If this case gets a lot of press coverage, it might help show people how utterly useless the CAN-SPAM act really is.
Maybe it will, but when it's over, everybody will forget it like was yesterday's slashdot story. The FUD about the "benefits" of CAN-SPAM will continue to be printed every day.
Hopefully the NY Times covers this in depth.
Oh, no! Not the NY Times...I've already forgotten the last three thousand names I used to register:-)
If a lawyer says it's near useless, it's because he/she doesn't see any money in litigating the issue.
This will change as soon as we elect a new Pres whether it be the end of this year or four years from now.
Hate to disappoint you, but it aint gonna happen, unless the country suddenly finds enlightenment. I've seen nine different presidents pass through, and, with some exceptions, it's been pretty much a downhill ride all along.
This is the beauty of the net. You can't pump up the value of a product simply by making it scarce. Now it will have to depend on its quality. To any artist/company to tries to lock down their product after initial release I say, "Screw you." I'll find it somewhere else then.
Its nice that under this administration we are actually seeing an expansion of free speech rather than the reverse.
It really doesn't make one bit of difference what administration we're under. Remember, it was the "other" administration that signed the DMCA into law, expanded the death penalty, gave $20 bil to his corporate buddies to cover their bad investments in Mexico, etc., etc. You're looking at two sides of the same coin(old cliche, I know) or as Kucinch put it, "they're both dialing for the same dollars.
Certain powers were attempting to twist trademark law into, essentially, outlawing negative speech about their products.
Not much twisting is needed. This is the real intent of these kind of laws. It allows governments to censor using their corporate proxies. It works perfectly because private businesses are not subject to all those silly constitutional limits imposed on the government.
You're probably right. Maybe slashdot should do a poll to find out. Of course the majority is ALWAYS right...right? or only if they agree with you? I guess you'll never get it into your head that everything just might work out without the law. That people just might respect each other's rights. Naw...not in today's world. I guess we have a goal to work towards now, don't we? I can tell you one thing. Supporting bad laws just so your life might get a little easier is definitely a "bad thing". You should base your work on its quality, not its scarcity. (ok,maybe two things)
In all honesty, I don't really see the point in arguing with you
That's because you have no legitemate argument. You have a business model that you need to protect, no matter how it harms other people. I was very comfortable with my job at the tv station, and I sure didn't want to rock the boat either. I understand the feeling. When things get that easy, you don't want to change a thing, no matter how necessary.
You fall into the "techno anarchist" camp...
It that a bad thing? Anarchy means (to me anyway) "rules without rulers"
And likewise, that there should be no protection when GPL code is copied into a closed commercial application.
I repeat AGAIN in case you didn't get it the second time. Without this law, closed commercial apps are no better protected than GPL, which without this law, wouldn't need to exist either.
Even the creative arts have been reduced to a business now. It seems more involved with protecting IP than producing actual art. He may be corcerned about the house of cards that's about to come tumbling down on him, and while he may be very articulate in its defense, it doesn't make him right.
While the insults aren't necessary, I noticed he responds the same way to me. He looks for extraneous(sp) or unrelated statements and responds to that., avoiding the real meat of the arguement. Something tells me he's really into the IP business, and he doesn't want anybody to kill off that golden goose.
Simple. Keep the source private. Keep it closed. And you have closed-source.
Nonsense. I can reverse engineer, disassemble, whatever, and open it right back up again. Copyrights/Patents did not protect Edison when the movie makers(some of the biggest infringers of all) moved away from the East Coast to avoid paying royalties.
It's destructive because it's crippling our technologies(think DAT and mini-disk, and soon our computers)I would bet that it has set us back anywhere between 50 and 200 years. Without copyrights/patents we would probably be traveling in nice comfortable mag-lev tubes pushing.8 mach for a penny a mile, and it would be as safe as an elevator, and as simple
I would think the longer the term, the less incentive for an artist to produce new work, and the more scope to keep pedalling old work still in copyright.
This is what I've been trying to tell you also. You never have responded to it. You keep on saying that if you're against copyrights, it's because you're not in the creative arts. There are plenty of working artists who know that copyright is BS. I'm not saying that's what the parent believes. This reminds me of the dock workers trying to stop containerized shipping because they might lose their jobs. They were willing to prevent the use of a new safer technology simply to feather their nests. The same thing is happening here.
My, my...I didn't know that throwing around insults like that could garner so many points. Let me see if I can do it...Ummm...Errr..."You fart sucking, blithering idiot, I hope all your teeth fall out, except one...so you get a tooth ache!! How's that? Will it get me at least a three?
Now for something completely different...How 'bout them Cubs?...No, seriously, Everybody knows deep inside that open is better than closed, and cooperation is better than competition. It allows ideas to be built on other ideas to make it all better. You money grubbing corporate bastards:-)
...rip it off and put it into a closed source app.
Can someone please explain how "closed source" can exist without copyright law? It's amazing that anybody can defend something that has become so obsolete and destructive, especially in the last 15 years.
I saw it. I was just trying (ineptly apparrently) to be funny. Save yourself some frustration, and turn off the warning thingy. Sometimes ignorance can be very blissful.
Since my main ambition in life is retirement, I'd consider it if it helps me reach that goal. That said, my potential comes from within, not from a job. When a job doesn't meet my expectations, I simply change jobs. If you feel chained down due to family or financial obligations, well, that was your choice, and you shouldn't take it out on other folks because of your own frustrations. We all can be real jerks, and we need to remember that before we pop off on somebody.
Maybe he felt he was entitled to yell if he's paying money for the service. I'm not trying to justify it, but we all can be real assholes sometimes, and over the silliest stuff. Yeah, users might suck, but I'm sure there are moments when everybody sucks at least once in their lifetime. Remember, patience is a virgin.(or something like that)
Maybe you picked the wrong line of work, if it stresses you out so much. Sometimes you need the patience of a monk when dealing with people. Case in point: Did you ever pull on a door when the sign says "push"? Ever done it more than once?
Slashdot Mirror
If this case gets a lot of press coverage, it might help show people how utterly useless the CAN-SPAM act really is.
Maybe it will, but when it's over, everybody will forget it like was yesterday's slashdot story. The FUD about the "benefits" of CAN-SPAM will continue to be printed every day.
Hopefully the NY Times covers this in depth.
Oh, no! Not the NY Times...I've already forgotten the last three thousand names I used to register:-)
If a lawyer says it's near useless, it's because he/she doesn't see any money in litigating the issue.
This will change as soon as we elect a new Pres whether it be the end of this year or four years from now.
Hate to disappoint you, but it aint gonna happen, unless the country suddenly finds enlightenment. I've seen nine different presidents pass through, and, with some exceptions, it's been pretty much a downhill ride all along.
This is the beauty of the net. You can't pump up the value of a product simply by making it scarce. Now it will have to depend on its quality. To any artist/company to tries to lock down their product after initial release I say, "Screw you." I'll find it somewhere else then.
Its nice that under this administration we are actually seeing an expansion of free speech rather than the reverse.
It really doesn't make one bit of difference what administration we're under. Remember, it was the "other" administration that signed the DMCA into law, expanded the death penalty, gave $20 bil to his corporate buddies to cover their bad investments in Mexico, etc., etc. You're looking at two sides of the same coin(old cliche, I know) or as Kucinch put it, "they're both dialing for the same dollars.
...just because a lot of people do it doesn't make it right.
...how old are you and what do you do for a living?
Just because the law says it's wrong doesn't make it so.
I'm going to let you speculate on that. I find the assumptions made about me very amusing, and I need the entertainment sometimes.
"He who has the money, wins."
It helps if you're white, in America and Europe al least. There still some places where even Oprah's money is no good.
Certain powers were attempting to twist trademark law into, essentially, outlawing negative speech about their products.
Not much twisting is needed. This is the real intent of these kind of laws. It allows governments to censor using their corporate proxies. It works perfectly because private businesses are not subject to all those silly constitutional limits imposed on the government.
You're probably right. Maybe slashdot should do a poll to find out. Of course the majority is ALWAYS right...right? or only if they agree with you? I guess you'll never get it into your head that everything just might work out without the law. That people just might respect each other's rights. Naw...not in today's world. I guess we have a goal to work towards now, don't we? I can tell you one thing. Supporting bad laws just so your life might get a little easier is definitely a "bad thing". You should base your work on its quality, not its scarcity. (ok,maybe two things)
to read all the comments. Did anybody suggest this?
In all honesty, I don't really see the point in arguing with you
That's because you have no legitemate argument. You have a business model that you need to protect, no matter how it harms other people. I was very comfortable with my job at the tv station, and I sure didn't want to rock the boat either. I understand the feeling. When things get that easy, you don't want to change a thing, no matter how necessary.
You fall into the "techno anarchist" camp...
It that a bad thing? Anarchy means (to me anyway) "rules without rulers"
And likewise, that there should be no protection when GPL code is copied into a closed commercial application.
I repeat AGAIN in case you didn't get it the second time. Without this law, closed commercial apps are no better protected than GPL, which without this law, wouldn't need to exist either.
It's either that or "terrorist". Take your pick :-)
Even the creative arts have been reduced to a business now. It seems more involved with protecting IP than producing actual art. He may be corcerned about the house of cards that's about to come tumbling down on him, and while he may be very articulate in its defense, it doesn't make him right.
While the insults aren't necessary, I noticed he responds the same way to me. He looks for extraneous(sp) or unrelated statements and responds to that., avoiding the real meat of the arguement. Something tells me he's really into the IP business, and he doesn't want anybody to kill off that golden goose.
Simple. Keep the source private. Keep it closed. And you have closed-source.
.8 mach for a penny a mile, and it would be as safe as an elevator, and as simple
Nonsense. I can reverse engineer, disassemble, whatever, and open it right back up again. Copyrights/Patents did not protect Edison when the movie makers(some of the biggest infringers of all) moved away from the East Coast to avoid paying royalties.
It's destructive because it's crippling our technologies(think DAT and mini-disk, and soon our computers)I would bet that it has set us back anywhere between 50 and 200 years. Without copyrights/patents we would probably be traveling in nice comfortable mag-lev tubes pushing
I would think the longer the term, the less incentive for an artist to produce new work, and the more scope to keep pedalling old work still in copyright.
This is what I've been trying to tell you also. You never have responded to it. You keep on saying that if you're against copyrights, it's because you're not in the creative arts. There are plenty of working artists who know that copyright is BS. I'm not saying that's what the parent believes. This reminds me of the dock workers trying to stop containerized shipping because they might lose their jobs. They were willing to prevent the use of a new safer technology simply to feather their nests. The same thing is happening here.
My, my...I didn't know that throwing around insults like that could garner so many points. Let me see if I can do it...Ummm...Errr..."You fart sucking, blithering idiot, I hope all your teeth fall out, except one...so you get a tooth ache!! How's that? Will it get me at least a three?
:-)
Now for something completely different...How 'bout them Cubs?...No, seriously, Everybody knows deep inside that open is better than closed, and cooperation is better than competition. It allows ideas to be built on other ideas to make it all better. You money grubbing corporate bastards
(Foster Brooks voice)Elvish has left the building?
...rip it off and put it into a closed source app.
Can someone please explain how "closed source" can exist without copyright law? It's amazing that anybody can defend something that has become so obsolete and destructive, especially in the last 15 years.
I saw it. I was just trying (ineptly apparrently) to be funny. Save yourself some frustration, and turn off the warning thingy. Sometimes ignorance can be very blissful.
Since my main ambition in life is retirement, I'd consider it if it helps me reach that goal. That said, my potential comes from within, not from a job. When a job doesn't meet my expectations, I simply change jobs. If you feel chained down due to family or financial obligations, well, that was your choice, and you shouldn't take it out on other folks because of your own frustrations. We all can be real jerks, and we need to remember that before we pop off on somebody.
Maybe he felt he was entitled to yell if he's paying money for the service. I'm not trying to justify it, but we all can be real assholes sometimes, and over the silliest stuff. Yeah, users might suck, but I'm sure there are moments when everybody sucks at least once in their lifetime. Remember, patience is a virgin.(or something like that)
In the remote chance you haven't seen it, this might be what you're looking for.
Maybe you picked the wrong line of work, if it stresses you out so much. Sometimes you need the patience of a monk when dealing with people. Case in point: Did you ever pull on a door when the sign says "push"? Ever done it more than once?
Popups? What are those?
Signed,
Happy Mozilla user
That's all well and good. Just don't get so upset when someone likes to do it for nothing.