You don't back up your claims and you generalize your own opinion. "They lost any credibility, and any respect, at that point" may be what you think, but it's not what everyone thinks. Your only valid and somewhat interesting claim is that they "pulled all private corporate leaks and European and other countries leaks," but there could be other reasons for that than being "solely an anti-US espionage org". Still, that's not trolling. Calling for a hanging (of Assange, presumably) is, though.
I tried mirroring it, but Youtube tells me the video is 'blocked in some countries'. Not that it would be of much interest, as there's hardly anything said about hometaping killing music.
It seems to me this video was blocked due to some automated process that recognized footage of Meatloaf or Kiss.
You do realize that xkcd just mentions well-established clichés, right?
No I don't. You could apply this logic to everything that was ever written, claiming that every single thought has been uttered before (making your statement a cliché as well). Where's the fun in that? And what does count as 'original'?
Pah. I raise you ONE Edgar Allan Poe (worth at least FOUR demotivators): "They who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only by night."
I don't know how to jolt myself into seeing what each moment could become. But I do know one thing: the solution doesn't involve watering down my every little idea and creative impulse for the sake of some day easing my fit into a mold. It doesn't involve tempering my life to better fit someone's expectations. It doesn't involve constantly holding back for fear of shaking things up.
Some xkcd's become clichés for a reason. This is one of them. xkcd 137.
I tried a few things out and this seems to work: block "http://*google.com/url*" with Adblock or something similar. Same works for "http://*.facebook.com/l.php*" . The redirect urls are triggered by javascript, but the HTML hrefs still work.
Moglen's reply to this in the video is that he expects the boxes to spread before lawmakers catch on, similar to the way PGP made the Cipperchip and the banning of other encryption methods a failure.
In this case I'd say it has more to do with the conceptual distance between a price tag for a pendrive and paying an artist. For Hungarians, Slovakian pendrives are simply cheaper. I bet most don't even know why that is.
There are a lot of points to be debated regarding TFA and I've seen a lot of them mentioned above.
I'd like to add one, and it's mentioned in the title. The theory that kids who are less capable of reading non-verbal clues from their peers tend to be rejected more seems somewhat obvious. But the title seems to blame these same kids for being bullied! Being rejected and being bullied are very different things. Ignoring kids who act differently is perhaps not the most laudable thing to do, but it certainly isn't malicious. Bullying peers who don't seem to 'get it', however, seems to me to be a social problem of the bullies, not the bullied.
Thanks again for your patient explanation, I think I understand the line of reasoning now. The burden's on the defendant because he's the one who did the infringement in the first place, to put it crudely. Still sounds unfair to me, though.
If, as you say, "the statutory damage provisions were intended to be compensatory, rather than punitive," it would seem fair to me to have some indication by the plaintiff as to how this damage occurs. It would seem fairer to me to fine the downloader for his infringement and then have the plaintiff sue for damages.
I've already mentioned that it's hard, if not impossible, to prove something doesn't exist. Even if the defendant would claim that damages are half of what the plaintiff comes up with, he would be in the uncomfortable position of trying to prove he did inflict damage, but to a lesser amount, while that was clearly not the motive of the infringement.
Requiring specific damage amounts from plaintiffs would be unfair, but would it be unfair to ask for some indication as to how the damage is inflicted? Is there any serious research that shows that sales are, ceteris paribus, affected by downloads? Especially given the fact that, unlike bag counterfeiters, Tanenbaum was not doing it for a profit.
Showing that some damage is irrefutably done when someone's up- or downloading music is a burden that should be on the plaintiff, in my opinion. The calculation of damages in a specific case shouldn't be in physical CD's that haven't been sold or upload logs, but there should be a reasonable, well-researched method.
Your Prada analogy is helpful, yet I'd like to clarify that I wasn't proposing that plaintiffs should find all buyers of counterfeit Prada's, just a few. I was suggesting that the plaintiff should at least prove that downloads affect sales in a direct and strictly negative way. It seems to me that this could be more easily done in the counterfeiting case.
So the burden's on the defendant; he or she has to prove that the damages suffered by the plaintiff are not the amount the latter claims. What if the defendant were to claim there were no damages? It's notoriously hard to prove something doesn't exist (teapots in orbit, yeti's etc.).
As a side note, I've heard a few things from a reliable source about Turkish bag counterfeiters that made me smile: first, some of them make bags that are of better quality than Prada and Gucci. Second, they sometimes find that some type of bag doesn't sell to well. They then change the design and they sell better. It amuses me to think that these counterfeiters successfully improve designer's designs and, moreover, that their customers are buying bags that are obviously fake to a connaisseur. They just don't care, they want a cheap bag with the right label on it. Third, it is rumored that Gucci on occasion implements the changes made by counterfeiters, but of that my source wasn't sure.
IANAL and IANAAmerican, but it baffles me that plaintiffs don't have to prove actual damages. It seems that they not only don't have to substantiate the amount of damage, they don't even have to prove there is any damage in the first place. Wouldn't it be fair to have them produce statistics that say that music that is pirated more is sold less? Or to have them produce say five witnesses who testify that they didn't buy a song because Tenenbaum uploaded it?
Other similarities are that in a waltz, the dancers usually remain in closed position and that the pair makes circular motions. You know, like waltzing black holes.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't back up your claims and you generalize your own opinion. "They lost any credibility, and any respect, at that point" may be what you think, but it's not what everyone thinks. Your only valid and somewhat interesting claim is that they "pulled all private corporate leaks and European and other countries leaks," but there could be other reasons for that than being "solely an anti-US espionage org". Still, that's not trolling. Calling for a hanging (of Assange, presumably) is, though.
I tried mirroring it, but Youtube tells me the video is 'blocked in some countries'. Not that it would be of much interest, as there's hardly anything said about hometaping killing music.
It seems to me this video was blocked due to some automated process that recognized footage of Meatloaf or Kiss.
It's available in The Netherlands. I don't know if it has been down here. v=E9KRtuEttIQ
goo.gl shortens goo.gl url's as well! No, I will not write an evil script. Someone has to do the 'No Evil', right?
No I don't. You could apply this logic to everything that was ever written, claiming that every single thought has been uttered before (making your statement a cliché as well). Where's the fun in that? And what does count as 'original'?
By the way, I'm a dipshit: xkcd is very funny.
Pah. I raise you ONE Edgar Allan Poe (worth at least FOUR demotivators): "They who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only by night."
I don't know how to jolt myself into seeing what each moment could become. But I do know one thing: the solution doesn't involve watering down my every little idea and creative impulse for the sake of some day easing my fit into a mold. It doesn't involve tempering my life to better fit someone's expectations. It doesn't involve constantly holding back for fear of shaking things up.
Some xkcd's become clichés for a reason. This is one of them. xkcd 137.
I tried a few things out and this seems to work: block "http://*google.com/url*" with Adblock or something similar. Same works for "http://*.facebook.com/l.php*" . The redirect urls are triggered by javascript, but the HTML hrefs still work.
This Firefox addon does the same using the api provided by longurlplease.
- Bill Hicks
If you haven't already, you should read 'A Scanner Darkly' by Philip K. Dick.
Moglen's reply to this in the video is that he expects the boxes to spread before lawmakers catch on, similar to the way PGP made the Cipperchip and the banning of other encryption methods a failure.
It's called sarcasm. And it was copied from TFA: http://linuxcrunch.com/content/sneak-preview-coming-kde-sc-45#comment-770
Those millions are spent on implementations, not on 'concepts and ideas'.
Umberto Eco tried to think that one through: On the Impossibility of Drawing a Map of the Empire on a Scale of 1 to 1[pdf].
In this case I'd say it has more to do with the conceptual distance between a price tag for a pendrive and paying an artist. For Hungarians, Slovakian pendrives are simply cheaper. I bet most don't even know why that is.
There are a lot of points to be debated regarding TFA and I've seen a lot of them mentioned above.
I'd like to add one, and it's mentioned in the title. The theory that kids who are less capable of reading non-verbal clues from their peers tend to be rejected more seems somewhat obvious. But the title seems to blame these same kids for being bullied! Being rejected and being bullied are very different things. Ignoring kids who act differently is perhaps not the most laudable thing to do, but it certainly isn't malicious. Bullying peers who don't seem to 'get it', however, seems to me to be a social problem of the bullies, not the bullied.
I was going for a BadAnalogyGuy, but he seems to be sleeping. Didn't catch the Southpark reference, though. My humblest apologies.
Well you're mine now, baz.
That's not even an analogy, guy.
Thanks again for your patient explanation, I think I understand the line of reasoning now. The burden's on the defendant because he's the one who did the infringement in the first place, to put it crudely. Still sounds unfair to me, though.
If, as you say, "the statutory damage provisions were intended to be compensatory, rather than punitive," it would seem fair to me to have some indication by the plaintiff as to how this damage occurs. It would seem fairer to me to fine the downloader for his infringement and then have the plaintiff sue for damages.
I've already mentioned that it's hard, if not impossible, to prove something doesn't exist. Even if the defendant would claim that damages are half of what the plaintiff comes up with, he would be in the uncomfortable position of trying to prove he did inflict damage, but to a lesser amount, while that was clearly not the motive of the infringement.
Requiring specific damage amounts from plaintiffs would be unfair, but would it be unfair to ask for some indication as to how the damage is inflicted? Is there any serious research that shows that sales are, ceteris paribus, affected by downloads? Especially given the fact that, unlike bag counterfeiters, Tanenbaum was not doing it for a profit.
Showing that some damage is irrefutably done when someone's up- or downloading music is a burden that should be on the plaintiff, in my opinion. The calculation of damages in a specific case shouldn't be in physical CD's that haven't been sold or upload logs, but there should be a reasonable, well-researched method.
Thanks for your reply!
Your Prada analogy is helpful, yet I'd like to clarify that I wasn't proposing that plaintiffs should find all buyers of counterfeit Prada's, just a few. I was suggesting that the plaintiff should at least prove that downloads affect sales in a direct and strictly negative way. It seems to me that this could be more easily done in the counterfeiting case.
So the burden's on the defendant; he or she has to prove that the damages suffered by the plaintiff are not the amount the latter claims. What if the defendant were to claim there were no damages? It's notoriously hard to prove something doesn't exist (teapots in orbit, yeti's etc.).
As a side note, I've heard a few things from a reliable source about Turkish bag counterfeiters that made me smile: first, some of them make bags that are of better quality than Prada and Gucci. Second, they sometimes find that some type of bag doesn't sell to well. They then change the design and they sell better. It amuses me to think that these counterfeiters successfully improve designer's designs and, moreover, that their customers are buying bags that are obviously fake to a connaisseur. They just don't care, they want a cheap bag with the right label on it. Third, it is rumored that Gucci on occasion implements the changes made by counterfeiters, but of that my source wasn't sure.
IANAL and IANAAmerican, but it baffles me that plaintiffs don't have to prove actual damages. It seems that they not only don't have to substantiate the amount of damage, they don't even have to prove there is any damage in the first place. Wouldn't it be fair to have them produce statistics that say that music that is pirated more is sold less? Or to have them produce say five witnesses who testify that they didn't buy a song because Tenenbaum uploaded it?
Other similarities are that in a waltz, the dancers usually remain in closed position and that the pair makes circular motions. You know, like waltzing black holes.