-controlling legistlation like the DMCA. Copyright cannot be enforced without destroying the first amendment and concurrently destroying the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
As they said, 300,000 users were banned from Napster, just based on song title. That's almost as stupid as blocking a website because it has the word 'breast' in it. (Like a cooking website talking about turkey's). This is WRONG.
Then you have the DMCA, whose purpose is to legistlatively and legally ensure that an obsolescent industry can preserve their former way of doing business, with the first amendment be damned. Fair use exists to resolve the conflict between the Copyright clause, banning speech, and the first amendment, allowing speech.
A 'copy-control' box cannot identify the difference between fair use, and unauthorized duplication. It cannot now and never will. Such a box is literally a censorship box. Right now, these boxes (CSS/SDMI/Minidisc) censor uses which, while legitimate and legal, are deemed undesireable by the owner of the copyright, regardless of whether or not they're legal. In the future, who knows what might be censored? With encryption adding technical obsticles and the DMCA adding in a legal obsticle, there is no way bypass the restrictions and do the things that the first amendment says that you ARE allowed to do. It also allows a tyrant to censor whatever they want from their populace, at any time after publication. Just 'withdraw the keys'.
A world with every computer, hard drive, TV, VCR, player, or recorder supporting censorship is repulsive. So is a world where people are assumed guilty and banned without proof, without evidence.
I cannot see any REASONABLE way of resolving this conflict other than the removal or signifigant weakening of copyright. As an artist myself, I would love to have some other alternative. But it looks like me, like everyone else, will have to toss the dice and see what comes up.
If you can offer a reasonable and workable alternative, I'd love to hear one.
For the public domain gains all patents in 18 years, and the public domain gains all copyrights in (about) 120 years. The government enslaves people for their artistic works, then gives them away after a century (was 30 years).
And you, I might add that you are a thief, within your childhood, you STOLE the Santa Clause that rightfuly belonged to the descendants of Thomas Nast. You owe his estate all the happiness that you gained from Santa. And, when you have kids, you should make sure to not indebt them to Thomas Nast's descendents by keeping Santa Clause out of their life. Penalize their allowance to pay for it if you must, but you owe it to Nast's descendants. (BTW, Thomas Nast was a cartoonist for Harper's weekly. Created Santa Clause, Uncle Sam, and many other parts of american heritage. Died in 1908.)
Reducto ad Absurbium.
Next time, try to think about it more critically. Try to imagine a world without Santa. (And don't forget. Rudolph was created in the early 60's, and won't leave copyright till about 2050.)
To me, the author of the article seemed to be trying to be incredibly complimentary. Showing how someone with semi-unorthodox techniques was managing to beat the system.
On the other hand, the author could know the psychology of people like me to come up with something that would seem incredibly complimentary to many people in law, and horribly repulsive to me.
With the DMCA, guys like him can exist, do exist, and will continue to destroy people without trial or recourse.
There's no trial, no evidence, no due process. An innocent person is forced to pay a fine.
This is wrong. In a free country like here, innocent people are not forced to pay fines for something they have not proved to have done. (Do not claim that they are guilty. Only a trial can assign guilt and no trial has occured.)
That is why this is despicable. This is only the beginning, I bet. Just the first use of the ability to 'takedown' any infringing site. Look at Scientology over the last 10 years, and what they've managed to do in the pre-DMCA era.
I guess the ability to post negative reviews of games, movies, books, software, or music is dead.
Someone doesn't like a critique done on them. Just use the DMCA to take them down. Forget fair use, most people cannot afford to take it to a trial.
Encrypt whatever you're sending with a random key. Do this for each seperate person whom you transmit a file to. (As Twofish can encrypt at 10mb/sec, it's unlikely that you have a continous connection faster than you can encrypt.)
At the very end of the file, transmit the decryption key.
The idea is that it makes it impossible for anyone to determine what the file is until the very end. That way, any widespread snooping will require storing a file until they get to the end. You won't be able to just look at the beginning of a transfer to decide whether or not to ignore it.
For a P2P network, the overhead for servers or clients is pretty minor, and it makes it a lot harder to write snooping software, anyone trying to snoop (say) an aggregate of a thousand users transmitting 1-mb files is going to have to store a gigabyte, then decrypt and compare.
A blocker could workaround this by saving only the first little bit of the file, then waiting until it gets to the end and not sending the decryption key on until it decrypts the prefix to see if it's on the censorship list.
As a workaround, You can do the above process more than once, take a file, encrypt it, append the decryption key onto the end, encrypt THAT, append the decryption key on to the end, repeat this 10 times and save the final result on the HD. Every once in a while, you redo the above with different encryption keys. Then do one final encryption layer as you're sending it to a user.
No, it isn't perfect, but it will make it a LOT more of a bitch for this type of snooping and blocking software. No fixed patterns, and it will force snooping software to both store each file sent, and decrypt the whole file if they want to see what's inside.
They want to implement a censorship system, and use it to prevent unauthorized duplication. Well, I have every right to make it a bitch right back at 'em.
They've managed to figure out how to fine and steal money from people without trial, without even convicting people of anything.
They just send a takedown order and offer people a choice: Either pay $8000, or risk going into debt for the rest of your life just attempting to prove your innocence.
Sweet racket, isn't it? RICO anyone? Either pay 'protection money', or they fuck you over, whether or not your guilty, and the best part is no trial necessary. They don't even need evidence!!
Did a web search on the test. You are comparing a test that tests ebonic slang versus an (admittedly imperfect) intelligence test measuring mathematics, logic, and reasoning like the SAT?
That's not exactly a fair comparison. Why not create a test about (female or) male anatomy, genitalia, and internal behaivor, give it to teenagers of both genders. And score 'intelligence' based on how well someone does.
Math is math is math. It's only one facet of intelligence, but for most engineering/science schools it is a critical skill, one needs aptitude in math to succeed. Ebonics, music, football, kinesthematics, they are all useful skills and intelligences, but inappropriate for most science/engineering universities.
Ebonics or any other cultural slang are critical and necessary to suceed in their own areas. College, which the SAT is used for, is unlikely to be one of them.
Old entertainment compete's with new entertainment for out entertainment dollar. Thus, by using long copyright terms to keep old artistic works away from people, they help to insure high sales of their newer and more expensive wares.
Yet another reason to show why long copyright terms are bad.
He created the copyleft as a way to exploit the unreasonable terms and power that copyright deprived him concerning other software that he had bought.
He used the power of copyright to create an anti-copyright, because he had no other choice and no other power; nothing else could have worked.
(Even now, I'm pretty sure he'd be willing to give up on copyright law completely. True, the GPL would lose it's force, but so would restrictions against redistributing any other software product.)
This seems a little strange to me, you say that your code isn't open because not all code should be. Yet, you remark on the wonderful usefulness of linux; the way you can set up the pieces on the system exactly the way you want.
Databases are becoming critical foundations for many endeavors; I've been searching for over a year for a good object-based database to make a program of mine practical. I found it last night; and it is beautiful and awesome.
Useful tools are useful tools. Commodities are useful tools. There is a cheap commodity OS out right now: linux. 15 years ago, nobody would have dreamed that there would be such a thing. At that time, OS code was so special, nobody would have dreamed it becoming a commodity. Why is your code so special that it would be wrong to turn it into a commodity?
As all software source code IS a tool, what is wrong with tools being usable to all?
They reported that CD stores around college campuses had GROWING sales.. But the sales weren't growing quite as fast as they were elsewhere.
This could be from any number of causes.
1. People at a college might have more straightjacketed finances and can't afford to increase their CD spending as fast as the general public.
2. People at a college might tend to order online more often, thus satisfying their music consumption through non-local stores.
3. People at a college may be joining CD clubs or may be purchasing CD's at home where they have convenient access to a large collection and bringing them to college instead of purchasing them near college.
4. A statistical anamoly. A decline in sales isn't actually happening.
5. A million other possible reasons.. Colleges are drugging their students so they purchase textbooks instead of CD's.
The conclusion: While such a correlation may exist: college cd purchases aren't increasing as fast as the average in the nation, that could have been generated by any NUMBER of possible causes.
If you want statistics I'll believe: Take universities who's student populations are similar demographics that do and don't have (say) napster, and ask them how many CD's they purchased in the last year. Or use some other technique that isn't susceptable for the flaws #1-5 above and give me numbers that don't have obvious artifacts.
Not all votes cast were ever counted. (In states with a clear majority, they don't necessarily count all votes. Similarily, some people got discouraged (like in california) and didn't vote.
How? Outlays will stay the same. Even with genetic testing, the SAME number of people will get sick fo whatever disease. So, outlays will remain the same. Income will remain the same for the same reason.
So, genetic testing won't cause insurance companies to go insolvent as long as they don't decrease their rates.
But, it goes give them a wonderful excuse to raise the rates on those who are 'genetically inferior', to 'pay for the additional care they will need'. Care that they would have needed anyways before, care that was already covered from income paid by everyone.
So, to me, it looks more like an excuse to raise profits than anything else. Although, after the long term, it may help keep rates for healthy people low.
IMHO, I'd rather have roughly the same rates regardless of genetic heritage. It distributes the risk which is what insurance companies are supposed to do. We subsidize each other.
Sure, you can prohibit something, just like you can prohibit drug addiction. Now, let's look at the costs.
Civil forfeiture, which lets police steal from people they arrest, but do not convict or even charge with a crime. A massive prison population. Eroding of civil rights. Is the cost worth it?
Ask the same question about copyright. The only way to 'enforce' what you need is to have technical AND LEGAL access controls on all digital content. We will have the DMCA, we will have UCITA, and they will be vigorously enforced. People will be made examples of.
Does the DMCA not currently state that by violating an access control measure, or publishing information to violate an access control measure that you are commiting a felony and may be subject to jail time and large fines?
You might want to be careful about being so helpful in the future. Let this be a lesson to all of us. Do not use such links for in doing them, you may commit a crime.
-- This batch of insanity brought to you from the letter C and your favorite federal government.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright is a set of limited rights..
What would be be saying if Ellison was bitching about how he doesn't have the right to stop parody's or criticisms of my work.
``Goddamned it! I have the right to stop people from parodying or criticizing my work. I made it. It's all mine!''
or
``Goddamned it! I worked hard on that book. By what right does a library have to LOAN it out to people.''
Copyright is, regardless, a limited right, intended to benefit the public. It's duty is not to insure the maximum rate of return to the copyright holder. (And, in the beginning, when the maximum term was 28 years, it actually fulfilled that duty.) The public is benefitted most by having the public domain be as large as possible. Santa Clause, Uncle Sam, etc. [Thomas Nast] None of which would have left copyright until the last decade, had they been created under the current laws.
PS: I have not read his rant. THe webserver 503's on me for maximum-bandwidth.
People have gotten money for canning human (or animal) shit and calling it art.
So, if art is to be government funded... DAMN.. Talk about a reason for starting a HIGH-fiber diet!
(No, I doubt government-funded art would work.. Besides, what business DOES the government have deciding what is art and what isn't.... And why is the solution to any problem ``government funding''?)
This code is a reimplementation of the algorithm that sits inside of every DVD player. It allows anyone to access their DVD movies with the flexibility and fair use rights that the movie studio's do not want you to have. Movie studio's do not want you to: fast forward through commercials, be able to backup your expensive movies, or be able to use imported DVD's.
The tuition measurement was the tuition at the time. Universities were a lot cheaper 25 years ago. :)
You should have read the URL.
I have no idea where this misinfomation came from, but, here goes.....
:)
Bill gate's father is a well-known family in Seatle. Bill Gate's had a million dollar trust fund before he even went to Harvard. Of course, before he even went to Harvard, he graduated from a prep school (who's tuition was 3x harvard's). His father was, and is ``one of the richest and most prominent lawyers in the state of washington.''
http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/
If that's not a privileged family, I'm not sure what is.
I don't really care about napster itself.
What I do care is the newer draconian user-controlling legistlation like the DMCA. Copyright cannot be enforced without destroying the first amendment and concurrently destroying the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
As they said, 300,000 users were banned from Napster, just based on song title. That's almost as stupid as blocking a website because it has the word 'breast' in it. (Like a cooking website talking about turkey's). This is WRONG.
Then you have the DMCA, whose purpose is to legistlatively and legally ensure that an obsolescent industry can preserve their former way of doing business, with the first amendment be damned. Fair use exists to resolve the conflict between the Copyright clause, banning speech, and the first amendment, allowing speech.
A 'copy-control' box cannot identify the difference between fair use, and unauthorized duplication. It cannot now and never will. Such a box is literally a censorship box. Right now, these boxes (CSS/SDMI/Minidisc) censor uses which, while legitimate and legal, are deemed undesireable by the owner of the copyright, regardless of whether or not they're legal. In the future, who knows what might be censored? With encryption adding technical obsticles and the DMCA adding in a legal obsticle, there is no way bypass the restrictions and do the things that the first amendment says that you ARE allowed to do. It also allows a tyrant to censor whatever they want from their populace, at any time after publication. Just 'withdraw the keys'.
A world with every computer, hard drive, TV, VCR, player, or recorder supporting censorship is repulsive. So is a world where people are assumed guilty and banned without proof, without evidence.
I cannot see any REASONABLE way of resolving this conflict other than the removal or signifigant weakening of copyright. As an artist myself, I would love to have some other alternative. But it looks like me, like everyone else, will have to toss the dice and see what comes up.
If you can offer a reasonable and workable alternative, I'd love to hear one.
For the public domain gains all patents in 18 years, and the public domain gains all copyrights in (about) 120 years. The government enslaves people for their artistic works, then gives them away after a century (was 30 years).
And you, I might add that you are a thief, within your childhood, you STOLE the Santa Clause that rightfuly belonged to the descendants of Thomas Nast. You owe his estate all the happiness that you gained from Santa. And, when you have kids, you should make sure to not indebt them to Thomas Nast's descendents by keeping Santa Clause out of their life. Penalize their allowance to pay for it if you must, but you owe it to Nast's descendants. (BTW, Thomas Nast was a cartoonist for Harper's weekly. Created Santa Clause, Uncle Sam, and many other parts of american heritage. Died in 1908.)
Reducto ad Absurbium.
Next time, try to think about it more critically. Try to imagine a world without Santa. (And don't forget. Rudolph was created in the early 60's, and won't leave copyright till about 2050.)
To me, the author of the article seemed to be trying to be incredibly complimentary. Showing how someone with semi-unorthodox techniques was managing to beat the system.
On the other hand, the author could know the psychology of people like me to come up with something that would seem incredibly complimentary to many people in law, and horribly repulsive to me.
With the DMCA, guys like him can exist, do exist, and will continue to destroy people without trial or recourse.
It's almost amusing,
Now, you can censor someone elses digital words cheaply and easily. Just use the DMCA and claim that it's a copyright infringement.
What next? Using penis size to judge winnings in court cases? (They, whose lawyer has the lawyer with the smallest penis wins?)
How many people has this guy convicted of infringement? Hell, how many people has he even formally accused of copyright infringement?
On the other hand, how many people has he bullied?
We have a saying: ``Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.'' This guy obviously has his own standards of guilt and innocence.
That is why I find him repulsive.
There's no trial, no evidence, no due process. An innocent person is forced to pay a fine.
This is wrong. In a free country like here, innocent people are not forced to pay fines for something they have not proved to have done. (Do not claim that they are guilty. Only a trial can assign guilt and no trial has occured.)
That is why this is despicable. This is only the beginning, I bet. Just the first use of the ability to 'takedown' any infringing site. Look at Scientology over the last 10 years, and what they've managed to do in the pre-DMCA era.
I guess the ability to post negative reviews of games, movies, books, software, or music is dead.
Someone doesn't like a critique done on them. Just use the DMCA to take them down. Forget fair use, most people cannot afford to take it to a trial.
Those proxy's are pretty trivial to workaround.
Here's what you do:
Encrypt whatever you're sending with a random key. Do this for each seperate person whom you transmit a file to. (As Twofish can encrypt at 10mb/sec, it's unlikely that you have a continous connection faster than you can encrypt.)
At the very end of the file, transmit the decryption key.
The idea is that it makes it impossible for anyone to determine what the file is until the very end. That way, any widespread snooping will require storing a file until they get to the end. You won't be able to just look at the beginning of a transfer to decide whether or not to ignore it.
For a P2P network, the overhead for servers or clients is pretty minor, and it makes it a lot harder to write snooping software, anyone trying to snoop (say) an aggregate of a thousand users transmitting 1-mb files is going to have to store a gigabyte, then decrypt and compare.
A blocker could workaround this by saving only the first little bit of the file, then waiting until it gets to the end and not sending the decryption key on until it decrypts the prefix to see if it's on the censorship list.
As a workaround, You can do the above process more than once, take a file, encrypt it, append the decryption key onto the end, encrypt THAT, append the decryption key on to the end, repeat this 10 times and save the final result on the HD. Every once in a while, you redo the above with different encryption keys. Then do one final encryption layer as you're sending it to a user.
No, it isn't perfect, but it will make it a LOT more of a bitch for this type of snooping and blocking software. No fixed patterns, and it will force snooping software to both store each file sent, and decrypt the whole file if they want to see what's inside.
They want to implement a censorship system, and use it to prevent unauthorized duplication. Well, I have every right to make it a bitch right back at 'em.
I like this..
They've managed to figure out how to fine and steal money from people without trial, without even convicting people of anything.
They just send a takedown order and offer people a choice: Either pay $8000, or risk going into debt for the rest of your life just attempting to prove your innocence.
Sweet racket, isn't it? RICO anyone? Either pay 'protection money', or they fuck you over, whether or not your guilty, and the best part is no trial necessary. They don't even need evidence!!
Did a web search on the test. You are comparing a test that tests ebonic slang versus an (admittedly imperfect) intelligence test measuring mathematics, logic, and reasoning like the SAT?
That's not exactly a fair comparison. Why not create a test about (female or) male anatomy, genitalia, and internal behaivor, give it to teenagers of both genders. And score 'intelligence' based on how well someone does.
Math is math is math. It's only one facet of intelligence, but for most engineering/science schools it is a critical skill, one needs aptitude in math to succeed. Ebonics, music, football, kinesthematics, they are all useful skills and intelligences, but inappropriate for most science/engineering universities.
Ebonics or any other cultural slang are critical and necessary to suceed in their own areas. College, which the SAT is used for, is unlikely to be one of them.
And they want to keep old content from competing with their new content.
They make money by insuring that you do not have a choice of old public-domain videos to watch.
Old entertainment compete's with new entertainment for out entertainment dollar. Thus, by using long copyright terms to keep old artistic works away from people, they help to insure high sales of their newer and more expensive wares.
Yet another reason to show why long copyright terms are bad.
He created the copyleft as a way to exploit the unreasonable terms and power that copyright deprived him concerning other software that he had bought.
He used the power of copyright to create an anti-copyright, because he had no other choice and no other power; nothing else could have worked.
(Even now, I'm pretty sure he'd be willing to give up on copyright law completely. True, the GPL would lose it's force, but so would restrictions against redistributing any other software product.)
This seems a little strange to me, you say that your code isn't open because not all code should be. Yet, you remark on the wonderful usefulness of linux; the way you can set up the pieces on the system exactly the way you want.
Databases are becoming critical foundations for many endeavors; I've been searching for over a year for a good object-based database to make a program of mine practical. I found it last night; and it is beautiful and awesome.
Useful tools are useful tools. Commodities are useful tools. There is a cheap commodity OS out right now: linux. 15 years ago, nobody would have dreamed that there would be such a thing. At that time, OS code was so special, nobody would have dreamed it becoming a commodity. Why is your code so special that it would be wrong to turn it into a commodity?
As all software source code IS a tool, what is wrong with tools being usable to all?
They reported that CD stores around college campuses had GROWING sales.. But the sales weren't growing quite as fast as they were elsewhere.
This could be from any number of causes.
1. People at a college might have more straightjacketed finances and can't afford to increase their CD spending as fast as the general public.
2. People at a college might tend to order online more often, thus satisfying their music consumption through non-local stores.
3. People at a college may be joining CD clubs or may be purchasing CD's at home where they have convenient access to a large collection and bringing them to college instead of purchasing them near college.
4. A statistical anamoly. A decline in sales isn't actually happening.
5. A million other possible reasons.. Colleges are drugging their students so they purchase textbooks instead of CD's.
The conclusion: While such a correlation may exist: college cd purchases aren't increasing as fast as the average in the nation, that could have been generated by any NUMBER of possible causes.
If you want statistics I'll believe: Take universities who's student populations are similar demographics that do and don't have (say) napster, and ask them how many CD's they purchased in the last year. Or use some other technique that isn't susceptable for the flaws #1-5 above and give me numbers that don't have obvious artifacts.
Not all votes cast were ever counted. (In states with a clear majority, they don't necessarily count all votes. Similarily, some people got discouraged (like in california) and didn't vote.
How? Outlays will stay the same. Even with genetic testing, the SAME number of people will get sick fo whatever disease. So, outlays will remain the same. Income will remain the same for the same reason.
So, genetic testing won't cause insurance companies to go insolvent as long as they don't decrease their rates.
But, it goes give them a wonderful excuse to raise the rates on those who are 'genetically inferior', to 'pay for the additional care they will need'. Care that they would have needed anyways before, care that was already covered from income paid by everyone.
So, to me, it looks more like an excuse to raise profits than anything else. Although, after the long term, it may help keep rates for healthy people low.
IMHO, I'd rather have roughly the same rates regardless of genetic heritage. It distributes the risk which is what insurance companies are supposed to do. We subsidize each other.
Sure, you can prohibit something, just like you can prohibit drug addiction. Now, let's look at the costs.
Civil forfeiture, which lets police steal from people they arrest, but do not convict or even charge with a crime. A massive prison population. Eroding of civil rights. Is the cost worth it?
Ask the same question about copyright. The only way to 'enforce' what you need is to have technical AND LEGAL access controls on all digital content. We will have the DMCA, we will have UCITA, and they will be vigorously enforced. People will be made examples of.
Is the cost worth it?
What about reverse-engineering restrictions on the DMCA?
It don't matter if they have those rights if they cannot exercise them.
[RE: the no-reg-required link for nytimes]
Does the DMCA not currently state that by violating an access control measure, or publishing information to violate an access control measure that you are commiting a felony and may be subject to jail time and large fines?
You might want to be careful about being so helpful in the future. Let this be a lesson to all of us. Do not use such links for in doing them, you may commit a crime.
-- This batch of insanity brought to you from the letter C and your favorite federal government.
But it IS a lot more familiar to many users.