the media industry has historically fought against even the existance of blank recording media and recorders
that must by why my pc-using friend can burn cd's on his sony vaio using Sony blank CD-R's... Sony Computer must have won a bloody battle against Sony BMG.
seriously though, i dont really care what kind of rhetoric they spew forth, they're making a profit off the copying of physical media. Sister divisions make and sell the drives and a decent amount of the blank media, and they get a cut of the proceeds from the rest.
Garth Brooks did indeed put on spree of whineyness a while ago. Seemed to have worked out pretty well for him, since he totally won... oh wait. And when one RTFA'd that recent story, it became clear that the laws being proposed merely placed buyers-back of used records under the same provisions as pawn shops. All goods had to be held for 30 days as a precaution against the sale of stolen goods. Which, given the amount of theft of physical-media music, seems moderately logical.
The attack on used media isnt going to come from the front, i.e. Garth Brooks whining about royalties he doesnt deserve, but from the growing move that the **AA seems to be attempting to recast media as a service rather than a product. If they simply stop 'selling' movies and records, and start streaming everything and charging per viewing/listening, then used media sales/ownership will just kindof evaporate, won't it?
Buzz, Singstar, Guitar Hero and Eye Toy are all products on the PS2 for the casual gamer and they sell really well. What Sony/Microsoft lack are mini games, to think they won't see that they need is to expand their casual game base of course they don't know that (*cough* XboX360 has Guitar Hero *cough* Singstar downloads for PS3 *cough.)
I think the point about the "M$/Sony not getting the casual gamer market" is that, well, they dont.
Though the games you mentioned, particularly Guitar Hero, are highly accessible to to the non-gamer, they require the purchase of a system, *and* a further purchase of the required equipment.
The only people I know who have Guitar Hero, for example, are hardcore gamers. True, everybody plays it. But they dont *own* it.
Friends of mine who own wii's are people who have never purchased a console before, or not since getting a NES as a kid. Because you buy the wii, and the casual gaming experience comes with.
Just my experience, granted of course.
You are right about the mini-game aspect tho. Lot more fun to sit around and play hours of warioware/sports than it is to play an equal amount of time at teh Guitar Hero, no matter how fun it is, even in groups, it lacks the variety of the Wii.
for now, as you say.
So, no, government doesn't enfranchise everyone equality. More than any other institution, the government works for the sole benifit of the rich and powerful
Bah.
I may not have the lobbying power of the millionaire Fat Cat, but I, by virtue of citizenship have rights and powers of enfranchisement not granted me by any of the corporations with which I do business, nor by any of the corporations of which i am partial (a very small part, but a part nonetheless) owner.
While Mr. Fat Cat may have unequal access to our MP, he has disproportionately more unequal access to economic power.
I'll go one step further and say what needs to be said here.
Fuck Jericho.
Interesting premise? yes
Interesting execution? Not from the first fucking episode.
Friends of mine were obsessed with Jericho, but jesus, Jericho's writers couldnt write drama for shit. Not even deaf meghan could save it for me, and she's fucking awesome.
'OMG, the world is coming to an end! but wait, you know what's even more interesting? bland interpersonal drama and bullshit quasi-moralistic plotlines and the melodramitcist of all melodramatic skeet ulrich performances!'
Dont care... dont care... *DONT* *CARE*
Fuck Jericho. With so much *decent* television on, its no wonder that CBS decided to pull a fox and replace a lackluster, if rabidly followed and obsessed over by its 3 fans, serial drama with a REALITY SHOW ABOUT CHILDREN BEING LEFT TO RUN A TOWN BY THEMSELVES. Yes, Jericho got replaced with Lord of The Flies 2: Electric Booglaloo: Lord of The Flies Reality TV.
Yes, this is flamebait. Yes, I'm an asshole. But, No, I'm not wrong. Fuck Jericho.
sound like a case of 'nerd who holds a knife like a spaz'
More like 'nerd who holds computer hardware like a spaz.'
anyone who holds a 10" piece of sharpened german steel like a spaz will quickly lose digits.
never occured to me that a hunk of plastic would slice instead of scrape, given the angles.
man, me too! fucking harddrive packaging was being a smarmy little bitch, doing the 'going cloudy-white but not cuting' thing. jabbed it with a kitchen knife, and ripped like a piece of paper. sliced right thumb knuckle near off. bled for hours too.
This is one of the reasons why I changed my mind on the Danish cartoons that enraged the muslim world so much.
Fear cannot be allowed to dictate what we say or teach.
Totally. If you're not ok with parody or even blatant disrespect of what you hold important or sacred, you're only a couple steps from burning people at the stake for heresy.
If your beliefs cant stand up to parody, how strong can your belief really be?
There's a bunch of asshats in this country, at both extremes of the left-right spectrum, who think that Tolerance = Acceptance (on the left, because it should all be a big hippie love-fest, and on the right because they still want to be as xenophobic as they can). But it doesnt. Tolerance means being tolerant. I.e. 'You're entitled to your beliefs, but you're a fucking ignorant asshat. Read a fucking book and stop fucking up our country' it technically a tolerant thing to say. "You're a fucking ignorant asshat, read The Book and stop fucking our country up, or you're going to hell because you disagree with me" is not a tolerant statement. "I disagree with your beliefs, but in the grand scheme of things all our beliefs have value, and i encourage your differences to wax free of restraint." is a statement of acceptance. the middle statement has no place whatsoever in an egalitarian society. The latter is appropriate where the beliefs in question dont affect anyone else but the belief-holder. The former is for when they do.
I dont believe in God, but my friend who does isnt fucking with my chi. The asshats who do believe in God and want to structure the laws of the land around their beliefs in god are fucking with my chi, and therefore are not deserving of acceptance, but tolerance. there's a big fucking difference.
We're not talking about the leaking of sealed documents. That would be a crime. We're talking about the increased visibility of what was already public information. Just because you dont want to do something you're legally bound to do doesnt give you the right to go storing public documents in the basement in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign over it saying "beware of the leopard." Should undercover agents be exposed, prob not. But its not like these people's arrest records werent already publicly accessible. They were, and they were for good reason. If an employer has a right to know that you've been convicted of something, then your friends do too.
Considering that at least some large portion of that Russian-speaking percentage of the population represents Russians brought in to fill the empty houses of Estonians shipped off to the gulags never to return, I'd say its rather understandable that official Gov. policy on the subject is, 'citizenship is contingent on moderate cultural integration.'
Also, not really sure why it matters what Russia thinks of Estonia's government. At the very best that's a pot/kettle situation, but more likely its just blatant bullshit spun from a former world power grasping for some of its lost glory by bossing its former-subject neighbors.
"PPS: How till this prevent suicide bombers, etc.?"
Homicide bombers, please. When you dont use the Bush-approved propaganda buzzwords, the terrorists win. And God kills kittens. Thousands of kittens each time. Think of the kittens.
Here's something you'd *never* hear in an U.S. court. "Ah... yeah, i still got nothin"
Bravo, Judge Limey. now go read up so you can justifiably preside over such a case.
Seriously, how many judges presiding over tech-related cases right now actually understand what's going on? If he's in-touch enough with what he's supposed to be doing to say this and not just hand out rulings like the asshats in this country, at least there's hope for one english-speaking judicial system.
I'm gonna go ahead and call shenannigans on that one.
What made you a very good goldeneye player was exactly the ability to aim and move at the same time. if you dont believe me, you can challenge my college roommate to a game of pistols in the level of your choosing. we banned him because he was too good at aiming and moving. It was just that movement was analog and aiming digital, instead of vice-versa in pc gaming (unless there's bizarre analog ASDW keys out there I've not been exposed to)
Goldeneye was a great game, if you couldnt deal with the controlls, well, you missed out.
"That's actually backwards. If the Executive finds a law unconstitutional, he can simply ignore it unless there's a court ruling. He needn't sue. He doesn't need the courts' powers, he has his own"
This is clearly our major point of disagreement. Unconstitutionality of a law passed is one of many reasons for the president to veto a bill. I would argue that failing to veto a bill, or contest a law that he finds unconstitutional and simply ignoring it, is itself an unconstitutional act. One of the constitutional duties, as I pointed out earlier, assigned the president is faithfully executing the law. Simply ignoring the law fails both faithfulness and execution, and would therefore be in breach. The law is the law, and while it is up to the president to set policy that drives government action, he must act within the law.
And no, he doesnt have to ask permission. He has to enforce the laws. It seems as simple as that, but clearly you disagree, so whatever.
"He's welcome to his judgment on that" I didnt meant to say you were implying otherwise, but rather that you clearly knew what he was getting at, and were being a bit smarmy.
"I could offer some arguments, but it would take some effort. Why should I put forth the effort if he won't?" Um, for the sake of bettering the group's understanding? why else to we have the discussion section? It was apparently worth it to you reply in the first place, why not worth it do do a decent job of it?
""No it isn't" is a perfectly adequate retort to "yes it is". They are of equal substance" *highfive* that is indeed the case. But I wasnt replying to him, I was replying to you. And "I was reciprocally replying to statement of little substance is a weaksauce excuse for yourself putting forth little of substance.
"Here's a substantive argument: Warrantless searches were legal in the Aldrich Ames case." Here's a substantive reply: that link is drastically misleading. The article in question merely points out that Clinton, while making a similar argument to W still managed to operate within the confines of FISA. I personally find FISA's protections a little bit weak, but its the Law. And that is what is at issue here, as you have pointed out, not our opinions about what should or shouldnt be the case. FISA is the law and W doestn get to not abide by/execute it simply because he thinks otherwise. If he believes it to be an unconstitutional breach of executive power, he is, I'm sure, perfectly welcome to bring suit, and have the matter adjudicated, but he is not the arbiter of constutionality, the Court is.
"(Clearly I'm winning the argument now. If only everyone had access to a search engine, they could make substantive arguments too. I'm sure everyone is convinced and has changed their mind. What a fruitful discussion this is. Let's continue until agreement reaches 100%.)" Well, if you've decided this process is so worthless, why do you participate? Seems kinda stupid. But go ahead and have fun with that.
I believe what he's getting at is that you're full of it. You've taken a position that you seem unwilling to defend, except to say that your detractor's arguments are not arguments, but mere opinions. And that's bullshit rhetoric.
You say that the seperation of powers argument is pretty clear. I agree. The constitution in no way grants the president the powers of warrantless search and seizure that W has made policy. Congress has made laws saying he cant do so. End of story. This law does not relate to foreign policy, either broadly, or in the specificity of carrying out the "war" on terrorism. This is about the Domestic conduct of Federal Agencies against american citizens. Bush saying that he's a Wartime President doesnt give him a declaration of war and the loosening of constitutional restrictions on executive power that such a declaration entails.
except that if his clarification is 'I'm not doing this,' then he is explicitly violationg the constitutional imperative that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". He can veto the law. Or he can faithfully implement it. while saying "I'm not doing this" may be a clarification of policy, that policy is unconstitutional. And on top of that, its total bullshit.
"The Legislative branch doesn't have the authority to take Executive powers away whenever it wants to. The Executive branch either has a power under the Constitution or it doesn't. The Congress doesn't have the authority to take away Executive powers it didn't grant in the first place."
"the practice of" and "the power to" are two enTIREly different beasts. FISA was making explicit that Calling 'National Security' was not an acceptable move in the space where powers were not explicitly granted. W thinks that the president's role as Commander-in-Chief, with which congress may not interfere, should take up all areas of policy. But that's bullshit.
If you'd like to point out the section of the Constitution that grants the President the power to say "National Security concerns mean I can ignore whatever law I want," then perhaps I'll retract this, but otherwise, the only one acting unconstitutionally is W.
he could, in fact that would be even better than a veto for publicizing it. Signing statements are such bullshit. If he did that, you can bet the dems would have a field day with it. Signing statements being really the one instance of partisan political bullshit that Republican presidents are staggeringly more guilty of than democrats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement Clinton certain had a fair number of them, but half as many as George I, and in twice the time... and 1/6 the number of George II.
Do we actually think that Verizon has anything but commercial interests in mind here? not that that makes it commercial speech, but its not like they actually give a fuck about free speech. They want to avoid having to explain at a shareholders' meeting why the Govt is taking millions of their hard earned profit monies away just because some of the customers have a problem with their telecom rolling over like a little bitch and divulging what they thought was private information.
I dont have any call info I'd be concerned to make public, but that doesnt mean i want sprint (my provider) just volunteering *any* bit of info not already in the public domain.
This isnt about speech, its about search and seizure. I'm sure the NSA would have an issue if one of its officers started reading classified records to a reporter at the Times and then said, "what? freedom of speech!"
I hear what you're saying, but parent has a point that you dont seem to be addressing. Seems that the two camps on this issue arent really discussing the same thing.
Inherent in supporting GPL is a conceptual acceptance of the act of creation giving the creator certain rights over the created, be it software, music, or whatever.
At the same time, there certainly is something to be said for using the system's own mechanism against itself till it can be overcome, or whatever.
I'm gonna come down on the side of the first camp however. It certainly would be nice if we lived in a happy land of makevelieve where we could exist without people having to legally enforce what happens with their creations. We dont, however, live in that happy land. We live in a land filled with greedy, corporate bastards who, by their very existence necessitate something like GPL, if only to give authors and whatnot the ability to delineate the very openness of their creations. Because without Copyright, any open source gems that were created would be stolen by someone less interested in progress than in making money off other people's toil. You know, capitalists. And they'd have a much easier job if they didnt have legal obstacles in their way.
Copyright needs a major overhaul, clearly. But i think Opposing Copyright, in those stark terms, is a bit of a baby with the bathwater situation. well, just like saying Yay, Copyright! is just the opposite... if that particular truism has an opposite.
Slashdot Mirror
that must by why my pc-using friend can burn cd's on his sony vaio using Sony blank CD-R's... Sony Computer must have won a bloody battle against Sony BMG.
seriously though, i dont really care what kind of rhetoric they spew forth, they're making a profit off the copying of physical media. Sister divisions make and sell the drives and a decent amount of the blank media, and they get a cut of the proceeds from the rest.
Garth Brooks did indeed put on spree of whineyness a while ago. Seemed to have worked out pretty well for him, since he totally won... oh wait. And when one RTFA'd that recent story, it became clear that the laws being proposed merely placed buyers-back of used records under the same provisions as pawn shops. All goods had to be held for 30 days as a precaution against the sale of stolen goods. Which, given the amount of theft of physical-media music, seems moderately logical.
The attack on used media isnt going to come from the front, i.e. Garth Brooks whining about royalties he doesnt deserve, but from the growing move that the **AA seems to be attempting to recast media as a service rather than a product. If they simply stop 'selling' movies and records, and start streaming everything and charging per viewing/listening, then used media sales/ownership will just kindof evaporate, won't it?
I'll go one step further and say what needs to be said here.
Fuck Jericho.
Interesting premise?
yes
Interesting execution?
Not from the first fucking episode.
Friends of mine were obsessed with Jericho, but jesus, Jericho's writers couldnt write drama for shit.
Not even deaf meghan could save it for me, and she's fucking awesome.
'OMG, the world is coming to an end! but wait, you know what's even more interesting? bland interpersonal drama and bullshit quasi-moralistic plotlines and the melodramitcist of all melodramatic skeet ulrich performances!'
Dont care... dont care... *DONT* *CARE*
Fuck Jericho. With so much *decent* television on, its no wonder that CBS decided to pull a fox and replace a lackluster, if rabidly followed and obsessed over by its 3 fans, serial drama with a REALITY SHOW ABOUT CHILDREN BEING LEFT TO RUN A TOWN BY THEMSELVES. Yes, Jericho got replaced with Lord of The Flies 2: Electric Booglaloo: Lord of The Flies Reality TV.
Yes, this is flamebait.
Yes, I'm an asshole.
But,
No, I'm not wrong.
Fuck Jericho.
Shomer-FUCKING-shabbas!
man, me too!
fucking harddrive packaging was being a smarmy little bitch, doing the 'going cloudy-white but not cuting' thing.
jabbed it with a kitchen knife, and ripped like a piece of paper.
sliced right thumb knuckle near off.
bled for hours too.
There's a bunch of asshats in this country, at both extremes of the left-right spectrum, who think that Tolerance = Acceptance (on the left, because it should all be a big hippie love-fest, and on the right because they still want to be as xenophobic as they can).
But it doesnt.
Tolerance means being tolerant. I.e. 'You're entitled to your beliefs, but you're a fucking ignorant asshat. Read a fucking book and stop fucking up our country' it technically a tolerant thing to say.
"You're a fucking ignorant asshat, read The Book and stop fucking our country up, or you're going to hell because you disagree with me" is not a tolerant statement.
"I disagree with your beliefs, but in the grand scheme of things all our beliefs have value, and i encourage your differences to wax free of restraint." is a statement of acceptance.
the middle statement has no place whatsoever in an egalitarian society.
The latter is appropriate where the beliefs in question dont affect anyone else but the belief-holder. The former is for when they do.
I dont believe in God, but my friend who does isnt fucking with my chi. The asshats who do believe in God and want to structure the laws of the land around their beliefs in god are fucking with my chi, and therefore are not deserving of acceptance, but tolerance. there's a big fucking difference.
We're not talking about the leaking of sealed documents. That would be a crime.
We're talking about the increased visibility of what was already public information.
Just because you dont want to do something you're legally bound to do doesnt give you the right to go storing public documents in the basement in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign over it saying "beware of the leopard." Should undercover agents be exposed, prob not. But its not like these people's arrest records werent already publicly accessible. They were, and they were for good reason. If an employer has a right to know that you've been convicted of something, then your friends do too.
Considering that at least some large portion of that Russian-speaking percentage of the population represents Russians brought in to fill the empty houses of Estonians shipped off to the gulags never to return, I'd say its rather understandable that official Gov. policy on the subject is, 'citizenship is contingent on moderate cultural integration.'
Also, not really sure why it matters what Russia thinks of Estonia's government. At the very best that's a pot/kettle situation, but more likely its just blatant bullshit spun from a former world power grasping for some of its lost glory by bossing its former-subject neighbors.
"PPS: How till this prevent suicide bombers, etc.?"
Homicide bombers, please.
When you dont use the Bush-approved propaganda buzzwords, the terrorists win.
And God kills kittens. Thousands of kittens each time.
Think of the kittens.
Great, I can get my hair back, and all i need to do is get scalped first?
SWEET!
where do i sign up?
Here's something you'd *never* hear in an U.S. court.
"Ah... yeah, i still got nothin"
Bravo, Judge Limey.
now go read up so you can justifiably preside over such a case.
Seriously, how many judges presiding over tech-related cases right now actually understand what's going on?
If he's in-touch enough with what he's supposed to be doing to say this and not just hand out rulings like the asshats in this country, at least there's hope for one english-speaking judicial system.
Bah, when copyright is infringed, corporations lose money, and when corporations lose money, the terrorists win!
Why do you hate Freedom so much?
I had this mental image of vast mobile energy harvesting operations spooling up every hurricane season...
way to dash my hopes and dreams, reality
I'm gonna go ahead and call shenannigans on that one.
What made you a very good goldeneye player was exactly the ability to aim and move at the same time.
if you dont believe me, you can challenge my college roommate to a game of pistols in the level of your choosing.
we banned him because he was too good at aiming and moving.
It was just that movement was analog and aiming digital, instead of vice-versa in pc gaming (unless there's bizarre analog ASDW keys out there I've not been exposed to)
Goldeneye was a great game, if you couldnt deal with the controlls, well, you missed out.
"That's actually backwards. If the Executive finds a law unconstitutional, he can simply ignore it unless there's a court ruling. He needn't sue. He doesn't need the courts' powers, he has his own"
This is clearly our major point of disagreement. Unconstitutionality of a law passed is one of many reasons for the president to veto a bill. I would argue that failing to veto a bill, or contest a law that he finds unconstitutional and simply ignoring it, is itself an unconstitutional act. One of the constitutional duties, as I pointed out earlier, assigned the president is faithfully executing the law. Simply ignoring the law fails both faithfulness and execution, and would therefore be in breach. The law is the law, and while it is up to the president to set policy that drives government action, he must act within the law.
And no, he doesnt have to ask permission. He has to enforce the laws. It seems as simple as that, but clearly you disagree, so whatever.
"He's welcome to his judgment on that"
I didnt meant to say you were implying otherwise, but rather that you clearly knew what he was getting at, and were being a bit smarmy.
"I could offer some arguments, but it would take some effort. Why should I put forth the effort if he won't?"
Um, for the sake of bettering the group's understanding? why else to we have the discussion section? It was apparently worth it to you reply in the first place, why not worth it do do a decent job of it?
""No it isn't" is a perfectly adequate retort to "yes it is". They are of equal substance"
*highfive* that is indeed the case. But I wasnt replying to him, I was replying to you. And "I was reciprocally replying to statement of little substance is a weaksauce excuse for yourself putting forth little of substance.
"Here's a substantive argument: Warrantless searches were legal in the Aldrich Ames case."
Here's a substantive reply: that link is drastically misleading. The article in question merely points out that Clinton, while making a similar argument to W still managed to operate within the confines of FISA. I personally find FISA's protections a little bit weak, but its the Law. And that is what is at issue here, as you have pointed out, not our opinions about what should or shouldnt be the case. FISA is the law and W doestn get to not abide by/execute it simply because he thinks otherwise. If he believes it to be an unconstitutional breach of executive power, he is, I'm sure, perfectly welcome to bring suit, and have the matter adjudicated, but he is not the arbiter of constutionality, the Court is.
"(Clearly I'm winning the argument now. If only everyone had access to a search engine, they could make substantive arguments too. I'm sure everyone is convinced and has changed their mind. What a fruitful discussion this is. Let's continue until agreement reaches 100%.)"
Well, if you've decided this process is so worthless, why do you participate? Seems kinda stupid. But go ahead and have fun with that.
I believe what he's getting at is that you're full of it. You've taken a position that you seem unwilling to defend, except to say that your detractor's arguments are not arguments, but mere opinions. And that's bullshit rhetoric.
You say that the seperation of powers argument is pretty clear. I agree. The constitution in no way grants the president the powers of warrantless search and seizure that W has made policy. Congress has made laws saying he cant do so. End of story. This law does not relate to foreign policy, either broadly, or in the specificity of carrying out the "war" on terrorism. This is about the Domestic conduct of Federal Agencies against american citizens. Bush saying that he's a Wartime President doesnt give him a declaration of war and the loosening of constitutional restrictions on executive power that such a declaration entails.
except that if his clarification is 'I'm not doing this,' then he is explicitly violationg the constitutional imperative that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". He can veto the law. Or he can faithfully implement it. while saying "I'm not doing this" may be a clarification of policy, that policy is unconstitutional.
And on top of that, its total bullshit.
"The Legislative branch doesn't have the authority to take Executive powers away whenever it wants to. The Executive branch either has a power under the Constitution or it doesn't. The Congress doesn't have the authority to take away Executive powers it didn't grant in the first place."
"the practice of" and "the power to" are two enTIREly different beasts. FISA was making explicit that Calling 'National Security' was not an acceptable move in the space where powers were not explicitly granted. W thinks that the president's role as Commander-in-Chief, with which congress may not interfere, should take up all areas of policy. But that's bullshit.
If you'd like to point out the section of the Constitution that grants the President the power to say "National Security concerns mean I can ignore whatever law I want," then perhaps I'll retract this, but otherwise, the only one acting unconstitutionally is W.
he could, in fact that would be even better than a veto for publicizing it. Signing statements are such bullshit. If he did that, you can bet the dems would have a field day with it. Signing statements being really the one instance of partisan political bullshit that Republican presidents are staggeringly more guilty of than democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement
Clinton certain had a fair number of them, but half as many as George I, and in twice the time... and 1/6 the number of George II.
Total bullshit all around
well, 2 seasons-worth of episodes. 48 over 3 years instead of 24 a season.
and now they have to buckle down and actually keep shit together.
Do we actually think that Verizon has anything but commercial interests in mind here?
not that that makes it commercial speech, but its not like they actually give a fuck about free speech.
They want to avoid having to explain at a shareholders' meeting why the Govt is taking millions of their hard earned profit monies away just because some of the customers have a problem with their telecom rolling over like a little bitch and divulging what they thought was private information.
I dont have any call info I'd be concerned to make public, but that doesnt mean i want sprint (my provider) just volunteering *any* bit of info not already in the public domain.
This isnt about speech, its about search and seizure. I'm sure the NSA would have an issue if one of its officers started reading classified records to a reporter at the Times and then said, "what? freedom of speech!"
I hear what you're saying, but parent has a point that you dont seem to be addressing.
.02
Seems that the two camps on this issue arent really discussing the same thing.
Inherent in supporting GPL is a conceptual acceptance of the act of creation giving the creator certain rights over the created, be it software, music, or whatever.
At the same time, there certainly is something to be said for using the system's own mechanism against itself till it can be overcome, or whatever.
I'm gonna come down on the side of the first camp however. It certainly would be nice if we lived in a happy land of makevelieve where we could exist without people having to legally enforce what happens with their creations. We dont, however, live in that happy land. We live in a land filled with greedy, corporate bastards who, by their very existence necessitate something like GPL, if only to give authors and whatnot the ability to delineate the very openness of their creations. Because without Copyright, any open source gems that were created would be stolen by someone less interested in progress than in making money off other people's toil. You know, capitalists. And they'd have a much easier job if they didnt have legal obstacles in their way.
Copyright needs a major overhaul, clearly. But i think Opposing Copyright, in those stark terms, is a bit of a baby with the bathwater situation. well, just like saying Yay, Copyright! is just the opposite... if that particular truism has an opposite.
Just my