And the movies creator also has very little room in the world for DRM.
Both are pushing their agendas on others and both are losing for it in this particular instance.
She's no more 'pushing her agenda' than anyone else is "pushing an agenda" who follows traditional copyright. According to the law, the rights are granted to the creator, not forced on her.
The producer of the full-length, animated movie "Sita Sings the Blues" recently found herself in a similar situation. She had an eye-opening experience when she went to license the music in the movie (from the 1920s) and found out that it cost $50K for the rights and another $20K for the lawyers to do the clearance work - for recordings that are in the public domain (but the lyrics are not).
Because of that she decided to release the movie under the Creative Commons Share-Alike license - which, I believe, is the version most like the GPL(and she also took out a loan for the music rights). The movie has been very popular, Roger Ebert raved about it, even the guys on his old TV show (now called "At the Movies") gave it high marks. So eventually Netflix came a-calling, they offered her something like $7K up front for the right to stream the movie. However, she insisted that they stream it without DRM and their system is just not set up to do that, it's like they never conceived of the idea of Free content when they designed it. Kinda ironic in retrospect because I'd be really surprised if, just like most of the interwebs, a whole lot of netflix's infrastructure didn't run on Free software,
Anyway, she was willing to compromise - she would grant an exception to the licensing terms and they could DRM it, if they would run a placard at the start of the movie telling viewers that it was Free and where to get it from. No dice said Netflix. So she no dice too.
So, my bet is that Apple goes the same way as netflix - unwilling to compromise because their world view has no room in it for Free software for regular users.
The Brand-X decision said that ISPs are not telecoms because the FCC didn't classify them as telecoms. The court decision has no effect on the FCC's ability to regulate.
You have that exactly reversed. The decision said nothing about classification, it just confirmed that the FCC had the legal authority to make the classification as it saw fit. The thing was, once the decision was made for cableco's that were also ISPs the FCC decided it should apply to all ISPs even if they didn't provide any actual information.
So a flawed decision by the FCC based on conflating the television part of a cableco's business with its ISP business was quickly spread to all ISPs even the ones without a television business to conflate - the result of intense lobbying or utter ignorance of what was being regulated. Either way, the result was a wholesale change to the wrong classification from a one that had worked well enough for the public until that point. That the new FCC wants to reverse that big fat fail of a decision should come as no surprise.
Dumbasses at the WSJ say that a change in classification should only be made when there has been a change in the business landscape, and conveniently brush off the fact that the first change to the wrong classification occurred without such a landscape change. So by their own reasoning this problem should have never emerged in the first place. But apparently history's too inconvenient for them.
The problem is that the approach Genachowski wants to use means adding ISPs into the existing structure used to regulate telcos. While this would insure net neutrality it would also open a giant can of worms in applying the rest of a giant regulatory structure to ISPs.
Funny, it sure seemed to work just fine up until the Brand-X ruling in 2005.
The jobs at risk are the congressdroids' - they are fearful their corpocleptocractic campaign donors will support someone else if they don't stop this return to normalcy. Fuckers don't even realize they are acting against their own interests - just wait until they end up having to pay extra to all the ISPs so that the voters can get to their own campaign websites.
So your answer is completely unfeasible in the real world.
Works in the one I live in.
Dude, why did you even respond? Your "works for me" has nothing to do with the "do not use their services" doctrine. You are still using the services, you are just trying to block part of it that you don't like.
The thing about noscript, it doesn't block everything. Not even close. Nor does adblock or ghostery. Adblock blocks ads, not trackers. I wish someone would maintain a list of trackers for adblock, but AFAIK nobody does. I routinely see trackers (1x1 images, invisible gifs, embedded frames, etc) from facebook, twitter, paypal and hundreds of others that adblock does not block by default.
So congrats on blocking google-analytics, enjoy that false sense of security you've got going on, because that's all you've got.
Poor organization has been the one effective deterrent against wholesale invasion of privacy by the government and corporate america.
Now that computers are making organization so much easier and, in many cases, automatic we need something more formal. I vote for enforced disorganization. That's kind of what much of the EU has - highly restricting the creation and maintenance of databases of personal information even giving right to informational self-determinism the force of law.
Of course, you can exercise the one opt-out system that works - don't use their services.
Then you might as well not use most of the web. Do you know how many websites embed the google-analytics code? Hundreds of thousands of them. Basically any website that can't afford to role their own or contract out for a paid service will use google-analytics for user-traffic tracking.
So your answer is completely unfeasible in the real world.
Man, what a terrible, terrible example - supporting the US army is supporting standing up to injustice? That's EXACTLY the kind of falling in line with the strong over the weak I was talking about. Support the whistle-blowers in the military - those are the weak who speak truth to power and frequently get squashed for it, despite all the PR about not obeying unlawful orders. The regular troops? They are just the means of corporate american bullying of the rest of the world. They are the most powerful force of violence in the whole world bar none, in no way are they the weak standing up to bullies stronger than themselves.
Maybe I did pull it out of my ass, but you've just demonstrated the precise mindset that enables people to support bullies over the bullied and still feel like they are the good guys.
A reason that copyright extends past death is to discourage murder to get access to copyrighted material.
Here's the choice:
1) Expiration at death -> Murder to put something into the public domain where EVERYBODY has access to it. 2) Expiration after death -> Murder by a family member to get control of the income from the copyright today
Seems to me that copyright extending past death is much more of an incentive for murder than it is against it.
No they don't. There is a significant number of people, probably even a majority, who think that people who stand up to injustice just don't know their place. That they are "uppity." Maybe they just don't consider the injustice serious enough to warrant a conflict or they think social order is more important than righting a wrong or, and I see this one a lot, they think the person who is speaking truth to power is going to get squashed in response and that they are fools for even trying. I think the last is a projection of their own cowardice - at the very least they could be cheering the guy on, but instead they feel like they have to denigrate him as a way to justify their own inaction.
I'm no fan of the idea, but your objections are unreasonable.
Also, what about ambulances, police, pregnant ladies being rushed to the hospital.
Emeregency vehicles would ignore the signals and the system should only apply to vehicles that have already come to a halt, indicating the need to save gas. If that pregnant lady is in a car stuck behind other cars then it doesn't really matter if her engine is turned of since the other cars aren't moving anyway.
And what about that STUCK red light at 3am in the morning. (motorists drive in, but they don't drive out).
Typically its a blinking red, not solid red and they aren't stuck, they are set that way on purpose because traffic is so low in the middle of the night that its ridiculous to wait for a full light cycle at totally empty intersections so they make it into the equivalent of a stop sign. Obviously in that condition they would not send the signal to turn off anyone's engine.
Bliss was at first overjoyed. Then he was furious, because he found out the teachers (and the kids) used it "wrong", not according to the rules he'd set up. He threatened to sue. Eventually they were forced to settle, for a large sum. So in essence he stole money from handicapped children,
Thus proving once and for all that ignorance is not Bliss.
"Under God" was not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance. Francis Bellamy wrote the pledge in 1892. The phrase "Under God" was added in 1954.
You realize that you are supporting the sentiment of the person you are replying to, right? Maybe that was your intent, but it sure sounds like you think you are rebutting him.
You don't mind if I make a copy of your family while I'm at it too, do you? Too much of a bother to get my own the old fashioned way.
Huh? That's non-sensical. Are you proposing making life-size cut-outs of my family and populating your house with them? Go for it if that's what you want.
Hell, I'll just "copy" your identity too. It's just information, and information wants to be free!
Go ahead and copy it. But if you use it to commit fraud then realize that the fraud is the problem there regardless as to the means by which you committed the crime.
But, its not surprise you would get all of that so completely wrong - your beef with the phrase "information wants to be free" is like disagreeing with "water is wet." It refers to the fact that once published, in any fashion, you can't put information back into a cage because you no longer have control over other people's copies. It isn't some sort of hippie slogan, its a statement of fact about the basic nature of information.
The problem with your analysis is that the root cause is 100% a lack of net neutrality, not a lack of copyright. Even with copyright the monied interests have just as much incentive and ability to freeze out the little guy - they have tons of money so they don't need to steal, they can just make their own and keep everybody from accessing those websites with the work of little guys in the first place.
The public does not realize that it costs potentially a lot of money and time to create professional images. Witness some of the comments on this Slashdot thread.
Witness this comment: I know precisely how much work can go into creating professional images - I've been to more than a few professional photo shoots because I have family members in the business - and the overhead of support crew and the time spent to get just a handful of perfect shots can be enormous (if the photog works that way). But copyright is not about how much effort goes into creating a work, if it did then the phone book would be copyrightable.
There will always be a market for commercial photography because it is by far a commission-based business. A world without copyright would be make stock-photography, which admittedly some people consider their bread-and-butter, less profitable but would have the effect of boosting the business for commissioned work since less stock photos would be available. Furthermore there will always be artistic photography because real art needs to express itself in the way irrelevant to money in the way artists like van Gogh did.
So, while I'm all for proper attribution, that doesn't mean that copyright in anything like its current form is necessary to the modern world. Even if it does personally benefit guys like the GP by protecting his business.
Except that the much ballyhooed liquidity vanishes exactly when it is needed, as we saw on May 6th. Accenture would never have hit $.01 in a liquid market.
Yeah, and how long did that last? A second or two? And then it corrected precisely because the high-frequency guys jumped right in. What do you think would have happened if that massive sell order went through without the high-frequency guys? Exactly the same thing, except it would have last a lot longer.
That's not a joke or a typo. The codec world has moved on quite considerably since the release of MPEG-1, and development of MPEG-2 encoders has resulted in stunning improvements in the last few years, in part because of the requirements of ATSC, and in part because of the improvements in processor technology.
I can confirm that. I was checking out some old HDTV recordings from ~2002. They were full-bitrate (~18Mbps) 1080i. They look like crap compared to the ~14Mbps 1080i stuff on most channels now. And those channels look like crap compared to ~30Mbps mpeg2 blurays (which look roughly the same as ~30Mbps h264/vc1 blurays when comparing different releases in different regions that happen to have different encodings).
While I am no defender of those lists, that is incorrect.
Those lists are not intended to make people feel safer because someone they interact with is not on the list. The intent of those lists is for people to avoid (and ostracize) the people on the list.
Slashdot Mirror
And the movies creator also has very little room in the world for DRM.
Both are pushing their agendas on others and both are losing for it in this particular instance.
She's no more 'pushing her agenda' than anyone else is "pushing an agenda" who follows traditional copyright.
According to the law, the rights are granted to the creator, not forced on her.
The producer of the full-length, animated movie "Sita Sings the Blues" recently found herself in a similar situation.
She had an eye-opening experience when she went to license the music in the movie (from the 1920s) and found out that it cost $50K for the rights and another $20K for the lawyers to do the clearance work - for recordings that are in the public domain (but the lyrics are not).
Because of that she decided to release the movie under the Creative Commons Share-Alike license - which, I believe, is the version most like the GPL(and she also took out a loan for the music rights). The movie has been very popular, Roger Ebert raved about it, even the guys on his old TV show (now called "At the Movies") gave it high marks. So eventually Netflix came a-calling, they offered her something like $7K up front for the right to stream the movie. However, she insisted that they stream it without DRM and their system is just not set up to do that, it's like they never conceived of the idea of Free content when they designed it. Kinda ironic in retrospect because I'd be really surprised if, just like most of the interwebs, a whole lot of netflix's infrastructure didn't run on Free software,
Anyway, she was willing to compromise - she would grant an exception to the licensing terms and they could DRM it, if they would run a placard at the start of the movie telling viewers that it was Free and where to get it from. No dice said Netflix. So she no dice too.
So, my bet is that Apple goes the same way as netflix - unwilling to compromise because their world view has no room in it for Free software for regular users.
BTW:
Sita Sings the Blues - main site
Download page - including bittorrent of a very nice 4GB 1080p mkv, also streaming from Youtube, etc
IMDB Page
Ebert's review
The Brand-X decision said that ISPs are not telecoms because the FCC didn't classify them as telecoms. The court decision has no effect on the FCC's ability to regulate.
You have that exactly reversed. The decision said nothing about classification, it just confirmed that the FCC had the legal authority to make the classification as it saw fit. The thing was, once the decision was made for cableco's that were also ISPs the FCC decided it should apply to all ISPs even if they didn't provide any actual information.
So a flawed decision by the FCC based on conflating the television part of a cableco's business with its ISP business was quickly spread to all ISPs even the ones without a television business to conflate - the result of intense lobbying or utter ignorance of what was being regulated. Either way, the result was a wholesale change to the wrong classification from a one that had worked well enough for the public until that point. That the new FCC wants to reverse that big fat fail of a decision should come as no surprise.
Dumbasses at the WSJ say that a change in classification should only be made when there has been a change in the business landscape, and conveniently brush off the fact that the first change to the wrong classification occurred without such a landscape change. So by their own reasoning this problem should have never emerged in the first place. But apparently history's too inconvenient for them.
The problem is that the approach Genachowski wants to use means adding ISPs into the existing structure used to regulate telcos. While this would insure net neutrality it would also open a giant can of worms in applying the rest of a giant regulatory structure to ISPs.
Funny, it sure seemed to work just fine up until the Brand-X ruling in 2005.
The jobs at risk are the congressdroids' - they are fearful their corpocleptocractic campaign donors will support someone else if they don't stop this return to normalcy. Fuckers don't even realize they are acting against their own interests - just wait until they end up having to pay extra to all the ISPs so that the voters can get to their own campaign websites.
An interesting definition of "uppity".
That's always the way it is with the people who apply the term.
The word defines the user more than the person it is applied to.
So your answer is completely unfeasible in the real world.
Works in the one I live in.
Dude, why did you even respond? Your "works for me" has nothing to do with the "do not use their services" doctrine.
You are still using the services, you are just trying to block part of it that you don't like.
The thing about noscript, it doesn't block everything. Not even close. Nor does adblock or ghostery. Adblock blocks ads, not trackers. I wish someone would maintain a list of trackers for adblock, but AFAIK nobody does. I routinely see trackers (1x1 images, invisible gifs, embedded frames, etc) from facebook, twitter, paypal and hundreds of others that adblock does not block by default.
So congrats on blocking google-analytics, enjoy that false sense of security you've got going on, because that's all you've got.
Fortunately they are poorly organized.
Poor organization has been the one effective deterrent against wholesale invasion of privacy by the government and corporate america.
Now that computers are making organization so much easier and, in many cases, automatic we need something more formal. I vote for enforced disorganization. That's kind of what much of the EU has - highly restricting the creation and maintenance of databases of personal information even giving right to informational self-determinism the force of law.
Of course, you can exercise the one opt-out system that works - don't use their services.
Then you might as well not use most of the web. Do you know how many websites embed the google-analytics code? Hundreds of thousands of them. Basically any website that can't afford to role their own or contract out for a paid service will use google-analytics for user-traffic tracking.
So your answer is completely unfeasible in the real world.
Man, what a terrible, terrible example - supporting the US army is supporting standing up to injustice? That's EXACTLY the kind of falling in line with the strong over the weak I was talking about. Support the whistle-blowers in the military - those are the weak who speak truth to power and frequently get squashed for it, despite all the PR about not obeying unlawful orders. The regular troops? They are just the means of corporate american bullying of the rest of the world. They are the most powerful force of violence in the whole world bar none, in no way are they the weak standing up to bullies stronger than themselves.
Maybe I did pull it out of my ass, but you've just demonstrated the precise mindset that enables people to support bullies over the bullied and still feel like they are the good guys.
A reason that copyright extends past death is to discourage murder to get access to copyrighted material.
Here's the choice:
1) Expiration at death -> Murder to put something into the public domain where EVERYBODY has access to it.
2) Expiration after death -> Murder by a family member to get control of the income from the copyright today
Seems to me that copyright extending past death is much more of an incentive for murder than it is against it.
A reason that copyright extends past death is to discourage murder to get access to copyrighted material.
That sounds more like a movie-plot risk than a serious concern.
No they don't. There is a significant number of people, probably even a majority, who think that people who stand up to injustice just don't know their place. That they are "uppity." Maybe they just don't consider the injustice serious enough to warrant a conflict or they think social order is more important than righting a wrong or, and I see this one a lot, they think the person who is speaking truth to power is going to get squashed in response and that they are fools for even trying. I think the last is a projection of their own cowardice - at the very least they could be cheering the guy on, but instead they feel like they have to denigrate him as a way to justify their own inaction.
I'm no fan of the idea, but your objections are unreasonable.
Also, what about ambulances, police, pregnant ladies being rushed to the hospital.
Emeregency vehicles would ignore the signals and the system should only apply to vehicles that have already come to a halt, indicating the need to save gas. If that pregnant lady is in a car stuck behind other cars then it doesn't really matter if her engine is turned of since the other cars aren't moving anyway.
And what about that STUCK red light at 3am in the morning. (motorists drive in, but they don't drive out).
Typically its a blinking red, not solid red and they aren't stuck, they are set that way on purpose because traffic is so low in the middle of the night that its ridiculous to wait for a full light cycle at totally empty intersections so they make it into the equivalent of a stop sign. Obviously in that condition they would not send the signal to turn off anyone's engine.
Bliss was at first overjoyed. Then he was furious, because he found out the teachers (and the kids) used it "wrong", not according to the rules he'd set up. He threatened to sue. Eventually they were forced to settle, for a large sum. So in essence he stole money from handicapped children,
Thus proving once and for all that ignorance is not Bliss.
When you have plenty to eat and a decent place to live, you want freedom.
Or maybe you are just too scared of losing that prosperity that you decide not to rock the boat.
"Under God" was not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance. Francis Bellamy wrote the pledge in 1892. The phrase "Under God" was added in 1954.
You realize that you are supporting the sentiment of the person you are replying to, right?
Maybe that was your intent, but it sure sounds like you think you are rebutting him.
So, the question is, can yahoo or bing be used to the same kind of search?
Don't get too far ahead of yourself, the only ones dead so far are SCO and HURD.
And IRIX and SVR4.
You don't mind if I make a copy of your family while I'm at it too, do you? Too much of a bother to get my own the old fashioned way.
Huh? That's non-sensical. Are you proposing making life-size cut-outs of my family and populating your house with them? Go for it if that's what you want.
Hell, I'll just "copy" your identity too. It's just information, and information wants to be free!
Go ahead and copy it. But if you use it to commit fraud then realize that the fraud is the problem there regardless as to the means by which you committed the crime.
But, its not surprise you would get all of that so completely wrong - your beef with the phrase "information wants to be free" is like disagreeing with "water is wet." It refers to the fact that once published, in any fashion, you can't put information back into a cage because you no longer have control over other people's copies. It isn't some sort of hippie slogan, its a statement of fact about the basic nature of information.
The problem with your analysis is that the root cause is 100% a lack of net neutrality, not a lack of copyright. Even with copyright the monied interests have just as much incentive and ability to freeze out the little guy - they have tons of money so they don't need to steal, they can just make their own and keep everybody from accessing those websites with the work of little guys in the first place.
The public does not realize that it costs potentially a lot of money and time to create professional images. Witness some of the comments on this Slashdot thread.
Witness this comment: I know precisely how much work can go into creating professional images - I've been to more than a few professional photo shoots because I have family members in the business - and the overhead of support crew and the time spent to get just a handful of perfect shots can be enormous (if the photog works that way). But copyright is not about how much effort goes into creating a work, if it did then the phone book would be copyrightable.
There will always be a market for commercial photography because it is by far a commission-based business. A world without copyright would be make stock-photography, which admittedly some people consider their bread-and-butter, less profitable but would have the effect of boosting the business for commissioned work since less stock photos would be available. Furthermore there will always be artistic photography because real art needs to express itself in the way irrelevant to money in the way artists like van Gogh did.
So, while I'm all for proper attribution, that doesn't mean that copyright in anything like its current form is necessary to the modern world. Even if it does personally benefit guys like the GP by protecting his business.
Except that the much ballyhooed liquidity vanishes exactly when it is needed, as we saw on May 6th. Accenture would never have hit $.01 in a liquid market.
Yeah, and how long did that last? A second or two? And then it corrected precisely because the high-frequency guys jumped right in. What do you think would have happened if that massive sell order went through without the high-frequency guys? Exactly the same thing, except it would have last a lot longer.
That's not a joke or a typo. The codec world has moved on quite considerably since the release of MPEG-1, and development of MPEG-2 encoders has resulted in stunning improvements in the last few years, in part because of the requirements of ATSC, and in part because of the improvements in processor technology.
I can confirm that. I was checking out some old HDTV recordings from ~2002. They were full-bitrate (~18Mbps) 1080i. They look like crap compared to the ~14Mbps 1080i stuff on most channels now. And those channels look like crap compared to ~30Mbps mpeg2 blurays (which look roughly the same as ~30Mbps h264/vc1 blurays when comparing different releases in different regions that happen to have different encodings).
It's the "logic" behind lists of "sex offenders".
While I am no defender of those lists, that is incorrect.
Those lists are not intended to make people feel safer because someone they interact with is not on the list.
The intent of those lists is for people to avoid (and ostracize) the people on the list.