We considered what action we would take, and decided that the Gawkmedia “empire” needs to be brought down a peg or two.
This is the major problem with the internet - we let children on it.
Really kids? Go play somewhere else and let the adults have peace and quiet. You don't need to piss on everything just to prove you're alive. The smell of your unwashed armpits is already ample demonstration.
There's no indication that the people who compromised Gawker were minors... but to respond to your larger sentiment...
People who have malicious intentions and do bad things exist. They exist in large numbers. It is simply not possible to identify and stop every last one of them. It's not even feasible to significantly reduce their numbers. Not even the power of law can accomplish that. Indeed, law is a tool for managing this fact of life and has no real power to completely prevent it. There's nothing anyone can do about this reality. It can only be acknowledged, accepted, and worked with. Denial and delusion are your only other options.
There's one thing we can do, however. We can harden the targets. We can secure the systems for which each of us is responsible. We can realize that compromises like this are preventable and then take steps to prevent them. We can learn from the example of those who failed to do so. At the end of the day, we can realize that we're not helpless victims completely at the mercy of random chance or luck, but rather, that there is a great deal we can do to become an extremely difficult target.
Posts like this one are written in the spirit of this understanding. It highlights that the owners of those systems acknowledge that they have failed, have accepted responsibility for that, and therefore have the fewest obstacles to learning from this experience and overcoming it. An attitude of blaming everything on "those evil hackers", though they truly have done wrong, would practically guarantee that nothing is learned and no skills are improved.
They probably did. It's a press release, and a one-way cryptographic hash is close enough to "encrypted" and a helluva lot shorter and more understandable to a non-pedantic audience.
No, it's not the case that only the people who find your preferred solution compelling are smart. Sorry.
If you believe that the majority of people who purchase computers or anything remotely related to IT are technically inclined and fully understand the technology they are purchasing then I'd like to see proof of that. The business majors who dominate corporate management generally do not fit this description, nor does the average consumer who "just wants it to work".
My own smarts and whether or not I would personally be included in that majority have absolutely nothing to do with it. Whether you like the reality of the situation and feel a need to make this into a personal matter also has nothing to do with it. Well it does have one thing to do with it, indirectly -- it strongly indicates you use such a weak tactic because you have no actual argument.
If I moved to mySQL, what tool do they have to replace SQL Profiler?
I believe you missed my point. The bigger question is: why should it be difficult to find a truly good replacement when there is such demand for this kind of useful tool?
Why, it's almost as though a few major players have extreme dominance of this market and can get away with that because many of their customers are not tech-savvy.
My point is that you readily acknowledge easily measured physical differences like how much weight one can bench-press or how rapidly one can push a button, and do not consider these to be biases. Meanwhile, you adamantly maintain that it is misguided bias to state that there are non-physical differences as well.
I believe this is a self-contradiction on your part. The only reason you can do this is that non-physical differences are quite difficult to measure, while if you denied the physical differences there would be mountains of readily available evidence against you and it would make you look foolish. This comes across as rhetoric and not as a genuine spirit of inquiry.
I've seen men who underestimated a woman's capabilities merely because she was a woman. What they found out really quickly is that this is a big mistake. The arena in which they learned this lesson had nothing to do with pushing buttons. It had everything to do with being played like a fiddle and not even realizing it until it had gone on for some time. Of course that was the mens' own damned fault -- they went into it thinking they would do the fiddle-playing and simply encountered a superior opponent. Had they dealt honestly they'd have been less likely to have such problems.
It's a trait to be respected, or at least that's how I feel about it. Unless you believe that I can respect something that I believe to be inferior then I can hardly call this a negative bias.
The reality is that all the biggest software houses - Micrsoft, IBM, Oracle, SAP, CA etc. are an oligopoly, sure you may shuffle the users around a little as they move from one uncooperative money-hungry giant to the other but they don't leave.
That's because the industry is financially dominated by clueless customers who purchase what they do not really understand and do not wish to learn. This is true both in the case of corporate management (the techies don't usually make the purchasing decisions) and in the case of the "average consumer".
but somehow I doubt slashdot commends the IT industry.
Why not? It could use a little praise from time to time...
('loss' of 'right' to distribute their own works does not mean something was taken from them, because that's exactly the 'right' that I think shouldn't exist),
Elevating yourself to the position of god doesn't validate your beliefs.
Perhaps you might explain better why you believe an artist should not have the right to distribute their own works.
Would you be inclined to explain why questioning the validity/legitimacy of a legal right is the same thing as "elevating yourself to the position of God"?
I mean, that's very dramatic and everything but it is not reasonable. Copyright has not always existed. It exists now. It could also be repealed. It is clearly a man-made construct. One who questions this legal right or takes a position against it is dealing with one's fellow men, not with an almighty Creator God.
If you come from the perspective of "inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator" as explained by the authors of the Constitution and Declaration of Indpendence, please do note, copyright does not appear in the Bill of Rights. It is rather one of the federal government's enumerated powers. It is not a God-given fundamental human right, such as the right to freedom of speech. It is a power granted to government as part of what you could call a social contract. It belongs in the same category as the power to tax and the power to regulate interstate commerce.
Ending the web's dependence on Flash is a lot like ending dependence on foreign energy.
1. It's a really good idea. 2. It's well within our ability to do it. 3. There are a million excuses for why no one is seriously committed to making it happen.
Exactly. I do not like what Wikileaks has done, but even so I can be the devil's advocate, and say that EVERYONE should be pissed at Assange. Those that want the information to be free should be very concerned that Assange wants to release it piece meal, ramp up the drama and attention to him and his site as much as possible, and provide commentary (aka judgment) regarding the information. All this is doing is giving time for him and his site to be taken down. The US may move rather slowly and clumsily over these sorts of affairs, having to check the legality of this and that and get allies involved, etc, but given enough time, there's a good chance they will be able to get Assange on something.
The files should ALL be placed online, in a distributed manner, and be done with. Not be Assange's little plaything to manipulate and play around with. Really, this guy has a major ego / power complex, and it will cost him eventually.
I was going to make a post saying it's rather poor planning to only just now realize the necessity of a de-centralized distribution model... but I think your explanation gets closer to the heart of it. Unfortunately people with the very best of intentions can exhibit the kind of ego you're describing. It doesn't even have to be a deliberate act of self-glorification; it's more like a default state one can overcome.
You are also making wild unsubstantiated assumptions based on preconceived biases... also known as prejudice.
If I said that a randomly selected average man is able to bench-press more weight than a randomly selected average woman, would that be a wild unsubstantiated assumption based on a preconceived bias? The only difference is, that being something that is both physical and easily measured, no one says that this is a prejudice.
Is it weird of me to describe our exchange as "sexy" lol
That's not the word I would use personally... but I will say it's always a joy to converse with an intelligent lady.
I saw a documentary in a sociology class about a native tribe (describing a level of technology of better than stone age, but still pre-metal) somewhere in Africa, where the women sit around drink alcohol, spit, and play cards, while the men dress up pretty and sexy, and get dumped for the hot new model every 15 years.
In such a tribe the "inferior" gender (referring to the gender subordinate to the gender of power) is actually the men, and they must accomplish things through manipulative, and subversive tacts, rather than the women, who have the power and ability to simply act brashly.
That's an interesting case of role-reversal. I'd add one thing, however. If you took an average man from that tribe, I don't believe he would stand a chance against an average woman from a Western nation in any sort of contest of manipulation or subversion. That's how I would separate the inborn aptitude from the socialized roles.
But the one thing I doubt either of us would disagree on is: women in our culture are more tactful, and manipulative.
Both sexes often play the social game of putting on a face in order to attain the approval of others. They give in order to get, not because they feel the joy of giving. That's where that ego thing works its way into what could be genuine. I don't consider "tact" to be terribly tactful when it's based on approval or anything else other than honest appreciation.
I'll give you a masculine example. What man is ever going to approach a woman at a bar and say "hey, why don't we have sex tonight?" Such a man would like things to be so simple, to receive a yes or no and move on, but even stupid men understand they won't get anywhere that way. So they play a game that could be called "tact". He gives her the ego boost of being sought after, a false sense of modesty, and a sense of control since his "yes" is assumed; while she gives him the ego boost of the pleasure that's far too important to him so he can think he's a man and not a dog.
What a real lady wants is a man with so much love to give that he doesn't need any from her. I think that's why neediness or being "clingy" is so instinctively unsexy to women, generally. A real gentleman can't be manipulated because there are things more important to him than indulgence, and for that he needs to be principle and spiritual. Unfortunately both are rather rare these days, and certainly don't receive the glamor and glorification that the media lavishes on everything else.
I am after all female, and since we're later on the topic of stereotypes, we are typically raised to have more social tact then men.
I deliberately avoided bringing that one up since it's usually a great way to paint oneself into a corner... having said that... I'd say it has more to do with the use of cunning and subtlety and maybe even manipulation to get what you want, rather than upbringing. Do that skillfully and the subject will think that doing what you happen to want was his own idea. In many relationships the man only thinks he wears the pants because he's allowed to. I'll go ahead and say a lot of men aren't so bright in this way, and the biggest vulnerability that makes them so easy and tempting to manipulate is they only care about their pleasure. I doubt I need to say much more about that.
If you read much about evolutionary psychology you'd get the impression that this is as inborn as men's superior physical strength and a direct counterpart to it. That is, it's just another kind of strength. I suppose the upbringing or "tact" part concerns how ruthless you are about it, but that'd be a concern of people close to you and not so much casual strangers on Internet forums.
For example, knowingly or not you did bait me into (falsely) looking resentful. I knowingly baited you into judging the character of a stranger in response. I figured you could appreciate that.
The resentment and thankfulness are not mutually exclusive. Geeks like to be right (I assume you're a geek, because we're on slashdot.) It is disappointing to be found wrong, and we take it somewhat personally.
Being resentful and spiteful would only harm my quality of life while doing nothing to anyone else. Also, at least for me, being both resentful and thankful for the same single act would be a form of neurosis, in the classical sense of one stimulus evoking two different responses. I overcome this with two things.
One, it's hardly the first time I've been wrong about something. If you never make mistakes there's a good chance you're not making anything at all. I accept that as the self-evident truth that it is. My only concern there is to never get so stuck in my ways that I can't admit when it's time to reverse course, as that is a glaring character weakness I don't wish to have.
Two, I'm hardly perfect (not by a long shot) but if not for people who point out my flaws and faults I'd be even more imperfect still. They're doing me a service even if they get some petty indulgence from providing it. How petty and condescending they wish to be is their problem; worrying about that would interfere with understanding why I was wrong.
What is the disappointment at having been found wrong? Is it learning something new? Is it losing a false notion? I don't think so. I think it's feeling that you lost a point in some game of oneupsmanship, a feeling taught by example in media, family, school, pretty much everywhere. I don't see how that petty concern is compatible with a genuine desire to better oneself.
While I was content discussing copyright, I want to tell you that you've provided some interesting discussion here. For a moment I wondered if this would try to degrade into a pissing contest. It's refreshing to see we can do better than that.
While I agree whole-heartedly on your views of copyright law, and have expressed pretty much the exact same arguments elsewhere, the sad fact is that the vast majority of so-called "pirates" don't even KNOW that copyright was supposed to be shorter, let alone CARE about it. They don't view it as "retaliation" against a corporation that is "screwing them over", because they don't even recognize that they ARE being screwed over. They download things because they don't care. They aren't involved with the people who create it, and (to their knowledge) they won't see any direct consequences to their actions, so it registers as someone else's problem.
In short, I'm saying that copyright law DOES desperately need to be fixed (including a return to shorter lengths, so things can actually still be RELEVANT when they enter public domain), but solving the copyright problem will have little to no affect on the "piracy" "problem".
Being involved with the people who create a copyrighted work would be one reason to think about copyright law. It's not the only one. If that law really meant something and had real meaning because it represented a reasonable balance, then obeying it would be seen as a civic duty. Right now we don't have a culture of principled appreciation of law. Right now we have a list of "do's and don'ts" with a whole host of people waiting for you to break the rules. This is a decadence, a devolution from a higher state. It didn't happen overnight.
One reason so many are ignorant about the purpose and history of copyright law is that, in our government which is supposedly "by the people and for the people" they had no input concerning the matter of its recent extensions. The whole affair was done by powerful lobbies and lots of money and a very one-sided presentation about "evil pirates" in the media.
It's not a coincidence that the enumerated power given to the US Government of establishing a copyright has become so corrupted AND the average person is ignorant about its history and purpose AND there is so much lawlessness concerning this issue. These things all go together.
Whether or not they have read about copyright's history or purpose as you and I have done, those who ignore it are still going to fit the general pattern of lawlessness. It does not matter whether they do it because it's cheaper than paying or if they do it as a form of civil disobedience against a law they know all about. The result is the same.
That kind of certainty, that inevitability of results is why it's so dangerous to allow law to stray so far away from any legitimate purpose it may have possessed. Law needs to be as simple, robust, reasonable, and principled as possible. When you destroy that by bending it to serve a tiny minority of interests, it loses that respectability. One sign of that, is that the average person doesn't think it's important to become aware of it.
You misunderstand what I mean by net loss. Every single case brought into court against an individual has ended up costing more in legal fees than they could get out of the defendant, because it costs a lot of money to get through a court case, especially with appeals, and the individuals being sued were moms and college students who don't have any money to speak of.
I found it worth mentioning that the obscenely high dollar judgements still resulted in the RIAA being in the red, which makes it not at all a viable action from a business perspective.
I may have done a poor job of clearly expressing it, but I completely agree with you. When I say they purchased those laws and wish to get the most use out of them that they can, I deliberately avoided defining "use". I don't believe that the recovery of damages is the goal of RIAA/MPAA lawsuits. I believe that making an example of people to scare others into deciding not to download copyrighted material is the purpose. If it were about recovery of damages then the fact that they lose more money than they recover would have ended the practice.
Laws that are inherently difficult to enforce often tend to work that way. They know that most people won't get caught. They also know that a rational lawbreaker tends to evaluate risk in terms of both the likelihood of getting caught and the severity of the penalty. If they can't alter the likelihood then they usually alter the penalty. This is one reason why some of the copyright interests want basic copyright infringement to become a criminal offense (which wouldn't nullify the civil liability). That would both increase the penalty and shift the cost of enforcement to the government, and for them, that would be a win-win.
But then you already knew that, you were just being resentful about the correction. (It's ok, it's standard geek fare)
Actually I found the correction a tad overzealous, though this was skillfully veiled. That's also standard geek fare, well except for the skillfully veiled part. While your assumption concerning the character of a complete stranger is noted, no resentment is required to make that point. I used humor instead.
My thanks was genuine, incidentally. It does not benefit me to hang onto wrong notions.
Now with that out of the way, let's not forget that most, if not all, of the people being sued are, in fact, breaking the law.
The original duration of copyright in the USA was twelve years, at which point the work became public domain. This was back when movable type was the most efficient way to distribute copies of something. Now that we can distribute works far more efficiently, to reach a much larger audience, at a much lower expense, has that original twelve-year duration been reduced to reflect the advancement of the state-of-the-art? No, it hasn't. Instead, it's been increased to a maximum of 120 years.
Copyright is not a free gift granted to authors and artists. It's an exchange. It provides a temporary government-granted monopoly over a work -- that's the copyright holder's benefit. After a length of time, that monopoly expires and the work enriches the public domain -- that's society's benefit. Those two benefits are supposed to have a reasonable balance.
There is no longer even an attempt to create the appearance of a balance. The major copyright holders today want perpetual copyright and they nearly have it. They have collectively said "thank you USA Public for sponsoring our government-backed monopoly, that was mighty nice of you, but we don't really want to honor our half of this bargain so we refuse to ever give anything back to you." They are the very "thieves" they accuse copyright infringers of being.
Can you see why large numbers of people have lost respect for copyright law? There is a reason why "it's what the law says" fails to convince so many people. It's no wonder the lobbies keep pushing for harsher and more draconian enforcement of copyright. It's quite difficult to get millions of people to obey a law that has lost all respectability and completely destroyed any noble or useful purpose it once had.
The movies listed have all been out for less than two years. I think any reasonable person can agree that a copyright should last more than two. I think it's reasonable that the copyright holders go after pirates in this case.
If you actually want people to feel like they're doing something wrong when they download a movie, restore the balance and purpose that copyright law once represented. Otherwise, they're going to feel like they're retaliating against corporations that are screwing them over. Until that changes, the release date of the work is a distant secondary concern. As long as copyright is perpetually extended, it's also irrelevant.
While they may or may not agree with it, a wise person understands that. The lobbies and interests don't. They have a singleminded mentality that is very much like that of a religious zealot. I think their motto would be "laws we buy are like violence; if they don't work, use more". That's why they aren't trying to restore balance and respectability to copyright. Instead, they want more people to suffer more severely for breaking a law that is not respectable.
So yeah, a lot of people are breaking this law. You point that out but don't seem to appreciate why that might be. If anyone wants to fix it, what's happening now is the wrong approach. The way this is being handled risks eroding the respectability of not just copyright law, but law itself as an institution. How do you believe in concepts like the rule of law or the legitimacy of government when you can plainly see that a few powerful interests can bend both to their will?
All of the lawsuits against individuals have been net losses for the copyright holders, and this might be about the lost revenue for USCG, particularly the money lost from not settling.
Actually the ridiculously high "damages" awarded to copyright holders are usually in the form of statutory damages. They hardly bother with inconveniences like demonstrating that any actual monetary harm has occurred. That's for the little people like you and me.
Basically, what I'm saying is that there is no logic to these suits, so don't try and apply logic to them.
True enough; I'll add only one thing to that. Copyright interests spent a lot of money greasing the palms of various politicians (which is sadly legal). They now have the very best perpetually extended copyright law with ridiculously overinflated statutory damages that money can buy. They plan on getting as much use out of it as they can.
I recall reading at one point that Arizona allows non-lawyers to represent other people in their state.
It's more of a "you get what you pay for", or "buyer beware" state than anywhere else...
Coincidentally they have no income tax. That's feasible when you don't have all the expense of trying to protect adults from their own poor decision-making.
As one example: there are specific sects permitted "conscientious objector" status.
Does that include people who think that unprovoked, offensive wars amount to mass murder? If not, then yes that is blatant favoritism.
I for one refuse to have my hands stained with the blood of people whose only "crime" is defending themselves against an aggressor. Since when did that require membership in an organized religion?
Nah, I don't think they're anywhere near that emotionally invested. Remember, we're talking about the lawyers here, not the RIAA/MPAA themselves. For the lawyers, all they're probably interested in is the money. They're not pissed off because it gets in the way of their "holy crusade" because, the truth is, they'll probably still win most of these cases in the end. What they're so pissed off about is that he threw a wrench in their get rich quick scheme. Instead of being able to bully people into paying $2500 a pop with very little bill-able lawyer time, now they'll have to file their claims in a huge number of different courts across the country and will, likely, have to actually fight some of the cases. With all that interference, they might not be able to make the huge profit they were drooling over initially.
You're technically correct but splitting hairs. I'm taking a broad view, not of the surface actors but of the authors of their scripts. Those actors, in turn, are voluntary participants and therefore part of the production. Sure, they're in it for the money but look one step beyond that: there is a reason that this is where they see the dollar signs. That reason is the (un)holy agenda of draconian copyright.
Many bitter wars had mercenaries who were only loyal to their money; that didn't make such wars any more or any less of a religious crusade in nature. What you're seeing here are two sides of the same coin. The RIAA/MPAA need to hire lawyers like this as part of pushing their agenda. Lawyers like this would largely have to find another line of work if not for large, organized, monied clients like the RIAA/MPAA.
The group of lawyers known as the USCG has thrown their lot in with the likes of the RIAA/MPAA. At any time they could decide that integrity is important, that they don't want to participate in this bullshit, that they don't want money tainted by bullying and intimidation. They haven't. They're not only part of the madness, they're an essential component of it. They could be called the executive arm of the larger agenda. When the backlash against this madness finally does occur, it will rightly include them, for they are Satan's little helpers.
They're either thick as a plank or they actually want more defendants to self-represent.
Considering that they're a pro-copyright group and therefore think we don't yet have enough copyright laws on the books, I'd go with "thick as a plank".
So... they think defending yourself is against the law now, or something? Or informing other people on how to defend themselves?
That's right. This is a religious battle. Therefore, it's not a matter of conflicting interests or disagreement or dispute. Nope, it transcends all of that. Clearly anything that interferes with their sacred agenda is EVIL! It is their holy crusade, and probably the only purpose in their sad little lives.
Just a drop in a big, heavy, overflowing bucket of reasons why I refuse to purchase RIAA/MPAA entertainment. I'd consider it, if it didn't go to fund pathological bullshit like this. And if all current management were rendered jobless and penniless and all draconian copyright laws repealed, with the addition of penalties for the lobbies and politicians who pushed for them. Since that's not likely to happen due to this aversion towards justice that's currently all the rage, my purchasing decisions are rendered easier.
How so? Are the "good times" the OP enjoys giving poetry and love any more meaningful than the "good times" people have giving material goods?
If you don't like materialism, don't participate. But there's no need look down on people for enjoying themselves.
You say that as though materialism and quality time with loved ones are two equally valid positions. They're not.
Further, "don't participate" is good advice. The hurdle is that materialism is the dominant culture. You have to go against the grain and actively resist numerous influences and pressures and expectations in order to shun the material method of celebrating what were originally historical and religious holidays. This is by design, since sadly most Americans don't have the backbone to do that even if they wanted to. Caving in to a dominant culture not because it's what you deliberately embrace, but because it is difficult to do otherwise, well that's a very strange definition of "enjoying themselves".
It's a domination of the mind for the purpose of profit, just like all marketing and most facets of culture. A domination, not an offering of an inherently superior choice. If PR and marketing are done masterfully, then those influenced by them can't imagine any other realistic way of doing things.
Sometime during the last 100 years we made this transition from an economy based on utility and thriftiness and some degree of national self-sufficiency to massive globalism and consumerism based on this kind of madness. The people who fight for places in line at 3am at stores on Black Friday resemble nothing so closely as trained dogs taught to respond to cues. You place this on equal footing with wholesome enjoyment of family, quality time, and love? As I said, it's madness.
Slashdot Mirror
We considered what action we would take, and decided that the Gawkmedia “empire” needs to be brought down a peg or two.
This is the major problem with the internet - we let children on it.
Really kids? Go play somewhere else and let the adults have peace and quiet. You don't need to piss on everything just to prove you're alive. The smell of your unwashed armpits is already ample demonstration.
There's no indication that the people who compromised Gawker were minors... but to respond to your larger sentiment...
People who have malicious intentions and do bad things exist. They exist in large numbers. It is simply not possible to identify and stop every last one of them. It's not even feasible to significantly reduce their numbers. Not even the power of law can accomplish that. Indeed, law is a tool for managing this fact of life and has no real power to completely prevent it. There's nothing anyone can do about this reality. It can only be acknowledged, accepted, and worked with. Denial and delusion are your only other options.
There's one thing we can do, however. We can harden the targets. We can secure the systems for which each of us is responsible. We can realize that compromises like this are preventable and then take steps to prevent them. We can learn from the example of those who failed to do so. At the end of the day, we can realize that we're not helpless victims completely at the mercy of random chance or luck, but rather, that there is a great deal we can do to become an extremely difficult target.
Posts like this one are written in the spirit of this understanding. It highlights that the owners of those systems acknowledge that they have failed, have accepted responsibility for that, and therefore have the fewest obstacles to learning from this experience and overcoming it. An attitude of blaming everything on "those evil hackers", though they truly have done wrong, would practically guarantee that nothing is learned and no skills are improved.
They probably did. It's a press release, and a one-way cryptographic hash is close enough to "encrypted" and a helluva lot shorter and more understandable to a non-pedantic audience.
At least they didn't say "scrambled".
No, it's not the case that only the people who find your preferred solution compelling are smart. Sorry.
If you believe that the majority of people who purchase computers or anything remotely related to IT are technically inclined and fully understand the technology they are purchasing then I'd like to see proof of that. The business majors who dominate corporate management generally do not fit this description, nor does the average consumer who "just wants it to work".
My own smarts and whether or not I would personally be included in that majority have absolutely nothing to do with it. Whether you like the reality of the situation and feel a need to make this into a personal matter also has nothing to do with it. Well it does have one thing to do with it, indirectly -- it strongly indicates you use such a weak tactic because you have no actual argument.
If I moved to mySQL, what tool do they have to replace SQL Profiler?
I believe you missed my point. The bigger question is: why should it be difficult to find a truly good replacement when there is such demand for this kind of useful tool?
Why, it's almost as though a few major players have extreme dominance of this market and can get away with that because many of their customers are not tech-savvy.
That's what my previous post was addressing.
My point is that you readily acknowledge easily measured physical differences like how much weight one can bench-press or how rapidly one can push a button, and do not consider these to be biases. Meanwhile, you adamantly maintain that it is misguided bias to state that there are non-physical differences as well.
I believe this is a self-contradiction on your part. The only reason you can do this is that non-physical differences are quite difficult to measure, while if you denied the physical differences there would be mountains of readily available evidence against you and it would make you look foolish. This comes across as rhetoric and not as a genuine spirit of inquiry.
I've seen men who underestimated a woman's capabilities merely because she was a woman. What they found out really quickly is that this is a big mistake. The arena in which they learned this lesson had nothing to do with pushing buttons. It had everything to do with being played like a fiddle and not even realizing it until it had gone on for some time. Of course that was the mens' own damned fault -- they went into it thinking they would do the fiddle-playing and simply encountered a superior opponent. Had they dealt honestly they'd have been less likely to have such problems.
It's a trait to be respected, or at least that's how I feel about it. Unless you believe that I can respect something that I believe to be inferior then I can hardly call this a negative bias.
That's because the industry is financially dominated by clueless customers who purchase what they do not really understand and do not wish to learn. This is true both in the case of corporate management (the techies don't usually make the purchasing decisions) and in the case of the "average consumer".
Why not? It could use a little praise from time to time...
('loss' of 'right' to distribute their own works does not mean something was taken from them, because that's exactly the 'right' that I think shouldn't exist), Elevating yourself to the position of god doesn't validate your beliefs. Perhaps you might explain better why you believe an artist should not have the right to distribute their own works.
Would you be inclined to explain why questioning the validity/legitimacy of a legal right is the same thing as "elevating yourself to the position of God"?
I mean, that's very dramatic and everything but it is not reasonable. Copyright has not always existed. It exists now. It could also be repealed. It is clearly a man-made construct. One who questions this legal right or takes a position against it is dealing with one's fellow men, not with an almighty Creator God.
If you come from the perspective of "inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator" as explained by the authors of the Constitution and Declaration of Indpendence, please do note, copyright does not appear in the Bill of Rights. It is rather one of the federal government's enumerated powers. It is not a God-given fundamental human right, such as the right to freedom of speech. It is a power granted to government as part of what you could call a social contract. It belongs in the same category as the power to tax and the power to regulate interstate commerce.
1. It's a really good idea. 2. It's well within our ability to do it. 3. There are a million excuses for why no one is seriously committed to making it happen.
I think you've come up with an excellent analogy.
Exactly. I do not like what Wikileaks has done, but even so I can be the devil's advocate, and say that EVERYONE should be pissed at Assange. Those that want the information to be free should be very concerned that Assange wants to release it piece meal, ramp up the drama and attention to him and his site as much as possible, and provide commentary (aka judgment) regarding the information. All this is doing is giving time for him and his site to be taken down. The US may move rather slowly and clumsily over these sorts of affairs, having to check the legality of this and that and get allies involved, etc, but given enough time, there's a good chance they will be able to get Assange on something.
The files should ALL be placed online, in a distributed manner, and be done with. Not be Assange's little plaything to manipulate and play around with. Really, this guy has a major ego / power complex, and it will cost him eventually.
I was going to make a post saying it's rather poor planning to only just now realize the necessity of a de-centralized distribution model... but I think your explanation gets closer to the heart of it. Unfortunately people with the very best of intentions can exhibit the kind of ego you're describing. It doesn't even have to be a deliberate act of self-glorification; it's more like a default state one can overcome.
If I said that a randomly selected average man is able to bench-press more weight than a randomly selected average woman, would that be a wild unsubstantiated assumption based on a preconceived bias? The only difference is, that being something that is both physical and easily measured, no one says that this is a prejudice.
That's not the word I would use personally... but I will say it's always a joy to converse with an intelligent lady.
That's an interesting case of role-reversal. I'd add one thing, however. If you took an average man from that tribe, I don't believe he would stand a chance against an average woman from a Western nation in any sort of contest of manipulation or subversion. That's how I would separate the inborn aptitude from the socialized roles.
Both sexes often play the social game of putting on a face in order to attain the approval of others. They give in order to get, not because they feel the joy of giving. That's where that ego thing works its way into what could be genuine. I don't consider "tact" to be terribly tactful when it's based on approval or anything else other than honest appreciation.
I'll give you a masculine example. What man is ever going to approach a woman at a bar and say "hey, why don't we have sex tonight?" Such a man would like things to be so simple, to receive a yes or no and move on, but even stupid men understand they won't get anywhere that way. So they play a game that could be called "tact". He gives her the ego boost of being sought after, a false sense of modesty, and a sense of control since his "yes" is assumed; while she gives him the ego boost of the pleasure that's far too important to him so he can think he's a man and not a dog.
What a real lady wants is a man with so much love to give that he doesn't need any from her. I think that's why neediness or being "clingy" is so instinctively unsexy to women, generally. A real gentleman can't be manipulated because there are things more important to him than indulgence, and for that he needs to be principle and spiritual. Unfortunately both are rather rare these days, and certainly don't receive the glamor and glorification that the media lavishes on everything else.
I deliberately avoided bringing that one up since it's usually a great way to paint oneself into a corner... having said that... I'd say it has more to do with the use of cunning and subtlety and maybe even manipulation to get what you want, rather than upbringing. Do that skillfully and the subject will think that doing what you happen to want was his own idea. In many relationships the man only thinks he wears the pants because he's allowed to. I'll go ahead and say a lot of men aren't so bright in this way, and the biggest vulnerability that makes them so easy and tempting to manipulate is they only care about their pleasure. I doubt I need to say much more about that.
If you read much about evolutionary psychology you'd get the impression that this is as inborn as men's superior physical strength and a direct counterpart to it. That is, it's just another kind of strength. I suppose the upbringing or "tact" part concerns how ruthless you are about it, but that'd be a concern of people close to you and not so much casual strangers on Internet forums.
For example, knowingly or not you did bait me into (falsely) looking resentful. I knowingly baited you into judging the character of a stranger in response. I figured you could appreciate that.
Being resentful and spiteful would only harm my quality of life while doing nothing to anyone else. Also, at least for me, being both resentful and thankful for the same single act would be a form of neurosis, in the classical sense of one stimulus evoking two different responses. I overcome this with two things.
One, it's hardly the first time I've been wrong about something. If you never make mistakes there's a good chance you're not making anything at all. I accept that as the self-evident truth that it is. My only concern there is to never get so stuck in my ways that I can't admit when it's time to reverse course, as that is a glaring character weakness I don't wish to have.
Two, I'm hardly perfect (not by a long shot) but if not for people who point out my flaws and faults I'd be even more imperfect still. They're doing me a service even if they get some petty indulgence from providing it. How petty and condescending they wish to be is their problem; worrying about that would interfere with understanding why I was wrong.
What is the disappointment at having been found wrong? Is it learning something new? Is it losing a false notion? I don't think so. I think it's feeling that you lost a point in some game of oneupsmanship, a feeling taught by example in media, family, school, pretty much everywhere. I don't see how that petty concern is compatible with a genuine desire to better oneself.
While I was content discussing copyright, I want to tell you that you've provided some interesting discussion here. For a moment I wondered if this would try to degrade into a pissing contest. It's refreshing to see we can do better than that.
While I agree whole-heartedly on your views of copyright law, and have expressed pretty much the exact same arguments elsewhere, the sad fact is that the vast majority of so-called "pirates" don't even KNOW that copyright was supposed to be shorter, let alone CARE about it. They don't view it as "retaliation" against a corporation that is "screwing them over", because they don't even recognize that they ARE being screwed over. They download things because they don't care. They aren't involved with the people who create it, and (to their knowledge) they won't see any direct consequences to their actions, so it registers as someone else's problem. In short, I'm saying that copyright law DOES desperately need to be fixed (including a return to shorter lengths, so things can actually still be RELEVANT when they enter public domain), but solving the copyright problem will have little to no affect on the "piracy" "problem".
Being involved with the people who create a copyrighted work would be one reason to think about copyright law. It's not the only one. If that law really meant something and had real meaning because it represented a reasonable balance, then obeying it would be seen as a civic duty. Right now we don't have a culture of principled appreciation of law. Right now we have a list of "do's and don'ts" with a whole host of people waiting for you to break the rules. This is a decadence, a devolution from a higher state. It didn't happen overnight.
One reason so many are ignorant about the purpose and history of copyright law is that, in our government which is supposedly "by the people and for the people" they had no input concerning the matter of its recent extensions. The whole affair was done by powerful lobbies and lots of money and a very one-sided presentation about "evil pirates" in the media.
It's not a coincidence that the enumerated power given to the US Government of establishing a copyright has become so corrupted AND the average person is ignorant about its history and purpose AND there is so much lawlessness concerning this issue. These things all go together.
Whether or not they have read about copyright's history or purpose as you and I have done, those who ignore it are still going to fit the general pattern of lawlessness. It does not matter whether they do it because it's cheaper than paying or if they do it as a form of civil disobedience against a law they know all about. The result is the same.
That kind of certainty, that inevitability of results is why it's so dangerous to allow law to stray so far away from any legitimate purpose it may have possessed. Law needs to be as simple, robust, reasonable, and principled as possible. When you destroy that by bending it to serve a tiny minority of interests, it loses that respectability. One sign of that, is that the average person doesn't think it's important to become aware of it.
You misunderstand what I mean by net loss. Every single case brought into court against an individual has ended up costing more in legal fees than they could get out of the defendant, because it costs a lot of money to get through a court case, especially with appeals, and the individuals being sued were moms and college students who don't have any money to speak of. I found it worth mentioning that the obscenely high dollar judgements still resulted in the RIAA being in the red, which makes it not at all a viable action from a business perspective.
I may have done a poor job of clearly expressing it, but I completely agree with you. When I say they purchased those laws and wish to get the most use out of them that they can, I deliberately avoided defining "use". I don't believe that the recovery of damages is the goal of RIAA/MPAA lawsuits. I believe that making an example of people to scare others into deciding not to download copyrighted material is the purpose. If it were about recovery of damages then the fact that they lose more money than they recover would have ended the practice.
Laws that are inherently difficult to enforce often tend to work that way. They know that most people won't get caught. They also know that a rational lawbreaker tends to evaluate risk in terms of both the likelihood of getting caught and the severity of the penalty. If they can't alter the likelihood then they usually alter the penalty. This is one reason why some of the copyright interests want basic copyright infringement to become a criminal offense (which wouldn't nullify the civil liability). That would both increase the penalty and shift the cost of enforcement to the government, and for them, that would be a win-win.
Wiktionary: Funny
2. strange or unusual, often implying unpleasant
But then you already knew that, you were just being resentful about the correction. (It's ok, it's standard geek fare)
Actually I found the correction a tad overzealous, though this was skillfully veiled. That's also standard geek fare, well except for the skillfully veiled part. While your assumption concerning the character of a complete stranger is noted, no resentment is required to make that point. I used humor instead.
My thanks was genuine, incidentally. It does not benefit me to hang onto wrong notions.
The original duration of copyright in the USA was twelve years, at which point the work became public domain. This was back when movable type was the most efficient way to distribute copies of something. Now that we can distribute works far more efficiently, to reach a much larger audience, at a much lower expense, has that original twelve-year duration been reduced to reflect the advancement of the state-of-the-art? No, it hasn't. Instead, it's been increased to a maximum of 120 years.
Copyright is not a free gift granted to authors and artists. It's an exchange. It provides a temporary government-granted monopoly over a work -- that's the copyright holder's benefit. After a length of time, that monopoly expires and the work enriches the public domain -- that's society's benefit. Those two benefits are supposed to have a reasonable balance.
There is no longer even an attempt to create the appearance of a balance. The major copyright holders today want perpetual copyright and they nearly have it. They have collectively said "thank you USA Public for sponsoring our government-backed monopoly, that was mighty nice of you, but we don't really want to honor our half of this bargain so we refuse to ever give anything back to you." They are the very "thieves" they accuse copyright infringers of being.
Can you see why large numbers of people have lost respect for copyright law? There is a reason why "it's what the law says" fails to convince so many people. It's no wonder the lobbies keep pushing for harsher and more draconian enforcement of copyright. It's quite difficult to get millions of people to obey a law that has lost all respectability and completely destroyed any noble or useful purpose it once had.
If you actually want people to feel like they're doing something wrong when they download a movie, restore the balance and purpose that copyright law once represented. Otherwise, they're going to feel like they're retaliating against corporations that are screwing them over. Until that changes, the release date of the work is a distant secondary concern. As long as copyright is perpetually extended, it's also irrelevant.
While they may or may not agree with it, a wise person understands that. The lobbies and interests don't. They have a singleminded mentality that is very much like that of a religious zealot. I think their motto would be "laws we buy are like violence; if they don't work, use more". That's why they aren't trying to restore balance and respectability to copyright. Instead, they want more people to suffer more severely for breaking a law that is not respectable.
So yeah, a lot of people are breaking this law. You point that out but don't seem to appreciate why that might be. If anyone wants to fix it, what's happening now is the wrong approach. The way this is being handled risks eroding the respectability of not just copyright law, but law itself as an institution. How do you believe in concepts like the rule of law or the legitimacy of government when you can plainly see that a few powerful interests can bend both to their will?
Funny, About.com disagrees:
Residents and nonresidents that earn income in Arizona will pay state income tax.
Which is also backed up by The Arizona Department of Revenue.
Arizona does actually have an income tax.
Yes, it's hilarious. Can you provide a third reference please?
Anyway, thanks for the correction.
Actually the ridiculously high "damages" awarded to copyright holders are usually in the form of statutory damages. They hardly bother with inconveniences like demonstrating that any actual monetary harm has occurred. That's for the little people like you and me.
True enough; I'll add only one thing to that. Copyright interests spent a lot of money greasing the palms of various politicians (which is sadly legal). They now have the very best perpetually extended copyright law with ridiculously overinflated statutory damages that money can buy. They plan on getting as much use out of it as they can.
I recall reading at one point that Arizona allows non-lawyers to represent other people in their state.
It's more of a "you get what you pay for", or "buyer beware" state than anywhere else...
Coincidentally they have no income tax. That's feasible when you don't have all the expense of trying to protect adults from their own poor decision-making.
Does that include people who think that unprovoked, offensive wars amount to mass murder? If not, then yes that is blatant favoritism.
I for one refuse to have my hands stained with the blood of people whose only "crime" is defending themselves against an aggressor. Since when did that require membership in an organized religion?
Nah, I don't think they're anywhere near that emotionally invested. Remember, we're talking about the lawyers here, not the RIAA/MPAA themselves. For the lawyers, all they're probably interested in is the money. They're not pissed off because it gets in the way of their "holy crusade" because, the truth is, they'll probably still win most of these cases in the end. What they're so pissed off about is that he threw a wrench in their get rich quick scheme. Instead of being able to bully people into paying $2500 a pop with very little bill-able lawyer time, now they'll have to file their claims in a huge number of different courts across the country and will, likely, have to actually fight some of the cases. With all that interference, they might not be able to make the huge profit they were drooling over initially.
You're technically correct but splitting hairs. I'm taking a broad view, not of the surface actors but of the authors of their scripts. Those actors, in turn, are voluntary participants and therefore part of the production. Sure, they're in it for the money but look one step beyond that: there is a reason that this is where they see the dollar signs. That reason is the (un)holy agenda of draconian copyright.
Many bitter wars had mercenaries who were only loyal to their money; that didn't make such wars any more or any less of a religious crusade in nature. What you're seeing here are two sides of the same coin. The RIAA/MPAA need to hire lawyers like this as part of pushing their agenda. Lawyers like this would largely have to find another line of work if not for large, organized, monied clients like the RIAA/MPAA.
The group of lawyers known as the USCG has thrown their lot in with the likes of the RIAA/MPAA. At any time they could decide that integrity is important, that they don't want to participate in this bullshit, that they don't want money tainted by bullying and intimidation. They haven't. They're not only part of the madness, they're an essential component of it. They could be called the executive arm of the larger agenda. When the backlash against this madness finally does occur, it will rightly include them, for they are Satan's little helpers.
...please explain. There is absolutely no way that this is actually what it looks like on the surface, its just way to ridiculous.
It sounds like you have a handle on the situation.
In more civilized times, an angry mob would tar-and-feather asshats like this.
They're either thick as a plank or they actually want more defendants to self-represent.
Considering that they're a pro-copyright group and therefore think we don't yet have enough copyright laws on the books, I'd go with "thick as a plank".
So... they think defending yourself is against the law now, or something? Or informing other people on how to defend themselves?
That's right. This is a religious battle. Therefore, it's not a matter of conflicting interests or disagreement or dispute. Nope, it transcends all of that. Clearly anything that interferes with their sacred agenda is EVIL! It is their holy crusade, and probably the only purpose in their sad little lives.
Just a drop in a big, heavy, overflowing bucket of reasons why I refuse to purchase RIAA/MPAA entertainment. I'd consider it, if it didn't go to fund pathological bullshit like this. And if all current management were rendered jobless and penniless and all draconian copyright laws repealed, with the addition of penalties for the lobbies and politicians who pushed for them. Since that's not likely to happen due to this aversion towards justice that's currently all the rage, my purchasing decisions are rendered easier.
How so? Are the "good times" the OP enjoys giving poetry and love any more meaningful than the "good times" people have giving material goods?
If you don't like materialism, don't participate. But there's no need look down on people for enjoying themselves.
You say that as though materialism and quality time with loved ones are two equally valid positions. They're not.
Further, "don't participate" is good advice. The hurdle is that materialism is the dominant culture. You have to go against the grain and actively resist numerous influences and pressures and expectations in order to shun the material method of celebrating what were originally historical and religious holidays. This is by design, since sadly most Americans don't have the backbone to do that even if they wanted to. Caving in to a dominant culture not because it's what you deliberately embrace, but because it is difficult to do otherwise, well that's a very strange definition of "enjoying themselves".
It's a domination of the mind for the purpose of profit, just like all marketing and most facets of culture. A domination, not an offering of an inherently superior choice. If PR and marketing are done masterfully, then those influenced by them can't imagine any other realistic way of doing things.
Sometime during the last 100 years we made this transition from an economy based on utility and thriftiness and some degree of national self-sufficiency to massive globalism and consumerism based on this kind of madness. The people who fight for places in line at 3am at stores on Black Friday resemble nothing so closely as trained dogs taught to respond to cues. You place this on equal footing with wholesome enjoyment of family, quality time, and love? As I said, it's madness.