I completely agree with this. Hopefully the court will be able to add some much needed nuance in how to deal with these cases. As you point out, it is important to determine to what degree of infringement is occurring. How much infringing material is being hosted here? Personally I don't know.
And you certainly summarized MySpace accurately here!
MySpace's primary purpose is now, and to my knowledge always has been, to allow people with no technical skills to put up really obnoxious looking websites and let them rack up friend counts while showing the world that they have "really cool" taste in music.
Frankly I'm confused about what is so different about a tool on a web server somewhere and a tool on my hard drive - if I used Winamp to convert a copyrighted video and then uploaded it to a GoDaddy hosted server, nobody would be blaming Nullsoft or GoDaddy for my crime.
The difference is that MySpace actually generates revenue from advertisement - so they materially benefit when people perform copyright infringement using their tool, and can quite easily be shown to have a vested interest in not vigorously policing their site.
Looking at all these Slashdot reports of suing, it looks like this is the standard practice of corporate extortion.
Another option for those being sued might be to not base their revenue on copyright infringement and other obviously illegal practices. You make it sound like the only reason Universal is suing is because they have tons of money, which means they can make up their own laws. It may actually have to do with the fact that they actually have a case.
This is interesting. I did not know that Gates and Allen had split the entire stock of the company between themselves. At a 36/64 split, this leaves zero shares for any future employees or investors. What happened when they needed to award stock options to other employees? Or to sell stock to investors? Usually founders of a company start with around 5% or so, and leave the rest for investors, and stock awards for employees. I wonder how that all got sorted out.
God, I wish no one had ever thought it would be a good idea to have TLDs. Just make everything be the same, with one name. Then we wouldn't have all of this damn arguing about.com this,.org that. If you need to differentiate your name, just do it within the name itself. There really isn't any need to sort things according to categories.
So true. I use one of those streaming music services. They have hit the price-point that works for me. For $8 per month, I get access to their library of music, which is something like 1 million songs (I don't know, actually). Yes, I don't get to "own" this music, but I don't really care that much, since the price is pretty negligable. I never buy CDs anymore. I used to buy several CDs per month at about $15/pop, listen to them a few times each, then shelve them. Now, I am spending a fifth of that, and I have more music at my fingertips. This model doesn't necessarily fit everyone's lifestyle, but it works for me.
Technically, I can "steal" as much music as I like from the service by re-digitizing the stream once it gets to the analog phase. But, it is kind of a pain to do, so I rarely bother with it. Like the parent said, make it affordable, and I won't bother circumventing the system.
While yes, the tree-hugger stereotype that fears all change is definitely out there - to say that all environmentalists are basing their position on faith and not science is ridiculous.
In fact, I would argue that there is quite a bit of logic and science behind the conservative environmental position. It is a fact that humans do not do well outside of a fairly limited range of temperature, light, radiation, and availability of water, oxygen, and food. Many scientists see measurable trends occuring that point towards a shift in these variables.
While it is naive to think that we can avoid change, to dive recklessly and wontonly into the future without regard for the damage we are causing is even more naive - and far more damaging. It is not as if history is not filled with examples of famine, drought, toxic poisoning, and many other ills to teach us the lesson to not shit inside the house.
If you or Michael Crichton want to debate with me, fine. There is plenty of environmental data to debate, and I am by no means an expert. But don't dismiss a conservative reaction to environmental change as being based on some vague sense that change is "wrong" because it is unfamiliar. Personally, I know what a 120 degree desert feels like, and I don't want to try and live in one.
I am not sure if this is because Amazon's site is so dynamic, or if it is because they recently modified their architecture, or what, but I noticed that Amazon.com's home page has a page rank of zero as well.
I was cracking open the collected works of Charles Darwin over the holidays, and it struck me - boy they sure don't write 'em like this any more.
It occurred to me that my reading patterns have changed drastically in the last few years. I used to be a chain book reader. As soon as I was done with one, another would be on my night stand. Lately, I have been just reading magazines as I head for the pillow. I wondered why, and I realized that the way that I access information and put together knowledge has changed. While I still enjoy a good long book when I can find the time, a lot of what makes up my worldview is now assembled piecemeal, by patching together snippets of knowledge gleaned via message boards, articles, search engines, what have you - online. It may sound flaky, but I do believe that this method of learning does have some merit. Previously, I was entirely dependent on authors to guide my learning and point of view unchallenged through the form of the book. Now, when I am researching something - say, evolution - I can read in-depth articles in one tab of my browser, while in another, I keep an alternate point of view ready, and in a third, I keep search results for words that I need to look up.
It is a great boon to me to be so in charge of my education. However, the drawback is that I sometimes miss out on deep understanding that can only come from the long process of an extended narrative.
There is an organization that is already doing something similar: the Jhai Foundation. They have developed a PC (not a laptop, but still portable), designed by Lee Felsenstein, with no moving parts, that runs on Linux, and can be human-powered, and is based on wireless networking.
They are not as well funded or well known as the Media Lab, but they are already in the field doing it.
It is true that there are places like this. But, instead of looking at the laptops as toys, look at them as tools. Access to information is critical. Through access, individuals can learn about impending issues - like outbreaks of disease in neighboring provinces, and where to get an immunization shot. Also, information on how to treat an ailment can be made available on the internet. Farmers can be made aware of the demand for their crops in the marketplace so that they can make adjustments in their growing season, and avoid wasting their efforts by bringing a rice crop to market that already has a glut of that product.
It is surprising to me how many people in developing countries are simultaneously completely dependent on computers and the Internet, but at the same time look upon it as a luxury.
The idea here is not to give poor people some sort of new-fangled toy - but to facilitate the strengthening and self-sufficiency of a community through the distribution of tools that empower.
I really don't get this attitude, especially on slashdot. I keep hearing people say, "There are better things we can spend the money on than computers and telecommunications. This is misguided. The Internet is not as important as other things."
If this is so, then why are most people here (probably) using computers most of the day, every day? Is it because we are too weak to resist all the gaming and porn? The reason I am on a computer all day long is that it is the most efficient way for me to live in this world. I need constant access to information in order to inform my decisions. Otherwise, I am spending needless energy and time making mistakes, learning by trial and error, and stumbling around in the dark.
The fact is - access to information and communications are critical to the health and well-being of any community. If you take a look through history - communities, civilizations, armies, etc. that failed often failed because of a lack of knowledge and information. Giving access to information, allowing individuals to share knowledge will strengthen the community and is of the highest priority.
I like to think of ID as the Theory Of Our Own Ignorance (TOOI).
Mr. Science: "Today, class, we are going to test the Theory Of Our Own Ignorance, sometimes also known as Intelligent Design, or ID. OK, who wants to volunteer?"
Johnny: "I will, Mr. Science!"
Mr. Science: "Fine, Johnny. Now, I want you to look at this bird. Do you know what kind of bird this is Johnny?"
Johnny: "Yes, sir. It is a finch."
Mr. Science: "Very good, Johnny! Now, can you tell me how the wings of this bird came to be?"
Johnny: "I suspect that they grew, Mr. Science."
Mr. Science: "No, no, Johnny. I mean, do you know how the wings of this finch evolved?
Johnny: "Gosh, no. No, I don't."
Mr. Science: "Very good, Johnny! You have confirmed my test."
Johnny: "What test is that, Mr. Science?"
Mr. Science: "I was testing to see if you knew how the wings of this bird evolved. The Theory Of Our Own Ignorance predicted that you would not know, and since you did not, this validates our theory - that we do not know how this bird developed wings!"
I like to think of ID as the Theory Of Our Own Ignorance (TOOI).
Mr. Science: "Today, class, we are going to test the Theory Of Our Own Ignorance, sometimes also known as Intelligent Design, or ID. OK, who wants to volunteer?"
Johnny: "I will, Mr. Science!"
Mr. Science: "Fine, Johnny. Now, I want you to look at this bird. Do you know what kind of bird this is Johnny?"
Johnny: "Yes, sir. It is a finch."
Mr. Science: "Very good, Johnny! Now, can you tell me how the wings of this bird came to be?"
Johnny: "I suspect that they grew, Mr. Science."
Mr. Science: "No, no, Johnny. I mean, do you know how the wings of this finch evolved?
Johnny: "Gosh, no. No, I don't."
Mr. Science: "Very good, Johnny! You have confirmed my test."
Johnny: "What test is that, Mr. Science?"
Mr. Science: "I was testing to see if you knew how the wings of this bird evolved. The Theory Of Our Own Ignorance predicted that you would not know, and since you did not, this validates our theory - that we do not know how this bird developed wings!"
Exactly. These are the standard, royalty-based contracts that are used in the entertainment industry. Artists take the good with the bad. Most end up getting screwed for one reason or another, but the lucky few get decent royalties. The reason for this is that actors, musicians, etc. are hired on an as-needed basis, and are rarely hired as a salary, since they are not needed full time.
If an engineer wanted to forgo their salary and try to negotiate a royalty-based contract, they are free to do so.
Next time you make a movie or a television show, why don't you just put the actors on salary instead of these grievously wrong-headed royalty-based contracts which allow the artists to take all the money and run!
Slashdot Mirror
2000 is a long, long time ago? Geez, getting old sucks - that seems like yesterday for me. :P
I thought Francis Crick came up with that back in the 1960s?
I completely agree with this. Hopefully the court will be able to add some much needed nuance in how to deal with these cases. As you point out, it is important to determine to what degree of infringement is occurring. How much infringing material is being hosted here? Personally I don't know.
And you certainly summarized MySpace accurately here!
The difference is that MySpace actually generates revenue from advertisement - so they materially benefit when people perform copyright infringement using their tool, and can quite easily be shown to have a vested interest in not vigorously policing their site.
Another option for those being sued might be to not base their revenue on copyright infringement and other obviously illegal practices. You make it sound like the only reason Universal is suing is because they have tons of money, which means they can make up their own laws. It may actually have to do with the fact that they actually have a case.
Me too. I thought Web 2.0 would be the Semantic Web. This all sounds more like Web 1.02 to me.
This is interesting. I did not know that Gates and Allen had split the entire stock of the company between themselves. At a 36/64 split, this leaves zero shares for any future employees or investors. What happened when they needed to award stock options to other employees? Or to sell stock to investors? Usually founders of a company start with around 5% or so, and leave the rest for investors, and stock awards for employees. I wonder how that all got sorted out.
I thought Darth Vader repented at the end too...
God, I wish no one had ever thought it would be a good idea to have TLDs. Just make everything be the same, with one name. Then we wouldn't have all of this damn arguing about .com this, .org that. If you need to differentiate your name, just do it within the name itself. There really isn't any need to sort things according to categories.
In English, water implies liquid state:
Solid H2O: Ice
Liquid H2O: Water
Gaseous H2O: Steam
Plasma H2O: Profit!
So true. I use one of those streaming music services. They have hit the price-point that works for me. For $8 per month, I get access to their library of music, which is something like 1 million songs (I don't know, actually). Yes, I don't get to "own" this music, but I don't really care that much, since the price is pretty negligable. I never buy CDs anymore. I used to buy several CDs per month at about $15/pop, listen to them a few times each, then shelve them. Now, I am spending a fifth of that, and I have more music at my fingertips. This model doesn't necessarily fit everyone's lifestyle, but it works for me.
Technically, I can "steal" as much music as I like from the service by re-digitizing the stream once it gets to the analog phase. But, it is kind of a pain to do, so I rarely bother with it. Like the parent said, make it affordable, and I won't bother circumventing the system.
In fact, I would argue that there is quite a bit of logic and science behind the conservative environmental position. It is a fact that humans do not do well outside of a fairly limited range of temperature, light, radiation, and availability of water, oxygen, and food. Many scientists see measurable trends occuring that point towards a shift in these variables.
While it is naive to think that we can avoid change, to dive recklessly and wontonly into the future without regard for the damage we are causing is even more naive - and far more damaging. It is not as if history is not filled with examples of famine, drought, toxic poisoning, and many other ills to teach us the lesson to not shit inside the house.
As for Benford's plan - this has already been shown to be unrealistic to sustain. For every ton of iron used to seed a plankton bloom, it would require 5,000 tons of silicate to maintain the bloom.
If you or Michael Crichton want to debate with me, fine. There is plenty of environmental data to debate, and I am by no means an expert. But don't dismiss a conservative reaction to environmental change as being based on some vague sense that change is "wrong" because it is unfamiliar. Personally, I know what a 120 degree desert feels like, and I don't want to try and live in one.
I wonder if anyone has any insight into why.
I was cracking open the collected works of Charles Darwin over the holidays, and it struck me - boy they sure don't write 'em like this any more.
It occurred to me that my reading patterns have changed drastically in the last few years. I used to be a chain book reader. As soon as I was done with one, another would be on my night stand. Lately, I have been just reading magazines as I head for the pillow. I wondered why, and I realized that the way that I access information and put together knowledge has changed. While I still enjoy a good long book when I can find the time, a lot of what makes up my worldview is now assembled piecemeal, by patching together snippets of knowledge gleaned via message boards, articles, search engines, what have you - online. It may sound flaky, but I do believe that this method of learning does have some merit. Previously, I was entirely dependent on authors to guide my learning and point of view unchallenged through the form of the book. Now, when I am researching something - say, evolution - I can read in-depth articles in one tab of my browser, while in another, I keep an alternate point of view ready, and in a third, I keep search results for words that I need to look up.
It is a great boon to me to be so in charge of my education. However, the drawback is that I sometimes miss out on deep understanding that can only come from the long process of an extended narrative.
Back to good ol' Chuck!
Bitch, moan, bitch, moan!!!!!!
There is an organization that is already doing something similar: the Jhai Foundation. They have developed a PC (not a laptop, but still portable), designed by Lee Felsenstein, with no moving parts, that runs on Linux, and can be human-powered, and is based on wireless networking.
They are not as well funded or well known as the Media Lab, but they are already in the field doing it.
Here's more information via Google.
Oops - I meant, "developed countries" when I wrote, "developing countries" in the parent post.
It is true that there are places like this. But, instead of looking at the laptops as toys, look at them as tools. Access to information is critical. Through access, individuals can learn about impending issues - like outbreaks of disease in neighboring provinces, and where to get an immunization shot. Also, information on how to treat an ailment can be made available on the internet. Farmers can be made aware of the demand for their crops in the marketplace so that they can make adjustments in their growing season, and avoid wasting their efforts by bringing a rice crop to market that already has a glut of that product.
It is surprising to me how many people in developing countries are simultaneously completely dependent on computers and the Internet, but at the same time look upon it as a luxury.
The idea here is not to give poor people some sort of new-fangled toy - but to facilitate the strengthening and self-sufficiency of a community through the distribution of tools that empower.
I really don't get this attitude, especially on slashdot. I keep hearing people say, "There are better things we can spend the money on than computers and telecommunications. This is misguided. The Internet is not as important as other things."
If this is so, then why are most people here (probably) using computers most of the day, every day? Is it because we are too weak to resist all the gaming and porn? The reason I am on a computer all day long is that it is the most efficient way for me to live in this world. I need constant access to information in order to inform my decisions. Otherwise, I am spending needless energy and time making mistakes, learning by trial and error, and stumbling around in the dark.
The fact is - access to information and communications are critical to the health and well-being of any community. If you take a look through history - communities, civilizations, armies, etc. that failed often failed because of a lack of knowledge and information. Giving access to information, allowing individuals to share knowledge will strengthen the community and is of the highest priority.
It's been said before: Knowledge Is Power.
It looks like temperatures are cooling in Somalia:
- 11-1447_1821590,00.html
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,6119,2
I like to think of ID as the Theory Of Our Own Ignorance (TOOI).
Mr. Science: "Today, class, we are going to test the Theory Of Our Own Ignorance, sometimes also known as Intelligent Design, or ID. OK, who wants to volunteer?"
Johnny: "I will, Mr. Science!"
Mr. Science: "Fine, Johnny. Now, I want you to look at this bird. Do you know what kind of bird this is Johnny?"
Johnny: "Yes, sir. It is a finch."
Mr. Science: "Very good, Johnny! Now, can you tell me how the wings of this bird came to be?"
Johnny: "I suspect that they grew, Mr. Science."
Mr. Science: "No, no, Johnny. I mean, do you know how the wings of this finch evolved?
Johnny: "Gosh, no. No, I don't."
Mr. Science: "Very good, Johnny! You have confirmed my test."
Johnny: "What test is that, Mr. Science?"
Mr. Science: "I was testing to see if you knew how the wings of this bird evolved. The Theory Of Our Own Ignorance predicted that you would not know, and since you did not, this validates our theory - that we do not know how this bird developed wings!"
Class: "Awesome!"
I like to think of ID as the Theory Of Our Own Ignorance (TOOI).
Mr. Science: "Today, class, we are going to test the Theory Of Our Own Ignorance, sometimes also known as Intelligent Design, or ID. OK, who wants to volunteer?"
Johnny: "I will, Mr. Science!"
Mr. Science: "Fine, Johnny. Now, I want you to look at this bird. Do you know what kind of bird this is Johnny?"
Johnny: "Yes, sir. It is a finch."
Mr. Science: "Very good, Johnny! Now, can you tell me how the wings of this bird came to be?"
Johnny: "I suspect that they grew, Mr. Science."
Mr. Science: "No, no, Johnny. I mean, do you know how the wings of this finch evolved?
Johnny: "Gosh, no. No, I don't."
Mr. Science: "Very good, Johnny! You have confirmed my test."
Johnny: "What test is that, Mr. Science?"
Mr. Science: "I was testing to see if you knew how the wings of this bird evolved. The Theory Of Our Own Ignorance predicted that you would not know, and since you did not, this validates our theory - that we do not know how this bird developed wings!"
Class: "Awesome!"
Unfortunately, in the real world, things are not so black and white.
If an engineer wanted to forgo their salary and try to negotiate a royalty-based contract, they are free to do so.
Next time you make a movie or a television show, why don't you just put the actors on salary instead of these grievously wrong-headed royalty-based contracts which allow the artists to take all the money and run!
Mods have been had! LOL.
We didn't listen! We didn't listen!!! Oh, God - the humanity!!!