Perhaps it was a combination of the "forced to read it in high school" and the terribly slow parts of the book that hurt me. Your post has convinced me to go back and try it again someday.
User: "I lost all my programs and icons. They were open and I was doing things, and suddenly everything is gone."
Me: "When did this happen?"
User: "This morning. I can't find anything, and haven't been able to get any work done."
Me: "Ok... what's on your desktop?"
User: "What?"
Me: "The place where all your icons usually are. What's on the screen?"
User: "Nothing. The background even changed."
Me: "Can you click on the other desktops?"
User: "What?"
Me: "At the bottom of your screen, there are four boxes in a square - click on the upper left box."
User: (takes 30 seconds to find it, then clicks)
Me: "Did you do that?"
User: "Yes! They're back! Thank you!"
-------
I'm confident that Linux is progressing quickly and will be where it needs to be soon. Someone will put out a distro (maybe they already have!) designed to let my wife's grandparents, my 8-year-old cousin, etc. surf the web, check email, and play music/videos without giving them too many options. Windows and Mac OS are both guilty of this as well - but sometimes it's harder to find the screw-up areas. Most users don't accidentally wind up in their Security Policy settings on XP, for instance.
Heart of Darkness (the book by Joseph Conrad, not the documentary to which you refer) was one of the most difficult books I've ever read. So boring... maybe it's time to revisit it, but I keep thinking of how I used it to help fight my insomnia in high school.
Because unless you're a reasonably tech-minded person, Linux is too hard.
My wife's grandparents have Windows XP. They called recently to ask if they should buy this new "Tiger OS" they saw on the news.
They get confused when AOL moves the "Email Photos" icon around.
They'd be fine on an Apple machine, because it's hard to screw things up. With Linux, you're automatically at a disadvantage - it's hard to NOT screw things up.
Nowadays, when they have problems I tell them to call Gateway support.
Linux is a great choice for lots of people and for lots of situations. But not for everyone. Consider the guy's daughter in the story - he cleans spyware from her computer on a regular basis. Will she be smart enough to handle anything but the most idiot-proof OS?
You can find lists of manufacturer BIOS passwords that will bypass the user-specified password, too.
Working as a help desk tech during college, I discovered a lot of tricks for things you weren't supposed to do. Like resetting an NT administrator password (Tech: "You have to format, sorry." Me: "Boot to this and follow the prompts.")
With the proliferation of bootable specialty Linux distro CDs, there are so many tools to help a Windows person get out of a jam.:)
The police told me off for not bios-locking my last box.
Interesting... a couple of things come to mind:
1. I've never met a police officer with such a technical mind. I know they exist, but I expect that reporting a crime like a stolen laptop would get me a "so what do you want us to do about it?" and "give us the serial # and we'll keep and eye out for it."
I was 11 when I first started playing Legend of the Red Dragon...by Seth Able. I'm surprised at how easily I recall the details.
I also remember how confused the lady at RadioShack was when I called to see if they had any copies of it. A year later, I was writing my own door game. Those things helped make me the GW-BASIC programmer I am today!
Viral marketing relies on the merit of the actual content to spread, not on techniques to gain exposure.
The art of SEO also changes frequently as search engines try to avoid abuse. A quality viral marketing campaign can be effective whether or not you keep up on the latest "techniques."
I'd rather save a good viral marketing idea for a paying client, though. Unless you're trying to make a name for yourself, the prize money at stake is nothing compared to the profits from real client.
I think we agree and we're just nitpicking. Good points all around. I think I took your original post to mean that you thought that copyright violation was neither illegal nor immoral; your follow-up clarifies that this is not your position./thread
I run a web dev and consulting business. Some of my clients have actually pushed the limits of what I would consider legitimate email marketing and moved toward spam. Others actively run email campaigns that don't sell, rent, or give away their info.
Most legislation and anti-spam mechanisms hurt legitimate marketers and do little or nothing to stop actual spammers.
On a side note, sometimes people who sign up for email notifications or newsletters report those same messages as spam; it's like they completely forgot that they signed up for this information. I had to convince an angry customer that he did, in fact, sign up for the message that he was complaining about. I offered to take him off the list, and he wouldn't even do that - he said someone told him it would just verify that his address was real (he'd already told me the address).
In a perfect world, spammers wouldn't exist because people wouldn't be suckers. But it's not, so your point is correct.
In an imperfect world such as ours, it may be possible to reduce the return rate on spam to a low-profit (but maybe not entirely profitless) endeavor. Factor in the legal ramifications, the hassle, etc. and it may not be worth doing. User education is a step to take so that your 1-10,000 turns into 1-1,000,000. Or worse. Other steps are necessary, but that's really the fundamental source.
In other words, if crime weren't so lucrative then we'd have less of it.
If you want to try and make a case in front of anyone - judge, jury, or otherwise - that you should be allowed to simply take things without paying for them, be my guest.
The assumption of immorality comes from the same thing. You have no right to steal someone else's belongings, right? You have no moral right to take without permission, right? The law clearly establish copyrights, even if some areas are unclear.
So from a moral, social, and legal perspective, you're doing something wrong. It doesn't get any clearer than that. If you want to change society and the law, go for it - but you'll certainly have to convince people that it's moral for you to take their work without paying them in return.
Fair use does not allow you to download something simply for personal (non-commercial) use. Your decision to download the item is what initiates the duplication - not the person hosting it.
Your mention of using news releases is incorrect; copyright law specifically mentions news reporting and comment as fair use and non-infringing. (source) One of the four factors used in determining fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." This is particularly important - if there is no effect, the case for fair use is stronger. Downloading a file has some effect, however, small, on the potential value of the work to the copyright holder. Uploading it has a much larger impact, as you are potentially distributing it to thousands.
So in that, it is possible to make a fair use case in personal use; but I suspect you'd lose because of the immorality of the thing. There is a reasonable expectation that you would have to pay for the album, because that's how the world works. If the goal of downloading is simply to avoid paying for it (not for the betterment of society, education, etc. which I consider the goal of fair use), it's clearly not protected.
Obviously, there's some debate here. Even the copyright office makes it clear that there are grey areas and that the best thing to do is consult a lawyer. But there are some guidelines and I believe that many people misunderstand copyrights and fair use - which has complicated this situation further.
True - but the point is to educate their patrons as to the legality of fair use and copying these materials. Many of my professors in college were under the assumption that they could copy entire textbooks and simply hand them out. (They can't.) My old accountant told me that we could install and use Quickbooks on my partner's computer as well because the company bought it and we both own 50% of all assets.
Many people do not understand even the basics of copyright law - so signs like that do some small part in educating.
Read that sentence again... I said "downloading," not uploading. I understand what you're saying, but uploading once is the same as downloading once in the eyes of copyright law.
Facilitating copyright infringement, knowingly or otherwise, is the heart of many of the current cases. Libraries post copyright warnings on their photocopiers... are they liable for infringements that take place in their libraries, even if they're unaware of them? I'm sure there's some kind of case out there, but I don't have the resources to look it up (nor the time).
It sounds like a good idea, but it's not a solution any more than CAN-SPAM. Spammers will not cooperate if it's just going to hurt them. Until you crack down on spam in the same way that the telemarketer do-not-call list has, you won't see any improvement. And that's not even realistic given the ease with which email can be masked or forged.
It's similar to the argument that gun rights advocates make - stricter gun control laws or programs will hurt legitimate owners, but the real problems will still lie with the criminals who don't abide by those laws anyway.
Crack down on spammers. Make spam outright illegal and make penalties for ISPs that fail to comply.
Downloading is also copying. And the fact is, copying a copy is no less illegal than copying the original. This is especially evident with the advent of lossless digital duplication.
You're copying a copyrighted work - whether you were the original violator or the thousandth, you're still committing the same act.
Well, just consider the differences in downloading vs. shoplifting a single CD. If you don't share it back out in either case, I consider the shoplifting a bigger crime. You're stealing physical property as well as the music - but nobody calls that crime infringement. If you download the album and use it for personal listening only, it's technically a bigger crime (in some places) and certainly carries more civil liabilities.
That's generally just because of the technology. First, it's possible to make a fair use defense based on your ownership of the CD or DVD. Second, uploading appears to be a bigger violation simply because you could be uploading to hundreds of people.
It cracks me up that you can get a small fine or few days in jail for shoplifting a CD, but downloading that same album online (with inferior quality!) can net you years of prison time and hundreds of thousands in fines!
Actually, this ruling will affect only Michigan and New York. I live in Indiana, where shipping is still illegal. The reasoning is that they are discriminating between out-of-state and in-state wineries; they must apply the same laws to each. I RTFA. They also explained this on the local news - it will affect Michigan residents, but Indiana's laws will remain in effect.
I hate that pun every time we talk about software and some kind of vehicle. Next, of course, comes the Microsoft jabs - even when MS isn't involved. *sigh*
More on-topic, Slashdot recently ran an article about some guys trying to infect a Prius via Bluetooth, and were able to accomplish a system crash repeatedly. Turned out to be low on battery power.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it was a combination of the "forced to read it in high school" and the terribly slow parts of the book that hurt me. Your post has convinced me to go back and try it again someday.
You give mainstream users too much credit.
Real Life Story
User: "I lost all my programs and icons. They were open and I was doing things, and suddenly everything is gone."
Me: "When did this happen?"
User: "This morning. I can't find anything, and haven't been able to get any work done."
Me: "Ok... what's on your desktop?"
User: "What?"
Me: "The place where all your icons usually are. What's on the screen?"
User: "Nothing. The background even changed."
Me: "Can you click on the other desktops?"
User: "What?"
Me: "At the bottom of your screen, there are four boxes in a square - click on the upper left box."
User: (takes 30 seconds to find it, then clicks)
Me: "Did you do that?"
User: "Yes! They're back! Thank you!"
-------
I'm confident that Linux is progressing quickly and will be where it needs to be soon. Someone will put out a distro (maybe they already have!) designed to let my wife's grandparents, my 8-year-old cousin, etc. surf the web, check email, and play music/videos without giving them too many options. Windows and Mac OS are both guilty of this as well - but sometimes it's harder to find the screw-up areas. Most users don't accidentally wind up in their Security Policy settings on XP, for instance.
Or another famous mis-quote, "Play it again, Sam."
... You wouldn't make wine from raisins, right?
In reality, many people who see the movies still swear those lines are correct.
Heart of Darkness (the book by Joseph Conrad, not the documentary to which you refer) was one of the most difficult books I've ever read. So boring... maybe it's time to revisit it, but I keep thinking of how I used it to help fight my insomnia in high school.
Because unless you're a reasonably tech-minded person, Linux is too hard.
My wife's grandparents have Windows XP. They called recently to ask if they should buy this new "Tiger OS" they saw on the news.
They get confused when AOL moves the "Email Photos" icon around.
They'd be fine on an Apple machine, because it's hard to screw things up. With Linux, you're automatically at a disadvantage - it's hard to NOT screw things up.
Nowadays, when they have problems I tell them to call Gateway support.
Linux is a great choice for lots of people and for lots of situations. But not for everyone.
Consider the guy's daughter in the story - he cleans spyware from her computer on a regular basis. Will she be smart enough to handle anything but the most idiot-proof OS?
You can find lists of manufacturer BIOS passwords that will bypass the user-specified password, too.
:)
Working as a help desk tech during college, I discovered a lot of tricks for things you weren't supposed to do. Like resetting an NT administrator password (Tech: "You have to format, sorry." Me: "Boot to this and follow the prompts.")
With the proliferation of bootable specialty Linux distro CDs, there are so many tools to help a Windows person get out of a jam.
The police told me off for not bios-locking my last box.
Interesting... a couple of things come to mind:
1. I've never met a police officer with such a technical mind. I know they exist, but I expect that reporting a crime like a stolen laptop would get me a "so what do you want us to do about it?" and "give us the serial # and we'll keep and eye out for it."
2. I thought BIOS-locking referred to OS-BIOS connections... BIOS Locking: More Intrusive Than WPA. Perhaps you/they meant "BIOS password?"
3. BIOS passwords can be broken, bypassed, or removed quite easily. This is what makes me think that's not what they meant.
Anyways, just some things that went through my head.
I was 11 when I first started playing Legend of the Red Dragon...by Seth Able. I'm surprised at how easily I recall the details.
I also remember how confused the lady at RadioShack was when I called to see if they had any copies of it. A year later, I was writing my own door game. Those things helped make me the GW-BASIC programmer I am today!
"Door" games. *sigh*
I see what you're saying... you're right, and since the goal is generally the same the methods would be too.
Viral marketing relies on the merit of the actual content to spread, not on techniques to gain exposure.
The art of SEO also changes frequently as search engines try to avoid abuse. A quality viral marketing campaign can be effective whether or not you keep up on the latest "techniques."
I'd rather save a good viral marketing idea for a paying client, though. Unless you're trying to make a name for yourself, the prize money at stake is nothing compared to the profits from real client.
I think we agree and we're just nitpicking. Good points all around. I think I took your original post to mean that you thought that copyright violation was neither illegal nor immoral; your follow-up clarifies that this is not your position. /thread
Do non-spammers spam?
I run a web dev and consulting business. Some of my clients have actually pushed the limits of what I would consider legitimate email marketing and moved toward spam. Others actively run email campaigns that don't sell, rent, or give away their info.
Most legislation and anti-spam mechanisms hurt legitimate marketers and do little or nothing to stop actual spammers.
On a side note, sometimes people who sign up for email notifications or newsletters report those same messages as spam; it's like they completely forgot that they signed up for this information. I had to convince an angry customer that he did, in fact, sign up for the message that he was complaining about. I offered to take him off the list, and he wouldn't even do that - he said someone told him it would just verify that his address was real (he'd already told me the address).
In a perfect world, spammers wouldn't exist because people wouldn't be suckers. But it's not, so your point is correct.
In an imperfect world such as ours, it may be possible to reduce the return rate on spam to a low-profit (but maybe not entirely profitless) endeavor. Factor in the legal ramifications, the hassle, etc. and it may not be worth doing. User education is a step to take so that your 1-10,000 turns into 1-1,000,000. Or worse. Other steps are necessary, but that's really the fundamental source.
In other words, if crime weren't so lucrative then we'd have less of it.
If you want to try and make a case in front of anyone - judge, jury, or otherwise - that you should be allowed to simply take things without paying for them, be my guest.
The assumption of immorality comes from the same thing. You have no right to steal someone else's belongings, right? You have no moral right to take without permission, right? The law clearly establish copyrights, even if some areas are unclear.
So from a moral, social, and legal perspective, you're doing something wrong. It doesn't get any clearer than that. If you want to change society and the law, go for it - but you'll certainly have to convince people that it's moral for you to take their work without paying them in return.
Fair use does not allow you to download something simply for personal (non-commercial) use. Your decision to download the item is what initiates the duplication - not the person hosting it.
Your mention of using news releases is incorrect; copyright law specifically mentions news reporting and comment as fair use and non-infringing. (source)
One of the four factors used in determining fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." This is particularly important - if there is no effect, the case for fair use is stronger. Downloading a file has some effect, however, small, on the potential value of the work to the copyright holder. Uploading it has a much larger impact, as you are potentially distributing it to thousands.
So in that, it is possible to make a fair use case in personal use; but I suspect you'd lose because of the immorality of the thing. There is a reasonable expectation that you would have to pay for the album, because that's how the world works. If the goal of downloading is simply to avoid paying for it (not for the betterment of society, education, etc. which I consider the goal of fair use), it's clearly not protected.
Obviously, there's some debate here. Even the copyright office makes it clear that there are grey areas and that the best thing to do is consult a lawyer. But there are some guidelines and I believe that many people misunderstand copyrights and fair use - which has complicated this situation further.
True - but the point is to educate their patrons as to the legality of fair use and copying these materials. Many of my professors in college were under the assumption that they could copy entire textbooks and simply hand them out. (They can't.) My old accountant told me that we could install and use Quickbooks on my partner's computer as well because the company bought it and we both own 50% of all assets.
Many people do not understand even the basics of copyright law - so signs like that do some small part in educating.
Read that sentence again... I said "downloading," not uploading. I understand what you're saying, but uploading once is the same as downloading once in the eyes of copyright law.
Facilitating copyright infringement, knowingly or otherwise, is the heart of many of the current cases. Libraries post copyright warnings on their photocopiers... are they liable for infringements that take place in their libraries, even if they're unaware of them? I'm sure there's some kind of case out there, but I don't have the resources to look it up (nor the time).
Unfortunately, it would also hurt a lot of legitimate businesses that rely on services or traffic from those ISPs.
I still think the best solution overall is to starve spammers - don't ever respond to unsolicited emails, even if it's a really great deal.
It sounds like a good idea, but it's not a solution any more than CAN-SPAM. Spammers will not cooperate if it's just going to hurt them. Until you crack down on spam in the same way that the telemarketer do-not-call list has, you won't see any improvement. And that's not even realistic given the ease with which email can be masked or forged.
It's similar to the argument that gun rights advocates make - stricter gun control laws or programs will hurt legitimate owners, but the real problems will still lie with the criminals who don't abide by those laws anyway.
Crack down on spammers. Make spam outright illegal and make penalties for ISPs that fail to comply.
Downloading is also copying. And the fact is, copying a copy is no less illegal than copying the original. This is especially evident with the advent of lossless digital duplication.
You're copying a copyrighted work - whether you were the original violator or the thousandth, you're still committing the same act.
Well, just consider the differences in downloading vs. shoplifting a single CD. If you don't share it back out in either case, I consider the shoplifting a bigger crime. You're stealing physical property as well as the music - but nobody calls that crime infringement. If you download the album and use it for personal listening only, it's technically a bigger crime (in some places) and certainly carries more civil liabilities.
Hmm.. just makes me wonder, that's all.
That's generally just because of the technology. First, it's possible to make a fair use defense based on your ownership of the CD or DVD. Second, uploading appears to be a bigger violation simply because you could be uploading to hundreds of people.
It cracks me up that you can get a small fine or few days in jail for shoplifting a CD, but downloading that same album online (with inferior quality!) can net you years of prison time and hundreds of thousands in fines!
Actually, this ruling will affect only Michigan and New York. I live in Indiana, where shipping is still illegal. The reasoning is that they are discriminating between out-of-state and in-state wineries; they must apply the same laws to each. I RTFA. They also explained this on the local news - it will affect Michigan residents, but Indiana's laws will remain in effect.
I hate that pun every time we talk about software and some kind of vehicle. Next, of course, comes the Microsoft jabs - even when MS isn't involved. *sigh*
More on-topic, Slashdot recently ran an article about some guys trying to infect a Prius via Bluetooth, and were able to accomplish a system crash repeatedly. Turned out to be low on battery power.