Given the context of the thread, this is a rather amusing comment. Lessig is the author of Free Culture and is very much in tune with your message. He doesn't deserve the bashing he has received.
There's a million ways to be anonymous from open WiFi (even the retards should have that one figured out) to misconfigured proxies, mixmaster networks, freenet, TOR, JAP and a host of other possibilities for anyone that wants real anonymity.
It's funny that you mention JAP. Do you know that it was compromised by law enforcement in 2003? And how about the poor sap that got busted for breaking into Palin's email. He used a proxy that stated: "Because government subpenoa could require us to hand over our server access logs, access logs are regularly deleted to protect your privacy. In short, we value your browsing experience as well as your anonymity, and would not do anything to break your trust in us."
This guy gladly handed over the logs to the feds.
You can be anonymous, but it's not trivial and easy to screw up or get compromised.
If you transport a book in a paper wrapping, it gets wet and an imprint of the cover art is left on the wrapping paper.
I don't understand your analogy at all. You download a file, and you redistribute the file to peers. What does a poor analog copy of a book cover have to do with sharing exact copies of the file? Maybe you do it in chunks, but significant and exact copies of the file are being redistributed.
IMHO the theory that you are distributing when you download a file via P2P was already defeated in a court in US in one of those RIAA court cases, but IANAL.
The difference from an ISP is that you know you don't have rights to redistribute. You are not just hosting generic files. Now, there are other protocols that allow you to share anonymous information, and that would be more like an ISP, but that's not BitTorrent.
thus is protected fair use even if downloading ends up causing you to push out copies of fragments of the content as a side effect of the protocol used (seeding)
Sorry, I don't think the courts will ever condone this under current copyright law. You can't just break copyright because a protocol demands it.
The way they reject things for being non-notable (as if there was a lack of space in wikipedia)
Yeah, I really hate that. I was trying to publish my research about how (1/0 * Infinity) proves the existence of God, but they deleted my page. Bastards. They're in cahoots with all the journals too.
Kind of like how Apple decided that the benefits of being able to install any software you want on a device (iPhone) are far outweighed by the risks of you installing something harmful.
The royalties from selling applications via their store also might have something to do with it.
But it is psychologically impossible to imagine being killed. Because then you would have to imagine not being able to imagine anymore.
This is nonsense. If people didn't fear death they'd be dying all the time. If breaking the speed limit was punishable by death, there would be a lot less speeders on the road.
If you actually fear the afterlife, if you really fear being in Hell or Eternal Damnation or whatever your religion defines as the Big Bad Thing that gets the evildoers, death penalty might actually work work as a deterrence.
The primary role religion plays for most people is to get over the fear of death by promising an afterlife.
Neither one of those seem like reasonable extremes, meaning that people will keep looking for some kind of middle ground.
The middle ground is a free market of child-safe zones. No need for government intervention at all. For example, as a parent you might trust Disney with such a zone. A quick Google search shows this is the direction many people are taking.
And yesterday I had this totally poisonous conversation which left me with no tolerance for this kind of BS at all.
That was incredibly tame, except for the "Please do not spread false information in my journal. Thanks." An admin should not be making these kinds of comments. Slashdot is a free-fire zone (including discussions on the Journal, as far as I know), and comments like that coming from an admin have a chilling effect.
It wasn't just the misspelling, it was also using the wrong word in a confusing way. Finally, when asked for clarification you went through great pains to justify the use of the word -- like the people redefining what a bug means. Hence, hypocritical.
Ok, you are right, it meets the criteria. However, it also gives people the wrong idea when the software isn't meant to see the light of day.
I imagine as a developer Stallman would be upset if he couldn't release the code he was writing. He used to be paid by academia and was allowed to release his code. Would he work for a company under the guise of Free Software if the code he was writing was considered a trade secret?
Every person who works in the IT shop of some company churning out custom solutions for that company is working on Free Software.
This is bullshit. The code is owned by the company and is not "Free Software". If you want to distribute the code outside the company you'll need special permission.
You are ignorant and wrong. Software up to 1979 was not copyrighted (it was an "innovative" use of copyright by Bill Gates at the time that started this trend).
Could you provide a reference? The History Of Software Copyright page makes no mention of Gates, and talks about the first recognized copyright for a computer program in 1961. It also says "It wasn't until the early 1960s that computer programs were being actively marketed by a software industry besides the computer manufacturers.". So there was clearly a market for paid software. It talks about a 1976 copyright act that had been in the works for awhile. It also talks about a 1980 act that provided further details on the copyright of software.
So it doesn't sound to me like Gates invented the use of software copyright.
I did find the 1976 Gates open letter calling people who don't pay for software thieves, so clearly he was an early proponent, but that doesn't mean Gates started the copyright of software.
Slashdot Mirror
fair use does not address free culture in any way
Given the context of the thread, this is a rather amusing comment. Lessig is the author of Free Culture and is very much in tune with your message. He doesn't deserve the bashing he has received.
There's a million ways to be anonymous from open WiFi (even the retards should have that one figured out) to misconfigured proxies, mixmaster networks, freenet, TOR, JAP and a host of other possibilities for anyone that wants real anonymity.
It's funny that you mention JAP. Do you know that it was compromised by law enforcement in 2003? And how about the poor sap that got busted for breaking into Palin's email. He used a proxy that stated: "Because government subpenoa could require us to hand over our server access logs, access logs are regularly deleted to protect your privacy. In short, we value your browsing experience as well as your anonymity, and would not do anything to break your trust in us."
This guy gladly handed over the logs to the feds.
You can be anonymous, but it's not trivial and easy to screw up or get compromised.
If you transport a book in a paper wrapping, it gets wet and an imprint of the cover art is left on the wrapping paper.
I don't understand your analogy at all. You download a file, and you redistribute the file to peers. What does a poor analog copy of a book cover have to do with sharing exact copies of the file? Maybe you do it in chunks, but significant and exact copies of the file are being redistributed.
IMHO the theory that you are distributing when you download a file via P2P was already defeated in a court in US in one of those RIAA court cases, but IANAL.
You are mistaken.
The difference from an ISP is that you know you don't have rights to redistribute. You are not just hosting generic files. Now, there are other protocols that allow you to share anonymous information, and that would be more like an ISP, but that's not BitTorrent.
thus is protected fair use even if downloading ends up causing you to push out copies of fragments of the content as a side effect of the protocol used (seeding)
Sorry, I don't think the courts will ever condone this under current copyright law. You can't just break copyright because a protocol demands it.
The way they reject things for being non-notable (as if there was a lack of space in wikipedia)
Yeah, I really hate that. I was trying to publish my research about how (1/0 * Infinity) proves the existence of God, but they deleted my page. Bastards. They're in cahoots with all the journals too.
the correct response is not "How about we compromise and you only take half my rights away?"
How is that his position? He argues for copyright while allowing fair use, and is against restrictions on tinkering or technology.
Under what law, and why wasn't this law used against Lori Drew?
Sounds like Japanese tentacle porn.
Kind of like how Apple decided that the benefits of being able to install any software you want on a device (iPhone) are far outweighed by the risks of you installing something harmful.
The royalties from selling applications via their store also might have something to do with it.
But it is psychologically impossible to imagine being killed. Because then you would have to imagine not being able to imagine anymore.
This is nonsense. If people didn't fear death they'd be dying all the time. If breaking the speed limit was punishable by death, there would be a lot less speeders on the road.
If you actually fear the afterlife, if you really fear being in Hell or Eternal Damnation or whatever your religion defines as the Big Bad Thing that gets the evildoers, death penalty might actually work work as a deterrence.
The primary role religion plays for most people is to get over the fear of death by promising an afterlife.
It's easy to do when the dictate comes down from the top.
And that's why all Department of Defense software is written in Ada, right?
Neither one of those seem like reasonable extremes, meaning that people will keep looking for some kind of middle ground.
The middle ground is a free market of child-safe zones. No need for government intervention at all. For example, as a parent you might trust Disney with such a zone. A quick Google search shows this is the direction many people are taking.
Well, if he did, that's another case of improper behavior by an admin. Ordinary users can't edit their posts, and for reasons I agree with.
And yesterday I had this totally poisonous conversation which left me with no tolerance for this kind of BS at all.
That was incredibly tame, except for the "Please do not spread false information in my journal. Thanks." An admin should not be making these kinds of comments. Slashdot is a free-fire zone (including discussions on the Journal, as far as I know), and comments like that coming from an admin have a chilling effect.
Adobe opened up their Flash standard. Anybody read the specs and implement it now.
Debian is right to not play the Mozilla games.
But Debian plays the same games with their own trademark. Why is it right for Debian but not for Mozilla? Pure hypocrisy on Debian's part.
It wasn't just the misspelling, it was also using the wrong word in a confusing way. Finally, when asked for clarification you went through great pains to justify the use of the word -- like the people redefining what a bug means. Hence, hypocritical.
I think IT and programming have too much of both (A) people acting as if they can redefine reality by PR
Or badly misspelling words like esoteric and using them in an awkward fashion, and then trying to justify it?
The context in which Vince Ebert used it... well, he's a comedian. I think it was just supposed to be funny.
Well, I searched, and couldn't find the joke online. You're probably just be retelling the joke badly.
Sorry for the swipe, but you're being a little hypocritical here.
Ok, you are right, it meets the criteria. However, it also gives people the wrong idea when the software isn't meant to see the light of day.
I imagine as a developer Stallman would be upset if he couldn't release the code he was writing. He used to be paid by academia and was allowed to release his code. Would he work for a company under the guise of Free Software if the code he was writing was considered a trade secret?
The fact is that trying to prove that God does or doesn't exist using science is absurd.
Do you believe Zeus throws lightning bolts? Or do you think they are a result of the natural laws of physics?
And here is where atheism becomes a religion:
The apparent need of atheists to convert those who do not share their views, and the zealotry of those trying to do the convincing.
That ideas compete with each other isn't exclusive to religion. People debate over politics and any number of ideas.
If the software was Free, the developer would be able to take the code and distribute it.
Every person who works in the IT shop of some company churning out custom solutions for that company is working on Free Software.
This is bullshit. The code is owned by the company and is not "Free Software". If you want to distribute the code outside the company you'll need special permission.
Debian has the same policy. You can't patch Debian and redistribute it as Debian. You might also find this interesting: http://www.google.com/search?q=linux+trademark+money
You are ignorant and wrong. Software up to 1979 was not copyrighted (it was an "innovative" use of copyright by Bill Gates at the time that started this trend).
Could you provide a reference? The History Of Software Copyright page makes no mention of Gates, and talks about the first recognized copyright for a computer program in 1961. It also says "It wasn't until the early 1960s that computer programs were being actively marketed by a software industry besides the computer manufacturers.". So there was clearly a market for paid software. It talks about a 1976 copyright act that had been in the works for awhile. It also talks about a 1980 act that provided further details on the copyright of software.
So it doesn't sound to me like Gates invented the use of software copyright.
I did find the 1976 Gates open letter calling people who don't pay for software thieves, so clearly he was an early proponent, but that doesn't mean Gates started the copyright of software.