You are aware, of course, that influential members of the current administration have called for the US to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars" in order to maintain American military dominance.
Interestingly, this 'call to arms' was made well before September 11 2001.
"oh, shut up already, completely-anti-copyright anarcho-libertarians - go and do a little historical research about every attempt to do away with copyrights and patents completely"
"There is nothing worse for the palestinians than the suicide bombers. If they got those under control and instead held a peaceful protest, opinion in the world *and* Israel would quickly turn away from the hard-liners."
It is interesting that many slashdotters often warn against the encroachment of IP laws on software development, yet seem to be blind to the same issue with regard to agriculture.
Isn't the right to grow food as important as the rigth to develop software?
If a program can be contaminated with foreign IP, does the same problem not also apply to a field of crops?
How beneficial is it to the third world to have the IP rights to the food they grow owned by multi-nationals?
When this argument was first used aggressively by Monsanto in the late 1990s, the poor had other ideas. African delegates from Ethiopia to Burundi, Senegal and Mozambique, at special negotiations of the UN food and agriculture organisation "strongly" objected that "the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us""
Chris Morris is a genius. Check out "The Day Today" and "Brass Eye" for inspired and disturbing media satire. Check out his radio show "Jam" for inspired and disturbing um... er... stuff...
"In "Brass Eye" Chris Morris managed to produce what is easily the most explosive and challenging comedy series yet seen on television. Co-written with Peter Baynham and co-produced with Caroline Leddy, each episode was structured as a serious documentary, only the centre of its study was a plausible but completely fabricated source of media panic, from killer drugs to plans to 'get tough' on young offenders. To add weight to the glorious fabrications of "Brass Eye", Morris undertook innumerable interviewer disguises to persuade dozens of publicity-hungry celebrities to decry the damage that was being done to society.
One such individual, MP David Amess, was so totally taken in by the 'rise' of a non-existent drug named 'Cake' that he brought the matter up in Parliament. This sparked a wave of panic inside Channel 4, who pulled the series from its intended November 1996 transmission slot for 'further consideration'. A concerted campaign by Morris' fans and his many admirers in the media ensured that the series resurfaced in early 1997, although by then it had been tainted by Channel 4's uncharacteristically cowardly editing. Debates over cut material raged right up until each actual transmission, and a last-minute spat over a sketch intended for the final episode resulted in a caption card likening Channel 4 head Michael Grade to a moist area of the female anatomy being inserted in its place."
Even if you don't care about your own, are you so shameless as to shout down those who do?
Here's a brief explanation of why Fair Use rights are important:
"Why does the public have a "fair use" right to use copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission?
At the doctrine's core is a fundamental belief that not all copying should be banned, particularly in socially important endeavors. The Supreme Court explained, "the fair use doctrine exists because copyright law extends limited proprietary rights to copyright owners only to the extent necessary to ensure dissemination to the public."
Copyright law serves as a regulatory scheme designed to balance the competing rights of creators to exploit their work, entrepreneurs to receive a return on their investment, and the public's interest in gaining access to works. The fair use doctrine and other public rights are designed to further the ultimate goal of disseminating knowledge to the public. In developing an information infrastructure that serves the public interest and encourages the open flow of information, it is essential to continue to balance the competing interests and preserve the public's fair use rights in an electronic environment as it has in more traditional formats."
This argument, while popular with ideologists, is deeply flawed, for it assumes that corporations have no intrinsic power.
It has been proven time and again that, without government restraint, corporations will act to form cartels and monopolies that control the prices of goods and services. They can also control wages in a similar fashion. And the only thing stopping them from completely co-opting elected representatives through bribery is legislation (ineffective as it often is).
The proposed solution of free-market idealogues, of replacing elected power with purchased power is rotten to the core. It is the solution that Plato called 'oligarchy', and is nothing more than the rule of the rich. The problems with such a system should be obvious not only to students of history, but also to anyone currently living in the western world.
Your logic regarding the law and law-breaking is sound and well-argued.
However, is it not the case that most people expect the law to reflect popular morality?
And when it does not, when it criminalises someone who is not generally regarded as a 'criminal' (in the popular, moral sense), does not the law itself fall into disrepute?
I believe this is the problem that the original poster was hightlighting, and I'm not sure you addressed it.
"But the fact is that they got where they are today. THAT is what the "American dream" is, and we are fortunate to live in a country where our names could be on that list one day."
Hey - good point prole #1892722!
Why deal with the reality of being a wage slave when you can dream of being a billionaire?
Slashdot Mirror
You are aware, of course, that influential members of the current administration have called for the US to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars" in order to maintain American military dominance.
Interestingly, this 'call to arms' was made well before September 11 2001.
US backs long-planned attack on Syria
"I do about a six-pack of Diet Coke a day, but I don't seem to show any signs of addiction"
Yes you do.
"free coloring books for the kids"
You mean something like this?
Don''t forget...
7) Insert complicated-looking but essentially meaningless 'diagrams'
Fig 1 is fucking hilarious.
Solution: use ctrl-click to let the user to decide which pop-ups to allow.
The point is that OSS browsers can and will evolve to combat shoddy website design.
In theory, IE could too. But they lack the incentive.
IMHO, the IP contamination issue is similar in many ways to the threat posed by software patents to OSS.
I'm surprised more Slashdotters don't see the parallel.
But does it happen before or after the Singularity?
I wasn't using a credit card, just cash.
The girl behind the counter said it was the law (I asked because I was incredulous).
She might have been mistaken/lying, of course.
This is already happening in the EU.
Last time I used a cybercafe in Italy (Florence), they demanded to see my passport.
No kidding.
As the article makes clear, this is a straw-man argument designed to misrepresent the Brazilian government's position.
The 'context' (of anti-competitive legislation) exists only in the imagination of the Microsoft marketing department.
Why is a factual and relevant statement considered 'flamebait'?
"drawing an equivocation between the United States Government and the Ba'athist regime is absurd."
Of course it is absurd. The Ba'athists have not killed nearly as many people as the USG.
Before you label me a troll, check the facts.
Degraded?
"oh, shut up already, completely-anti-copyright anarcho-libertarians - go and do a little historical research about every attempt to do away with copyrights and patents completely"
Nice bluff, mumbles.
The sooner America becomes a police state the better.
Then the US will be safe, just like Israel.
"There is nothing worse for the palestinians than the suicide bombers. If they got those under control and instead held a peaceful protest, opinion in the world *and* Israel would quickly turn away from the hard-liners."
World opinion already opposes the occupation.
The US does not.
World opinion is not the key here.
Many thanks for your hard work!
It is interesting that many slashdotters often warn against the encroachment of IP laws on software development, yet seem to be blind to the same issue with regard to agriculture.
Isn't the right to grow food as important as the rigth to develop software?
If a program can be contaminated with foreign IP, does the same problem not also apply to a field of crops?
How beneficial is it to the third world to have the IP rights to the food they grow owned by multi-nationals?
"We should commercially introduce GM crops, they say, because we need to feed the poor.
When this argument was first used aggressively by Monsanto in the late 1990s, the poor had other ideas. African delegates from Ethiopia to Burundi, Senegal and Mozambique, at special negotiations of the UN food and agriculture organisation "strongly" objected that "the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us""
Chris Morris is a genius. Check out "The Day Today" and "Brass Eye" for inspired and disturbing media satire. Check out his radio show "Jam" for inspired and disturbing um... er... stuff...
"In "Brass Eye" Chris Morris managed to produce what is easily the most explosive and challenging comedy series yet seen on television. Co-written with Peter Baynham and co-produced with Caroline Leddy, each episode was structured as a serious documentary, only the centre of its study was a plausible but completely fabricated source of media panic, from killer drugs to plans to 'get tough' on young offenders. To add weight to the glorious fabrications of "Brass Eye", Morris undertook innumerable interviewer disguises to persuade dozens of publicity-hungry celebrities to decry the damage that was being done to society.
One such individual, MP David Amess, was so totally taken in by the 'rise' of a non-existent drug named 'Cake' that he brought the matter up in Parliament. This sparked a wave of panic inside Channel 4, who pulled the series from its intended November 1996 transmission slot for 'further consideration'. A concerted campaign by Morris' fans and his many admirers in the media ensured that the series resurfaced in early 1997, although by then it had been tainted by Channel 4's uncharacteristically cowardly editing. Debates over cut material raged right up until each actual transmission, and a last-minute spat over a sketch intended for the final episode resulted in a caption card likening Channel 4 head Michael Grade to a moist area of the female anatomy being inserted in its place."
Cook' d and Bomb'd
Don't you care about your rights?
Even if you don't care about your own, are you so shameless as to shout down those who do?
Here's a brief explanation of why Fair Use rights are important:
"Why does the public have a "fair use" right to use copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission?
At the doctrine's core is a fundamental belief that not all copying should be banned, particularly in socially important endeavors. The Supreme Court explained, "the fair use doctrine exists because copyright law extends limited proprietary rights to copyright owners only to the extent necessary to ensure dissemination to the public."
Copyright law serves as a regulatory scheme designed to balance the competing rights of creators to exploit their work, entrepreneurs to receive a return on their investment, and the public's interest in gaining access to works. The fair use doctrine and other public rights are designed to further the ultimate goal of disseminating knowledge to the public. In developing an information infrastructure that serves the public interest and encourages the open flow of information, it is essential to continue to balance the competing interests and preserve the public's fair use rights in an electronic environment as it has in more traditional formats."
Understanding Fair Use Rights
Unfortunately, some countries are forced to sell their assets to foreign investors, whether they like it nor not.
This process is popularly known as "liberation".
Just as a war planned in July 2001 cannot possibly be a response to an event that took place in September.
Oh, wait a minute...
This argument, while popular with ideologists, is deeply flawed, for it assumes that corporations have no intrinsic power.
It has been proven time and again that, without government restraint, corporations will act to form cartels and monopolies that control the prices of goods and services. They can also control wages in a similar fashion. And the only thing stopping them from completely co-opting elected representatives through bribery is legislation (ineffective as it often is).
The proposed solution of free-market idealogues, of replacing elected power with purchased power is rotten to the core. It is the solution that Plato called 'oligarchy', and is nothing more than the rule of the rich. The problems with such a system should be obvious not only to students of history, but also to anyone currently living in the western world.
Your logic regarding the law and law-breaking is sound and well-argued.
However, is it not the case that most people expect the law to reflect popular morality?
And when it does not, when it criminalises someone who is not generally regarded as a 'criminal' (in the popular, moral sense), does not the law itself fall into disrepute?
I believe this is the problem that the original poster was hightlighting, and I'm not sure you addressed it.
"But the fact is that they got where they are today. THAT is what the "American dream" is, and we are fortunate to live in a country where our names could be on that list one day."
Hey - good point prole #1892722!
Why deal with the reality of being a wage slave when you can dream of being a billionaire?
Keep on dreamin' America!!!