I remember when the troll community was creative and vibrant. Trolls were driven, passionate individuals who truly believed in the art of jackassery. Those days are long past, and that saddens me.
The popular trolls you see today are just recycled, remixed versions of the same trolls we've been seeing on mainstream sites for years now. Common, soulless crap served up to an audience that's grown too numb and jaded to recognize it as such.
Personally, I liked this one better when it was about a video game store.
While I myself would never do such a thing, it's quite likely that at least one of Joe's tech friends works for a company with an MSDN subscription and can provide a copy of a Windows XP install CD.
Additionally, this purely hypothetical friend might even be willing to install it on said laptop for some tequila and a few of those amazing homemade enchiladas that Al, er, Joe's so famous for.
But you'll have to ask someone else, cuz I'd never do anything like that. But I do hope Al upgrades his desktop soon.
There should be an expectation that if a cop asks for documents and such, they have a legal right to do so.
I have a friend who's an attorney, and his advice to me indicated precisely the opposite. If a cop asks you for something, it's a reliable indicator that he doesn't have the right to take it. If he did, then he wouldn't be asking, he'd be telling you what to give him.
It's also the people who are guilty of stealing who are the loudest to laud DRM's pratfalls.
What makes you think this? Except for those very few who actually crack the software, pirates don't give a rat's ass about DRM because it doesn't affect them. They have no idea how onerous Mass Effect's DRM is.
I assume that the people who scream the loudest are the paying customers who can't play the game they purchased because of some boneheaded DRM scheme that does nothing to discourage piracy.
Given the frequency with which this has been attempted and failed over the years, I've come to the conclusion that Congress WANTS these laws to be challenged and struck down.
If it becomes a matter for the courts, then it's something that can be dragged on for years, repeatedly used as a diversion, and perhaps even used in a campaign. And when it fails, they can try again and again paint themselves as Tireless Protectors of the Children.
Your last paragraph makes the most important point: the TV networks are dying because they suck, they treat their viewers with contempt, and don't know how to compete.
The TV networks are facing a lot of problems in adapting their business model. The Broadcast Flag doesn't solve any of them.
It all depends on the email address and how much traffic if gets. My old, rarely used addresses are getting close to 100% spam just because they only get 1 or 2 emails a month. A quick glance at one of my GMail accounts shows 17 legit emails and 815 in the spam folder. That 98% spam. On another account, the ratio is in the high 80%s because all of my mailing list traffic goes there.
And then you have to figure a certain amount gets blocked by ISPs, a lot goes to nonexistent accounts, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the spam percentage overall was 95% or even higher.
Decent living conditions help, but are insufficient to prevent crime. When there's no fear of getting caught, people will do bad things even if they're among the most privileged in the world. I went to a private high school where most of the students came from families that were pretty well off. Freedom, education, and good living conditions didn't keep people from stealing. In college one of the fraternity houses was affectionately referred to as "the date rape house," and it stayed that way for years because the guys knew that victims rarely, if ever reported the crimes.
And then we get to the corporate level where millionaires lie, cheat, and steal to become multimillionaires.
There are a large number of people in the world who are just assholes. If they want something and they can take it, then they will. What stops them is the fear that something even more valuable will be taken away if they try.
I make some modifications to my copy of Linux. I leave a copy of the compiled version in a directory that's accessible to anybody on the internet who knows where to look. When someone demands the source code, I tell him to go to hell because I'm not distributing anything. Can I get sued for violating the GPL?
A lot of young people think that they're original and deviant, but really most of them are just rehashing ideas that are centuries old. Truly deviant people have a thorough knowledge of what's come before them, and have consciously chosen to reject it. And that knowledge comes with age and experience.
In other words: The greatest quantity of radical thought comes from the young, but the greatest quality comes from the old.
Even better: Pirates should just confess to attempted murder. They're trying to kill off the entire commercial music industry.
Oh, wait, that would be really fucking stupid.
Theft and copyright infringement are different offenses and should be handled differently just as property rights and copyrights are handled differently.
Calling copyright infringement stealing is simply a means for copyright holders to frame the debate in such a way that they can more easily claim more power for themselves. If you assume the two are equivalent, then many of the arguments against increased intellectual property protections start to sound absurd. Should my neighbors have fair use rights to my bicycle? Should my car enter the public domain and be free for anyone to use after a certain amount of time? Of course not.
But if we call it stealing, then we the people are put in a position where we have to justify what we do with the copyright holders' "property", when instead it's the copyright holders who should have to explain why the government should send people with guns and badges to arrest people for copying a computer file.
You're partly correct. They don't want regular Joes making copies, but it's not to prevent piracy. It's to prevent format shifting. It's to screw honest people so that they can be charged for any possible use of the product. They want to sell you a copy on DVD, another copy for your iPod, and another copy for your PSP. This encryption does absolutely nothing to stop people from copying rented movies. Just make a complete bit-for-bit copy of the encrypted disc, and an authorized player will play it just like any other.
If I want to format shift and I don't care about copyright law, I won't waste time fighting encryption. I'll download a DRM-free version, convert it to whatever format I like, and do what I please with it. But if I'm a good little consumer, I won't download an illegal copy. I'll try to make a copy from the version I've legally purchased, and when I fail I'll sigh and dutifully purchase another copy in the desired format, if it's even available.
If you know that you're going to get calls about problems caused by Noscript and Adblock, then why aren't you testing your sites against these? If your site doesn't work properly with commonly used browsers and extensions, then your design is broken.
I find it amusing as well. First off, Jobs never suggested removing copyright protections, he just advocated getting rid of DRM. Big difference. Copyrighted work is still protected by copyright law, with or without DRM.
Secondly, any and all patents that Steve Jobs has are already available on the Internet for free. They're right out there for anyone who wants to read them, copy the ideas, and infringe on his patents. How on earth does the man sleep at night?
Think about it: Anybody who cared enough could simply look at the pictures of people in a magazine and copy what someone with there body typa and colors are wearing.
I do. But whenever I see a short fat guy in a magazine, he's dressed like a dork.
Whatever happened to monitoring your children anyway? When did it become inappropriate to watch over what your kids did? There are too many parents out there who insist on treating their kids like they're just smaller versions of adults, but then scream "Think of the children" when they suffer adult consequences for their bad decisions.
When I was a kid, I had to prove to my parents that I was trustworthy before I was allowed to have a phone in my room. Up until I reached a certain age, every phone conversation I had took place in a common area of the house. And even when I was having conversations in my room, we only had the one phone line so at any time anybody might pick up another phone in the house and hear what was being said.
The computer was also in a common area. Anyone walking by could see what I was doing at a glance. There was a lot less to do back then, though.
These days I see kids with their own cell phones. If you check the random silly photos and videos made by teens and posted online, you'll see a good number of them have computers in their bedrooms and have access to digital cameras. Sexual predators of years past could only dream of today's world. Kids are allowed to open up windows into their bedrooms, and anybody who can connect to the internet can come along anonymously and take a peek in. Parents give this capability to their kids, and then leave them unsupervised. And you can even contact them, safely and privately, without any concern that bothersome adults will interfere.
The question is impressive the depth of its irrelevance.
It's effectively asking "Would you object to a system of DRM that only hindered criminals?" Even if it were possible to build the DRM as proposed, honest people wouldn't notice it and dishonest people wouldn't be hindered by it.
Such a system would be functionally identical to having no DRM at all, it would just cost a lot more.
The question is nonsensical because the primary function of DRM is to keep honest people from enjoying content in ways that are perfectly legal but not approved by the copyright holder. Remember that the only people who got screwed by Sony's rootkit were Sony's paying customers. Only people who get "legitimate" copies of content will be affected by DRM. The people who are actually looking to copy content illegally can just go online and download DRM-free versions.
All the AOL letter says is "To the best of our knowledge, here are the people who were using these IP addresses at these times." You are correct in that it's pretty good evidence that she has an AOL account.
The problem is, the RIAA said that the letter confirmed that "defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed." The letter alone does no such thing. When a defendant's motion is denied based on materially false claims made by the plaintiff, I would certainly hope that the decision would be reviewed. If there is sufficient evidence that actually links the IP address to illegal activity occurring at that time, then the decision will stand.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember when the troll community was creative and vibrant. Trolls were driven, passionate individuals who truly believed in the art of jackassery. Those days are long past, and that saddens me.
The popular trolls you see today are just recycled, remixed versions of the same trolls we've been seeing on mainstream sites for years now. Common, soulless crap served up to an audience that's grown too numb and jaded to recognize it as such.
Personally, I liked this one better when it was about a video game store.
While I myself would never do such a thing, it's quite likely that at least one of Joe's tech friends works for a company with an MSDN subscription and can provide a copy of a Windows XP install CD.
Additionally, this purely hypothetical friend might even be willing to install it on said laptop for some tequila and a few of those amazing homemade enchiladas that Al, er, Joe's so famous for.
But you'll have to ask someone else, cuz I'd never do anything like that. But I do hope Al upgrades his desktop soon.
There should be an expectation that if a cop asks for documents and such, they have a legal right to do so.
I have a friend who's an attorney, and his advice to me indicated precisely the opposite. If a cop asks you for something, it's a reliable indicator that he doesn't have the right to take it. If he did, then he wouldn't be asking, he'd be telling you what to give him.
It's also the people who are guilty of stealing who are the loudest to laud DRM's pratfalls.
What makes you think this? Except for those very few who actually crack the software, pirates don't give a rat's ass about DRM because it doesn't affect them. They have no idea how onerous Mass Effect's DRM is.
I assume that the people who scream the loudest are the paying customers who can't play the game they purchased because of some boneheaded DRM scheme that does nothing to discourage piracy.
I disagree. I'm not playing, and I think that's far better than providing profits for a company that treats its customers with such contempt.
Given the frequency with which this has been attempted and failed over the years, I've come to the conclusion that Congress WANTS these laws to be challenged and struck down.
If it becomes a matter for the courts, then it's something that can be dragged on for years, repeatedly used as a diversion, and perhaps even used in a campaign. And when it fails, they can try again and again paint themselves as Tireless Protectors of the Children.
Your last paragraph makes the most important point: the TV networks are dying because they suck, they treat their viewers with contempt, and don't know how to compete.
The TV networks are facing a lot of problems in adapting their business model. The Broadcast Flag doesn't solve any of them.
It all depends on the email address and how much traffic if gets. My old, rarely used addresses are getting close to 100% spam just because they only get 1 or 2 emails a month. A quick glance at one of my GMail accounts shows 17 legit emails and 815 in the spam folder. That 98% spam. On another account, the ratio is in the high 80%s because all of my mailing list traffic goes there.
And then you have to figure a certain amount gets blocked by ISPs, a lot goes to nonexistent accounts, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the spam percentage overall was 95% or even higher.
the US incarcerates its problems
Hey, when you've gone through such expense and effort to manufacture them, it makes sense to keep them secure.
Decent living conditions help, but are insufficient to prevent crime. When there's no fear of getting caught, people will do bad things even if they're among the most privileged in the world. I went to a private high school where most of the students came from families that were pretty well off. Freedom, education, and good living conditions didn't keep people from stealing. In college one of the fraternity houses was affectionately referred to as "the date rape house," and it stayed that way for years because the guys knew that victims rarely, if ever reported the crimes.
And then we get to the corporate level where millionaires lie, cheat, and steal to become multimillionaires.
There are a large number of people in the world who are just assholes. If they want something and they can take it, then they will. What stops them is the fear that something even more valuable will be taken away if they try.
"Shun the tyranny of the or and embrace the genius of the and."
I don't know who first said that, but he's brilliant.
Let's try a different take:
I make some modifications to my copy of Linux. I leave a copy of the compiled version in a directory that's accessible to anybody on the internet who knows where to look. When someone demands the source code, I tell him to go to hell because I'm not distributing anything. Can I get sued for violating the GPL?
Falwell got your message, and for that you have my gratitude. Please keep working on the rest of them.
A lot of young people think that they're original and deviant, but really most of them are just rehashing ideas that are centuries old. Truly deviant people have a thorough knowledge of what's come before them, and have consciously chosen to reject it. And that knowledge comes with age and experience.
In other words: The greatest quantity of radical thought comes from the young, but the greatest quality comes from the old.
I frequently see this claim as a justification for demonizing sex offenders, but I've never seen any hard data to back it up. And the U.S. Department of Justice seems to disagree.
Even better: Pirates should just confess to attempted murder. They're trying to kill off the entire commercial music industry.
Oh, wait, that would be really fucking stupid.
Theft and copyright infringement are different offenses and should be handled differently just as property rights and copyrights are handled differently.
Calling copyright infringement stealing is simply a means for copyright holders to frame the debate in such a way that they can more easily claim more power for themselves. If you assume the two are equivalent, then many of the arguments against increased intellectual property protections start to sound absurd. Should my neighbors have fair use rights to my bicycle? Should my car enter the public domain and be free for anyone to use after a certain amount of time? Of course not.
But if we call it stealing, then we the people are put in a position where we have to justify what we do with the copyright holders' "property", when instead it's the copyright holders who should have to explain why the government should send people with guns and badges to arrest people for copying a computer file.
You're partly correct. They don't want regular Joes making copies, but it's not to prevent piracy. It's to prevent format shifting. It's to screw honest people so that they can be charged for any possible use of the product. They want to sell you a copy on DVD, another copy for your iPod, and another copy for your PSP. This encryption does absolutely nothing to stop people from copying rented movies. Just make a complete bit-for-bit copy of the encrypted disc, and an authorized player will play it just like any other.
If I want to format shift and I don't care about copyright law, I won't waste time fighting encryption. I'll download a DRM-free version, convert it to whatever format I like, and do what I please with it. But if I'm a good little consumer, I won't download an illegal copy. I'll try to make a copy from the version I've legally purchased, and when I fail I'll sigh and dutifully purchase another copy in the desired format, if it's even available.
If you know that you're going to get calls about problems caused by Noscript and Adblock, then why aren't you testing your sites against these? If your site doesn't work properly with commonly used browsers and extensions, then your design is broken.
I find it amusing as well. First off, Jobs never suggested removing copyright protections, he just advocated getting rid of DRM. Big difference. Copyrighted work is still protected by copyright law, with or without DRM.
Secondly, any and all patents that Steve Jobs has are already available on the Internet for free . They're right out there for anyone who wants to read them, copy the ideas, and infringe on his patents. How on earth does the man sleep at night?
I do. But whenever I see a short fat guy in a magazine, he's dressed like a dork.
Whatever happened to monitoring your children anyway? When did it become inappropriate to watch over what your kids did? There are too many parents out there who insist on treating their kids like they're just smaller versions of adults, but then scream "Think of the children" when they suffer adult consequences for their bad decisions.
When I was a kid, I had to prove to my parents that I was trustworthy before I was allowed to have a phone in my room. Up until I reached a certain age, every phone conversation I had took place in a common area of the house. And even when I was having conversations in my room, we only had the one phone line so at any time anybody might pick up another phone in the house and hear what was being said.
The computer was also in a common area. Anyone walking by could see what I was doing at a glance. There was a lot less to do back then, though.
These days I see kids with their own cell phones. If you check the random silly photos and videos made by teens and posted online, you'll see a good number of them have computers in their bedrooms and have access to digital cameras. Sexual predators of years past could only dream of today's world. Kids are allowed to open up windows into their bedrooms, and anybody who can connect to the internet can come along anonymously and take a peek in. Parents give this capability to their kids, and then leave them unsupervised. And you can even contact them, safely and privately, without any concern that bothersome adults will interfere.
When did the world go completely mad?
The question is impressive the depth of its irrelevance.
It's effectively asking "Would you object to a system of DRM that only hindered criminals?" Even if it were possible to build the DRM as proposed, honest people wouldn't notice it and dishonest people wouldn't be hindered by it.
Such a system would be functionally identical to having no DRM at all, it would just cost a lot more.
The question is nonsensical because the primary function of DRM is to keep honest people from enjoying content in ways that are perfectly legal but not approved by the copyright holder. Remember that the only people who got screwed by Sony's rootkit were Sony's paying customers. Only people who get "legitimate" copies of content will be affected by DRM. The people who are actually looking to copy content illegally can just go online and download DRM-free versions.
Well if he just supported shorter copyright terms, he and everyone else could be freely enjoying his old music now.
All the AOL letter says is "To the best of our knowledge, here are the people who were using these IP addresses at these times." You are correct in that it's pretty good evidence that she has an AOL account.
The problem is, the RIAA said that the letter confirmed that "defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed." The letter alone does no such thing. When a defendant's motion is denied based on materially false claims made by the plaintiff, I would certainly hope that the decision would be reviewed. If there is sufficient evidence that actually links the IP address to illegal activity occurring at that time, then the decision will stand.
It won't. It's BitTorrent, you already have no privacy. Your IP address is readily available to anyone who cares to look.