I think the reality that so many people cannot face is that many, if not most, of the people in it don't believe in morals.. i.e. They don't have any. They may not even have a conscience. Just as the Ken Lay's don't feel bad about stealing the millions he has, just as Bill Gates doesn't feel bad about his underhanded business practices, just as Jack Valenti felt no pangs at his organizations actions, so too the downloaders, pirates, gang members etc. see no problem with what they do, and certainly do not feel any remorse over the laws they break or the people they rip off. It is an epidemic across america at all levels. So I find it odd that the media mogouls and the parents and the government find it so shocking that everyone else is basically just like them.
Well, I don't know. My old Highschool is way worse now 5 years after I left then when I went there. My sister sadly has to deal not only with teachers who spend more time talking about their sex lives than the material, but teachers who are abscent more often than they are present.
The school cannot fire these teachers, not only are they tenured, but the school doesn't pay the $$ to get anyone else to apply. Just recently they rehired one of the talk about my sex life, and forget about teaching the class while seeing if I can get it on with one of the girls teachers who everyone was glad left because they needed a teacher, and he was who applied! Not only that, but he has experiance in chemistry and physics, so they re hire him to teach earth science. OK, whatever.
Too many classes are tought by teachers who don't understand the material, or are teaching from reading 2 chapters ahead in the book. Luckily my sister has a family that has mostly gone to college and can help her along - and has friends who's parents also help teach what is required from the Regents but lost by the teachers. Honestly, now that I think about it, I almost would recommend homeschooling at this point were she not about ready to graduate. I mean, mostly that's what she gets anyway - why make her waste time in class?
It's not just the teachers though, the state reorganized many of the subjects 2 years ago for some reason. I was shocked that my sister was in 10th grade, Highschool math class, had done algebra and was now into trig, and didn't have a clue what the Quadratic Equation was when I asked. She, and the entire class was unable to solve an equation that could not be factored. It wasn't part of the corriculum.
Now with the prevelance of graphing calculators, and their allowed use on the Regents, I'm afraid come calculous, they won't even be tought the proofs of the derivatives they use. Granted I've forgotten almost all I ever learned about calculous due to non use, but math is all about learning WHY you get to that answer, not just how to do the problem. But if the calculator can do it for you, why bother even understanding how the calcualtor gets the answer - trust that it is right.
That's what scares me. I'm way into computers more than the average person, and I am shocked how many people just blindly trust whatever a computer spits out because the "computer can't be wrong"! Well, I ask - "How do you know that?". Most never EVEN thought to ask the question, much less have an answer ready.
I asked my roommate if he had heard about the scandal in CA with DieBold. He's a sociology major. He hadn't heard, so I said I'm against electronic voting. He said "Why, wouldn't it be better? It would make it easier for people to vote, and they would be assured they made a valid vote." He hadn't even considered the issue of tampering. And he's a sociology major, who has taken classes in criminology. They blindly trust machines and don't seem to connect the fact that machines just do what someone "tells" them to, and that it should be important to a user to know who that someone is and they need to understand they are trusting that person.
Sorry for the rant, just giving another point of view, and where some of the problems stem from my vantage point.
I quake in my boots at installing Microsoft software, and Symantec software can be a huge pain. I usually have more problems with the big companies than the shareware like getright(Which I did pay for - 2 times they offer optional upgrade payments). Adobe Acrobat Reader seems ok too. Sorry for the tangent on "good" windows software vs "bad" but I just think Mac users need to understand that windows users are more at risk from Major vendors than any others in terms of system stability, uninstallibility, and changes to really unrelated parts of the OS.
Hmmm, well I have no idea, and again apparently neither did the word users in my team. In fact I often felt like I had more idea how word worked than they did. And we are all CIS majors. IDK. Sad really. And I don't care much about learning word, at least until I have to. This use was in the college library, and I have no idea what is enabled or not.
I think that would be a good idea. First, they really aren't updating it anymore(and many will agree that there is little more to add to word processors anyway), and I doubt many are buying it. It is sad, not having SmartSuit is one major thing keeping me away from Linux. If they don't want to opensource it so that the community can get a professonal level suite of spreadsheet, wordprocessing, database(well desktop database), organizer, and powerpoint replacement, then at least port it to linux and sell it for a reasonable amount. Say $50-$75. Compete with Sun. The more you can offer that you make, the better off you are - and getting the word out about alternatives to word is a good idea IMHO.
I was just going to comment on Lotus Word Pro(my wordprocessor of choice). Compared to MS Word, it is a UI wet dream. Of course most people used to word can't figure it out because they have been trained to use the stupidest UI I think I have seen in a while.
Let me just talk about what I was trying to do for a class - with two regular word users.
We had to do some columns and a header on a page. Well, lets compare word to wordpro. In word, you have a blank white area that represents the page and a blinking cursor. In Word Pro you have a page with light grey verticle lines that indicate the margins, and have a break between header/footer, and lines that would indicate columns if you use them.
So in word you make a 2 colomn page. Ok, how do you get to the second column? Where is it anyway? You get no visual feedback at all. We finally figured out through trial and error(remember the other 2 use word for all their papers) that if you hold down enter eventually instead of going to another page, word then creates the second column and the cursor apperars there, and you can add pictures or whatever.
In word pro you create 2 columns, light grey non-printing lines outline the columns, you click in the 2nd column, and type or add pictures or whatever. Yes, you point and click where you want to type. Ingenious in WYSIWYG.
So now we had to make a header with our names across all the pages. In word we were trying to figure out how to do this, going through the 5 menus that may apply, as well as the numerous toolbars, and no one knew how to do it. Finally under insert I think(odd, but whatever) there was headers/footers. I do find it odd the other word users just didn't KNOW this right off, but whatever. So we click on that and get a wizard, which finally lets us put in the text.
In word pro, on a blank new page, guess what, there is the light grey non printing verticle lines that demarkate header space, body, and footer space. Click there and type. Boom, header. Yes, again you point and click where you want to type. Still ingenious in a WYSIWYG environment.
That's just a simple example of the UI differences. I'm sure some of it is I am not used to word, but I mean - good UI is supposed to be self explanatory, at least that's supposedly why windows is so much more popular than linux.
You know, here in buffalo, I saw some 20oz winners, I even got one. I couldn't give it away. No one here saw a value in it, downloading extra software that might mess up your machine, and would take up hd space to get one free file that had restricted use.
But doesn't this imply that it would make more sense all around to move the decoding function into the hardware no matter if it is stand alone or a computer drive? Wouldn't this just fix the problems - and make everyone happy, and be legal? Or make the license fee part of the hardware anyway - it is for music CD-R, so why not for DVD-ROM drives? Then you can either pay for the front end software if you want WinDVD or get an OSS free program to display the video.
You know, I want to second this guy. I'm a more moderate person - don't describe myself as either conservative or liberal, but I just don't have any trouble sleeping at night regarding downloading MP3 or Warez.
Maybe it's the whole lack of face to face contact or whatnot, but where I would never even consider stealing from someone I know, or I can see, I have no fealings about ripping off a coporation, or ever the government. I just have a hard time even at a gut level having morailty apply to orginizations. I don't know why that is. Maybe it's the younger generations. Maybe we really have lost much of the morality of previous generations. I think it does mean that society will change, maybe not in a revolution or a legal battle - but change due to everyone strongly holding to the old ways dying of old age, and then everyone left has less or different morals.
I think many are disinfranchised with the lies and scandles from coporations, tired of the seeming incompetence of government and buracuracy everywhere. We just don't care about the well being of corporations. They certainly don't care about us.
I don't know about society, but at college we all pretty much share all property. People ask before using - but we really have no reason to deny the use of laundry soap, or computer time, or staples or whatever. Many college students really believe in socalism.
I don't have a problem with property rights. But I think that artists need to find a different method to create art and get paid. I personally think that the older patron model worked better - and will work better nowadays. Someone wants some art - pay someone to create it. You want new music? Get a bunch of people together to commission the latest group to do an album, or to come play a concert. I just have a hard time figuring out any way to practically protect non tangible property, and maybe we shouldn't try. Publish for fame if you want, not for money. Trade Secret anything you don't want others using. If it gets out - tough.
Will this diminish the desire for many to get into music or art.. maybe. But I don't think it will really stop that many - they will just work like many scientists do now - for a salary to a company (or rich person) and what they create will be a work for hire and either for the companies eyes only, or benefit all of society.
You know, interestingly I think at some point the market has to come into play here. A large number of americans are just not willing to pay the old prices for music when there are newer alternatives. As to competing with free - well, many companies do. Dsani, RedHat, Companies that publish public domain works... Of course the price has to take into effect that they are competing for free.
I have seriously considered using the allofmp3.com - if I could know that it was legal. I know that the prices they charge are "laughable" but that is a price that I am willing to pay. Would I be willing to pay more? Maybe.
Am I willing to have to download special software that may mess up my computer and pay 99 cents a song that is restricted in format? No. Would I be willing to pay 99 cents a mp3? Maybe... It's not offered so I haven't thought about it. I just won a free download from iTunes through a pepsi cap. I couldn't give it away on my college campus. No one wanted to deal with special software or extra crap, and no one really cared about legal issues either. For college students iTunes just isn't a value. And the RIAA lawsuits just don't seem to influence anyone I've talked to in regards to changing their fileshareing habits.
You know, I really hate the idea of flat across the board limits on most anything. I always prefer some actual thought on each situation. That however is not practical - case by case evaulation. However, I do think that there needs to be a mandatory re-evaulation of a law if it is shown that a large percentage of the population is breaking it. Laws are (as far as I understand) in place to codify and enforce social mores. If 1/3 of the society is breaking the law, it needs to be evaulated. Yes, this would mean evaulating drug laws, speeds set on speed limits, copyright, and probably a whole bunch of other laws. Laws that many break are probably bad laws in some way. The legislature needs to try again.
I agree with your sentiment. I don't like the RIAA nor their actions, however I do have a problem with this:
Whether or not file sharing is legal, moral, or whatnot, I won't support an industry that sues broke college students and 13 year old children. I bought my last piece of RIAA music when they filed the first round of lawsuits.
As anyone trying to be law abiding, it is wrong and unsound to suggest that any segment of the population be exempt from the laws(or exempt from punishment) no matter your personal views on the law. Certainly support fighiting to change the law. But it is dangerous to engender a disrespect for the law. Using hyperbole in an oft use cliche - would you say the same if they were murderers? What about commiting fraud? Identity theft? Where do you draw the line on crimes that are "ok" or "wrong to sue college students over"?
Alice can read her copy to Bob, who transcribes it. Obviously Alice didn't export her copy to Bob -- she still has it, and it never left her hands, much less Russia. But in the end, Bob has a brand new handwritten copy of War and Peace, writer's cramp, and the biggest phone bill ever.
Ok, so there apparently is no law regarding export of books or other media using any electronic media, so it's assumed to be illegal. I can dig that, even though I think it's stupid. I really wasn't implying illegal copying, my point being that iTunes is basically the same, except for the countries. If you pay for the licence to obtain a copy through iTunes then I can hardly see them suing you over illegial copying, when under your argument, they could. This all of course assumes they are licensed with their local people.
I was under the impression that american law did provide an exemption of copyright in so far as the "copy" was necessary due to the architecture of the device to actually use whatever it is that you bought that was getting copied. Actually, that's only for copies of computer software you own. N.b. that copies of EULA'ed software may not be owned by you, at least according to the EULA.
Ok, so you are breaking the law then by watching a DVD or listening to a CD on your computer(or most likely on your DVD player) because they make a copy to working memory to display it? That just doesn't make any sense, and I am sure that any lawsuite brought on those grounds would be dismissed. "You can buy it but can't use it because the very use of it breaks copyright law"???
I just see the mp3 purchase as being the same. In fact, how is this different than looking at a website hosted in a different country? They are digital data, they are copyrighted, they are streamed to your computer, by looking at them you are copying them... How does the same laws not apply to web pages as purchased mp3's? Is the theregister.com going to sue you for looking at theregister.co.uk if you live in the USA? Could they? It seems like decisions regarding purchasing music from overseas for download could affect the entire internet - especially web sites as any act on the net basically requires you to download(making an unauthorized copy by your logic) the site to look at it.
As many people say for tests, your gut instinct is usually the right one.
And my gut says it's ok to be noticed by people on the street, or by a local cop you know... But I know it is wrong in my gut to automate and computerize 24/7 monitoring everyone on all public streets or places.
I think this hits to how the internet needs to be under some sort of international convention/law because I don't clearly see how I'm duplicating something I don't have. I also see that this has far reaching applications for all sorts of services/commerce that more than ever will occur across national boundries. As internet connections get faster and more people use the net as a storage device, yet again things like the Diamond issue will have to be considered. If your storage for information is kept internationally for whatever reason - what laws apply to that?
Should laws change for importation based on if you buy a physical product and have it shipped to you, or if you buy an electronic product and have it e-mailed to you?
It almost seems like the **AA's want to have their cake and eat it too. In some cases they want electronic copies treated like physical copies, i.e. one copy - no other uses than what would be allowed by a physical copy; but in other cases, say when you might be able to purchace something internationally, want it treated under different laws than the analogous physical laws.
I do think that copyright law and laws in general need to take into account differences with the net compared to physical items. However, I also think that as much as possible, the electronic items need to be treated the same as the traditional analogues.
When you are getting a specific item, the delivery method should not restrict or grant more or different rights. Delivery method should not affect rights/laws at all. It just seems absurd that it would be legal for Allofmp3.com to mail me a MP3 CD, but illegial for me to download those MP3's.
And to all the people who say that downloading is reproduction - I say, not any more than running a computer program involves reproduction, or playing an Audio CD on a computer involves reproduction. I was under the impression that american law did provide an exemption of copyright in so far as the "copy" was necessary due to the architecture of the device to actually use whatever it is that you bought that was getting copied.
I think the point is that as absurd as it may seem, eventually(hopefully soon) the law will have to define copying in regards to electrons. I personally see storing electrons sent to you is the same as storing a CD sent to you. Copying is when you have an original and then duplicate it some way. As to sending a physical object - electrons are physical. I know, this is absurd level of techinicality, but it is very important to how copyright law will work.
I don't think we have figured out a way to transmit information without involving physical particles at some point, so if people want to get technical - photons and electrons - they are physical. When you listen to anything - you are making a copy... analogous to the way the internet makes a copy. I believe copyright law in the US does not cover a copy necessary to utilize the data, for instance in RAM, or the sound waves that are a physical disturbance in the air so we can hear them. Copyright law falls apart because it never envisioned us making electrons so cheap to make.
I sadly do not have an answer, but I see it as just as intellectually defendable to claim that the copy is made at the server side(probably more so actually - when you compare to physical duplication) as it is made on the recievers computer. And what about the copy on the net while in transfer?
I still want to know how this is different from stores putting generic drugs right next to Advil for instance and in posters exhorting you to switch and save. Or having Bounty next to Viva paper towels. You go looking for Advil, you find it and next to it is the stores version for $2 less with an ad there. Google, you search for Advil, in search results there it is, right next to it in ad words is business's x's version for $2. I honestly do not see a difference.
Ok, but the ads are CLEARLY separate from the search results. HOW CAN YOU be confused? IS THE PERSON AN IDIOT? I just can't figure it out. Domain names are different, it's like going to a specific address - well, that is what it is.
Doing a search, getting back unbiased search results - and some ads on the side. The ads are in no way misleading(at least google makes them very clear that they are ads) and anyone who expects any ads regarding a company to be from that company are, well, STUPID. Heck, anyone who believes ads at face value diserves what they get.
I mean, let's engage in some hyperbole, do people regularly think the anti drug ads on TV are from drug dealers? Do people think Kerry pays for the Anti - Kerry ads? What about the old Pepsi Challenge? I remember those ads mentioning Coke, surely no one thought those ads were from Coke?
Ads either mention or imply companies all the time, and I don't assume those companies are behind the ad. Usually at the end there is a blurb about who ran the ad. Now that probably should be the case online too, but it is the advirtiser's responsibility to do that, not the "tv station's".
Actually, in New York State, one of the biggest phonebooks around, The Yellow Book, does have symbols in white pages saying see ads in the yellow page section. Not quite the same, but similar I would think - as close as you might get in a printed book. Note that this phonebook is not put out by a phone company, but it is one of the most used all around the state because it has better white pages and better yellow pages - they also give it away for free - the ads pay for the book and shipping. It also has nice things like menus of local restaurants in it - ads I know - but useful to many.
Ok, I have to say that you are stupid if you can't figure out that ads may only be tangentally related to your search. I mean, come on - they are ads! I mean, if you are looking for foo, and find foo in the white pages, and some ads for it - and you can't seem to figure out what the ads are for - then use the white pages(search result)! If you get confused that easily, you don't need more stupid disclaimers - you need assisted living.
This is a case of trying to get even more stupid "warnings" out there everywhere. The warnings don't help anyone, they just make everyone with an IQ in double digits laugh. I'm sorry, but the people who try and stop that sweedish chainsaw with their genitals probably didn't read the warning label.
What is happening here is that a competitor is "buying" an advert imprint on Google when the word "axa" is in the search criteria. Its pretty much the same thing as a billboard saying "Get your Coca Cola here" with an arrow down to a Pepsi fridge, or a table with your home-made lemonade.
I don't see it like that at all. I think it is much more like when you go looking for advil in ANY store, and there is Advil(the search results) and right next to it is the store brand saying Switch and Save!!! under it(The ad words results). Are you saying that stores should not place competing products next to each other on their shelves? I see this as the same thing.
It's clear that the adwords ads aren't search results. The only way it would be trademark infringement is if the competitor in the ad that appeared actually claimed to be advil. IF they say Bayre Asprin - better than other pain killers, or whatever they put in the ad, that isn't trademark infringement.
I support the bill of rights, but so many "rights" that people argue for are not in the constitution.
It's when I see arguments like these that I am glad the founding fathers reluctantly decided that the most important rights needed to be laid out in the constitution.
You may be suprised to know this, but many of the founders thought that the bill of rights was unnecessary and redundant - that as they so clearlty stated earlier - they held "these rights to be self-evident". The way the founders meant the constitution to be intreperted was in a permissive sense, in that if it did not forbid something, then it should default to being allowed.
To be clearer, rights are not enumerated, they do not need to be laid out in law - they are. Laws are only necessary to infringe or restrict rights.
Re:I haven't got a clue about Indian law..
on
Update on Playfair
·
· Score: 1
Well, the EUCD won't really affect Norway, as they are not part of the EU.
I don't know, IRC never seemed to be that good for chat, especially if you are a newbie(which everyone is at some time). They have whole textbook lenght webpages they direct you to so you can chat. And the communities that I as a newbie can find suck. Certainly there is little chatting in most, or for instance in politics they just shout at each other whatever the party line of the day is. Then they ban you based on your nick one day, before you can even type a sentance.
If I want to chat in a community, I go to filetopia. If I want to shout at other people, there is yahoo chat. Both make it much clearer what the chat rooms are for, and how to find one on a topic you are interested in. Both work much better IMHO for chat than IRC.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the reality that so many people cannot face is that many, if not most, of the people in it don't believe in morals.. i.e. They don't have any. They may not even have a conscience. Just as the Ken Lay's don't feel bad about stealing the millions he has, just as Bill Gates doesn't feel bad about his underhanded business practices, just as Jack Valenti felt no pangs at his organizations actions, so too the downloaders, pirates, gang members etc. see no problem with what they do, and certainly do not feel any remorse over the laws they break or the people they rip off. It is an epidemic across america at all levels. So I find it odd that the media mogouls and the parents and the government find it so shocking that everyone else is basically just like them.
Well, I don't know. My old Highschool is way worse now 5 years after I left then when I went there. My sister sadly has to deal not only with teachers who spend more time talking about their sex lives than the material, but teachers who are abscent more often than they are present.
The school cannot fire these teachers, not only are they tenured, but the school doesn't pay the $$ to get anyone else to apply. Just recently they rehired one of the talk about my sex life, and forget about teaching the class while seeing if I can get it on with one of the girls teachers who everyone was glad left because they needed a teacher, and he was who applied! Not only that, but he has experiance in chemistry and physics, so they re hire him to teach earth science. OK, whatever.
Too many classes are tought by teachers who don't understand the material, or are teaching from reading 2 chapters ahead in the book. Luckily my sister has a family that has mostly gone to college and can help her along - and has friends who's parents also help teach what is required from the Regents but lost by the teachers. Honestly, now that I think about it, I almost would recommend homeschooling at this point were she not about ready to graduate. I mean, mostly that's what she gets anyway - why make her waste time in class?
It's not just the teachers though, the state reorganized many of the subjects 2 years ago for some reason. I was shocked that my sister was in 10th grade, Highschool math class, had done algebra and was now into trig, and didn't have a clue what the Quadratic Equation was when I asked. She, and the entire class was unable to solve an equation that could not be factored. It wasn't part of the corriculum.
Now with the prevelance of graphing calculators, and their allowed use on the Regents, I'm afraid come calculous, they won't even be tought the proofs of the derivatives they use. Granted I've forgotten almost all I ever learned about calculous due to non use, but math is all about learning WHY you get to that answer, not just how to do the problem. But if the calculator can do it for you, why bother even understanding how the calcualtor gets the answer - trust that it is right.
That's what scares me. I'm way into computers more than the average person, and I am shocked how many people just blindly trust whatever a computer spits out because the "computer can't be wrong"! Well, I ask - "How do you know that?". Most never EVEN thought to ask the question, much less have an answer ready.
I asked my roommate if he had heard about the scandal in CA with DieBold. He's a sociology major. He hadn't heard, so I said I'm against electronic voting. He said "Why, wouldn't it be better? It would make it easier for people to vote, and they would be assured they made a valid vote." He hadn't even considered the issue of tampering. And he's a sociology major, who has taken classes in criminology. They blindly trust machines and don't seem to connect the fact that machines just do what someone "tells" them to, and that it should be important to a user to know who that someone is and they need to understand they are trusting that person.
Sorry for the rant, just giving another point of view, and where some of the problems stem from my vantage point.
I quake in my boots at installing Microsoft software, and Symantec software can be a huge pain. I usually have more problems with the big companies than the shareware like getright(Which I did pay for - 2 times they offer optional upgrade payments). Adobe Acrobat Reader seems ok too. Sorry for the tangent on "good" windows software vs "bad" but I just think Mac users need to understand that windows users are more at risk from Major vendors than any others in terms of system stability, uninstallibility, and changes to really unrelated parts of the OS.
Hmmm, well I have no idea, and again apparently neither did the word users in my team. In fact I often felt like I had more idea how word worked than they did. And we are all CIS majors. IDK. Sad really. And I don't care much about learning word, at least until I have to. This use was in the college library, and I have no idea what is enabled or not.
I think that would be a good idea. First, they really aren't updating it anymore(and many will agree that there is little more to add to word processors anyway), and I doubt many are buying it. It is sad, not having SmartSuit is one major thing keeping me away from Linux. If they don't want to opensource it so that the community can get a professonal level suite of spreadsheet, wordprocessing, database(well desktop database), organizer, and powerpoint replacement, then at least port it to linux and sell it for a reasonable amount. Say $50-$75. Compete with Sun. The more you can offer that you make, the better off you are - and getting the word out about alternatives to word is a good idea IMHO.
I was just going to comment on Lotus Word Pro(my wordprocessor of choice). Compared to MS Word, it is a UI wet dream. Of course most people used to word can't figure it out because they have been trained to use the stupidest UI I think I have seen in a while.
Let me just talk about what I was trying to do for a class - with two regular word users.
We had to do some columns and a header on a page. Well, lets compare word to wordpro. In word, you have a blank white area that represents the page and a blinking cursor. In Word Pro you have a page with light grey verticle lines that indicate the margins, and have a break between header/footer, and lines that would indicate columns if you use them.
So in word you make a 2 colomn page. Ok, how do you get to the second column? Where is it anyway? You get no visual feedback at all. We finally figured out through trial and error(remember the other 2 use word for all their papers) that if you hold down enter eventually instead of going to another page, word then creates the second column and the cursor apperars there, and you can add pictures or whatever.
In word pro you create 2 columns, light grey non-printing lines outline the columns, you click in the 2nd column, and type or add pictures or whatever. Yes, you point and click where you want to type. Ingenious in WYSIWYG.
So now we had to make a header with our names across all the pages. In word we were trying to figure out how to do this, going through the 5 menus that may apply, as well as the numerous toolbars, and no one knew how to do it. Finally under insert I think(odd, but whatever) there was headers/footers. I do find it odd the other word users just didn't KNOW this right off, but whatever. So we click on that and get a wizard, which finally lets us put in the text.
In word pro, on a blank new page, guess what, there is the light grey non printing verticle lines that demarkate header space, body, and footer space. Click there and type. Boom, header. Yes, again you point and click where you want to type. Still ingenious in a WYSIWYG environment.
That's just a simple example of the UI differences. I'm sure some of it is I am not used to word, but I mean - good UI is supposed to be self explanatory, at least that's supposedly why windows is so much more popular than linux.
You know, here in buffalo, I saw some 20oz winners, I even got one. I couldn't give it away. No one here saw a value in it, downloading extra software that might mess up your machine, and would take up hd space to get one free file that had restricted use.
But doesn't this imply that it would make more sense all around to move the decoding function into the hardware no matter if it is stand alone or a computer drive? Wouldn't this just fix the problems - and make everyone happy, and be legal? Or make the license fee part of the hardware anyway - it is for music CD-R, so why not for DVD-ROM drives? Then you can either pay for the front end software if you want WinDVD or get an OSS free program to display the video.
Odly enough, this site, in Opera 7.23 seems to auto redirect to Opera's web site about the beta version that is out right now.
You know, I want to second this guy. I'm a more moderate person - don't describe myself as either conservative or liberal, but I just don't have any trouble sleeping at night regarding downloading MP3 or Warez.
Maybe it's the whole lack of face to face contact or whatnot, but where I would never even consider stealing from someone I know, or I can see, I have no fealings about ripping off a coporation, or ever the government. I just have a hard time even at a gut level having morailty apply to orginizations. I don't know why that is. Maybe it's the younger generations. Maybe we really have lost much of the morality of previous generations. I think it does mean that society will change, maybe not in a revolution or a legal battle - but change due to everyone strongly holding to the old ways dying of old age, and then everyone left has less or different morals.
I think many are disinfranchised with the lies and scandles from coporations, tired of the seeming incompetence of government and buracuracy everywhere. We just don't care about the well being of corporations. They certainly don't care about us.
I don't know about society, but at college we all pretty much share all property. People ask before using - but we really have no reason to deny the use of laundry soap, or computer time, or staples or whatever. Many college students really believe in socalism.
I don't have a problem with property rights. But I think that artists need to find a different method to create art and get paid. I personally think that the older patron model worked better - and will work better nowadays. Someone wants some art - pay someone to create it. You want new music? Get a bunch of people together to commission the latest group to do an album, or to come play a concert. I just have a hard time figuring out any way to practically protect non tangible property, and maybe we shouldn't try. Publish for fame if you want, not for money. Trade Secret anything you don't want others using. If it gets out - tough.
Will this diminish the desire for many to get into music or art.. maybe. But I don't think it will really stop that many - they will just work like many scientists do now - for a salary to a company (or rich person) and what they create will be a work for hire and either for the companies eyes only, or benefit all of society.
You know, interestingly I think at some point the market has to come into play here. A large number of americans are just not willing to pay the old prices for music when there are newer alternatives. As to competing with free - well, many companies do. Dsani, RedHat, Companies that publish public domain works... Of course the price has to take into effect that they are competing for free.
I have seriously considered using the allofmp3.com - if I could know that it was legal. I know that the prices they charge are "laughable" but that is a price that I am willing to pay. Would I be willing to pay more? Maybe.
Am I willing to have to download special software that may mess up my computer and pay 99 cents a song that is restricted in format? No. Would I be willing to pay 99 cents a mp3? Maybe... It's not offered so I haven't thought about it. I just won a free download from iTunes through a pepsi cap. I couldn't give it away on my college campus. No one wanted to deal with special software or extra crap, and no one really cared about legal issues either. For college students iTunes just isn't a value. And the RIAA lawsuits just don't seem to influence anyone I've talked to in regards to changing their fileshareing habits.
You know, I really hate the idea of flat across the board limits on most anything. I always prefer some actual thought on each situation. That however is not practical - case by case evaulation. However, I do think that there needs to be a mandatory re-evaulation of a law if it is shown that a large percentage of the population is breaking it. Laws are (as far as I understand) in place to codify and enforce social mores. If 1/3 of the society is breaking the law, it needs to be evaulated. Yes, this would mean evaulating drug laws, speeds set on speed limits, copyright, and probably a whole bunch of other laws. Laws that many break are probably bad laws in some way. The legislature needs to try again.
I agree with your sentiment. I don't like the RIAA nor their actions, however I do have a problem with this:
Whether or not file sharing is legal, moral, or whatnot, I won't support an industry that sues broke college students and 13 year old children. I bought my last piece of RIAA music when they filed the first round of lawsuits.
As anyone trying to be law abiding, it is wrong and unsound to suggest that any segment of the population be exempt from the laws(or exempt from punishment) no matter your personal views on the law. Certainly support fighiting to change the law. But it is dangerous to engender a disrespect for the law. Using hyperbole in an oft use cliche - would you say the same if they were murderers? What about commiting fraud? Identity theft? Where do you draw the line on crimes that are "ok" or "wrong to sue college students over"?
Alice can read her copy to Bob, who transcribes it. Obviously Alice didn't export her copy to Bob -- she still has it, and it never left her hands, much less Russia. But in the end, Bob has a brand new handwritten copy of War and Peace, writer's cramp, and the biggest phone bill ever.
Ok, so there apparently is no law regarding export of books or other media using any electronic media, so it's assumed to be illegal. I can dig that, even though I think it's stupid. I really wasn't implying illegal copying, my point being that iTunes is basically the same, except for the countries. If you pay for the licence to obtain a copy through iTunes then I can hardly see them suing you over illegial copying, when under your argument, they could. This all of course assumes they are licensed with their local people.
I was under the impression that american law did provide an exemption of copyright in so far as the "copy" was necessary due to the architecture of the device to actually use whatever it is that you bought that was getting copied.
Actually, that's only for copies of computer software you own. N.b. that copies of EULA'ed software may not be owned by you, at least according to the EULA.
Ok, so you are breaking the law then by watching a DVD or listening to a CD on your computer(or most likely on your DVD player) because they make a copy to working memory to display it? That just doesn't make any sense, and I am sure that any lawsuite brought on those grounds would be dismissed. "You can buy it but can't use it because the very use of it breaks copyright law"???
I just see the mp3 purchase as being the same. In fact, how is this different than looking at a website hosted in a different country? They are digital data, they are copyrighted, they are streamed to your computer, by looking at them you are copying them... How does the same laws not apply to web pages as purchased mp3's? Is the theregister.com going to sue you for looking at theregister.co.uk if you live in the USA? Could they? It seems like decisions regarding purchasing music from overseas for download could affect the entire internet - especially web sites as any act on the net basically requires you to download(making an unauthorized copy by your logic) the site to look at it.
As many people say for tests, your gut instinct is usually the right one.
And my gut says it's ok to be noticed by people on the street, or by a local cop you know... But I know it is wrong in my gut to automate and computerize 24/7 monitoring everyone on all public streets or places.
I think this hits to how the internet needs to be under some sort of international convention/law because I don't clearly see how I'm duplicating something I don't have. I also see that this has far reaching applications for all sorts of services/commerce that more than ever will occur across national boundries. As internet connections get faster and more people use the net as a storage device, yet again things like the Diamond issue will have to be considered. If your storage for information is kept internationally for whatever reason - what laws apply to that?
Should laws change for importation based on if you buy a physical product and have it shipped to you, or if you buy an electronic product and have it e-mailed to you?
It almost seems like the **AA's want to have their cake and eat it too. In some cases they want electronic copies treated like physical copies, i.e. one copy - no other uses than what would be allowed by a physical copy; but in other cases, say when you might be able to purchace something internationally, want it treated under different laws than the analogous physical laws.
I do think that copyright law and laws in general need to take into account differences with the net compared to physical items. However, I also think that as much as possible, the electronic items need to be treated the same as the traditional analogues.
When you are getting a specific item, the delivery method should not restrict or grant more or different rights. Delivery method should not affect rights/laws at all. It just seems absurd that it would be legal for Allofmp3.com to mail me a MP3 CD, but illegial for me to download those MP3's.
And to all the people who say that downloading is reproduction - I say, not any more than running a computer program involves reproduction, or playing an Audio CD on a computer involves reproduction. I was under the impression that american law did provide an exemption of copyright in so far as the "copy" was necessary due to the architecture of the device to actually use whatever it is that you bought that was getting copied.
I think the point is that as absurd as it may seem, eventually(hopefully soon) the law will have to define copying in regards to electrons. I personally see storing electrons sent to you is the same as storing a CD sent to you. Copying is when you have an original and then duplicate it some way. As to sending a physical object - electrons are physical. I know, this is absurd level of techinicality, but it is very important to how copyright law will work.
... analogous to the way the internet makes a copy. I believe copyright law in the US does not cover a copy necessary to utilize the data, for instance in RAM, or the sound waves that are a physical disturbance in the air so we can hear them. Copyright law falls apart because it never envisioned us making electrons so cheap to make.
I don't think we have figured out a way to transmit information without involving physical particles at some point, so if people want to get technical - photons and electrons - they are physical. When you listen to anything - you are making a copy
I sadly do not have an answer, but I see it as just as intellectually defendable to claim that the copy is made at the server side(probably more so actually - when you compare to physical duplication) as it is made on the recievers computer. And what about the copy on the net while in transfer?
I still want to know how this is different from stores putting generic drugs right next to Advil for instance and in posters exhorting you to switch and save. Or having Bounty next to Viva paper towels. You go looking for Advil, you find it and next to it is the stores version for $2 less with an ad there. Google, you search for Advil, in search results there it is, right next to it in ad words is business's x's version for $2. I honestly do not see a difference.
Ok, but the ads are CLEARLY separate from the search results. HOW CAN YOU be confused? IS THE PERSON AN IDIOT? I just can't figure it out. Domain names are different, it's like going to a specific address - well, that is what it is.
Doing a search, getting back unbiased search results - and some ads on the side. The ads are in no way misleading(at least google makes them very clear that they are ads) and anyone who expects any ads regarding a company to be from that company are, well, STUPID. Heck, anyone who believes ads at face value diserves what they get.
I mean, let's engage in some hyperbole, do people regularly think the anti drug ads on TV are from drug dealers? Do people think Kerry pays for the Anti - Kerry ads? What about the old Pepsi Challenge? I remember those ads mentioning Coke, surely no one thought those ads were from Coke?
Ads either mention or imply companies all the time, and I don't assume those companies are behind the ad. Usually at the end there is a blurb about who ran the ad. Now that probably should be the case online too, but it is the advirtiser's responsibility to do that, not the "tv station's".
Actually, in New York State, one of the biggest phonebooks around, The Yellow Book, does have symbols in white pages saying see ads in the yellow page section. Not quite the same, but similar I would think - as close as you might get in a printed book. Note that this phonebook is not put out by a phone company, but it is one of the most used all around the state because it has better white pages and better yellow pages - they also give it away for free - the ads pay for the book and shipping. It also has nice things like menus of local restaurants in it - ads I know - but useful to many.
Ok, I have to say that you are stupid if you can't figure out that ads may only be tangentally related to your search. I mean, come on - they are ads! I mean, if you are looking for foo, and find foo in the white pages, and some ads for it - and you can't seem to figure out what the ads are for - then use the white pages(search result)! If you get confused that easily, you don't need more stupid disclaimers - you need assisted living.
This is a case of trying to get even more stupid "warnings" out there everywhere. The warnings don't help anyone, they just make everyone with an IQ in double digits laugh. I'm sorry, but the people who try and stop that sweedish chainsaw with their genitals probably didn't read the warning label.
What is happening here is that a competitor is "buying" an advert imprint on Google when the word "axa" is in the search criteria. Its pretty much the same thing as a billboard saying "Get your Coca Cola here" with an arrow down to a Pepsi fridge, or a table with your home-made lemonade.
I don't see it like that at all. I think it is much more like when you go looking for advil in ANY store, and there is Advil(the search results) and right next to it is the store brand saying Switch and Save!!! under it(The ad words results). Are you saying that stores should not place competing products next to each other on their shelves? I see this as the same thing.
It's clear that the adwords ads aren't search results. The only way it would be trademark infringement is if the competitor in the ad that appeared actually claimed to be advil. IF they say Bayre Asprin - better than other pain killers, or whatever they put in the ad, that isn't trademark infringement.
I support the bill of rights, but so many "rights" that people argue for are not in the constitution.
It's when I see arguments like these that I am glad the founding fathers reluctantly decided that the most important rights needed to be laid out in the constitution.
You may be suprised to know this, but many of the founders thought that the bill of rights was unnecessary and redundant - that as they so clearlty stated earlier - they held "these rights to be self-evident". The way the founders meant the constitution to be intreperted was in a permissive sense, in that if it did not forbid something, then it should default to being allowed.
To be clearer, rights are not enumerated, they do not need to be laid out in law - they are. Laws are only necessary to infringe or restrict rights.
Well, the EUCD won't really affect Norway, as they are not part of the EU.
I don't know, IRC never seemed to be that good for chat, especially if you are a newbie(which everyone is at some time). They have whole textbook lenght webpages they direct you to so you can chat. And the communities that I as a newbie can find suck. Certainly there is little chatting in most, or for instance in politics they just shout at each other whatever the party line of the day is. Then they ban you based on your nick one day, before you can even type a sentance.
If I want to chat in a community, I go to filetopia. If I want to shout at other people, there is yahoo chat. Both make it much clearer what the chat rooms are for, and how to find one on a topic you are interested in. Both work much better IMHO for chat than IRC.