Actually, it's even simpler then that-they're afraid someone will write something better, and not be afraid to show it to the world. Is that a threat to their business model? You bet it is! Is that a -bad- thing? Doesn't capitalism eulogize choosing the best, most efficient option, all of the time?
Hey, shut up! You're not supposed to -actually- reform the system so that it's -genuinely- fair. Still, that does raise free-speech issues-if I read the websites and decide I support a given candidate, am I still free to express that support? There's still questions even there. I agree it'd be a step in the right direction though-NO ads, to start with. Period. Debates only, to which anyone on the ballot must be allowed to come. Unfortunately, we'll never see it.
I bet if vendors (and I include both Apple and Microsoft in that) implimented privilage dialogs that were scary and intimidating enough to users (perhaps with a default action of 'deny') 3rd party application developers wouldn't ask for them unless they really needed those permissions.
Still, that'll never solve the problem of the user getting used to it. "WARNING: Email attachments may contain viruses! Are you sure you want to download nakedjlo.exe??????" "Duuuh...well it must be OK, my friend sent it to me!"
Thanks very much for your response. It actually illustrates a good few fallacies and problems very common in politics, but I see people like this (far-fringe types on both the left and right) use them all the time. I'm going to illustrate the problem strategies, because they're rather common right now, and also put forth some defenses against them.
Right off the bat, we've got a self-contradictory statement. Anytime it's claimed that the government should step in and restrict what any corporation (and generally any person) can place within a contract, they cry foul. Yet, here is a call for exactly that:
We're not pro-corporation, we're against them. I believe a group of investors could tell creditors that a loan contract affords limited liability up to the amount invested, but they should still be personally liable.
Now, I actually agree with that statement to a good extent, but it lacks internal consistency. If a corporation can be restricted from contractually being allowed to limit their own liability to their creditors, there's nothing wrong with restricting what they may and may not place in a licensing agreement, customer contract, or supplier arrangement. This is also known as trying to have it both ways.
Next up, we have a vagueness problem. Here's the relevant portion:
Illinois. A local town made national news because they arrested a home owner for shooting a burglar who robbed him twice.
Note what this is in response to:
What state do -you- live in that there is not an exception in the law allowing a person to use violence in self-defense? Please, cite the relevant law, stating that violence is unacceptable even if you are being attacked. (emphasis added by me)
Please note several things:
-The post attempts to appear responsive but really is not. No law is cited as requested, rather, a single anecdotal instance is brought up.
-Details on that isolated instance are sketchy (a burglar robbed a man twice, was subsequently shot, and the man doing the shooting was arrested). This leaves a ton of things open to question, and this is the Web, where a link to a news story is as easy to provide as typing a few letters. Even the name of the man, the town, and the burglar would allow for easy Googling, but no such things are provided. How did the shooting occur? Did it happen during the burglary, or did the man track down the burglar later? Was the burglar armed, and could the man have possibly known whether he was or not? Was the man charged after being arrested, and if so, with what crime? If so, did those charges make it to trial, and if so, was he convicted, acquitted, the charges dismissed by a judge, or is the case still pending? And what is the relevant law in Illinois? This answers -none- of those things, and really provides no clarity to the point at all.
-The post fails to provide what -is- requested (a link to a state law stating that violence is unacceptable even in self-defense). All state legal codes that I am aware of are fully available online. A sketchy recounting of one isolated instance (and that being an arrest, not a conviction) with no details provided does not prove that the state of Illinois disallows the self-defense affirmative defense in violent crime cases.
Next, we have a misuse of language. While misuse of the terms "theft" and "steal" is rampant on Slashdot (and in general), I've never seen it done quite like this.
I had my unregistered handgun stolen twice by the police.
Possession or carrying of an unregistered handgun is illegal. The police are not "stealing" when they seize contraband, they are exercising their legitimate authority under the law. Now, that doesn't mean you have to agree that the law -should- be that way, but that's an issue to take up with a lawmaker or a judge, not a cop. Cops don't (and shouldn't!) make the law, they're just charged with enforcing it. In the meantime, don't deny reality-if you carry an unregistered
I get so sick of this Ludwig von Miser garbage, but it seems enough people take it seriously enough that it requires a refutation. Anarchy doesn't stay that way, no matter what you do-eliminate government now, and the biggest, strongest, and most ruthless will very shortly be running a dictatorship. Also, I've always wondered why good old Ludwig seems to so strongly support the rights of "corporations" to be free from government regulation-when their very existence is owed to a government regulation.
Copyright I actually agree with you on, but a limited degree of copyright/patent could be a good thing. The problem is in scope (copyright should be an industrial regulation, not applied to not-for-profit copying, same idea with patents, and both should cover only items which are specifically registered) and time (we should be talking about a 5 year or so term, maybe with one optional and very expensive renewal for an absolute limit of 10 years.)
Government's monopoly on violence prevents the average person from defending their property, and use of the monopoly outside of our borders causes anger towards our citizens.
You have got to be kidding me. What state do -you- live in that there is not an exception in the law allowing a person to use violence in self-defense? Please, cite the relevant law, stating that violence is unacceptable even if you are being attacked. Also, note that state governments (which have no authority to wage war) are the ones that handle laws like murder and assault, not the federal government.
As to the current administration's misuse of force overseas, won't argue with you that the current policy is a terrible mistake, but the proper remedy of that is for the people to demand that it stops. What is the alternative you propose-should every citizen have the "right" to wage war, and access to whatever weapons they might want to do so with? Do you think that would've taken down Germany and Japan, in a conflict a bit easier to justify? Just how could we avoid the government having a "monopoly" on the use of military-scale force?
Government's monopoly on prescription drugs causes the costs to skyrocket (death sentence for the poor) and useful drugs to be delayed for years.
Might you point out to me which prescription drugs are produced by the government? I don't seem to recall any. Now, you could be talking about overlong and overbroad patents again, in which case I'm inclined to agree, but there's a big difference between government monopolies, government-sanctioned monopolies, and patents. Please be clear about which you mean.
Government's monopoly on patent licensing is no different. The playing field is far from level. Drug companies would initially have to charge more to sell their meds, or sell through doctors groups (where generics might be contractually offlimits for those doctors). Patents don't protect bootlegs anyway, which get more pervasive as the web gets larger.
Actually, patents -do- protect against bootlegs in theory, just as laws against murder protect against people being murdered. That doesn't mean that no one ever gets murdered, or that bootlegs never get made, but again, you're really stretching words to mean things they don't. Now what does the second part of that mean? Is that your theory on what would happen if patents went away entirely? If it is, I'll happily refute that too. The Founding Fathers saw fit to give Congress the authority to grant copyrights and patents. Now, they've taken that WAY too far, and forgotten the -purpose- of that power (promotion of the useful arts and science), but let's fix it, not scrap it.
For our society to grow, we need to accept that monopolies are always bad
No, they're not, actually. There are cases in which a "monopoly" prevents chaos. In some cases, you need a central regulatory authority, in other cases, a given power cannot be allowed to be used by all comers, and in others, it's simply the most efficient use of resources.
Yeah, because the cheap availability of VCR's with a fast-forward button and able to record absolutely killed the ad-supported over the air model. The point is, you and I know how to do that, but 99% of the people watching don't know how to remove the ads. Any intelligent advertiser considers a stupider consumer a more valuable pair of eyeballs anyway.
Actually, if the webmail is supposed to be part of what you're paying tuition for, and you're denied use of it due to their deliberate noncompliance with a court order, there's your damages. Also, since there's -already- a judgment entered, you may not even have to sue yourself-just find out what judge entered the ruling and make sure (s)he knows what's going on. Likely, that judge will threaten a contempt ruling (and sizable fine) if the problem isn't fixed as of yesterday.
That may or may not be, but if it didn't state specifically in the school's code of conduct that I was going to have my off-campus speech regulated, and they expelled me for that, I sure damn well expect my tuition to date refunded and a clear note made in my transcript that I was not at fault for the expulsion. Now, if it does state that in their code of conduct, I suppose they can do that, but you'd have to be an idiot to go there. I guess it's good practice, in a sense, since the SC, in its infinite wisdom, has agreed that employers can restrict speech pretty much all they want.
...has many potential applications such as temporarily blinding a suspect who drives through a roadblock.
Yeah, that's a GREAT idea! I sure hope I'm somewhere near that roadblock so I can see it used, too! I mean, so long as they just temporarily blind the driver of a moving vehicle, no one will get hurt!
And so you were, I've used it on my system for probably a year and a half now, my wife's used it on hers about a year. Seems to be very stable and work well. Out of curiosity (and yes, I know I'm way offtopic), how did you know?
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 10 seconds since you hit 'reply'.
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or are typing with both hands. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
Your way -might- make desktop adoption a little faster. However, if it worked, it would guarantee that such desktop adoption would do nothing to advance open-source. One reason the kernel -is- so stable is its open nature. If it's allowed now for the kernel to be tied to closed, binary crap, then no matter how much adoption occurs, it'll always be tied to that. On the other hand, if Linux adoption increases, and the principle remains held firm, any vendor who refuses to open-source will be shut out of an ever-growing market segment.
Personally, I'd much rather wait a bit. I've never had trouble finding something to get even newer stuff working. Of course, I do try to purchase from companies who have opened the drivers for the hardware I'm purchasing, and I make sure to let them know that's why I bought their stuff. I've received some very positive responses so far to that.
Really don't see why -all- copyrights shouldn't expire earlier, period. Within 5 years, almost all copyrighted material either has turned a profit or never is going to. Since this would still be plenty of time to encourage creators to create, why have it longer then that at all? (Maybe offer a one-shot, very expensive 5-year renewal, but ONLY one?)
Or at least 99.99% certain that the answer will be easy, and that being: Nothing. Because they will be using DRM. A DRM'd file (even if it will play on my OS, which is normally not the case) is worse than worthless.
On the off chance someone's smart enough not to, I'd say $5 or so for a movie that's still in theaters, $3 during the new release phase (about the price of a rental), and about $1-$1.50 after that. Otherwise, Netflix is cheaper, and they're paying postage.
I'm not holding my breath, though. If they DRM the stuff, I will find a source for DRM-free versions. If that's them, and they don't charge exorbitant rates (such as $8), they'll get my money. If not, I know plenty of other ways to get them.
I think there -might- be a few movies out there I've watched 4 or 5 times, the rest once or twice (and truly terrible ones, not even once, turn it off before any more of my time gets wasted). This is not by any means unusual, it's the rare person who's seen a large number of movies more then once or twice. Given that, this is a rental, period. And yes, if they offer DRM-free versions, they will get shared. Maybe they haven't noticed, but that already happens, DRM or not. Movies will be "shared" no matter what-if I rent a movie, nothing's stopping me from inviting 6 people over to view it, or loaning it to someone before the rental's up. Rentals can be easily ripped. Given that, what's the difference, why hassle people you're trying to encourage to pay you money for your service?
Use your head, content distributors! The first rule of ANY business is that you must deliver what your customer wants. Your customer wants an easy, hassle-free experience. Your customer doesn't want to worry about what restrictions are placed on what file, he wants to watch a movie! Deliver that at a price reflecting how little it costs to deliver over the net, and watch customers flock to your service. Deliver difficult-to-use stuff that won't burn properly to a DVD, won't transfer to your friend, and is priced exorbitantly, and oh well, at least there'll be plenty of seeds on the torrents!
Those are your options, Sony. There isn't a third one. Whether your competition is legal or not, you're not the only game in town anymore, and you damn well better get that through your heads. And that applies to all the other "content distributors" out there, too. Quit trying to figure out ways to STOP people from using your product, and start thinking up ways to get them to START using your product. You'll find you make a whole lot more sales that way.
I'd reply more in depth, but I have a patent application to write.
--
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 16 seconds since you hit 'reply'.
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or you are typing with both hands. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, try finding a different place for one of your thumbs.
They also got copyright's purpose wrong. You'd really think they'd teach people about the Constitution in law school.
Since apparently they don't, though, the writers of the Constitution were very clear on what copyright's purpose is, and they got it dead wrong. Here's the relevant portion:
"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;" -United States Constitution, Section 8 (emphasis mine)
Note two important things from that passage: Firstly, the purpose of copyrights is to promote the progress of science and art. (NOT the wealth of scientists and artists!) Since copyright and patents by definition restrict sharing and reuse of information, which is necessary for progress in science and art, they also put in another provision: such restrictions must be for a limited time. A period which someone born today will not outlive is not, for any intents or purposes, a "limited time," not in any meaningful sense. The "limited time" provision implies to me that it should be the minimum amount of time necessary to encourage creators to create-which is the time at which they can generally turn a profit. Since most copyrighted/patented material turns a profit within 5-10 years (or never will), and creators would keep creating even if that's all the time they got, why have it longer?
Copyright is not about the "interests" of creators, except so far as recognizing such interests encourage them to continue creating. Copyright and patent are for the benefit of the public-and when it fails any longer to serve the public, to the benefit of the rights holders, it fails to the extent it does so.
Also note that copyrights and patents are not treated like property. Congress may not seize your property for public use unless they pay you just compensation for it-that's right in the Constitution. Yet, they are REQUIRED to make it so that copyrights and patents are released to the public after a set period of time. Is there any clearer indication that the law does and should not consider such things "property"?
-IN THAILAND-, the legal age to work in the prostitution trade is 18. I don't care if someone wants to go to Holland, or Thailand, and sleep with every adult prostitute they can get their hands on. I wouldn't even care so much if the age of consent differed slightly. Nor should a man who goes to Italy (or Ohio) and sleeps with someone who is of the age of consent there be prosecuted upon his return home.
There are, however, two fundamental problems here. One is the issue of irreducible human rights. Quite often, Thai girls are pressured by their parents to become prostitutes. In other cases, girls are kidnapped and drugged or coerced into cooperation. I don't have a single problem with legalizing prostitution, and I wish they would do so in the US as well. But it should be adults participating of their own free will, period. And sleeping with a prostitute under 18 or anyone under 15 in Thailand is a crime -there-. If I go to Canada and murder someone, the US will prosecute me for it, so why should I escape prosecution for breaking an existing (if poorly enforced) Thai law?
And, similarly, still, I feel that corporations which operate in the US, and take advantage of its vast buying power, should be required to operate to US standards where they make the stuff they're selling. Same for Europe. They can still go overseas and get cheap labor if they feel the need-manufacturing workers don't generally work for minimum wage.
Ah, do see your point with #2, missed that at first. That would be a problem, but FSF being a nonprofit entity specifically designed to promoting free software generally and the GPL specifically, very unlikely. It might even in fact be illegal-since FSF is nonprofit and accepts donations, nonprofits are generally expected to use donations made to them largely or completely for the purpose they stated they'd be used. If they sold out like that, and changed the GPL that radically, both the old and new owners may well open themselves up to lawsuits for fraud.
Be glad to, myself. Unfortunately, it would not be possible for me to do that. And I'm certainly not advocating lynching-due process of law and a fair trial are every bit part of those same human rights. But so is the right to basic safety, to knowing that those who do commit a crime will be held accountable for their actions when they are discovered. The two are not incompatible.
Sex tourism is a violation of an internationally-recognized human right. Decompiling software and using drugs is not. If you murdered someone in another country, your own country is -supposed- to prosecute you for that crime and/or extradite you to the country in which you committed it. These laws do, and should, apply to violent crime, and do not, and should not, apply to nonviolent victimless crime.
Now, I don't even support drug prohibition within the US, so that's another discussion entirely. Still remains, though, that there should -always- be a distinction drawn between violent and nonviolent crime, especially when that crime is also a human rights abuse.
Forcing people to work in subhuman, dangerous, unhealthy conditions is a violation of human rights, and should be covered by these laws. Aiding and abetting (and sometimes requesting!) violent repression on the part of any government should likewise be a crime punishable by any civilized nation you step foot in.
1. How is anyone going to "forcibly buy" a nonprofit entity which is not publicly traded? Hostile takeover is possible only for publicly-traded companies. They can offer however large a wad of cash they like, but RMS is still free to say "No thank you, not for sale". What are they going to do from there, come in and put a gun to his head? That type of coercion, being illegal, would void the resulting sale anyway.
2. Even if RMS did sell off to MS, and they made GPLx.0 state "You may not under any circumstances distribute source code for programs distributed under this license", that would not in any way impact the existing licenses. If the code -I- have in my possession already is licensed under v2.0 or any later version, then I simply choose to continue using 2.0, and am still free to go on distributing all I like. I've already accepted that license, and it specifically states that I may go on using the old one instead of the new if I like. Commercial EULA's generally include a provision that the licensing company may change the license anytime it wants and that you automatically accept such changes, but the GPL contains no such provision. And no one will use the new license, and a new FSF will come up to replace the old, and open-source programmers will use their GPL. Easy enough solved, wouldn't create a bit of trouble at all.
And if they don't, who holds them accountable? Ideally, this should be looked at the same way as sex tourism (if an American tourist does something in Thailand that'd be illegal in the US, they will still be prosecuted for it upon return to the US, why shouldn't the same apply to a corporation which goes abroad to skirt labor laws?), but since they're currently not, it falls to -you- to hold that corporation accountable.
Yes, it's a pain in the ass. Sorry. Most things worth doing are. If everyone would quit being too busy to give a shit, these types of things just might improve. Otherwise, they're going to continue. Anyone who is aware of an evil act and does not stand up against it is partially guilty in it.
This is not the same as saying you should -personally- go check every factory you purchase clothing from. But when the labor record of any given multinational is easily available on the web, to consult before making a purchase, you're talking about 5 minutes worth of work. This is NOT too much to ask from even a busy person.
Slashdot Mirror
eulogize
tr.v. eulogized, eulogizing, eulogizes
To praise highly in speech or writing, especially in a formal eulogy.
Doesn't -necessarily- mean someone's dead, that's just the most common use of it. Now that's not to say your line of thought isn't interesting....
Actually, it's even simpler then that-they're afraid someone will write something better, and not be afraid to show it to the world. Is that a threat to their business model? You bet it is! Is that a -bad- thing? Doesn't capitalism eulogize choosing the best, most efficient option, all of the time?
Hey, shut up! You're not supposed to -actually- reform the system so that it's -genuinely- fair. Still, that does raise free-speech issues-if I read the websites and decide I support a given candidate, am I still free to express that support? There's still questions even there. I agree it'd be a step in the right direction though-NO ads, to start with. Period. Debates only, to which anyone on the ballot must be allowed to come. Unfortunately, we'll never see it.
The fact that someone actually is trying this, or the fact that I'm half-afraid it might work.
Let's all hope not.
I bet if vendors (and I include both Apple and Microsoft in that) implimented privilage dialogs that were scary and intimidating enough to users (perhaps with a default action of 'deny') 3rd party application developers wouldn't ask for them unless they really needed those permissions.
Still, that'll never solve the problem of the user getting used to it. "WARNING: Email attachments may contain viruses! Are you sure you want to download nakedjlo.exe??????" "Duuuh...well it must be OK, my friend sent it to me!"
Thanks very much for your response. It actually illustrates a good few fallacies and problems very common in politics, but I see people like this (far-fringe types on both the left and right) use them all the time. I'm going to illustrate the problem strategies, because they're rather common right now, and also put forth some defenses against them.
Right off the bat, we've got a self-contradictory statement. Anytime it's claimed that the government should step in and restrict what any corporation (and generally any person) can place within a contract, they cry foul. Yet, here is a call for exactly that:
We're not pro-corporation, we're against them. I believe a group of investors could tell creditors that a loan contract affords limited liability up to the amount invested, but they should still be personally liable.
Now, I actually agree with that statement to a good extent, but it lacks internal consistency. If a corporation can be restricted from contractually being allowed to limit their own liability to their creditors, there's nothing wrong with restricting what they may and may not place in a licensing agreement, customer contract, or supplier arrangement. This is also known as trying to have it both ways.
Next up, we have a vagueness problem. Here's the relevant portion:
Illinois. A local town made national news because they arrested a home owner for shooting a burglar who robbed him twice.
Note what this is in response to:
What state do -you- live in that there is not an exception in the law allowing a person to use violence in self-defense? Please, cite the relevant law, stating that violence is unacceptable even if you are being attacked. (emphasis added by me)
Please note several things:
-The post attempts to appear responsive but really is not. No law is cited as requested, rather, a single anecdotal instance is brought up.
-Details on that isolated instance are sketchy (a burglar robbed a man twice, was subsequently shot, and the man doing the shooting was arrested). This leaves a ton of things open to question, and this is the Web, where a link to a news story is as easy to provide as typing a few letters. Even the name of the man, the town, and the burglar would allow for easy Googling, but no such things are provided. How did the shooting occur? Did it happen during the burglary, or did the man track down the burglar later? Was the burglar armed, and could the man have possibly known whether he was or not? Was the man charged after being arrested, and if so, with what crime? If so, did those charges make it to trial, and if so, was he convicted, acquitted, the charges dismissed by a judge, or is the case still pending? And what is the relevant law in Illinois? This answers -none- of those things, and really provides no clarity to the point at all.
-The post fails to provide what -is- requested (a link to a state law stating that violence is unacceptable even in self-defense). All state legal codes that I am aware of are fully available online. A sketchy recounting of one isolated instance (and that being an arrest, not a conviction) with no details provided does not prove that the state of Illinois disallows the self-defense affirmative defense in violent crime cases.
Next, we have a misuse of language. While misuse of the terms "theft" and "steal" is rampant on Slashdot (and in general), I've never seen it done quite like this.
I had my unregistered handgun stolen twice by the police.
Possession or carrying of an unregistered handgun is illegal. The police are not "stealing" when they seize contraband, they are exercising their legitimate authority under the law. Now, that doesn't mean you have to agree that the law -should- be that way, but that's an issue to take up with a lawmaker or a judge, not a cop. Cops don't (and shouldn't!) make the law, they're just charged with enforcing it. In the meantime, don't deny reality-if you carry an unregistered
I get so sick of this Ludwig von Miser garbage, but it seems enough people take it seriously enough that it requires a refutation. Anarchy doesn't stay that way, no matter what you do-eliminate government now, and the biggest, strongest, and most ruthless will very shortly be running a dictatorship. Also, I've always wondered why good old Ludwig seems to so strongly support the rights of "corporations" to be free from government regulation-when their very existence is owed to a government regulation.
Copyright I actually agree with you on, but a limited degree of copyright/patent could be a good thing. The problem is in scope (copyright should be an industrial regulation, not applied to not-for-profit copying, same idea with patents, and both should cover only items which are specifically registered) and time (we should be talking about a 5 year or so term, maybe with one optional and very expensive renewal for an absolute limit of 10 years.)
Government's monopoly on violence prevents the average person from defending their property, and use of the monopoly outside of our borders causes anger towards our citizens.
You have got to be kidding me. What state do -you- live in that there is not an exception in the law allowing a person to use violence in self-defense? Please, cite the relevant law, stating that violence is unacceptable even if you are being attacked. Also, note that state governments (which have no authority to wage war) are the ones that handle laws like murder and assault, not the federal government.
As to the current administration's misuse of force overseas, won't argue with you that the current policy is a terrible mistake, but the proper remedy of that is for the people to demand that it stops. What is the alternative you propose-should every citizen have the "right" to wage war, and access to whatever weapons they might want to do so with? Do you think that would've taken down Germany and Japan, in a conflict a bit easier to justify? Just how could we avoid the government having a "monopoly" on the use of military-scale force?
Government's monopoly on prescription drugs causes the costs to skyrocket (death sentence for the poor) and useful drugs to be delayed for years.
Might you point out to me which prescription drugs are produced by the government? I don't seem to recall any. Now, you could be talking about overlong and overbroad patents again, in which case I'm inclined to agree, but there's a big difference between government monopolies, government-sanctioned monopolies, and patents. Please be clear about which you mean.
Government's monopoly on patent licensing is no different. The playing field is far from level. Drug companies would initially have to charge more to sell their meds, or sell through doctors groups (where generics might be contractually offlimits for those doctors). Patents don't protect bootlegs anyway, which get more pervasive as the web gets larger.
Actually, patents -do- protect against bootlegs in theory, just as laws against murder protect against people being murdered. That doesn't mean that no one ever gets murdered, or that bootlegs never get made, but again, you're really stretching words to mean things they don't. Now what does the second part of that mean? Is that your theory on what would happen if patents went away entirely? If it is, I'll happily refute that too. The Founding Fathers saw fit to give Congress the authority to grant copyrights and patents. Now, they've taken that WAY too far, and forgotten the -purpose- of that power (promotion of the useful arts and science), but let's fix it, not scrap it.
For our society to grow, we need to accept that monopolies are always bad
No, they're not, actually. There are cases in which a "monopoly" prevents chaos. In some cases, you need a central regulatory authority, in other cases, a given power cannot be allowed to be used by all comers, and in others, it's simply the most efficient use of resources.
Yeah, because the cheap availability of VCR's with a fast-forward button and able to record absolutely killed the ad-supported over the air model. The point is, you and I know how to do that, but 99% of the people watching don't know how to remove the ads. Any intelligent advertiser considers a stupider consumer a more valuable pair of eyeballs anyway.
Actually, if the webmail is supposed to be part of what you're paying tuition for, and you're denied use of it due to their deliberate noncompliance with a court order, there's your damages. Also, since there's -already- a judgment entered, you may not even have to sue yourself-just find out what judge entered the ruling and make sure (s)he knows what's going on. Likely, that judge will threaten a contempt ruling (and sizable fine) if the problem isn't fixed as of yesterday.
That may or may not be, but if it didn't state specifically in the school's code of conduct that I was going to have my off-campus speech regulated, and they expelled me for that, I sure damn well expect my tuition to date refunded and a clear note made in my transcript that I was not at fault for the expulsion. Now, if it does state that in their code of conduct, I suppose they can do that, but you'd have to be an idiot to go there. I guess it's good practice, in a sense, since the SC, in its infinite wisdom, has agreed that employers can restrict speech pretty much all they want.
Yeah, that's a GREAT idea! I sure hope I'm somewhere near that roadblock so I can see it used, too! I mean, so long as they just temporarily blind the driver of a moving vehicle, no one will get hurt!
And so you were, I've used it on my system for probably a year and a half now, my wife's used it on hers about a year. Seems to be very stable and work well. Out of curiosity (and yes, I know I'm way offtopic), how did you know?
Yes, why?
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 10 seconds since you hit 'reply'.
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or are typing with both hands. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
Your way -might- make desktop adoption a little faster. However, if it worked, it would guarantee that such desktop adoption would do nothing to advance open-source. One reason the kernel -is- so stable is its open nature. If it's allowed now for the kernel to be tied to closed, binary crap, then no matter how much adoption occurs, it'll always be tied to that. On the other hand, if Linux adoption increases, and the principle remains held firm, any vendor who refuses to open-source will be shut out of an ever-growing market segment.
Personally, I'd much rather wait a bit. I've never had trouble finding something to get even newer stuff working. Of course, I do try to purchase from companies who have opened the drivers for the hardware I'm purchasing, and I make sure to let them know that's why I bought their stuff. I've received some very positive responses so far to that.
Thank you for your input, Bender! Aren't you around a little early, though?
Really don't see why -all- copyrights shouldn't expire earlier, period. Within 5 years, almost all copyrighted material either has turned a profit or never is going to. Since this would still be plenty of time to encourage creators to create, why have it longer then that at all? (Maybe offer a one-shot, very expensive 5-year renewal, but ONLY one?)
Or at least 99.99% certain that the answer will be easy, and that being: Nothing. Because they will be using DRM. A DRM'd file (even if it will play on my OS, which is normally not the case) is worse than worthless.
On the off chance someone's smart enough not to, I'd say $5 or so for a movie that's still in theaters, $3 during the new release phase (about the price of a rental), and about $1-$1.50 after that. Otherwise, Netflix is cheaper, and they're paying postage.
I'm not holding my breath, though. If they DRM the stuff, I will find a source for DRM-free versions. If that's them, and they don't charge exorbitant rates (such as $8), they'll get my money. If not, I know plenty of other ways to get them.
I think there -might- be a few movies out there I've watched 4 or 5 times, the rest once or twice (and truly terrible ones, not even once, turn it off before any more of my time gets wasted). This is not by any means unusual, it's the rare person who's seen a large number of movies more then once or twice. Given that, this is a rental, period. And yes, if they offer DRM-free versions, they will get shared. Maybe they haven't noticed, but that already happens, DRM or not. Movies will be "shared" no matter what-if I rent a movie, nothing's stopping me from inviting 6 people over to view it, or loaning it to someone before the rental's up. Rentals can be easily ripped. Given that, what's the difference, why hassle people you're trying to encourage to pay you money for your service?
Use your head, content distributors! The first rule of ANY business is that you must deliver what your customer wants. Your customer wants an easy, hassle-free experience. Your customer doesn't want to worry about what restrictions are placed on what file, he wants to watch a movie! Deliver that at a price reflecting how little it costs to deliver over the net, and watch customers flock to your service. Deliver difficult-to-use stuff that won't burn properly to a DVD, won't transfer to your friend, and is priced exorbitantly, and oh well, at least there'll be plenty of seeds on the torrents!
Those are your options, Sony. There isn't a third one. Whether your competition is legal or not, you're not the only game in town anymore, and you damn well better get that through your heads. And that applies to all the other "content distributors" out there, too. Quit trying to figure out ways to STOP people from using your product, and start thinking up ways to get them to START using your product. You'll find you make a whole lot more sales that way.
I'd reply more in depth, but I have a patent application to write.
--
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 16 seconds since you hit 'reply'.
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or you are typing with both hands. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, try finding a different place for one of your thumbs.
They also got copyright's purpose wrong. You'd really think they'd teach people about the Constitution in law school.
Since apparently they don't, though, the writers of the Constitution were very clear on what copyright's purpose is, and they got it dead wrong. Here's the relevant portion:
"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;" -United States Constitution, Section 8 (emphasis mine)
Note two important things from that passage: Firstly, the purpose of copyrights is to promote the progress of science and art. (NOT the wealth of scientists and artists!) Since copyright and patents by definition restrict sharing and reuse of information, which is necessary for progress in science and art, they also put in another provision: such restrictions must be for a limited time. A period which someone born today will not outlive is not, for any intents or purposes, a "limited time," not in any meaningful sense. The "limited time" provision implies to me that it should be the minimum amount of time necessary to encourage creators to create-which is the time at which they can generally turn a profit. Since most copyrighted/patented material turns a profit within 5-10 years (or never will), and creators would keep creating even if that's all the time they got, why have it longer?
Copyright is not about the "interests" of creators, except so far as recognizing such interests encourage them to continue creating. Copyright and patent are for the benefit of the public-and when it fails any longer to serve the public, to the benefit of the rights holders, it fails to the extent it does so.
Also note that copyrights and patents are not treated like property. Congress may not seize your property for public use unless they pay you just compensation for it-that's right in the Constitution. Yet, they are REQUIRED to make it so that copyrights and patents are released to the public after a set period of time. Is there any clearer indication that the law does and should not consider such things "property"?
-IN THAILAND-, the legal age to work in the prostitution trade is 18. I don't care if someone wants to go to Holland, or Thailand, and sleep with every adult prostitute they can get their hands on. I wouldn't even care so much if the age of consent differed slightly. Nor should a man who goes to Italy (or Ohio) and sleeps with someone who is of the age of consent there be prosecuted upon his return home.
There are, however, two fundamental problems here. One is the issue of irreducible human rights. Quite often, Thai girls are pressured by their parents to become prostitutes. In other cases, girls are kidnapped and drugged or coerced into cooperation. I don't have a single problem with legalizing prostitution, and I wish they would do so in the US as well. But it should be adults participating of their own free will, period. And sleeping with a prostitute under 18 or anyone under 15 in Thailand is a crime -there-. If I go to Canada and murder someone, the US will prosecute me for it, so why should I escape prosecution for breaking an existing (if poorly enforced) Thai law?
And, similarly, still, I feel that corporations which operate in the US, and take advantage of its vast buying power, should be required to operate to US standards where they make the stuff they're selling. Same for Europe. They can still go overseas and get cheap labor if they feel the need-manufacturing workers don't generally work for minimum wage.
Ah, do see your point with #2, missed that at first. That would be a problem, but FSF being a nonprofit entity specifically designed to promoting free software generally and the GPL specifically, very unlikely. It might even in fact be illegal-since FSF is nonprofit and accepts donations, nonprofits are generally expected to use donations made to them largely or completely for the purpose they stated they'd be used. If they sold out like that, and changed the GPL that radically, both the old and new owners may well open themselves up to lawsuits for fraud.
Be glad to, myself. Unfortunately, it would not be possible for me to do that. And I'm certainly not advocating lynching-due process of law and a fair trial are every bit part of those same human rights. But so is the right to basic safety, to knowing that those who do commit a crime will be held accountable for their actions when they are discovered. The two are not incompatible.
Sex tourism is a violation of an internationally-recognized human right. Decompiling software and using drugs is not. If you murdered someone in another country, your own country is -supposed- to prosecute you for that crime and/or extradite you to the country in which you committed it. These laws do, and should, apply to violent crime, and do not, and should not, apply to nonviolent victimless crime.
Now, I don't even support drug prohibition within the US, so that's another discussion entirely. Still remains, though, that there should -always- be a distinction drawn between violent and nonviolent crime, especially when that crime is also a human rights abuse.
Forcing people to work in subhuman, dangerous, unhealthy conditions is a violation of human rights, and should be covered by these laws. Aiding and abetting (and sometimes requesting!) violent repression on the part of any government should likewise be a crime punishable by any civilized nation you step foot in.
Two flaws in your argument, though:
1. How is anyone going to "forcibly buy" a nonprofit entity which is not publicly traded? Hostile takeover is possible only for publicly-traded companies. They can offer however large a wad of cash they like, but RMS is still free to say "No thank you, not for sale". What are they going to do from there, come in and put a gun to his head? That type of coercion, being illegal, would void the resulting sale anyway.
2. Even if RMS did sell off to MS, and they made GPLx.0 state "You may not under any circumstances distribute source code for programs distributed under this license", that would not in any way impact the existing licenses. If the code -I- have in my possession already is licensed under v2.0 or any later version, then I simply choose to continue using 2.0, and am still free to go on distributing all I like. I've already accepted that license, and it specifically states that I may go on using the old one instead of the new if I like. Commercial EULA's generally include a provision that the licensing company may change the license anytime it wants and that you automatically accept such changes, but the GPL contains no such provision. And no one will use the new license, and a new FSF will come up to replace the old, and open-source programmers will use their GPL. Easy enough solved, wouldn't create a bit of trouble at all.
And if they don't, who holds them accountable? Ideally, this should be looked at the same way as sex tourism (if an American tourist does something in Thailand that'd be illegal in the US, they will still be prosecuted for it upon return to the US, why shouldn't the same apply to a corporation which goes abroad to skirt labor laws?), but since they're currently not, it falls to -you- to hold that corporation accountable.
Yes, it's a pain in the ass. Sorry. Most things worth doing are. If everyone would quit being too busy to give a shit, these types of things just might improve. Otherwise, they're going to continue. Anyone who is aware of an evil act and does not stand up against it is partially guilty in it.
This is not the same as saying you should -personally- go check every factory you purchase clothing from. But when the labor record of any given multinational is easily available on the web, to consult before making a purchase, you're talking about 5 minutes worth of work. This is NOT too much to ask from even a busy person.