if you are going to hit back, you want to erase terrorism at the source, by erasing the concept of violent/aggressive forms of politicial protests. Our government isnt doing a good job because we promote aggression when we bomb first.
Aggression is wrong, using violence to get your way is wrong, but the USA cannot stand for whats right when we do it too. We can only end terrorism when we stop creating terrorists.
By now everyone knows there are predator groups. You can try to deny the fact but hey go to this website and see for yourself who runs America --> http://www.theyrule.net/
The country is run by networks. You are in networks, your peer group, your inner circle, your friends and family, the people you do business with, this is your network, each person may be involved with many networks. The corporate world also has networks. Most of the corporate networks at this time are for outsourcing, and corporate networks are basically CEOs who hop from one corporation to another, or upper level management who hop from one job to the next, this mobile management network is the corporate elite network that the above poster talks about. Some CEOs are in control of 4-5 different corporations on all sorts of boards and with connections into politics.
You are right we can't go back, but we can shape and design the future to our benefit.
There are always alternatives to Walmart. If you don't like Walmart, shop at CostCo. If you don't like predators, invest in/shop at/work at responsible businesses. You have the option. There are sites now which index and tell you how responsible and sustainable a business is. You can research and learn who the CEOs are, where they came from, how much they pay workers, you can even learn from workers how those CEOs treat people and what their priorities are. Not all CEOs are out simply to make money, Google is a good example of a corporation which cares about the community. The open source industry is filled with corporations that are community oriented. Starbucks treats its workers well, by supporting these businesses or buying stock in only these businesses you begin to change the power balance.
People were saying what you were saying back in 1999. In 2001 people kept saying it. It's not a matter of people waking up, people PREFER outsourcing.
Look, you choose your CEO, you choose your corporation, you choose your government. If you don't like outsourcing, stop working for corporations which outsource, stop shopping at Walmart, stop supporting corporations that elect politicians you disagree with.
Most people refuse to do this, most people love their Walmart, they love their jobs, and if they have no job then they love their temp agency and their lower wages. If the majority of people do not like these things they'd stop buying from the same corporations who maintain the working environment they claim to hate. You want to stop supporting outsourcing? Buy American products. Work only at companies which hire American labor, and stop supporting and electing politicians which do not support your interests.
Most people here want to be CEO's so bad they don't even consider the fact that they could be the ones with their jobs outsourced. Everyone wants to be a boss.
Look, you choose your CEO, you choose your corporation, you choose your government. If you don't like outsourcing, stop working for corporations which outsource, stop shopping at Walmart, stop supporting corporations that elect politicians you disagree with.
When you support something in your actions but not your words, people arent going to take this seriously. So lets just be honest and say America loves outsourcing because if it didnt then we wouldnt be doing it.
The problem is, most CEOs don't think long term, they think in the short term only. The majority of businesses don't have long term thinking ability, they want to profit right now and get get out of dodge before the business collapses.
The problem is most businesses arent sustainable, most corporations arent operating in a sustainable way, hell the damage we do to our country, our economy, and our enviroment all come second to generating maximum short term profits. Short term profits are more important than long term sustainability.
When we voted, and when we shop, we specifically asked for mandatory overtime, outsourcing, lower pay, and its absolutely silly, if not just plain funny for me to read everyone at slashdot posting and complaining now that its hurting silicon valley. These trends started over 5 years ago, they werent hurting the majority of society so society as a group said "HEY WE WANT CHEAP PRICES! WE WANT OUTSOURCING!" and they continued, as the educated working class thought they'd be immune because they worked in an office in silicon valley, well time went by and soon their turn to face the fire came.
Do I care? Hell no, I lost my job 3 years ago. So learn to survive in the global economy or be homeless, in either situation complaining about something you asked for is just annoying to people who were against outsourcing from the very beginning and who specifically wanted unions and fair trade. If you don't like outsourcing become a CEO or shut up.
We must give up control of the main internet computers. According to the recent news, our government decided to forever keep control over the internet yet we wonder why China hides behind firewalls? Look at this URL and compare it to the anti China URL of this story. This goes both ways, we arent treating the internet any better than China.
Goldman's law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a poster supporting Nazi ideology while hiding behind Godwins Law approaches one.
Keep funding open source, maybe fund some political organizing tools, use its blogging power and internet portal power to help the anti Microsoft forces launch a pro open source anti Microsoft assault. Let's not forget you also have IBM, Apple, Novell, I don't think Microsoft has as much political power as the Linux community. The open source world is the most politically connected group in the industry right now. Most of the political software used by both parties arent being developed by microsoft, and a lot of essential tools such as blogging technology are owned by Google. Why do we even need Microsoft anymore?
Music is a lot like software, if someone patents something in software or in music it makes it more difficult to make good music or good software. The issue is progress of the art, not selling products and profiting. You are thinking about this in the wrong way, you are thinking about music as a business instead of an art.
The only way to learn to create good music is to listen to good music. The only way to learn to code well is to have access to open source code. For educational purposes we NEED free access to information.
I don't believe its unethical to share files over the net. To me no ones being harmed by this so its not unethical, and more people are being helped. I decide my ethics not based on what the law says but based on my own morals. Sharing is morally right in a lot of peoples minds and you cannot change this by simply making the act illegal, nor should you even try to make it illegal, its a lot like the war on drugs, its the kind of thing you can never truly end and its pointless to lock people up for a harmless crime such as this.
I'm not saying I support piracy which is profiting off of this, I'm talking about sharing music. Music has always been shared, through radio and through other means. It's always been like that even if you didnt know it was going on.
Just because you did not do it or did not know about it does not mean people werent doing it. People have been selling movies for years, people have been recording from radio for years. Now I guess because its on the internet its somehow different? Whats the difference? This isnt new.
Wrong is based on your interpretation of the purpose of copyrights existance. Copyright is not actually promoting progress so if you care about the art then copyright infringement is good. Sampling is how a lot of good music is made, and you have to be able to listen to lots of good music to become a talented musician/artist, access to music promotes progress.
Restricting access to music and by putting a price on samples you price out the most talented artists.
I think all information and knowledge is owned by the world. I'm not a closed source patent loving information owning type of individual. I believe information should not be made into a product, you can profit off of your services, you can profit off of the service of actually creating information, you do not ever need to profit off owning information. The information owners are just too lazy to keep generating new ideas so they want to milk the same old ideas all their lives.
I agree that if you create something you should have exclusive rights to SELL and PROFIT from it, however this isnt about profits. Copyright infringement has nothing to do with sales or profits, its not stealing its simply sharing. Look, in a record company does each employee have to buy a license? No, the entire company as a whole buys the copyright and owns the music. Why should corporations own music instead of letting the people have music? Artists will never own their music in either case so this is a matter of which business model is better for the people and I think P2P is better for the long term health of music as an art for the same reasons open source is better for the art of coding.
You can call me a moron, but I don't think music has owners, I don't think information has owners, I support the creative commons.
If you actually made music yourself you'd know that EVERY musician is a pirate. Theres not a single melody on the face of the earth which wasnt inspired by something else. So lets say I'm Bill Gates and I buy every note on a keyboard and I own all the best samples, now you can't make music and you have to pay me money to have the right to make it. You also have to sell me the rights to own your ideas after you make it because I'm also your record company. Finally I get to set the price of your music and tell the fans how much its worth, and then take the majority of the money.
If you think this is fair to the artists or the fans you are out of your mind. I support the creative commons, open source software, and sharing of information. I'm not telling people to go out and steal samples and try to profit off it, but this is how the majority of artists currently make their music.
Look, sampling has to be outlawed if you morally believe copyright infringement is wrong, and once its outlawed many artists will vanish. Also it must be illegal for an artist to sell their ideas, because essentially selling the idea to the record company is no different than selling the idea to a fan who decides to put it on P2P and share it, theres absolutely no difference because in either situation the artist has no control or ownership of their ideas.
Face it, idea ownership is not what music is about, and if you make music to profit then I won't miss you when you leave the industry because you arent a real artist. If you are a real artist you'll be making your best music when you arent making it for profit. So I support the creative commons, and perhaps we need to just boycott all of the companies which do not support creative commons licenses, either way outlawing P2P does not solve the problem morally or legally. The way to solve it morally is through the creative commons.
I create my own music by the way, music is not and never will be a product to me. The fact that music is a product to you and not an art shows me you arent an artist.
What software has ever marketed itself as piratester? I don't remember any software specificially saying its designed to help aid in copyright infrigement except for perhaps freenet.
Except that doing bodily harm is in some circumstances, legal. AFAIK, firearm manufacturers aren't marketing their guns to gangs.
Did you actually think these gangster rappers who talk about guns, sneakers and certain brands of alcohol arent being paid for it? Their job is to market these harmful products to make them cool. Just look at MTV.
Guns have always been marketed to gangs, along with liqour, gambling and prostitution.
Why should the right of the masses be less important than the rights of record company CEOs? The record companies dont make the music they own yet they have the right to sell it, when someone buys it why shouldnt they have the right to share it? or do you believe ideas have owners?
Why is it good for music as an art if a few people own all the notes? This is like owning the color blue, it does not help painters to make paint more expensive. This only helps people who own and sell paint, not the painters or the fans. So I guess you own stock in the RIAA which explains your defense for them, if you were an artist or a fan this ruling is disasterous indeed.
This is corporate welfare, its equal to typewriter companies trying to outlaw the computer industry.
Copyright is no longer about progress in arts and science or even promoting progress. It's about maintaining dying business models and streghtening monopolies. I don't see how this ruling is even constitutional but I'm not a supreme court Judge.
Face it, corporate welfare is more important than progress.
Why should record companies or any corporation recieve welfare from the government to protect its "right" to profit? A corporation has a right to wealth but a person does not? Who decides these laws?
So now corporations have guarenteed income, while people have to struggle to survive. Are we corporations or are we people?
You cannot just expect your product to sell itself. This is the problem with the music industry, instead of selling the peer to peer network and access to the music itself, they want to try to sell the license to listen to the music. Selling access is how ISPs profit, if we had to pay $5 a day to visit Slashdot how many of us would be posting here?
Slashdot Mirror
if you are going to hit back, you want to erase terrorism at the source, by erasing the concept of violent/aggressive forms of politicial protests. Our government isnt doing a good job because we promote aggression when we bomb first.
Aggression is wrong, using violence to get your way is wrong, but the USA cannot stand for whats right when we do it too. We can only end terrorism when we stop creating terrorists.
It shouldnt go away. Go on the offensive, change the banner to actually lobby parlaiment to promote open source.
You think working 80 hours a week is a good thing. The CEO does not work 80 hours a week so why should you?
By now everyone knows there are predator groups. You can try to deny the fact but hey go to this website and see for yourself who runs America --> http://www.theyrule.net/
The country is run by networks. You are in networks, your peer group, your inner circle, your friends and family, the people you do business with, this is your network, each person may be involved with many networks. The corporate world also has networks. Most of the corporate networks at this time are for outsourcing, and corporate networks are basically CEOs who hop from one corporation to another, or upper level management who hop from one job to the next, this mobile management network is the corporate elite network that the above poster talks about. Some CEOs are in control of 4-5 different corporations on all sorts of boards and with connections into politics.
You are right we can't go back, but we can shape and design the future to our benefit.
There are always alternatives to Walmart. If you don't like Walmart, shop at CostCo. If you don't like predators, invest in/shop at/work at responsible businesses. You have the option. There are sites now which index and tell you how responsible and sustainable a business is. You can research and learn who the CEOs are, where they came from, how much they pay workers, you can even learn from workers how those CEOs treat people and what their priorities are. Not all CEOs are out simply to make money, Google is a good example of a corporation which cares about the community. The open source industry is filled with corporations that are community oriented. Starbucks treats its workers well, by supporting these businesses or buying stock in only these businesses you begin to change the power balance.
People were saying what you were saying back in 1999. In 2001 people kept saying it. It's not a matter of people waking up, people PREFER outsourcing.
Look, you choose your CEO, you choose your corporation, you choose your government. If you don't like outsourcing, stop working for corporations which outsource, stop shopping at Walmart, stop supporting corporations that elect politicians you disagree with.
Most people refuse to do this, most people love their Walmart, they love their jobs, and if they have no job then they love their temp agency and their lower wages. If the majority of people do not like these things they'd stop buying from the same corporations who maintain the working environment they claim to hate. You want to stop supporting outsourcing? Buy American products. Work only at companies which hire American labor, and stop supporting and electing politicians which do not support your interests.
Most people here want to be CEO's so bad they don't even consider the fact that they could be the ones with their jobs outsourced. Everyone wants to be a boss.
Look, you choose your CEO, you choose your corporation, you choose your government. If you don't like outsourcing, stop working for corporations which outsource, stop shopping at Walmart, stop supporting corporations that elect politicians you disagree with.
When you support something in your actions but not your words, people arent going to take this seriously. So lets just be honest and say America loves outsourcing because if it didnt then we wouldnt be doing it.
The problem is, most CEOs don't think long term, they think in the short term only. The majority of businesses don't have long term thinking ability, they want to profit right now and get get out of dodge before the business collapses.
The problem is most businesses arent sustainable, most corporations arent operating in a sustainable way, hell the damage we do to our country, our economy, and our enviroment all come second to generating maximum short term profits. Short term profits are more important than long term sustainability.
When we voted, and when we shop, we specifically asked for mandatory overtime, outsourcing, lower pay, and its absolutely silly, if not just plain funny for me to read everyone at slashdot posting and complaining now that its hurting silicon valley. These trends started over 5 years ago, they werent hurting the majority of society so society as a group said "HEY WE WANT CHEAP PRICES! WE WANT OUTSOURCING!" and they continued, as the educated working class thought they'd be immune because they worked in an office in silicon valley, well time went by and soon their turn to face the fire came.
Do I care? Hell no, I lost my job 3 years ago. So learn to survive in the global economy or be homeless, in either situation complaining about something you asked for is just annoying to people who were against outsourcing from the very beginning and who specifically wanted unions and fair trade. If you don't like outsourcing become a CEO or shut up.
We must give up control of the main internet computers. According to the recent news, our government decided to forever keep control over the internet yet we wonder why China hides behind firewalls?
n et.control.ap/index.html
Look at this URL and compare it to the anti China URL of this story. This goes both ways, we arent treating the internet any better than China.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/06/30/inter
Goldman's law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a poster supporting Nazi ideology while hiding behind Godwins Law approaches one.
Keep funding open source, maybe fund some political organizing tools, use its blogging power and internet portal power to help the anti Microsoft forces launch a pro open source anti Microsoft assault. Let's not forget you also have IBM, Apple, Novell, I don't think Microsoft has as much political power as the Linux community. The open source world is the most politically connected group in the industry right now. Most of the political software used by both parties arent being developed by microsoft, and a lot of essential tools such as blogging technology are owned by Google. Why do we even need Microsoft anymore?
Music is a lot like software, if someone patents something in software or in music it makes it more difficult to make good music or good software. The issue is progress of the art, not selling products and profiting. You are thinking about this in the wrong way, you are thinking about music as a business instead of an art.
The only way to learn to create good music is to listen to good music. The only way to learn to code well is to have access to open source code. For educational purposes we NEED free access to information.
I don't believe its unethical to share files over the net. To me no ones being harmed by this so its not unethical, and more people are being helped. I decide my ethics not based on what the law says but based on my own morals. Sharing is morally right in a lot of peoples minds and you cannot change this by simply making the act illegal, nor should you even try to make it illegal, its a lot like the war on drugs, its the kind of thing you can never truly end and its pointless to lock people up for a harmless crime such as this.
I'm not saying I support piracy which is profiting off of this, I'm talking about sharing music. Music has always been shared, through radio and through other means. It's always been like that even if you didnt know it was going on.
Just because you did not do it or did not know about it does not mean people werent doing it. People have been selling movies for years, people have been recording from radio for years. Now I guess because its on the internet its somehow different? Whats the difference? This isnt new.
Wrong is based on your interpretation of the purpose of copyrights existance. Copyright is not actually promoting progress so if you care about the art then copyright infringement is good. Sampling is how a lot of good music is made, and you have to be able to listen to lots of good music to become a talented musician/artist, access to music promotes progress.
Restricting access to music and by putting a price on samples you price out the most talented artists.
I think all information and knowledge is owned by the world. I'm not a closed source patent loving information owning type of individual. I believe information should not be made into a product, you can profit off of your services, you can profit off of the service of actually creating information, you do not ever need to profit off owning information. The information owners are just too lazy to keep generating new ideas so they want to milk the same old ideas all their lives.
I agree that if you create something you should have exclusive rights to SELL and PROFIT from it, however this isnt about profits. Copyright infringement has nothing to do with sales or profits, its not stealing its simply sharing. Look, in a record company does each employee have to buy a license? No, the entire company as a whole buys the copyright and owns the music. Why should corporations own music instead of letting the people have music? Artists will never own their music in either case so this is a matter of which business model is better for the people and I think P2P is better for the long term health of music as an art for the same reasons open source is better for the art of coding.
You can call me a moron, but I don't think music has owners, I don't think information has owners, I support the creative commons.
If you actually made music yourself you'd know that EVERY musician is a pirate. Theres not a single melody on the face of the earth which wasnt inspired by something else. So lets say I'm Bill Gates and I buy every note on a keyboard and I own all the best samples, now you can't make music and you have to pay me money to have the right to make it. You also have to sell me the rights to own your ideas after you make it because I'm also your record company. Finally I get to set the price of your music and tell the fans how much its worth, and then take the majority of the money.
If you think this is fair to the artists or the fans you are out of your mind. I support the creative commons, open source software, and sharing of information. I'm not telling people to go out and steal samples and try to profit off it, but this is how the majority of artists currently make their music.
Look, sampling has to be outlawed if you morally believe copyright infringement is wrong, and once its outlawed many artists will vanish. Also it must be illegal for an artist to sell their ideas, because essentially selling the idea to the record company is no different than selling the idea to a fan who decides to put it on P2P and share it, theres absolutely no difference because in either situation the artist has no control or ownership of their ideas.
Face it, idea ownership is not what music is about, and if you make music to profit then I won't miss you when you leave the industry because you arent a real artist. If you are a real artist you'll be making your best music when you arent making it for profit. So I support the creative commons, and perhaps we need to just boycott all of the companies which do not support creative commons licenses, either way outlawing P2P does not solve the problem morally or legally. The way to solve it morally is through the creative commons.
I create my own music by the way, music is not and never will be a product to me. The fact that music is a product to you and not an art shows me you arent an artist.
What software has ever marketed itself as piratester? I don't remember any software specificially saying its designed to help aid in copyright infrigement except for perhaps freenet.
Except that doing bodily harm is in some circumstances, legal. AFAIK, firearm manufacturers aren't marketing their guns to gangs.
Did you actually think these gangster rappers who talk about guns, sneakers and certain brands of alcohol arent being paid for it? Their job is to market these harmful products to make them cool. Just look at MTV.
Guns have always been marketed to gangs, along with liqour, gambling and prostitution.
Why should the right of the masses be less important than the rights of record company CEOs? The record companies dont make the music they own yet they have the right to sell it, when someone buys it why shouldnt they have the right to share it? or do you believe ideas have owners?
Why is it good for music as an art if a few people own all the notes? This is like owning the color blue, it does not help painters to make paint more expensive. This only helps people who own and sell paint, not the painters or the fans. So I guess you own stock in the RIAA which explains your defense for them, if you were an artist or a fan this ruling is disasterous indeed.
This is corporate welfare, its equal to typewriter companies trying to outlaw the computer industry.
Radios are designed exclusively for copyright infrigement and while we are at it lets outlaw Microsoft Windows for allowing people to copy files.
Copyright is no longer about progress in arts and science or even promoting progress. It's about maintaining dying business models and streghtening monopolies. I don't see how this ruling is even constitutional but I'm not a supreme court Judge.
Face it, corporate welfare is more important than progress.
Why should record companies or any corporation recieve welfare from the government to protect its "right" to profit? A corporation has a right to wealth but a person does not? Who decides these laws?
So now corporations have guarenteed income, while people have to struggle to survive. Are we corporations or are we people?
You cannot just expect your product to sell itself. This is the problem with the music industry, instead of selling the peer to peer network and access to the music itself, they want to try to sell the license to listen to the music. Selling access is how ISPs profit, if we had to pay $5 a day to visit Slashdot how many of us would be posting here?