"Australias has to adopt DMCA under the Australian/American Free Trade agreement so I guess its a little late for this now though."
Laws are still interpreted by the courts. Currently the interpretation of the law by the High Court is that you are not bypassing copy protection unless you are making illegal copies. From the linked article:
In its ruling, the court said that while making a pirated copy of a game is illegal, playing a game using a "mod chip" is not. Mod chips, such as those installed by Stevens, allow PlayStations to play games from other geographic regions. Normally, PlayStations--like DVD players and other game consoles--can play only media made for a specific region.
You can't change my controls, I don't play the game.:)
You've made good points... I confess... I just wanted to get the first post... I probably would have said something way different... but people are so fast!
But considering (from TFA) "LucasArts claims they are working on a patch for the game that will allow players to play it using only the mouse" I think the article really could have been more favourable to them, especially since they don't seem to have marketed the game as being especially accessible.
Regarding the curse of the dozen rabid, zombie badgers, I must respond appropriately. Since the bible says to bless those that curse you:
May your camels be fruitful and multiply, but not in your living room.
Yes, and so many people who read about the rich man fail to read just a bit further...
Mark 10: 29,30 Jesus said, "Most assuredly I tell you, there is no one who has left house, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or land, for my sake, and for the gospel's sake, but he will receive one hundred times more now in this time, houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and land, with persecutions; and in the age to come eternal life.
one hundred times more now in this time
with persecutions...doh!
I don't know why people take Jesus command to "store up treasure for yourselves in heaven" to mean: be poor!
They say God works in mysterious ways, but to me, theologians seem much more mysterious. Jesus said help the poor, not be the poor.
really, to do something "in someone's name" means you have authorization from them to do it. If I kill and claim it's in Jesus name, it does not become "in Jesus name" as he has not authorized that. It would just mean I was a murderer AND a liar, instead of just a murderer. In a similar way, private individuals are not allowed to wage war under their countries flag, they must become part of the armed forces authorized by that government (not excusing any wars or denying that mercenaries exist, just making a point). On the other hand, Jesus very specifically authorized and commanded good works to be done.
I think it's most usually people who let others do their thinking for them that causes ideological/religious wars etc. Some-one who simply obeyed Jesus commands would not be committing mass murder.
At least in theory, everyone should be able to play SWG
Why? Do we have to modify every form of entertainment so two fingered people can use them? Tennis? Football? Giving someone dignity an quality of life doesn't mean that all of us can only do activities that severely disabled people can do.
no explanation of origin of life = no explanation of origin of species, because species are alive.
It's like saying you will discuss "Origin of timber" but refusing to admit that trees have any relevance. Sure, you may be talking about which lumber yard it was bought from, but trees are still essential to the end result.
Good for you, congratulations. Two of the richest men I know are from 'wrong neighborhood' and 'wrong family'. I also know quite a few immigrants who started out with nothing, worked hard, didn't waste money and are quite well off. I'm glad to hear you found an outlet for your ambition that wont kill you or have you locked in a cage.
Not that I've spent time getting dictionary definitions or anything, but to me, that would describe facism, not capitalism. Wealth is still wealth even if it's not my wealth. Being a capitalist doesn't stop me seeing that it's better to live in a wealthy society than to be individually wealthy in a very poor society. It doesn't mean that I don't like to personally have wealth.
As for those perspectives not being capitalist, I suggest you read Paul Zane Pilzer's book "Unlimieted Wealth" (ISBN 0-517-88200-0). While I'm sure you wouldn't agree with everything he says, I don't think you would say he's not a capitalist. If you read his "Six laws of economic alchemy", you will have a very clear picture of why, from a capitalist perspective, the proprietry software model, software patents etc are detrimental to wealth creation and therefore limit the amount of wealth available for accumulation.
yes, I wasn't trying to argue with you, just pointing out that these ideas don't need to compete, they work together if you define the search for wealth as the search for production of wealth. I thought your post was very well written.
...surely the search for more money does not trump the free exchange of ideas.
Depends on how you define the search for wealth: the search to accumulate more wealth or the search to produce more wealth. The search to produce more wealth requires the free exchange of ideas. This is the original idea of patents, copyrights etc.
Available wealth is largely determined by technology, eg: a society with the technology of fishing nets has more wealth available than the technology of fishing lines. The rate at which technology (and therefore wealth) increases is determined by the speed with which we share information. As I understand it, when patents first came to be, they lasted 20 years, copyrights 14 (I could have this wrong, I think it makes little difference to my point). These were relatively short times compared to the speed of technological advance and speed of information distribution at the time, and so were very successful methods of getting ideas into the public domain (where they could be used to produce wealth).
Now that technological change is so rapid, distribution is much faster and economical, and copyrights have been extended so much, the traditional application of patents and copyrights is working exactly contrary to the production of wealth.
Current restrictions on the exchange of ideas help a few people to accumulate wealth, but hinders the production of wealth.
For an example: If I recorded a album and sold 100,000 copies at $1 profit to me for each copy, the entire $100,000 I accumulate already existed. The only wealth produced is the 100,000 songs. If I release the album for download, lets say 500,000 people download it. More wealth has been produced, although I don't necesarily accumulate any money. Obviously, there must be sufficient incentive somehow for me to produce the album, but the real wealth is produced when the content is distributed, not when I personally get paid.
Disclaimer: I am not a recording artist, I am a capitalist.
Re:Why wouldn't they be happy?
on
Pixar For Sale?
·
· Score: 1
Well, I didn't say everyone has to be the business owner, but if you're not, then your finacial security is not going to be the priority of the business decision makers, ie, because that's not you. That's a choice you make, and if you make it, nobody else automatically becomes obliged to look after you. It's also a legitimate decision for many people, it's up to you to weigh up the risk.
In particular, I was responding to the notion that people who don't run a business because it's to much work (see the GP post) are being treated unfairly if they get laid off when a business gets sold. They may be being treated unpleasantly, but not unfairly.
That is to say, a business owner has no moral or legal obligation to look after your long term future, unless they have entered a contractual agreement to do so. If you are given the redundancy pay/ notice etc in your contract, and have been given no promises that remain unfulfilled, you have been treated fairly. To complain about it is to 1: display a lack of understanding of what employment is, and 2: waste your time.
Re:Why wouldn't they be happy?
on
Pixar For Sale?
·
· Score: 1
So what your saying is, if you don't want to get screwed over within a company, you better own it, because that's the only way you'll get any security?
Basically yes, if your financial future is under the direct control of someone who doesn't have a vested interest in that future, you are in a very precarious position.
[sarcasm] Yeah, that sounds like paradise to me. [/sarcasm]
I agree with you it's not. And I know you didn't say Jobs was evil. I've gone up in income after layoffs, and still not found the process to be pleasant at all (try getting laid off two days before the Christmas break), but that's part of the trade-off of being an employee - you trade "security of control" for "security of a fixed rate of income". The problem is, the risk factors for the employee are almost totally out of their control. If the only reason someone doesn't want to go into business is that they don't want to do the extra work, they may be wise to consider if those extra leisure hours will be a comfort to them in the event of a layoff.
Re:Why wouldn't they be happy?
on
Pixar For Sale?
·
· Score: 0
Maybe not everyone wants to have the hassle of running a company of their own (after all, it IS a lot of work). Those people get screwed over.
Yeah, the people who aren't prepared to do a lot of work get SCREWED OVER. It's just not fair, is it, for them to get screwed over because of the decisions of the people who were prepared to do a lot of work! Something needs to be done about this!
...no one making a billion dollars while people are starving is making an honest living.
I've heard this type of thing before, but my question is, if making a certain amount of money is evil, who sets the limit? A couple of years ago someone told me that having as $30,000 dollar car (Australian) is just greed and evil, you say it's at (or somewhere below) a billion dollars... who sets the limit of how much money you can make before you turn evil? 100K? a million? 10 million? It doesn't seem to make sense to me, but I do think it's needed for the rich to give to the poor. I don't think making a particular amount of money makes you evil, although how you do it counts, and what you do with it, but I don't think it should be assumed that if you don't give everything away, or even down to a certain level that you should be judged.
And are you seriously suggesting that some entrepreneurial African is going to spend a year or so not working to feed his family, but instead programming inside someone else's internet cafe, to develop his own Office suite?
being an AC, you probably wont check replies to your post, but if you do, I think you should check here
Honestly, what scientist, from a scientific perspective, thinks we are the only planet with biological life on it?
If by a 'scientific perspective' you mean 'based on evidence' then no scientist thinks there is life on other planets, as life has not been proven to exist on other planets, no matter how likely it seems. If by 'scientific perspective' you mean 'based on confidence that evolution would probably have happened elsewhere' probably many scientists think life exists elsewhere. Until there is actual life discovered, it could hardly be considered a scientific fact. (Mind you, it's not a topic I follow alot, if life has been proven _not theorized_ to exist outside our planet, by all means let me know). The idea that life exists on other planets is so far in the same category as the idea that life does not exist on other planets, ie: it's an opinion.
Why is it the majority of the population believes in the existance of God, a being with no scientific basis...
Because people have experiences that they beleive are communication with God. You may or may not agree that their experiences are actually communication with God, but people are sure that they have them. Same with other 'experiences' like alien abdictions etc. Not scientific at all, but science is (rightly or wrongly) much less important to most people than their own experiences. I think it is good also to realise that evidence != science, that is, there are other forms of evidence that are convincing to people, for example, in court, eyewitness accounts are evidence, and do not necessarily require scientific evidence to be accepted as true. Science ought not to be a religion where things are accepted as facts just because it seems likely to someone, most people or even everybody. To be credible as science, it must be based on scientific evidence only. Of course, unproven ideas are the fuel of science, otherwise science would never reveal new information. The idea that life is out there is the fuel or motivation to investigate and discover. If the evidence is discovered, the ideas will become science, not before.
"I'm not too precious about the operating system. Having had a bit of a background in SAP, I knew to a certain extent the operating system was irrelevant, as long as it was stable," Mr Horton says.
Not necessarily. Going by this, he could be a windows guy who had used SAP as an application on AIX, but not administered the OS. Taking two days to do security patches doesn't give the greatest impression, and he doesn't seem to have understood vendor certification either.
They'll look at the end of result of your activities and conclude that you didn't have the music before, you've got the music now, you don't seem to have paid for it in-between, end of story.
by that definition, any Free software I have is stolen? and how does fair use, radio etc. factor into this reasoning? (by the way, I haven't been violating copyrights, perhaps you could just reply to comments instead of making assumptions about me)
Slashdot Mirror
"Australias has to adopt DMCA under the Australian/American Free Trade agreement so I guess its a little late for this now though."
Laws are still interpreted by the courts. Currently the interpretation of the law by the High Court is that you are not bypassing copy protection unless you are making illegal copies. From the linked article:
In its ruling, the court said that while making a pirated copy of a game is illegal, playing a game using a "mod chip" is not. Mod chips, such as those installed by Stevens, allow PlayStations to play games from other geographic regions. Normally, PlayStations--like DVD players and other game consoles--can play only media made for a specific region.
Although this desicion is being reviewed by the Federal Government and new DCMA law changes are due in 1 January 2007, the changes will have "other exceptions identified under a legislative or administrative review as addressing a credibly demonstrated actual or likely adverse effect on non-infringing use." so it seems relatively likely that with our new fair use rights, the DMCA importation will be unlikey to make mod chips or DeCSS illegal, especially since the High Court has specifically stated that bypassing region encoding is not breaching copyright. "Apparently intentionally, those restrictions (region encoding) reduce global market competition. They inhibit rights ordinarily acquired by Australian owners," said the court in its judgement.
Actually, we don't drink Foster's beer, we export it to people who ARE willing to drink it. Ha.
You can't change my controls, I don't play the game.:)
You've made good points... I confess... I just wanted to get the first post... I probably would have said something way different... but people are so fast!
But considering (from TFA) "LucasArts claims they are working on a patch for the game that will allow players to play it using only the mouse" I think the article really could have been more favourable to them, especially since they don't seem to have marketed the game as being especially accessible.
Regarding the curse of the dozen rabid, zombie badgers, I must respond appropriately. Since the bible says to bless those that curse you:
May your camels be fruitful and multiply, but not in your living room.
Yes, and so many people who read about the rich man fail to read just a bit further...
Mark 10: 29,30 Jesus said, "Most assuredly I tell you, there is no one who has left house, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or land, for my sake, and for the gospel's sake, but he will receive one hundred times more now in this time, houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and land, with persecutions; and in the age to come eternal life.
one hundred times more now in this time
with persecutions...doh!
I don't know why people take Jesus command to "store up treasure for yourselves in heaven" to mean: be poor!
They say God works in mysterious ways, but to me, theologians seem much more mysterious. Jesus said help the poor, not be the poor.
really, to do something "in someone's name" means you have authorization from them to do it. If I kill and claim it's in Jesus name, it does not become "in Jesus name" as he has not authorized that. It would just mean I was a murderer AND a liar, instead of just a murderer. In a similar way, private individuals are not allowed to wage war under their countries flag, they must become part of the armed forces authorized by that government (not excusing any wars or denying that mercenaries exist, just making a point). On the other hand, Jesus very specifically authorized and commanded good works to be done.
I think it's most usually people who let others do their thinking for them that causes ideological/religious wars etc. Some-one who simply obeyed Jesus commands would not be committing mass murder.
From TFA : He mentioned that LucasArts claims they are working on a patch for the game that will allow players to play it using only the mouse
At least in theory, everyone should be able to play SWG
Why? Do we have to modify every form of entertainment so two fingered people can use them? Tennis? Football? Giving someone dignity an quality of life doesn't mean that all of us can only do activities that severely disabled people can do.
The air force still hasn't made fighter jets that blind people with no arms or legs can operate...outrageous
no explanation of origin of life = no explanation of origin of species, because species are alive.
It's like saying you will discuss "Origin of timber" but refusing to admit that trees have any relevance. Sure, you may be talking about which lumber yard it was bought from, but trees are still essential to the end result.
How life first started on earth and how life evolves are two wholy seperate, unreleated issues.
What was Darwin's book called again?
Good for you, congratulations. Two of the richest men I know are from 'wrong neighborhood' and 'wrong family'. I also know quite a few immigrants who started out with nothing, worked hard, didn't waste money and are quite well off. I'm glad to hear you found an outlet for your ambition that wont kill you or have you locked in a cage.
Not that I've spent time getting dictionary definitions or anything, but to me, that would describe facism, not capitalism. Wealth is still wealth even if it's not my wealth. Being a capitalist doesn't stop me seeing that it's better to live in a wealthy society than to be individually wealthy in a very poor society. It doesn't mean that I don't like to personally have wealth.
As for those perspectives not being capitalist, I suggest you read Paul Zane Pilzer's book "Unlimieted Wealth" (ISBN 0-517-88200-0). While I'm sure you wouldn't agree with everything he says, I don't think you would say he's not a capitalist. If you read his "Six laws of economic alchemy", you will have a very clear picture of why, from a capitalist perspective, the proprietry software model, software patents etc are detrimental to wealth creation and therefore limit the amount of wealth available for accumulation.
yes, I wasn't trying to argue with you, just pointing out that these ideas don't need to compete, they work together if you define the search for wealth as the search for production of wealth. I thought your post was very well written.
...surely the search for more money does not trump the free exchange of ideas.
Depends on how you define the search for wealth: the search to accumulate more wealth or the search to produce more wealth. The search to produce more wealth requires the free exchange of ideas. This is the original idea of patents, copyrights etc.
Available wealth is largely determined by technology, eg: a society with the technology of fishing nets has more wealth available than the technology of fishing lines. The rate at which technology (and therefore wealth) increases is determined by the speed with which we share information. As I understand it, when patents first came to be, they lasted 20 years, copyrights 14 (I could have this wrong, I think it makes little difference to my point). These were relatively short times compared to the speed of technological advance and speed of information distribution at the time, and so were very successful methods of getting ideas into the public domain (where they could be used to produce wealth).
Now that technological change is so rapid, distribution is much faster and economical, and copyrights have been extended so much, the traditional application of patents and copyrights is working exactly contrary to the production of wealth.
Current restrictions on the exchange of ideas help a few people to accumulate wealth, but hinders the production of wealth.
For an example: If I recorded a album and sold 100,000 copies at $1 profit to me for each copy, the entire $100,000 I accumulate already existed. The only wealth produced is the 100,000 songs. If I release the album for download, lets say 500,000 people download it. More wealth has been produced, although I don't necesarily accumulate any money. Obviously, there must be sufficient incentive somehow for me to produce the album, but the real wealth is produced when the content is distributed, not when I personally get paid.
Disclaimer: I am not a recording artist, I am a capitalist.
Well, I didn't say everyone has to be the business owner, but if you're not, then your finacial security is not going to be the priority of the business decision makers, ie, because that's not you. That's a choice you make, and if you make it, nobody else automatically becomes obliged to look after you. It's also a legitimate decision for many people, it's up to you to weigh up the risk.
In particular, I was responding to the notion that people who don't run a business because it's to much work (see the GP post) are being treated unfairly if they get laid off when a business gets sold. They may be being treated unpleasantly, but not unfairly.
That is to say, a business owner has no moral or legal obligation to look after your long term future, unless they have entered a contractual agreement to do so. If you are given the redundancy pay/ notice etc in your contract, and have been given no promises that remain unfulfilled, you have been treated fairly. To complain about it is to 1: display a lack of understanding of what employment is, and 2: waste your time.
So what your saying is, if you don't want to get screwed over within a company, you better own it, because that's the only way you'll get any security?
Basically yes, if your financial future is under the direct control of someone who doesn't have a vested interest in that future, you are in a very precarious position.
[sarcasm] Yeah, that sounds like paradise to me. [/sarcasm]
I agree with you it's not. And I know you didn't say Jobs was evil. I've gone up in income after layoffs, and still not found the process to be pleasant at all (try getting laid off two days before the Christmas break), but that's part of the trade-off of being an employee - you trade "security of control" for "security of a fixed rate of income". The problem is, the risk factors for the employee are almost totally out of their control. If the only reason someone doesn't want to go into business is that they don't want to do the extra work, they may be wise to consider if those extra leisure hours will be a comfort to them in the event of a layoff.
Maybe not everyone wants to have the hassle of running a company of their own (after all, it IS a lot of work). Those people get screwed over.
Yeah, the people who aren't prepared to do a lot of work get SCREWED OVER . It's just not fair, is it, for them to get screwed over because of the decisions of the people who were prepared to do a lot of work! Something needs to be done about this!
...no one making a billion dollars while people are starving is making an honest living.
I've heard this type of thing before, but my question is, if making a certain amount of money is evil, who sets the limit? A couple of years ago someone told me that having as $30,000 dollar car (Australian) is just greed and evil, you say it's at (or somewhere below) a billion dollars... who sets the limit of how much money you can make before you turn evil? 100K? a million? 10 million? It doesn't seem to make sense to me, but I do think it's needed for the rich to give to the poor. I don't think making a particular amount of money makes you evil, although how you do it counts, and what you do with it, but I don't think it should be assumed that if you don't give everything away, or even down to a certain level that you should be judged.
And are you seriously suggesting that some entrepreneurial African is going to spend a year or so not working to feed his family, but instead programming inside someone else's internet cafe, to develop his own Office suite?
being an AC, you probably wont check replies to your post, but if you do, I think you should check here
You had willies in you? My condolences on the loss of your willies.
Honestly, what scientist, from a scientific perspective, thinks we are the only planet with biological life on it?
If by a 'scientific perspective' you mean 'based on evidence' then no scientist thinks there is life on other planets, as life has not been proven to exist on other planets, no matter how likely it seems. If by 'scientific perspective' you mean 'based on confidence that evolution would probably have happened elsewhere' probably many scientists think life exists elsewhere. Until there is actual life discovered, it could hardly be considered a scientific fact. (Mind you, it's not a topic I follow alot, if life has been proven _not theorized_ to exist outside our planet, by all means let me know). The idea that life exists on other planets is so far in the same category as the idea that life does not exist on other planets, ie: it's an opinion.
Why is it the majority of the population believes in the existance of God, a being with no scientific basis...
Because people have experiences that they beleive are communication with God. You may or may not agree that their experiences are actually communication with God, but people are sure that they have them. Same with other 'experiences' like alien abdictions etc. Not scientific at all, but science is (rightly or wrongly) much less important to most people than their own experiences. I think it is good also to realise that evidence != science, that is, there are other forms of evidence that are convincing to people, for example, in court, eyewitness accounts are evidence, and do not necessarily require scientific evidence to be accepted as true. Science ought not to be a religion where things are accepted as facts just because it seems likely to someone, most people or even everybody. To be credible as science, it must be based on scientific evidence only. Of course, unproven ideas are the fuel of science, otherwise science would never reveal new information. The idea that life is out there is the fuel or motivation to investigate and discover. If the evidence is discovered, the ideas will become science, not before.
"I'm not too precious about the operating system. Having had a bit of a background in SAP, I knew to a certain extent the operating system was irrelevant, as long as it was stable," Mr Horton says.
Not necessarily. Going by this, he could be a windows guy who had used SAP as an application on AIX, but not administered the OS. Taking two days to do security patches doesn't give the greatest impression, and he doesn't seem to have understood vendor certification either.
Uncle Google tells me not to delete my messages anymore...
Seriously, I haven't deleted any of my gmails in 18 months.
do you recognise humor? Perhaps a reference to welcoming our new search overlords would have helped.
Slander is a civil offence.
Civil law is still law.
They'll look at the end of result of your activities and conclude that you didn't have the music before, you've got the music now, you don't seem to have paid for it in-between, end of story.
by that definition, any Free software I have is stolen? and how does fair use, radio etc. factor into this reasoning? (by the way, I haven't been violating copyrights, perhaps you could just reply to comments instead of making assumptions about me)
In the popular mind,...
Oh well, I guess I have an unpopular mind.