honestly, i can't believe the number of people here saying "this is just bullshit and fearmongering"...
in canada, for hundreds of years, the cod fishery supported a large percentage of the population of eastern canada, in food and jobs. the grand banks area was one of the most fertile in the world, fishing boats from all over the world were harvesting hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cod each year.
despite dire predictions and "the sky is falling" warnings, first by local fishermen and then finally by scientists by the mid-80s, the canadian government downplayed the reports and did virtually nothing to protect the fishery. it was too important to the economy, investment, industry profits, and jobs.
one other slashdotter noted that the cod fishery is currently "in a state of decline". that's like saying john f. kennedy is a little under the weather.
THE FISH ARE FREAKIN' GONE!
in the mid-90s, the cod fishery collapsed utterly and completely. the canadian government finally instituted a complete ban on cod fishing - because there were no more fish! the stock is nearly completely wiped out, only a few thousand tonnes left, and shows no sign of recovering.
massive unemployment ensued, and economic devastation in the whole region. hundreds of small communities became ghost towns. the federal government has had to put in billions of dollars in relief funding. people are slowly trying to move to a different economy, for example a lot of call centres have been set up in newfoundland, with the government subsidising their construction, and the cheap labour available because of such high unemployment. but it ain't quite the same anymore...
i have to say this is one of the most shocking things i've ever seen happen in canada (ok, so canada isn't the most exciting place in the world). how could canada, despite adequate warnings and predictions, allow the atlantic cod fishery - one of the defining aspects of canadian culture, not to mention the economy - to simply vanish? how could we be so short-sighted? such idiots?
so you all can put your fingers in your ears and say "nah nah nah, i can't hear you, this will never happen". well let me tell ya bye's, it already has...
the tradgedy is that it could have been prevented, if appropriate fishing quotas had been in place. hopefully this study will motivate that, to prevent future eradication of other ocean stocks. i mean, even george w. "global warming is a myth" bush has just signed on to the moratorium on deep-sea trawlers. so you know, this isn't just "the sky is falling" bullshit. the sky is actually falling. but it's not too late to prop it up.
you don't pay the fee when you buy your computer. they send you a form in the mail, and you are supposed to voluntarily tell them if you have a radio/tv/computer. if you tell them you don't, they send thugs around to your house to check.
even if you have them, it's very difficult for the hobbyist to construct this kind of board at home. the xscale processors used are only available in a BGA (ball grid array) package, impossible to solder by hand. the boards are multilayer. this trend is only getting worse as devices are under pressure to be smaller and smaller, the latest component packages are designed only for robotic assembly, which has taken over from hand assembly for all upscale electronic products.
furthermore porting linux to run on your home-brew board design is not a simple thing.
for most hobbyists (without a reflow oven and a lot of experience) buying a board with a linux distro already ported to it is the only reasonable option. the gumstix boards have bus connectors so you can extend them with your own i/o devices if you want.
having said that, i'd be very curious to know what the actual prototype design process is for the gumstix people...
by the way, here's another open-source hardware project: http://balloonboard.org/...the boards are *very* expensive to buy, and very difficult to make by yourself. so i don't really see the advantage myself...
there are literally billions of 8- and 16-bit microcontrollers shipped each year. so there must be jobs out there somewhere! granted, it only takes one designer to make a product that can ship a hundred thousand units - and the companies doing that probably won't hire a two-year certificate guy to design that. but there's also a lot of small-run and custom work, done by smaller engineering shops.
go ask your question on the piclist mailing list, you'll get a lot more coherent answers than the ones here.
ok, fess up, how many of you have enjoyed songs on the radio with no intention of going out to see the band play live? how many of you have changed channels or gone to the kitchen during a commercial? that's not just stealing, it's Raping and Pillaging! the only way we can stop you is for the police to wiretap *everyone* just to see what the hell they're doing. chances are they would catch a lot more people doing bad things that way. in fact, why don't we install webcams in everyone's room so the police can keep an eye on you? if you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have a problem with that.
and hey, let's change the law so that non-commercial personal music copying changes from something that the music industry can sue you for monetary damages for, into a property crime! i bet the threat of jail time and a criminal record would really help cut down on this raping and pillaging! in california, people have received life sentences for stealing a pizza slice, since it was their third conviction for property crimes. three MP3's and you're out!
i say, let's use any means necessary to stop this heinous activity of "failure to support small bands" that is destroying the fabric of our society.
because you know, even though 90% of the songs people listen to on the radio or download are crap that they listen to just once or twice and would never in a million years listen to if it wasn't free, they should be forced to pay the full retail price for each and every song they ever hear. even if it's at a party or a bar, or if someone else has already paid for it, and sometimes they should pay again even if they've already paid for it themselves. because otherwise the music industry, which rakes in 99% of the cash and gives only 1% or so to the small bands, might go out of business. and *then* who would support the small bands?
i mean, obviously no small band can afford the kind of high-quality 24-track recording equipment it takes to produce the music these days, nor can they afford the high costs of advertising, manufacturing, and distribution. they *need* the music industry. it's been this way for decades, and nothing has changed. multi-GHz PCs with software studios, cheap broadcast-quality video equipment, websites for promotion and distribution - that's all just a flash in the pan. when are people going to realize that musicians are just too stupid to do things on their own? the music industry as it is, is here to stay, and people need to realize that there's no alternative. anyone who doesn't like that is stealing music.
and also, people just don't really care very much about the musicians that make the music they love. i mean, if you have some music that you listen to over and over, and you just love it to death, what are the chances you're going to go to the band's website and participate in some stupid scheme whereby you pay a dollar or so, that goes 100% to the band, and maybe you get an autograph or a bonus track, or a password to a VIP area of the site, or even just a good feeling? nah. it'll never happen. without the music industry to sue the fans, plus virus-like DRM schemes that take over your computer, and now police involvement and wiretapping, home taping will kill music. home taping has been killing music for decades, and it always will.
very good points, but i disagree with the "backfire & hurt OSX" conclusion.
I personally don't like OSX, but LOVE the Apple hardware. I would be interested in purchasing a Titanium (x86) and putting Windows and Linux on it. I odn't believe I'm alone with that opinion either.
First glance you may say, good for apple, they still get the money. However, what that starts to do is move mindshare for apple to a premium hardware supplier, not a platform supplier.
I believe there are many people that will consider doing this, and I think this could hurt OSX. This move could put Apple (overtime) going Head to Head with Dell not MS.
apple has a much much better chance at competing with dell and gaining market share than they do against microsoft. selling hardware to windows users is a damned good business plan for apple - can you say iPod? profits from OS X are minimal, they give it away with their machines. so, suddenly that other, oh, 95% of computer users are potential apple hardware customers. windows users will switch hardware vendors (eg. dell to hp to apple) at the drop of a hat. but switching operating systems, even if it costs nothing, is a huge investment of one's time in relearning everything and repurchasing applications. so among committed windows users (eg. 80% or more of all computer users), "mindshare for apple" is already zero. this will change that. dramatically.
now, literally millions of windows users will pick up apple powerbooks and imacs because the hardware is so #%#$%#$% awesome. at the same time, that gives them free access to OS X, while not forcing them to use it. so that massively opens up the potential market for (higher-margin) apple software products like FinalCut, DVD Studio Pro, etc., which are really top-of-the-line in their class.
remember in the 90's, apple headed down that road of trying to compete with microsoft, licencing clone manufacturers of apple hardware. it was suicidal. jobs is smarter than that. look for apple to triple their hardware sales (where they make most of their profit) in the next few years...
amazing - in these days of strife, stereotyping and intolerance between the u.s. and many muslims, amazon comes out with a near-slave-labor waged system for doing mindless repetetive tasks, and calls it the "mechanical turk"! yeah, yeah, i know about the history of the mechanical chess player. i'll try to explain that to all the turkish people in my neighborhood here in germany... i'm sure they'll understand that amazon has nothing but the highest regard for "turks"... what are they going to call their next product, "lawn jockey"? sheesh.
yes, i also saw a documentary about this on public tv many years ago. interesting, but old news. i mean, it even says 1996 right in the article... no vaccine or cure or anything has come out of it since then. yawn...
So is your argument that "it's not illegal if you don't get caught"? How do you know that the FBI isn't going to make an example of you next?
no, my argument is that i don't believe it's illegal just because you say so. you've been wrong about that sort of thing before.
for sure certain authors and distributors of ripping software have been put out of business (321 studios, etc.). so it's not like law enforcement is just not paying attention. so which do you think sounds more likely:
1. millions and millions of people have committed the (equally serious) federal offence of "illegally importing circumvention devices" - and thousands more do so every day - easily traced by law enforcement - but no-one has ever been charged, and the police aren't even looking, but the fbi is just waiting for the right person to come along - *me* - to "make an example of"...
or:
2. maybe you're wrong (again) about how the law and the court system works.
if you want to go through your life not doing things that millions of other people are already doing, because your interpretation of the law (your skill at which has already been proven in front of tens of thousands of slashdot readers to be iffy at best) tells you that it's illegal - even though *nobody* has ever even been charged with this crime you've imagined - well again, good luck with that. if you can show me one single case of even just a charge being laid against someone for downloading dvd ripping software, i will graciously concede you the point. but until then just hearing you insist that downloading dvd ripping software is illegal under the DMCA carries about as much validity as your first post - which is none.
[hint - just whining "well it's obvious that downloading is 'illegally importing circumvention devices!'" isn't going to cut it this time]
For one thing, System requirements: Mac.
what the hell does that have to do with anything? it's a very successful mac product. i don't use pc's, so i don't know about them.
For another thing: "Popcorn copies DVD-Video discs, though Roxio is careful to point out that Popcorn does not copy encrypted or copy protected DVDs -- in other words, almost all of the commercial movies sold on DVD at retail stores."
duh! that's exactly my *point*!! Popcorn is a very successful product, even though 99.9% of the people using it need to use downloaded dvd ripping software in the process. *your* point (if you recall) was that a product (the ipod) can't be successful if it depends on the "illegal" use of 3rd party ripping software. so, wrong again. you're battin' a thousand here.
ok, so there's no built in "import dvd" command in itunes. so you use handbrake (or whatever windows people use) instead. big deal. i'll bet most people who would want to rip their purchased dvds to their ipod already have a copy on their computer. i know i do. i'll bet you do too. i'm not saying it's good that it's this way. i'm just saying that ipod/itunes can and will be wildly successful as a video platform even without a built-in "rip dvd" command.
So where can I obtain such "3rd-party dvd-ripping software" without any laws being broken?
maybe you can't. maybe anyone who writes it or gives you a copy of it is breaking the law. but that's their problem isn't it? where can you obtain ripping software without any laws being broken *by you* - ?? well, you could try downloading it from the internet like everyone else does. if you're *really* paranoid about the "importing" thing, get it from inside the u.s. - i got mine from a server in california. and i'm not even american!
One of the conditions of access to the work imposed by the copyright owners is that you play the disc only on DVD Video players licensed by the DVD Forum.
dude, you're going off into a fantasy world. i'm sorry, it just doesn't work that way. once you pay money for a product, you have certain consumer rights, partly defined in legislation and
nu uh, you don't get away with that you little nitwit! admit that you made a mister-know-it-all post to slashdot, complete with court-case name citations, with the bold-case statement "ripping DVDs is illegal under the DMCA" that was *completely false*. i am right, and you are like so wrong. admit it. say "uncle". say uncle!
how would one make personal use of DVD ripping software if one cannot lawfully obtain it? You can't get it from an offshore server, as importing it is just as illegal as selling it.
riiiight.... and i'm sure you've done your homework on this one too. you're going cite the case where someone was charged (not convicted, just charged) for downloading dvd ripping software? or point out where the government is blocking access to foreign servers containing it?
you'll cement your argument by documenting how there are no successful commercial products that require 3rd-party dvd-ripping software, such as the presumably non-existent Roxio Popcorn software (oh yeah, everyone uses Popcorn for ripping those non-copyprotected dual-layer dvds that they uh, produced themselves, and then uh, lost the original files, and then uh..??), as well as the fact that millions and millions of people do *not* currently have dvd ripping software installed on their computers, since of course it's illegal to download it?
well, good luck with that dude.
oh by the way, since you don't seem to have enough energy to actually get off your butt and check the laws you quote, i looked it up for you:
U.S. Copyright Office - Summary of the DMCA, December 1998 [...] Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.
This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumvent- ing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.
The difference is that in Apple's home country, ripping CDs is legal (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia) while ripping DVDs is illegal under the DMCA (MGM v. 321 Studios).
nu uh. making or selling ripping software is illegal (321 studios). possessing or personal use of such software is not, provided you are otherwise authorized to access the content (i.e. own the dvd).
after that, it's only a question of whether format-shifting falls under fair use. if i'm not mistaken that's never actually been tested in court, but with the riaa conceding that personal cd rips to ipods is fair use, it doesn't seem likely to be a problem with dvds either.
but don't worry, as a consolation prize you win... a smack up the side of the head!
If someone else requests that music from my computer, I am not uploading it at all - my computer is, but it's doing so at the request of the downloader. It's a very important point to consider: what action am I taking to make the copy? If the answer is "none" (and it is) then no law has been broken.
during the proceedings where the CRIA was requesting the names of suspected file-sharers to be divulged, the judge gave an opinion basically the same as what you said here. for a while it seemed that this type of "uploading" was legal. unfortunately the appeals court threw out that opinion. they didn't contradict it, just threw it out saying that the judge shouldn't have addressed that question at that time. so basically it still hasn't been tested in court. i believe it has been in the U.S., and the decision was that it *was* illegal copying. but i'm not sure about that, and can't give you a reference at the moment.
soon the question will be moot, since the new canadian copyright law proposes a new idea called "making available". it side-steps the issue of who is making the copy, and just says directly that making available files in your shared folder will be illegal. the law hasn't passed yet, so if you're canadian and disagree with this, you should write to your MP.
IANAL - that being said, I believe the logic as far as having uploads going on while you are legally downloading material is okay in Canada. The logic being that some|most P2Ps require (or their users do) you to also share what you are downloading. As such, you are not breaking the law as your PRIMARY intent is to download.
nonsense. you just made that up.
the law doesn't work that way. it makes no difference what your PRIMARY intent is, if a side-effect of your action breaks the law, it's no excuse.
uploading may or may not be legal in canada at the moment, but either way it's not because of the "logic" you give. *if* allowing others to download from your computer is illegal (this has not been tested in court), then the use of these p2p systems that require you to do so is illegal, even if your primary intent is only to download.
Someone should of straightened him out, Windows and Windows software will run on a Mac using Virtual PC , now owned by Microsoft
My point is that Mom and Dad, like most Windows users, have really no interest in learning/using Mac OS X. But they like the Apple computers, and wouldn't hesitate to buy one if they could run their software on it.
Now, have you ever *used* Virtual PC? It sucks. Big time. S l o w as molasses, and lots of things (esp USB devices) just don't work. Using it is painful. Think Dad's going to trade in his 3GHz pentium-4 Dell for the equivalent of a buggy 200MHz pentium-2, and pay extra for it? Not going to happen. Not an option.
I don't see why anyone cares what hardware is under the hood in an apple, no one uses an Apple because it has a PPC. They use it because Apple owns & supports the entire system and the OS is good.
Current Apple users might not care.
But everyone seems to be missing out on the obvious: relatively few of committed Windows users (90+% of the market) would consider switching to Mac OS X - too much work to learn a new way of doing things, and not enough benefit. Windows is what they've always used, they've heard it's not as good but it's "good enough".
However... those same people wouldn't think twice about switching from Dell to HP if it was a better value for them.
Let me put it this way: right now, switching from a Dell to an Apple is like switching from a car to a motorcycle. Not an easy transition. But once you can run Windows on Apple hardware, it will be like switching from a Hyundai to a BMW. If you've got the cash, it's a no-brainer.
Apple makes a damn sweet machine. Well-built and looks great. A little pricey maybe, but so is a BMW. Oh, Apple's potential customer base just went up how many times?
Here is a true story: My dad bought a Dell. My mom said, "I don't want that thing in here, it's big and black and ugly, and it doesn't go with the furniture. Why didn't you get one of those nice white Apple ones? You know, the 'where's the computer?' one." Dad said, "I wanted to, but none of my software works on it."
My prediction is that in a few years, more Apple computers will be running Windows than Mac OS. And Apple's hardware sales (its core business) will have doubled.
I agree, the web page is a real mixed bag. "Weasel Words" ought to be about things that are basically dishonest. Using "e-mail" as a noun doesn't strike me that way.
Here's a letter I wrote to the editor of the page:
"Presently: The word 'presently' means soon to come, in the near future, and so on. Many people confuse it with 'currently.' So "We are presently in Australia" should more properly be "We are currently in Australia." This misuse is often seen not only in everyday conversation but also in business correspondence. Again, its improper use indicates lazy thinking.' [from William Bezanson]"
This is nonsense. The word "presently" has been in widespread use as a synonym for "currently" since at least the 15th century, while the archaic "soon" sense is much less common now. Who is William Bezanson to say it is "improper" and "lazy"? Does anyone look this stuff up in a dictionary at least?
Seems to me your site ought to be mainly about phrases and word-usages where people are "weaselling out" of saying something truthful or meaningful. Or, that they use fancy, complicated, or made-up words or uncommon usages, for the sole purpose of trying to sound smart. An example might be the use of the word "spin" instead of... well, what I just said.
There are quite a number of things on your page that are simply alleged by grammar pedants to be poor english, like the example above, or saying "I'm good" instead of "I'm well", "I sent you an e-mail" instead of "I sent you an e-mail message", and so on. The phrase "anytime soon" wouldn't make sense as "it will happen anytime soon", but it's never used in that sense, only in the negative "it will not happen anytime soon" or interrogative "will it happen anytime soon?"; in both cases a completely rational sentence.
Also, using "fresh" instead of "new, unused, etc." - this is simply a popular use that has come recently from urban african-american culture (or should I just say "ghetto"?), where there are so many unique phrases and usages that the majority of english-speakers might have difficulty following a conversation. But this does not make them "weasel words" or double-speak.
Similarly, new sayings that come from business or technology culture are not necessarily weasel words. They may be used to name and talk about things that simply did not exist before. Or, like in other sub-cultures, unique expressions may be a form of solidarity among peers. I believe it only crosses the line when obfuscating language is purposely designed by marketing, management, or "motivation" people in order to manipulate, mislead, or "spin" the plain truth, for the purposes of advertising, sales, employee thought-control, or "corporate image". Unfortunately it seems this is all too common in the world of business, where a "culture of bullshit" seems to prevail.
I would like to suggest that in choosing words for your page, you might focus on the criterion that "weasel words" should have the particular characteristic of being essentially dishonest, double-speak.
Otherwise, if you allow listings for general word and grammar misuse, annoying but innocuous phrases - "I'll diary that" - pointless clichés, and just plain stupidity, you'll have a very large web site indeed.
Someone makes jewelery from electronic parts, and this is front page news?
In Toronto there's a surplus electronics shop that's near the art college. By now, whenever a woman buys capacitors, resistors, or other small components, it's common for her to be asked whether she wants them to *do* something, or if she's just making jewelery out of them...
Don't let that stop you from closing out the article with wild speculation though.
I agree the article is full of FUD. Child pornographers on every street corner!
On the other hand, if the guy was just checking his mail, you'd imagine they would have just given him a warning and let him go. But maybe not. I guess because there was an actual complaint of theft, and it sounds like this is new to them, maybe they decided to be safe and make the arrest and see what he was actually up to. I mean, the whole "snapping the notebook closed" thing... but anyways, unless there was some other illegal activity going on, they'll probably drop the charges.
This seems like the kind of thing they add on to more serious charges for more leverage, like resisting arrest, etc. - I've only heard of one person, in Canada, actually being convicted of this (wardriving) and that was involving a child porn case. ONE person. In the whole country. Ever. Not exactly on every street corner.
"Theft of Communications Services" is just as illegal in the U.S. as in Canada - try hooking up cable without paying for it, even if your neighbour knows about it.
The theft in using someone else's access point (and it is theft, as opposed to the bizarre microsoft copyright analogy in tfa) is from the ISP, not from the neighbour. The neighbour has a contract for the ISP to provide services. You don't. The neighbour's contract specifies that he can't redistribute the bandwidth. If I get cable TV, and then decide to wire up my whole apartment building with free cable... well I'm not allowed to do that.
But so many people, like Dvorak, get hung up on the law making a certain activity illegal. They don't think about how things work in the real world, where there are police and judges, people who have to THINK about what is reasonable. The law and its enforcement is (in theory) almost always based on what is reasonable. If I fill up a bucket of water from your hose, am I stealing? Yes. And my chances of being convicted are? But if I tap your plumbing and use it for my shower?
In Canada, there has been exactly ONE person convicted for stealing bandwith by using an open access point. He was caught driving the wrong way down a one-way street, naked from the waist down, with a laptop on the front seat downloading kiddie porn. The theft of communications charge was one of many, and the least of his worries.
I am typing this right now using my neighbour's AP. Am I worried the cops are going to come after me? Uh, no. It's not going to happen. And even if some idiot decides to knowingly leave an unsecured access point and then actually phone the police (like the guy in this story), it's just going to be like a noise complaint.
because that one is about delivering *e-mail*, while this one is about delivering *books*, which is a *completely different* and *incredibly innovative* idea which *no-one else* would have thought of.
wow. he is a genius. he and his descendents deserve to exclusively reap the fruits of his incredible mind for all eternity.
(2.1) It is an infringement of copyright in a work, a performer's performance or a sound recording for a person knowingly to do any of the following acts with respect to a reproduction of the work, performance or sound recording that the person knows or ought to know was made as a copy for private use under subsection 80(1):
first, why are you quoting a canadian copyright bill in a discussion about what is the law in the U.S.?
second, even if we were discussing what is the law in canada, c-60 isn't the law in canada either, it's a proposed law that hasn't been passed.
Note that this applies to _ALL_ copyrighted works, not just musical works. If Section 80 of C-42 did not also apply to other copyrighted forms, in spite of its precise wording which only seems to refer to copyrighted musical works, this amendment would create an unacceptable ambiguity in the Copyright act.
oh good lord, use your BRAIN man!
what do you think is more likely:
1. the canadian government is going to declare that downloading pirated software, movies, and books is legal as long as it's for personal use, but they're still only going to collect royalties on blank audio media.
OR
2. the phrase "work, performer's performance, or sound recording" in the ammendment refers to the definition within the section that it ammends, i.e.:
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording, (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
But every work of original expression is copyrighted unless the owner explicitly gives up those rights.
the owner can also *implicitly* give up certain rights, eg. by the act of posting on slashdot you implicitly give me permission to download your post into my hard drive cache in order to read it.
You can make a copy of something that is copyrighted without infringing as long as the purposes that the copy is put to fall under either fair use
correct so far... (assuming you understand what fair use is)
or personal/private use. These exemptions are explicitly listed in the Copyright Act.
dude you really need to get this stuff straight if you're going to keep posting about it here!
there is one exemption, in canada, for downloading music, and only music, for private use.
there is no other exemption for downloading anything for private use, and in the U.S. (which this thread is about) there is no exemption at all for downloading anything at all because it's for private use, without permisssion of the copyright holder.
Although copyright infringement is not theft in terms of legal definitions, it seems that people interpret illegal distribution of copyrighted works as such. Those who provide "stolen" goods are committing a crime as well as those who receive and possess "stolen" good knowing that they are stolen.
that doesn't make any sense. well at least you are right that it is not theft (which is a crime, punishable by jail) in terms of legal definition. and by that definition, copyright infringement is is not a crime either (unless it's done for profit). personal trading of copyrighted files may be illegal, but it is not theft, not stealing, not a crime, and is not punishable by jail.
put it this way - is someone who jaywalks committing a crime like theft or assault? let's keep some perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
honestly, i can't believe the number of people here saying "this is just bullshit and fearmongering"...
in canada, for hundreds of years, the cod fishery supported a large percentage of the population of eastern canada, in food and jobs. the grand banks area was one of the most fertile in the world, fishing boats from all over the world were harvesting hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cod each year.
despite dire predictions and "the sky is falling" warnings, first by local fishermen and then finally by scientists by the mid-80s, the canadian government downplayed the reports and did virtually nothing to protect the fishery. it was too important to the economy, investment, industry profits, and jobs.
one other slashdotter noted that the cod fishery is currently "in a state of decline". that's like saying john f. kennedy is a little under the weather.
THE FISH ARE FREAKIN' GONE!
in the mid-90s, the cod fishery collapsed utterly and completely. the canadian government finally instituted a complete ban on cod fishing - because there were no more fish! the stock is nearly completely wiped out, only a few thousand tonnes left, and shows no sign of recovering.
massive unemployment ensued, and economic devastation in the whole region. hundreds of small communities became ghost towns. the federal government has had to put in billions of dollars in relief funding. people are slowly trying to move to a different economy, for example a lot of call centres have been set up in newfoundland, with the government subsidising their construction, and the cheap labour available because of such high unemployment. but it ain't quite the same anymore...
i have to say this is one of the most shocking things i've ever seen happen in canada (ok, so canada isn't the most exciting place in the world). how could canada, despite adequate warnings and predictions, allow the atlantic cod fishery - one of the defining aspects of canadian culture, not to mention the economy - to simply vanish? how could we be so short-sighted? such idiots?
so you all can put your fingers in your ears and say "nah nah nah, i can't hear you, this will never happen". well let me tell ya bye's, it already has...
the tradgedy is that it could have been prevented, if appropriate fishing quotas had been in place. hopefully this study will motivate that, to prevent future eradication of other ocean stocks. i mean, even george w. "global warming is a myth" bush has just signed on to the moratorium on deep-sea trawlers. so you know, this isn't just "the sky is falling" bullshit. the sky is actually falling. but it's not too late to prop it up.
you don't pay the fee when you buy your computer. they send you a form in the mail, and you are supposed to voluntarily tell them if you have a radio/tv/computer. if you tell them you don't, they send thugs around to your house to check.
i don't think lack of schematics is the problem.
...the boards are *very* expensive to buy, and very difficult to make by yourself. so i don't really see the advantage myself...
even if you have them, it's very difficult for the hobbyist to construct this kind of board at home. the xscale processors used are only available in a BGA (ball grid array) package, impossible to solder by hand. the boards are multilayer. this trend is only getting worse as devices are under pressure to be smaller and smaller, the latest component packages are designed only for robotic assembly, which has taken over from hand assembly for all upscale electronic products.
furthermore porting linux to run on your home-brew board design is not a simple thing.
for most hobbyists (without a reflow oven and a lot of experience) buying a board with a linux distro already ported to it is the only reasonable option. the gumstix boards have bus connectors so you can extend them with your own i/o devices if you want.
having said that, i'd be very curious to know what the actual prototype design process is for the gumstix people...
by the way, here's another open-source hardware project:
http://balloonboard.org/
there are literally billions of 8- and 16-bit microcontrollers shipped each year. so there must be jobs out there somewhere! granted, it only takes one designer to make a product that can ship a hundred thousand units - and the companies doing that probably won't hire a two-year certificate guy to design that. but there's also a lot of small-run and custom work, done by smaller engineering shops.
go ask your question on the piclist mailing list, you'll get a lot more coherent answers than the ones here.
ok, fess up, how many of you have enjoyed songs on the radio with no intention of going out to see the band play live? how many of you have changed channels or gone to the kitchen during a commercial? that's not just stealing, it's Raping and Pillaging! the only way we can stop you is for the police to wiretap *everyone* just to see what the hell they're doing. chances are they would catch a lot more people doing bad things that way. in fact, why don't we install webcams in everyone's room so the police can keep an eye on you? if you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have a problem with that.
and hey, let's change the law so that non-commercial personal music copying changes from something that the music industry can sue you for monetary damages for, into a property crime! i bet the threat of jail time and a criminal record would really help cut down on this raping and pillaging! in california, people have received life sentences for stealing a pizza slice, since it was their third conviction for property crimes. three MP3's and you're out!
i say, let's use any means necessary to stop this heinous activity of "failure to support small bands" that is destroying the fabric of our society.
because you know, even though 90% of the songs people listen to on the radio or download are crap that they listen to just once or twice and would never in a million years listen to if it wasn't free, they should be forced to pay the full retail price for each and every song they ever hear. even if it's at a party or a bar, or if someone else has already paid for it, and sometimes they should pay again even if they've already paid for it themselves. because otherwise the music industry, which rakes in 99% of the cash and gives only 1% or so to the small bands, might go out of business. and *then* who would support the small bands?
i mean, obviously no small band can afford the kind of high-quality 24-track recording equipment it takes to produce the music these days, nor can they afford the high costs of advertising, manufacturing, and distribution. they *need* the music industry. it's been this way for decades, and nothing has changed. multi-GHz PCs with software studios, cheap broadcast-quality video equipment, websites for promotion and distribution - that's all just a flash in the pan. when are people going to realize that musicians are just too stupid to do things on their own? the music industry as it is, is here to stay, and people need to realize that there's no alternative. anyone who doesn't like that is stealing music.
and also, people just don't really care very much about the musicians that make the music they love. i mean, if you have some music that you listen to over and over, and you just love it to death, what are the chances you're going to go to the band's website and participate in some stupid scheme whereby you pay a dollar or so, that goes 100% to the band, and maybe you get an autograph or a bonus track, or a password to a VIP area of the site, or even just a good feeling? nah. it'll never happen. without the music industry to sue the fans, plus virus-like DRM schemes that take over your computer, and now police involvement and wiretapping, home taping will kill music. home taping has been killing music for decades, and it always will.
very good points, but i disagree with the "backfire & hurt OSX" conclusion.
I personally don't like OSX, but LOVE the Apple hardware. I would be interested in purchasing a Titanium (x86) and putting Windows and Linux on it. I odn't believe I'm alone with that opinion either.
First glance you may say, good for apple, they still get the money. However, what that starts to do is move mindshare for apple to a premium hardware supplier, not a platform supplier.
I believe there are many people that will consider doing this, and I think this could hurt OSX. This move could put Apple (overtime) going Head to Head with Dell not MS.
apple has a much much better chance at competing with dell and gaining market share than they do against microsoft. selling hardware to windows users is a damned good business plan for apple - can you say iPod? profits from OS X are minimal, they give it away with their machines. so, suddenly that other, oh, 95% of computer users are potential apple hardware customers. windows users will switch hardware vendors (eg. dell to hp to apple) at the drop of a hat. but switching operating systems, even if it costs nothing, is a huge investment of one's time in relearning everything and repurchasing applications. so among committed windows users (eg. 80% or more of all computer users), "mindshare for apple" is already zero. this will change that. dramatically.
now, literally millions of windows users will pick up apple powerbooks and imacs because the hardware is so #%#$%#$% awesome. at the same time, that gives them free access to OS X, while not forcing them to use it. so that massively opens up the potential market for (higher-margin) apple software products like FinalCut, DVD Studio Pro, etc., which are really top-of-the-line in their class.
remember in the 90's, apple headed down that road of trying to compete with microsoft, licencing clone manufacturers of apple hardware. it was suicidal. jobs is smarter than that. look for apple to triple their hardware sales (where they make most of their profit) in the next few years...
amazing - in these days of strife, stereotyping and intolerance between the u.s. and many muslims, amazon comes out with a near-slave-labor waged system for doing mindless repetetive tasks, and calls it the "mechanical turk"! yeah, yeah, i know about the history of the mechanical chess player. i'll try to explain that to all the turkish people in my neighborhood here in germany... i'm sure they'll understand that amazon has nothing but the highest regard for "turks"... what are they going to call their next product, "lawn jockey"? sheesh.
yes, i also saw a documentary about this on public tv many years ago. interesting, but old news. i mean, it even says 1996 right in the article... no vaccine or cure or anything has come out of it since then. yawn...
So is your argument that "it's not illegal if you don't get caught"? How do you know that the FBI isn't going to make an example of you next?
no, my argument is that i don't believe it's illegal just because you say so. you've been wrong about that sort of thing before.
for sure certain authors and distributors of ripping software have been put out of business (321 studios, etc.). so it's not like law enforcement is just not paying attention. so which do you think sounds more likely:
1. millions and millions of people have committed the (equally serious) federal offence of "illegally importing circumvention devices" - and thousands more do so every day - easily traced by law enforcement - but no-one has ever been charged, and the police aren't even looking, but the fbi is just waiting for the right person to come along - *me* - to "make an example of"...
or:
2. maybe you're wrong (again) about how the law and the court system works.
if you want to go through your life not doing things that millions of other people are already doing, because your interpretation of the law (your skill at which has already been proven in front of tens of thousands of slashdot readers to be iffy at best) tells you that it's illegal - even though *nobody* has ever even been charged with this crime you've imagined - well again, good luck with that. if you can show me one single case of even just a charge being laid against someone for downloading dvd ripping software, i will graciously concede you the point. but until then just hearing you insist that downloading dvd ripping software is illegal under the DMCA carries about as much validity as your first post - which is none.
[hint - just whining "well it's obvious that downloading is 'illegally importing circumvention devices!'" isn't going to cut it this time]
For one thing, System requirements: Mac.
what the hell does that have to do with anything? it's a very successful mac product. i don't use pc's, so i don't know about them.
For another thing: "Popcorn copies DVD-Video discs, though Roxio is careful to point out that Popcorn does not copy encrypted or copy protected DVDs -- in other words, almost all of the commercial movies sold on DVD at retail stores."
duh! that's exactly my *point*!! Popcorn is a very successful product, even though 99.9% of the people using it need to use downloaded dvd ripping software in the process. *your* point (if you recall) was that a product (the ipod) can't be successful if it depends on the "illegal" use of 3rd party ripping software. so, wrong again. you're battin' a thousand here.
ok, so there's no built in "import dvd" command in itunes. so you use handbrake (or whatever windows people use) instead. big deal. i'll bet most people who would want to rip their purchased dvds to their ipod already have a copy on their computer. i know i do. i'll bet you do too. i'm not saying it's good that it's this way. i'm just saying that ipod/itunes can and will be wildly successful as a video platform even without a built-in "rip dvd" command.
So where can I obtain such "3rd-party dvd-ripping software" without any laws being broken?
maybe you can't. maybe anyone who writes it or gives you a copy of it is breaking the law. but that's their problem isn't it? where can you obtain ripping software without any laws being broken *by you* - ?? well, you could try downloading it from the internet like everyone else does. if you're *really* paranoid about the "importing" thing, get it from inside the u.s. - i got mine from a server in california. and i'm not even american!
One of the conditions of access to the work imposed by the copyright owners is that you play the disc only on DVD Video players licensed by the DVD Forum.
dude, you're going off into a fantasy world. i'm sorry, it just doesn't work that way. once you pay money for a product, you have certain consumer rights, partly defined in legislation and
Even if what you claim is true,
nu uh, you don't get away with that you little nitwit! admit that you made a mister-know-it-all post to slashdot, complete with court-case name citations, with the bold-case statement "ripping DVDs is illegal under the DMCA" that was *completely false*. i am right, and you are like so wrong. admit it. say "uncle". say uncle!
how would one make personal use of DVD ripping software if one cannot lawfully obtain it? You can't get it from an offshore server, as importing it is just as illegal as selling it.
riiiight.... and i'm sure you've done your homework on this one too. you're going cite the case where someone was charged (not convicted, just charged) for downloading dvd ripping software? or point out where the government is blocking access to foreign servers containing it?
you'll cement your argument by documenting how there are no successful commercial products that require 3rd-party dvd-ripping software, such as the presumably non-existent Roxio Popcorn software (oh yeah, everyone uses Popcorn for ripping those non-copyprotected dual-layer dvds that they uh, produced themselves, and then uh, lost the original files, and then uh..??), as well as the fact that millions and millions of people do *not* currently have dvd ripping software installed on their computers, since of course it's illegal to download it?
well, good luck with that dude.
oh by the way, since you don't seem to have enough energy to actually get off your butt and check the laws you quote, i looked it up for you:
U.S. Copyright Office - Summary of the DMCA, December 1998
[...]
Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that
prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that
are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain
circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision
prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the
second.
This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued
ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use
under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumvent-
ing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use
doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of
circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.
The difference is that in Apple's home country, ripping CDs is legal (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia) while ripping DVDs is illegal under the DMCA (MGM v. 321 Studios).
nu uh. making or selling ripping software is illegal (321 studios). possessing or personal use of such software is not, provided you are otherwise authorized to access the content (i.e. own the dvd).
after that, it's only a question of whether format-shifting falls under fair use. if i'm not mistaken that's never actually been tested in court, but with the riaa conceding that personal cd rips to ipods is fair use, it doesn't seem likely to be a problem with dvds either.
but don't worry, as a consolation prize you win... a smack up the side of the head!
If someone else requests that music from my computer, I am not uploading it at all - my computer is, but it's doing so at the request of the downloader. It's a very important point to consider: what action am I taking to make the copy? If the answer is "none" (and it is) then no law has been broken.
during the proceedings where the CRIA was requesting the names of suspected file-sharers to be divulged, the judge gave an opinion basically the same as what you said here. for a while it seemed that this type of "uploading" was legal. unfortunately the appeals court threw out that opinion. they didn't contradict it, just threw it out saying that the judge shouldn't have addressed that question at that time. so basically it still hasn't been tested in court. i believe it has been in the U.S., and the decision was that it *was* illegal copying. but i'm not sure about that, and can't give you a reference at the moment.
soon the question will be moot, since the new canadian copyright law proposes a new idea called "making available". it side-steps the issue of who is making the copy, and just says directly that making available files in your shared folder will be illegal. the law hasn't passed yet, so if you're canadian and disagree with this, you should write to your MP.
IANAL - that being said, I believe the logic as far as having uploads going on while you are legally downloading material is okay in Canada. The logic being that some|most P2Ps require (or their users do) you to also share what you are downloading. As such, you are not breaking the law as your PRIMARY intent is to download.
nonsense. you just made that up.
the law doesn't work that way. it makes no difference what your PRIMARY intent is, if a side-effect of your action breaks the law, it's no excuse.
uploading may or may not be legal in canada at the moment, but either way it's not because of the "logic" you give. *if* allowing others to download from your computer is illegal (this has not been tested in court), then the use of these p2p systems that require you to do so is illegal, even if your primary intent is only to download.
Someone should of straightened him out, Windows and Windows software will run on a Mac using Virtual PC , now owned by Microsoft
My point is that Mom and Dad, like most Windows users, have really no interest in learning/using Mac OS X. But they like the Apple computers, and wouldn't hesitate to buy one if they could run their software on it.
Now, have you ever *used* Virtual PC? It sucks. Big time. S l o w as molasses, and lots of things (esp USB devices) just don't work. Using it is painful. Think Dad's going to trade in his 3GHz pentium-4 Dell for the equivalent of a buggy 200MHz pentium-2, and pay extra for it? Not going to happen. Not an option.
I don't see why anyone cares what hardware is under the hood in an apple, no one uses an Apple because it has a PPC. They use it because Apple owns & supports the entire system and the OS is good.
Current Apple users might not care.
But everyone seems to be missing out on the obvious: relatively few of committed Windows users (90+% of the market) would consider switching to Mac OS X - too much work to learn a new way of doing things, and not enough benefit. Windows is what they've always used, they've heard it's not as good but it's "good enough".
However... those same people wouldn't think twice about switching from Dell to HP if it was a better value for them.
Let me put it this way: right now, switching from a Dell to an Apple is like switching from a car to a motorcycle. Not an easy transition. But once you can run Windows on Apple hardware, it will be like switching from a Hyundai to a BMW. If you've got the cash, it's a no-brainer.
Apple makes a damn sweet machine. Well-built and looks great. A little pricey maybe, but so is a BMW. Oh, Apple's potential customer base just went up how many times?
Here is a true story: My dad bought a Dell. My mom said, "I don't want that thing in here, it's big and black and ugly, and it doesn't go with the furniture. Why didn't you get one of those nice white Apple ones? You know, the 'where's the computer?' one." Dad said, "I wanted to, but none of my software works on it."
My prediction is that in a few years, more Apple computers will be running Windows than Mac OS. And Apple's hardware sales (its core business) will have doubled.
Here's a letter I wrote to the editor of the page:
Hi -
On your web page at http://www.weaselwords.com.au/words.htm you list the use of "presently" as a "weasel word":
This is nonsense. The word "presently" has been in widespread use as a synonym for "currently" since at least the 15th century, while the archaic "soon" sense is much less common now. Who is William Bezanson to say it is "improper" and "lazy"? Does anyone look this stuff up in a dictionary at least?
Seems to me your site ought to be mainly about phrases and word-usages where people are "weaselling out" of saying something truthful or meaningful. Or, that they use fancy, complicated, or made-up words or uncommon usages, for the sole purpose of trying to sound smart. An example might be the use of the word "spin" instead of... well, what I just said.
There are quite a number of things on your page that are simply alleged by grammar pedants to be poor english, like the example above, or saying "I'm good" instead of "I'm well", "I sent you an e-mail" instead of "I sent you an e-mail message", and so on. The phrase "anytime soon" wouldn't make sense as "it will happen anytime soon", but it's never used in that sense, only in the negative "it will not happen anytime soon" or interrogative "will it happen anytime soon?"; in both cases a completely rational sentence.
Also, using "fresh" instead of "new, unused, etc." - this is simply a popular use that has come recently from urban african-american culture (or should I just say "ghetto"?), where there are so many unique phrases and usages that the majority of english-speakers might have difficulty following a conversation. But this does not make them "weasel words" or double-speak.
Similarly, new sayings that come from business or technology culture are not necessarily weasel words. They may be used to name and talk about things that simply did not exist before. Or, like in other sub-cultures, unique expressions may be a form of solidarity among peers. I believe it only crosses the line when obfuscating language is purposely designed by marketing, management, or "motivation" people in order to manipulate, mislead, or "spin" the plain truth, for the purposes of advertising, sales, employee thought-control, or "corporate image". Unfortunately it seems this is all too common in the world of business, where a "culture of bullshit" seems to prevail.
I would like to suggest that in choosing words for your page, you might focus on the criterion that "weasel words" should have the particular characteristic of being essentially dishonest, double-speak.
Otherwise, if you allow listings for general word and grammar misuse, annoying but innocuous phrases - "I'll diary that" - pointless clichés, and just plain stupidity, you'll have a very large web site indeed.
Someone makes jewelery from electronic parts, and this is front page news?
In Toronto there's a surplus electronics shop that's near the art college. By now, whenever a woman buys capacitors, resistors, or other small components, it's common for her to be asked whether she wants them to *do* something, or if she's just making jewelery out of them...
Don't let that stop you from closing out the article with wild speculation though.
I agree the article is full of FUD. Child pornographers on every street corner!
On the other hand, if the guy was just checking his mail, you'd imagine they would have just given him a warning and let him go. But maybe not. I guess because there was an actual complaint of theft, and it sounds like this is new to them, maybe they decided to be safe and make the arrest and see what he was actually up to. I mean, the whole "snapping the notebook closed" thing... but anyways, unless there was some other illegal activity going on, they'll probably drop the charges.
This seems like the kind of thing they add on to more serious charges for more leverage, like resisting arrest, etc. - I've only heard of one person, in Canada, actually being convicted of this (wardriving) and that was involving a child porn case. ONE person. In the whole country. Ever. Not exactly on every street corner.
"Theft of Communications Services" is just as illegal in the U.S. as in Canada - try hooking up cable without paying for it, even if your neighbour knows about it.
The theft in using someone else's access point (and it is theft, as opposed to the bizarre microsoft copyright analogy in tfa) is from the ISP, not from the neighbour. The neighbour has a contract for the ISP to provide services. You don't. The neighbour's contract specifies that he can't redistribute the bandwidth. If I get cable TV, and then decide to wire up my whole apartment building with free cable... well I'm not allowed to do that.
But so many people, like Dvorak, get hung up on the law making a certain activity illegal. They don't think about how things work in the real world, where there are police and judges, people who have to THINK about what is reasonable. The law and its enforcement is (in theory) almost always based on what is reasonable. If I fill up a bucket of water from your hose, am I stealing? Yes. And my chances of being convicted are? But if I tap your plumbing and use it for my shower?
In Canada, there has been exactly ONE person convicted for stealing bandwith by using an open access point. He was caught driving the wrong way down a one-way street, naked from the waist down, with a laptop on the front seat downloading kiddie porn. The theft of communications charge was one of many, and the least of his worries.
I am typing this right now using my neighbour's AP. Am I worried the cops are going to come after me? Uh, no. It's not going to happen. And even if some idiot decides to knowingly leave an unsecured access point and then actually phone the police (like the guy in this story), it's just going to be like a noise complaint.
because that one is about delivering *e-mail*, while this one is about delivering *books*, which is a *completely different* and *incredibly innovative* idea which *no-one else* would have thought of.
wow. he is a genius. he and his descendents deserve to exclusively reap the fruits of his incredible mind for all eternity.
first, why are you quoting a canadian copyright bill in a discussion about what is the law in the U.S.?
second, even if we were discussing what is the law in canada, c-60 isn't the law in canada either, it's a proposed law that hasn't been passed.
Note that this applies to _ALL_ copyrighted works, not just musical works. If Section 80 of C-42 did not also apply to other copyrighted forms, in spite of its precise wording which only seems to refer to copyrighted musical works, this amendment would create an unacceptable ambiguity in the Copyright act.
oh good lord, use your BRAIN man!
what do you think is more likely:
1. the canadian government is going to declare that downloading pirated software, movies, and books is legal as long as it's for personal use, but they're still only going to collect royalties on blank audio media.
OR
2. the phrase "work, performer's performance, or sound recording" in the ammendment refers to the definition within the section that it ammends, i.e.:
???
But every work of original expression is copyrighted unless the owner explicitly gives up those rights.
the owner can also *implicitly* give up certain rights, eg. by the act of posting on slashdot you implicitly give me permission to download your post into my hard drive cache in order to read it.
This is false.
You can make a copy of something that is copyrighted without infringing as long as the purposes that the copy is put to fall under either fair use
correct so far... (assuming you understand what fair use is)
or personal/private use. These exemptions are explicitly listed in the Copyright Act.
dude you really need to get this stuff straight if you're going to keep posting about it here!
there is one exemption, in canada, for downloading music, and only music, for private use.
there is no other exemption for downloading anything for private use, and in the U.S. (which this thread is about) there is no exemption at all for downloading anything at all because it's for private use, without permisssion of the copyright holder.
Although copyright infringement is not theft in terms of legal definitions, it seems that people interpret illegal distribution of copyrighted works as such. Those who provide "stolen" goods are committing a crime as well as those who receive and possess "stolen" good knowing that they are stolen.
that doesn't make any sense. well at least you are right that it is not theft (which is a crime, punishable by jail) in terms of legal definition. and by that definition, copyright infringement is is not a crime either (unless it's done for profit). personal trading of copyrighted files may be illegal, but it is not theft, not stealing, not a crime, and is not punishable by jail.
put it this way - is someone who jaywalks committing a crime like theft or assault? let's keep some perspective.
the thread is "downloading in the U.S."
mark-t is in canada, where under the canadian copyright act, copying music (and only music) for private use is not a copyright infringement.
this is not true in the U.S.