Slashdot in this context is no different from any other online content provider or community. This isn't the end of free speech, far from it. As one can see on Threads, people can say anything they want about Scientology..The issue is significant but quite narrow..it is evidence of why the DMCA elimination of fair use is damaging, and perhaps blatantly unconstitutional. It's got to be challenged. We need some money for a legal challenge.
The Communications Decency Act, which passed not once but twice, was far more noxious in terms of free speech, but it didn't end free speech, it was overturned as a blatantly unconstitution bit of legislation. that's what has to happen here. If this "church" came after any media site online or any individual, the choice would have been the same. This free speech stuff is an ongoing struggle, with victories and losses, all sorts of battles.
Slashdot remains as free a media entity as I know of anywhere..This is a problem, not a catastrophe...The question is whether people will be willing to fight it..They eliminated Fair Use with little online discussion or opposition, unlike the CDA.. a lesson for us.
Jellicle is absolutely right..The issue here is Fair Use, which no longer exists online under the provisions of the DMCA. This happens all the time, but this is an entity that pushes all legal issues to the max. Prior to the DMCA this would have been fair use, it seems to me..the legitimate, legal reprinting and citing of material in connection with public discussion.. Common Carrier is Verizon..
..of why the DMCA, rushed through by entertainment lawyers and hurriedly signed by President Clinton without any serious thought or even much debate, is a dreadful law..Slashdot had no other choice, in my mind. You do have to pick your battles.
if you look at the reality shows on Fox and cable, I'd say there are no limits where this trend can go, constitutionally or otherwise.. But the question the movie asks also, is will we every reach a point where people will stop watching..Murders are often shown on TV, along with shootings and violent crime, accidents etc. As long as people will watch, they'll make it. I don't think we're close to the limit. Unfortunately, the movie's owners..Time Warner..don't have a great claim to high moral ground here.
Lot of truth in this post, sadly..
on
15 Minutes
·
· Score: 2
I'm not sure what Americans make of TV..they see it as entertainment, I suspect..I don't know that liberals get all the blame here..they sure get a lot..I'd say the corporatization of media gets few points..When big, profit driven companies get into this, they only hae one motive or goal..profits, and they own most American media now..
Movies and their motives...
on
15 Minutes
·
· Score: 1
It is, without question, hypocritical of AOL/Time-Warner's New Line Cinema to be posing as moral media guardians..On the other hand, who has any illusions about the motives or morals of Hollywood?
If somebody was murdered on video, Alien, do you think it would eventually make its way onto tv. I saw a show on Fox last week that showed cops run down bycars while making traffic stops..collected from videocams in police cars..
I mean, this is a Corporate Republic. Why is MS to be broken up, but not Disney, AOL Time Warner, or Chrysler-Daimler? Why not GE, who owns so much radio and broadcast media and discourages free speechand competition?
Why not the Hollywood studios, literal enemies of creativity and diverse expression.
Were it up to me, I'd break all of them up and create a business environment in which smaller entities can really compete? But under existing laws, MS seems benign..the prosectution is so selective..
A key issue in the trial..it also pops up in the two books out about MS, one from John Heilemann and the other from Ken Auletta. To what extent was the government lured into this action byh MS competitors or wannabe competitors? I think this poster obviously has a particular perspective, but if you read through the appeals evidence, thereis in fact, no one single shred of evidence that MS harmed consumers in the context of IE, Netscape, etc..the basis for the trial. Doesn't mean they didn't, but where's the data?
The very same principle applies to cars, appliances -- it's the cornerstone of American capitalism -- make products that become obsolete and need to be service, dominate markets. The question isnt whether MS sucks, but whether IE deprived consumers of more expedient and cheaply priced choices..You don't really answer that, and the appeals judges say theycan't find any evidence for it..Your argument that MS makes obsolete goods is true of GM, butnobody is moving to break them up.
Neat post..but here's a question I really can't figure out the answer to..Why was MS the only choice for so many people? Was it solely because of their predatory behavior? Or did they see a commercial market and aggressively exploit it..The appeals judges say this is very murky to them..I'd be very interesting to hear from the perspective of tech people involved...So would others reading this.
I guess I had some of the same worries. But if you read the transcripts, the appeals judges are saying the MS ruling has no basis in fact..that the findings of facts of Judge Jackson aren't supported by fact. I'm interested in your idea that ideology is the problem here, though. I have the sense that the U.S. government has no idea what they're doing.
If you're right about Netscape, though, then the Judge's order definitely makes no sense. As to anticompetiveness, there's no question that Microsoft is anticompetitive, I don't think, at least in my mind. That isn't the issue though.
Is their behavior illegal under the Sherman antitrust act, and should the company be broken up?
Antitrust laws don't breakup companies who are anticompetivie..that's for civil and other legal responses. Antitrust laws breaks up companies when they create monopolies and consumers are harmed..by your argument, consumers weren't harmed.
Yes, you are dead on..Spade is right up there, as was in Search of Farley..
Actually good point about Martin and Lewis..they were buddy movies, but skewed much older...more slapstick comedy, less settings in real life (relatively)
Can't honestly say there's a correlation between talent and those places in all cases..besides I like writing for/. better, God Help me. thanks for the thought tho. Any thoughts on teen movies would also be appreciated.
...get a real job, as ought to be obvious..But never blame the consumers?
Re:Left Behind -- awesome!
on
The Pledge
·
· Score: 2
Actually, do it here yourself..
You're in good company..
on
The Pledge
·
· Score: 2
astute is good..I'd add piercing and insightful..Want a ILUVKatz T-shirt, soon available on Think Geek?
(Aw, I love him, too, the rascal)
Watched it twice..and Hummph!
on
The Pledge
·
· Score: 2
..and disagree, as to other people..and sir, I am no tech writer, thank you..Hummmph!
But you're wrong..the movie isn't borrowed from other movies, but the famous book on which it's based..don't know of another movie like it, truthfully.
Answered this before, but..no Kremlim purity
on
The Pledge
·
· Score: 3
Lots of people have expressed interest in a place to talk about tech culture, movies, TV shows..So since there are very few movies dealing straight out with tech..sci-fi, antitrust, we broadened it to see if there are people on a sunday morning who want to talk about pop culture, a huge tech interest..seems there are. Some movies will be more head-on than other..antitrust..others are just interesting..the readers get to decide..I don't feel hidebound by Kremlin-like definitions of what's ideologically acceptable. And for the record, most reviews are done after I get a lot of e-mail from people who plan on seeing them and want to talk about them..
Slashdot Mirror
...took a few hours, but my Root is running..
Slashdot in this context is no different from any other online content provider or community. This isn't the end of free speech, far from it. As one can see on Threads, people can say anything they want about Scientology..The issue is significant but quite narrow..it is evidence of why the DMCA elimination of fair use is damaging, and perhaps blatantly unconstitutional. It's got to be challenged. We need some money for a legal challenge.
The Communications Decency Act, which passed not once but twice, was far more noxious in terms of free speech, but it didn't end free speech, it was overturned as a blatantly unconstitution bit of legislation. that's what has to happen here. If this "church" came after any media site online or any individual, the choice would have been the same. This free speech stuff is an ongoing struggle, with victories and losses, all sorts of battles.
Slashdot remains as free a media entity as I know of anywhere..This is a problem, not a catastrophe...The question is whether people will be willing to fight it..They eliminated Fair Use with little online discussion or opposition, unlike the CDA.. a lesson for us.
Jellicle is absolutely right..The issue here is Fair Use, which no longer exists online under the provisions of the DMCA. This happens all the time, but this is an entity that pushes all legal issues to the max. Prior to the DMCA this would have been fair use, it seems to me..the legitimate, legal reprinting and citing of material in connection with public discussion.. Common Carrier is Verizon..
..of why the DMCA, rushed through by entertainment lawyers and hurriedly signed by President Clinton without any serious thought or even much debate, is a dreadful law..Slashdot had no other choice, in my mind. You do have to pick your battles.
if you look at the reality shows on Fox and cable, I'd say there are no limits where this trend can go, constitutionally or otherwise.. But the question the movie asks also, is will we every reach a point where people will stop watching..Murders are often shown on TV, along with shootings and violent crime, accidents etc. As long as people will watch, they'll make it. I don't think we're close to the limit. Unfortunately, the movie's owners..Time Warner..don't have a great claim to high moral ground here.
I'm not sure what Americans make of TV..they see it as entertainment, I suspect..I don't know that liberals get all the blame here..they sure get a lot..I'd say the corporatization of media gets few points..When big, profit driven companies get into this, they only hae one motive or goal..profits, and they own most American media now..
It is, without question, hypocritical of AOL/Time-Warner's New Line Cinema to be posing as moral media guardians..On the other hand, who has any illusions about the motives or morals of Hollywood?
If somebody was murdered on video, Alien, do you think it would eventually make its way onto tv. I saw a show on Fox last week that showed cops run down bycars while making traffic stops..collected from videocams in police cars..
I mean, this is a Corporate Republic. Why is MS to be broken up, but not Disney, AOL Time Warner, or Chrysler-Daimler? Why not GE, who owns so much radio and broadcast media and discourages free speechand competition?
Why not the Hollywood studios, literal enemies of creativity and diverse expression.
Were it up to me, I'd break all of them up and create a business environment in which smaller entities can really compete? But under existing laws, MS seems benign..the prosectution is so selective..
A key issue in the trial..it also pops up in the two books out about MS, one from John Heilemann and the other from Ken Auletta. To what extent was the government lured into this action byh MS competitors or wannabe competitors? I think this poster obviously has a particular perspective, but if you read through the appeals evidence, thereis in fact, no one single shred of evidence that MS harmed consumers in the context of IE, Netscape, etc..the basis for the trial. Doesn't mean they didn't, but where's the data?
The very same principle applies to cars, appliances -- it's the cornerstone of American capitalism -- make products that become obsolete and need to be service, dominate markets. The question isnt whether MS sucks, but whether IE deprived consumers of more expedient and cheaply priced choices..You don't really answer that, and the appeals judges say theycan't find any evidence for it..Your argument that MS makes obsolete goods is true of GM, butnobody is moving to break them up.
Neat post..but here's a question I really can't figure out the answer to..Why was MS the only choice for so many people? Was it solely because of their predatory behavior? Or did they see a commercial market and aggressively exploit it..The appeals judges say this is very murky to them..I'd be very interesting to hear from the perspective of tech people involved...So would others reading this.
I guess I had some of the same worries. But if you read the transcripts, the appeals judges are saying the MS ruling has no basis in fact..that the findings of facts of Judge Jackson aren't supported by fact. I'm interested in your idea that ideology is the problem here, though. I have the sense that the U.S. government has no idea what they're doing.
If you're right about Netscape, though, then the Judge's order definitely makes no sense. As to anticompetiveness, there's no question that Microsoft is anticompetitive, I don't think, at least in my mind. That isn't the issue though.
Is their behavior illegal under the Sherman antitrust act, and should the company be broken up?
Antitrust laws don't breakup companies who are anticompetivie..that's for civil and other legal responses. Antitrust laws breaks up companies when they create monopolies and consumers are harmed..by your argument, consumers weren't harmed.
I've posted four or five replies but there are already more than 40 posts..your settings, maybe..others are seeing them all..
Yes, you are dead on..Spade is right up there, as was in Search of Farley..
Actually good point about Martin and Lewis..they were buddy movies, but skewed much older...more slapstick comedy, less settings in real life (relatively)
Learned a lot about trolls this week, I have to say..this is also helpful, as it fits with a valentin'e's day column..
l. Does she have to be a technology advocate to be on a panel?
2. You really think she's anti-hacker. I didn't get that from her book at all..plse explain.
I was called a metatroll on a site recently, and it rocked me....shook me up in more ways than the poster knew..
Can't honestly say there's a correlation between talent and those places in all cases..besides I like writing for
...get a real job, as ought to be obvious..But never blame the consumers?
Actually, do it here yourself..
astute is good..I'd add piercing and insightful..Want a ILUVKatz T-shirt, soon available on Think Geek?
(Aw, I love him, too, the rascal)
..and disagree, as to other people..and sir, I am no tech writer, thank you..Hummmph!
But you're wrong..the movie isn't borrowed from other movies, but the famous book on which it's based..don't know of another movie like it, truthfully.
Lots of people have expressed interest in a place to talk about tech culture, movies, TV shows..So since there are very few movies dealing straight out with tech..sci-fi, antitrust, we broadened it to see if there are people on a sunday morning who want to talk about pop culture, a huge tech interest..seems there are. Some movies will be more head-on than other..antitrust..others are just interesting..the readers get to decide..I don't feel hidebound by Kremlin-like definitions of what's ideologically acceptable. And for the record, most reviews are done after I get a lot of e-mail from people who plan on seeing them and want to talk about them..