It's copyright violation. Arguably the masses choice to disobey this law could be construed as a protest. An extremely LARGE protest.
A protest is meant to accomplish something greater than the act itself. Most people I know who pirate software aren't protesting, they are getting the latest useless thingy for free.
If software pirates were lining up to be arrested and trying to overturn the rediculous copyright laws then I would agree with you. I think quite a few of them would be disappointed if all copyrights were to disappear tomorrow, then they wouldn't be able to brag about getting the latest software from bittorrent, because anyone could. They'd have to go back to actual accomplishments to try to impress people.
Software, movies, books; these are not necessary items. Hell, there is TONS of content you can get out there for FREE. It just won't be as cool (cool may not be a reflection of quality) as that pirated copy of Doom 3.
Copyright for unlimited times has no basis in the Constitution, and thus it is legally wrong.
I partly agree. Their is no constitutional basis for unlimited copyright protection, but that doesn't make it illegal.
Copyright never goes into the public domain which means it limits society's freedom without giving back to society! Binary code is copyright-able, which means it helps only the copyright owner, and does not help society create derivative works in the future (which is, again, the purpose of copyright). Thus it is morally wrong, as well.
I agree with the ideal here, but copyrights were not meant to help society at large, they were supposed to help the creator of the work get some of the fruits of their labors. Imagine a world without copyright where any corporation could take your idea from you and mass-produce it, thus cutting you out from any profit.
The question of whether to copy or not to copy, when paying for the copy is out of the question affects not the creator of the original, and thus it is ethically neutral.
This is the same old, I can't afford it therefore I should be able to take it for free while others are paying (basically subsidizing my usage) for it. So even if you are not hurting the creator of the original (I believe you are), you are hurting your fellow consumers.
Gaining non-essentials at the expense of others is not IMHO ethically neutral.
It's an interesting aside that the 'jolly roger' skull and crossbones flag wasn't an identifier of pirates per se, but rather of intent- no quarter given or asked. It took alot of anger to raise that flag.
Sorry for posting again, but I forgot this item.
"Jolly Roger" was a generic term for the flag flown by a pirate, there were many variations (not all were skull and bones). It simply meant they were pirates, it was hoped that this would be enough to make a ship surrender(their primary aim). If they were going to attack without mercy they would take down the "Jolly Roger" and fly a red flag.
Most dictionary definitions reflect common usage, this particular common usage is brought on by a compound of both propaganda (by the producers attempting to add emotional spin to an otherwise borring sounding crime) and the adoption early on by some groups of 'pirate' to inflate thier self image.
Stolen from another post in this article:
Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly.
According to the poster this is from an 1841 speech on copyright extension.
And the Online Etymology Dictionary shows the first use of pirate with that meaning was 1701. I think 304 years is enough time for it to cement the meaning.
IIRC it's derived from 'privateer' which meant essentially a private ship with one countries official permission to attack the vessels of another country they were at war with. A pirate was simply a privateer without such a letter, and perhaps no particular care as to the targets nationality.
You have it backwards; a privateer (sometimes called a corsair) was a type of pirate, not the other way around. Privateer was probably a combination of private and buccaneer and originally was private man of war
No, it's not quite like that. It would be more like: If the window repairman developed newer windows that were harder to break. If the vandal never broke the original windows, they would still be as easy to break as they originally were. But now, thanks to the Vandal, they're improved and rock-resistant.
And cost 3x as much to make and 5x as much to buy. Some of the people on these threads have the moral relativity of Mobsters.
I've lost windows to freaks looking for a good stereo (and instead finding my POS) and yet still I haven't gone out and bought the bullet proof glass. Go figure.
BTW. For safety reasons, you wouldn't want glass that was too difficult to break unless you were worried about being shot.
Yeah, but there's black hat and white hat. There are people who would hack into a system and leave a note saying "I was here, this is how I got in...fix this!"
I consider anyone that gets into my system or home without permission a criminal. It doesn't matter if they take anything, just wanna prove how cool they are or flush my toilets. It's my space (virtual or real).
...he should do something useful and become a security consultant. On the other hand, that would take brains and work...
Not always necessary to have brains to be in the technology security field or any other field for that matter...:)
I tried wikipedia earlier, but information like this:
Leetspeak was probably first used by hackers on the Internet, then Bulletin Board Systems, and then later adopted by users of Online Multiplayer Games and other Internet communities.
IIRC this is where 13375p34k came from in the first place. It was invented to avoid content filters on BBSes.
I recall seeing l3375p34k long before coming across content filters. I seem to recall many cracked C64 games full of lee75p34k. Usually these were hosted on pirate BBSs that didn't have content filters, just ratios.
It would be interesting to find some official (as official as you could get I guess) origin of it (can bear to type it again).
Reguardless of whether Theo is right or wrong he should not be such an asshat. Honestly have you ever dealt with the guy? If you don't see eye to eye with him he treats you like a giant turd. WTF? This is why it is good to have social skills and to know when to keep your mouth shut and when to open it. Theo from my experiance appears to have niether.
I'm not sure what I think about the article, but I sure hate the word virtualize. In fact I am sick of people adding "ize" to the end of words to make them verbs.
Why do we keep coming up with new ways of saying the S.O.S.?
The problem with consoles, is you have a few buttons to use and that's it. Even with add-on controllers, it's not nearly as customizable as a PC games controls.
I'd hate to play some of the stuff I play on my PC on a console. Ick. Plus, the graphics seem better on my PC (even with an older video card).
I'm as much against patents as the next person here, but if people can't make new games that resemble existing games, that should surely encourage innovation.
Except they are not just talking about gameplay (i.e. first-person shooter). They are talking about all kinds of gaming elements (controls, code, actions, etc.).
So if you want to make a game that is completely different, but uses camera views similar to another game, you could be in violation.
I agree that the gaming industry is in a rutt, but I don't think patents are going to bring it out. Would innovation be helped or hindered if the idea of using icons to represent documents was patented and enforced? How about the refresh button on web browsers? Or the File menu?
The problem with declaring SETI to be a religion, on these grounds, is that Drakes Equation *CAN* be tested, only not with our current technology and data set.
Okay, but realize that you are making an assumption that there are ETs our there. If there is no other life out there, the equation is meaningless.
This is hugely different than being completely unable to be tested, i.e. creationism or a belief in god.
No, they are both making the assumption that something exists. One assumes God exists another assumes ETs exist.
Of course science is full of assumptions (aka theories).
It let's both ignorant users (whom I can forgive) but also Microsoft (whom I can't) off the hook. Rather than having to secure their systems/fix fundamental security flaws in their OS and applications they can just hide behind this new law: "It's not our fault we didn't do anything wrong, they broke the law!"
To hold MS responsible would be like holding a home builder responsible for burglaries.
Not exactly. I see why you say it, but it's not in the strictest sense. The Internet is just a bunch of cables, routers and servers. It doesn't even require clients to function. Peer-to-peer is a way to use the internet and not the most common. The most common is client-server.
Other than that strict client-server communication permits only those who can afford big servers to have any semblance of a voice?
As I said before, you don't need peer-to-peer networks to exchange information. We are doing it right now. There are plenty of places to put your ideas that a lot of people will see. This isn't the government trying to silence your voice (that's what the Patriot Act is for) it's companies using their influence (wrongly I might add) to get someone fired.
I can build a website for nothing on a number of servers. I can get my own web site for $50 a year. If I have something interesting to say and some smarts I will eventually get an audience.
It's not like getting dragged out into the streets by thugs because you wrote a negative article or voiced a negative opinion about the government or had the mendacity to actually vote.
Why not? Free exchange of information is just as important -- or even more so -- than freedom from discrimination.
I specifically said P2P. You can exchange information with out P2P. We are doing it right now. There is no comparison between people being able to share data in a specific way and people being denied basic human rights. I also think human rights is a much more important issue than whether a company (it wasn't the goverment) can abuse it's influence.
I think it's despicable as well, but it is in no way as serious as a goverment not recognizing the rights of a portion of the citizenry.
Note that this isn't just about copyright infringment anymore -- this guy got censored for talking about a technology, not advocating violating the law. It really has become about Free Speech.
This was in reply to specific comments which I quoted in my reply. I never said the teacher's situation was about copyright infringement.
It's also not about free speech exactly. He was allowed to say what he wanted. The government didn't stop him, he has even posted it on the internet. I don't know anything about Spanish courts but he may even be able to take the school and/or the SPIA and MPAA to court and I hope he wins if he does.
The reason to break the law is of course, the law is written and paid for BY the companies that benefit from those laws.
I'm all for civil dis-obediance, but part of civil-disobediance is to take your punishment very publicly as the teacher in the article did. Civil-disobediance does nothing if you do it quietly.
The game is *fixed*, and you can't win playing a fixed game.
Although he died in the process, Martin Luther King Jr. managed to win a fixed game. Not that I am equating P2P with the Civil Rights Movement, just saying it is possible to win a fixed game.
Google going down is just wishful thinking on Ballmer's part, just like all the slashdotters who have been predicting the end of MS for years.
My Opinion:
Computers and how we use them will be so different in 10 years that there is no way to predict where they will be.
20 years ago I used an Amiga and everyone in that community was sure that IBM PC's were doomed.
10 years ago I used OS/2 and people were saying IBM was going to dominate the market and push Windows aside.
Here we are today. The Amiga and OS/2 are for the most part extinct.
As for the people talking down MS employees, I will tell you that I worked there for a little over a year and my experience there was the same at any other technology company I've worked at or been to. Some people are bright and creative, some are getting by on past successes. Some are idealistic, some are materialistic. Some are uber-nerds, some are suits (though I never actually met anyone wearing a suit).
It's one thing to bad mouth a company because of their software or practices. It is another to talk bad about the people working there and trying to do good work. Not everyone can or wants to work at a/. approved company, that doesn't mean they're soul-less profit-mongers. My boss at MS was a hippie from venice beach and extremely idealistic.
And the whole MicroSerf thing is more hype than reality. I saw people work long hours and I worked long hours, but not any more than at any other tech company I've been with. Teachers work longer hours and get paid less...
Wow, that went on a lot longer than I had planned.
Slashdot Mirror
A protest is meant to accomplish something greater than the act itself. Most people I know who pirate software aren't protesting, they are getting the latest useless thingy for free.
If software pirates were lining up to be arrested and trying to overturn the rediculous copyright laws then I would agree with you. I think quite a few of them would be disappointed if all copyrights were to disappear tomorrow, then they wouldn't be able to brag about getting the latest software from bittorrent, because anyone could. They'd have to go back to actual accomplishments to try to impress people.
Software, movies, books; these are not necessary items. Hell, there is TONS of content you can get out there for FREE. It just won't be as cool (cool may not be a reflection of quality) as that pirated copy of Doom 3.
I partly agree. Their is no constitutional basis for unlimited copyright protection, but that doesn't make it illegal.
I agree with the ideal here, but copyrights were not meant to help society at large, they were supposed to help the creator of the work get some of the fruits of their labors. Imagine a world without copyright where any corporation could take your idea from you and mass-produce it, thus cutting you out from any profit.
This is the same old, I can't afford it therefore I should be able to take it for free while others are paying (basically subsidizing my usage) for it. So even if you are not hurting the creator of the original (I believe you are), you are hurting your fellow consumers.
Gaining non-essentials at the expense of others is not IMHO ethically neutral.
Summary:
Pirating = Wrong
Unlimited Copyright Protection = Wrong
Sorry for posting again, but I forgot this item.
"Jolly Roger" was a generic term for the flag flown by a pirate, there were many variations (not all were skull and bones). It simply meant they were pirates, it was hoped that this would be enough to make a ship surrender(their primary aim). If they were going to attack without mercy they would take down the "Jolly Roger" and fly a red flag.Stolen from another post in this article:
According to the poster this is from an 1841 speech on copyright extension.
And the Online Etymology Dictionary shows the first use of pirate with that meaning was 1701. I think 304 years is enough time for it to cement the meaning.
You have it backwards; a privateer (sometimes called a corsair) was a type of pirate, not the other way around. Privateer was probably a combination of private and buccaneer and originally was private man of war
No, it's not quite like that. It would be more like: If the window repairman developed newer windows that were harder to break. If the vandal never broke the original windows, they would still be as easy to break as they originally were. But now, thanks to the Vandal, they're improved and rock-resistant.
And cost 3x as much to make and 5x as much to buy. Some of the people on these threads have the moral relativity of Mobsters.
I've lost windows to freaks looking for a good stereo (and instead finding my POS) and yet still I haven't gone out and bought the bullet proof glass. Go figure.
BTW. For safety reasons, you wouldn't want glass that was too difficult to break unless you were worried about being shot.
Yeah, but there's black hat and white hat. There are people who would hack into a system and leave a note saying "I was here, this is how I got in...fix this!"
I consider anyone that gets into my system or home without permission a criminal. It doesn't matter if they take anything, just wanna prove how cool they are or flush my toilets. It's my space (virtual or real).
Not always necessary to have brains to be in the technology security field or any other field for that matter... :)
I tried wikipedia earlier, but information like this:
Leetspeak was probably first used by hackers on the Internet, then Bulletin Board Systems, and then later adopted by users of Online Multiplayer Games and other Internet communities.
Made me question their authority on the subject.
IIRC this is where 13375p34k came from in the first place. It was invented to avoid content filters on BBSes.
I recall seeing l3375p34k long before coming across content filters. I seem to recall many cracked C64 games full of lee75p34k. Usually these were hosted on pirate BBSs that didn't have content filters, just ratios.
It would be interesting to find some official (as official as you could get I guess) origin of it (can bear to type it again).
Reguardless of whether Theo is right or wrong he should not be such an asshat. Honestly have you ever dealt with the guy? If you don't see eye to eye with him he treats you like a giant turd. WTF? This is why it is good to have social skills and to know when to keep your mouth shut and when to open it. Theo from my experiance appears to have niether.
Hmmmm...
Sounds like your average techie...
Ah, CompUSA...
One of my favorite stores. I love to go in there and listen to the clerks try to explain something they don't quite understand.
Occasionaly I will hear a clerk that knows what he's talking about.
Because you're not wearing your kitchenware in the form of tiny teflon fibers.
No, you're just heating food with it. Somehow that seems like more of a danger than wearing it around my leg.
Might just be me though...
I'm not sure what I think about the article, but I sure hate the word virtualize. In fact I am sick of people adding "ize" to the end of words to make them verbs.
Why do we keep coming up with new ways of saying the S.O.S.?
The problem with consoles, is you have a few buttons to use and that's it. Even with add-on controllers, it's not nearly as customizable as a PC games controls.
I'd hate to play some of the stuff I play on my PC on a console. Ick. Plus, the graphics seem better on my PC (even with an older video card).
Is this the kind of crap that passes for news nowadays?
I am ashamed for the morons who put this study together and worse, the idiots (ComputerWorld) that publish this kind of useless information.
I'm as much against patents as the next person here, but if people can't make new games that resemble existing games, that should surely encourage innovation.
Except they are not just talking about gameplay (i.e. first-person shooter). They are talking about all kinds of gaming elements (controls, code, actions, etc.).
So if you want to make a game that is completely different, but uses camera views similar to another game, you could be in violation.
I agree that the gaming industry is in a rutt, but I don't think patents are going to bring it out. Would innovation be helped or hindered if the idea of using icons to represent documents was patented and enforced? How about the refresh button on web browsers? Or the File menu?
or rather...
while(corporation.worth > citizens.worth) { lawyers.power = citizens.power * 10; }
I think I'll get me a patent on this piece of code.
while(corporation.worth > citizens.worth) { lawyers.power = citizens.power; }
The problem with declaring SETI to be a religion, on these grounds, is that Drakes Equation *CAN* be tested, only not with our current technology and data set.
Okay, but realize that you are making an assumption that there are ETs our there. If there is no other life out there, the equation is meaningless.
This is hugely different than being completely unable to be tested, i.e. creationism or a belief in god.
No, they are both making the assumption that something exists. One assumes God exists another assumes ETs exist.
Of course science is full of assumptions (aka theories).
It let's both ignorant users (whom I can forgive) but also Microsoft (whom I can't) off the hook. Rather than having to secure their systems/fix fundamental security flaws in their OS and applications they can just hide behind this new law: "It's not our fault we didn't do anything wrong, they broke the law!"
To hold MS responsible would be like holding a home builder responsible for burglaries.
Shoulda modded this funny...
why so many people use the largest of the nation's banks.
If they didn't have so many customers, they wouldn't be the largest banks...
The Internet itself is a peer-to-peer network.
Not exactly. I see why you say it, but it's not in the strictest sense. The Internet is just a bunch of cables, routers and servers. It doesn't even require clients to function. Peer-to-peer is a way to use the internet and not the most common. The most common is client-server.
Other than that strict client-server communication permits only those who can afford big servers to have any semblance of a voice?
As I said before, you don't need peer-to-peer networks to exchange information. We are doing it right now. There are plenty of places to put your ideas that a lot of people will see. This isn't the government trying to silence your voice (that's what the Patriot Act is for) it's companies using their influence (wrongly I might add) to get someone fired.
I can build a website for nothing on a number of servers. I can get my own web site for $50 a year. If I have something interesting to say and some smarts I will eventually get an audience.
It's not like getting dragged out into the streets by thugs because you wrote a negative article or voiced a negative opinion about the government or had the mendacity to actually vote.
Why not? Free exchange of information is just as important -- or even more so -- than freedom from discrimination.
I specifically said P2P. You can exchange information with out P2P. We are doing it right now. There is no comparison between people being able to share data in a specific way and people being denied basic human rights. I also think human rights is a much more important issue than whether a company (it wasn't the goverment) can abuse it's influence.
I think it's despicable as well, but it is in no way as serious as a goverment not recognizing the rights of a portion of the citizenry.
Note that this isn't just about copyright infringment anymore -- this guy got censored for talking about a technology, not advocating violating the law. It really has become about Free Speech.
This was in reply to specific comments which I quoted in my reply. I never said the teacher's situation was about copyright infringement.
It's also not about free speech exactly. He was allowed to say what he wanted. The government didn't stop him, he has even posted it on the internet. I don't know anything about Spanish courts but he may even be able to take the school and/or the SPIA and MPAA to court and I hope he wins if he does.
The reason to break the law is of course, the law is written and paid for BY the companies that benefit from those laws.
I'm all for civil dis-obediance, but part of civil-disobediance is to take your punishment very publicly as the teacher in the article did. Civil-disobediance does nothing if you do it quietly.
The game is *fixed*, and you can't win playing a fixed game.
Although he died in the process, Martin Luther King Jr. managed to win a fixed game. Not that I am equating P2P with the Civil Rights Movement, just saying it is possible to win a fixed game.
...he should have ended it with "I'll probably be fired for this, so each of you go tell everybody you know." Or something to that effect.
Ah, the old-fashioned P2P network...Google going down is just wishful thinking on Ballmer's part, just like all the slashdotters who have been predicting the end of MS for years.
My Opinion:
Computers and how we use them will be so different in 10 years that there is no way to predict where they will be.
20 years ago I used an Amiga and everyone in that community was sure that IBM PC's were doomed.
10 years ago I used OS/2 and people were saying IBM was going to dominate the market and push Windows aside.
Here we are today. The Amiga and OS/2 are for the most part extinct.
As for the people talking down MS employees, I will tell you that I worked there for a little over a year and my experience there was the same at any other technology company I've worked at or been to. Some people are bright and creative, some are getting by on past successes. Some are idealistic, some are materialistic. Some are uber-nerds, some are suits (though I never actually met anyone wearing a suit).
It's one thing to bad mouth a company because of their software or practices. It is another to talk bad about the people working there and trying to do good work. Not everyone can or wants to work at a /. approved company, that doesn't mean they're soul-less profit-mongers. My boss at MS was a hippie from venice beach and extremely idealistic.
And the whole MicroSerf thing is more hype than reality. I saw people work long hours and I worked long hours, but not any more than at any other tech company I've been with. Teachers work longer hours and get paid less...
Wow, that went on a lot longer than I had planned.