So, you'd have no problem with me calling a murderer a theif instead, because all he did was steal someone's life?
I certainly would have a problem with it, because it's misleading. It's nearly as bad as the slashdot her using words like "sharing" to describe free-riding.
Theft IS theft, when it is theft. You don't call someone a robber unless they steal your stuff.
See "identity theft" (but you stil have your identity, right ?), "theft of services", etc.
There are many common usages of words like "theft"
and "stealing" that do not satisfy the properties the slashdot herd assign to them. The reason the slashdot freeriders go out of their way to create this distinction (which is a contentious one at best) is to legitimise immoral and illegal behaviour.
English must remain a precise and accurate language if we are to communicate thoughts correctly to each other.
Come on now, you understand perfectly well what is meant when someone accuses a software pirate of theft, or when someone speaks of "music stealers".
The agenda that these slashdot posters are pursuing is to create a distinction between themselves and common criminals (even though they are in fact not very different at all). This is why they don't want to be referred to in language that one usually uses to describe common criminals.
The other definitions say the same thing, but are less clear unless you look up the used words, such as "larceny".
You quoted a legal definition. Other common-language definitions are broader, and do NOT say the same thing at all. But all of this linguistic gymnastics is BS anyway -- it's an attempt to obfuscate the issue by trying to elevate the slashdot freeloading pirate above the level of the common thief. The legal definitions are different, but morally they are much the same.
If you want to understand why people buy some stuff and download other stuff, you're going to have to put some effort into understanding people. Besides yourself.
Yeah, exactly. Like a study I remember reading about, where most downloaders "understood" the other people in the following sense -- they didn't use P2P as a "try before you buy" service, but they were sure that "lots of other people do it". And the fact that "other people" use the service for legitimate purposes makes it legitimate, right ?
By tricking the P2P user into downloading, bandwidth is wasted that I would prefer to see put to other use. Whether that can be pinned on the authors is a different issue, but since the effect was intended I do suspect so
I would argue that the author of the program is free to name the program in any way he wishes to, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's trademark. The fact that the program doesn't perform the function that the name suggests is moot, because there is no implied warranty for products distributed through P2P.
And yes, it fits the wider interpretation of Trojan: "is a piece of unauthorized code hidden within a program"
It's not "hidden within a program", the primary function of the application is to do what it does.
The reason I don't consider it to be "breaking into a system" is that it runs with full permission of the user. The program does not gain special access priveliges like a rootkit or similar. The word "breaking" implies some use of force (root kit, etc). I don't see how something initiated by the user could be called a "break in"
with the possible exception of a program that attempts to gain escalated priveliges (a trojan rootkit or similar)
The definition of illegal search is all about expectation of privacy. You could argue that somebody intending to commit a copyright infringement has no expectation of privacy.
Depends on what information was obtained and how it was obtained. Do you have a reasonable expectation that your IP address will be kept a secret when you download software from the internet ? How is this worse than logging transactions on an FTP server ? It's not as if the package searched the users hard drive for credit card numbers.
In the U.S. we have certain standards before we declare guilt.
The standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases, and merely prepdonderance of evidence for civil cases.
Even if you could argue that there is "reasonable doubt" (and I'd just call "bullshit" on that), the evidence is rather compelling. Someone who downloads a crack probably intends to use it, and even if they're a legitimate owner of the package,
they're probably breaching the license. In other words, the possible scenarios in which the downloader is not a pirate barely even pass a plausibility test (and certainly don't pass the "smell test")
It is not the job of citizens to police each other.
That's funny, the slashbots think that it's not the government's job to police the downloaders,
because that's a waste of government resources, nor is it the right of the RIAA to act as police.
The way the slashbots tell it, no-one should police the pirates, and they should be just left alone to continue on their merry way.
The "Slashbots" you refer to have no right or need to "discourage" others from engaging in whatever behavior they want. Why should I care what someone else is downloading if it does not trample on my rights?
You should care that you're using a product that is almost exclusively used for illegal purposes, because it reflects poorly on you that you're using it -- even if you happen to be in the 0.0001% of people who are using it to download Debian ISOs, or share your family photographs, or distribute your own music (yeah, right.... ), then when you're in court, the argument that you're in the 0.0001% and not the 99.9999% is not enough to contest a preponderance of evidence.
I let the police and RIAA worry about copyright infringement.
You can let the police get involved, but if that's really what you want, I hope that you're prepared to accept, even endorse criminalisation of software piracy, and jail time for offenders. Because this is what the implications of involving
law enforcement are.
Finally, unless you actually have some statistics on who downloads what on P2P, you should stay away from statements about minorities/majorities and their rights to download copyright/non-copyright material.
You don't care about whether pirates are in the minority or majority anyway, remember ? So why are you even attempting to contest this claim ?
Sounds like wishful thinking on your part. What I find positively hilarious is that the best that the slashherd can do on this one is angrily yell "It's AGAINST THE LAW!!!!". I'm glad that the slashherd have recently discovered a newfound respect for the law. However,
You intentionally waste bandwidth of innocents (the ISPs),
The bandwidth usage is minimal, so this is a really weak argument. Moreover, the bandwidth "wasted" in contacting the server is only a fraction of the bandwidth that the user voluntarily consumes in the download process. Bandwidth voluntarily consumed by an ISPs customer is an issue between the ISP and the customer. If the customer exceeds his cap by searching the web for warez, the ISP are within their rights to deal
with the extra usage in whatever way the terms of service allow.
you break into a computer system without invitation,
They don't "break into" a system at all. The user installs the program.
steal computing time
Not sure what you mean by this. But I find it awfully amusing to hear this. The fact of the matter is that the user again volunteers their "computing time" by executing the program. The program does not consume a significant number of CPU cycles.
and perform an illegal search.
Again, this is utter nonsense. It doesn't "search"
at all.
IANAL, but I would recommend to shut the thing down right now and hope for the best.
I think your comments are more motivated by wishful thinking than they are by any sound legal premise. Indeed, since you're not qualified to give legal advice, I don't see how you could offer legal counsel based on anything besides your opinion about the way the world "should" work.
Not only that, they're infringing on the trademarks of the software they purport to be in order to run this little experiment,
I thought they were naming their software after wellknown cracks. Are you saying that these cracks have legitimate, registered and legally defensible trademarks ?
[First, excuse me for mass snippage of fairly insightful comments which I largely agree with or am at least sympathetic to.]
"CDs are too expensive" is a perfectly valid statement I can make, which is irrefutable.
And yet it can be refuted.
If I say that CDs are too expensive for me, especially considering their low production cost
(1) This depends on what you mean by ``prouction cost'', but also
(2) What's so special about CDs ? Clothing also has a ``low production cost'', yet I do not hear the any whining about clothing being ``too expensive''. There are examples of other goods that could reasonably be considered ``too expensive'' by the same reasoning, and yet no outrage about it. I believe the reason is that these complaints that the goods are ``too expensive'' are largely motivated by the need to rationalise ones own piracy, or perhaps defend that of others.
you can argue that in fact production costs are higher because I failed to consider disproportionate growing marketing and studio costs.
Not all CDs are heavily marketted. The ones that are not heavily marketted have lower upfront costs, and hence tend to be cheaper. But that business model does NOT produce the kind of music that appears on the "expensive" CDs. I think the clothing analogy is actually pretty good here -- the people who really badly want their fix of music that just happens to be on a big 5 heavily marketted RIAA label are not unlike those who insist on wearing designer clothing (that's made in China) even though they could get cheap clothing at a fraction of the cost. To some extent, it is the marketting that produces the value in the eyes of these consumers, so it's not reasonable to turn around and argue one doesn't want all that marketting.
I would still be right, because to me the price of the CD has risen in proportion to my available household income.
No, you would be wrong, because it hasn't.
I recall cassette tapes selling for about $10-11 (standard price) or about $8- at discount and CDs sold for a few more dollars. That was in 1990. Nowadays, the CD prices have increased no more than about 50%. How much has the cost of living increased in that period ?
I could also argue that the quality of published music has gone down and therefore justifies my belief that the "CDs are too expensive" to ME.
You could indeed argue that, but it doesn't justify piracy when you say it that way, which is why it usually isn't stated in this manner (-;
Most people, including myself, tend to forget the "for me"-part.
If he doesn't, someone else will, leaving the artist out of the value chain.
I disagree. Again, you're ignoring why he's giving the stuff away in the first place. It's preview material now, remember ? So it's no longer in his best interests to present the CD as a complete product, because it's not "the real deal". "The real deal" is the live act. As long as the CD is effective in promoting the live act, it's actually in the artists interests to make sure that the CD incomplete.
I absolutely agree. However, it all depends on HOW you intend to fight piracy.
My position is that they should go after uploaders and hit them hard. They shouldn't bother hitting the leeches -- it's a better strategy to make it unprofitable to leech, and that should be a multi-pronged strategy which includes going after uploaders. I don't think DRM is worth the ill will it causes.
On the other hand, I really think they should go after the uploaders, whether or not they are "customers".
Priceless! The RIAA is not homogeneous, but the "slashdot herd" is?
I use "the slashdot herd" to describe a large subset of posters on slashdot. You've already produced a perfectly good reductio-ad-absurdum that demonstrates that I cannot possibly mean everyone who posts on slashdot. I think it's a fair statement. There is a large group of posters on slashdot who have a number of beliefs which they hold with a religious zeal, that are without any factual basis. (For example, the claim that "CDs are too expensive" is often made, but never supported with a factual argument)
Take it from an artist's point of view: He will record his music, he will distribute it on standard CD, via a commercial MP3, OGG or whatever the consumer wants,
But you're not "taking it from the artists point of view" at all. Why would the artist want to make the effort to do all that ? Remember, they are trying to provide a preview to promote their primary revenue source, they are NOT trying to provide a free service to slashdot freeloaders.
Ignoring shifts in consumer behaviour, technology and more generally, reality, fighting their very own customers is not exactly what I would call a viable business model in the long-term.
I don't think they're ignoring "shifts in consumer behaviour" at all. I think they were too slow to create a legitimate distribution channel for digital music. However, I think fighting piracy is entirely legitimate. Or would you argue that they should let slashdot freeloaders sneak in the back door at concerts too ?
If the RIAA can come up with a decent business model that satisfies consumer demands (which may not be "music for free" but rather "quality for money") then I am all for it.
"The RIAA" is not a homogeneous entity. It is a group consising of several labels. Some of them already do adopt a "quality for money" business model. It's funny how the slashdot herd tends to prefer the artists that go via the labels that don't operate on such a model, then they whine about the model that produced the crappy music that they supposedly so desperately need that they have no choice but to pirate it.
The issue here is that the record companies etc are under threat because their business model is to be made redundant, why shouldnt it?
The claim that their business model is redundant depends on the existence of a coexisting and superior business model that will replace it. "Free" is not a business model.
And if the artists are pissed because they wont get _as_much_ money, that just goes to show that money is all they are after, should we really be supporting them?
Nonsense.
That's like saying that if you won't accept a paycut for your present job, then it's "money that's all you're after".
should we be suffering DRM and restrictions to our freedom because some assholes want a bigger jet?
At least part of the reason they came up with DRM is the widespread piracy. Perhaps the slashdot freeloaders are at least partly to blame for the problem.
reate scarcity again, but avoiding DRM: The distributable good (a CD, DVD, what have you) would still be offered to the market at low or no price at all, becoming a teaser for the real product: live events.
If that's really the model, then they should only release a very small number of their songs, and most should never be recorded, right ? But that's not the model you're thinking of, because the model you're thinking of is one that serves the interests of the freeloaders. I wonder why ? Oh, I see, we're on slashdot. Never mind.
Shouldn't it be possible to implement an interface to the C++ ABI so you can (semi-) directly map scripted objects to C++ ones without the annoyance and overhead of flattening to C
Sip makes it fairly easy to put python bindings on C++ without doing much in the way of "flattening" yourself. It's true that "flattening" needs to be done, but the tool (sip) takes care of it for you.
Seriously, there are a few predictions there that are simply ludicrous, and others are nothing more than simple set up for saying nothing. The linux prediction that everyone here is most interested in is a hollow, say nothing prediction.
Haven't RTFA for this reason -- Cringely is a moron, and your description/summary of this article is consistent with his earlier articles that I've seen (hey, at least he's "consistent"!)
I don't know why slashdot continues to grant this very silly man headline real-estate.
If I have a one dimensional line and want it to bend it so it has no holes (or gaps I guess), it must be promoted to at least two dimensions.
No. The line itself still has one dimension. (Imagine that you're a flat-world creature living on the line -- how do you even know that it's bent ?) What's changed is that if you want to embed the line into euclidean space, it needs to be two dimensional space.
In general, you can embed an n-dimensional space into 2n-dimensional euclidean space. But none of this has a whole lot to do with the conjecture.
Sun allows anyone to use Java for free but nobody can modify the language itself except for Sun. In order for Java to become for Free Software and Gnu/Linux what VB became for Microsoft, Java has to be Freed and put out under the GPL.
First, you've made the mistake of confusing the language with an implementation of the language. These are different things entirely.
I'm not even sure what it would mean for the language itself to be "free". Maybe if it were submitted to a truly open standards group (like ANSI/ISO C and C++) that would make it more "free" but I don't see how that would help.
Of course having a good free implementation of the
language is important, but that doesn't mean that Sun needs to provide that implementation. gcc is not provided by the original implementors.
Of course there are free software implementations of java.
As for releasing java under the GPL -- I don't see it happening. Releasing it under an appropriate open source license would help Suns implementation
become more popular, but they wouldn't be able to make money licensing their source code.
While no product is ever 100% perfect by any stretch of the imagination, the AMD chips, in my experience, don't have any more problems than Intel chips since the Athlons. If you could tell me which configurations you've had problems with, then perhaps I could shed some light on where things are going awry.
Depends on the conditions, but I've noticed a lot of problems with AMD chips running hot, and this can cause stability problems. If you control the climate carefully, they will run OK -- for example, my dual athlon with a Tyan Tiger board runs just fine if the ambient temperature is kept at 72.
Otherwise, it locks up. What's even more frustrating is that the stupid board doesn't allow me to underclock the chips.
We recently purchased an Opteron cluster (at work) and the stupid thing generates so much heat that we need
heavy duty air conditioning units in the room
to keep it cool.
I'm not going with AMD for some time now. I don't think they understand the difference between the
server/worksation market and the gaming market yet. They are still as far as I can tell shipping chips in what is an overclocked configuration. The good thing about a CPU review that looks at overclocking is that it gives you some idea as to how fast the processors really are (that is, do they have a good processor, or are they just clocking a weak processor agressively ?)
Sue into oblivion the guy who released it, hang him, whatever - it doesn't change the fact that it's out there.
I see, you have an indirect breach now. Very smart. unfortunately, if a recipient further compounds the damage caused by this misuse of property, it makes them a co-conspiritor, and if they are a willing co-conspiritor, then they could also be liable. IOW, I simply don't buy the "leak" argument. I can see why you'd like it though -- because ultimately, what you desire is a means to intrude on and disrupt;legitimate contractual agreements.
That is where the influence of the creator ends.
Well, we don't agree on this. I think the creator should have more influence. The reason ultimately boils down to the fact that I believe that the creator and the users both have the right to form contractual agreements without the freeloading slashdot pondscum beating on the doors and looking for a way to get a free ride.
Correction: society were the main beneficiaries of copyright. Now copyright has been mutated into the horrific monstrous she-bitch of corporate juggernauts.
Yes, but it's still better than contractual/licensing based alternatives that would exist if there were no copyright. Of course there do exist implementations of copyright that would be better for society than the current one.
Societies without such ideas have had flourishing musical cultures - there is no reason to think that real musicians would just give it up because there was little money in the business.
Those societies did not have convenient access to
recording equipment. I don't think anyone would care a whole lot about copyright infringement that
did not in anyway involve the use of recording
equipment.
Why not just restrict commercial use of copyrighted works?
Because this would still enable free-riding and
large scale piracy. Allowing free riders is unfair to both the person providing the ride, and others paying for the ride. Who cares about the free riders anyway ? Why is it a worthwhile goal to serve their interests ? They are parasites.
People ignore copyright law for the most part anyway.
It's much like having speed limits -- you don't need 100% compliance (or anything close to it) for the law to be effective.
I've been trying to get Verizon DSL to shut down a persistent usenet nuisance (he's using a "persistence attack" on a newsgroup) for some time.
It's impossible -- the "poor guy" has even been issuing challenges, taking requests, posing the question, is there anything you can do on verizon DSL to get your account cancelled ?
Verizon do their best to protect pond-scum. Verizon DSL is a safe place to go for all sorts of low-lifes.
All these scenarios undermine my ability to profit from the new word, but in no case has anyone breached the contract.
It's not an analogous example. In fact I already have explained why the "fell off the back of a truck" example is NOT a loophole.
In the case with the CD that was obtained, someone needs to misuse something that doesn't belong to them. I have shown that all obvious "public domain" leaks boil down to either misuse of property, or breaches of contract.
Do you think the world would be a better place if every little creative work were licensed by contract to every recipient?
No, certainly not. That's not my argument. In fact
I'd argue the opposite -- copyright is actually a very good thing in principle.
What I am arguing (or was arguing) is that there is no natural right, really no moral ground, for the creator of a work to exert power over others who have the capacity to perform/redistribute/eat it.
I have argued that there is plenty of moral ground. It follows from the right to form contracts and in some cases, property rights.
The idea that creative works are "property" is one espoused by the laws of modern humankind,
I haven't argued that creative works are "property", so this is a straw man argument. The notion of contracts is much older.
Copyright is an unnatural restriction imposed by society on individuals,
It's not unnatural, but it is a restriction.
for the benefit of society
Exactly. Society are the main beneficiaries of copyright. Which is why I'm puzzled that so many
ignorant slashmorons are against copyright.
A system like EULAs without any sort of guaranteed fair use provisions would be much worse for society.
What damages? The music isn't copyrighted, and the third (CD-borrowing) person having the music doesn't damage anyone.
My position is that they're only liable for damages if they misuse the product in such a way as to undermine contractual agreements (for example, by uploading it to a public server). One could argue for some liability if they receive benefits via this misuse that they're not otherwise entitled to (I think liability and misappropriation allow for this) but this is a weaker argument. The case against an uploader (or any illegitimate distributor) is a stronger one.
More relevant to these specific examples -- I don't think downloaders would be liable (or at least, the case for making downloaders liable isn't a very strong one) under such a system, but uploaders would be. Maybe this is what you were getting at ?
what matters is that once they've used it, and gotten the music off it, they're only liable for the unauthorised usage of the CD
They could be held liable for damages that result from unauthorised usage. Misusing someone else's property doesn't just make you liable for the value of that property. For example, if you find someones wallet, use their ID card to get into IBM
HQ, steal trade secrets and post them on a public website, you are not just liable for the (almost non-existent) cost of reproducing the plastic swipe card.
I've realised that IHBT...
IBHT, and this discussion is finished ? Heard that one before (-; HAND.
Also, I think that in light of any reasonable contract one might have with the creator of a work, there would be many scenarios where the copy I obtain from them could in turn be obtained by someone else without my breaching the contract
A better example actually would be the "fell off the back of a truck" example -- suppose the CD literally
does fall off the back of the truck and someone finds it.
The answer to this apparent dilemma is that even though they are in possesion of the CD, it is not their CD, so they are not authorised to use it (much like finding someones wallet doesn't give you the right to make use of the priveliges that may come with having some of the ID cards in that wallet)
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly would have a problem with it, because it's misleading. It's nearly as bad as the slashdot her using words like "sharing" to describe free-riding.
Theft IS theft, when it is theft. You don't call someone a robber unless they steal your stuff.
See "identity theft" (but you stil have your identity, right ?), "theft of services", etc. There are many common usages of words like "theft" and "stealing" that do not satisfy the properties the slashdot herd assign to them. The reason the slashdot freeriders go out of their way to create this distinction (which is a contentious one at best) is to legitimise immoral and illegal behaviour.
English must remain a precise and accurate language if we are to communicate thoughts correctly to each other.
Come on now, you understand perfectly well what is meant when someone accuses a software pirate of theft, or when someone speaks of "music stealers". The agenda that these slashdot posters are pursuing is to create a distinction between themselves and common criminals (even though they are in fact not very different at all). This is why they don't want to be referred to in language that one usually uses to describe common criminals.
You quoted a legal definition. Other common-language definitions are broader, and do NOT say the same thing at all. But all of this linguistic gymnastics is BS anyway -- it's an attempt to obfuscate the issue by trying to elevate the slashdot freeloading pirate above the level of the common thief. The legal definitions are different, but morally they are much the same.
Yeah, exactly. Like a study I remember reading about, where most downloaders "understood" the other people in the following sense -- they didn't use P2P as a "try before you buy" service, but they were sure that "lots of other people do it". And the fact that "other people" use the service for legitimate purposes makes it legitimate, right ?
I would argue that the author of the program is free to name the program in any way he wishes to, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's trademark. The fact that the program doesn't perform the function that the name suggests is moot, because there is no implied warranty for products distributed through P2P.
And yes, it fits the wider interpretation of Trojan: "is a piece of unauthorized code hidden within a program"
It's not "hidden within a program", the primary function of the application is to do what it does. The reason I don't consider it to be "breaking into a system" is that it runs with full permission of the user. The program does not gain special access priveliges like a rootkit or similar. The word "breaking" implies some use of force (root kit, etc). I don't see how something initiated by the user could be called a "break in" with the possible exception of a program that attempts to gain escalated priveliges (a trojan rootkit or similar)
The definition of illegal search is all about expectation of privacy. You could argue that somebody intending to commit a copyright infringement has no expectation of privacy.
Depends on what information was obtained and how it was obtained. Do you have a reasonable expectation that your IP address will be kept a secret when you download software from the internet ? How is this worse than logging transactions on an FTP server ? It's not as if the package searched the users hard drive for credit card numbers.
Good luck wexplaining to the police what the hell you were doing opening your car door for the prostitute.
The standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases, and merely prepdonderance of evidence for civil cases. Even if you could argue that there is "reasonable doubt" (and I'd just call "bullshit" on that), the evidence is rather compelling. Someone who downloads a crack probably intends to use it, and even if they're a legitimate owner of the package, they're probably breaching the license. In other words, the possible scenarios in which the downloader is not a pirate barely even pass a plausibility test (and certainly don't pass the "smell test")
It is not the job of citizens to police each other.
That's funny, the slashbots think that it's not the government's job to police the downloaders, because that's a waste of government resources, nor is it the right of the RIAA to act as police. The way the slashbots tell it, no-one should police the pirates, and they should be just left alone to continue on their merry way.
The "Slashbots" you refer to have no right or need to "discourage" others from engaging in whatever behavior they want. Why should I care what someone else is downloading if it does not trample on my rights?
You should care that you're using a product that is almost exclusively used for illegal purposes, because it reflects poorly on you that you're using it -- even if you happen to be in the 0.0001% of people who are using it to download Debian ISOs, or share your family photographs, or distribute your own music (yeah, right .... ), then when you're in court, the argument that you're in the 0.0001% and not the 99.9999% is not enough to contest a preponderance of evidence.
I let the police and RIAA worry about copyright infringement.
You can let the police get involved, but if that's really what you want, I hope that you're prepared to accept, even endorse criminalisation of software piracy, and jail time for offenders. Because this is what the implications of involving law enforcement are.
Finally, unless you actually have some statistics on who downloads what on P2P, you should stay away from statements about minorities/majorities and their rights to download copyright/non-copyright material.
You don't care about whether pirates are in the minority or majority anyway, remember ? So why are you even attempting to contest this claim ?
You intentionally waste bandwidth of innocents (the ISPs),
The bandwidth usage is minimal, so this is a really weak argument. Moreover, the bandwidth "wasted" in contacting the server is only a fraction of the bandwidth that the user voluntarily consumes in the download process. Bandwidth voluntarily consumed by an ISPs customer is an issue between the ISP and the customer. If the customer exceeds his cap by searching the web for warez, the ISP are within their rights to deal with the extra usage in whatever way the terms of service allow.
you break into a computer system without invitation,
They don't "break into" a system at all. The user installs the program.
steal computing time
Not sure what you mean by this. But I find it awfully amusing to hear this. The fact of the matter is that the user again volunteers their "computing time" by executing the program. The program does not consume a significant number of CPU cycles.
and perform an illegal search.
Again, this is utter nonsense. It doesn't "search" at all.
IANAL, but I would recommend to shut the thing down right now and hope for the best.
I think your comments are more motivated by wishful thinking than they are by any sound legal premise. Indeed, since you're not qualified to give legal advice, I don't see how you could offer legal counsel based on anything besides your opinion about the way the world "should" work.
I thought they were naming their software after wellknown cracks. Are you saying that these cracks have legitimate, registered and legally defensible trademarks ?
The part I don't get is that you think that this is unique to Japan. Do you believe that
I can assure you that this is not the case (all of the above laughably false). Other countries are not substantially different.
[First, excuse me for mass snippage of fairly insightful comments which I largely agree with or am at least sympathetic to.]
"CDs are too expensive" is a perfectly valid statement I can make, which is irrefutable.
And yet it can be refuted.
If I say that CDs are too expensive for me, especially considering their low production cost
(1) This depends on what you mean by ``prouction cost'', but also
(2) What's so special about CDs ? Clothing also has a ``low production cost'', yet I do not hear the any whining about clothing being ``too expensive''. There are examples of other goods that could reasonably be considered ``too expensive'' by the same reasoning, and yet no outrage about it. I believe the reason is that these complaints that the goods are ``too expensive'' are largely motivated by the need to rationalise ones own piracy, or perhaps defend that of others.
you can argue that in fact production costs are higher because I failed to consider disproportionate growing marketing and studio costs.
Not all CDs are heavily marketted. The ones that are not heavily marketted have lower upfront costs, and hence tend to be cheaper. But that business model does NOT produce the kind of music that appears on the "expensive" CDs. I think the clothing analogy is actually pretty good here -- the people who really badly want their fix of music that just happens to be on a big 5 heavily marketted RIAA label are not unlike those who insist on wearing designer clothing (that's made in China) even though they could get cheap clothing at a fraction of the cost. To some extent, it is the marketting that produces the value in the eyes of these consumers, so it's not reasonable to turn around and argue one doesn't want all that marketting.
I would still be right, because to me the price of the CD has risen in proportion to my available household income.
No, you would be wrong, because it hasn't. I recall cassette tapes selling for about $10-11 (standard price) or about $8- at discount and CDs sold for a few more dollars. That was in 1990. Nowadays, the CD prices have increased no more than about 50%. How much has the cost of living increased in that period ?
I could also argue that the quality of published music has gone down and therefore justifies my belief that the "CDs are too expensive" to ME.
You could indeed argue that, but it doesn't justify piracy when you say it that way, which is why it usually isn't stated in this manner (-;
Most people, including myself, tend to forget the "for me"-part.
I disagree. Again, you're ignoring why he's giving the stuff away in the first place. It's preview material now, remember ? So it's no longer in his best interests to present the CD as a complete product, because it's not "the real deal". "The real deal" is the live act. As long as the CD is effective in promoting the live act, it's actually in the artists interests to make sure that the CD incomplete.
I absolutely agree. However, it all depends on HOW you intend to fight piracy.
My position is that they should go after uploaders and hit them hard. They shouldn't bother hitting the leeches -- it's a better strategy to make it unprofitable to leech, and that should be a multi-pronged strategy which includes going after uploaders. I don't think DRM is worth the ill will it causes.
On the other hand, I really think they should go after the uploaders, whether or not they are "customers". Priceless! The RIAA is not homogeneous, but the "slashdot herd" is?
I use "the slashdot herd" to describe a large subset of posters on slashdot. You've already produced a perfectly good reductio-ad-absurdum that demonstrates that I cannot possibly mean everyone who posts on slashdot. I think it's a fair statement. There is a large group of posters on slashdot who have a number of beliefs which they hold with a religious zeal, that are without any factual basis. (For example, the claim that "CDs are too expensive" is often made, but never supported with a factual argument)
But you're not "taking it from the artists point of view" at all. Why would the artist want to make the effort to do all that ? Remember, they are trying to provide a preview to promote their primary revenue source, they are NOT trying to provide a free service to slashdot freeloaders.
Ignoring shifts in consumer behaviour, technology and more generally, reality, fighting their very own customers is not exactly what I would call a viable business model in the long-term.
I don't think they're ignoring "shifts in consumer behaviour" at all. I think they were too slow to create a legitimate distribution channel for digital music. However, I think fighting piracy is entirely legitimate. Or would you argue that they should let slashdot freeloaders sneak in the back door at concerts too ?
If the RIAA can come up with a decent business model that satisfies consumer demands (which may not be "music for free" but rather "quality for money") then I am all for it.
"The RIAA" is not a homogeneous entity. It is a group consising of several labels. Some of them already do adopt a "quality for money" business model. It's funny how the slashdot herd tends to prefer the artists that go via the labels that don't operate on such a model, then they whine about the model that produced the crappy music that they supposedly so desperately need that they have no choice but to pirate it.
The claim that their business model is redundant depends on the existence of a coexisting and superior business model that will replace it. "Free" is not a business model.
And if the artists are pissed because they wont get _as_much_ money, that just goes to show that money is all they are after, should we really be supporting them?
Nonsense. That's like saying that if you won't accept a paycut for your present job, then it's "money that's all you're after".
should we be suffering DRM and restrictions to our freedom because some assholes want a bigger jet?
At least part of the reason they came up with DRM is the widespread piracy. Perhaps the slashdot freeloaders are at least partly to blame for the problem.
If that's really the model, then they should only release a very small number of their songs, and most should never be recorded, right ? But that's not the model you're thinking of, because the model you're thinking of is one that serves the interests of the freeloaders. I wonder why ? Oh, I see, we're on slashdot. Never mind.
Sip makes it fairly easy to put python bindings on C++ without doing much in the way of "flattening" yourself. It's true that "flattening" needs to be done, but the tool (sip) takes care of it for you.
Haven't RTFA for this reason -- Cringely is a moron, and your description/summary of this article is consistent with his earlier articles that I've seen (hey, at least he's "consistent"!) I don't know why slashdot continues to grant this very silly man headline real-estate.
No. The line itself still has one dimension. (Imagine that you're a flat-world creature living on the line -- how do you even know that it's bent ?) What's changed is that if you want to embed the line into euclidean space, it needs to be two dimensional space.
In general, you can embed an n-dimensional space into 2n-dimensional euclidean space. But none of this has a whole lot to do with the conjecture.
First, you've made the mistake of confusing the language with an implementation of the language. These are different things entirely. I'm not even sure what it would mean for the language itself to be "free". Maybe if it were submitted to a truly open standards group (like ANSI/ISO C and C++) that would make it more "free" but I don't see how that would help. Of course having a good free implementation of the language is important, but that doesn't mean that Sun needs to provide that implementation. gcc is not provided by the original implementors.
Of course there are free software implementations of java.
As for releasing java under the GPL -- I don't see it happening. Releasing it under an appropriate open source license would help Suns implementation become more popular, but they wouldn't be able to make money licensing their source code.
Depends on the conditions, but I've noticed a lot of problems with AMD chips running hot, and this can cause stability problems. If you control the climate carefully, they will run OK -- for example, my dual athlon with a Tyan Tiger board runs just fine if the ambient temperature is kept at 72. Otherwise, it locks up. What's even more frustrating is that the stupid board doesn't allow me to underclock the chips.
We recently purchased an Opteron cluster (at work) and the stupid thing generates so much heat that we need heavy duty air conditioning units in the room to keep it cool.
I'm not going with AMD for some time now. I don't think they understand the difference between the server/worksation market and the gaming market yet. They are still as far as I can tell shipping chips in what is an overclocked configuration. The good thing about a CPU review that looks at overclocking is that it gives you some idea as to how fast the processors really are (that is, do they have a good processor, or are they just clocking a weak processor agressively ?)
I see, you have an indirect breach now. Very smart. unfortunately, if a recipient further compounds the damage caused by this misuse of property, it makes them a co-conspiritor, and if they are a willing co-conspiritor, then they could also be liable. IOW, I simply don't buy the "leak" argument. I can see why you'd like it though -- because ultimately, what you desire is a means to intrude on and disrupt ;legitimate contractual agreements.
That is where the influence of the creator ends.
Well, we don't agree on this. I think the creator should have more influence. The reason ultimately boils down to the fact that I believe that the creator and the users both have the right to form contractual agreements without the freeloading slashdot pondscum beating on the doors and looking for a way to get a free ride.
Correction: society were the main beneficiaries of copyright. Now copyright has been mutated into the horrific monstrous she-bitch of corporate juggernauts.
Yes, but it's still better than contractual/licensing based alternatives that would exist if there were no copyright. Of course there do exist implementations of copyright that would be better for society than the current one.
Societies without such ideas have had flourishing musical cultures - there is no reason to think that real musicians would just give it up because there was little money in the business.
Those societies did not have convenient access to recording equipment. I don't think anyone would care a whole lot about copyright infringement that did not in anyway involve the use of recording equipment.
Why not just restrict commercial use of copyrighted works?
Because this would still enable free-riding and large scale piracy. Allowing free riders is unfair to both the person providing the ride, and others paying for the ride. Who cares about the free riders anyway ? Why is it a worthwhile goal to serve their interests ? They are parasites.
People ignore copyright law for the most part anyway.
It's much like having speed limits -- you don't need 100% compliance (or anything close to it) for the law to be effective.
It's not an analogous example. In fact I already have explained why the "fell off the back of a truck" example is NOT a loophole. In the case with the CD that was obtained, someone needs to misuse something that doesn't belong to them. I have shown that all obvious "public domain" leaks boil down to either misuse of property, or breaches of contract.
Do you think the world would be a better place if every little creative work were licensed by contract to every recipient?
No, certainly not. That's not my argument. In fact I'd argue the opposite -- copyright is actually a very good thing in principle.
What I am arguing (or was arguing) is that there is no natural right, really no moral ground, for the creator of a work to exert power over others who have the capacity to perform/redistribute/eat it.
I have argued that there is plenty of moral ground. It follows from the right to form contracts and in some cases, property rights.
The idea that creative works are "property" is one espoused by the laws of modern humankind,
I haven't argued that creative works are "property", so this is a straw man argument. The notion of contracts is much older.
Copyright is an unnatural restriction imposed by society on individuals,
It's not unnatural, but it is a restriction.
for the benefit of society
Exactly. Society are the main beneficiaries of copyright. Which is why I'm puzzled that so many ignorant slashmorons are against copyright. A system like EULAs without any sort of guaranteed fair use provisions would be much worse for society.
My position is that they're only liable for damages if they misuse the product in such a way as to undermine contractual agreements (for example, by uploading it to a public server). One could argue for some liability if they receive benefits via this misuse that they're not otherwise entitled to (I think liability and misappropriation allow for this) but this is a weaker argument. The case against an uploader (or any illegitimate distributor) is a stronger one.
More relevant to these specific examples -- I don't think downloaders would be liable (or at least, the case for making downloaders liable isn't a very strong one) under such a system, but uploaders would be. Maybe this is what you were getting at ?
They could be held liable for damages that result from unauthorised usage. Misusing someone else's property doesn't just make you liable for the value of that property. For example, if you find someones wallet, use their ID card to get into IBM HQ, steal trade secrets and post them on a public website, you are not just liable for the (almost non-existent) cost of reproducing the plastic swipe card.
I've realised that IHBT...
IBHT, and this discussion is finished ? Heard that one before (-; HAND.
A better example actually would be the "fell off the back of a truck" example -- suppose the CD literally does fall off the back of the truck and someone finds it.
The answer to this apparent dilemma is that even though they are in possesion of the CD, it is not their CD, so they are not authorised to use it (much like finding someones wallet doesn't give you the right to make use of the priveliges that may come with having some of the ID cards in that wallet)