How are any of those restrictions arbitrary? I just wanted to make sure you were clear on what a meaningful example would require.
Modern usage of copyright - archaic usages don't count towards a current definition. Software - your entire argument is predicated on their being "other examples" so you ruled out software Droits d'auteur - not part of US copyright law or pretty much that of any common-law based system
If you find those three parameters to be arbitrary then all that says is you were stretching your definition of copyright so far beyond common usage as to be unrecognisable.
You chose an analogy that was inherently ambiguous; you could use it to mean whatever you wanted by slipping either party into the role of the rape victim.
It's only ambiguous if you ignore the post I was responding to.
I would certainly find it lucrative if I could resell some of the software I've written under work-for-hire contracts, but I agreed to the conditions involving my employers retaining those rights in exchange for compensation.
Damn! Yet another poster without a clue as to how portfolios and reels are used within the entertainment and advertising business. Why do you guys think you know so much about something you clearly have zero knowledge of? And why are you all so fucking high and mighty about it too? Repugnant? Jesus!
Here's your clue - it is standard procedure to send copies of your reel - i.e. a dvd with significant examples of your prior work for hire to agents (when you don't yet have an agent) and casting directors. That's distribution, but no one complains because without it the whole system would fall apart. Just as reels were once literally film reels, then vhs tapes and eventually became dvds, moving to online reels is becoming de rigueur.
You are clearly unfamiliar with how hollywood works and the concepts of reels and portfolios.
Back to the point about advancing human progress, I don't think, a particular fashion model's success or failure have any effect on it...
Did I say she was a fashion model? Or are you just projecting your own pejorative attitude about the entertainment industry? Ironic you are so dismissive of the industry and yet so quick to defend an entirely bogus preconceived notion about some of their rights.
It would be more interesting if there was a productive application for this knowledge. Putting Rihanna songs on Youtube does not fit my idea of "productive".
Why is it that so many people are so ready to condemn others because of their own lack of imagination?
My niece is a working print model and aspiring actress who has starred in a few very high profile music videos (the kind that get nominated for MTV's annual awards) and been featured in a few national commercials. She has put together a youtube channel to promote her career - the goal was to include a copy of very video work she has been in and title it so that her name was explicitly associated with the video or commercial. That tactic works very well for google searches - search on her name and the first page of searches includes a list of every youtube video with her name in the title.
Unfortunately, some of the videos are blocked. Some are fine - recognized as copyrighted but the nominal owner has entered into a revenue sharing agreement with youtube - but not all of them. Turns out that most of the blocked ones are already posted on youtube via official channels with very poor video quality (letterboxed and pillarboxed for example). So my niece is not able to upload high-quality versions (or even identical copies downloaded with one of the billion youtube downloaders) of those videos to her own channel in order to use them as part of a modern day portfolio/reel.
If she's able to use this guy's research, it will improve her ability to promote her career by showcasing the work she has already done.
Perhaps I missed the context of what you intended to say. My analagy was that companies like Stardock, who previously resisted using DRM on idealogical grounds, might conclude that being nice simply does not pay. They are not accepting blame any more than the woman who dresses conservatively because she can't be bothered dealing with asshats who take clothing as licence to grope is accepting blame.
Yes, you missed the context. They are not "accepting blame" - they are not the woman in the analogy, they are the rapist - it is their decision to implement DRM - regardless of their rationale. Just as it is the rapist's decision to rape regardless of their justification.
There have been plenty of other examples where copyright has been used to control distribution for goals other than immediate profit.
Your argument would carry some weight if you could actually cite more than one of these examples that were modern, not software. not droits d'auteur (which effectively doesn't exist in US copyright law) and not one-offs.
There is practically no market for cars with their hoods welded shut. We even have laws in the US that explicitly guarantee you the right to use 3rd party upgrades and parts on your car and it will not violate your warranty or the car manufacturer's liability unless those 3rd party parts are the cause of a failure (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act).
The FSF's goal is to move the market for software to the same point where the market for cars is - closed source, binary only distributions being the equivalent of a car with the hood welded shut. With alternatives in the market and an educated base of consumers the expectation is that proprietary software will just not be able to compete.
I think most of us concede that the GPL is a case where the FSF is using copyright law in a novel, unintended way to accomplish their goals.
That's why they call it the "copyleft" - not out of some right/left ideology, but to indicate that the GPL is a hack of copyright - the definition of hack being a novel and unintended use.
Of course, they fail to mention that the FSF is dedicated to doing this through legal means.
Hell, it isn't just through legal means, it is through practising what they preach with their own creations. Something RIAA members haven't been so keen to do themselves what with all of their shady accounting schemes to bilk creators out of their copyrights.
My point is that blaming the woman for getting raped is misallocation of blame. You've "twisted" my point 180 degrees and said that the woman accepts the misallocated blame and thus others "suffer." The blame is still misallocated.
"guilty until proven innocent" is a bit of a stretch. The instructor is (at first) only checking. Does any act of investigation presume guilt?
Depends on your definition of investigation. Checking a person's background does not presume guilt - it is why "we" keep records about people in the first place. (One might argue about pervasiveness of recording keeping, but that is a separate and distinct issue.)
Blanket drug testing, on the other hand, is a presumption of guilt because there is no reason for suspicion but you must actively disprove that suspicion by submitting to a test.
Similarly, I believe that turnitin's testing is also a presumption of guilt because it is commonly a blanket requirement of all students in the class regardless of past history or actual content of the paper and you must prove innocence by passing their test.
How is that different from a teacher reading papers and googling suspiciously uncharacteristic phrases from those papers? Its the suspiciously uncharacteristic part that is different. Turnitin tests everybody regardless of any grounds for suspicion.
>Actually it won't, and this is one of the reasons a few countries pulled out of the JSF project.
[citation needed] Exactly which countries have pulled out?
Indeed, last I heard, the only country to pull in was Britain and while they have been making noise about the source issue, nobody has pulled out. Nor has any country decided to "not sign up" - except, I heard Columbia - they figured that a fighter designed to strike joints wasn't going to help much with their cocaine problems.
Keep in mind F35 is not a black project. Those get their own network, machines locked behind big doors, big approval list to install programs, etc.
Black projects get considerably more than that. In fact, what you just described applies to any run-of-the-mill classified program.
F35 is such a large project with so many subcontractors that this doesn't surprise me one bit. Security is largly there to pass an audit, and that's about it.
While what you say about the existence of security is mostly true in practice, keeping classified systems on their own networks and not transferring classified data to unclassified systems is the dead-simple part of the security checklists and so it tends to get done real well. It is something the checklist officers can easily visualize so they focus on it pretty hard.
FWIW - paragraph formatting changed your post from the rantings of a crazy loon to something very insightful. Without your repost, I would never have read past the 4th sentence or so.
Uh yes it does hurt people. Part of the reason we're getting all sorts of BS DRM is to stop people from thieving.
With that attitude you might as well blame the woman who is raped for being too sexy. It isn't like game manufacturers lack free will, their actions are their responsibility.
You might argue that 3rd parties could take action to reduce the attractiveness of DRM, but that does not lay blame for DRM on those people. Especially when, just as in most rapes, the real reason for DRM is power and control.
Us civilians are stuck. We're well qualified for the jobs, but we'll never be considered if we apply for the jobs.
Your analysis is false. As someone who does not hold a clearance you have a slight handicap because it means that if they hire you, you won't get able to start on the "meat" of the work for a few months while your clearance is processed.. But if your skills are good, then they will hire you and put you on a desk in an unclassified area to get yourself up to speed on as much of the program as is unclassified. I know a lot of people who have done exactly that. You do not have to be ex-military to get a clearance.
they're aiming to train only 250 "cyberexperts" a year by 2011? And this after all the "reports" about russia and china bullying the entire world,
Those "reports" are their primary means of funding these departments. Apparently the PR/FUD hasn't been working so much, probably because the nation's had bigger things on its collective mind for the last year or two.
companies need to come up with business models that don't rely on scarcity of non-scarce commodities.
How is bandwidth and server capacity non-scarce?
They aren't. Stardock relied on scarcity of the game software to limit consumption of bandwidth and server capacity. Except the game wasn't scarce, so it didn't work out so well.
Thanks for being the straight man. Don't give up your day job for snarking.
Slashdot Mirror
How are any of those restrictions arbitrary? I just wanted to make sure you were clear on what a meaningful example would require.
Modern usage of copyright - archaic usages don't count towards a current definition.
Software - your entire argument is predicated on their being "other examples" so you ruled out software
Droits d'auteur - not part of US copyright law or pretty much that of any common-law based system
If you find those three parameters to be arbitrary then all that says is you were stretching your definition of copyright so far beyond common usage as to be unrecognisable.
You chose an analogy that was inherently ambiguous; you could use it to mean whatever you wanted by slipping either party into the role of the rape victim.
It's only ambiguous if you ignore the post I was responding to.
ugggghhhhh THEY (meaning Stardock et. al.) are not "the rapist" here.
Yes they are. WTF? I wrote the analogy, I know damn well who is what.
If you can't wrap your head around that simple analogy, then you've been drinking way too much kool aid.
I would certainly find it lucrative if I could resell some of the software I've written under work-for-hire contracts, but I agreed to the conditions involving my employers retaining those rights in exchange for compensation.
Damn! Yet another poster without a clue as to how portfolios and reels are used within the entertainment and advertising business. Why do you guys think you know so much about something you clearly have zero knowledge of? And why are you all so fucking high and mighty about it too? Repugnant? Jesus!
Here's your clue - it is standard procedure to send copies of your reel - i.e. a dvd with significant examples of your prior work for hire to agents (when you don't yet have an agent) and casting directors. That's distribution, but no one complains because without it the whole system would fall apart. Just as reels were once literally film reels, then vhs tapes and eventually became dvds, moving to online reels is becoming de rigueur.
You are clearly unfamiliar with how hollywood works and the concepts of reels and portfolios.
Back to the point about advancing human progress, I don't think, a particular fashion model's success or failure have any effect on it...
Did I say she was a fashion model? Or are you just projecting your own pejorative attitude about the entertainment industry? Ironic you are so dismissive of the industry and yet so quick to defend an entirely bogus preconceived notion about some of their rights.
It would be more interesting if there was a productive application for this knowledge. Putting Rihanna songs on Youtube does not fit my idea of "productive".
Why is it that so many people are so ready to condemn others because of their own lack of imagination?
My niece is a working print model and aspiring actress who has starred in a few very high profile music videos (the kind that get nominated for MTV's annual awards) and been featured in a few national commercials. She has put together a youtube channel to promote her career - the goal was to include a copy of very video work she has been in and title it so that her name was explicitly associated with the video or commercial. That tactic works very well for google searches - search on her name and the first page of searches includes a list of every youtube video with her name in the title.
Unfortunately, some of the videos are blocked. Some are fine - recognized as copyrighted but the nominal owner has entered into a revenue sharing agreement with youtube - but not all of them. Turns out that most of the blocked ones are already posted on youtube via official channels with very poor video quality (letterboxed and pillarboxed for example). So my niece is not able to upload high-quality versions (or even identical copies downloaded with one of the billion youtube downloaders) of those videos to her own channel in order to use them as part of a modern day portfolio/reel.
If she's able to use this guy's research, it will improve her ability to promote her career by showcasing the work she has already done.
So, anthropology is not research?
Perhaps I missed the context of what you intended to say. My analagy was that companies like Stardock, who previously resisted using DRM on idealogical grounds, might conclude that being nice simply does not pay. They are not accepting blame any more than the woman who dresses conservatively because she can't be bothered dealing with asshats who take clothing as licence to grope is accepting blame.
Yes, you missed the context. They are not "accepting blame" - they are not the woman in the analogy, they are the rapist - it is their decision to implement DRM - regardless of their rationale. Just as it is the rapist's decision to rape regardless of their justification.
There have been plenty of other examples where copyright has been used to control distribution for goals other than immediate profit.
Your argument would carry some weight if you could actually cite more than one of these examples that were modern, not software. not droits d'auteur (which effectively doesn't exist in US copyright law) and not one-offs.
Think of it this way:
There is practically no market for cars with their hoods welded shut. We even have laws in the US that explicitly guarantee you the right to use 3rd party upgrades and parts on your car and it will not violate your warranty or the car manufacturer's liability unless those 3rd party parts are the cause of a failure (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act).
The FSF's goal is to move the market for software to the same point where the market for cars is - closed source, binary only distributions being the equivalent of a car with the hood welded shut. With alternatives in the market and an educated base of consumers the expectation is that proprietary software will just not be able to compete.
I think most of us concede that the GPL is a case where the FSF is using copyright law in a novel, unintended way to accomplish their goals.
That's why they call it the "copyleft" - not out of some right/left ideology, but to indicate that the GPL is a hack of copyright - the definition of hack being a novel and unintended use.
Of course, they fail to mention that the FSF is dedicated to doing this through legal means.
Hell, it isn't just through legal means, it is through practising what they preach with their own creations. Something RIAA members haven't been so keen to do themselves what with all of their shady accounting schemes to bilk creators out of their copyrights.
Huh?
My point is that blaming the woman for getting raped is misallocation of blame.
You've "twisted" my point 180 degrees and said that the woman accepts the misallocated blame and thus others "suffer."
The blame is still misallocated.
"guilty until proven innocent" is a bit of a stretch. The instructor is (at first) only checking. Does any act of investigation presume guilt?
Depends on your definition of investigation.
Checking a person's background does not presume guilt - it is why "we" keep records about people in the first place.
(One might argue about pervasiveness of recording keeping, but that is a separate and distinct issue.)
Blanket drug testing, on the other hand, is a presumption of guilt because there is no reason for suspicion but you must actively disprove that suspicion by submitting to a test.
Similarly, I believe that turnitin's testing is also a presumption of guilt because it is commonly a blanket requirement of all students in the class regardless of past history or actual content of the paper and you must prove innocence by passing their test.
How is that different from a teacher reading papers and googling suspiciously uncharacteristic phrases from those papers? Its the suspiciously uncharacteristic part that is different. Turnitin tests everybody regardless of any grounds for suspicion.
>Actually it won't, and this is one of the reasons a few countries pulled out of the JSF project.
[citation needed]
Exactly which countries have pulled out?
Indeed, last I heard, the only country to pull in was Britain and while they have been making noise about the source issue, nobody has pulled out. Nor has any country decided to "not sign up" - except, I heard Columbia - they figured that a fighter designed to strike joints wasn't going to help much with their cocaine problems.
Keep in mind F35 is not a black project. Those get their own network, machines locked behind big doors, big approval list to install programs, etc.
Black projects get considerably more than that. In fact, what you just described applies to any run-of-the-mill classified program.
F35 is such a large project with so many subcontractors that this doesn't surprise me one bit. Security is largly there to pass an audit, and that's about it.
While what you say about the existence of security is mostly true in practice, keeping classified systems on their own networks and not transferring classified data to unclassified systems is the dead-simple part of the security checklists and so it tends to get done real well. It is something the checklist officers can easily visualize so they focus on it pretty hard.
You lack reading comprehension skills. Please continue to display that to the world.
FWIW - paragraph formatting changed your post from the rantings of a crazy loon to something very insightful.
Without your repost, I would never have read past the 4th sentence or so.
You are mixing up the victims here. The company is the victim, not the people pirating.
No I'm not. Thetoadwarrior made that explicit claim, I addressed it and said it was bogus.
Uh yes it does hurt people. Part of the reason we're getting all sorts of BS DRM is to stop people from thieving.
With that attitude you might as well blame the woman who is raped for being too sexy. It isn't like game manufacturers lack free will, their actions are their responsibility.
You might argue that 3rd parties could take action to reduce the attractiveness of DRM, but that does not lay blame for DRM on those people. Especially when, just as in most rapes, the real reason for DRM is power and control.
And they got something for it in return, fuck Rand-bots and that bathtub drowning retard (what's his face again?)
Tubgirl?
Why Is Connectivity So Cheap In Stockholm?
Because their taxes are so high, it had better be cheap!
Us civilians are stuck. We're well qualified for the jobs, but we'll never be considered if we apply for the jobs.
Your analysis is false. As someone who does not hold a clearance you have a slight handicap because it means that if they hire you, you won't get able to start on the "meat" of the work for a few months while your clearance is processed.. But if your skills are good, then they will hire you and put you on a desk in an unclassified area to get yourself up to speed on as much of the program as is unclassified. I know a lot of people who have done exactly that. You do not have to be ex-military to get a clearance.
they're aiming to train only 250 "cyberexperts" a year by 2011? And this after all the "reports" about russia and china bullying the entire world,
Those "reports" are their primary means of funding these departments. Apparently the PR/FUD hasn't been working so much, probably because the nation's had bigger things on its collective mind for the last year or two.
companies need to come up with business models that don't rely on scarcity of non-scarce commodities.
How is bandwidth and server capacity non-scarce?
They aren't.
Stardock relied on scarcity of the game software to limit consumption of bandwidth and server capacity.
Except the game wasn't scarce, so it didn't work out so well.
Thanks for being the straight man. Don't give up your day job for snarking.