There is no need for panic! sophiwm is THE tool to combat this problem.
A hole, like the the one in the ozonlayer, is only a whole compared to it's surroundings for which the comparison is used (which would be the ozon surrounding the whole).
Clearly, this points to an obvious solution to the problem: just wait until there is no ozon anywhere around the world, and consequently, you won't have a hole in the ozonlayer anymore, since there is no layer to start with!
Problem solved!
(and, as a bonus, you can all keep using your SUVs!)
I have said it before, and I'll say it again: The IFPI/RIAA/MPAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet or i2p).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
You're not doing bad, Rei, I remember other posts of you that imprseed me (though, granted, I usually only recognise they are/were from you by your '99 dead dualists sigpic', which isn't there, on this post).
"You're not paying for the plastic of the disc or the bits of the AAC, you're (supposedly) dropping a coin in the performer's hat."
Ah, yes, but you aren't paying for an *actual* performance, do you? You are paying for a copy of a performance once done, on a shiny piece of platic. Thus, the distortion of how it was in earlier times, and how it is now with recording, has already happend.
For centuries, even aside the patronage system, the 'performance hat' was filled with coins for the actual performance they did. Thus, they WORKED for it, and were rewarded for the work they did.
Nowadays, they can - in priciple - perform only once, and have an almost perpetual revenue from it, because of the near-zero cost of copying. Now, when demanding fairness...is that being fair? I don't think so. *I* have to work every day to gain a dime, over and over. I have to offer hard work every day, and get rewarded for that, in comparison. I don't see why people should inherently get an almost perpetual income by doing virtually nothing.
If they get payed and get 'bread on the table' by actually working for it - for instance by giving life concerts - by all means. This was how it was done for centuries, after all. And how many artists still get payed and afloat today, actually.
But getting payed over and over again, for doing basically nothing apart from that one recording...pfff, forget it, I don't call that fair. And *THAT* has been the true distortion which shifted the balance - but only from the 20th century onwards. I say: get rid of it, and may artists get payed for their actually performance and work, just like all the rest of us. Artists won't starve to death (i they are any good), rest assured.
"So back to the point: a CC-C-SA or GPL product requires a re-user to give proper credit, but it also frees them of the responsibility to support the artist they're using."
Yes, and? The artist agreed to it.
"And these days (as in all days, really), if you don't have some force of law at your disposal, trusting people to do the right thing is a flawed concept."
The 'right thing' in this case, is the free use of the CC'ed works under the restrictions you appointed. There is already a law for that: copyright-law. (CC is based on that law too, after all)
"It's telling the kids the cookie jar is open, and assuming they'll only eat one."
Now I'm beginning to see the parents' poster reference to 'paternalism'. Look, I've offered work under the CC-A myself and I tell you this: the cookie jar IS open because *I* opened it, it's meant to be open, and everyone can take as much as he wants (which is quite possible with digital copying, which I pointed out earlier). I *DO NOT CARE* if people use my work and don't pay me, in fact, that's just the gest of it. I WANT them to use it, and they don't have to offer me a dime, ever.
Aside for the attribution, the 'kids' can take as much as they want, the way they want it, at the time they want it, and can becoming stinking rich with it if they can, and still I won't demand them to pay me one lousy eurocent!
I hope I made it clear, as incomprehensible as it may seem to you: I do not *want* to get any financial compensation for the works I give away. If I wanted that, I wouldn't have given it away. What's so difficult to understand? Why the patronising, as if people that wish to give their stuff under the CC are idiots, who are not aware and consient of what they are doing?
Your whole reasoning is skewed and biased with the idea that authors always want financial compensation for what they create. You're knowledge of artists is seriously screwed, if you think that. I repeat: we have no problems with an open cookie jar; we WANT it to be open, and we WANT 'the kids' to take as much as they want. That's the wole point of it, actually.
"The whole point of sharing something with a Creative Commons license is to allow other people to build upon work that you've created, resulting in more creative works for people to enjoy. "
Let's see the next paragraph:
"When you tack on the non-commercial restriction, you're making people jump through hoops to make sure they don't make any money with the new work that has been created."
Well, then you don't actually forbid to "build upon" works to create "more creative" works, do you? You just forbid commercialising it.
Sure, this may give problems in some circumstances, but those circumstances are derived from the fact that people wanting to "create upon" them also want a commercial gain. This may or may not be a worthwhile goal, but it DOES indicate that the problem lies not in 'not being able to use the work', but in the commercial aspect of it. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that, if they make sure it's not for commercial gain, they can use the works to create their 'better' works upon.
"If someone wants to sell a movie with your song in it, they're either going to have to allow free redistribution of the movie, or ask you how much they have to pay to use your song in the movie."
So what are you complaining about? The CC (non-commercial) just makes it sure that you can use it when the film goes for free. This does NOT happen when it is 'shared' without any such licence - because then the normal C applies.
"Both of those options are the goals of someone who is sharing their work."
You've lost me, there. Certainly, it are not the goals *at the same time*?;-) One can not be so naive as to suppose that people just 'sharing' their work will never have the tendency to ask for money once they see that it's used. There just is no legal certaintity, so in practise, they are ALWAYS going to be forced to ask for permission, whether they give away their film for free or not. Certainly, there is less chance anyone will do the trouble if it's not commercially beneficial (if the film is a financial succes, for instance), but in the end, copyright(infringement) is NOT dependend of the succes someone has with a product based upon the infringement.
BTW, I don't think the non-commercial clause forbids *indirect* gain from a cc'ed work in the sense that you describe it. If you actually use the work in your own work, and make that commercial, then, yes, probably. If you set it on a site that has also banners...I don't think so.
I agree they should make this a bit more clearer, though.
"If you're aiming for freedom, restricting usage is a bad idea, especially when it's done in such a way that many people choose to restrict usage without being aware of the consequences."
I can agree to that: the more freedom the better. Yet, one can not deny that 'more free' is also better then totally non-free. In that respect, while a CC NC may be less good then CC without any restrictions, it is still better then regular copyright with all rights reserved.
I've been a contributor to seti@home when it just started for some years. Maybe I was just being idealistic (and young;-) but I thought it was a cool project. I still do, more or less, but..well, you know how it goes. After some years, I had to fix or reinstall my computers, and somehow, I never downloaded it again. Maybe I just lost interest too, and then with that more user-unfriendly boinc system, I just thought to myself it's not worth the trouble anymore. After all, it DOES cost you something, and let's face it; after years, there is still little to show for.
I have always been wondering, though, why *commercial* companies don't see the value in such distributed cpu systems? I mean, there are, for instance, commercial genetic-engineering companies, trying to solve the riddle of DNA strings... which usually costs a lot, for computertime on supercomputers. Now, it would seem to me that a system like boinc (but not exactly boinc, because I think it's not allowed for commercial use) would be financially a far better deal. Just give the 'users' some mild financial gain, and they will have a userbase by the millions in no time, while for the company itself it would still be cheaper then if they had to pay for regular supercomputer-time.
So, everybody (well, at least the capitalists;-) would be better off; users get an actual financial gain, and the company gets huge resources for comparatively little money.
so why don't we see things like this, even after all these years?
"Unless something is done to either dramatically decrease the amount of bleeding from a would-be martian atmosphere or alternatively somehow manage to efficiently recycle the escaped atmosphere so that most of it just doesn't go riding on the solar wind out of the solar system, well, unless something like that is proposed and done it is hard to call it anything but waste."
Well, as yet, there is no certainty of the cause of the current thin atmosphere of Mars. There are in fact more then one hypothesis as why it is as it is today. Low gravity not capable of holding the atmosphere, solar winds which blow away the atmosphere but also big meteor impacts which, in combination with the low gravity dramatically reduced the atmosphere - or none of the above.
It is therefor a bit early to say what is the actual cause (for instance, if further research would indicate that Mars had a much stronger field, yet continued to lose it's atmosphere, then this theory may lose its worth.
Furthermore, even when we would be able to only resurect a considerable atmosphere for a short amount of time, that 'short' would still be millions of years, a timescale which, for humans, is long enough to be worthwhile.
Another consideration is, that *small* meteorites and comets (or even just dust and ice-particles) falls from space onto the earth; This amounts to several tons a year, and at least partially compensates for loss of atmosphere. If we could establish a steady stream of small cometparticles on Mars, we might increase the longlevity of the atmosphere considerably. (Ok, with todays' technology this would be hard, but since we have millions of years before it becomes problematic...)
I can see the charm of space habitats too, mind you, and I would certainly like to see a 'generation ship', that would be cool. But, if one is really talking about mass-settlement, I don't think this can be done by simply building space-habitats. Humans *ARE* gravity dwellers, after all, and we - at least in our current form - thrive best on the surface of suitable ecologised gravity wells.;-)
One can, ofcourse, make artificial gravity on space-habitats, but I seem to remember an article explaining the difficulty with this as the space-habitat grows larger; when the length is more then 16 km, the internal torque forces would tear it apart. If that conclusion was right, then it becomes clear it isn't a viable means for massive settlement in space. I mean, what, in a cilindre of 16 km, how many humans can live there - compared to the billions on a planetary surface (at least, potentially)?
Anyway, as long as people thrive on planets, and they can get *out* of the gravity well when they chose too, I see no real problems. Besides, the two things don't really seem mutual exclusive anyway, so we could do both;-).
As for it being 'waste', ah well, you're correct that there is always a bias in regard to this. Even if Mars could only be suitable for hundredthousand years, before it's atmosphere becomes to thin again, I wouldn't call it a wasted effort. But I guess this is relative.
Hmm..that sentence indicate a certain biased view on the matter from the start, I'm afraid. I mean, I'm sure that there are many people who would feel building spacehabitats or anything space-related is already a 'waste'.
Anyway, within the context that in general this is worth the effort, I would make the claim that humans are a planetary species, and thus will thrive best on a planetary surface, preferably with an earth-like ecology.
I don't see how spacehabitats (though of course useful on itself) could actually be a replacement for it, especially when talking about large numbers of people who want to settle. I mean; why don't all people live on boats on this planet, for instance? There is 2/3 more sea then there is land, after all. Yet, people prefer to live on land, even islands, instead of making boats from resources of those islands, and then living on boats or floating cities. I see planets as the islands in space, and spacehabitats as the boats.
Sure, boats have their use, but in the end, if you want to colonise and become settlers in space, you'll need to get terraforming.
Well, indeed, this is what I said: if you are legally allowed to do so, then the answer is yes (You do have a right to distribute them to people you don't even know, even if the songs aren't yours).
As a consequence, the question of morality becomes moot, at least in this case.
"Your email address is shown publicly. Would you take issue with someone replying to a post of yours by posting it in the clear, or putting it in an FP on a new article?"
Not really, provided it is not done out of malevolence. I consider those that spam to be the real annoyances deserving a tantrum (and worse). Seen that it is *likely* to be crawled, I would prefer it not to be 'crawlable' as such, obviously, but I wouldn't make a tantrum to someone who had a good reason to post my addy fully (not that I really can imagine such a reason, because you can mail me without posting it on the web:-)
"And yes I changed the s to z on purpose. You're welcome."
That's my backup emailaddress, you unsensitive clod!!
"Effective communication is already fubar'd enough, I'd like to not make it harder by creating meanings for words contrary to their original defn."
I sympathise with the effort, though I fear it can't really be changed. The reasons being:
1) Whatever Hitchen (or anyone else) quotes, is therefor not the common use of the word. And even if it was back then, it doesn't mean it still is.
2)Many, many words already have several meanings (also historical).
3)Most importantly, language is a living thing (at least with living languages;-). It changes constantly: what a word meant 100 years ago, isn't always its meaning today. In fact, sometimes it can mean exactly the opposite, indeed. Or it can have numerous meanings (often begun as slang but then getting widely used).
I'm not sure one should deplore such a thing. Certainly, it provides additional complexity, which isn't always welcome, but on the other hand, it's also the beauty of a language.
It becomes problematic, of course, if someone uses a different meaning to a word no one else uses or knows, and, effectively, only exists in the posters' mind.;-)
"Just because you use a word to mean something in politically correct doublespeak doesn't mean jack, especially when the way in which you use it in a way contradictary to the original meaning. Words mean things."
I agree. And, seen the fact it's about refusing people for work who have a genetic defect, the correct meaning in this context is clearly 3a and b.
The fact that words can have more then one meaning does nothing to diminuish it's applicability within the context given. One would expect the semantic meaning is clear to a moderately intelligent person, seen the specific context in which it is used (namely making a discrimination towards a group of people who have a genetic defect).
"Reporters get thrown out of press conferences all the time for being obnoxious & no one complains."
The first part is an exageration, and the last part isn't true. At the very least, the reporter in question often complains.
(His press-agency often complains too. As sometimes others that are worried about journalistic integrity or who see the role of a reporter as more then just slavishly repeating the official stance.)
One should love google for the things they do that are good&cool, but it doesn't mean they are above criticism.
If Cnet got the info from publically accessable data (found by google itself, even), there is really no reason why google should put up a tantrum.
"Well, so is walking up to a cliff and turning left instead of stepping off the precipice. Discrimination is making an informed choice, generally speaking."
I'm afraid you are mistaken, discrimination means:
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners, etc.
"I think it is perfectly legitimate to discriminate, and if you'll think it through, you'll see it's done all the time. For instance, if you pass a programming test, and Martha doesn't, and I have a programming job to fill, I'm going to pick you. I'm going to discriminate against Martha, because the information I have clearly indicates it is likely she's not going to be as good an employee as you are."
Again, you are mistaken: what you describe is individual merrit, based on what the person himself has accomplished. Genetic discrimination would be based upon a group or category (namely, those with the genetic defect). Furthermore, just as the colour of your skin, it is not something you can alter by choice or hard work.
"But if Martha is missing her legs and I have install a million dollars worth of infrastructure for her to be an employee of equal value (which may be less than the million she costs, in fact), then you are going to get the job, and reasonably so -- the company shouldn't reasonably be held to pay for an individual's limitations."
Why not? You see, this is something I do not understand. The whole reasoning is somehow based on the assertation that corporations do not bear any responsability and can't held to pay for social rules, but this is completely unsubstantiated. But, as I said earlier, if you consider corporations as being part of society, and not uotside or above it, then why shouldn't they have to partake in upholding social rules and laws? This doesn't make any sense.
Ofcourse, there has to be balance: you can't expect companies to go bust because of the extra costs they have to make, so it is not surprising that the government helps in this regard (subsidies, refunds, etc.). That said, it is perfectly possible to make the corporations pay, to some degree. In my country, for instance, companies are obliged to adapt their infrastructure so that handicapt people can access/work there. Clearly, this is not for the benefit of *everyone's* limitation, yet the companies have to do it anyway. So, I would argue that one CAN reasonbly hold companies to pay, at least to a certain degree.
"Yes, I'm in the USA. Drugs are illegal here, because our legislators are out of control and the most uninformed, ignorant and stupid citizen is given an equal vote with an informed, intelligent one. Not a solvable problem at this time, IMHO."
Well...I can agree with a lot you've said, there.;-)
"Yes. Well, it is not at all clear to me that this is society's goal."
Indeed! And I'm not being ironic here, but I think this is rather the crux of the matter. If you do not think that that should be societies' primary goal (to provide wellfare - in the sense of prosperity, health, happiness, good fortune, well-being) to the majority of the populace that society consists of, then clearly one could have a totally different set of ethics.
For instance, if one would consider it to be the goal of society to maximise profits for corporations, or having ruthless economical darwinism, or having a small wealthy elite and a giant amount of dirt-poor hoi paloi...well, on any number of other perceived goals, one could conclude that their are no ethical issues whatsoever.
I mean, one could as well argue that a dictator exploiting the majority of his people was not such a bad thing, as long as his country stays productive, for instance.
I do not subscribe to those views, however. Society exists of ALL it's inhabitants, and thus, the rules of that society should be to the benefit of all, and applicable to all (including corporations).
Ofcourse, if one thinks genetic discrimination as not being an ethical issue, then clearly this point may seem un-enlightening.
I refute the whole notion that corporations can't be hold accountable for their (un)ethical behaviour. Corporations are an integral part of society, not something *outside* it. Therefor, whether their personal goal is grabbing as much profit for the shareholder or not, is irrelevant; they STILL have to abide by the rules of the society, which, aparently, feels that there is need for laws against discrimination (and what not).
My view on things is, that companies have the right to earn (some) profit, but not the right to maximise their profits at the expense of individual people.
I do not subscribe to your rosy view that corporations would take care of their employees; when we look at the 'raw' capitalism of the 19th century, we can see that very few actually looked after their workforce. In fact, most of the time, they were ruthlessly exploited.
"A failed drugs-in-the-blood test on application for employment is now a legitimate reason not to employ."
Maybe in your country. Which is, I would bet, the USA, because no western country is so much tight-assed about drugs and the whole 'war against it'. I do not think that would fly here, certainly when some drugs are (more or less) allowed, and there seems to be little precedent in not accepting someone who uses substances he is allowed to use. (We're not talking about him being actuallly still under influence, obviously, because that is something different).
But, I'm glad you acknowledge that an employer is part of society, and thus is bound by its rules. And if the goal of *society* (and not the corporations) is to provide the most wellfare to the most people, then discrimatory and other unethical behaviour of corporations should not be allowed, just as it is not allowed by any other citizen. The excuse of lessened financial profit for their shareholders is in that case irrelevant.
I have major "ethical" problems with employer genetic testing.
Then again, I do not berate and denigrate any opposition on ethical grounds to embryonic stem cell research. In fact, I have raised objections towards some stemm-cell research (for instance, with genetic brain-tissue experiments.)
So, I guess that means at least some remain consistent. And it doesn't imply one can't be against your views, on rational, yet ethical grounds (that said, a premise first would have to be agreed on, because ethics are be nature subjective).
As I expected, there are, again, some anglo-saxon neo-liberal capitalists busy trying to talk this kind of behaviour 'right'.
I'm a libertarian myself, and all for (moderate) capitalism, but all this rampant justifying god damn everything to what the economical benefit of it is, makes me puke. The inherent greed, amount of self-centrism and self-serving egotism, the twisted ethics of such grabbing corporations and 'businessmen' who have a severe lack of empathy always gives me the shivers. Let the world be run by corporations, and you are living under fascism, basically.
This latest is only one step further, but if there isn't a clear oposition against it... you may one day welcome the brave new world of Gattaca.
While, at the bottom line, and regardless of all those posts with justifications and explanatory crap for why it's not that bad an idea, it comes down to this: it's discrimination. Plain and simple. just as your gender, your race, etc. CAN NOT be a factor (at least legally) when applying somewhere for work, so is your genetic profile.
People who fail to see this probably have serious problems with understanding any ethical behaciour in society, IMHO. Economical darwinism my ass: that philosophy sucked since it was created in the 19th century. I prefer to see people as people, not as economical units.
"They went to the factories because it was preferrable to subsistence farming."
Which says a lot about the conditions then - but not indicate it was better when working in the factories.
In fact, you see exactly the same happening in third world countries all over: they think they will get a better life in the city, only most won't. Many acknowledge as much afterwards, but by then it's often to late. In any case, the fact they go there 'willingly' does not indicate that they aren't being exploited.
"The effect of capitalism over time, is to raise the marginal productivity of labor, which results in a higher standard of living, even for the poorest of the poor."
Only if it's balanced by social laws and protection.
"It is rather remarkable that one of the major health problems of the poorest people in America is obesity."
?
I fail to see your point. Maybe that's because fat, unhealthy food is cheap? In any case, I would not be very compelled to argue that exploitation is necessary as a way to loose weight.;-)
Though, I grant you, the kids used in sweat-shops in the third world DO look pretty skinny.
"So what? They aren't even the same in that specific aspect, so it was still wrong."
Perhaps, but he was wrong in that specific aspect then. It does not follow he claimed it were all the same beers.
"Carlsberg? Stella? Those tend to be served pretty cold. Certainly not anywhere near room temperature like Mr Bullshit stated."
True, they tend to be served cold, especially during the summer. Note that cold in this case means 5-6c, however. As far as I know (but, granted, I'm not *THAT* an expert on American beer - mainly because the ones I tried sucked), typical USA beer is served colder than that.
"Denmark and Belgium are part of Europe, by the way."
You don't say?;-)
Let's not get patronising, shall we?:-)
"Let's try an analogy: "It's a European car. Therefore it's small and front wheel drive". Would you call bullshit on that?"
Well, I would call it a generalisation on the issues he raised (small and front wheel), yes. Just as I said you had a point when you were refering to the serving temperatures. That said, as far as a typical car in europe would be more small and have a front wheel car then the commonly used USA car, I could see the point he was trying to make.
In any case, no one could reasonably conclude that such a person claimed all european cars were the same.
"Rubbish. Plainly and simply wrong. Even English bitter which ignorant piss-drinking colonials think is warm is actually served well below room temperature."
Ermm...I think he *did* say below room temperature. Granted, the level of 'below' could be debated endlessly, I fear - which I'm hardly inclined to do.
Anyway, isn't this discussion rather becomming moot? Clearly, you interpreted the parent poster differently then I did, and that's really all there is to it.
Well, lets stay honest here. You DID say "[...]Does that imply that all European beers are all the same? Yes it does."
You DID NOT say: "This hardly implies that there is a wide variation in the recommended serving temperatures of European beers".
I agree with you it is possible to make a case that your latter statement could be implied. But your former and original claim is clearly unsubstantiated. (Note, however, that even in this case he's probably right; I know of no european beer who is typically 'chilled' the way american beer is. Though, I agree, some beers can be cooled in a way that can be under (or above) 'just below roomtemperature'. In the vast majority of cases, however, the typical temperature for european beer is exactly as he describes.)
Anyway, saying that they should be served at a certain room-temperature, does not mean the beers are the same (nor does it imply such a thing). And this was your original claim.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no need for panic! sophiwm is THE tool to combat this problem.
A hole, like the the one in the ozonlayer, is only a whole compared to it's surroundings for which the comparison is used (which would be the ozon surrounding the whole).
Clearly, this points to an obvious solution to the problem: just wait until there is no ozon anywhere around the world, and consequently, you won't have a hole in the ozonlayer anymore, since there is no layer to start with!
Problem solved!
(and, as a bonus, you can all keep using your SUVs!)
I have said it before, and I'll say it again: The IFPI/RIAA/MPAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet or i2p).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
Fuck.
;-)
Now *this* was a *really* good post.
You're not doing bad, Rei, I remember other posts of you that imprseed me (though, granted, I usually only recognise they are/were from you by your '99 dead dualists sigpic', which isn't there, on this post).
Let's hope no one else uses such a sig.
"You're not paying for the plastic of the disc or the bits of the AAC, you're (supposedly) dropping a coin in the performer's hat."
Ah, yes, but you aren't paying for an *actual* performance, do you? You are paying for a copy of a performance once done, on a shiny piece of platic. Thus, the distortion of how it was in earlier times, and how it is now with recording, has already happend.
For centuries, even aside the patronage system, the 'performance hat' was filled with coins for the actual performance they did. Thus, they WORKED for it, and were rewarded for the work they did.
Nowadays, they can - in priciple - perform only once, and have an almost perpetual revenue from it, because of the near-zero cost of copying. Now, when demanding fairness...is that being fair? I don't think so. *I* have to work every day to gain a dime, over and over. I have to offer hard work every day, and get rewarded for that, in comparison. I don't see why people should inherently get an almost perpetual income by doing virtually nothing.
If they get payed and get 'bread on the table' by actually working for it - for instance by giving life concerts - by all means. This was how it was done for centuries, after all. And how many artists still get payed and afloat today, actually.
But getting payed over and over again, for doing basically nothing apart from that one recording...pfff, forget it, I don't call that fair. And *THAT* has been the true distortion which shifted the balance - but only from the 20th century onwards. I say: get rid of it, and may artists get payed for their actually performance and work, just like all the rest of us. Artists won't starve to death (i they are any good), rest assured.
"So back to the point: a CC-C-SA or GPL product requires a re-user to give proper credit, but it also frees them of the responsibility to support the artist they're using."
Yes, and? The artist agreed to it.
"And these days (as in all days, really), if you don't have some force of law at your disposal, trusting people to do the right thing is a flawed concept."
The 'right thing' in this case, is the free use of the CC'ed works under the restrictions you appointed. There is already a law for that: copyright-law. (CC is based on that law too, after all)
"It's telling the kids the cookie jar is open, and assuming they'll only eat one."
Now I'm beginning to see the parents' poster reference to 'paternalism'. Look, I've offered work under the CC-A myself and I tell you this: the cookie jar IS open because *I* opened it, it's meant to be open, and everyone can take as much as he wants (which is quite possible with digital copying, which I pointed out earlier). I *DO NOT CARE* if people use my work and don't pay me, in fact, that's just the gest of it. I WANT them to use it, and they don't have to offer me a dime, ever.
Aside for the attribution, the 'kids' can take as much as they want, the way they want it, at the time they want it, and can becoming stinking rich with it if they can, and still I won't demand them to pay me one lousy eurocent!
I hope I made it clear, as incomprehensible as it may seem to you: I do not *want* to get any financial compensation for the works I give away. If I wanted that, I wouldn't have given it away. What's so difficult to understand? Why the patronising, as if people that wish to give their stuff under the CC are idiots, who are not aware and consient of what they are doing?
Your whole reasoning is skewed and biased with the idea that authors always want financial compensation for what they create. You're knowledge of artists is seriously screwed, if you think that. I repeat: we have no problems with an open cookie jar; we WANT it to be open, and we WANT 'the kids' to take as much as they want. That's the wole point of it, actually.
"The whole point of sharing something with a Creative Commons license is to allow other people to build upon work that you've created, resulting in more creative works for people to enjoy. "
;-) One can not be so naive as to suppose that people just 'sharing' their work will never have the tendency to ask for money once they see that it's used. There just is no legal certaintity, so in practise, they are ALWAYS going to be forced to ask for permission, whether they give away their film for free or not. Certainly, there is less chance anyone will do the trouble if it's not commercially beneficial (if the film is a financial succes, for instance), but in the end, copyright(infringement) is NOT dependend of the succes someone has with a product based upon the infringement.
Let's see the next paragraph:
"When you tack on the non-commercial restriction, you're making people jump through hoops to make sure they don't make any money with the new work that has been created."
Well, then you don't actually forbid to "build upon" works to create "more creative" works, do you? You just forbid commercialising it.
Sure, this may give problems in some circumstances, but those circumstances are derived from the fact that people wanting to "create upon" them also want a commercial gain. This may or may not be a worthwhile goal, but it DOES indicate that the problem lies not in 'not being able to use the work', but in the commercial aspect of it. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that, if they make sure it's not for commercial gain, they can use the works to create their 'better' works upon.
"If someone wants to sell a movie with your song in it, they're either going to have to allow free redistribution of the movie, or ask you how much they have to pay to use your song in the movie."
So what are you complaining about? The CC (non-commercial) just makes it sure that you can use it when the film goes for free. This does NOT happen when it is 'shared' without any such licence - because then the normal C applies.
"Both of those options are the goals of someone who is sharing their work."
You've lost me, there. Certainly, it are not the goals *at the same time*?
BTW, I don't think the non-commercial clause forbids *indirect* gain from a cc'ed work in the sense that you describe it. If you actually use the work in your own work, and make that commercial, then, yes, probably. If you set it on a site that has also banners...I don't think so.
I agree they should make this a bit more clearer, though.
"If you're aiming for freedom, restricting usage is a bad idea, especially when it's done in such a way that many people choose to restrict usage without being aware of the consequences."
I can agree to that: the more freedom the better. Yet, one can not deny that 'more free' is also better then totally non-free. In that respect, while a CC NC may be less good then CC without any restrictions, it is still better then regular copyright with all rights reserved.
I've been a contributor to seti@home when it just started for some years. Maybe I was just being idealistic (and young ;-) but I thought it was a cool project. I still do, more or less, but..well, you know how it goes. After some years, I had to fix or reinstall my computers, and somehow, I never downloaded it again. Maybe I just lost interest too, and then with that more user-unfriendly boinc system, I just thought to myself it's not worth the trouble anymore. After all, it DOES cost you something, and let's face it; after years, there is still little to show for.
;-) would be better off; users get an actual financial gain, and the company gets huge resources for comparatively little money.
I have always been wondering, though, why *commercial* companies don't see the value in such distributed cpu systems? I mean, there are, for instance, commercial genetic-engineering companies, trying to solve the riddle of DNA strings... which usually costs a lot, for computertime on supercomputers. Now, it would seem to me that a system like boinc (but not exactly boinc, because I think it's not allowed for commercial use) would be financially a far better deal. Just give the 'users' some mild financial gain, and they will have a userbase by the millions in no time, while for the company itself it would still be cheaper then if they had to pay for regular supercomputer-time.
So, everybody (well, at least the capitalists
so why don't we see things like this, even after all these years?
LOL
;-)
That was funny!
I've just been given some mod points (again, sigh), and thought about giving you one extra +1 funny - or just say something.
Decided for the latter, hope you don't mind; you'll get an extra, no doubt.
"I do realize that I'm showing my lack of knowlege of life outside the States here, to some extent."
Yes, you do.
But, at least you do, which is an improvement to the typical USA joe sixpack.
"Unless something is done to either dramatically decrease the amount of bleeding from a would-be martian atmosphere or alternatively somehow manage to efficiently recycle the escaped atmosphere so that most of it just doesn't go riding on the solar wind out of the solar system, well, unless something like that is proposed and done it is hard to call it anything but waste."
;-)
;-).
Well, as yet, there is no certainty of the cause of the current thin atmosphere of Mars. There are in fact more then one hypothesis as why it is as it is today. Low gravity not capable of holding the atmosphere, solar winds which blow away the atmosphere but also big meteor impacts which, in combination with the low gravity dramatically reduced the atmosphere - or none of the above.
It is therefor a bit early to say what is the actual cause (for instance, if further research would indicate that Mars had a much stronger field, yet continued to lose it's atmosphere, then this theory may lose its worth.
Furthermore, even when we would be able to only resurect a considerable atmosphere for a short amount of time, that 'short' would still be millions of years, a timescale which, for humans, is long enough to be worthwhile.
Another consideration is, that *small* meteorites and comets (or even just dust and ice-particles) falls from space onto the earth; This amounts to several tons a year, and at least partially compensates for loss of atmosphere. If we could establish a steady stream of small cometparticles on Mars, we might increase the longlevity of the atmosphere considerably. (Ok, with todays' technology this would be hard, but since we have millions of years before it becomes problematic...)
I can see the charm of space habitats too, mind you, and I would certainly like to see a 'generation ship', that would be cool. But, if one is really talking about mass-settlement, I don't think this can be done by simply building space-habitats. Humans *ARE* gravity dwellers, after all, and we - at least in our current form - thrive best on the surface of suitable ecologised gravity wells.
One can, ofcourse, make artificial gravity on space-habitats, but I seem to remember an article explaining the difficulty with this as the space-habitat grows larger; when the length is more then 16 km, the internal torque forces would tear it apart. If that conclusion was right, then it becomes clear it isn't a viable means for massive settlement in space. I mean, what, in a cilindre of 16 km, how many humans can live there - compared to the billions on a planetary surface (at least, potentially)?
Anyway, as long as people thrive on planets, and they can get *out* of the gravity well when they chose too, I see no real problems. Besides, the two things don't really seem mutual exclusive anyway, so we could do both
As for it being 'waste', ah well, you're correct that there is always a bias in regard to this. Even if Mars could only be suitable for hundredthousand years, before it's atmosphere becomes to thin again, I wouldn't call it a wasted effort. But I guess this is relative.
"But why waste resources in this way?"
Hmm..that sentence indicate a certain biased view on the matter from the start, I'm afraid. I mean, I'm sure that there are many people who would feel building spacehabitats or anything space-related is already a 'waste'.
Anyway, within the context that in general this is worth the effort, I would make the claim that humans are a planetary species, and thus will thrive best on a planetary surface, preferably with an earth-like ecology.
I don't see how spacehabitats (though of course useful on itself) could actually be a replacement for it, especially when talking about large numbers of people who want to settle. I mean; why don't all people live on boats on this planet, for instance? There is 2/3 more sea then there is land, after all. Yet, people prefer to live on land, even islands, instead of making boats from resources of those islands, and then living on boats or floating cities. I see planets as the islands in space, and spacehabitats as the boats.
Sure, boats have their use, but in the end, if you want to colonise and become settlers in space, you'll need to get terraforming.
"Do you even know what a moderator is?"
;-)
Many times, I've asked the same question, when reading posts on slashdot...
Well, indeed, this is what I said: if you are legally allowed to do so, then the answer is yes (You do have a right to distribute them to people you don't even know, even if the songs aren't yours).
As a consequence, the question of morality becomes moot, at least in this case.
"Your email address is shown publicly. Would you take issue with someone replying to a post of yours by posting it in the clear, or putting it in an FP on a new article?"
:-)
:-)
Not really, provided it is not done out of malevolence. I consider those that spam to be the real annoyances deserving a tantrum (and worse). Seen that it is *likely* to be crawled, I would prefer it not to be 'crawlable' as such, obviously, but I wouldn't make a tantrum to someone who had a good reason to post my addy fully (not that I really can imagine such a reason, because you can mail me without posting it on the web
"And yes I changed the s to z on purpose. You're welcome."
That's my backup emailaddress, you unsensitive clod!!
j/k
"Effective communication is already fubar'd enough, I'd like to not make it harder by creating meanings for words contrary to their original defn."
;-). It changes constantly: what a word meant 100 years ago, isn't always its meaning today. In fact, sometimes it can mean exactly the opposite, indeed. Or it can have numerous meanings (often begun as slang but then getting widely used).
;-)
I sympathise with the effort, though I fear it can't really be changed. The reasons being:
1) Whatever Hitchen (or anyone else) quotes, is therefor not the common use of the word. And even if it was back then, it doesn't mean it still is.
2)Many, many words already have several meanings (also historical).
3)Most importantly, language is a living thing (at least with living languages
I'm not sure one should deplore such a thing. Certainly, it provides additional complexity, which isn't always welcome, but on the other hand, it's also the beauty of a language.
It becomes problematic, of course, if someone uses a different meaning to a word no one else uses or knows, and, effectively, only exists in the posters' mind.
"Just because you use a word to mean something in politically correct doublespeak doesn't mean jack, especially when the way in which you use it in a way contradictary to the original meaning. Words mean things."
I agree. And, seen the fact it's about refusing people for work who have a genetic defect, the correct meaning in this context is clearly 3a and b.
The fact that words can have more then one meaning does nothing to diminuish it's applicability within the context given. One would expect the semantic meaning is clear to a moderately intelligent person, seen the specific context in which it is used (namely making a discrimination towards a group of people who have a genetic defect).
"Reporters get thrown out of press conferences all the time for being obnoxious & no one complains."
The first part is an exageration, and the last part isn't true. At the very least, the reporter in question often complains.
(His press-agency often complains too. As sometimes others that are worried about journalistic integrity or who see the role of a reporter as more then just slavishly repeating the official stance.)
One should love google for the things they do that are good&cool, but it doesn't mean they are above criticism.
If Cnet got the info from publically accessable data (found by google itself, even), there is really no reason why google should put up a tantrum.
"I'm talking about morality here. Do those songs belong to you? Do you have a right to distribute them to people you don't even know?"
well, ermm... even if they don't belong to me, but I'm legally allowed to distribute them, then to your last question I can only answer: yes.
"Well, so is walking up to a cliff and turning left instead of stepping off the precipice. Discrimination is making an informed choice, generally speaking."
;-)
I'm afraid you are mistaken, discrimination means:
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners, etc.
"I think it is perfectly legitimate to discriminate, and if you'll think it through, you'll see it's done all the time. For instance, if you pass a programming test, and Martha doesn't, and I have a programming job to fill, I'm going to pick you. I'm going to discriminate against Martha, because the information I have clearly indicates it is likely she's not going to be as good an employee as you are."
Again, you are mistaken: what you describe is individual merrit, based on what the person himself has accomplished. Genetic discrimination would be based upon a group or category (namely, those with the genetic defect). Furthermore, just as the colour of your skin, it is not something you can alter by choice or hard work.
"But if Martha is missing her legs and I have install a million dollars worth of infrastructure for her to be an employee of equal value (which may be less than the million she costs, in fact), then you are going to get the job, and reasonably so -- the company shouldn't reasonably be held to pay for an individual's limitations."
Why not? You see, this is something I do not understand. The whole reasoning is somehow based on the assertation that corporations do not bear any responsability and can't held to pay for social rules, but this is completely unsubstantiated. But, as I said earlier, if you consider corporations as being part of society, and not uotside or above it, then why shouldn't they have to partake in upholding social rules and laws? This doesn't make any sense.
Ofcourse, there has to be balance: you can't expect companies to go bust because of the extra costs they have to make, so it is not surprising that the government helps in this regard (subsidies, refunds, etc.). That said, it is perfectly possible to make the corporations pay, to some degree. In my country, for instance, companies are obliged to adapt their infrastructure so that handicapt people can access/work there. Clearly, this is not for the benefit of *everyone's* limitation, yet the companies have to do it anyway. So, I would argue that one CAN reasonbly hold companies to pay, at least to a certain degree.
"Yes, I'm in the USA. Drugs are illegal here, because our legislators are out of control and the most uninformed, ignorant and stupid citizen is given an equal vote with an informed, intelligent one. Not a solvable problem at this time, IMHO."
Well...I can agree with a lot you've said, there.
"Yes. Well, it is not at all clear to me that this is society's goal."
Indeed! And I'm not being ironic here, but I think this is rather the crux of the matter. If you do not think that that should be societies' primary goal (to provide wellfare - in the sense of prosperity, health, happiness, good fortune, well-being) to the majority of the populace that society consists of, then clearly one could have a totally different set of ethics.
For instance, if one would consider it to be the goal of society to maximise profits for corporations, or having ruthless economical darwinism, or having a small wealthy elite and a giant amount of dirt-poor hoi paloi...well, on any number of other perceived goals, one could conclude that their are no ethical issues whatsoever.
I mean, one could as well argue that a dictator exploiting the majority of his people was not such a bad thing, as long as his country stays productive, for instance.
I do not subscribe to those views, however. Society exists of ALL it's inhabitants, and thus, the rules of that society should be to the benefit of all, and applicable to all (including corporations).
"So enlighten us -- what are they?"
It's discrimination.
Ofcourse, if one thinks genetic discrimination as not being an ethical issue, then clearly this point may seem un-enlightening.
I refute the whole notion that corporations can't be hold accountable for their (un)ethical behaviour. Corporations are an integral part of society, not something *outside* it. Therefor, whether their personal goal is grabbing as much profit for the shareholder or not, is irrelevant; they STILL have to abide by the rules of the society, which, aparently, feels that there is need for laws against discrimination (and what not).
My view on things is, that companies have the right to earn (some) profit, but not the right to maximise their profits at the expense of individual people.
I do not subscribe to your rosy view that corporations would take care of their employees; when we look at the 'raw' capitalism of the 19th century, we can see that very few actually looked after their workforce. In fact, most of the time, they were ruthlessly exploited.
"A failed drugs-in-the-blood test on application for employment is now a legitimate reason not to employ."
Maybe in your country. Which is, I would bet, the USA, because no western country is so much tight-assed about drugs and the whole 'war against it'. I do not think that would fly here, certainly when some drugs are (more or less) allowed, and there seems to be little precedent in not accepting someone who uses substances he is allowed to use. (We're not talking about him being actuallly still under influence, obviously, because that is something different).
But, I'm glad you acknowledge that an employer is part of society, and thus is bound by its rules. And if the goal of *society* (and not the corporations) is to provide the most wellfare to the most people, then discrimatory and other unethical behaviour of corporations should not be allowed, just as it is not allowed by any other citizen. The excuse of lessened financial profit for their shareholders is in that case irrelevant.
I have major "ethical" problems with employer genetic testing.
Then again, I do not berate and denigrate any opposition on ethical grounds to embryonic stem cell research. In fact, I have raised objections towards some stemm-cell research (for instance, with genetic brain-tissue experiments.)
So, I guess that means at least some remain consistent. And it doesn't imply one can't be against your views, on rational, yet ethical grounds (that said, a premise first would have to be agreed on, because ethics are be nature subjective).
As I expected, there are, again, some anglo-saxon neo-liberal capitalists busy trying to talk this kind of behaviour 'right'.
I'm a libertarian myself, and all for (moderate) capitalism, but all this rampant justifying god damn everything to what the economical benefit of it is, makes me puke. The inherent greed, amount of self-centrism and self-serving egotism, the twisted ethics of such grabbing corporations and 'businessmen' who have a severe lack of empathy always gives me the shivers. Let the world be run by corporations, and you are living under fascism, basically.
This latest is only one step further, but if there isn't a clear oposition against it... you may one day welcome the brave new world of Gattaca.
While, at the bottom line, and regardless of all those posts with justifications and explanatory crap for why it's not that bad an idea, it comes down to this: it's discrimination. Plain and simple. just as your gender, your race, etc. CAN NOT be a factor (at least legally) when applying somewhere for work, so is your genetic profile.
People who fail to see this probably have serious problems with understanding any ethical behaciour in society, IMHO. Economical darwinism my ass: that philosophy sucked since it was created in the 19th century. I prefer to see people as people, not as economical units.
"They went to the factories because it was preferrable to subsistence farming."
;-)
Which says a lot about the conditions then - but not indicate it was better when working in the factories.
In fact, you see exactly the same happening in third world countries all over: they think they will get a better life in the city, only most won't. Many acknowledge as much afterwards, but by then it's often to late. In any case, the fact they go there 'willingly' does not indicate that they aren't being exploited.
"The effect of capitalism over time, is to raise the marginal productivity of labor, which results in a higher standard of living, even for the poorest of the poor."
Only if it's balanced by social laws and protection.
"It is rather remarkable that one of the major health problems of the poorest people in America is obesity."
?
I fail to see your point. Maybe that's because fat, unhealthy food is cheap? In any case, I would not be very compelled to argue that exploitation is necessary as a way to loose weight.
Though, I grant you, the kids used in sweat-shops in the third world DO look pretty skinny.
"So what? They aren't even the same in that specific aspect, so it was still wrong."
;-)
:-)
Perhaps, but he was wrong in that specific aspect then. It does not follow he claimed it were all the same beers.
"Carlsberg? Stella? Those tend to be served pretty cold. Certainly not anywhere near room temperature like Mr Bullshit stated."
True, they tend to be served cold, especially during the summer. Note that cold in this case means 5-6c, however. As far as I know (but, granted, I'm not *THAT* an expert on American beer - mainly because the ones I tried sucked), typical USA beer is served colder than that.
"Denmark and Belgium are part of Europe, by the way."
You don't say?
Let's not get patronising, shall we?
"Let's try an analogy: "It's a European car. Therefore it's small and front wheel drive". Would you call bullshit on that?"
Well, I would call it a generalisation on the issues he raised (small and front wheel), yes. Just as I said you had a point when you were refering to the serving temperatures. That said, as far as a typical car in europe would be more small and have a front wheel car then the commonly used USA car, I could see the point he was trying to make.
In any case, no one could reasonably conclude that such a person claimed all european cars were the same.
"Rubbish. Plainly and simply wrong. Even English bitter which ignorant piss-drinking colonials think is warm is actually served well below room temperature."
Ermm...I think he *did* say below room temperature. Granted, the level of 'below' could be debated endlessly, I fear - which I'm hardly inclined to do.
Anyway, isn't this discussion rather becomming moot? Clearly, you interpreted the parent poster differently then I did, and that's really all there is to it.
Well, lets stay honest here. You DID say "[...]Does that imply that all European beers are all the same? Yes it does."
You DID NOT say: "This hardly implies that there is a wide variation in the recommended serving temperatures of European beers".
I agree with you it is possible to make a case that your latter statement could be implied. But your former and original claim is clearly unsubstantiated. (Note, however, that even in this case he's probably right; I know of no european beer who is typically 'chilled' the way american beer is. Though, I agree, some beers can be cooled in a way that can be under (or above) 'just below roomtemperature'. In the vast majority of cases, however, the typical temperature for european beer is exactly as he describes.)
Anyway, saying that they should be served at a certain room-temperature, does not mean the beers are the same (nor does it imply such a thing). And this was your original claim.
Ryan, is that you? ;-)