Re:It's summer, and the RIAA/MPAA is trolling
on
UK P2P Fight Brewing
·
· Score: 1
have i gotten the more obvious ones sorted?
No, you missed the most obvious one:
Copyright fanatic repeating the same old content-free industry propaganda is mysteriously modded up to +5, probably by sock puppets.
Free clue: Excessive enforcement of badly broken copyright law is an attack on civil liberties. Even if you are too much of a zealot to acknowledge that.
the mention of "or analogue" pretty much clinches it to me.
whether through bits on flash or through punch chards, computer readable data has always been digital, represented discretely (analogue is analogue because it is not measured discretely)
it's obvious they're referring to MAFIAA 'media' here, I don't see any other reasonable interpretation of that statement.
We now know where the idea of border search and seizure of ipods and laptops came from in ACTA. It's already here.
A big hint that this is true should be the fact that there are a whole lot of people out there who disagree with you. Sometimes fundamental moral truths are ignored by the majority, but it is quite rare.
In this case:
1 - the first amendment 2 - the fourth amendment 3 - choice phrases from the declaration of independence
There is no good or valid reason to demand the destruction of the first or fourth amendments.
The founding fathers wanted to maximize people's choices, allowing them to live as they chose without being restrained by others unless absolutely necessary.
I'm sorry, but your sexual scruples, unproven superstitions about nuclear proliferation, and most certainly your corprate bottom line should never take priority over my fundamental right to express myself and exchange ideas with others.
This is fundamental to a free society. It's not my fault these parasites want "liberty for just us not all", but my opposition to something fundamentally unreasonable does not make their animosity toward the values that gave rise to modern society my fault!
It's because the FCC "deregulated" telecoms (and the line sharing regulations governing the internet).
If anything, you should be FOR regulation of the internet, because as a CLEC you're being screwed by the fact they are not compelled to lease their lines at cost to you.
If you do not understand that intelligent people can legitimately disagree with you
except there is no legitimate reason to disagree with a law which says "don't interfere with this communications medium".
The only motivations which could lead to a conclusion otherwise would be: -a personal "moral" crusade to stifle someone else's speech (e.g. cuomo's great firewall) -a financial grab at the expense of free speech -being ignorant or misinformed on this subject.
Sorry, but in this case a blanket statement does work, because the concept is simple enough for a 2 year old to understand if you explain it slowly and carefully enough.
you'll understand that "knowledge" isn't some intangible, magical fluff. In this case especially (When we're talking about music/movie files etc.) it's a very tangible object, in the sense that it has become "property"
Believe what you want, but this assertion is no more true than the heaven's gate assertion of a UFO hiding behind the hale comet.
If their network can't handle the speeds, they need to light up or lay more fiber to actually handle that capacity.
Of course, recentstudies have shown claims the internet is "running out of bandwidth" are utter bullcrap.
This mentality of yours reflects a complete misunderstanding of flat rate all-you-can-eat services.
Some use high bandwidth, and they are counterbalanced by the light users, and because the light users are "light users", they don't experience an appreciable degradation of service.
If your outlook were actually true, then all the buffets in my area of town in one of the fattest states in the union would be bankrupt because they don't charge a-la carte.
Interesting as that all is, he still falls for the typical reaganomic pitfall of "the free market" correcting abuses when internet service provision is not a free market.
Sure, the idea of discouraging the government from "regulating" the internet is appealing when viewed through the lens of copyright issues (especially given UK events), BUT.. with telcos carrying this much market power, they might very well do it themselves (see the elimination of the alt.* heirarchy and the forging of bit torrent RST packets).
Unfortunately for me, the end result of unregulated oligopolies colluding with the MAFIAA (with government or attorney general pressure) is about the same as congress directly stepping in.
Net neutrality is designed to thread that needle. If you want to use the "camel" analogy.. it uses a camel to carry an 'anti-camel' fence up to the tent for installation.
The very notion of "illegal files" is the essence of censorship.
Copyright may be called by propaganda terms like "intellectual property", but it is censorship (which can be performed by anyone, not just government, BTW) at its core.
I couldn't have said this better myself.
The notion of owning and controlling the distribution of information is antithetical to a free society. The fact that the "progress of science and the useful arts" clause is so brief comes from heated contention of the merits of allowing copyright to exist in the first place. Our founding fathers were pretty fresh and raw from the old copyright cartels founded and abused by the crown.
I'm sure if you brought them all forward in time to today, and gave them the last year or two of the YRO section to read, a few would turn around to the others and scream "I TOLD YOU SO!"
Slashdot Mirror
have i gotten the more obvious ones sorted?
No, you missed the most obvious one:
Free clue: Excessive enforcement of badly broken copyright law is an attack on civil liberties. Even if you are too much of a zealot to acknowledge that.
---
Paid marketers are the worst zealots.
i'm going to go with this one for 500 alex!
The "RIAA" is composed of european record labels!
Why does this policy reek of MAFIAA influence?
the mention of "or analogue" pretty much clinches it to me.
whether through bits on flash or through punch chards, computer readable data has always been digital, represented discretely (analogue is analogue because it is not measured discretely)
it's obvious they're referring to MAFIAA 'media' here, I don't see any other reasonable interpretation of that statement.
We now know where the idea of border search and seizure of ipods and laptops came from in ACTA. It's already here.
the MST3K fan community has a presence on usenet as well, and have turned me on to the show's "progeny" so to speak.
wow that's really saying something!
no, i mean like anarchy online but playable on osx.
wow has become kalgan's own little fiefdom, and hes in the process of utterly wrecking my main in wrath to satisfy some mages.
They're not "opinions", they're an expression of intolerance for anyone who is not exactly like them.
They are bigoted and opressive, and my "fundamental attitude of disrespect" to them is justified.
They want to take away MY freedom to satisfy their pocketbooks, arbitrary sexual perceptions, and their unfounded perception of insecurity.
I respect their right to feel that way, I don't respect their efforts to encode it into law. They step over the line when they pull that crap.
Correction:
their use of it was to create a court precedent saying you can't make generics using your own talent.
They claimed DRM violations when BNETD didn't break their DRM at all.
MMO for the non-windows users anyone?
I'm not demanding linux support or anything, but I use a mac, and their clients are all ".exe"
actually, I have a warrior and recently tried sword-n-boarding it up for amusement.
If you use the same rotations you use when tanking a boss, you can aoe grind just like a paladin...
shield block -> revenge your way through a crowd of 5-7 mobs.
A big hint that this is true should be the fact that there are a whole lot of people out there who disagree with you. Sometimes fundamental moral truths are ignored by the majority, but it is quite rare.
In this case:
1 - the first amendment
2 - the fourth amendment
3 - choice phrases from the declaration of independence
There is no good or valid reason to demand the destruction of the first or fourth amendments.
The founding fathers wanted to maximize people's choices, allowing them to live as they chose without being restrained by others unless absolutely necessary.
I'm sorry, but your sexual scruples, unproven superstitions about nuclear proliferation, and most certainly your corprate bottom line should never take priority over my fundamental right to express myself and exchange ideas with others.
This is fundamental to a free society. It's not my fault these parasites want "liberty for just us not all", but my opposition to something fundamentally unreasonable does not make their animosity toward the values that gave rise to modern society my fault!
Blizzard's calculated destruction of WoW and fans' the irrational warlock hate-fest will now be publicly available on TV!
sorry, it's not religion, and in some cases, there are fundamental moral truths.
"moral relativism" and waffling are the hallmarks of the idiotic, and the intellectually dishonest.
Fidgeting burns calories..
No, they are not legitimate reasons, otherwise all our mail would be subject to "deep packet inspection" and blockage too.
All our phones would be tapped, and anyone caught singing a copyrighted song would lose all phone service forever.
You don't attack the medium they use, you attack the perpetrators of the crime.
There is no legitimate reason to regulate the internet
that does not have to involve vouchers.
read up on the miracle of east harlem. (no, it did not involve vouchers)
It's because the FCC "deregulated" telecoms (and the line sharing regulations governing the internet).
If anything, you should be FOR regulation of the internet, because as a CLEC you're being screwed by the fact they are not compelled to lease their lines at cost to you.
Aren't you that astroturfer hired by handsofftheinternet to spam savetheinternet with specious counter-arguments?
If you do not understand that intelligent people can legitimately disagree with you
except there is no legitimate reason to disagree with a law which says "don't interfere with this communications medium".
The only motivations which could lead to a conclusion otherwise would be:
-a personal "moral" crusade to stifle someone else's speech (e.g. cuomo's great firewall)
-a financial grab at the expense of free speech
-being ignorant or misinformed on this subject.
Sorry, but in this case a blanket statement does work, because the concept is simple enough for a 2 year old to understand if you explain it slowly and carefully enough.
Don't bother arguing with this guy, I've done a little googling around and he's an astroturfer from "hands off the internet".
you'll understand that "knowledge" isn't some intangible, magical fluff. In this case especially (When we're talking about music/movie files etc.) it's a very tangible object, in the sense that it has become "property"
Believe what you want, but this assertion is no more true than the heaven's gate assertion of a UFO hiding behind the hale comet.
The reason is bullshit you mean.
If their network can't handle the speeds, they need to light up or lay more fiber to actually handle that capacity.
Of course, recentstudies have shown claims the internet is "running out of bandwidth" are utter bullcrap.
This mentality of yours reflects a complete misunderstanding of flat rate all-you-can-eat services.
Some use high bandwidth, and they are counterbalanced by the light users, and because the light users are "light users", they don't experience an appreciable degradation of service.
If your outlook were actually true, then all the buffets in my area of town in one of the fattest states in the union would be bankrupt because they don't charge a-la carte.
Interesting as that all is, he still falls for the typical reaganomic pitfall of "the free market" correcting abuses when internet service provision is not a free market.
Sure, the idea of discouraging the government from "regulating" the internet is appealing when viewed through the lens of copyright issues (especially given UK events), BUT.. with telcos carrying this much market power, they might very well do it themselves (see the elimination of the alt.* heirarchy and the forging of bit torrent RST packets).
Unfortunately for me, the end result of unregulated oligopolies colluding with the MAFIAA (with government or attorney general pressure) is about the same as congress directly stepping in.
Net neutrality is designed to thread that needle. If you want to use the "camel" analogy.. it uses a camel to carry an 'anti-camel' fence up to the tent for installation.
The very notion of "illegal files" is the essence of censorship.
Copyright may be called by propaganda terms like "intellectual property", but it is censorship (which can be performed by anyone, not just government, BTW) at its core.
I couldn't have said this better myself.
The notion of owning and controlling the distribution of information is antithetical to a free society. The fact that the "progress of science and the useful arts" clause is so brief comes from heated contention of the merits of allowing copyright to exist in the first place. Our founding fathers were pretty fresh and raw from the old copyright cartels founded and abused by the crown.
I'm sure if you brought them all forward in time to today, and gave them the last year or two of the YRO section to read, a few would turn around to the others and scream "I TOLD YOU SO!"
Given the issues this patch caused with vista, i'm not at all surprised they're putting more thorough testing through on this.
Apple does not want to lose it's "just works" reputation my slaughtering internet connections on its platforms.