Lawful Evil makes sense, and is the right way to put it in this case.
Except, since the/. crowd has a different and ambiguous view of what is moral, I do not think we are in any place to judge the morality of some "entity". Not to mention, we are not mind/soul readers so we do not know the intention of Billy G. I sure don't. I am sure he wants to make money, but for me to say he wants to hurt people would be malign and liabous.(sp?)
Where do you get this definition? Persons goals may be of law (think judge/lawyer) a persons limits might be evil/good. I may have a goal of creating a law to make people do something I want them to do, am I do something good or evil? That depends what the law is.
Human rights in China are severely limited (Tiananmen Square etc). Just do a Google search for "china human rights record" and see for yourself. Unless you're in China, of course, in which case you will presumably get search results full of articles about how free Chinese people are.
Yes China has more severe restrictions on human rights, and while I do not agree with what china did in tiananmen Square, that is far different then what the Nazi's did. The Nazi's exterminated millions of people for no other reason then their ethnic background. China killed those people in the square because they felt they were comitting a crime.
Sometimes I just hate our representatives. Really, stupid - IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system. - is he really trying to compare the Nazi's to China? While China is oppresive, they are not sticking people in concentration camps (wholesale, for no other reason then a racial thing) so they can gas them, do funky experiments, get slave labor, and coquer the world.
It is, and has been, that US companies - when they travel abroad have to follow THAT countries laws and the laws of the US. I am sure some companies have figured ways to get around it (maybe when it is Microsoft Australia they do not have to follow US laws) - but if MS wants to do business in China they have to obey Chinese law. How would the Congressman feel if a foreign company came over here and did not obey US law....how would he feel if Sony said "screw american laws, we only obey japan laws"
Companies go out of business all the time due to online businesses. Sam Goody is going out of business, though they are blaming music pirates. Since the music industry is still making record profits (as they have been doing in the past) I think it is more because sam goody cannot compete with online venders who do it cheaper, more conveniently, and with a better selection.
45% of Americans say it's simply too expensive. 30% say that they just don't want it. 14% say they feel dial-up is adequate for their needs. Less than 10% are not able to get broadband access in their area
Well if they reduced their price they could easily get the other 45%. If they reduced their price and increased their customer service they could probably convince some of the 30% to join. If they reduced their price they could also get a portion of that 14% (face it, if it is not that much more expensive you would pony up even if you do not need it - people do it all the time). The other 10% are screwed. The remaining 5% are just dumb (i don't get it, "I dont know why i dont hve broardband")??
Without arguing the issue if you agree or disagree with the House Of Representatives - do you think the house (or any branch of our gov't) cares about Google's mantra of "Don't be evil"? All they care about is the government (let us not get into a debate about how politicians are corrupt). I think Google needs to shy away from things like their "mantra" and focus on what benefit will this bring to the US. Once they can convince the gov't the pro's outweigh the con's then they will get what they want.
Indeed - God instructs his followers to break his commandment repeatedly. That's the bit I don't understand, and the bit I am trying to get someone to explain to me.
So far, apparently, all I have managed is to annoy people, which, while amusing (as people getting cross with me because they can't explain what they believe in), doesn't help.
Justin.
If you believe that god wrote the ten commandments, then it is not hard to believe that god gave other edicts - including to break the ten commandments at his will.
You want people to tell you why they think god instructs people to break his will? How can people answer what someone/thing else was thinking? Religion/faith is a core belief structure, it does not have to be explained "why". People grew up hearing about god, they believe in it. It would be similar to someone asking you why you love your parents (assuming you do love your parents). I sure can't answer that question - I just do love them, it doesn't need explaining - its just what it is.
You're telling me you don't know what that particular commandment means. You don't know what god means by 'thou shalt not kill/murder', only what is legal in human terms.
Oh, that's the same as me then.
J.
First of all, the commandment is "Thou shalt not kill" - it says nothing about murder. Second, did you see god write this commandment? Third, if you ignore my second point, then in the bible god has commanded his worshippers to kill - many times, so apparantly god is breaking his own commandment.
Yes, but if you do not kill innocent babies (after baptism, of course) aren't you exposing them to the possibility of Hell as they grow older? Better to off them as babies to ensure they go to Heaven.
This flaming troll brought to you by the letter "logic".
Yes, because it is logic that says you are innocent after you are baptised. I guess since I am not baptised I am full of sin. Well, luckily I am Jewish and as one of the chosen folk I get a free pass to heaven (not that Jews believe in hell anyway). The bible (take your pick) is full of examples of people fighting and dying for god and country. (no pun intended)
bwahahahaahaha... if you cant trust the government who can you trust?
"The guy who ordered the soldier to kill does not necessarily have murder on his hands, he may have been given an order (as things flow down"
The defense, i was just following orders, has been used to justify many atrocities. I guess the lower rank SS officers were not guilty of anything because hitler was at the top and it all came down to him, right?
This is the problem with people who believe in god. Lack of personal responsibility. God did not tell you to murder soldiers from the other side, you made a concious decision. Anything less than that reeks of moral cowardice.
First, it is not an issue of trusting the government. When you are in the military (voluntary or not) you are required by law to follow orders or you could be found for treason. That is why you are obsolved of any killings while operating under orders
Actually, many Nazi soldiers were granted amnesty as long as the record showed they followed the orders their superiors gave them. So if the sergeant was given an order by a captain, then the sgt is fine. If the captain was given that same order by the major, then the captain is fine. If the major created the order, of his own accord, then it was not fine. The ones in command are the ones who are at greatest risk for going to jail for crimes of war. Let us not forget, that in your argument we are talking about genocide which is not sanctioned (for the majority of our planet) as a legal way to conduct war. Rules of war (and they have been this way for a long long time) stipulate that civilians are off limits. The Nazi's were specifically targetting civilians, hence all the crimes of war trials. If all the Nazi's did were to attack military targets then it would have been a different story.
As for personal responsibility, I don't even want to get into the argument "did the person who said God told them to to this lie or does he actually believe god told him to do this." That is a different argument. The court of god and the court of man is different. If you truely believe that god sent you to kill then you also believe in the afterlife he will reward you. However, you will be punished in this life - but most fanatics understand this and are willing to accept it - and actually hope to be put to death so they can join god. Will some people say "but God made me do it, don't punish me" - yea sure some will, but do we care - no not really.
So if Bush says kill, and congress votes for it, it's OK in the eyes of God.
Thanks for clearing that one up.
Now, when General Pinochet, of the lawful (if dictatorial) government of Chile, ordered all those genocidal attacks, that was OK in the eyes of God too...?
Justin.
I never said that. I never said if Bush says kill it is ok in the eyes of god. I said if Bush says kill, the US soldiers who followed his order (as required by law) have not comitted murder in the eyes of the US legal system (and other legal systems), and in the eyes of many many people. If God considers it murder or kill, well that is his decision and neither you nor I can speak for God. I can, however, speak for our legal system as that is clearly defined.
Next time you decide to paraphrase what I say, make sure you get it correct.
Your argument is of course total bullshit.
Microsoft has overwhelming numerical superiority in the consumer computer space. They have enough market share to be considered a monopoly by that alone, even by 100 year old standards. That's true even if you ignore the stranglehold they have on OEM preloads and setting standards for what a consumer computer is supposed to be. The mere fact that they can publish such a guideline and expect to have it followed is more than proof enough of their monopoly.
A competitor that depends on their application software is not a suitable demonstration of them not being a monopoly. Neither is the existenct of charityware alternatives.
When I can go into Best Buy and ALL sections of the store provide generic content that doesn't require me to contemplate "is it DOS compatable". Then your argument might have merit.
The fact that Apple is trying to turn the CD section in Best Buy into the equivalent of the software section is why they will eventually need to get slapped down.
Nope sorry, you're wrong. For there to be a monopoly it has to be 100% control, which they do not. Yea they may hold 90% control, but that is not 100% (or even near 100%). The thing is, there are different options - in a monopoly there are ZERO options. For example - if I want cable television, in Philadelphia, my only option is Comcast. That is a monopoly. Even if I go and buy a desktop from Dell that comes with MS - I can still format my hard drive and put in any number of other OS's. If I do not want to pay MS any money then I have the option of building my computer from scratch (or buying it from a vendor who offers other OSs) and then put whatever OS I want. As long as I have a choice - MS does NOT have a monopoly. Anything other is pure crap on the tongue of anyone who speaks it.
MS can set many standards because they are the most popular. Now we are to blame someone for making a product that the consumers all want? Let Linux, Apple, etc make a product that everyone all loves and they will take that instead...oh wait, look at the iPod situation - everyone is on the iPod band wagon, and even if someone can't afford it - they still want it.
When the latest and greatest piece of software comes out - if they put a requirement of Windows OS - blame the software company. They had the OPTION of saying "screw MS, we will make it compatible for Mac only" - they chose MS because MS has the largest market share and they have the largest market share because the people want to use it and consistantly go back to it no matter how many BSODs they get.
So how about I decide I am at war with, say Spain? Can I go and kill Spaniards?
Last time I looked, there's no definition of 'war' in the Bible. So how do you work your rules? Wurely the guy that ordered the soldier to kill has murder on his hands?
Either that, or God's a hypocrite, take your pick.
Hey webdork;) I understand computers are in an on/off state, but life has a whole lot of greys.
The difference between *you* going to kill someone by saying "you are at war" is a farcry then a lawful, authorized, and acknowledged organization like the government. That is the difference.
Does the bible Define war? Probably not, but it does talk about war and you can glean the definition from the statement.
The guy who ordered the soldier to kill does not necessarily have murder on his hands, he may have been given an order (as things flow down, in our gov't it essentially flows to the POTUS). But war, sanctioned (as I said above) by a lawful, recognized gov't is not considered murder (though some leaders have a moral sense and may feel guilty about any war). You are talking in absolutes, real life - while there are absolutes - has many areas of grey.
You can kill someone without sin, you murder someone and you sin. If someone tries to hurt you and you shoot them with a gun and they die - you just killed someone. If you go up to some random person and you shot them with a gun and they die - you just murdered someone. It is all about the intent. Soldiers who make someone die under orders are not murdering someone, they are killing someone (some people will argue but i could care less about that). Consequently, if God tells you (assuming you believe god speaks to people) to kill someoen you are not comitting murder (at least in the eyes of god).
When the RIAA sues people based on filenames rather than actually inspecting the contents of the file, that lawsuit is, de facto, illegal. Without inspecting the contents of the file, one doesn't know whether that file contains copyrighted material. It could, in fact, contain an audiobook of a person reviewing the song. It could contain a public-domain song with the same title. It could contain a person singing it.
99% of the time, the RIAA's attorneys assume it contains a copyrighted song, when in fact they have no proof it does. THAT is illegal.
It is de facto illegal? Please show me where it says, in law, that the RIAA must inspect my computer before they sue me. Actually, I'm sure they can sue me and then in the process of the lawsuit demand to see your computer files. Do I think it sucks for the little guy, yea, is it illegal, no. Remember, in the US, a person can sue anyone for anything and it is not illegal. The RIAA can sue you for throwing that CD you bought onto your bed. Will a judge laugh it out of court, yea, will you be paying lawyer fees, yea.
Actually, 99% of the time it is some techie who says "hey boss I think we found a fileshare site, and oh look you can get Madonna's latest hit...call the dogs, they need to let the lawyers out of their cages." Unless you think some RIAA lawyer is surfing the web looking for illegal P2P sites - which is not totally out of the realm of possibility, but I think a pretty rare thing.
Hash a unique code that represents the music retailer and a unique customer number
This number, which when decrypted/hacked will reveal personal information about me like my first/last name, phone number, address, maybe a drivers license #? All this personal information, and more, has to be gotten with your prior and obvious consent - unless RIAA wants a bigtime lawsuit (civil and possibly criminal) from the people and the gov't.
Kind of reminds me of the poem:
First they came for Microsoft, and I did not speak out because I was not a Microsoft ... ...
Then they came for Apple iPod, and I did not speak out because I was not a Apple iPod
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The important distinction here is that there is not currently a monopoly in any aspect of what apple delivers with the ipod. Players are plentiful. Pay music services are plentiful. It's just the Apple fanboys that think that the ipod is the only solution that exists. The ipod could certainly shape up as something that pushes everyone else out of the market but it's not quite there yet.
It's all remarkably ironic considering that some Apple fanboys are currently gloating about how Apple will be the Microsoft of digital music.
They might be right, someday. It's not quite time to put Steve Jobs on the Rack yet.
I agree there is no monopoly, as far as iPods go. My argument is that there is no monopoly as far as MS goes - and I get shouted down by the a whole lot of/.ers, and can't recall if anyone ever said "no really, MS is not a monopoly, the gov't just wanted a chunk out of the richest guy on the planet."
Since your above example utilizes credit card information you CANNOT make Joe Sixpack unaware. He has to know, explicitly, that his credit card information is being encoded and sent up. Joe Sixpack needs to be given the absolute right to say "No I really do not trust your security system, and I will not give you my GC #"
You code media players to detect the watermark (which would have to be in a standardized format) and refuse to play anything that does not contain the watermark
yea, but how does this hinder a pirater who got his watermarked music from the web? The music is watermarked and works just fine.
What the human senses can detect, on a subconscious level, are greater then what our conscious can perceive. So, lets make way for the subliminal messages (which, I believe, are illegal). "RIAA demands you buy this CD two more times, and agree to this EULA that you will not listen to it more then once."
Yes let them watermark my music in a way that only someone who is running a program on my computer can tell...because, you know, this will prevent me from listening to the pirated music. Watermarks are good on demo's. Some bands release their music to all the P2P programs but they corrupt the music/movie in some way by putting obviously annoying background noice, or placing a big fat DEMO on the movie itself. They get this to be passed around enough and before you know it - each time you are trying to get that song/movie you probably wasted hours of your life for just a demo version. This, imho, is far better. It lets people who say they want a demo to get a demo, and it annoys piraters (who want pristine copies).
The question becomes, now that this technology is cheaper, will my VP be buying new Windows Mobile enabled cell phones for his entire department just so we can put in more hours?
Yes, your VP will spend extra money (for the phones, any overtime/comp time and having to listen to you demand a higher raise) just to make you have to put in more hours. Come on dude, I know people like to be melodramatic but let's be at least reasonably sensible about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Lawful Evil makes sense, and is the right way to put it in this case.
/. crowd has a different and ambiguous view of what is moral, I do not think we are in any place to judge the morality of some "entity". Not to mention, we are not mind/soul readers so we do not know the intention of Billy G. I sure don't. I am sure he wants to make money, but for me to say he wants to hurt people would be malign and liabous.(sp?)
Except, since the
What page and book please.
Where do you get this definition? Persons goals may be of law (think judge/lawyer) a persons limits might be evil/good. I may have a goal of creating a law to make people do something I want them to do, am I do something good or evil? That depends what the law is.
Human rights in China are severely limited (Tiananmen Square etc). Just do a Google search for "china human rights record" and see for yourself. Unless you're in China, of course, in which case you will presumably get search results full of articles about how free Chinese people are.
Yes China has more severe restrictions on human rights, and while I do not agree with what china did in tiananmen Square, that is far different then what the Nazi's did. The Nazi's exterminated millions of people for no other reason then their ethnic background. China killed those people in the square because they felt they were comitting a crime.
They're corporations. They're pure Lawful Evil by definition.
:D
Actaully, by your explanation they are Lawful Neutral. They are complying with the laws no matter if the laws are good or bad.
Sometimes I just hate our representatives. Really, stupid - IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system. - is he really trying to compare the Nazi's to China? While China is oppresive, they are not sticking people in concentration camps (wholesale, for no other reason then a racial thing) so they can gas them, do funky experiments, get slave labor, and coquer the world.
It is, and has been, that US companies - when they travel abroad have to follow THAT countries laws and the laws of the US. I am sure some companies have figured ways to get around it (maybe when it is Microsoft Australia they do not have to follow US laws) - but if MS wants to do business in China they have to obey Chinese law. How would the Congressman feel if a foreign company came over here and did not obey US law....how would he feel if Sony said "screw american laws, we only obey japan laws"
Companies go out of business all the time due to online businesses. Sam Goody is going out of business, though they are blaming music pirates. Since the music industry is still making record profits (as they have been doing in the past) I think it is more because sam goody cannot compete with online venders who do it cheaper, more conveniently, and with a better selection.
45% of Americans say it's simply too expensive. 30% say that they just don't want it. 14% say they feel dial-up is adequate for their needs. Less than 10% are not able to get broadband access in their area
Well if they reduced their price they could easily get the other 45%. If they reduced their price and increased their customer service they could probably convince some of the 30% to join. If they reduced their price they could also get a portion of that 14% (face it, if it is not that much more expensive you would pony up even if you do not need it - people do it all the time). The other 10% are screwed. The remaining 5% are just dumb (i don't get it, "I dont know why i dont hve broardband")??
Without arguing the issue if you agree or disagree with the House Of Representatives - do you think the house (or any branch of our gov't) cares about Google's mantra of "Don't be evil"? All they care about is the government (let us not get into a debate about how politicians are corrupt). I think Google needs to shy away from things like their "mantra" and focus on what benefit will this bring to the US. Once they can convince the gov't the pro's outweigh the con's then they will get what they want.
Indeed - God instructs his followers to break his commandment repeatedly. That's the bit I don't understand, and the bit I am trying to get someone to explain to me. So far, apparently, all I have managed is to annoy people, which, while amusing (as people getting cross with me because they can't explain what they believe in), doesn't help. Justin.
If you believe that god wrote the ten commandments, then it is not hard to believe that god gave other edicts - including to break the ten commandments at his will.
You want people to tell you why they think god instructs people to break his will? How can people answer what someone/thing else was thinking? Religion/faith is a core belief structure, it does not have to be explained "why". People grew up hearing about god, they believe in it. It would be similar to someone asking you why you love your parents (assuming you do love your parents). I sure can't answer that question - I just do love them, it doesn't need explaining - its just what it is.
You're telling me you don't know what that particular commandment means. You don't know what god means by 'thou shalt not kill/murder', only what is legal in human terms. Oh, that's the same as me then. J.
First of all, the commandment is "Thou shalt not kill" - it says nothing about murder. Second, did you see god write this commandment? Third, if you ignore my second point, then in the bible god has commanded his worshippers to kill - many times, so apparantly god is breaking his own commandment.
Yes, but if you do not kill innocent babies (after baptism, of course) aren't you exposing them to the possibility of Hell as they grow older? Better to off them as babies to ensure they go to Heaven. This flaming troll brought to you by the letter "logic".
Yes, because it is logic that says you are innocent after you are baptised. I guess since I am not baptised I am full of sin. Well, luckily I am Jewish and as one of the chosen folk I get a free pass to heaven (not that Jews believe in hell anyway). The bible (take your pick) is full of examples of people fighting and dying for god and country. (no pun intended)
bwahahahaahaha... if you cant trust the government who can you trust? "The guy who ordered the soldier to kill does not necessarily have murder on his hands, he may have been given an order (as things flow down" The defense, i was just following orders, has been used to justify many atrocities. I guess the lower rank SS officers were not guilty of anything because hitler was at the top and it all came down to him, right? This is the problem with people who believe in god. Lack of personal responsibility. God did not tell you to murder soldiers from the other side, you made a concious decision. Anything less than that reeks of moral cowardice.
First, it is not an issue of trusting the government. When you are in the military (voluntary or not) you are required by law to follow orders or you could be found for treason. That is why you are obsolved of any killings while operating under orders
Actually, many Nazi soldiers were granted amnesty as long as the record showed they followed the orders their superiors gave them. So if the sergeant was given an order by a captain, then the sgt is fine. If the captain was given that same order by the major, then the captain is fine. If the major created the order, of his own accord, then it was not fine. The ones in command are the ones who are at greatest risk for going to jail for crimes of war. Let us not forget, that in your argument we are talking about genocide which is not sanctioned (for the majority of our planet) as a legal way to conduct war. Rules of war (and they have been this way for a long long time) stipulate that civilians are off limits. The Nazi's were specifically targetting civilians, hence all the crimes of war trials. If all the Nazi's did were to attack military targets then it would have been a different story.
As for personal responsibility, I don't even want to get into the argument "did the person who said God told them to to this lie or does he actually believe god told him to do this." That is a different argument. The court of god and the court of man is different. If you truely believe that god sent you to kill then you also believe in the afterlife he will reward you. However, you will be punished in this life - but most fanatics understand this and are willing to accept it - and actually hope to be put to death so they can join god. Will some people say "but God made me do it, don't punish me" - yea sure some will, but do we care - no not really.
So if Bush says kill, and congress votes for it, it's OK in the eyes of God. Thanks for clearing that one up. Now, when General Pinochet, of the lawful (if dictatorial) government of Chile, ordered all those genocidal attacks, that was OK in the eyes of God too...? Justin.
I never said that. I never said if Bush says kill it is ok in the eyes of god. I said if Bush says kill, the US soldiers who followed his order (as required by law) have not comitted murder in the eyes of the US legal system (and other legal systems), and in the eyes of many many people. If God considers it murder or kill, well that is his decision and neither you nor I can speak for God. I can, however, speak for our legal system as that is clearly defined.
Next time you decide to paraphrase what I say, make sure you get it correct.
Your argument is of course total bullshit. Microsoft has overwhelming numerical superiority in the consumer computer space. They have enough market share to be considered a monopoly by that alone, even by 100 year old standards. That's true even if you ignore the stranglehold they have on OEM preloads and setting standards for what a consumer computer is supposed to be. The mere fact that they can publish such a guideline and expect to have it followed is more than proof enough of their monopoly. A competitor that depends on their application software is not a suitable demonstration of them not being a monopoly. Neither is the existenct of charityware alternatives. When I can go into Best Buy and ALL sections of the store provide generic content that doesn't require me to contemplate "is it DOS compatable". Then your argument might have merit. The fact that Apple is trying to turn the CD section in Best Buy into the equivalent of the software section is why they will eventually need to get slapped down.
Nope sorry, you're wrong. For there to be a monopoly it has to be 100% control, which they do not. Yea they may hold 90% control, but that is not 100% (or even near 100%). The thing is, there are different options - in a monopoly there are ZERO options. For example - if I want cable television, in Philadelphia, my only option is Comcast. That is a monopoly. Even if I go and buy a desktop from Dell that comes with MS - I can still format my hard drive and put in any number of other OS's. If I do not want to pay MS any money then I have the option of building my computer from scratch (or buying it from a vendor who offers other OSs) and then put whatever OS I want. As long as I have a choice - MS does NOT have a monopoly. Anything other is pure crap on the tongue of anyone who speaks it.
MS can set many standards because they are the most popular. Now we are to blame someone for making a product that the consumers all want? Let Linux, Apple, etc make a product that everyone all loves and they will take that instead...oh wait, look at the iPod situation - everyone is on the iPod band wagon, and even if someone can't afford it - they still want it.
When the latest and greatest piece of software comes out - if they put a requirement of Windows OS - blame the software company. They had the OPTION of saying "screw MS, we will make it compatible for Mac only" - they chose MS because MS has the largest market share and they have the largest market share because the people want to use it and consistantly go back to it no matter how many BSODs they get.
So how about I decide I am at war with, say Spain? Can I go and kill Spaniards? Last time I looked, there's no definition of 'war' in the Bible. So how do you work your rules? Wurely the guy that ordered the soldier to kill has murder on his hands? Either that, or God's a hypocrite, take your pick.
;) I understand computers are in an on/off state, but life has a whole lot of greys.
Hey webdork
The difference between *you* going to kill someone by saying "you are at war" is a farcry then a lawful, authorized, and acknowledged organization like the government. That is the difference.
Does the bible Define war? Probably not, but it does talk about war and you can glean the definition from the statement.
The guy who ordered the soldier to kill does not necessarily have murder on his hands, he may have been given an order (as things flow down, in our gov't it essentially flows to the POTUS). But war, sanctioned (as I said above) by a lawful, recognized gov't is not considered murder (though some leaders have a moral sense and may feel guilty about any war). You are talking in absolutes, real life - while there are absolutes - has many areas of grey.
You can kill someone without sin, you murder someone and you sin. If someone tries to hurt you and you shoot them with a gun and they die - you just killed someone. If you go up to some random person and you shot them with a gun and they die - you just murdered someone. It is all about the intent. Soldiers who make someone die under orders are not murdering someone, they are killing someone (some people will argue but i could care less about that). Consequently, if God tells you (assuming you believe god speaks to people) to kill someoen you are not comitting murder (at least in the eyes of god).
When the RIAA sues people based on filenames rather than actually inspecting the contents of the file, that lawsuit is, de facto, illegal. Without inspecting the contents of the file, one doesn't know whether that file contains copyrighted material. It could, in fact, contain an audiobook of a person reviewing the song. It could contain a public-domain song with the same title. It could contain a person singing it. 99% of the time, the RIAA's attorneys assume it contains a copyrighted song, when in fact they have no proof it does. THAT is illegal.
It is de facto illegal? Please show me where it says, in law, that the RIAA must inspect my computer before they sue me. Actually, I'm sure they can sue me and then in the process of the lawsuit demand to see your computer files. Do I think it sucks for the little guy, yea, is it illegal, no. Remember, in the US, a person can sue anyone for anything and it is not illegal. The RIAA can sue you for throwing that CD you bought onto your bed. Will a judge laugh it out of court, yea, will you be paying lawyer fees, yea.
Actually, 99% of the time it is some techie who says "hey boss I think we found a fileshare site, and oh look you can get Madonna's latest hit...call the dogs, they need to let the lawyers out of their cages." Unless you think some RIAA lawyer is surfing the web looking for illegal P2P sites - which is not totally out of the realm of possibility, but I think a pretty rare thing.
Hash a unique code that represents the music retailer and a unique customer number
...
...
This number, which when decrypted/hacked will reveal personal information about me like my first/last name, phone number, address, maybe a drivers license #? All this personal information, and more, has to be gotten with your prior and obvious consent - unless RIAA wants a bigtime lawsuit (civil and possibly criminal) from the people and the gov't.
Kind of reminds me of the poem:
First they came for Microsoft, and I did not speak out because I was not a Microsoft
Then they came for Apple iPod, and I did not speak out because I was not a Apple iPod
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The important distinction here is that there is not currently a monopoly in any aspect of what apple delivers with the ipod. Players are plentiful. Pay music services are plentiful. It's just the Apple fanboys that think that the ipod is the only solution that exists. The ipod could certainly shape up as something that pushes everyone else out of the market but it's not quite there yet. It's all remarkably ironic considering that some Apple fanboys are currently gloating about how Apple will be the Microsoft of digital music. They might be right, someday. It's not quite time to put Steve Jobs on the Rack yet.
/.ers, and can't recall if anyone ever said "no really, MS is not a monopoly, the gov't just wanted a chunk out of the richest guy on the planet."
I agree there is no monopoly, as far as iPods go. My argument is that there is no monopoly as far as MS goes - and I get shouted down by the a whole lot of
Since your above example utilizes credit card information you CANNOT make Joe Sixpack unaware. He has to know, explicitly, that his credit card information is being encoded and sent up. Joe Sixpack needs to be given the absolute right to say "No I really do not trust your security system, and I will not give you my GC #"
You code media players to detect the watermark (which would have to be in a standardized format) and refuse to play anything that does not contain the watermark
yea, but how does this hinder a pirater who got his watermarked music from the web? The music is watermarked and works just fine.
Those are all interesting defenses, and you are free to try any/all of them in a court of law when you get illegally sued by the RIAA.
/.'er, how - praytell - is the RIAA sueing you illegal?
While I hate the RIAA just as much as the next
What the human senses can detect, on a subconscious level, are greater then what our conscious can perceive. So, lets make way for the subliminal messages (which, I believe, are illegal). "RIAA demands you buy this CD two more times, and agree to this EULA that you will not listen to it more then once."
Yes let them watermark my music in a way that only someone who is running a program on my computer can tell...because, you know, this will prevent me from listening to the pirated music. Watermarks are good on demo's. Some bands release their music to all the P2P programs but they corrupt the music/movie in some way by putting obviously annoying background noice, or placing a big fat DEMO on the movie itself. They get this to be passed around enough and before you know it - each time you are trying to get that song/movie you probably wasted hours of your life for just a demo version. This, imho, is far better. It lets people who say they want a demo to get a demo, and it annoys piraters (who want pristine copies).
The question becomes, now that this technology is cheaper, will my VP be buying new Windows Mobile enabled cell phones for his entire department just so we can put in more hours?
Yes, your VP will spend extra money (for the phones, any overtime/comp time and having to listen to you demand a higher raise) just to make you have to put in more hours. Come on dude, I know people like to be melodramatic but let's be at least reasonably sensible about it.