I'm an enthusiastic user of the Adblock extension, but I don't object at all to Google's ads. They are unobtrusive and textual and do not obstruct reading the information on the screen (as opposed to the ones in many on-line newspapers that occupy a big block in the middle of the text).
I've even found them useful when looking for a supplier for a specific product.
How do we reconcile the beliefs that ISPs are responsible for spam going through their systems, but not pirated files.
Easy. The following are two entirely different situations.
(1) When you send spam, you are pushing material at other people who don't want it and wasting their time and bandwidth.
(2) When you run a P2P program or put pages on your website that some corporation doesn't like, you are providing material that other people can choose to download or not.
I tried this at home a few times, but on each plant as the stalk grew vertically and grew new upper leaves, the lower leaves fell off. So I always had a stalk with three or four leaves at the top and nothing below that
The problem is that with Microsoft's entry, prices have stopped falling. Microsofts undercuts competitors to drive them out of business, but once they have a monopoly, they hold prices constant or even raise them. It's standard monopoly behavior: first, you give up profit for acquiring the monopoly, then you reap your rewards many times over. Internationally, it's known as "dumping". While in the short term, it may cause prices to fall, it is not something that's good for customers.
You're advocating the government seizure of private property without compensation here.
Not at all, since copyright is in the first place a privilege---not a right---granted by the state in order to promote the public good. Copyright is a valid principle only to the extent that the benefits to the public (by increasing the quantity and quality of work that eventually gets into the public domain) outweigh the harm to the public (by restricting the public's rights to copy).
Two hundred years ago copyright was a good deal for the public, because it protected authors but in practical terms restricted only publishers, not the general public (since printing books required expensive equipment and specialist skills). It also lasted (typically) at most 28 years.
The corrupt form of copyright that exists now in most countries is not a good deal for the public. It severely restricts the general public, and for the benefit of publishers more than authors.
1. In a site with 150k or 200k users, at least some of them will be RIAA/MPAA spies, or exploitable into becoming spies (think MSIE holes, plaintext logins at defcon, etc).
Also exploitable by blackmail: "We know you're infringing copyright but we'll let you off if you become our stooge^H^H^H mole."
The problem isn't that they DRMed their stuff. Fine. Let them. It's theirs, not ours, even if we really, really want it to be.
Actually that is a problem. Copyright is not a right but a privilege that the state grants to authors (who are these days forced to hand it over to publishers) in order to promote the public good. If the publishers don't cooperate with the public interest, they should not be allowed to enforce their copyrights.
DRM isn't a big deal, unless you're stealing
stuff.
DRM obstructs the public interest: that all copyrighted material should in the long term pass into the public domain (or "the commons") for everyone to use freely.
If my lawyer recommended that I plead guilty to a crime and I did and the judge rejected that because what I had done didn't violate the law I would be pretty pissed off at my lawyer.
The lawyer probably saved him money because preparing a guilty plea is cheaper than preparing a defence.
This will legitimately help law enforcement with a large number of cases, not just high profile "unibomber" ones. While the tin foil hats may have a field day with that, I see it as legitimate.
It will also help corporations track down whistleblowers and other critics (I'm sure the government will readily hand the information over to them). Is that legitimate?
I am actually tired of people demeaning the value of electronic formats because it is not tangeable.
I'm tired of people mistaking copyright for some kind of right rather than what it really is: a limited privilege that the state grants in order to promote the public good.
Taking something that without paying for it is theft. If it's copyright infringement in addition to theft, then you've got a 2fer.
Are you seriously claiming that copying a CD is worse than shoplifting it?
If I create a work, and explicitly provide access to it for a fee, and you choose to access the work without paying it, you're stealing. It's not an issue of law, it's an issue of right and wrong.
It is an issue of law. Copyright is not a natural right---it's a privilege granted by the state on behalf of society to promote the public good.
...If anyone ever needed an object lesson in the dangers of grossly inappropriate analogies, they need look no further.
I agree with you there. But...
What we are talking about here is THEFT.
No. We are talking about copyright infringement, which---despite publishers' propaganda---is not even remotely the same thing. Copyright infringement ought to be a purely civil (not criminal) matter.
Illegally downloading copyrighted materials discourages the creation of high-quality materials. It reduces the overall value of the knowledge base our society can develop and provide access to.
Maybe, maybe not. The privilege (not right) of copyright was created to encourage authorship, but it is not necessary for high-quality works to exist, as demonstrated by all of human culture from prehistory until 200--300 years ago.
Slashdot's comment boards would be a WHOLE lot better if each poster was accurately marked with age, employment status, and whether or not the poster is living with his parents.
35, yes, no.
Re:OT: Question for Slashdotters
on
Lego Logic Gates
·
· Score: 4, Informative
If you mean software to simulate building digital circuits out of gates, look at TKGate.
At least with the current system, if you think a film sucks, you don't have to see it. If you had to pay to have the film made, you'd not have that choice; good or bad, you'd already have paid.
Under the current system, try getting your money back after buying or renting a DVD or watching a film in the cinema because the film stank!
I definitely agree with you about the AA batteries. One of the great things about my Olympus digital camera is that it takes 4 AA batteries---rechargeable (when I have the set charged in advance) or alkaline (as a spare set and in the camera when I'm not using it---because rechargeable batteries discharge when not in use and I hate having to set the customizations and the clock again).
Current copyright law is already a relic of our pre-digital past.
Two hundred years ago, printing books was expensive and required special equipment and skills, so it made sense for the public to give up the freedom to reproduce written works for 20 years in order to encourage authors. In effect, copyright was a restriction on publishers to the benefit of authors with little adverse impact on the general public.
Copyright now, however, is a severe restriction on the public in order to benefit publishers (media companies) and---to a much smaller extent---authors.
Slashdot Mirror
I've even found them useful when looking for a supplier for a specific product.
Easy. The following are two entirely different situations.
(1) When you send spam, you are pushing material at other people who don't want it and wasting their time and bandwidth.
(2) When you run a P2P program or put pages on your website that some corporation doesn't like, you are providing material that other people can choose to download or not.
Any idea what I did wrong?
Like Wal-Mart.
Not at all, since copyright is in the first place a privilege---not a right---granted by the state in order to promote the public good. Copyright is a valid principle only to the extent that the benefits to the public (by increasing the quantity and quality of work that eventually gets into the public domain) outweigh the harm to the public (by restricting the public's rights to copy).
Two hundred years ago copyright was a good deal for the public, because it protected authors but in practical terms restricted only publishers, not the general public (since printing books required expensive equipment and specialist skills). It also lasted (typically) at most 28 years.
The corrupt form of copyright that exists now in most countries is not a good deal for the public. It severely restricts the general public, and for the benefit of publishers more than authors.
Also exploitable by blackmail: "We know you're infringing copyright but we'll let you off if you become our stooge^H^H^H mole."
We were talking about DRM and other crippled formats. The *AA have used the DMCA to go after people for opening up data in crippled formats.
Actually that is a problem. Copyright is not a right but a privilege that the state grants to authors (who are these days forced to hand it over to publishers) in order to promote the public good. If the publishers don't cooperate with the public interest, they should not be allowed to enforce their copyrights.
Aren't "these formats" the one's that they (*AA) are trying to stop by suing everyone?
DRM obstructs the public interest: that all copyrighted material should in the long term pass into the public domain (or "the commons") for everyone to use freely.
The lawyer probably saved him money because preparing a guilty plea is cheaper than preparing a defence.
Or maybe he's just pissed off at spammers, too?
But I really like that theory.
Open-source drivers, or does your employer expect people to run unauditable code as root?
There is caffeinated soap on thinkgeek.com. But I tried it once and didn't notice the effect.
Misuse of a gun could kill an innocent person. Nothing you can do with P2P software even approaches that severity.
When guns are used to commit crimes, people could die. No one will die as a result of copyright infringement---so it's hardly as serious.
Photographing stamp buyers provides no benefit to the customer.
It will also help corporations track down whistleblowers and other critics (I'm sure the government will readily hand the information over to them). Is that legitimate?
But copyright---control over dissemination of information---is a much more artificial right than ownership---based on physical possession.
I'm tired of people mistaking copyright for some kind of right rather than what it really is: a limited privilege that the state grants in order to promote the public good.
Are you seriously claiming that copying a CD is worse than shoplifting it?
If I create a work, and explicitly provide access to it for a fee, and you choose to access the work without paying it, you're stealing. It's not an issue of law, it's an issue of right and wrong.
It is an issue of law. Copyright is not a natural right---it's a privilege granted by the state on behalf of society to promote the public good.
I agree with you there. But...
What we are talking about here is THEFT.
No. We are talking about copyright infringement, which---despite publishers' propaganda---is not even remotely the same thing. Copyright infringement ought to be a purely civil (not criminal) matter.
Illegally downloading copyrighted materials discourages the creation of high-quality materials. It reduces the overall value of the knowledge base our society can develop and provide access to.
Maybe, maybe not. The privilege (not right) of copyright was created to encourage authorship, but it is not necessary for high-quality works to exist, as demonstrated by all of human culture from prehistory until 200--300 years ago.
Slashdot's comment boards would be a WHOLE lot better if each poster was accurately marked with age, employment status, and whether or not the poster is living with his parents.
35, yes, no.
If you mean software to simulate building digital circuits out of gates, look at TKGate.
Under the current system, try getting your money back after buying or renting a DVD or watching a film in the cinema because the film stank!
I definitely agree with you about the AA batteries. One of the great things about my Olympus digital camera is that it takes 4 AA batteries---rechargeable (when I have the set charged in advance) or alkaline (as a spare set and in the camera when I'm not using it---because rechargeable batteries discharge when not in use and I hate having to set the customizations and the clock again).
Two hundred years ago, printing books was expensive and required special equipment and skills, so it made sense for the public to give up the freedom to reproduce written works for 20 years in order to encourage authors. In effect, copyright was a restriction on publishers to the benefit of authors with little adverse impact on the general public.
Copyright now, however, is a severe restriction on the public in order to benefit publishers (media companies) and---to a much smaller extent---authors.