Mozilla is not exactly a product for end users. At least, it is not the general end user that the Mozilla project has in mind.
The Mozilla goal is not to enable users to read the web. The Mozilla goal is to provide a sane platform for developers and users to communicate via web and related standards. I prefer sanity over short-sighted pragmatism. To some like me, this seems to be a desirable long-term goal.
You misunderstand me. I don't mind receiving spam.
Some people are strangely paranoid about it, but it really isn't costing me any money and time (and I don't even bother to hide my email address from anyone). If you can't manage your email, you should probably stick to written correspondence.
Anyway, I am not complaining about how ISPs charge for their bandwidth. I just do not believe that the entire burden of cost of shipping junk mail is absorbed by bulk emailers. If, in fact it is, then that just shows that the entire burden of cost could also be absorbed by spammers.
This seems to me more like another case of the Slashdot community expecting the government to "solve" a non-problem (which will really just cause more real problems). Why are people such pansies about spam?
How is online spam any different from junk mail, then? In both cases, the spammer is paying to send the stuff. If you look closely at the situation, you'd see that the hidden costs of junk mail are really the same as the costs you perceive with online spam. Perhaps you should convince ISPs to charge spammers more. I bet most do. If they're sending bulk email, have them pay bulk email prices.
I don't think it will be possible to argue that source code is always expression.
The problem is that the judges will most likely
be more interested in the functional attributes
of distributed information. Thus perhaps the argument should focus on the defendants' intentions -- there seems to be no evidence of any intent to violate copyright law (other than certain arguably unconstitutional provisions of the DMCA).
Furthermore, those that benefit from intellectual property rights tend to make the strongest analogies between such rights and real property rights. Look at the MPAA's arguments here, and
look at the RIAA's typical arguments. This is nonsense. Intellectual property rights were never created because of some seemingly intrinsic right -- quite the contrary. Intellectual property rights were implemented to bring about a certain good, and that good is the production of easily copyable services. However, today these rights have been extended to such ridiculous extent that it grants many unnecessary and unfair priveleges to publishers.
Also, if you still feel that you must stick to analogies to real property, consider this. Giving someone the source code to a program is not giving them an actual object; it is quite simply giving them information. Is it illegal to tell someone how to pick a lock? Surely lock-picking causes far more property rights violations than DeCSS. Is it illegal to tell someone how to steal a car?
Car theft most definitely stings people every day.
So why should it be illegal to tell someone how to crack the encryption on a DVD?
If eventually it is ruled that distributing DeCSS in any form is illegal, then a ridiculous precedent will have been set. If such an important right as free exchange of information can be throttled in order to grant more priveleges to a very priveleged set of people, where no harm has been observed or measured, consider what this means in those situations where there is an
easily observable and measurable harm. It would mean that the dissemination of any information that could conceivably contribute to any illegal activity would be at risk.
So please, no more talk of source code as beautiful and expressive. You're simply overcomplicating the matter and thus weakening the case. The distribution of source code is quite simply the exchange of information. Is it reasonable to prohibit me from reading the source code to another individual? Why must it be different if I ftp it to another individual?
Imagine the bloat from handling 101 keys! Blast those keyboard manufacturers for making those 104 key (and more) keyboards! Why do you think Windows became so bloated? Because of those damn Windows keys! I want to go back to the telegraph! That was so much easier to operate!
No, if anything relativity applied Newtonian physics to non-Euclidean geometries. Quantum mechanics is not a "generalization" of relativity. In fact, in some cases, relativity and quantum mechanics conflict. This is because relativity focuses on very massive objects and very large distances, whereas quantum mechanics focuses on very tiny objects and very small distances. What do you mean by "strong gravitational effects"? Gravity is the weakest force, at any scale. Superstring theory is, I suppose, one of the more developed theories that attempts to resolve these conflicts. Progress in physics is not described by the concept of further generalization. It is better described as the resolution of conflicts between theory and observed properties of reality, and sometimes as a refinement of mathematics.
Assuming Google were a portal (which it's not), what would happen if Google decided to push into other areas, such as directory services (oops, already done), phone number listings, a translation service, or whatever?
Apparently no such trademark even exists. The only trademark owned, I believe, was something like "Corinthiao," or some such Portuguese word. This is the sort of behavior that makes me long to see such blatantly unfair organizations as the WIPO disbanded.
And how is the average user, searching for his favorite company's web site, supposed to know this? The original base of operations of some companies has become obscure knowledge, the subject of trivia questions and the like.
Not a very good scheme. What I like best about the Internet is how it does away with the need for arbitrary geographic borders. Instead, I'd rather see an hierarchy based on trademark classes. After all, two entities can share the same trademark if each entity is using the trademark for distinctly different purposes. A hierarchy based on categories would be allow trademark disputes to be handled in a reasonable and fair manner. Not only that, but such a hierarchy would make it easier for users to find things. I don't see what use a geographic hierarchy serves (except on the government level).
This has nothing to do with R-rated movies. There is no law that enforces restrictions against movie theaters or rental places allowing minors to see any movie. See if you can figure out why.
Maybe Resident Evil (and it's spawn) fits this category. Bad acting, boring plot (boring game!), and stupid characters. Only the setting is slightly off. Yep, it's been done!
When a game is so crude that all that is required to advance is to hold down a key, you'd be an idiot to actually sit there and hold down the key yourself. But a program to run on top of the client and do things for you? Brilliant! If something is so easy yet tedious to do that it's easier to write a computer program to do it, why not write a computer program to do it? That's the whole point of tools. The ethical cheater will choose the tool that will best get the job done.
Your analogy to a football game is a poor one. Football is more of a test of athletic ability than mental ability. The shotgun is a physical threat and action that allows one to bypass one's opponents. I suppose my cheating rhetoric only applies to less athletic games, I suppose. A good cheat is the application of mental skill to bypass arbitrary obstacles imposed by the structure of the game itself, not your opponents.
My point exactly! (except for the load of crap comment) There are those that would call what your friend did cheating (with a negative connotation), simply because a player obtained a massive advantage due to exploiting something the creator of the game did not consider. There are those that whine "You're ruining the game for those that want to play!" They're only ruining it for the sheep. These sorts of cheaters have just as much right to play, in their own way, as everyone else does.
Concerning inventory duplicators, etc., I still consider those innovative. Not the actual running of one that someone else created (script kiddie style). Actually hacking the binary and/or protocol and using all your skills to determine how to get what you want is just an alternative way of playing the same game.
Some of us approach games from a less naive point of view. Rather than seeing them as the man expects us to (heh), we see a technical challenge. Games tend to define a goal, and game developers tend to encourage a single approach to achieving that goal. Cheaters approach a game from a more open viewpoint. In this regard cheaters are the innovators. Cheaters see that there is more than one way to achieve the stated goal. It is when script kiddies of the cheating world misuse these cheats that problems occur.
Slashdot Mirror
The Mozilla goal is not to enable users to read the web. The Mozilla goal is to provide a sane platform for developers and users to communicate via web and related standards. I prefer sanity over short-sighted pragmatism. To some like me, this seems to be a desirable long-term goal.
Logan
Logan
Anyway, I am not complaining about how ISPs charge for their bandwidth. I just do not believe that the entire burden of cost of shipping junk mail is absorbed by bulk emailers. If, in fact it is, then that just shows that the entire burden of cost could also be absorbed by spammers.
This seems to me more like another case of the Slashdot community expecting the government to "solve" a non-problem (which will really just cause more real problems). Why are people such pansies about spam?
Logan
Logan
Furthermore, those that benefit from intellectual property rights tend to make the strongest analogies between such rights and real property rights. Look at the MPAA's arguments here, and look at the RIAA's typical arguments. This is nonsense. Intellectual property rights were never created because of some seemingly intrinsic right -- quite the contrary. Intellectual property rights were implemented to bring about a certain good, and that good is the production of easily copyable services. However, today these rights have been extended to such ridiculous extent that it grants many unnecessary and unfair priveleges to publishers.
Also, if you still feel that you must stick to analogies to real property, consider this. Giving someone the source code to a program is not giving them an actual object; it is quite simply giving them information. Is it illegal to tell someone how to pick a lock? Surely lock-picking causes far more property rights violations than DeCSS. Is it illegal to tell someone how to steal a car? Car theft most definitely stings people every day. So why should it be illegal to tell someone how to crack the encryption on a DVD?
If eventually it is ruled that distributing DeCSS in any form is illegal, then a ridiculous precedent will have been set. If such an important right as free exchange of information can be throttled in order to grant more priveleges to a very priveleged set of people, where no harm has been observed or measured, consider what this means in those situations where there is an easily observable and measurable harm. It would mean that the dissemination of any information that could conceivably contribute to any illegal activity would be at risk.
So please, no more talk of source code as beautiful and expressive. You're simply overcomplicating the matter and thus weakening the case. The distribution of source code is quite simply the exchange of information. Is it reasonable to prohibit me from reading the source code to another individual? Why must it be different if I ftp it to another individual?
Logan
logan
Possession of legal software such as Napster should only be punished when a crime is proven to have been committed.
logan
Now for some truth: Libertarian Party Platform: Freedom of Religion
logan
logan
logan
logan
logan
logan
logan
logan
logan
logan
logan
logan
logan
logan
logan
Your analogy to a football game is a poor one. Football is more of a test of athletic ability than mental ability. The shotgun is a physical threat and action that allows one to bypass one's opponents. I suppose my cheating rhetoric only applies to less athletic games, I suppose. A good cheat is the application of mental skill to bypass arbitrary obstacles imposed by the structure of the game itself, not your opponents.
logan
Concerning inventory duplicators, etc., I still consider those innovative. Not the actual running of one that someone else created (script kiddie style). Actually hacking the binary and/or protocol and using all your skills to determine how to get what you want is just an alternative way of playing the same game.
logan
logan