If you're worried that an enemy would simply crank out more machines to slow you down, the obvious approach is to knock out the factories and the humans who support them. At the extreme, the range and response time of ICBMs means that you can't hide behind a robotic front, at least in all-out war. Cruise missiles launched from aircraft, surface vessels, and submarines provide similar capabilities, although with lesser range and more deployment time.
Ask them whether they could perform as well in a far worse environment (than/desert/, for cryin' out loud), like urban warfare, with as few losses and when the enemy knows the objective is "regime change" and not merely a limited acquisition of land that they don't care THAT much about. Or, whether they'd appreciate having some automated assistance.
Since you've made a clear claim of that the publishers form a legal monopoly under the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts, and no doubt have overwhelming evidence to back up your written, yet unsupported accusation, I trust that you will submit your amicus curiae brief to the relevant courts within an hour. This will entail detailed documentation with regards to how the industry members collaborate with respect to fixing terms for artists -- an accusation which, AFAIK, has not yet been tested to the extent that the orthogonal accusation of CD-price fixing.
Incidentally, note that technology offers the ability for artists to publish their own music in digital form at minimal expense, and that should they so choose, they could have it white-listed at AudioGalaxy and similar sites. Likewise, there exist legitimate.MP3 hosting sites that provide exposure. Nevertheless, your accusation is clear, and to do it justice we need to see evidence.
Not all data is information. There's a huge difference between denying somebody truth and instead having, say, a state-controlled propaganda-based media organization, and barring people from infringing on, oh,.MP3s, or for that matter, computer games like "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri".
Discourse >> creative works
in utility. Intellectually honest discourse includes a search for the truth and has a far greater potential impact on society.
1. So you think Microsoft is being anticompetitive. Fine, I agree, at least with respect to bundling and pricing schemes.
The answer is NOT to simply steal from them. Two wrongs do not make a right; that's why we have courts and judicial systems.
2. Software piracy is infringement. You completely miss the issue that nontangibles are perfectly valid goods; for instance, if I took away your right to speak, you have genuinely lost something. If I took away your right to move, you are impaired. If I seize your mail, read it, and then hand it to you in neglible time (I made a copy), then you have lost privacy. If I take away your right to agree or disagree to a transaction, then you have lost _a lot_. The right to provide a product under whatever terms are desired is one such right; under very limited conditions do we EVER allow such things as compulsory licensing, and for good reason - in a just system, no ordinary transaction can occur without mutual consent.
What infringement/takes away/ is the right to decide who gets access to a product, and under what terms. As a product is never developed for free, considering that at a minimum time and effort are always expended, the developer must either find a source of support, or eventually stop due to starvation. The publisher or developer has/full/ rights to charge whatever the Hell he wants to for a product {*}, because nobody else has/access rights/ to it.
Your ONLY legitimate options are
a) Doing completely without.
b) Making your own. Hell, this site is heavily into open-source. What's the usual refrain coming from people who defend the GPL -- if you don't like it, WRITE YOUR OWN BLOODY SOFTWARE and stop whining. What pathetic, whining hypocrites moping about like children still locked in the me-me phase...
c) Buying it for whatever price is being asked. You can ask for a lower deal, but the owner is under NO OBLIGATION to provide it barring compulsory licensing.
d) Find an cheaper competitor.
In addition, it takes an utterly myopic idiot to believe that the actions of an individual can be considered in isolation, given the nature of modern society. For one thing, everybody who infringes software is contributing to an environment in which it becomes increasingly "ok" to infringe. Public attitudes do matter; for instance, the relatively prudish US has significantly less nudity on broadcast TV, because that's where the country's values lie. Alcohol and tobacco are common drugs, partly because they/have/ been common before and public attitudes are quite permissive of them (well, less so for 'baccy now). Once infringement reaches high levels, it becomes difficult for people to/not/ infringe; the potential savings can provide a competitive edge, for instance, and there is the pressure to not look like a schmuck... In addition, infringers often increase the supply, as well, by providing access to their copies, which makes it even easier for others.
{*} Major exception: A market dominator temporarily selling at below cost to annihilate competition.
Even when beliefs make numerous completely unverifiable claims about reality, and then demand that people arrange their behavior accordingly?
If, today, some delusional chap went around claiming that he was the son of a Creator and that everybody should obey his dictates, and couldn't provide any evidence thereof, we shouldn't mock him?
Nobody ever said morality was easy, except the extreme moral relativists who claim that everything is moral because there are no possible standards.
And no, we haven't all downloaded MP3s.
Go read a book on ethics and philosophy. Nozick's works would probably be a good start, considering that he a) admits that he doesn't have a COMPLETE codification of ideal society, b) is concerned primarily with justice and freedom instead of micromanaging some economic distribution judged, a priori, to be the only fair one, and c) asks extremely insightful questions regarding both morality and practicality.
It does not legitimize the distribution because the distributor in general makes absolutely no effort to limit the downloading to those who do have rights -- and a click-the-button self-endorsement doesn't count because it's hardly reliable.
Even if they're committing restraint of trade and somehow stopping musicians from forming their OWN publishing company, that's something for the judicial system to handle -- and infringing copyright isn't in any way stopping this alleged restraint. Or would you prefer that random people could accuse you of murder, and then take it unto themselves to beat you to death? No -- we have a judicial system and laws for it to work with.
Go read Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 110 of the US Code. If you care enough to post, you should care enough to find it and actually read the law before you do so.
Libraries have explicitly granted rights. Go read the Code. And no, unless you're an educational institution, you probably don't qualify.
In fact, if memory serves, the Code was at one point modified to explicitly state that public online sharing constitutes public performance, which is a violation unless specifically authorized.
'sides, the college might expel the student -- it's usually within their rights to do so if a student breaks their agreement, which usually mentions crime, and it's probably bad publicity for a college to be known as a haven for this sort of thing.
And on "military-style sem-autos", militaries generally use full-autos (or burst-capable weapons, if not full-autos), not semi-automatics that LOOK like full-autos.
'course, I've seen "journalists" mumble on about semis while in the background there are people shooting fully-autos, so never ever count on the media to get it right...
*style* my ass. Oooh, it/looks/ like an M-16, that means it's just as deadly, right? Sheesh. Clueless legislators and so-called journalists.
You know, there's a common refrain in the pro-GPL part of the open source community that if you don't like the license, you're free to not use a component and instead write your own -- but don't infringe on the GPL, whatever you do.
You're free to beg for money, you're free to cut back on other expenses, you're free to make your own music or even form a band. Hell, you're allowed to form a band and distribute your music under the BSD license if you choose. But "I just wanna" is never moral justification for ANYTHING, except possibly to 4-year-olds who don't know the difference between right and want.
...except that when you purchased the CD, you're required to also abide by the copyright, which means that you've agreed NOT to "share" (unless the copyright owner has explicitly granted such permission). It's the default arrangement, so it's part of the deal unless the copyright owner says otherwise. So, basically, you're breaking your word.
They're mostly used as collector's items and for target shooting, fool. In case you haven't noticed, they appear in a TINY amount of crime compared to semiautomatic handguns and revolvers -- partly due to cost and rarity, partly because rifles _get attention_ which isn't usually in the interests of a thug. You can't walk around with a rifle, lurking and hoping to rob people, nearly as easily; and for that sort of crime, a knife or small handgun is harder to parry, far easier to conceal, and just as intimidating.
Oh, and few people are allowed to have them, anyway -- using the traditional definition of an automatic rifle, and not just semi-automatic lookalikes like AR15s (and even semis are restricted wrt magazine size, et al).
1- Economy of scale. The cartels have the big production and distribution systems already in existence. Oh, and they'd still have the willingness to kill their competitors.
2- They'd smuggle to avoid the taxes. It happens with cigarettes and all sorts of other legal goods -- because you _know_ politicians would rise to the bait and tax things heavily.
An anarchic society would be unstable -- it's in people's interests to collaborate for good or evil. Loners would be vulnerable to gangs, gangs would want to work together to mark out territory so they can focus on exploiting those they control rather than fighting each other, and sufficiently strong gang leaders would eventually become dictators in their areas. On the other side, people would band together for protection, these bands would need to impose rules regarding protection, intervention and conflict resolution; and eventually you'd end up with minimalist states, not anarchy.
And if you want horror, well, look around. There's plenty of "terrible" situations in the world, many of which will in the long term have a significantly greater impact than a simple kidnapping. A bastard like Hekmatyar probably will have greater impact than Ms. Smart -- namely, destabilizing a national government if he gets his way -- while Hekmatyar and friends gets practically zip coverage in the states. Horror? Look at all the atrocities, civil wars, religious wars, and so forth.
Terrible? A girl in Pakistan was sentenced by a tribal council to gang-rape because the tribe (not her tribe) was pissed off -- her brother had _dared_ to be seen with one of their own, in public. Since the brother and sister were of an obviously inferior tribe, they felt that the family should be punished... It's nicely illustrative of the lawlessness of parts of Pakistan, and how badly Musharraf needs to exert Federal control over his country.
Oh, and Gen. Musharraf is the same general who was responsible for supporting many of the militants in Kashmir, and who deposed his President for having the temerity to back down on the issue. These are the same militants who are trying to start a war between two nuclear (if only weakly) powers.
Domestic stories, perhaps? Well, there are plenty of homicides and kidnappings to choose from; plenty of corrupt companies seeking to minimize their on-paper losses and run from taxes through fleeing off-shore; plenty of people who have recently said "To Hell with the Constitution and the First Amendment, let's continue to endorse the Judeo-Christian God just because we're the majority" including some 99 US Senators; plenty of people who people who maintain "To Hell with the Constitution and the Second Amendment, let's continue to make everybody throw away their guns and hope the criminals play along", and so forth. Instead, the networks have devolved to the point where, apparently, making photogenic people eat bugs is considered fit for prime-time entertainment.
Teach logic, critical thinking and statistical reasoning in schools. Teach about traditional propaganda techniques and the ways that biased sources distort truth -- not only by outright lies or mere fudging, but by the selection or omission of information. In other words, lead them to rational, analytical modes of thinking rather than the mere absorbtion of emotionally manipulative tripe that gets served as "news" these days, especially on TV.
Oh, and support media watchdogs like Spinsanity and their ilk -- groups that care about correctness, rather than transparently carrying out political vendettas.
Regarding the Afghan wedding, there's been coverage at least on CBS, NBC, BBC, New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC, and undoubtably others but I don't have the time to monitor that many more news sources than I already do. MCI Worldcom has been a similarly large story, including pointless short interviews with just-laid-off ex-employees (Gee, they're frustrated. What the hell did the reporters expect?).
And that "story" regarding Clinton is even more absurd, considering that the Fed. government doesn't have the power to cap base salaries.
Technically, the Ten Commandments don't condone murder (note: according to what I've read, "Thou shalt not murder" is a more accurate translation than "Thou shall not kill"; it's much more specific) such as murder for personal gain or revenge. Most religions that I'm aware of, except for an occasional human sacrifice exemption, tend to be rather critical of murder.
Christian leaders have traditionally differentiated between murder and "just war", such as national or personal self-defense. In that vein, it's easier to understand how some such might be anti-abortion, anti-death-penalty (reasoning that a murderer in competent custody presents minimal threat, and therefore killing him is not legitimately self-defense), but still support lethal action against, say, Mullah Omar and friends.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're worried that an enemy would simply crank out more machines to slow you down, the obvious approach is to knock out the factories and the humans who support them. At the extreme, the range and response time of ICBMs means that you can't hide behind a robotic front, at least in all-out war. Cruise missiles launched from aircraft, surface vessels, and submarines provide similar capabilities, although with lesser range and more deployment time.
Ask them whether they could perform as well in a far worse environment (than /desert/, for cryin' out loud), like urban warfare, with as few losses and when the enemy knows the objective is "regime change" and not merely a limited acquisition of land that they don't care THAT much about. Or, whether they'd appreciate having some automated assistance.
Since you've made a clear claim of that the publishers form a legal monopoly under the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts, and no doubt have overwhelming evidence to back up your written, yet unsupported accusation, I trust that you will submit your amicus curiae brief to the relevant courts within an hour. This will entail detailed documentation with regards to how the industry members collaborate with respect to fixing terms for artists -- an accusation which, AFAIK, has not yet been tested to the extent that the orthogonal accusation of CD-price fixing.
.MP3 hosting sites that provide exposure. Nevertheless, your accusation is clear, and to do it justice we need to see evidence.
Incidentally, note that technology offers the ability for artists to publish their own music in digital form at minimal expense, and that should they so choose, they could have it white-listed at AudioGalaxy and similar sites. Likewise, there exist legitimate
Assuming, of course, that you can back it up...
People != property, and it's about time that people stopped pushing the nanny state.
Not all data is information. There's a huge difference between denying somebody truth and instead having, say, a state-controlled propaganda-based media organization, and barring people from infringing on, oh, .MP3s, or for that matter, computer games like "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri".
Discourse >> creative works
in utility. Intellectually honest discourse includes a search for the truth and has a far greater potential impact on society.
No, no, no.
/takes away/ is the right to decide who gets access to a product, and under what terms. As a product is never developed for free, considering that at a minimum time and effort are always expended, the developer must either find a source of support, or eventually stop due to starvation. The publisher or developer has /full/ rights to charge whatever the Hell he wants to for a product {*}, because nobody else has /access rights/ to it.
/have/ been common before and public attitudes are quite permissive of them (well, less so for 'baccy now). Once infringement reaches high levels, it becomes difficult for people to /not/ infringe; the potential savings can provide a competitive edge, for instance, and there is the pressure to not look like a schmuck... In addition, infringers often increase the supply, as well, by providing access to their copies, which makes it even easier for others.
1. So you think Microsoft is being anticompetitive. Fine, I agree, at least with respect to bundling and pricing schemes.
The answer is NOT to simply steal from them. Two wrongs do not make a right; that's why we have courts and judicial systems.
2. Software piracy is infringement. You completely miss the issue that nontangibles are perfectly valid goods; for instance, if I took away your right to speak, you have genuinely lost something. If I took away your right to move, you are impaired. If I seize your mail, read it, and then hand it to you in neglible time (I made a copy), then you have lost privacy. If I take away your right to agree or disagree to a transaction, then you have lost _a lot_. The right to provide a product under whatever terms are desired is one such right; under very limited conditions do we EVER allow such things as compulsory licensing, and for good reason - in a just system, no ordinary transaction can occur without mutual consent.
What infringement
Your ONLY legitimate options are
a) Doing completely without.
b) Making your own. Hell, this site is heavily into open-source. What's the usual refrain coming from people who defend the GPL -- if you don't like it, WRITE YOUR OWN BLOODY SOFTWARE and stop whining. What pathetic, whining hypocrites moping about like children still locked in the me-me phase...
c) Buying it for whatever price is being asked. You can ask for a lower deal, but the owner is under NO OBLIGATION to provide it barring compulsory licensing.
d) Find an cheaper competitor.
In addition, it takes an utterly myopic idiot to believe that the actions of an individual can be considered in isolation, given the nature of modern society. For one thing, everybody who infringes software is contributing to an environment in which it becomes increasingly "ok" to infringe. Public attitudes do matter; for instance, the relatively prudish US has significantly less nudity on broadcast TV, because that's where the country's values lie. Alcohol and tobacco are common drugs, partly because they
{*} Major exception: A market dominator temporarily selling at below cost to annihilate competition.
Even when beliefs make numerous completely unverifiable claims about reality, and then demand that people arrange their behavior accordingly?
If, today, some delusional chap went around claiming that he was the son of a Creator and that everybody should obey his dictates, and couldn't provide any evidence thereof, we shouldn't mock him?
Hm. That might explain why they have so many bugs...
Nobody ever said morality was easy, except the extreme moral relativists who claim that everything is moral because there are no possible standards.
And no, we haven't all downloaded MP3s.
Go read a book on ethics and philosophy. Nozick's works would probably be a good start, considering that he a) admits that he doesn't have a COMPLETE codification of ideal society, b) is concerned primarily with justice and freedom instead of micromanaging some economic distribution judged, a priori, to be the only fair one, and c) asks extremely insightful questions regarding both morality and practicality.
It does not legitimize the distribution because the distributor in general makes absolutely no effort to limit the downloading to those who do have rights -- and a click-the-button self-endorsement doesn't count because it's hardly reliable.
Even if they're committing restraint of trade and somehow stopping musicians from forming their OWN publishing company, that's something for the judicial system to handle -- and infringing copyright isn't in any way stopping this alleged restraint. Or would you prefer that random people could accuse you of murder, and then take it unto themselves to beat you to death? No -- we have a judicial system and laws for it to work with.
Go read Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 110 of the US Code. If you care enough to post, you should care enough to find it and actually read the law before you do so.
Libraries have explicitly granted rights. Go read the Code. And no, unless you're an educational institution, you probably don't qualify.
In fact, if memory serves, the Code was at one point modified to explicitly state that public online sharing constitutes public performance, which is a violation unless specifically authorized.
Publicity and fear.
'sides, the college might expel the student -- it's usually within their rights to do so if a student breaks their agreement, which usually mentions crime, and it's probably bad publicity for a college to be known as a haven for this sort of thing.
And on "military-style sem-autos", militaries generally use full-autos (or burst-capable weapons, if not full-autos), not semi-automatics that LOOK like full-autos.
/looks/ like an M-16, that means it's just as deadly, right? Sheesh. Clueless legislators and so-called journalists.
'course, I've seen "journalists" mumble on about semis while in the background there are people shooting fully-autos, so never ever count on the media to get it right...
*style* my ass. Oooh, it
Tough.
You know, there's a common refrain in the pro-GPL part of the open source community that if you don't like the license, you're free to not use a component and instead write your own -- but don't infringe on the GPL, whatever you do.
You're free to beg for money, you're free to cut back on other expenses, you're free to make your own music or even form a band. Hell, you're allowed to form a band and distribute your music under the BSD license if you choose. But "I just wanna" is never moral justification for ANYTHING, except possibly to 4-year-olds who don't know the difference between right and want.
...except that when you purchased the CD, you're required to also abide by the copyright, which means that you've agreed NOT to "share" (unless the copyright owner has explicitly granted such permission). It's the default arrangement, so it's part of the deal unless the copyright owner says otherwise. So, basically, you're breaking your word.
They're mostly used as collector's items and for target shooting, fool. In case you haven't noticed, they appear in a TINY amount of crime compared to semiautomatic handguns and revolvers -- partly due to cost and rarity, partly because rifles _get attention_ which isn't usually in the interests of a thug. You can't walk around with a rifle, lurking and hoping to rob people, nearly as easily; and for that sort of crime, a knife or small handgun is harder to parry, far easier to conceal, and just as intimidating.
Oh, and few people are allowed to have them, anyway -- using the traditional definition of an automatic rifle, and not just semi-automatic lookalikes like AR15s (and even semis are restricted wrt magazine size, et al).
1- Economy of scale. The cartels have the big production and distribution systems already in existence. Oh, and they'd still have the willingness to kill their competitors.
2- They'd smuggle to avoid the taxes. It happens with cigarettes and all sorts of other legal goods -- because you _know_ politicians would rise to the bait and tax things heavily.
An anarchic society would be unstable -- it's in people's interests to collaborate for good or evil. Loners would be vulnerable to gangs, gangs would want to work together to mark out territory so they can focus on exploiting those they control rather than fighting each other, and sufficiently strong gang leaders would eventually become dictators in their areas. On the other side, people would band together for protection, these bands would need to impose rules regarding protection, intervention and conflict resolution; and eventually you'd end up with minimalist states, not anarchy.
National daily coverage? I doubt it.
And if you want horror, well, look around. There's plenty of "terrible" situations in the world, many of which will in the long term have a significantly greater impact than a simple kidnapping. A bastard like Hekmatyar probably will have greater impact than Ms. Smart -- namely, destabilizing a national government if he gets his way -- while Hekmatyar and friends gets practically zip coverage in the states. Horror? Look at all the atrocities, civil wars, religious wars, and so forth.
Terrible? A girl in Pakistan was sentenced by a tribal council to gang-rape because the tribe (not her tribe) was pissed off -- her brother had _dared_ to be seen with one of their own, in public. Since the brother and sister were of an obviously inferior tribe, they felt that the family should be punished... It's nicely illustrative of the lawlessness of parts of Pakistan, and how badly Musharraf needs to exert Federal control over his country.
Oh, and Gen. Musharraf is the same general who was responsible for supporting many of the militants in Kashmir, and who deposed his President for having the temerity to back down on the issue. These are the same militants who are trying to start a war between two nuclear (if only weakly) powers.
Domestic stories, perhaps? Well, there are plenty of homicides and kidnappings to choose from; plenty of corrupt companies seeking to minimize their on-paper losses and run from taxes through fleeing off-shore; plenty of people who have recently said "To Hell with the Constitution and the First Amendment, let's continue to endorse the Judeo-Christian God just because we're the majority" including some 99 US Senators; plenty of people who people who maintain "To Hell with the Constitution and the Second Amendment, let's continue to make everybody throw away their guns and hope the criminals play along", and so forth. Instead, the networks have devolved to the point where, apparently, making photogenic people eat bugs is considered fit for prime-time entertainment.
Teach logic, critical thinking and statistical reasoning in schools. Teach about traditional propaganda techniques and the ways that biased sources distort truth -- not only by outright lies or mere fudging, but by the selection or omission of information. In other words, lead them to rational, analytical modes of thinking rather than the mere absorbtion of emotionally manipulative tripe that gets served as "news" these days, especially on TV.
Oh, and support media watchdogs like Spinsanity and their ilk -- groups that care about correctness, rather than transparently carrying out political vendettas.
Put down the crack pipe.
Regarding the Afghan wedding, there's been coverage at least on CBS, NBC, BBC, New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC, and undoubtably others but I don't have the time to monitor that many more news sources than I already do. MCI Worldcom has been a similarly large story, including pointless short interviews with just-laid-off ex-employees (Gee, they're frustrated. What the hell did the reporters expect?).
And that "story" regarding Clinton is even more absurd, considering that the Fed. government doesn't have the power to cap base salaries.
Just great -- now I've got a mental image of a horde of marching orcs chanting, in unison, "Spam spam spam spam..."
*shudder*
And then all the orcs vanish as a sysadmin blackholes Mordor...
Technically, the Ten Commandments don't condone murder (note: according to what I've read, "Thou shalt not murder" is a more accurate translation than "Thou shall not kill"; it's much more specific) such as murder for personal gain or revenge. Most religions that I'm aware of, except for an occasional human sacrifice exemption, tend to be rather critical of murder.
Christian leaders have traditionally differentiated between murder and "just war", such as national or personal self-defense. In that vein, it's easier to understand how some such might be anti-abortion, anti-death-penalty (reasoning that a murderer in competent custody presents minimal threat, and therefore killing him is not legitimately self-defense), but still support lethal action against, say, Mullah Omar and friends.