Am I the only person bothered by the thought that Justice should be practical. If there are millions of people breaking the law ( I said if), then there are only two just ways of dealing with it:
A: charge every single one, or
B: Change the law because society has changed and what was perceived to be criminal has changed.
The constitution I refer to is the one governing the nation in which the legal arguments are being made.
As far as natural rights go, actually, I'm right on this one. Copyright is an incursion on a natural right. The fact that we as a society decided is was a reasonable limitation inasmuch as it would encourage the creation and distribution of original works does not negate the fact that we have a natural right to freedom of speech.
Trading copyrighted material is illegal, I'll give you that, but sharing may not be. Napster is set up without any system of quotas or controls ensuring that value is returned. It's a fine distinction between sharing and trading but it involves the idea of getting equal (perceived) value.
Of course it's full of people violating the RIAA's view of what copyright law is. Whether or not they are actually violating copyright law themselves is another question... the law is slippery. I'll leave it to the reader to figure out which 'they' I'm referring to.
Because the license applies only if you use that CD for playback.
Where in god's name did you read that?!?! BZZZZT! Wrong!
There is no license. I own it. I am enjoined by the government(not the copyright holder) from copying it except for non-commercial use) see Sony et. al.
Anyone with an elementary understanding of the nature of copyright will realise that this argument is bullshit.
You don't pay to listen to the music. You're paying for a license to have a copy of copyrighted material.
BZZZT Wrong answer. You have indeed purchased the music, with one caveat. You have unlimited personal usage of it, but you do not have the right to copy it (hence copyright). This is reserved for the holder of the copyright. This is an essential difference.
When I purchase a copyrighted work, I am enjoined from copying it, not by the copyright holder, but by the government, who has giventhe copyright holder a limited monopoly on profitting from his/her/{corporate entity}'s original work. I have not purchased a license for something; I own it. I am enjoined from using it in one particular way. That way is defined by the government (We the People ) not by the copyright holder.
What the corporate entities involved with these court cases are trying to do is shift this idea, to one where the original thought become 'real property' which according to the constitution can not be taken away without due cause and compensation etc. . By doing this, they will have taken away one of our natural rights. To freely share ideas and thoughts, no matter what their method of expression, is a natural right.
My personal opinion is that copyright has outlived it's usefullness, and that We the People should nullify this incursion on one of our natural rights.
Oh, and just so you know... I hold copyright on all of my jewellery designs, and am painfully aware that without the resources of a large corporation, enforcing copyright violations is a joke.
Some material is not appropriate for children. In particular, material on Web sites that say "you must be 18/21 to enter." If a ten-year-old wants to use a computer in a library, that kind of material should be blocked (assuming we can do it accurately, which is currently not the case).
NO. It should not be blocked. If they are old enough to ask questions, they are old enought to be exposed to anything. It is the job of parents to explain what they like or don't like about reality. Censorship is wrong, and I don't want my children exposed to it. I want my children to know they can ask any question. The minute we start blocking ideas/questions of any sort (including "Daddy, what are those naked people doing with those whips?) we make our children a little duller and dumber....
If you don't want your children asking hard questions, by all means, train them to be stupid and fearful.... I want my children to be truly free in spirit bady and mind!
So now you say, "Napster sells more records" Nope. Napsters COSTS records. Why pay when you can have it for free? I like the idea myself sometimes, especially when I see a CD priced at $15. So some altruistic souls go buy more, but I doubt that's what most of the users do.
You doubt it do you? Show me some statistics, and not the ones that show that sales of cd's near a university went down -IN THE SUMMMER! Every study (for example)I've seen of the habits of those of us that use Napster (and here I include my 72 year old mother, who has discovered quite a bit of music that she's since purchased) has shown that we buy more music once we start using Napster. Opinions are meaningless without facts.
Suns, sure, but Macintoshes? I don't think I'm aware of anybody using Macs for even semi-serious webserving. Neither the OS (OSX is a different ballgame, granted) nor the hardware is designed for this kind of thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, please:)
You mean besides the military. A G4 running OS X Server is nothing to sneeze at, and if memory serves correctly, web serving on the mac using WebObjects is a pretty sweet combo... If you are going to include commodity x86's then you should include macs...
course if you're running linux PPC, then you can run Apache on a G4 and really rock and roll......
Actually it would be murder. Any deaths directly caused by the commision of a crime are murder. Period. Working on the assumption that cracking the NASA computers would be trespass, a crime, and that this action directly resulted in death, this idiot would have been charged with murder.
Whether she/he/they could have been successfully prosecuted is up for debate.
Now I can actually play the same game that my Win* friends play.
For me, one of the most attractive things about the quake type games is the ability to create your own world to play in. I really have been feeling cheated by the linux version until now.
With the Linux patches now even with the Windows versions, and an editing tool, the games are now on par, which is a good thing!
Tonight I shall get a bit creative before I get mediaeval with Q3A
I think the reason for this is clear: Powerful devices require thought. Simple devices are designed to not require thought. These goals don't mesh very well.
The whole point of good UI design, is to mesh these two goals. With a good UI, a user can sit down and use a program intuitively, BUT not to it's full potential. As a user gets more comfortable, they may or may not find the more 'powerful' features, and muscle memory keyboard commmands, shortcuts, learn the scripting language, etc.
As a GUI linux user, I find that as I become more familiar with the OS, I'm using the CLI more often to get work done. The most important thing for me, however was I was able to start getting work done fast.
I AM saying "Beyond a certain point, GUIs enter a region of tradeoff between power and simplicity. What is that point and how will we know when we've reached it?"
I disagree. I think that for the most part, due to poor initial design problems, and legacy issues, there has been a tradeoff. As the science of UI in computers advances, that tradeoff will be reduced or removed. I don't have the solutions, but I applaud the guys + gals working on MACOS X// KDE// GNOME// BEOS// etc. for trying to find better solutions. Competition is good.
(why isn't their a corporate death penalty? or corporate imprisonment?)
There is. It's called a revocation of corporate charter. What that means is that the government (That's us the people) revokes the protections and privileges that being incorporated gives a company. It is EXTREMELY rare, as it exposes the shareholders to personal liability for any transgessions on the part of the business.
This may make us feel good, but little old grandma's with their pension funds invested in 'safe' stocks like Microsoft probably would not like this idea.
The much less drastic measure of splitting the company in two would probably do much less harm to the economy as a whole, and give many of the same benefits... imagine you're GM or some other large company, and being able to walk into a conference with the OS company and saying "Lower your prices or we'll switch to (that other MS)Office running on Linux", and then crossing the hallway and saying to the App company, "Hey, lower your prices or I'll switch to StarOffice, cause it's free, and the MS OS company has helped them optimize it for their OS, so we don't need you anymore." Now picture The big retail chains and manufacturers having the same conversation. Price will become elastic so they'll have to compete on quality! My Deity wouldn't that be a treat!!
(PS for all the Canadians reading this, if you don't think the likes of Tom "Sieg Hiel!" Long or Preston Manning wouldn't like to get their hands on this info, your sadly mistaken. The 'Alliance' Facists would be way worse than simply incompetent Liberals)
I agree that either Tom Long or Presto would be an abomination, but looking at Keith Martin I gotta say I'm impressed. He's socially liberal, fiscally sensible and totally ignored by the media cause he's not from Ontario. His being in the party almost makes me not want to run away screaming when I hear the idea of them forming the next government.
[ angry ] I say that if the US government, through the agency of it's court system demands the logs, then we sue the bastards for invasion of privacy. Or shoot them. [/angry ]
[irritated] This is all about chill. They aren't going after people with big sticks. They're going after students, and foreigners who are unlikely to spend the money to hire a lawyer to fight this in an american court. By the time they go after an american with the wherewithal to fight, they'll have built up a nice set of precedents. It's time to stop them. Here, and now. [/irritated]
[logical] Just ignore them... they can't sue the entire internet[/logical]
No. I can tell mp3.com what CD's I bought.. and they are free to ask. But my having a CD does *not* give mp3 the right to broadcast it to me. Yes, it gives *me* the right to make copies, etc... for my own personal use, but in this case,copies are not sent to mp3.com, I believe.... they only check to see what you have and then send out of their archive.
What is the definition of copy? As far as I'm concerned, by sending a representation of my CD to mp3.com, I have made a copy of my CD in their database. It could make for an interesting debate about the nature of information in the digital era. Is a representation of data enough, or do I have to waste bandwidth by sending a full copy of my CD (and using what format/compression technique?). At what point does it cease to be a copy.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps because it explains how to make your own packages... not just how to use it? Remember, RPM is GPL'd, and we can all use the tool.
Am I the only person bothered by the thought that Justice should be practical. If there are millions of people breaking the law ( I said if), then there are only two just ways of dealing with it:
A: charge every single one, or
B: Change the law because society has changed and what was perceived to be criminal has changed.
Anything else is not justice, but tryanny.
ooops , reading at +2 occasionally makes you post like an idiot... you miss some of the conversation and end up arguing the wrong topic.....
bzzt. mp3.com is not napster.
different legal issue.
The constitution I refer to is the one governing the nation in which the legal arguments are being made.
As far as natural rights go, actually, I'm right on this one. Copyright is an incursion on a natural right. The fact that we as a society decided is was a reasonable limitation inasmuch as it would encourage the creation and distribution of original works does not negate the fact that we have a natural right to freedom of speech.
Try donating close to home : EFF Canada
Trading copyrighted material is illegal, I'll give you that, but sharing may not be. Napster is set up without any system of quotas or controls ensuring that value is returned. It's a fine distinction between sharing and trading but it involves the idea of getting equal (perceived) value.
Of course it's full of people violating the RIAA's view of what copyright law is. Whether or not they are actually violating copyright law themselves is another question... the law is slippery.
I'll leave it to the reader to figure out which 'they' I'm referring to.
Because the license applies only if you use that CD for playback.
Where in god's name did you read that?!?!
BZZZZT! Wrong! There is no license. I own it. I am enjoined by the government(not the copyright holder) from copying it except for non-commercial use) see Sony et. al.
Anyone with an elementary understanding of the nature of copyright will realise that this argument is bullshit.
You don't pay to listen to the music. You're paying for a license to have a copy of copyrighted material.
BZZZT Wrong answer. You have indeed purchased the music, with one caveat. You have unlimited personal usage of it, but you do not have the right to copy it (hence copyright). This is reserved for the holder of the copyright. This is an essential difference.
When I purchase a copyrighted work, I am enjoined from copying it, not by the copyright holder, but by the government, who has giventhe copyright holder a limited monopoly on profitting from his/her/{corporate entity}'s original work. I have not purchased a license for something; I own it. I am enjoined from using it in one particular way. That way is defined by the government (We the People ) not by the copyright holder.
What the corporate entities involved with these court cases are trying to do is shift this idea, to one where the original thought become 'real property' which according to the constitution can not be taken away without due cause and compensation etc. . By doing this, they will have taken away one of our natural rights. To freely share ideas and thoughts, no matter what their method of expression, is a natural right.
My personal opinion is that copyright has outlived it's usefullness, and that We the People should nullify this incursion on one of our natural rights.
Oh, and just so you know... I hold copyright on all of my jewellery designs, and am painfully aware that without the resources of a large corporation, enforcing copyright violations is a joke.
IBM makes one; you can also buy one from http://www.pckeyboard.com/onthestk.htm
Some material is not appropriate for children. In particular, material on Web sites that say "you must be 18/21 to enter." If a ten-year-old wants to use a computer in a library, that kind of material should be blocked (assuming we can do it accurately, which is currently not the case).
NO. It should not be blocked. If they are old enough to ask questions, they are old enought to be exposed to anything. It is the job of parents to explain what they like or don't like about reality. Censorship is wrong, and I don't want my children exposed to it. I want my children to know they can ask any question. The minute we start blocking ideas/questions of any sort (including "Daddy, what are those naked people doing with those whips?) we make our children a little duller and dumber.... If you don't want your children asking hard questions, by all means, train them to be stupid and fearful.... I want my children to be truly free in spirit bady and mind!
So now you say, "Napster sells more records" Nope. Napsters COSTS records. Why pay when you can have it for free? I like the idea myself sometimes, especially when I see a CD priced at $15. So some altruistic souls go buy more, but I doubt that's what most of the users do.
You doubt it do you? Show me some statistics, and not the ones that show that sales of cd's near a university went down -IN THE SUMMMER! Every study (for example)I've seen of the habits of those of us that use Napster (and here I include my 72 year old mother, who has discovered quite a bit of music that she's since purchased) has shown that we buy more music once we start using Napster. Opinions are meaningless without facts.
Suns, sure, but Macintoshes? I don't think I'm aware of anybody using Macs for even semi-serious webserving. Neither the OS (OSX is a different ballgame, granted) nor the hardware is designed for this kind of thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, please :)
You mean besides the military. A G4 running OS X Server is nothing to sneeze at, and if memory serves correctly, web serving on the mac using WebObjects is a pretty sweet combo... If you are going to include commodity x86's then you should include macs...
course if you're running linux PPC, then you can run Apache on a G4 and really rock and roll......
Actually it would be murder. Any deaths directly caused by the commision of a crime are murder. Period. Working on the assumption that cracking the NASA computers would be trespass, a crime, and that this action directly resulted in death, this idiot would have been charged with murder.
Whether she/he/they could have been successfully prosecuted is up for debate.
Now I can actually play the same game that my Win* friends play.
For me, one of the most attractive things about the quake type games is the ability to create your own world to play in. I really have been feeling cheated by the linux version until now.
With the Linux patches now even with the Windows versions, and an editing tool, the games are now on par, which is a good thing!
Tonight I shall get a bit creative before I get mediaeval with Q3A
I think the reason for this is clear: Powerful devices require thought. Simple devices are designed to not require thought. These goals don't mesh very well.
// KDE // GNOME // BEOS // etc. for trying to find better solutions. Competition is good.
The whole point of good UI design, is to mesh these two goals. With a good UI, a user can sit down and use a program intuitively, BUT not to it's full potential. As a user gets more comfortable, they may or may not find the more 'powerful' features, and muscle memory keyboard commmands, shortcuts, learn the scripting language, etc.
As a GUI linux user, I find that as I become more familiar with the OS, I'm using the CLI more often to get work done. The most important thing for me, however was I was able to start getting work done fast.
I AM saying "Beyond a certain point, GUIs enter a region of tradeoff between power and simplicity. What is that point and how will we know when we've reached it?"
I disagree. I think that for the most part, due to poor initial design problems, and legacy issues, there has been a tradeoff. As the science of UI in computers advances, that tradeoff will be reduced or removed. I don't have the solutions, but I applaud the guys + gals working on MACOS X
(wow! I used a lot of acronyms in that post!)
(why isn't their a corporate death penalty? or corporate imprisonment?)
There is. It's called a revocation of corporate charter. What that means is that the government (That's us the people) revokes the protections and privileges that being incorporated gives a company. It is EXTREMELY rare, as it exposes the shareholders to personal liability for any transgessions on the part of the business.
This may make us feel good, but little old grandma's with their pension funds invested in 'safe' stocks like Microsoft probably would not like this idea.
The much less drastic measure of splitting the company in two would probably do much less harm to the economy as a whole, and give many of the same benefits... imagine you're GM or some other large company, and being able to walk into a conference with the OS company and saying "Lower your prices or we'll switch to (that other MS)Office running on Linux", and then crossing the hallway and saying to the App company, "Hey, lower your prices or I'll switch to StarOffice, cause it's free, and the MS OS company has helped them optimize it for their OS, so we don't need you anymore." Now picture The big retail chains and manufacturers having the same conversation. Price will become elastic so they'll have to compete on quality! My Deity wouldn't that be a treat!!
(PS for all the Canadians reading this, if you don't think the likes of Tom "Sieg Hiel!" Long or Preston Manning wouldn't like to get their hands on this info, your sadly mistaken. The 'Alliance' Facists would be way worse than simply incompetent Liberals)
I agree that either Tom Long or Presto would be an abomination, but looking at Keith Martin I gotta say I'm impressed. He's socially liberal, fiscally sensible and totally ignored by the media cause he's not from Ontario. His being in the party almost makes me not want to run away screaming when I hear the idea of them forming the next government.
And if you think Chretien is incompetent and not evil, I refer you tothe actions he took to stomp out dissent at the APEC conference in Vancouver. If ever there was a fascist running the country (outside of the 1930's but that's a different rant) he is it.
I caught it, and I'm wondering how that got past everyone's radar if it's true. You'd think somebody would have mentioned it.
p.s. is that the smell of Bill's PR department lawyers in the air?
At the bottom of the story was a mention that release 7 had been released today!
So I check, and voila:
ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/v7.0/
Actually I downloaded a song out of pure irritation. I'm probably not alone.
[ angry ] I say that if the US government, through the agency of it's court system demands the logs, then we sue the bastards for invasion of privacy. Or shoot them. [ /angry ]
[irritated] This is all about chill. They aren't going after people with big sticks. They're going after students, and foreigners who are unlikely to spend the money to hire a lawyer to fight this in an american court. By the time they go after an american with the wherewithal to fight, they'll have built up a nice set of precedents. It's time to stop them. Here, and now. [/irritated]
[logical] Just ignore them... they can't sue the entire internet[/logical]
transmeta. Just a thought.
No. I can tell mp3.com what CD's I bought.. and they are free to ask. But my having a CD does *not* give mp3 the right to broadcast it to me. Yes, it gives *me* the right to make copies, etc... for my own personal use, but in this case ,copies are not sent to mp3.com, I believe.... they only check to see what you have and then send out of their archive.
What is the definition of copy? As far as I'm concerned, by sending a representation of my CD to mp3.com, I have made a copy of my CD in their database. It could make for an interesting debate about the nature of information in the digital era. Is a representation of data enough, or do I have to waste bandwidth by sending a full copy of my CD (and using what format/compression technique?). At what point does it cease to be a copy.