I know a better way. Let's deal away with stupid 18th century laws, like the copyright one. We had grown out of that "noble" thing too, let's grow out of this too, in the information age.
"Among its efforts, the government has worked to shield private U.S. companies from demands by the United Nations and other countries for multilateral control of the Net."
Says who, and why?
It seems to me that a multilateral (global) control of the dns servers could only be a good thing for global companies.
Yes, you got my point. But don't be so cocky to assume that if the USA gradually goes down, the rest of the world would just go with it and wouldn't find another currency or economical distribution.
"If countries like China were to just stop buying your government debt (let alone trying to get rid of it) then you won't even be able to pay for your mighty military."
Exactly, remember kids that the total amount of your currency in the global economy is owned by foreigners in 2/3 part. Without that kind of support, your economy simply would just collapse.
Maybe they are just trying to avoid that fragmentation because
a.) It would hurt both sides
b.) They (the UN) has the RIGHT to control those dns servers in the first place NOT the USA?
(Don't give me all the crap about the USA built the internet, no you didn't. You didn't lay the cables, at max you came up with a few protocols and a network card. Also, no it's not a big investment to maintain the DNS servers in the first place, so you're not "paying" for it either, because well, even the Vatican could manage that kind of monetary support to run those dns servers, and they are a _very_ small country. It is more of an authority thing than money thing.)
In a related comparison, we should execute car owners parking in the wrong, because we all know, that the girl did some extraordinary thing noone ever does, and created a HUUUUGE loss for RIAA.
"...but you can't sit here and tell me that their desire to have people pay for their music is wrong."
Of course i can tell you that! The copyright legislation raises the unnatural expectation, that people should pay for the RIGHT to copy binary bits which can be interpreted as something similar to the original recording, which was taken in a studio.
Since copyright law does more harm than good towards the goal of the copyright law, therefor i conclude that it is WRONG to uphold this system.
On the other hand, paying for the physical disk which has binary bits on it, or paying for the hosting of those binary bits on a server, so you can download it from there, is perfectly alright.
The problem is more serious than your post would suggest it. No, RIAA's business model is not flawed. What is flawed, is the copyright law, from which RIAA's business model originates and that the copyright law does not live up to the expectations it was created for, and RIAA just contributes to push the copyright law into less and less fulfilling its original meaning. Another thing is flawed: the law does not match up to the physical reality of the world closely enough, namely: digital bits. It was a fact in the 1950s, today it became an undeniable sign showing why copyright does not work.
So yes, i got every right to say that they are wrong for asking money for the distribution of music.
The problem is that this approach does not always work. It works for Mozilla because the community is conscious about security over there, but if you look at the endless list of cases when a vulnerability researcher reported a flaw to Microsoft only to have the issue swept under the rug for a half year, then the immediate full public disclosure is the only method which works when dealing with that kind of company.
I wholeheartedly agree. If they could see further from one inch they would see they don't own anything related to the internet, except what is physically in their country. All that shit about owning and inventing the internet is pissing me off because its just simply the same "america is the bestest freest countri" idiocism.
Maybe africans should demand ownership of all fire related inventions, or europians for pretty much invented before 1773. Now they wouldn't like that, would they?
"The US created, built, and financed the internet structure."
That's just simply not true. In pretty much the last 20 years it has been an international cooperation.
"Why shouldn't they have control over it?"
Because inventing something is not equal of ownership.
"Do you not realize what a catastrophe it would be trying to transfer all of this over to UN control?"
It can't be worse than what's the USA is doing.
"Stop your US-hating for a moment and actually use your brain and think. UN control would be a nightmare."
I don't hate the USA, i hate your incompetent leaders and some of your ignorant citizens who piss me off by being ignorant. UN control would be no worse than the USA's control. Stop your artificially inflated UN hatred for a second and think.
", but in the only country founded on individual rights."
Emphasys mine.
If you believe that bullshit ideologic and ignorant statement, then i guess maybe you should have learnt history and looked around in the world. Shame that the USA still thinks its the "best est democracie" in the world while they are violating human rights on a daily basis.
'One proposal that countries have been discussing would wrest control of domain names from the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly under the United Nations.
Gross dismissed it as unacceptable.
"We've been very, very clear throughout the process that there are certain things we can agree to and certain things we can't agree to," Gross told reporters at U.N. offices in Geneva. "It's not a negotiating issue. This is a matter of national policy."'
The question is, why?
"Some negotiators from other countries said there was a growing sense that a compromise had to be reached and that no single country ought to be the ultimate authority over such a vital part of the global economy."
Could someone tell me why are they wrong? And if they are not wrong, what is this US opposition? If the USA doesn't like living in a world where there are multiple countries to deal with, they can just close their borders and shut down their trade. Noone will miss them.
It seems to me the US is playing "i don't want to do this and i won't tell why not". Those dealings are the most suspicious to me, as they are not only arrogant, but they cannot be sustained for a long time.
The Internet is of a growing importance, it shouldn't be held hostage by one single country just as no single country should have total control of anything which is used globally. I guess the EU thinks so too, because they set up their own GPS system. If the USA's position won't change, i guess people can just ignore the states and set up an alternative dns servers/architecture.
What separates a dictatorship from a democracy (amongst other things)?
In a dictatorship, 1 innocent person is sent into jail with 9 guilty ones, in a democracy, 9 guilty ones are let go to not send 1 innocent into jail with them.
I think we can use the same kind of logic on rights and their effect too. Are you living in a dictatorship/nation not respecting your freedoms when a couple hundred million innocent person's rights are curbed, to catch a few hundred or thousand guilty ones?
The idea of criminalizing the masses to catch a few real criminals sounds utterly stupid to me.
"It clearly doesn't. While American judges typically attend undergraduate school, law school, and practice as attorneys or are at least involved in the legal system for some kind of tenure before being appointed to courts, judges in many other nations often have far less legal expertise. The standards of American legal knowledge inherent in our court system are not shared worldwide. A handful of nations have judges who are far more knowledgable, but on balance, the nations in question tend to have a relatively large number of people in positions of legal authority whose primary qualification is being related to or owed favor by the right people in power. That does happen in the 'States too, but usually those people have some case for being qualified on their own merits.
For the record, law school trains you very, very little to actually be an attorney, and not at all to be a judge. Lawyering skills are almost entirely acquired on the job. When attorneys and judges "grow up" professional in a corrupt legal system, all the training in the world isn't going to convince them to enforce law consistantly. "
Do you have ANYTHING to back this up apart from your gut feeling? While you could certainly mention quite a lot of nations whom quite possibly have worse laws in some ways than the USA, let me raise two objections:
1. The laws and the system of law is different in a lot of countries than in the USA. DIFFERENT, not worse. I would think it is highly probable, that a judge knows his/her country's laws better than 99% of judges from an another country.
2. The Northern European democracies also belong into the many other countries, and i would think that being the most stable democracies in the world, if anybody, they could lecture about what it means to practice law.
"By international standards, American courts are a model of principle and fairness, as amazing as that may seem."
Forgive me my gut feeling, but i somehow very much doubt that in the light of recent court decisions in the USA like when some judges said it's OK for the government to detain people for crimes which didn't stand up to a trial for an indefinate amount of time.
Slashdot Mirror
I know a better way. Let's deal away with stupid 18th century laws, like the copyright one. We had grown out of that "noble" thing too, let's grow out of this too, in the information age.
The "these rights and freedoms" part refers to the previous two paragraphs, not to the whole declaration, but please do continue your rant...
Why is parent modded as flamebait? Those were my first thoughts aswell.
Damn, why does Microsoft always have to be that exception!
"Among its efforts, the government has worked to shield private U.S. companies from demands by the United Nations and other countries for multilateral control of the Net."
Says who, and why?
It seems to me that a multilateral (global) control of the dns servers could only be a good thing for global companies.
Yes, you got my point. But don't be so cocky to assume that if the USA gradually goes down, the rest of the world would just go with it and wouldn't find another currency or economical distribution.
By the spirit of the UN, being the only true political organization on this planet?
"If countries like China were to just stop buying your government debt (let alone trying to get rid of it) then you won't even be able to pay for your mighty military."
Exactly, remember kids that the total amount of your currency in the global economy is owned by foreigners in 2/3 part. Without that kind of support, your economy simply would just collapse.
Maybe they are just trying to avoid that fragmentation because
a.) It would hurt both sides
b.) They (the UN) has the RIGHT to control those dns servers in the first place NOT the USA?
(Don't give me all the crap about the USA built the internet, no you didn't. You didn't lay the cables, at max you came up with a few protocols and a network card. Also, no it's not a big investment to maintain the DNS servers in the first place, so you're not "paying" for it either, because well, even the Vatican could manage that kind of monetary support to run those dns servers, and they are a _very_ small country. It is more of an authority thing than money thing.)
You're absolutely right.
In a related comparison, we should execute car owners parking in the wrong, because we all know, that the girl did some extraordinary thing noone ever does, and created a HUUUUGE loss for RIAA.
"...but you can't sit here and tell me that their desire to have people pay for their music is wrong."
Of course i can tell you that! The copyright legislation raises the unnatural expectation, that people should pay for the RIGHT to copy binary bits which can be interpreted as something similar to the original recording, which was taken in a studio.
Since copyright law does more harm than good towards the goal of the copyright law, therefor i conclude that it is WRONG to uphold this system.
On the other hand, paying for the physical disk which has binary bits on it, or paying for the hosting of those binary bits on a server, so you can download it from there, is perfectly alright.
The problem is more serious than your post would suggest it. No, RIAA's business model is not flawed. What is flawed, is the copyright law, from which RIAA's business model originates and that the copyright law does not live up to the expectations it was created for, and RIAA just contributes to push the copyright law into less and less fulfilling its original meaning. Another thing is flawed: the law does not match up to the physical reality of the world closely enough, namely: digital bits. It was a fact in the 1950s, today it became an undeniable sign showing why copyright does not work.
So yes, i got every right to say that they are wrong for asking money for the distribution of music.
HVB Bank, cd disk, sms message, CMS system.
It's horrible...
"Remember how Japan 'perfected' the manufacturing process in the 70's and 80's? How'd that turn out? Why didn't they put us out of business?"
Well, you're dead on. They DID. Look at the car manufacturing and the electronics industry. Detroit, anyone?
You mean when Zonk actually recognizes a dupe, but still posts it, even with a link to the original story? Yeah...
The problem is that this approach does not always work. It works for Mozilla because the community is conscious about security over there, but if you look at the endless list of cases when a vulnerability researcher reported a flaw to Microsoft only to have the issue swept under the rug for a half year, then the immediate full public disclosure is the only method which works when dealing with that kind of company.
I wholeheartedly agree. If they could see further from one inch they would see they don't own anything related to the internet, except what is physically in their country. All that shit about owning and inventing the internet is pissing me off because its just simply the same "america is the bestest freest countri" idiocism.
Maybe africans should demand ownership of all fire related inventions, or europians for pretty much invented before 1773. Now they wouldn't like that, would they?
"The US created, built, and financed the internet structure."
That's just simply not true. In pretty much the last 20 years it has been an international cooperation.
"Why shouldn't they have control over it?"
Because inventing something is not equal of ownership.
"Do you not realize what a catastrophe it would be trying to transfer all of this over to UN control?"
It can't be worse than what's the USA is doing.
"Stop your US-hating for a moment and actually use your brain and think. UN control would be a nightmare."
I don't hate the USA, i hate your incompetent leaders and some of your ignorant citizens who piss me off by being ignorant. UN control would be no worse than the USA's control. Stop your artificially inflated UN hatred for a second and think.
", but in the only country founded on individual rights."
Emphasys mine.
If you believe that bullshit ideologic and ignorant statement, then i guess maybe you should have learnt history and looked around in the world. Shame that the USA still thinks its the "best est democracie" in the world while they are violating human rights on a daily basis.
'One proposal that countries have been discussing would wrest control of domain names from the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly under the United Nations.
Gross dismissed it as unacceptable.
"We've been very, very clear throughout the process that there are certain things we can agree to and certain things we can't agree to," Gross told reporters at U.N. offices in Geneva. "It's not a negotiating issue. This is a matter of national policy."'
The question is, why?
"Some negotiators from other countries said there was a growing sense that a compromise had to be reached and that no single country ought to be the ultimate authority over such a vital part of the global economy."
Could someone tell me why are they wrong? And if they are not wrong, what is this US opposition? If the USA doesn't like living in a world where there are multiple countries to deal with, they can just close their borders and shut down their trade. Noone will miss them.
It seems to me the US is playing "i don't want to do this and i won't tell why not". Those dealings are the most suspicious to me, as they are not only arrogant, but they cannot be sustained for a long time.
The Internet is of a growing importance, it shouldn't be held hostage by one single country just as no single country should have total control of anything which is used globally. I guess the EU thinks so too, because they set up their own GPS system. If the USA's position won't change, i guess people can just ignore the states and set up an alternative dns servers/architecture.
Empty set (0.0003 sec)
What separates a dictatorship from a democracy (amongst other things)?
In a dictatorship, 1 innocent person is sent into jail with 9 guilty ones, in a democracy, 9 guilty ones are let go to not send 1 innocent into jail with them.
I think we can use the same kind of logic on rights and their effect too. Are you living in a dictatorship/nation not respecting your freedoms when a couple hundred million innocent person's rights are curbed, to catch a few hundred or thousand guilty ones?
The idea of criminalizing the masses to catch a few real criminals sounds utterly stupid to me.
I can't tell what he thinks of that movie, but i liked it quite much personally, ty.
30 years later...
Welcome to Gattaca.
Everyone knows that those roman^H^H^H^H^Harabian terrorists ended the great aztec nation!
"It clearly doesn't. While American judges typically attend undergraduate school, law school, and practice as attorneys or are at least involved in the legal system for some kind of tenure before being appointed to courts, judges in many other nations often have far less legal expertise. The standards of American legal knowledge inherent in our court system are not shared worldwide. A handful of nations have judges who are far more knowledgable, but on balance, the nations in question tend to have a relatively large number of people in positions of legal authority whose primary qualification is being related to or owed favor by the right people in power. That does happen in the 'States too, but usually those people have some case for being qualified on their own merits.
For the record, law school trains you very, very little to actually be an attorney, and not at all to be a judge. Lawyering skills are almost entirely acquired on the job. When attorneys and judges "grow up" professional in a corrupt legal system, all the training in the world isn't going to convince them to enforce law consistantly. "
Do you have ANYTHING to back this up apart from your gut feeling? While you could certainly mention quite a lot of nations whom quite possibly have worse laws in some ways than the USA, let me raise two objections:
1. The laws and the system of law is different in a lot of countries than in the USA. DIFFERENT, not worse. I would think it is highly probable, that a judge knows his/her country's laws better than 99% of judges from an another country.
2. The Northern European democracies also belong into the many other countries, and i would think that being the most stable democracies in the world, if anybody, they could lecture about what it means to practice law.
"By international standards, American courts are a model of principle and fairness, as amazing as that may seem."
Forgive me my gut feeling, but i somehow very much doubt that in the light of recent court decisions in the USA like when some judges said it's OK for the government to detain people for crimes which didn't stand up to a trial for an indefinate amount of time.