Canada doesn't have a right to free speech in the same way as America (I know, it could be debated that Americans have it any more but that's a different discussion). Lots of Canadians think we have that right because we think many of the things that apply to our American neighbours also applies to us but they are incorrect. For those interested in the subtle difference, I refer you to the ever-helpful Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada ). Short version - we have a right to free speech "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In other words, our "right" to free speech can be withdrawn...
I know it makes for a sensational headline but it's inaccurate.
I remember, as a younger lad, playing games like Cyberpunk and Shadowrun and thinking that these future-fantasy worlds where megacorps ruled the world, competing and colluding with each other in a massive game, with governments relegated to the role of their legislative pawns was a lot of fun but far out there and obviously fictional.
Oh, how I miss my youthful days... Getting older and watching fiction become reality is not pleasant...
The geek in me is so confused... Do I get mad at the company suing over patent infringement for a DRM scheme (so many bad things there it's hard to even know where to begin) or do I cheer for the Discovery Channel, which is one of the greatest channels on the air for a geek.
"Not exactly sure what involvement the former RIAA mouthpiece Donald Verelli (a recent Obama pick for the DOJ) may have in this.""
If you're not sure what involvement the person has in any of this, why mention him? To politically polarize the discussion to follow? To create a sensationalized summary?
It would be nice if the submission summaries could stick to the details that are known and allow people to post their personal thoughts and opinions in the discussion's comments.
Read my post again. Sexay =/= sexy. A hot chick (or dude, depending on your preferences) is sexy. A cool and sleek tech toy is sexay. I wrote sexay for a reason. It wasn't a typo.
Assuming it's priced at normal netbook prices plus "the Apple tax", I'll be buying one. I've wanted to get a netbook for some time but the ones on the market right now just do not appeal to me, at all. Sure, they may be functional and all but, if I'm going to carry around a mini computer, I would like it to be a bit sexay. So, yes, I'll pay an Apple tax to get an Apple branded netbook. Sign me up.
This is not surprising at all. Talk with anyone who grew up listening to records and you'll hear a tale of music with character and soul. That "character" and "soul" is the pop and crack of dust, scratches, and whatnot that the record needle picked up - all the imperfections in the record player and record that we could hear. It's a comforting and familiar noise in the sound. The digital generation has its own pop and crackle and it should come as a surprise to nobody that their reaction to it is the same as the record generation's reaction to the sound of a record playing.
What if the owner of the local donut shop could accuse you of speeding? What if three accusations resulted in you losing your license? That's what's happening here - you get accused of a crime _by a business_ and you lose access to something you've paid for. No trial. No requirement of proof of an actual crime. Nothing. "You're guilty" said three times results in you losing access to the internet.
Now, if you consider that fair and right, then you live in a world in which I want no part.
I already replied to this thread but this deserves another one - the irony of this situation is simply too rich. I love the fact that Lars recognizes that Metallica's recent "music" is worthless. They used to be relevant, making some of the best rock music out there (their Black album is still one of the finer metal albums ever recorded) but they haven't produced anything worth paying for in the last decade. Good to see he agrees.
"I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download "Death Magnetic" for free, it's me."
Now, I haven't read your contract with the record label, Lars, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that, no, you do not have the right to download the music. Your record label probably controls the digital distribution rights of the music contained in that album and, unless you got their permission, you don't have that right. Remember the war you waged for the past several years? That's what was at the core of that fight.
But, like I said, I haven't read your contract so I might be mistaken.
"So why are book publishers doing the same thing?"
Making a broad generalization, but the answer is simple - because they, like music execs before them, are stupid.
Ok, that's harsh. More accurately, they are ill-informed. Just because you managed to become an executive of a company that deals with IP rights does not mean you are aware of what is going on in the world-at-large. In a perfect world, yes, the upper management of a company should be well-informed and make intelligent decisions based on more than just the digits on their own balance sheets but few executives in these companies truly know what DRM is and all the pros and cons of it, for example. They are simply ill-informed. So it should come as no surprise when the majority of them make stupid choices.
While I love the iPhone and think it's damn cool, things like this are (to me) just another piece of proof that the North American (and western society, in general) cell phone markets are set up to discourage innovation and advancement and are, instead, designed to ensure lock-in with particular vendors and suppliers. We _NEED_ regulators to step in and start putting companies in their places. That will open up innovation and encourage manufacturers to make better products to compete for consumer dollars. Also, regulators need to force carriers to provide better plans at reasonable rates. But, since a lot of people are getting rich off of the current stifling system, I won't be holding my breath for that sort of change to happen... We will continue to remain behind the times.
What the hell is a "social bookmarking service"? Since the site is dead, going to their webpage didn't help clear that up at all. Is it seriously a social networking site where people share _bookmarks_?
I'm sure my karma will take a hit for this but I feel it must be said.
It scares me when posts like yours get modded Insightful. In my 38 years, I know I've seen a difference in the seasons that is notable and undeniable. Without measurements, I can say with certainty that our climate is changing. Why people feel the need to blanket-dismiss those who warn against the dangers of such continued climate change as "kooks" perpetuating a "fraud" is simply beyond me. You may not agree with the scope and severity of the climate change. Fine. But to deny that it is happening shows a complete inability to observe the world around you over the course of decades. How you got 5 Insightful is a wonder to me. One that scares me. I fear the number of people sticking their head in the sand...
As a Canadian, I'm ashamed that our tax dollars are being wasted like this. The WORLD WIDE web is GLOBAL. Attempting to enforce (or even encourage) Canadian content on the WORLD WIDE web is simply stupid. Even with their alternate methods (tax credits, subsidies, grants, etc.), it's simply stupid. I have troubles supporting CanCon on radio and TV but on the WORLD WIDE web? Nah. That's just a waste of time and money.
"Several people use my computer at home. Plus, I use computers at several different IP addresses, some of which are in turn used by other people. So how can any IP address, by itself, be biographical information about me in particular? "
Probably in the same way that a physical address is. For most people, they live at an address with one or more other people (spouse, kids, parents, etc.). Some people also have a country home (second address) which may be shared with additional other people (brothers, parents, children, cousins, you get the point). In other words, it won't identify _YOU_ but it will narrow down the number of possible people from "everyone in Canada" to "everyone with access to this (IP) address".
(Yes, I know it's easy to spoof/steal an IP address and all of that stuff, which is a separate issue which would be used to argue how poorly an IP address can be used as a tool for identifying a person. I was answering your question, however - an IP address _can_ be used to help identify someone.)
How are we expected to take organizations like this seriously when they make claims like this? I mean, really?! So blind people who use text-to-speech software in order to "read" books have been breaking the law?
Oh dear gawd, this couldn't be a worse idea if they tried. And they do seem to be trying... Yes, I know this model works with TV but the internet is not TV. People making decisions like this clearly do NOT understand the nature of the internet.
I have never understood why Microsoft does this. Well, beyond the "make more money" aspect but that's because they're a company in the business of making money. The thing is, I just don't understand _how_ this leads to them making more money. In my mind, having one-and-only-one version of your operating system seems so much more efficient and cost-effective. It reduces the cost of pressing the discs, packaging, marketing - everything. It reduces the headaches of support (it outright eliminates the question of which version of the OS a person is running and thus what features they have access to, for example). In every way, it seems like it would cost Microsoft MORE to offer different versions of their OS which surely more than offsets any additional money they may make from doing it so I just don't understand why they do it. I'd love for someone to offer a flash of insight to explain what I'm obviously missing but, on every level, it just seems like the wrong choice.
He will never give up. The reason is simple - every time he goes off on one of his insane ramblings, news sites and services cover it and give his voice an audience. Until people stop caring what he has to say, he'll keep saying things. Unfortunately.
"Somewhat disappointingly, the students actually did have permission to make contact. "
And why is that disappointing? I think it's incredibly cool that they had permission to do something like this and would love to see officials (both school and space) take similar steps to encourage students to push the boundaries. I don't see how this is disappointing at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Canada doesn't have a right to free speech in the same way as America (I know, it could be debated that Americans have it any more but that's a different discussion). Lots of Canadians think we have that right because we think many of the things that apply to our American neighbours also applies to us but they are incorrect. For those interested in the subtle difference, I refer you to the ever-helpful Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada ). Short version - we have a right to free speech "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In other words, our "right" to free speech can be withdrawn...
I know it makes for a sensational headline but it's inaccurate.
I remember, as a younger lad, playing games like Cyberpunk and Shadowrun and thinking that these future-fantasy worlds where megacorps ruled the world, competing and colluding with each other in a massive game, with governments relegated to the role of their legislative pawns was a lot of fun but far out there and obviously fictional.
Oh, how I miss my youthful days... Getting older and watching fiction become reality is not pleasant...
The geek in me is so confused... Do I get mad at the company suing over patent infringement for a DRM scheme (so many bad things there it's hard to even know where to begin) or do I cheer for the Discovery Channel, which is one of the greatest channels on the air for a geek.
...
I'm so confused.
Help me Obi Wan. You're my
Sorry. Geek moment.
"Not exactly sure what involvement the former RIAA mouthpiece Donald Verelli (a recent Obama pick for the DOJ) may have in this.""
If you're not sure what involvement the person has in any of this, why mention him? To politically polarize the discussion to follow? To create a sensationalized summary?
It would be nice if the submission summaries could stick to the details that are known and allow people to post their personal thoughts and opinions in the discussion's comments.
Read my post again. Sexay =/= sexy. A hot chick (or dude, depending on your preferences) is sexy. A cool and sleek tech toy is sexay. I wrote sexay for a reason. It wasn't a typo.
Assuming it's priced at normal netbook prices plus "the Apple tax", I'll be buying one. I've wanted to get a netbook for some time but the ones on the market right now just do not appeal to me, at all. Sure, they may be functional and all but, if I'm going to carry around a mini computer, I would like it to be a bit sexay. So, yes, I'll pay an Apple tax to get an Apple branded netbook. Sign me up.
This is not surprising at all. Talk with anyone who grew up listening to records and you'll hear a tale of music with character and soul. That "character" and "soul" is the pop and crack of dust, scratches, and whatnot that the record needle picked up - all the imperfections in the record player and record that we could hear. It's a comforting and familiar noise in the sound. The digital generation has its own pop and crackle and it should come as a surprise to nobody that their reaction to it is the same as the record generation's reaction to the sound of a record playing.
What if the owner of the local donut shop could accuse you of speeding? What if three accusations resulted in you losing your license? That's what's happening here - you get accused of a crime _by a business_ and you lose access to something you've paid for. No trial. No requirement of proof of an actual crime. Nothing. "You're guilty" said three times results in you losing access to the internet.
Now, if you consider that fair and right, then you live in a world in which I want no part.
I already replied to this thread but this deserves another one - the irony of this situation is simply too rich. I love the fact that Lars recognizes that Metallica's recent "music" is worthless. They used to be relevant, making some of the best rock music out there (their Black album is still one of the finer metal albums ever recorded) but they haven't produced anything worth paying for in the last decade. Good to see he agrees.
"I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download "Death Magnetic" for free, it's me."
Now, I haven't read your contract with the record label, Lars, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that, no, you do not have the right to download the music. Your record label probably controls the digital distribution rights of the music contained in that album and, unless you got their permission, you don't have that right. Remember the war you waged for the past several years? That's what was at the core of that fight.
But, like I said, I haven't read your contract so I might be mistaken.
Subject says it all.
"So why are book publishers doing the same thing?"
Making a broad generalization, but the answer is simple - because they, like music execs before them, are stupid.
Ok, that's harsh. More accurately, they are ill-informed. Just because you managed to become an executive of a company that deals with IP rights does not mean you are aware of what is going on in the world-at-large. In a perfect world, yes, the upper management of a company should be well-informed and make intelligent decisions based on more than just the digits on their own balance sheets but few executives in these companies truly know what DRM is and all the pros and cons of it, for example. They are simply ill-informed. So it should come as no surprise when the majority of them make stupid choices.
While I love the iPhone and think it's damn cool, things like this are (to me) just another piece of proof that the North American (and western society, in general) cell phone markets are set up to discourage innovation and advancement and are, instead, designed to ensure lock-in with particular vendors and suppliers. We _NEED_ regulators to step in and start putting companies in their places. That will open up innovation and encourage manufacturers to make better products to compete for consumer dollars. Also, regulators need to force carriers to provide better plans at reasonable rates. But, since a lot of people are getting rich off of the current stifling system, I won't be holding my breath for that sort of change to happen... We will continue to remain behind the times.
How long did I sleep for? Is it April 1st already?
What the hell is a "social bookmarking service"? Since the site is dead, going to their webpage didn't help clear that up at all. Is it seriously a social networking site where people share _bookmarks_?
I'm sure my karma will take a hit for this but I feel it must be said.
It scares me when posts like yours get modded Insightful. In my 38 years, I know I've seen a difference in the seasons that is notable and undeniable. Without measurements, I can say with certainty that our climate is changing. Why people feel the need to blanket-dismiss those who warn against the dangers of such continued climate change as "kooks" perpetuating a "fraud" is simply beyond me. You may not agree with the scope and severity of the climate change. Fine. But to deny that it is happening shows a complete inability to observe the world around you over the course of decades. How you got 5 Insightful is a wonder to me. One that scares me. I fear the number of people sticking their head in the sand...
As a Canadian, I'm ashamed that our tax dollars are being wasted like this. The WORLD WIDE web is GLOBAL. Attempting to enforce (or even encourage) Canadian content on the WORLD WIDE web is simply stupid. Even with their alternate methods (tax credits, subsidies, grants, etc.), it's simply stupid. I have troubles supporting CanCon on radio and TV but on the WORLD WIDE web? Nah. That's just a waste of time and money.
Could you point to a case where they've sued a customer over this?
"Several people use my computer at home. Plus, I use computers at several different IP addresses, some of which are in turn used by other people. So how can any IP address, by itself, be biographical information about me in particular? "
Probably in the same way that a physical address is. For most people, they live at an address with one or more other people (spouse, kids, parents, etc.). Some people also have a country home (second address) which may be shared with additional other people (brothers, parents, children, cousins, you get the point). In other words, it won't identify _YOU_ but it will narrow down the number of possible people from "everyone in Canada" to "everyone with access to this (IP) address".
(Yes, I know it's easy to spoof/steal an IP address and all of that stuff, which is a separate issue which would be used to argue how poorly an IP address can be used as a tool for identifying a person. I was answering your question, however - an IP address _can_ be used to help identify someone.)
How are we expected to take organizations like this seriously when they make claims like this? I mean, really?! So blind people who use text-to-speech software in order to "read" books have been breaking the law?
It is true and I shall make it so.
Ah, the beauty of the information age. I love it yet it makes me laugh at times.
Oh dear gawd, this couldn't be a worse idea if they tried. And they do seem to be trying... Yes, I know this model works with TV but the internet is not TV. People making decisions like this clearly do NOT understand the nature of the internet.
I have never understood why Microsoft does this. Well, beyond the "make more money" aspect but that's because they're a company in the business of making money. The thing is, I just don't understand _how_ this leads to them making more money. In my mind, having one-and-only-one version of your operating system seems so much more efficient and cost-effective. It reduces the cost of pressing the discs, packaging, marketing - everything. It reduces the headaches of support (it outright eliminates the question of which version of the OS a person is running and thus what features they have access to, for example). In every way, it seems like it would cost Microsoft MORE to offer different versions of their OS which surely more than offsets any additional money they may make from doing it so I just don't understand why they do it. I'd love for someone to offer a flash of insight to explain what I'm obviously missing but, on every level, it just seems like the wrong choice.
He will never give up. The reason is simple - every time he goes off on one of his insane ramblings, news sites and services cover it and give his voice an audience. Until people stop caring what he has to say, he'll keep saying things. Unfortunately.
"Somewhat disappointingly, the students actually did have permission to make contact. "
And why is that disappointing? I think it's incredibly cool that they had permission to do something like this and would love to see officials (both school and space) take similar steps to encourage students to push the boundaries. I don't see how this is disappointing at all.