Speaking strictly for myself... I've never bought a cell phone ringtone, and I'm not likely to. My phone rings with the main riff from Frank Zappa's "Peaches en Regalia." I popped in the CD, figured out the riff, and programmed it note-by-note. That ringtone has been on the phone for about five years and I'm just now getting to the point where I'm thinking about putting something else on.
But if I were inclined to buy a ringtone, assuming I had a phone I could download a ringtone onto, I probably wouldn't have a problem with $2.49. It's probably going to last five years. But that's just me...
Which brings up the method, again, of how the 'Dead dealt with bootlegging, by inviting bootleggers to give it thier best shot - This meant more publicity for the band, which led to more sales.
But remember that they allowed people to tape only their live shows. Unlike most top-of-the-chart acts, each Dead show was unique. That means (a) the shows were worth recording and collecting if you were into that kind of thing, and (b) you'd want to go to shows whenever you could (that is to say, the promise of a unique experience drove ticket sales).
The band still didn't want anyone pirating official releases.
I should add that I agree completely with folks who say the music industry needs to find some way to work with internet technology and find ways to produce a product that can be used the way people want to use it, rather than trying to bully and litigate their way to profits. That's simply common sense.
But the main reasons that allowing taping worked for the Dead really don't apply in a meaningful way to people who copy popular commercial CDs. Workingman's Dead was still off-limits to tape traders.
Re:I've got news for them...
on
Yahoo's Geek Statue
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Oh, yeah, delete nothing. God knows it would be a big, fat, hairy shame to delete any of those "Topic Reply Notifications" I've received from varioius message boards I've posted to.
I know there's a famous term about a choice that's not really a choice, but I can't remember it off hand...
Hobson's choice. Hobson was a guy who owned a stable and rented out horses for recreational riding. It eventually became apparent that some horses were much more popular than others. So Hobson started rotating the lineup to give all the horses equal work. You either took the next horse in the rotation or you got none at all.
Do you think that they may actually be telling the truth and could in fact be trying to make life better? Nah! Conspiracy theories are much more fun!
Maybe they really are sincere about what they're saying. But that doesn't rule out the possibility that policies could change some time in the future. Anything that can be abused will be, sooner or later.
Take off your tinfoil hat and put on your thinking cap. Let's figure out how to take advantage of a great technology and figure out how to make it safe.
Rest assured that sooner or later, anything that can be abused will be.
Read this: http://news.com.com/2010-1069-980325.html
Check out the stuff Gillette Vice President Dick Cantwell says. Note his use of "at this time..." and "at this stage of the game..." That means something. The VP of a major, multinational corporation doesn't use expressions like that for no reason.
Not valid. This would make sense only if everyone only got upset at being beaten senseless a dozen times -- I would be upset to be beaten up once.
I knew you'd find a reason not to like that one. My point is much simpler than what you're trying to make of it: I'm simply saying that "not as bad" isn't good enough. Period. But come on, 'fess up. You knew that, didn't you?
"Well, you know, a very large part of the political activity I've been seeing in recent years can be characterized as outright, shameless lies about the opposition on things that are easily verified. Am I supposed to believe I can trust a stranger who cold calls me?"
Thanks for throwing out another straw man -- that's not the point. You have the responsibility of separating the chaff from the grain.
Yes, I do indeed have that responsibility. And I'm starting by considering calls from people I don't know to be chaff. Why should I spend time evaluating what a caller tells me when, from the start, I see no reason to trust the caller?
Why does government need to be responsible for your wants?
Once again, as I've said several times already, the government doesn't "need" to be responsible for my wants. I didn't ask them to set up the list. But since they did, I'll take it.
I've also said that if a non-government agency can do the job, that's preferable to the government doing it. Further, if no one does it, I'm no worse off than I was before, am I?
The fact of the matter is, you can choose to avoid their calls.
Hmmm... yeah, we've talked about that already, haven't we?
Just because you don't want to be bothered doesn't mean that government should be helping you out, especially when it *could* limit political discourse.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to try to spread their messages. I'm just questioning this one method.
I'm not talking about selling here. I'm talking about political activity. There's a huge difference.
Well, you know, a very large part of the political activity I've been seeing in recent years can be characterized as outright, shameless lies about the opposition on things that are easily verified. Am I supposed to believe I can trust a stranger who cold calls me?
And those political activism calls will not seem nearly as bad once the BS sales calls are gone.
Yeah, and after a dozen angry bikers have beaten you senseless, it won't seem nearly as bad when only two angry bikers beat you senseless.
I'm all for activism if it can be done in a clearly honest way. Just let the activists find some other means of reaching the people who want to be reached.
The whole point of unlisted numbers is to keep people (such as telemarketers) from calling you if you hadn't given them your number. The solution exists already, all it would take is a small act to give this concept legal crdence.
But as I've said several times already, I want to be listed. I don't want to keep people who don't have my number, in general, from calling me. I just want to keep telemarketers from calling.
If someone who actually knows who I am wants to call but doesn't have my number, I want him or her to be able to look me up. And guess what? It happens. I don't want to lock those people out just because of telemarketers.
"telemarketers operating in areas with no lists know they're calling people who don't want to be called -- people who view those calls as intrusive and bothersome."
They also know that they are contacting people who do want to be contacted.
Then let them find some other way to reach those people. Or let someone start a "Do Call" list. That sounds to me like the best solution.
I just did a quick bit of research to find out the number of residential telephone lines in the U.S. The most recent number from the FCC is 149 million as of 12/31/03. I don't think the number has gone up much since then because of the cell phone boom. Possibly it's gone down.
Anyway, I don't think you should get to piss two people off for a chance to sell something to one person. Can you really, seriously argue that that's not beyond the pale?
Re: point 1., you brought up that point to refute my challenge of government control of the list, so of course, in context, they were related and dependent -- or you were using a straw man argument.
Somehow the argument has gotten muddled at this point because what I think you're saying doesn't make sense in the context of what I think I'm saying. We have two ideas on the table:
One is that I want to be able to list my number in the book but not let telemarketers call.
The other is the question of whether the government should "control" the do not call list.
Now, clearly you can have both (as in fact we do in the U.S.), and if you do they work together. So in that sense you can say they're related. I can also see ways in which we could have one or the other but not both; neither idea requires the other in order to be implemented. That's what I meant when I said they're not dependent on each other.
I don't see the need for separation -- either your number is public, or it isn't.
If the "listed but do not call" situation means my number doesn't neatly into either the "public" or "nonpublic" category... well, frankly, I don't care.
Re: point 2, did you even read my previous response to this? I was differentiating between proactive action and reactive enforcement.
Okay.
Re: gathering information -- the point is that we are granting the authority to do so. Even the US Government needs to at least make a pretense of abiding by law. If we shift the scale of what is allowed, you can bet that the government will shift the scale of what is actually done.
You're right about everything here, except that it's not a case of "are granting" the authority to gather info. It's more like "have granted." If they don't already know everything they want to know about you, they know where the missing info is, and it's within easy reach.
If you were to decide to be an activist about it, you'd have to work to change something that already exists rather than work to prevent something.
The DNC list is a tech-based solution. Do you think they manually check the list?
It's not a tech-based solution in the sense that the telemarketers can defeat it with a stepped-up technological response of their own. Someone says, "We have this list. Don't call these numbers." It's just that simple. What technological means would someone use to get around it? You either use the list or you don't.
Then clarify. Harassment, like repeated unwanted contact by an entity, or coordinated by an entity, is illegal. The straw that breaks the camel's back is not guilty of harassment.
I did clarify. I went on to say that I really don't care what you call it. The bottom line is that telemarketers operating in areas with no lists know they're calling people who don't want to be called -- people who view those calls as intrusive and bothersome.
"When 100 million grocery shoppers sign up for a "Do Not Bag" list, ask me that question again. "
Not a valid argument. Popularity does not equal legality, as discussed. My point still stands.
No, my argument is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, that popularity equals legality, or that popularity equals "right" in the ethical sense.
My argument is that popularity indicates a significant number of people perceive a problem. Your friendly neighborhood grocery bagger has no reason to believe you'd feel he was harassing you because quite likely, he's never received any complaints of that nature.
The telemarketer, on the other hand, is certainly aware that many people consider his calls to be a problem.
"Therefore, i think "unlisted" and "do not call" should remain separate. That's all I said. Anything about government in that regard is something you assumed. "
No, that's not what you said. You said "You said that there could be a law against unsolicited calls to an unlisted number. That's bringing the government into it." Short term memory loss?
Okay, we're talking about two things here:
1. The point I've been trying to make about "unlisted numbers" and "do not call lists" is simply that I'd like to keep them separate. That, in and of itself, doesn't require government action if you have a non-governmentally-administered do not call list. I've continually said that if such a thing is shown to be viable, I'm all for it.
2. The comment on a law against calling unlisted numbers was in response to your suggestion about making it a misdemeanor. That implies a law, which implies government action.
Now, paragraphs 1 and 2 above are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually dependent. They're simply to different, although related, ideas.
See above. And it looks benign, but the first steps usually do. Why not add addresses to the list, to help prevent junk mail? How about email addresses, while we're at it. And, since we already have this great database, let's add tax information, social security numbers, place of employment, age, sex, race... you get the idea?
I get the idea. I also have the idea that the government already has most of this info, anyway. If they want more info they can just take it, using excuses I'm sure you can easily anticipate yourself if you've been following the news for the last four years. If they want to put it all in a centralized database, they can do that, too, using the same excuses. Of course, they might not even think about the need for an excuse. They might just do it on the sly, thinking to keep it secret.
Gathering the info by having us voluntarily give it up on some sort of pretense is terribly inefficient, even by U.S. government standards. And it doesn't get info on as many people as they could get by simply finding a reason to just take it.
I've already pointed out that I don't trust technology-based solutions. Sooner or later, they'll be defeated. Every time.
BS. If someone feels harassed, anyone who does anything to contribute to that, even if their contribution is legal and justified, is guilt of harassment?
If your question is simply a matter of using the word "harassment," I don't care whether you call it that or not. I just used it to follow the lead of those who have used it before me.
The bottom line is that telemarkers who work in areas without a list know they're calling a lot of people who don't want the calls, who consider those calls bothersome and intrusive. Sure, it's legal. But it's not justifiable.
In your opinion, there is no legitimate reason. According to law, there is.
Ahem. My original comment was this question: Why would telemarketers get upset over not being allowed to call people who sign up for the list? What possible reason could they have for wanting to call people who don't want to be called?
The law doesn't say there's legitimate reason for them to call. It says just the opposite. It says they're not supposed to call those people.
I did respond to that because it's laughable. What if I feel harassed by having someone bag my groceries at the supermarket? I didn't ask them to. Are they now guilty of harassment?
When 100 million grocery shoppers sign up for a "Do Not Bag" list, ask me that question again.
No, the distinction is between there being a list of people, and there not being a list of people. There is no government-administered list of unlisted numbers. There would have to be a list of DNC registry numbers. While they may semantically seem the same, they are far, far different.
You're arguing against something I didn't say. From my point of view as a telephone user, there is indeed a very worthwhile and useful distinction to be made between "excluding everyone who doesn't have my number" and "excluding telemarketers." Therefore, i think "unlisted" and "do not call" should remain separate. That's all I said. Anything about government in that regard is something you assumed.
Once again, as I said before, if there's a non-governmental way to implement it, fine with me.
The method of control is in the hands of the victims, not in the hands of government.
Then don't sign up for the list. That way, you still have control.
I'm saying that the DNC method is not safe for the people.
Why is it not "safe?"
If you're cynical and distrustful of the government, I can trump on that, believe me. But a list of phone numbers is relatively benign in any context.
The point you made in your previous post is that there are limits on free speech based upon whether that speech could be considered annoying, disruptive, or what have you. I couldn't avoid hearing a bullhorn outside my house, but I can avoid telemarketer calls quite easily.
Not if they get to dial your number. If my phone rings, I don't know who's calling until I look at the caller ID. Maybe it's a call I want, or one I need to answer. Or maybe it's just some dweeb who wants me to buy replacement windows. I don't know until I can look at the caller ID display. At that point I've already interrupted whatever I was doing, found the phone and picked it up. I haven't "avoided" the call in meaningful way, even if I don't push the button to answer.
Just because something is popular doesn't mean that it is right.
No, it doesn't. But that number does indicate a problem. It also indicates that a large number of people aren't willing to cut the telemarketers any slack, and there's no reason they should.
Especially when there are other solutions available.
What other solutions? I've criticized every solution you've suggested, and you haven't answered any of those criticisms. Show my why I'm wrong, or come up with a solution I can't criticize, and I'm on board.
Until then, a government-administered "do not call" list is, in my opinion, the most workable solution I've seen.
Please note that there are exceptions to the DNC list, and these exceptions are what the article was griping about. Political action groups can still call numbers on the DNC, no?
They can. I'm not very happy about that, either.
Why? Because it shouldn't be the government's function to filter your calls.
Inasmuch as you didn't argue against my previous statement that the cumulative effect of telemarketers' calls can have essentially the same effect as harassment, I'll assume you agree with me on that point. Therefore, it's okay in this case.
Here's another point: Why have the telemarketers been howling against the do not call list? Did it ever occur to you to wonder what legitimate reason they could have for calling people who don't want to be called? I've wondered that.
Well, there's no legitimate reason, but there's a reason. And that reason is simply that they want to be able to reach those timid folks who are too nice to hang up, who can very possibly be talked into something against their better judgment. Now, there's a Darwinist part of me that says people that damn timid don't deserve protection, but at the end of the day, I have to say they do.
I did not say that government should not be allowed to prosecute violations of law.
You said that there could be a law against unsolicited calls to an unlisted number. That's bringing the government into it.
If you're going to go that far, I'd just prefer to let them administer the list. An unlisted number excludes everyone who doesn't have your number. The list merely excludes a defined class of caller. That's a distinction worth making.
A proactive, rather than reactive, government -- with regards to communication -- is one step closer to a all-pervasive state.
Politically, I identify most closely with the Libertarians (although I diverge on some points). So you're preaching to the choir when you tell me you think less government is the best government.
However... I think government action is appropriate for situations in which no one else has the scope and/or the authority to address a situation adequately. As far as I can tell, this is one of those situations.
But if a workable solution could be found that doesn't involve the government, that would be preferable.
In the meantime, if you want to start cutting back on the size of government, there are far more fertile areas to start.
Not the same at all. Telephones are a gated communication device, bullhorns are not.
You're missing my point, which is simply that any any communications device can be misused.
Also, current law already provides that harassment, via telephone or otherwise, is not allowed.
One call might not constitute harassment. Eight or ten calls in a day from various marketers could produce a cumulative effect that feels very much like harassment.
The FTC says that on August 18, they registered the 100 millionth number on the U.S. "do not call" list. Wow, just think about it. 100 million people who don't want to be called. That's about one-third the population of the U.S. It's significantly more votes than any single candidate received in the presidential election.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on why so many people have signed up.
There's a definite market for a caller ID box that could verify incoming numbers against known lists of telemarketers. The box could update its list via modem while the phone is offline.
There's always going to be a way around that kind of technical solution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they already have devices that can "spoof" incoming numbers that appear on the recipient's caller ID?
Besides, why should I have to buy extra equipment? And most likely pay a subscription fee to update the blacklist? No thanks.
Alternatively, make unlisted numbers free; make it a misdemeanor to place an unsolicited call to an unlisted number.
Well, there you go bringing the government into it.
So is a bullhorn, but see what happens if you stand out on the street in a quiet subdivision and shout your message through one in the middle of the night. There are acceptable ways to use any means of communication, and there unacceptable means.
...and I don't believe the government should be involved in regulating who may use the phone to contact anyone, other than to protect against other crimes (like real harassment).
I don't look at it as the government being involved in regulation. I look at it as a way for me to regulate who can call me because I have the choice of signing up for the list or not.
Now, with that end in mind, I would be willing to let someone other than the government administer a no-call list, but I can't think of any viable candidates if it's actually to be enforced with any real sense of authority.
I could just as easily argue that I don't cry for you, a couple minutes of hassle a week is no big deal, and you don't need protectionism.
You can argue anything you want. As far as I'm concerned, my phone is in the house for the convenience of my family and me, not for the benefit of people who want to call me for their own self-centered agendas.
I don't care what people are surfing on taxpayer machines, at least in the library. It's not like they are employees or any of that. If no one else can really see what they are doing, who cares?
Let's just hope they're not doing anything that'll leave a stain on the chair.
Plus, I wouldn't fire someone in my abortion clinic just for expressing anti-abortion opinions; if it interfered with her ability to provide safe abortions to women who choose to get them, then she'd be gone, but until then, meh.
Yes, but... I would have some nagging doubts about why she wants to be there.
I have s aneaky suspicion that he did it to make a point. Unfortunately, if he comes out and says or blatently acts like he did it only to make a point, it won't work anymore. So he files bogus, stupid lawsuits in an attempt to get the law changed.
I thought so, too, at first. But after reading TFA and looking at the guy's web site, my opinion is that he's serious about it. I think he's taking it much farther than anywone would just to make a point.
I know we hate car analogies here, nontheless, it is a bit like expecting a car owner to pass a mechanic certification test when all the guy wants to do is drive to work and back every day.
No, it's like saying it's a darn good idea if a car owner knows that he should have the oil changed periodically, keep the tires properly inflated/balanced/rotated, keep the battery terminals reasonably clean, etc.
I don't see how hardcore pornography is defended by the 1st amendment. Softcore or erotic photography certainly can be art, but not the hardcore dime-a-dozen variety found online.
Why should it make a difference whether it's "art" or not? The first amendment doesn't say anything about art. Nor does it say anything about quality. If it did, better than 90 percent of everything produced as entertainment, no matter the subject matter, would have to be censored.
And before someone pops and says something like "You don't anything to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong," who really wants to explain their google searches to anyone else, let alone federal agents? That's trouble I could do without. Perhaps it isn't very common, but under the Patriot Act, I believe it's secret how often it does occur.
Exactly. And it's not a question of whether you've done anything wrong. The real question is whether someone at a law enforcement agency thinks it looks as if you might have done something wrong.
I doubt that 15% of American households without cable or satellite service even own a VCR, much less bother to use it to "pirate" movies, television shows, and sporting events. I haven't ever envisioned people that shun cable TV as really big technological advocates anyway so I doubt grandma with her 25 year old 19" TV with the rabbit ears is going to be making DivX copies of your broadcast of Star Wars Episode I on NBC available over BitTorrent. Get real.
I don't know if I'm typical, but I don't have cable. I do have a VCR, three DVD players, and one combo unit that plays both. I make digital movies as a hobby.
For me, not having cable isn't a question of being a "technological advocate." (Heck, I have three Linux boxes in the house, as well as a Mac and two Win2K boxes.) Or of "shunning" cable. It's a matter of looking at the programming, and looking at the price, and deciding it's not worth it.
I'm pretty sure the word "protected," in this context, refers to computers that are covered by the legal protection defined in the bill. It has no technical significance at all.
Slashdot Mirror
But if I were inclined to buy a ringtone, assuming I had a phone I could download a ringtone onto, I probably wouldn't have a problem with $2.49. It's probably going to last five years. But that's just me...
But remember that they allowed people to tape only their live shows. Unlike most top-of-the-chart acts, each Dead show was unique. That means (a) the shows were worth recording and collecting if you were into that kind of thing, and (b) you'd want to go to shows whenever you could (that is to say, the promise of a unique experience drove ticket sales).
The band still didn't want anyone pirating official releases.
I should add that I agree completely with folks who say the music industry needs to find some way to work with internet technology and find ways to produce a product that can be used the way people want to use it, rather than trying to bully and litigate their way to profits. That's simply common sense.
But the main reasons that allowing taping worked for the Dead really don't apply in a meaningful way to people who copy popular commercial CDs. Workingman's Dead was still off-limits to tape traders.
Oh, yeah, delete nothing. God knows it would be a big, fat, hairy shame to delete any of those "Topic Reply Notifications" I've received from varioius message boards I've posted to.
Hobson's choice. Hobson was a guy who owned a stable and rented out horses for recreational riding. It eventually became apparent that some horses were much more popular than others. So Hobson started rotating the lineup to give all the horses equal work. You either took the next horse in the rotation or you got none at all.
Maybe they really are sincere about what they're saying. But that doesn't rule out the possibility that policies could change some time in the future. Anything that can be abused will be, sooner or later.
Rest assured that sooner or later, anything that can be abused will be.
Read this: http://news.com.com/2010-1069-980325.html
Check out the stuff Gillette Vice President Dick Cantwell says. Note his use of "at this time..." and "at this stage of the game..." That means something. The VP of a major, multinational corporation doesn't use expressions like that for no reason.
The google homepage is just search, plus a pretty google graphic.
I'm guessing you're blocking cookies from google.com. I think you have to have them enabled in order to see the link.
I knew you'd find a reason not to like that one. My point is much simpler than what you're trying to make of it: I'm simply saying that "not as bad" isn't good enough. Period. But come on, 'fess up. You knew that, didn't you?
"Well, you know, a very large part of the political activity I've been seeing in recent years can be characterized as outright, shameless lies about the opposition on things that are easily verified. Am I supposed to believe I can trust a stranger who cold calls me?"
Thanks for throwing out another straw man -- that's not the point. You have the responsibility of separating the chaff from the grain.
Yes, I do indeed have that responsibility. And I'm starting by considering calls from people I don't know to be chaff. Why should I spend time evaluating what a caller tells me when, from the start, I see no reason to trust the caller?
Why does government need to be responsible for your wants?
Once again, as I've said several times already, the government doesn't "need" to be responsible for my wants. I didn't ask them to set up the list. But since they did, I'll take it.
I've also said that if a non-government agency can do the job, that's preferable to the government doing it. Further, if no one does it, I'm no worse off than I was before, am I?
The fact of the matter is, you can choose to avoid their calls.
Hmmm... yeah, we've talked about that already, haven't we?
Just because you don't want to be bothered doesn't mean that government should be helping you out, especially when it *could* limit political discourse.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to try to spread their messages. I'm just questioning this one method.
Well, you know, a very large part of the political activity I've been seeing in recent years can be characterized as outright, shameless lies about the opposition on things that are easily verified. Am I supposed to believe I can trust a stranger who cold calls me?
And those political activism calls will not seem nearly as bad once the BS sales calls are gone.
Yeah, and after a dozen angry bikers have beaten you senseless, it won't seem nearly as bad when only two angry bikers beat you senseless.
I'm all for activism if it can be done in a clearly honest way. Just let the activists find some other means of reaching the people who want to be reached.
The whole point of unlisted numbers is to keep people (such as telemarketers) from calling you if you hadn't given them your number. The solution exists already, all it would take is a small act to give this concept legal crdence.
But as I've said several times already, I want to be listed. I don't want to keep people who don't have my number, in general, from calling me. I just want to keep telemarketers from calling.
If someone who actually knows who I am wants to call but doesn't have my number, I want him or her to be able to look me up. And guess what? It happens. I don't want to lock those people out just because of telemarketers.
They also know that they are contacting people who do want to be contacted.
Then let them find some other way to reach those people. Or let someone start a "Do Call" list. That sounds to me like the best solution.
I just did a quick bit of research to find out the number of residential telephone lines in the U.S. The most recent number from the FCC is 149 million as of 12/31/03. I don't think the number has gone up much since then because of the cell phone boom. Possibly it's gone down.
Anyway, I don't think you should get to piss two people off for a chance to sell something to one person. Can you really, seriously argue that that's not beyond the pale?
Re: point 1., you brought up that point to refute my challenge of government control of the list, so of course, in context, they were related and dependent -- or you were using a straw man argument.
Somehow the argument has gotten muddled at this point because what I think you're saying doesn't make sense in the context of what I think I'm saying. We have two ideas on the table:
One is that I want to be able to list my number in the book but not let telemarketers call.
The other is the question of whether the government should "control" the do not call list.
Now, clearly you can have both (as in fact we do in the U.S.), and if you do they work together. So in that sense you can say they're related. I can also see ways in which we could have one or the other but not both; neither idea requires the other in order to be implemented. That's what I meant when I said they're not dependent on each other.
I don't see the need for separation -- either your number is public, or it isn't.
If the "listed but do not call" situation means my number doesn't neatly into either the "public" or "nonpublic" category... well, frankly, I don't care.
Re: point 2, did you even read my previous response to this? I was differentiating between proactive action and reactive enforcement.
Okay.
Re: gathering information -- the point is that we are granting the authority to do so. Even the US Government needs to at least make a pretense of abiding by law. If we shift the scale of what is allowed, you can bet that the government will shift the scale of what is actually done.
You're right about everything here, except that it's not a case of "are granting" the authority to gather info. It's more like "have granted." If they don't already know everything they want to know about you, they know where the missing info is, and it's within easy reach.
If you were to decide to be an activist about it, you'd have to work to change something that already exists rather than work to prevent something.
It's not a tech-based solution in the sense that the telemarketers can defeat it with a stepped-up technological response of their own. Someone says, "We have this list. Don't call these numbers." It's just that simple. What technological means would someone use to get around it? You either use the list or you don't.
Then clarify. Harassment, like repeated unwanted contact by an entity, or coordinated by an entity, is illegal. The straw that breaks the camel's back is not guilty of harassment.
I did clarify. I went on to say that I really don't care what you call it. The bottom line is that telemarketers operating in areas with no lists know they're calling people who don't want to be called -- people who view those calls as intrusive and bothersome.
"When 100 million grocery shoppers sign up for a "Do Not Bag" list, ask me that question again. "
Not a valid argument. Popularity does not equal legality, as discussed. My point still stands.
No, my argument is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, that popularity equals legality, or that popularity equals "right" in the ethical sense.
My argument is that popularity indicates a significant number of people perceive a problem. Your friendly neighborhood grocery bagger has no reason to believe you'd feel he was harassing you because quite likely, he's never received any complaints of that nature.
The telemarketer, on the other hand, is certainly aware that many people consider his calls to be a problem.
"Therefore, i think "unlisted" and "do not call" should remain separate. That's all I said. Anything about government in that regard is something you assumed. "
No, that's not what you said. You said "You said that there could be a law against unsolicited calls to an unlisted number. That's bringing the government into it." Short term memory loss?
Okay, we're talking about two things here:
1. The point I've been trying to make about "unlisted numbers" and "do not call lists" is simply that I'd like to keep them separate. That, in and of itself, doesn't require government action if you have a non-governmentally-administered do not call list. I've continually said that if such a thing is shown to be viable, I'm all for it.
2. The comment on a law against calling unlisted numbers was in response to your suggestion about making it a misdemeanor. That implies a law, which implies government action.
Now, paragraphs 1 and 2 above are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually dependent. They're simply to different, although related, ideas.
See above. And it looks benign, but the first steps usually do. Why not add addresses to the list, to help prevent junk mail? How about email addresses, while we're at it. And, since we already have this great database, let's add tax information, social security numbers, place of employment, age, sex, race... you get the idea?
I get the idea. I also have the idea that the government already has most of this info, anyway. If they want more info they can just take it, using excuses I'm sure you can easily anticipate yourself if you've been following the news for the last four years. If they want to put it all in a centralized database, they can do that, too, using the same excuses. Of course, they might not even think about the need for an excuse. They might just do it on the sly, thinking to keep it secret.
Gathering the info by having us voluntarily give it up on some sort of pretense is terribly inefficient, even by U.S. government standards. And it doesn't get info on as many people as they could get by simply finding a reason to just take it.
I've already pointed out that I don't trust technology-based solutions. Sooner or later, they'll be defeated. Every time.
BS. If someone feels harassed, anyone who does anything to contribute to that, even if their contribution is legal and justified, is guilt of harassment?
If your question is simply a matter of using the word "harassment," I don't care whether you call it that or not. I just used it to follow the lead of those who have used it before me.
The bottom line is that telemarkers who work in areas without a list know they're calling a lot of people who don't want the calls, who consider those calls bothersome and intrusive. Sure, it's legal. But it's not justifiable.
In your opinion, there is no legitimate reason. According to law, there is.
Ahem. My original comment was this question: Why would telemarketers get upset over not being allowed to call people who sign up for the list? What possible reason could they have for wanting to call people who don't want to be called?
The law doesn't say there's legitimate reason for them to call. It says just the opposite. It says they're not supposed to call those people.
I did respond to that because it's laughable. What if I feel harassed by having someone bag my groceries at the supermarket? I didn't ask them to. Are they now guilty of harassment?
When 100 million grocery shoppers sign up for a "Do Not Bag" list, ask me that question again.
No, the distinction is between there being a list of people, and there not being a list of people. There is no government-administered list of unlisted numbers. There would have to be a list of DNC registry numbers. While they may semantically seem the same, they are far, far different.
You're arguing against something I didn't say. From my point of view as a telephone user, there is indeed a very worthwhile and useful distinction to be made between "excluding everyone who doesn't have my number" and "excluding telemarketers." Therefore, i think "unlisted" and "do not call" should remain separate. That's all I said. Anything about government in that regard is something you assumed.
Once again, as I said before, if there's a non-governmental way to implement it, fine with me.
The method of control is in the hands of the victims, not in the hands of government.
Then don't sign up for the list. That way, you still have control.
I'm saying that the DNC method is not safe for the people.
Why is it not "safe?"
If you're cynical and distrustful of the government, I can trump on that, believe me. But a list of phone numbers is relatively benign in any context.
Not if they get to dial your number. If my phone rings, I don't know who's calling until I look at the caller ID. Maybe it's a call I want, or one I need to answer. Or maybe it's just some dweeb who wants me to buy replacement windows. I don't know until I can look at the caller ID display. At that point I've already interrupted whatever I was doing, found the phone and picked it up. I haven't "avoided" the call in meaningful way, even if I don't push the button to answer.
Just because something is popular doesn't mean that it is right.
No, it doesn't. But that number does indicate a problem. It also indicates that a large number of people aren't willing to cut the telemarketers any slack, and there's no reason they should.
Especially when there are other solutions available.
What other solutions? I've criticized every solution you've suggested, and you haven't answered any of those criticisms. Show my why I'm wrong, or come up with a solution I can't criticize, and I'm on board.
Until then, a government-administered "do not call" list is, in my opinion, the most workable solution I've seen.
Please note that there are exceptions to the DNC list, and these exceptions are what the article was griping about. Political action groups can still call numbers on the DNC, no?
They can. I'm not very happy about that, either.
Why? Because it shouldn't be the government's function to filter your calls.
Inasmuch as you didn't argue against my previous statement that the cumulative effect of telemarketers' calls can have essentially the same effect as harassment, I'll assume you agree with me on that point. Therefore, it's okay in this case.
Here's another point: Why have the telemarketers been howling against the do not call list? Did it ever occur to you to wonder what legitimate reason they could have for calling people who don't want to be called? I've wondered that.
Well, there's no legitimate reason, but there's a reason. And that reason is simply that they want to be able to reach those timid folks who are too nice to hang up, who can very possibly be talked into something against their better judgment. Now, there's a Darwinist part of me that says people that damn timid don't deserve protection, but at the end of the day, I have to say they do.
I did not say that government should not be allowed to prosecute violations of law.
You said that there could be a law against unsolicited calls to an unlisted number. That's bringing the government into it.
If you're going to go that far, I'd just prefer to let them administer the list. An unlisted number excludes everyone who doesn't have your number. The list merely excludes a defined class of caller. That's a distinction worth making.
A proactive, rather than reactive, government -- with regards to communication -- is one step closer to a all-pervasive state.
Politically, I identify most closely with the Libertarians (although I diverge on some points). So you're preaching to the choir when you tell me you think less government is the best government.
However... I think government action is appropriate for situations in which no one else has the scope and/or the authority to address a situation adequately. As far as I can tell, this is one of those situations.
But if a workable solution could be found that doesn't involve the government, that would be preferable.
In the meantime, if you want to start cutting back on the size of government, there are far more fertile areas to start.
You're missing my point, which is simply that any any communications device can be misused.
Also, current law already provides that harassment, via telephone or otherwise, is not allowed.
One call might not constitute harassment. Eight or ten calls in a day from various marketers could produce a cumulative effect that feels very much like harassment.
Check this out:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/08/dncstatment.htm
The FTC says that on August 18, they registered the 100 millionth number on the U.S. "do not call" list. Wow, just think about it. 100 million people who don't want to be called. That's about one-third the population of the U.S. It's significantly more votes than any single candidate received in the presidential election.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on why so many people have signed up.
There's a definite market for a caller ID box that could verify incoming numbers against known lists of telemarketers. The box could update its list via modem while the phone is offline.
There's always going to be a way around that kind of technical solution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they already have devices that can "spoof" incoming numbers that appear on the recipient's caller ID?
Besides, why should I have to buy extra equipment? And most likely pay a subscription fee to update the blacklist? No thanks.
Alternatively, make unlisted numbers free; make it a misdemeanor to place an unsolicited call to an unlisted number.
Well, there you go bringing the government into it.
So is a bullhorn, but see what happens if you stand out on the street in a quiet subdivision and shout your message through one in the middle of the night. There are acceptable ways to use any means of communication, and there unacceptable means.
I don't look at it as the government being involved in regulation. I look at it as a way for me to regulate who can call me because I have the choice of signing up for the list or not.
Now, with that end in mind, I would be willing to let someone other than the government administer a no-call list, but I can't think of any viable candidates if it's actually to be enforced with any real sense of authority.
You can argue anything you want. As far as I'm concerned, my phone is in the house for the convenience of my family and me, not for the benefit of people who want to call me for their own self-centered agendas.
Let's just hope they're not doing anything that'll leave a stain on the chair.
Yes, but... I would have some nagging doubts about why she wants to be there.
I thought so, too, at first. But after reading TFA and looking at the guy's web site, my opinion is that he's serious about it. I think he's taking it much farther than anywone would just to make a point.
I don't sweat it when see "should of" posted on a discussion board. I do, however, raise an eyebrown when I see it in a national magazine.
No, it's like saying it's a darn good idea if a car owner knows that he should have the oil changed periodically, keep the tires properly inflated/balanced/rotated, keep the battery terminals reasonably clean, etc.
Why should it make a difference whether it's "art" or not? The first amendment doesn't say anything about art. Nor does it say anything about quality. If it did, better than 90 percent of everything produced as entertainment, no matter the subject matter, would have to be censored.
Exactly. And it's not a question of whether you've done anything wrong. The real question is whether someone at a law enforcement agency thinks it looks as if you might have done something wrong.
I don't know if I'm typical, but I don't have cable. I do have a VCR, three DVD players, and one combo unit that plays both. I make digital movies as a hobby.
For me, not having cable isn't a question of being a "technological advocate." (Heck, I have three Linux boxes in the house, as well as a Mac and two Win2K boxes.) Or of "shunning" cable. It's a matter of looking at the programming, and looking at the price, and deciding it's not worth it.
I'm pretty sure the word "protected," in this context, refers to computers that are covered by the legal protection defined in the bill. It has no technical significance at all.