And no matter how long you've been a member, it's nice to see you offering as little information as you complain about!
What's wrong? Where? How is it wrong and what's the correct version? Without offering such an analysis, you're just spewing hot air (hot bits?) yourself.
Now, as to that...
Saying that no content is downloadable is contrary to the article, which states that only the downloading of unauthorized content is banned. I agree that that is sensationalistic, factually incorrect, and should have been caught.
On the other hand, the article does seem to indicate that ISP's may be criminally liable for the actions of their users:
But the government is going after Internet service providers; it's a criminal offense for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading.
Now, that still leaves open to interpretation what "facilitation" may be-but in this case, the summary does seem to match the article.
Also, it is stated in the article that despite this new regulation, blank media will -also- be taxed! It seems to me this is a bit of "having it both ways" on the part of the content providers-outlawing personal copying AND getting tax revenue. Again, it seems that the summary is essentially correct on this point.
While the summary is incorrect on one part, and it should have been caught (and should still be corrected), this is still a subject of interest to many of us who visit this site.
However, regardless, if you're going to make assertions as strong as you just did, it's generally helpful to back them up. If you can't manage that, don't let the door hit you, there's enough of those here.
So, why is it that our reps don't listen? Are they simply swayed only by money? Blinded by ideological generalizations? Incapable of understanding the issue?
Actually, the general sentiment I seem to see (and incidentally agree with) is:
Software, "method", and biology patents are generally bad and subject to a large degree of abuse, and need to be done away with.
That being said, some holders of software patents (such as patent trolls or MS's threats against open source) are MORE abusive with them than others.
Seeing a patent abuser getting clubbed over the head by another one is funny, though the assertion remains that neither one should have software patents.
How do we protect intellectual property without going absurd?
Here's a question for you: Is it not a bit absurd, in and of itself, to presume that ideas, a nonrival, infinitely replicatable good, can -ever- be considered or treated as property?
And the problem with forcing large corporations to think carefully about what they'd like patent protection for, rather than throwing one at every concept that has the remotest shot of being patentable, is...?
Parent's idea is a great one-it won't do a thing to impact the "small inventors" we always hear about the patent system benefitting (and it generally doesn't), while taking a significant step to curb both patent trolls and those corporations who simply overpatent. It would also be a significant step against business-method and software patents, which is also sorely needed, the companies who pull those often have patents by the hundreds.
I'm not sure to mod this "+1 contains some useful information" or "-1 unfortunately it's so unreadable as to be useless"...so I'm just going to encourage you to learn the use of paragraph/break tags.
What's being described here is already illegal, but the laws are difficult to enforce online. They are not proposing making these kinds of fraud illegal, but putting regulations on the "middle-men" (the dating sites) to make it harder for criminals to get away with it.
However, the fact remains that it should be the -perpetrators- punished for the crime, not the sites on which they commit them. (This is a different story if the site itself commits fraud, of course, and "Find a hot chick to bang tonight!" certainly does seem like borderline false advertising.) But a site should not be liable if a con artist uses its services, whether that site be this one or a dating service. Non-Internet dating carries risks, and one of those risks is that your date is a liar. Why should anyone expect anything different in a different medium?
Generally, I'm not too hot on anything that requires a website or ISP to "police" content put up by users. If the user's conduct is so horrendous as to reach the level of fraud (or other illegal activity), -that person- should be punished. It's a bit like punishing someone who put up a lightpole if someone posts a fraudulent message on it.
And to a certain extent, people do need to be aware of the old truism--if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
You might be surprised. Many of us will in fact listen. That does not, of course, mean that we will agree.
A request for empirical evidence or a source cite is -always- valid-and you're free to make those requests as well. The fact that you haven't doesn't change the fact that your opponent is stating a valid point.
Don't look advice from the other side too hard in the mouth! Yes, slashdot does have a large number of liberals-but I've also seen a far higher than average number of radical conservatives and those such as anarchocapitalists. I've debated many of them, and while I have not come to agree with their position, we have managed to have civil and reasonable debates. However, it is indeed up to both sides to maintain decorum-such posts as "LOL (insert text)" or "reached the pinnacle of sanctimony..." do not fit. If you do believe that your opponent is wrong, simply refute the point-if it is indeed so badly wrong, that should be easy to do.
More then anything, it is critical that we return to reasonable, rational debate, based on facts and logic rather than opinion, religion, and hysteria. You seem to wish to do so-I suggest you do. If your opponent acts the fool while you remain calm, it's you who comes out ahead.
Threats of the FTC work similarly well in the US, at least in my experience. I've never once had to make good on the threat, and I've no idea how much they'd actually care, but seems no one wants to deal with them. Had to do that once myself when a cell-phone company tried to bill me for over $500 in a month on "roaming", when I'd not used the phone anywhere other then the places I normally did. Called them up, had a few people give me the runaround, got to a supervisor, mentioned "Federal Trade Commission", and he told me to send in the normal amount and forget about the rest quicker than I could blink. I've used it a couple other times as well, and it always does seem to do the trick.
I imagine this would work very well on "DRM" CD's as well, especially after the Sony fiasco. Your average CD-shop owner would much rather suck up a $18 return then a multi-million dollar investigation.
It's not a free speech issue. Of course, Slashdot will blare it as such in a headline declaring that they "pulled the plug on free speech," but that just illustrates Slashdot's rampantly inaccurate reporting.
I strongly disagree. INABILITY to register anonymously is even more a free speech issue then -any- one site being shut down, as is selective enforcement of a widely-ignored rule against an unpopular site because a politician found a technicality.
Part of the right to free speech is the right -not- to sign the pamphlet you distribute, or the web page you put up.
Now, that this additional information should have been reported as part of the story, yes, that's agreed. But it is still most -certainly- an issue of free speech.
"Chatter on Scada attacks is increasing," says Borg, referring to patterns of behaviour that suggest that criminal gangs and militant groups are now fully capable of unleashing such attacks.
Then especially in the case of terrorists, WHY THE HELL HAVEN'T THEY DONE IT YET? If one of them had a shot at bombing the White House tomorrow, do you think he'd say "Eh...no, I'd rather wait until next week and hope they don't improve security by then."
This is not fearmongering for money. This is fearmongering for POWER-and the power they're going to shoot for is the power to control the Internet.
What a hell of an ironic name for that guy, Borg. I think that might tell us about everything we need to know.
Currently, the "black market" IS in the process of regulation of the content industry. If I can go to iTunes and pay for DRM'd crap that won't play on my OS of choice or to Bittorrent for free copies that will play on anything anytime, guess which one I'm going to choose?
Here's a hint: I'm not about to pay more for something that does less.
On the other hand, I will patronize (and have patronized) Magnatune or other artists that offer unencumbered downloads for a reasonable fee. They have earned my money by providing something I want to buy.
Now, that by no means is to indicate that I agree with the author of this piece. And in fact, ALL that GPLv3 forbids is any DRM scheme that seeks to limit modification or redistribution -of the GPL'd code.- If that piece of GPL code implements DRM measures, that would not violate the GPL, so long as the DRM was not on the program itself.
Of course, that does make the implementation of DRM rather impossible-but then, it already was, they haven't been able to do it in 50 years so far, and that with Congress in their pocket!
You know, I keep hearing about this "real world" thing! Certainly is different from what I learned about in school, though I sure started learning about that well before I was out.
I've seen many strange things here. See, they told me this "Constitution" thing was the highest law of the land, and that the President even swore an oath to defend it! Must not work so well in this "real world" place, so it seems-and no one even minds when he admits to blatantly violating it!
But the strangest thing I've seen here is that one attitude is the EXACT one they tried to drill into my head at school, too:
"The way it is always is the way it should be. Don't work for change."
As long as I'm getting rid of everything they tried to cram into my head at school...I'm getting rid of that first.
1. ALL DRM will eventually be broken. It's simply an inevitability. If nothing else, a microphone, videocamera, or screen capture will -always- be capable of producing a DRM-free version of anything, and at that point it spreads virally. They're intending it as a speed bump that might deter a few copies-and they may be losing more customers then they're gaining with the frustration. I might use itunes myself rather than Bittorrent-but not with DRM on 'em, not even when I know how to break it! Someone else already did the work, thanks anyway...I might pay rather then get for free, but I draw the line at paying for an inferior product compared to a free one!
2. The scenario you are describing (transferring music from your laptop to your portable, and quite possibly being unable to do so) is something you absolutely SHOULD be able to do-and not just if you're very technically competent. France has recognized the simple fact that when a customer buys something, the seller has no right to snatch it back out of their hands, and is in the process of forbidding the practice. Good.
3. Eventually, the "copy" industries will die out. There used to be a market for those who would go up mountains and cart down chunks of ice, in fact such services were quite often used by the elite. Ice was difficult to make and people paid well for it. Of course, now that everyone's got an icemaker in their freezer, there's no longer a future in this business. I imagine that probably pissed off the people who depended on this for a living, and quite frankly I understand why it would, but that doesn't mean we should have outlawed or crippled icemakers.
Well, it's rather the same here. When printing and CD pressing equipment was massively expensive and the most the consumer could do was copy a tape at a time, people were glad to pay those who invested in the ventures to do these things on a large scale. Now we all have an information-making machine on our desktop, many of us more than one. Times change, technology changes, and the "copy" industries began to be obsoleted the minute the first PC hit the first desk. Adapt or die.
Both versions would decriminalize piracy and make it equivalent to a traffic infraction, with fines that computer companies say are so small they would offer no deterrence.
Easy answer perhaps, and I'm sure with many blogs that's possible. I'm really not familiar with myspace myself, nor do I have any real intent to be.
Still, it remains that what's at issue here is more the First Amendment then the Fourth-no one's denying that a school administrator has the right to view a publically-available web page. What's at issue is what they can do about it if they don't like what they see.
If the student posts that he intends to kill his (teacher|principal|schoolmate), whether on the Net or anywhere else, he has made a death threat. Not only may he be discipined by the school, but he is also subject to arrest and prosecution.
On the other hand, what if he posts a profanity-laden rant about how unfair the grading system is? Not polite, perhaps, but certainly not illegal-and if done off of school hours, EVEN if he posts it on a public website (or shouts it in a public square), he should not be subject to school discipline. Yet, the school could easily state that what he said was "inappropriate", even though it was perfectly legal.
On the school district's part, it is breathtakingly arrogant-especially for a superintendent to claim that she is not violating the students' rights by "searching" their blogs. Of course she's not, it's up there for anyone in the world to read. However, the students' rights ARE being violated if she is suppressing otherwise legal speech in those blogs. Hell of a way to duck the issue.
I fully agree that should you be stupid enough to post information about doing something -illegal- in a public place, you deserve what you get. The big concern here is the ever-slippery "inappropriate". Teenagers naturally experiment and push the boundaries. This is a natural and healthy part of adolescence, and so long as the kid is not -crossing- those boundaries (i.e. breaking the law), it is not the school's place to intervene after the kid goes home.
I have three children, the oldest of which is in school. I fully understand how irrational parents can get, I've attended PTA meetings. Try being one of the few at such a meeting who's against censoring a book because someone doesn't like how it portrays certain groups!
I understand fully that this happens, and to a large extent WHY it happens. It can also be understood how and why the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges, or a murder happened.
Understanding something does not mean you must agree with or condone it. An easy mistake to make is still a mistake, a witch-hunt is still a witch-hunt, unfounded hysteria is still unfounded. The fact that it can be understood how they made an unacceptable decision does not change that it is an unacceptable decision.
Of course, a public school being a government entity, they are bound by this particular limitation. You might find you're familiar with it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
United States Constitution, First Amendment.
They've clearly crossed that line. Now let's hope someone teaches this school district a good real-world lesson about what happens when you step over boundaries!
If you live in the United States, at least, you are absolutely...wrong! But your misconception is very widespread.
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; (emphasis added)
Now, couple things to consider here. Firstly, the US Constitution clearly states you're wrong. Copyright is intended to advance the ART, not the ARTIST, nor the corporation who promotes them. If science and the useful arts can be advanced without a bit of copyright protection for the artist or scientist, that purpose is fulfilled (note this is a "Congress may" provision, not a "Congress must", copyright is not a right at all!). If a five-year (or two-year, or two-day) copyright would incentivize creativity as well as a ten-year or a 95-year one, we should use it instead.
Secondly, a span longer than a human lifetime (in the case of copyrights) or a span far longer then the planned-obsolescence cycle (in the case of patents) is not in any meaningful way a limited time-it is the entire useful life of the work and then some.
Copyright is not, in theory or practice, about the interest of the artist.
Maybe you should read the whole thread, I was reacting to cution's point about moral justifications, not equating infringement with theft.
And I did. If you had read carefully, you'd note I was stating your analogy was inaccurate and meaningless. Just because something would not be a justification for theft does not mean it might not be a justification for copyright infringement.
Yes, and you've reiterated a boring discussion for no good reason.
Actually, that was intended as a rhetorical question, but I would answer definitively in the negative. There is an ongoing and concerted effort to equate the sharing of information (which has been responsible for all human innovation and advancement) with theft (which is generally a societal drain). Unfortunately, far too many still accept this without question-the cavalier throwing around of the term "theft" in relation to information sharing is very prevalent.
I don't think the guy who stole my car battery was planning on buying one for himself. That doesn't make sense.
Neither does your analogy. If I steal your car battery, you no longer have it. On the other hand, if I can make a copy identical to the one you have, you've still got yours and I've got one too.
Hasn't this been gone over frequently enough? Copyright infringement may be illegal in many countries (whether or not it should be), but that doesn't make it theft, any more then the widespread prohibitions against drunk driving make that theft.
Slashdot Mirror
And no matter how long you've been a member, it's nice to see you offering as little information as you complain about!
What's wrong? Where? How is it wrong and what's the correct version? Without offering such an analysis, you're just spewing hot air (hot bits?) yourself.
Now, as to that...
Saying that no content is downloadable is contrary to the article, which states that only the downloading of unauthorized content is banned. I agree that that is sensationalistic, factually incorrect, and should have been caught.
On the other hand, the article does seem to indicate that ISP's may be criminally liable for the actions of their users:
But the government is going after Internet service providers; it's a criminal offense for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading.
Now, that still leaves open to interpretation what "facilitation" may be-but in this case, the summary does seem to match the article.
Also, it is stated in the article that despite this new regulation, blank media will -also- be taxed! It seems to me this is a bit of "having it both ways" on the part of the content providers-outlawing personal copying AND getting tax revenue. Again, it seems that the summary is essentially correct on this point.
While the summary is incorrect on one part, and it should have been caught (and should still be corrected), this is still a subject of interest to many of us who visit this site.
However, regardless, if you're going to make assertions as strong as you just did, it's generally helpful to back them up. If you can't manage that, don't let the door hit you, there's enough of those here.
So, why is it that our reps don't listen? Are they simply swayed only by money? Blinded by ideological generalizations? Incapable of understanding the issue?
Option 4: All of the above.
Actually, the general sentiment I seem to see (and incidentally agree with) is:
Software, "method", and biology patents are generally bad and subject to a large degree of abuse, and need to be done away with.
That being said, some holders of software patents (such as patent trolls or MS's threats against open source) are MORE abusive with them than others.
Seeing a patent abuser getting clubbed over the head by another one is funny, though the assertion remains that neither one should have software patents.
How do we protect intellectual property without going absurd?
Here's a question for you: Is it not a bit absurd, in and of itself, to presume that ideas, a nonrival, infinitely replicatable good, can -ever- be considered or treated as property?
And the problem with forcing large corporations to think carefully about what they'd like patent protection for, rather than throwing one at every concept that has the remotest shot of being patentable, is...?
Parent's idea is a great one-it won't do a thing to impact the "small inventors" we always hear about the patent system benefitting (and it generally doesn't), while taking a significant step to curb both patent trolls and those corporations who simply overpatent. It would also be a significant step against business-method and software patents, which is also sorely needed, the companies who pull those often have patents by the hundreds.
Patent trolls either exist or you get rid of the whole system.
Thank you for putting it so clearly! We'll gladly take the second option, thanks!
I'm not sure to mod this "+1 contains some useful information" or "-1 unfortunately it's so unreadable as to be useless"...so I'm just going to encourage you to learn the use of paragraph/break tags.
What's being described here is already illegal, but the laws are difficult to enforce online. They are not proposing making these kinds of fraud illegal, but putting regulations on the "middle-men" (the dating sites) to make it harder for criminals to get away with it.
However, the fact remains that it should be the -perpetrators- punished for the crime, not the sites on which they commit them. (This is a different story if the site itself commits fraud, of course, and "Find a hot chick to bang tonight!" certainly does seem like borderline false advertising.) But a site should not be liable if a con artist uses its services, whether that site be this one or a dating service. Non-Internet dating carries risks, and one of those risks is that your date is a liar. Why should anyone expect anything different in a different medium?
Generally, I'm not too hot on anything that requires a website or ISP to "police" content put up by users. If the user's conduct is so horrendous as to reach the level of fraud (or other illegal activity), -that person- should be punished. It's a bit like punishing someone who put up a lightpole if someone posts a fraudulent message on it.
And to a certain extent, people do need to be aware of the old truism--if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
You might be surprised. Many of us will in fact listen. That does not, of course, mean that we will agree.
A request for empirical evidence or a source cite is -always- valid-and you're free to make those requests as well. The fact that you haven't doesn't change the fact that your opponent is stating a valid point.
Don't look advice from the other side too hard in the mouth! Yes, slashdot does have a large number of liberals-but I've also seen a far higher than average number of radical conservatives and those such as anarchocapitalists. I've debated many of them, and while I have not come to agree with their position, we have managed to have civil and reasonable debates. However, it is indeed up to both sides to maintain decorum-such posts as "LOL (insert text)" or "reached the pinnacle of sanctimony..." do not fit. If you do believe that your opponent is wrong, simply refute the point-if it is indeed so badly wrong, that should be easy to do.
More then anything, it is critical that we return to reasonable, rational debate, based on facts and logic rather than opinion, religion, and hysteria. You seem to wish to do so-I suggest you do. If your opponent acts the fool while you remain calm, it's you who comes out ahead.
Threats of the FTC work similarly well in the US, at least in my experience. I've never once had to make good on the threat, and I've no idea how much they'd actually care, but seems no one wants to deal with them. Had to do that once myself when a cell-phone company tried to bill me for over $500 in a month on "roaming", when I'd not used the phone anywhere other then the places I normally did. Called them up, had a few people give me the runaround, got to a supervisor, mentioned "Federal Trade Commission", and he told me to send in the normal amount and forget about the rest quicker than I could blink. I've used it a couple other times as well, and it always does seem to do the trick.
I imagine this would work very well on "DRM" CD's as well, especially after the Sony fiasco. Your average CD-shop owner would much rather suck up a $18 return then a multi-million dollar investigation.
It's not a free speech issue. Of course, Slashdot will blare it as such in a headline declaring that they "pulled the plug on free speech," but that just illustrates Slashdot's rampantly inaccurate reporting.
I strongly disagree. INABILITY to register anonymously is even more a free speech issue then -any- one site being shut down, as is selective enforcement of a widely-ignored rule against an unpopular site because a politician found a technicality.
Part of the right to free speech is the right -not- to sign the pamphlet you distribute, or the web page you put up.
Now, that this additional information should have been reported as part of the story, yes, that's agreed. But it is still most -certainly- an issue of free speech.
Of COURSE it's real.
If I say I float...and you say I float...then it happens.
From TFA:
"Chatter on Scada attacks is increasing," says Borg, referring to patterns of behaviour that suggest that criminal gangs and militant groups are now fully capable of unleashing such attacks.
Then especially in the case of terrorists, WHY THE HELL HAVEN'T THEY DONE IT YET? If one of them had a shot at bombing the White House tomorrow, do you think he'd say "Eh...no, I'd rather wait until next week and hope they don't improve security by then."
This is not fearmongering for money. This is fearmongering for POWER-and the power they're going to shoot for is the power to control the Internet.
What a hell of an ironic name for that guy, Borg. I think that might tell us about everything we need to know.
Currently, the "black market" IS in the process of regulation of the content industry. If I can go to iTunes and pay for DRM'd crap that won't play on my OS of choice or to Bittorrent for free copies that will play on anything anytime, guess which one I'm going to choose?
Here's a hint: I'm not about to pay more for something that does less.
On the other hand, I will patronize (and have patronized) Magnatune or other artists that offer unencumbered downloads for a reasonable fee. They have earned my money by providing something I want to buy.
Now, that by no means is to indicate that I agree with the author of this piece. And in fact, ALL that GPLv3 forbids is any DRM scheme that seeks to limit modification or redistribution -of the GPL'd code.- If that piece of GPL code implements DRM measures, that would not violate the GPL, so long as the DRM was not on the program itself.
Of course, that does make the implementation of DRM rather impossible-but then, it already was, they haven't been able to do it in 50 years so far, and that with Congress in their pocket!
You know, I keep hearing about this "real world" thing! Certainly is different from what I learned about in school, though I sure started learning about that well before I was out.
I've seen many strange things here. See, they told me this "Constitution" thing was the highest law of the land, and that the President even swore an oath to defend it! Must not work so well in this "real world" place, so it seems-and no one even minds when he admits to blatantly violating it!
But the strangest thing I've seen here is that one attitude is the EXACT one they tried to drill into my head at school, too:
"The way it is always is the way it should be. Don't work for change."
As long as I'm getting rid of everything they tried to cram into my head at school...I'm getting rid of that first.
And? Few points here:
1. ALL DRM will eventually be broken. It's simply an inevitability. If nothing else, a microphone, videocamera, or screen capture will -always- be capable of producing a DRM-free version of anything, and at that point it spreads virally. They're intending it as a speed bump that might deter a few copies-and they may be losing more customers then they're gaining with the frustration. I might use itunes myself rather than Bittorrent-but not with DRM on 'em, not even when I know how to break it! Someone else already did the work, thanks anyway...I might pay rather then get for free, but I draw the line at paying for an inferior product compared to a free one!
2. The scenario you are describing (transferring music from your laptop to your portable, and quite possibly being unable to do so) is something you absolutely SHOULD be able to do-and not just if you're very technically competent. France has recognized the simple fact that when a customer buys something, the seller has no right to snatch it back out of their hands, and is in the process of forbidding the practice. Good.
3. Eventually, the "copy" industries will die out. There used to be a market for those who would go up mountains and cart down chunks of ice, in fact such services were quite often used by the elite. Ice was difficult to make and people paid well for it. Of course, now that everyone's got an icemaker in their freezer, there's no longer a future in this business. I imagine that probably pissed off the people who depended on this for a living, and quite frankly I understand why it would, but that doesn't mean we should have outlawed or crippled icemakers.
Well, it's rather the same here. When printing and CD pressing equipment was massively expensive and the most the consumer could do was copy a tape at a time, people were glad to pay those who invested in the ventures to do these things on a large scale. Now we all have an information-making machine on our desktop, many of us more than one. Times change, technology changes, and the "copy" industries began to be obsoleted the minute the first PC hit the first desk. Adapt or die.
From TFA:
Both versions would decriminalize piracy and make it equivalent to a traffic infraction, with fines that computer companies say are so small they would offer no deterrence.
Let 'em withdraw, and vive le Torrent!
Easy answer perhaps, and I'm sure with many blogs that's possible. I'm really not familiar with myspace myself, nor do I have any real intent to be.
Still, it remains that what's at issue here is more the First Amendment then the Fourth-no one's denying that a school administrator has the right to view a publically-available web page. What's at issue is what they can do about it if they don't like what they see.
If the student posts that he intends to kill his (teacher|principal|schoolmate), whether on the Net or anywhere else, he has made a death threat. Not only may he be discipined by the school, but he is also subject to arrest and prosecution.
On the other hand, what if he posts a profanity-laden rant about how unfair the grading system is? Not polite, perhaps, but certainly not illegal-and if done off of school hours, EVEN if he posts it on a public website (or shouts it in a public square), he should not be subject to school discipline. Yet, the school could easily state that what he said was "inappropriate", even though it was perfectly legal.
On the school district's part, it is breathtakingly arrogant-especially for a superintendent to claim that she is not violating the students' rights by "searching" their blogs. Of course she's not, it's up there for anyone in the world to read. However, the students' rights ARE being violated if she is suppressing otherwise legal speech in those blogs. Hell of a way to duck the issue.
I fully agree that should you be stupid enough to post information about doing something -illegal- in a public place, you deserve what you get. The big concern here is the ever-slippery "inappropriate". Teenagers naturally experiment and push the boundaries. This is a natural and healthy part of adolescence, and so long as the kid is not -crossing- those boundaries (i.e. breaking the law), it is not the school's place to intervene after the kid goes home.
While your response was not to me...
I have three children, the oldest of which is in school. I fully understand how irrational parents can get, I've attended PTA meetings. Try being one of the few at such a meeting who's against censoring a book because someone doesn't like how it portrays certain groups!
I understand fully that this happens, and to a large extent WHY it happens. It can also be understood how and why the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges, or a murder happened.
Understanding something does not mean you must agree with or condone it. An easy mistake to make is still a mistake, a witch-hunt is still a witch-hunt, unfounded hysteria is still unfounded. The fact that it can be understood how they made an unacceptable decision does not change that it is an unacceptable decision.
Interesting question!
Of course, a public school being a government entity, they are bound by this particular limitation. You might find you're familiar with it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
United States Constitution, First Amendment.
They've clearly crossed that line. Now let's hope someone teaches this school district a good real-world lesson about what happens when you step over boundaries!
Maybe this is a good lesson on how the world works (as a previous poster mentioned).
How about this lesson? "This is how it is" does not mean "This is how it should be".
Strange, I never seemed to get taught that in school either.
If you live in the United States, at least, you are absolutely...wrong! But your misconception is very widespread.
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; (emphasis added)
Now, couple things to consider here. Firstly, the US Constitution clearly states you're wrong. Copyright is intended to advance the ART, not the ARTIST, nor the corporation who promotes them. If science and the useful arts can be advanced without a bit of copyright protection for the artist or scientist, that purpose is fulfilled (note this is a "Congress may" provision, not a "Congress must", copyright is not a right at all!). If a five-year (or two-year, or two-day) copyright would incentivize creativity as well as a ten-year or a 95-year one, we should use it instead.
Secondly, a span longer than a human lifetime (in the case of copyrights) or a span far longer then the planned-obsolescence cycle (in the case of patents) is not in any meaningful way a limited time-it is the entire useful life of the work and then some.
Copyright is not, in theory or practice, about the interest of the artist.
Maybe you should read the whole thread, I was reacting to cution's point about moral justifications, not equating infringement with theft.
And I did. If you had read carefully, you'd note I was stating your analogy was inaccurate and meaningless. Just because something would not be a justification for theft does not mean it might not be a justification for copyright infringement.
Yes, and you've reiterated a boring discussion for no good reason.
Actually, that was intended as a rhetorical question, but I would answer definitively in the negative. There is an ongoing and concerted effort to equate the sharing of information (which has been responsible for all human innovation and advancement) with theft (which is generally a societal drain). Unfortunately, far too many still accept this without question-the cavalier throwing around of the term "theft" in relation to information sharing is very prevalent.
I don't think the guy who stole my car battery was planning on buying one for himself. That doesn't make sense.
Neither does your analogy. If I steal your car battery, you no longer have it. On the other hand, if I can make a copy identical to the one you have, you've still got yours and I've got one too.
Hasn't this been gone over frequently enough? Copyright infringement may be illegal in many countries (whether or not it should be), but that doesn't make it theft, any more then the widespread prohibitions against drunk driving make that theft.