It's a cycle. Join a union and then more work goes overseas except in industries that require a lot of thought going into them such as vehicles. Most people don't care about made in China, so if the Americans are too expensive they'll go someplace else. It's a rather crazy system that hasn't nearly settled down as more and more countries join in the market.
I agree with you though, a union is the best choice currently. I just think that it's a scary thing for people to think about in the current environment for every reason it was before and many new ones.
You're right. It's the consumers that allow the exploitation. It all boils down to who is purchasing what. If you can't sell it because of X you quickly stop doing X. It's people who live in their own little world that let others suffer. They don't see it, so who cares?
I'd suggest you check the current lawsuit. The issue is if they are able to skate around that law because of a technicality. While they're skating, I sure as hell wouldn't mind taking a baseball bat upside their skull to be sure regardless of the outcome that they know they have to stop.
Mob rule tactics? What do you think capitalism and representative rule government is? What do you think anything is? If a single person or entity pisses off everyone else, the group stops them. Mob rule tactics? I'm just amazed that you can take such a negative outlook on capitalism while somewhat obviously supporting a free market. Are you just some kind of masochist that wants everything controlled without any protection for the people, and just protected corporations so their brands are stronger? That's what I've gathered from your positions.
Ya, I understood the point, but 15k combined seemed completely ludicrous to me and I was wondering where that number came from. 15k civilians is an average conservative estimate going around I've heard, but never combined with troops. As it goes, an exact number will be known. It'll get closer to being specific later, but at this point it won't matter. The people who are appalled will be appalled and the people who don't care won't care.
Combined civilian and military? The military states (to my knowledge) that they have downed 10k civilians and early estimates after occupying the country of deaths were around 100k troops. I hadn't heard another number after that. Who was saying that there was 15k combined deaths?
National Geographic had never made the claim that the article was definitive, just that they thought it presented an argument. To completely argue evolution in a more comprehensive and complete way takes more writing than was in that magazine. The argument used was a strong example as obviously if something changes a small amount with no rules on what changes over a short time, over the longer time the changes would amount to something greater. It's not really a logical jump and was what the article was attempting to have the reader think.
Warning: I haven't read the article nor am I a perfect source about evolution. I know enough to make the point I did I believe however.
Losing as the incumbent in a very strange situation and then getting one of the highest and influential positions in the United States government isn't good any way you look at it though.
I didn't read into the details on this, but glancing over them they were null pointers. Those are DOS style bugs, not arbitrary code execution. If there were exploits that allowed arbitrary code, I missed it on my glance over. A null pointer is nothing to worry about for some programmers. It's not a good thing, but someplace like Microsoft would not even take the time to fix those. There are countless ways to crash IE. One of them up until recently was doing an input field with the type set to crash. That's just careless.
Yes, you're right, 100+ years and growing shouldn't count as perpetual. I've read both sides of the case, and I've read the evidence saying that copyright will be fought to be extended every time it comes up for it to die. We'll see who was right in about 2030 when copyrights from the 1920s start to expire. 90 year material that is still owned by someone. How much of that do you see being sold? How much do you think is just lost?
I didn't mean a reflection of society on every issue. Sorry about not being clear, but I meant the current copyright law. Society is in trouble when they realize they can vote themselves money or the equivalent. Copyright though should be something that is in the interest of the public and allows for future growth. You can make the public pay for something without labeling them a criminal. At least, that's my opinion.
In case you were wondering, I didn't read the description or the articles. Just that the Uk was suing file sharers. Didn't stop me from responding to 7 posts though. You, obviously, cheated and read something that explained exactly what was happening. Cheater.
Well, the article is an interview with those middle people. When they say music, they actually mean huge profits for themselves. I too wish they would come right out and say it.
You read the description? Shouldn't a seasoned/,er like yourself have streamlined their browsing habits to just reading the six words in the topic title yet? Do I have nothing to look forward to in seniority?!?! I already have taken the route of skipping reading the articles and merely opening all the links in a background tab, but I was hoping if I hung around long enough I'd be able to skip reading that description and be able to pretend to know what I'm talking about.
Then again, maybe I am completely wrong. Maybe you didn't read the description and merely read the first comments talking about the British Pornographic Institute and assumed Phonograph was what the P really stood for. If so, I commend you for having tricked me.
That's where people like yourself and many other Slashdotters are needed. The community can take down a website easily, and if that same very large community explained to 2 people each why these quotes are a load of shit I would hope it would effect societies views on it. The more people that are aware of other options to them being criminals the less the idea will be accepted that they are. That's how laws change.
I'm just a lazy activist though who picks fights in familiar territory. I've told my friends and family about those ideas and why quotes like that are horribly wrong, but haven't gone much farther. I think that's enough for a start though, maybe.
I agree with you on this issue for the main part. But I think that the current law should be a reflection of what society wants, and I think we both know that society at large does not thing file sharing is something that should be illegal. I was just using the point of bad copyright law to strengthen that idea. There was already a post before mine in reply that detailed what else I was going to say.
I wouldn't argue that file sharing is mainly used for works that should be in the public domain under current law. I would acknowledge that that does exist though, and use that to strengthen the idea that copyright law needs reform badly. I guess my approach is just different than yours. I'd like people to start thinking that copyright law has problems and thinking about what can be changed. I have the idea that if you get people to start at one place that is obvious to most people's ideals, you can lead into thoughts that are harder to grasp much more easily.
We don't disagree. I just used an extreme and jackass sounding response. Infuriating, aren't I?
Actually, I know for a fact I am more conservative than you. Music is the only thing I will say could work for a socialist ideal. Why? Because music formerly was a social thing. There are other solutions, but the one that will make the current masses happy is social.
The current laws mean nothing to me. I disagree with a large portion of them. Instead of saying people should be punished, I prefer to advocate a change. I realize that under current law that is the way it is, but current law will change and if people become aware of a chance for that it is more likely to happen. Could you imagine a politician or a group of them running on an idea that the public has about copyright law? I would love to see that someday. Would you not?
If you think that when the topic of file sharing comes up, the only discussion about it should be how the public should punish those that do it, I think you are completely missing what government should be. That's alright though. A lot of people in this age make the same mistake.
You're looking at this from one perspective. The other is that the public can have a right to that good when it is created and put into the public. In a physical sense, when I buy a cd or download a song, I control that copy. The system can be changed so that if you control that copy, you can do what you want with that copy, including copying it again. There are ways to make that work for everyone.
Someone making something does not give them a perpetual right to it if other people can create the same thing. That's the way the system should work in my opinion. The original creator can be rewarded to encourage furture creation while still having others able to do what they wish with that work.
There are other systems than the one in place to finance the arts. I wouldn't punish the woman at all. She should be rewarded if anything under a proper system. Under the current system, there is no way to reach that happy medium. Everything is subjective and no one is happy. Time to change it.
I didn't read your post, but just wanted to say that not everyone has the same ethics. Before the lawsuits I would download large volumes of music from and artist and buy the cds slowly to have a better quality hard copy. Ethically, even for you hopefully, that is fine. Now, I don't touch any music that the RIAA or other countries labels have anything to do with. Those are my ethics.
Don't tell me what my ethics are or should be and I won't tell you what yours should be.
There are other solutions than saying that those who want to download or upload a song are on the wrong side of civil law. I suggest you read into them. There are already funds that go from the government through taxes into financing the arts. If people want a system that they have free access to information, why not make a system that encourages and supports that? Or is that too much to understand with your ethics?
You're right, if I buy an artists CD I can't make it available for download on my computer.
The people they are going after are just people with large music collections that made a mistake and left it all on upload or people who are willing to let others download a lot of music from them. It doesn't mean they don't own the cds. The people downloading it could even own the cd, but are too lazy to rip it.
Of course, at that point, someone would just release a system that tunnels port 80 to share music on a Fasttrack node. Ports are not a physical thing, they'd have to start scanning content. I'm sure people would just LOVE that one. So many people downloading porn and doing file sharing that I know there is no way there would be a huge backlash.
By the way, I worry about what you do as well. I just try and keep a positive attitude since it is too depressing not to.
Here goes a concept to blow your mind. I support stronger copyright law, but lesser enforcement of penalties for non-commercial infringement. That explains your GPL issue compared to the others. If I download some Opeth I couldn't find in a local store or get the Noir soundtrack online, no one loses since I wouldn't have had it anyhow. But it is still illegal.
This issue is not black and white, and I suggest you look at the gray area before you attack a community over it. I personally have no problems with mass file sharing. I also think that there are other solutions to supporting full time artists financially. Are you aware that the US government gives money to the arts? That's rather socialist. Perhaps you should move to a different country if you're against a solution that would lean towards communist ideals and that doesn't involve suing tens of millions of people?
Go read about the topic before you think it's needed to waste your time with illogical and misthought tripe. It wastes others time as well, having to explain it to you.
You're right, I do enjoy giving dead people money. Perhaps I should go dig them up and stick the money in their casket so that they can at least have it near their rotting corpse? Sounds useful to me. I'm glad that's the way the law works.
There are more options than the current copyright system. Perpetual copyright is about as useful as treating dead people as normal citizens. In fact, that's exactly what it does. While we're sending someone a dead person's royalty checks, why don't we also have social security be cumulative? Sounds useful.
I'm posting from class so I will make this quick, but without copyright law the GPl turns into a BSD license. You can't force someone to keep the source available if they can copy it freely. The GPL is thus broken and useless, and the idea of open source would be dead. I, personally, like copyright law.
You would have thought so, but the founders didn't make the check for the fact that the people wouldn't exercise the second amendment for small grievances and those would be accepted over time. Tens of millions can be wrong when the government has no check on who it is trampling on. Tens of people can precedence when those tens are the ones making the government's life easier. We're just modern slaves. Read the government's writings. They refer to people as consumers. We're not people anymore.
Oh, and this sounds extremist to me. So I went and read back over it... But it's all true. Which makes me wish I weren't aware of it. *sighs*
Slashdot Mirror
It's a cycle. Join a union and then more work goes overseas except in industries that require a lot of thought going into them such as vehicles. Most people don't care about made in China, so if the Americans are too expensive they'll go someplace else. It's a rather crazy system that hasn't nearly settled down as more and more countries join in the market.
I agree with you though, a union is the best choice currently. I just think that it's a scary thing for people to think about in the current environment for every reason it was before and many new ones.
You're right. It's the consumers that allow the exploitation. It all boils down to who is purchasing what. If you can't sell it because of X you quickly stop doing X. It's people who live in their own little world that let others suffer. They don't see it, so who cares?
I'd suggest you check the current lawsuit. The issue is if they are able to skate around that law because of a technicality. While they're skating, I sure as hell wouldn't mind taking a baseball bat upside their skull to be sure regardless of the outcome that they know they have to stop.
Mob rule tactics? What do you think capitalism and representative rule government is? What do you think anything is? If a single person or entity pisses off everyone else, the group stops them. Mob rule tactics? I'm just amazed that you can take such a negative outlook on capitalism while somewhat obviously supporting a free market. Are you just some kind of masochist that wants everything controlled without any protection for the people, and just protected corporations so their brands are stronger? That's what I've gathered from your positions.
Ya, I understood the point, but 15k combined seemed completely ludicrous to me and I was wondering where that number came from. 15k civilians is an average conservative estimate going around I've heard, but never combined with troops. As it goes, an exact number will be known. It'll get closer to being specific later, but at this point it won't matter. The people who are appalled will be appalled and the people who don't care won't care.
Combined civilian and military? The military states (to my knowledge) that they have downed 10k civilians and early estimates after occupying the country of deaths were around 100k troops. I hadn't heard another number after that. Who was saying that there was 15k combined deaths?
National Geographic had never made the claim that the article was definitive, just that they thought it presented an argument. To completely argue evolution in a more comprehensive and complete way takes more writing than was in that magazine. The argument used was a strong example as obviously if something changes a small amount with no rules on what changes over a short time, over the longer time the changes would amount to something greater. It's not really a logical jump and was what the article was attempting to have the reader think.
Warning: I haven't read the article nor am I a perfect source about evolution. I know enough to make the point I did I believe however.
Losing as the incumbent in a very strange situation and then getting one of the highest and influential positions in the United States government isn't good any way you look at it though.
I didn't read into the details on this, but glancing over them they were null pointers. Those are DOS style bugs, not arbitrary code execution. If there were exploits that allowed arbitrary code, I missed it on my glance over. A null pointer is nothing to worry about for some programmers. It's not a good thing, but someplace like Microsoft would not even take the time to fix those. There are countless ways to crash IE. One of them up until recently was doing an input field with the type set to crash. That's just careless.
So many things wrong with that. Read my other posts to see my point with that. I was just using one of many extreme examples of a problem.
Yes, you're right, 100+ years and growing shouldn't count as perpetual. I've read both sides of the case, and I've read the evidence saying that copyright will be fought to be extended every time it comes up for it to die. We'll see who was right in about 2030 when copyrights from the 1920s start to expire. 90 year material that is still owned by someone. How much of that do you see being sold? How much do you think is just lost?
I didn't mean a reflection of society on every issue. Sorry about not being clear, but I meant the current copyright law. Society is in trouble when they realize they can vote themselves money or the equivalent. Copyright though should be something that is in the interest of the public and allows for future growth. You can make the public pay for something without labeling them a criminal. At least, that's my opinion.
In case you were wondering, I didn't read the description or the articles. Just that the Uk was suing file sharers. Didn't stop me from responding to 7 posts though. You, obviously, cheated and read something that explained exactly what was happening. Cheater.
Well, the article is an interview with those middle people. When they say music, they actually mean huge profits for themselves. I too wish they would come right out and say it.
You read the description? Shouldn't a seasoned /,er like yourself have streamlined their browsing habits to just reading the six words in the topic title yet? Do I have nothing to look forward to in seniority?!?! I already have taken the route of skipping reading the articles and merely opening all the links in a background tab, but I was hoping if I hung around long enough I'd be able to skip reading that description and be able to pretend to know what I'm talking about.
Then again, maybe I am completely wrong. Maybe you didn't read the description and merely read the first comments talking about the British Pornographic Institute and assumed Phonograph was what the P really stood for. If so, I commend you for having tricked me.
/end long winded, overly though out joke
That's where people like yourself and many other Slashdotters are needed. The community can take down a website easily, and if that same very large community explained to 2 people each why these quotes are a load of shit I would hope it would effect societies views on it. The more people that are aware of other options to them being criminals the less the idea will be accepted that they are. That's how laws change.
I'm just a lazy activist though who picks fights in familiar territory. I've told my friends and family about those ideas and why quotes like that are horribly wrong, but haven't gone much farther. I think that's enough for a start though, maybe.
I agree with you on this issue for the main part. But I think that the current law should be a reflection of what society wants, and I think we both know that society at large does not thing file sharing is something that should be illegal. I was just using the point of bad copyright law to strengthen that idea. There was already a post before mine in reply that detailed what else I was going to say.
I wouldn't argue that file sharing is mainly used for works that should be in the public domain under current law. I would acknowledge that that does exist though, and use that to strengthen the idea that copyright law needs reform badly. I guess my approach is just different than yours. I'd like people to start thinking that copyright law has problems and thinking about what can be changed. I have the idea that if you get people to start at one place that is obvious to most people's ideals, you can lead into thoughts that are harder to grasp much more easily.
We don't disagree. I just used an extreme and jackass sounding response. Infuriating, aren't I?
Actually, I know for a fact I am more conservative than you. Music is the only thing I will say could work for a socialist ideal. Why? Because music formerly was a social thing. There are other solutions, but the one that will make the current masses happy is social.
The current laws mean nothing to me. I disagree with a large portion of them. Instead of saying people should be punished, I prefer to advocate a change. I realize that under current law that is the way it is, but current law will change and if people become aware of a chance for that it is more likely to happen. Could you imagine a politician or a group of them running on an idea that the public has about copyright law? I would love to see that someday. Would you not?
If you think that when the topic of file sharing comes up, the only discussion about it should be how the public should punish those that do it, I think you are completely missing what government should be. That's alright though. A lot of people in this age make the same mistake.
You're looking at this from one perspective. The other is that the public can have a right to that good when it is created and put into the public. In a physical sense, when I buy a cd or download a song, I control that copy. The system can be changed so that if you control that copy, you can do what you want with that copy, including copying it again. There are ways to make that work for everyone.
Someone making something does not give them a perpetual right to it if other people can create the same thing. That's the way the system should work in my opinion. The original creator can be rewarded to encourage furture creation while still having others able to do what they wish with that work.
There are other systems than the one in place to finance the arts. I wouldn't punish the woman at all. She should be rewarded if anything under a proper system. Under the current system, there is no way to reach that happy medium. Everything is subjective and no one is happy. Time to change it.
I didn't read your post, but just wanted to say that not everyone has the same ethics. Before the lawsuits I would download large volumes of music from and artist and buy the cds slowly to have a better quality hard copy. Ethically, even for you hopefully, that is fine. Now, I don't touch any music that the RIAA or other countries labels have anything to do with. Those are my ethics.
Don't tell me what my ethics are or should be and I won't tell you what yours should be.
There are other solutions than saying that those who want to download or upload a song are on the wrong side of civil law. I suggest you read into them. There are already funds that go from the government through taxes into financing the arts. If people want a system that they have free access to information, why not make a system that encourages and supports that? Or is that too much to understand with your ethics?
You're right, if I buy an artists CD I can't make it available for download on my computer.
The people they are going after are just people with large music collections that made a mistake and left it all on upload or people who are willing to let others download a lot of music from them. It doesn't mean they don't own the cds. The people downloading it could even own the cd, but are too lazy to rip it.
Of course, at that point, someone would just release a system that tunnels port 80 to share music on a Fasttrack node. Ports are not a physical thing, they'd have to start scanning content. I'm sure people would just LOVE that one. So many people downloading porn and doing file sharing that I know there is no way there would be a huge backlash.
By the way, I worry about what you do as well. I just try and keep a positive attitude since it is too depressing not to.
Here goes a concept to blow your mind. I support stronger copyright law, but lesser enforcement of penalties for non-commercial infringement. That explains your GPL issue compared to the others. If I download some Opeth I couldn't find in a local store or get the Noir soundtrack online, no one loses since I wouldn't have had it anyhow. But it is still illegal.
This issue is not black and white, and I suggest you look at the gray area before you attack a community over it. I personally have no problems with mass file sharing. I also think that there are other solutions to supporting full time artists financially. Are you aware that the US government gives money to the arts? That's rather socialist. Perhaps you should move to a different country if you're against a solution that would lean towards communist ideals and that doesn't involve suing tens of millions of people?
Go read about the topic before you think it's needed to waste your time with illogical and misthought tripe. It wastes others time as well, having to explain it to you.
You're right, I do enjoy giving dead people money. Perhaps I should go dig them up and stick the money in their casket so that they can at least have it near their rotting corpse? Sounds useful to me. I'm glad that's the way the law works.
There are more options than the current copyright system. Perpetual copyright is about as useful as treating dead people as normal citizens. In fact, that's exactly what it does. While we're sending someone a dead person's royalty checks, why don't we also have social security be cumulative? Sounds useful.
I'm posting from class so I will make this quick, but without copyright law the GPl turns into a BSD license. You can't force someone to keep the source available if they can copy it freely. The GPL is thus broken and useless, and the idea of open source would be dead. I, personally, like copyright law.
You would have thought so, but the founders didn't make the check for the fact that the people wouldn't exercise the second amendment for small grievances and those would be accepted over time. Tens of millions can be wrong when the government has no check on who it is trampling on. Tens of people can precedence when those tens are the ones making the government's life easier. We're just modern slaves. Read the government's writings. They refer to people as consumers. We're not people anymore.
Oh, and this sounds extremist to me. So I went and read back over it... But it's all true. Which makes me wish I weren't aware of it. *sighs*