I really think this is something no one can tell you the answer to, but here goes anyway.:)
It comes down to a simple choice between what is more important to you, the ideals or your job (I'm making the assumption that this is a job, if it's not, then the answer seems easy, tell them no.)
Ideals are wonderful things, but they don't keep the family fed, do they. Is this ideal important enough to you that it's really worth fighting for?
On the other hand, maybe it's more important to set the standard and suffer the consequences. And even if they end up getting someone else to do it anyway, you'll be able to sleep better at night knowing you've done what you think is right. But you also have to pick your battles.
There is of course middle groud here, talk to them about it and maybe you can find a way to keep your ideals and your job.;)
Just my $0.02 on it, take it for what it's worth.
--Ty
Re:Katz writes about things without having 2 clues
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 1
Where do you think someone like me would fit in?
Wherever you can, just like the rest of us.
I peronsally see this article as proof of what Katz is trying to say, that the social graces of the "normal world" do not seem to exist in the techno-culture.
I think you are confusing social graces with socialism. Sure, I need to be polite to people, but that doesn't mean giving them things they haven't earned. Charity is good thing to a point, by it only hurts people in the long term if they don't learn to earn/do things for themselves eventually.
These laws were enacted so that authors and artists would have an incentive to produce new works and to encourage the free and rapid circulation of ideas and opinions.
Would ideas and opinions not circulate faster - or at least, no slower - if copyright was nonexistant?
Only if they are released. I think the idea was that if there wasn't a guarantee of some sort that you, the creator of the idea/opinion, could get a benifit from it, you'd have no reason to release it. Who whould want to do a lot of work and then have someone else get rich off of it. At least that's the idea. In practice, the recording industry has driven everything to Hell, with the artists that copyright is susposed to protect getting screwed.
I'm just tired of being lumped in with all the 15 year old AOLers with no morals.
I find it ammusing that you don't want to be thought of as a cracker just because you are young, so you don't like the phrase "Script Kiddie", but you are willing to lump all people who use AOL into a bucket the same way.
Light traveling faster than c in a vaccum? Rejected. New 1petaflop computer IBM is working on? Rejected. Unfilmed Crusade scripts posted online? Rejected. New actor on X-Files? Post that right away!
Just wanted to chime in with an attaboy. I agree with you 100% on this. This kind of talk pisses me off too. I think too much is gotten away with in this world because "everyone else is doing it." People who believe in something need to stand up for it, even in the face of large numbers of others who don't seem to care.
Ridley wanted Deckard to be a replicant.. but it was never concretely decided by the writers.
Doesn't that kinda make it so? Directors have a huge amount of power when making movies. How they interpret the script is often a large factor in how the movie gets made. If Ridley wanted Deckard to be a replicant, and he's making the movie, doesn't that pretty much clinch it? Isn't bending the script to their view kinda what directors do?
Did I miss something, or did Lucas just slip up?:)
Nope, Lucas didn't slip up. I submited something about the official announcment when it happened, but, having nothing to do with MP3, piracy, or IP, it got rejected.
It's in space... no resistance = no speed limit. (except light that is.)
Who said there was no resistance in space? Space is full of stuff. Lost of dust and tiny particles floating around out there. And at the speeds these things would most likely get, small particles make a big difference for getting any faster.
So are you saying that, if this sort of technology was to exist, 'Intellectual Property' should be used to prevent the elimination of poverty (and the downfall of capitalism/corporatism)?
I'm saying that people deserve to be compensated for their work. I suspose that you won't mind putting all the farmers out of business by just replicating food. Who exactly is going to be paying to run this nifty little device. Or do you expect a money based economy to just disappear overnight? And what makes you think a device like that would end poverty? All that energy has to come from somewhere, and I'll bet it wouldn't be cheap.
What if you had a Star Trek style 'replicator'. Would you replicate a car? or would this be theft? What about replicating clothes? or food?
Seems like an odd what-if, but I'll bite. No, it would be just as wrong to "copy" those items without paying the designer/builder/grower as it is to copy music and giving it away.
And let's avoid the, "what if the car was for your own personal use" stuff . I think that stretches the analogy a little too far.:)
Equating theft of unique physical objects with theft of exact digital copies is dumb. It makes about as much sense as saying, "My monitor sucks cos this chair is blue."
Why is it any different? You are stealing someones property. Be it intellectual or physical. You are trying to say that because it's easy to steal and hard to account for that makes it ok?
While I personally agree that if you legally own the album than you should be able to store it on whatever medium you want; Just because you own the album though does not give you the right to give it to anyone else Sure we do it all the time when we make a mix tape or something and give it to someone but that still doesn't make it legal.
You're right, of course, and I misread the statment you quoted when I replied. Thanks for correcting me.
You can't be serious. Stand in front of a mirror and say, with a straight face, "Napster wants to kick all music pirates of their service."
Of course I'm serious. If you don't think that's true, how can you in good conscience support them? Or are you one of those people who thinks pirating is your god given right?
--Ty
I think I'll go steal a car today because the people who make them charge too much.
Am I the only one that thinks this is silly? I really think that sci-fi writters come up with so many things that come to be because they are following things to a logical conclusion many times.
I'm not trying to cast a shadow on the writers, on the contrary. I think that they are to be commended for having the vision to see the need/possibility of such things so much sooner than the rest of us. But I think searching through sci-fi for ideas is a waste of money that could be put to better use doing some real science.
Maybe they are just having trouble finding things for grad students to do these days.:) --Ty
since (I'm talking IMHO) every group that I've liked, heard about on the Internet or whatsoever I've finally buyed their albums to support future productions of that groups.
Then you are a very rare person, and I salute you for it. Almost all of the people I know who get free music/games/whatever on the net snicker about how stupid people are who pay for such things.
I do agree that there is a problem with this that people who should have a right to download this music, people like you who have bought the albums, are getting hit here. I'm not sure there is an easy solution to this problem.
There really isn't a way to prove that you own the music that a pirate couldn't exploit. On the other hand, it's not fair for you to be punished because of the actions of others.
Does anyone know how much free space there is on an average music CD? Any at all? Would there be enough for the mp3s to be included on the CD somehow? Then the people with a right to them would get them. Not sure what to do about people who buy tapes then though. Anyway, it's an idea.:)
Don't use Napster. They obviously don't want you as a user.
Sure they do, they just want you as a legal, non-pirating user.
Don't buy anything by Metallica. They obviously don't want you as a fan.
Sure they do, they just want you as a honest paying fan. I can't say I blame them. I sure wouldn't want commercial code I wrote to be pirated this way.
Everquest has a set of rules that you agree to everytime you enter the game. Among them are the rules for naming of characters. Most of the time enforcement of said naming rules is pretty lax. Once and a while though, they decide to do a house cleaning on "illegal" names. The policies are pretty straight forward, so I don't really waste any tears on anyone who gets there names changed. Names like Ionic Bondbreaker and Random Task are kinda out of place in the world anyway. Oh, vulgar names are policed pretty regularly.
Can I be sued for telling you where a gunstore is?
I'm not sure. Can I be sued (or prosecuted) if I tell you where a gunstore is if I know you are going to use the gun to kill someone? Is that aiding and abetting? Would it be something similar in this case when the content in question has been deemed illegal? (Which while we may not agree with it, is the case.)
Or to look at it another way, would it be illegal for me to link to a kiddie porn site even if I didn't have any of the illegal content on my site?
The odds are good, IMO, that this pattern repeat is possible in two people
That may be true. But the odds of the person on trial and the criminal having the same DNA are much, much smaller.
This turns into the birthday paradox. I.e. It *much* easier to find two people with the same birthday than it is to find someone with your birthday in a room of people. It's because for the first problem, the number of paris in the crowd is what is important, so the number goes up much faster than the linear rise in the number of people in the room. (Exponential I think).
So it's very unlikely, that you'd find someone with the same DNA as you. But it much easier to find two people with the same DNA (and that still ain't likely).
You can read a little more about it in Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schneier. He discusses the same thing in regards to, IIRC, know plaintext attacks against crypto systems.
Unless the reason that I want it is for the other features. I.e. the pause/rewind/ff stuff, which is what I would use most. That might be worth the extra cash. A few months ago, I wouldn't have thought so, but now that I have a kid, my schedule isn't my own anymore.:)
Slashdot Mirror
It comes down to a simple choice between what is more important to you, the ideals or your job (I'm making the assumption that this is a job, if it's not, then the answer seems easy, tell them no.)
Ideals are wonderful things, but they don't keep the family fed, do they. Is this ideal important enough to you that it's really worth fighting for?
On the other hand, maybe it's more important to set the standard and suffer the consequences. And even if they end up getting someone else to do it anyway, you'll be able to sleep better at night knowing you've done what you think is right. But you also have to pick your battles.
There is of course middle groud here, talk to them about it and maybe you can find a way to keep your ideals and your job. ;)
Just my $0.02 on it, take it for what it's worth.
--Ty
Wherever you can, just like the rest of us.
I peronsally see this article as proof of what Katz is trying to say, that the social graces of the "normal world" do not seem to exist in the techno-culture.
I think you are confusing social graces with socialism. Sure, I need to be polite to people, but that doesn't mean giving them things they haven't earned. Charity is good thing to a point, by it only hurts people in the long term if they don't learn to earn/do things for themselves eventually.
Would ideas and opinions not circulate faster - or at least, no slower - if copyright was nonexistant?
Only if they are released. I think the idea was that if there wasn't a guarantee of some sort that you, the creator of the idea/opinion, could get a benifit from it, you'd have no reason to release it. Who whould want to do a lot of work and then have someone else get rich off of it. At least that's the idea. In practice, the recording industry has driven everything to Hell, with the artists that copyright is susposed to protect getting screwed.
--Ty
I find it ammusing that you don't want to be thought of as a cracker just because you are young, so you don't like the phrase "Script Kiddie", but you are willing to lump all people who use AOL into a bucket the same way.
--Ty
Light traveling faster than c in a vaccum? Rejected.
New 1petaflop computer IBM is working on? Rejected.
Unfilmed Crusade scripts posted online? Rejected.
New actor on X-Files? Post that right away!
--Ty
--Ty
Doesn't that kinda make it so? Directors have a huge amount of power when making movies. How they interpret the script is often a large factor in how the movie gets made. If Ridley wanted Deckard to be a replicant, and he's making the movie, doesn't that pretty much clinch it? Isn't bending the script to their view kinda what directors do?
--Ty
Nope, Lucas didn't slip up. I submited something about the official announcment when it happened, but, having nothing to do with MP3, piracy, or IP, it got rejected.
And I've no doubt that in C# void main is legal.
*sigh*.
--Ty
Aren't we here at Slashdot the first to jump all over any company that makes the slightest slip with the GNU license?
--Ty
Who said there was no resistance in space? Space is full of stuff. Lost of dust and tiny particles floating around out there. And at the speeds these things would most likely get, small particles make a big difference for getting any faster.
--Ty
Shouldn't it be FIN
:)
--Ty
I'm saying that people deserve to be compensated for their work. I suspose that you won't mind putting all the farmers out of business by just replicating food. Who exactly is going to be paying to run this nifty little device. Or do you expect a money based economy to just disappear overnight? And what makes you think a device like that would end poverty? All that energy has to come from somewhere, and I'll bet it wouldn't be cheap.
--Ty
Seems like an odd what-if, but I'll bite. No, it would be just as wrong to "copy" those items without paying the designer/builder/grower as it is to copy music and giving it away.
And let's avoid the, "what if the car was for your own personal use" stuff . I think that stretches the analogy a little too far. :)
Why is it any different? You are stealing someones property. Be it intellectual or physical. You are trying to say that because it's easy to steal and hard to account for that makes it ok?
--Ty
You're right, of course, and I misread the statment you quoted when I replied. Thanks for correcting me.
--Ty
Of course I'm serious. If you don't think that's true, how can you in good conscience support them? Or are you one of those people who thinks pirating is your god given right?
--Ty
I think I'll go steal a car today because the people who make them charge too much.
I'm not trying to cast a shadow on the writers, on the contrary. I think that they are to be commended for having the vision to see the need/possibility of such things so much sooner than the rest of us. But I think searching through sci-fi for ideas is a waste of money that could be put to better use doing some real science.
Maybe they are just having trouble finding things for grad students to do these days. :) --Ty
Then you are a very rare person, and I salute you for it. Almost all of the people I know who get free music/games/whatever on the net snicker about how stupid people are who pay for such things.
I do agree that there is a problem with this that people who should have a right to download this music, people like you who have bought the albums, are getting hit here. I'm not sure there is an easy solution to this problem.
There really isn't a way to prove that you own the music that a pirate couldn't exploit. On the other hand, it's not fair for you to be punished because of the actions of others.
Does anyone know how much free space there is on an average music CD? Any at all? Would there be enough for the mp3s to be included on the CD somehow? Then the people with a right to them would get them. Not sure what to do about people who buy tapes then though. Anyway, it's an idea. :)
Sure they do, they just want you as a legal, non-pirating user.
Don't buy anything by Metallica. They obviously don't want you as a fan.
Sure they do, they just want you as a honest paying fan. I can't say I blame them. I sure wouldn't want commercial code I wrote to be pirated this way.
Everquest has a set of rules that you agree to everytime you enter the game. Among them are the rules for naming of characters. Most of the time enforcement of said naming rules is pretty lax. Once and a while though, they decide to do a house cleaning on "illegal" names. The policies are pretty straight forward, so I don't really waste any tears on anyone who gets there names changed. Names like Ionic Bondbreaker and Random Task are kinda out of place in the world anyway. Oh, vulgar names are policed pretty regularly.
I'm not sure. Can I be sued (or prosecuted) if I tell you where a gunstore is if I know you are going to use the gun to kill someone? Is that aiding and abetting? Would it be something similar in this case when the content in question has been deemed illegal? (Which while we may not agree with it, is the case.)
Or to look at it another way, would it be illegal for me to link to a kiddie porn site even if I didn't have any of the illegal content on my site?
--Ty
That may be true. But the odds of the person on trial and the criminal having the same DNA are much, much smaller.
This turns into the birthday paradox. I.e. It *much* easier to find two people with the same birthday than it is to find someone with your birthday in a room of people. It's because for the first problem, the number of paris in the crowd is what is important, so the number goes up much faster than the linear rise in the number of people in the room. (Exponential I think).
So it's very unlikely, that you'd find someone with the same DNA as you. But it much easier to find two people with the same DNA (and that still ain't likely).
You can read a little more about it in Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schneier. He discusses the same thing in regards to, IIRC, know plaintext attacks against crypto systems.
--Ty
Unless the reason that I want it is for the other features. I.e. the pause/rewind/ff stuff, which is what I would use most. That might be worth the extra cash. A few months ago, I wouldn't have thought so, but now that I have a kid, my schedule isn't my own anymore. :)