Its not at all hard to understand. Its also fairly tangental to the discussion.
Where does the author get these rights?
The author gets these "rights" because we as a society have ceded our right to copy freely to them for a certain period of time. NOT because they created it and deserve it. Simply because our society felt it would encourage authors.
I argue that this cedeing of rights is an old system and should be retired. It was designed to protect Authors from Publishing Houses NOT Publishing houses from individual comsumers (which is what the RIAA - an association of publishing houses - is trying to use it for).
As such, I support things like napster. Napster is a perfect example of why copyright is both unenforcable and outdated. Any individual can copy works and share them with any other individual. There is no real way to track them, no way to catch them (all but the most public of them, like the people who run napster itself or rogue publishin ghouses that sell works - which are rare when compared to simple everyday users who do it)
Copyright was designed when the technology was differnt. It was designed when the means for distribution was outside of the reach of most.
Publishing houses served a purpose then. Replication of information was a limited resource as it took considerable time and investment to do nothing more than make copies. As such, there was a market, and they filled that market.
Now, these works can be copied for essentially 0 cost. There is no scarcity. With no scarcity (ie anyone can do it for 0 cost, like breathig air or drinking water) there is no market for their service. The current market is created by an artifical scarcity, caused by copyright law.
You are right, your example does not make a valid argument.
What I am saying is that the law needs to make sense. The law, as it stands today, is unenforcable.When a law becomes outdated it should be removed.
The RIAA and freinds are trying to use the law to stifle change, to maintain the status quo because it is better for them.
If their buisness model becomes unprofitable (like the ice industry and countless others over time have) then their industry will die out. I do NOT suport the passing of new laws to support companies that can not adapt.
Yes. However, if new technological developments make their buisness model unprofitable, then they must adapt.
As someone said in another group (mailing list) a few weeks back...There used to be an "Ice Industry" where workers would cut ice from lakes and places where ice naturally formed, and ship it to places where people could buy ice.
With the advent of freezers, any person who can afford electricty to their home, can make ice. Do you think that the Ice Industry would have been right to lobby congress at the time to have laws passed, to stop individuals from buying freezers and making their own ice?
This is effectivly what the RIAA wants. They want to stop new technology from being used by individuals, because it conflicts with their buisness model's profitablity.
The problem I see is that these laws of copyright were designed in a time when coping a work was either done laborously by hand or on a big expensive machine called a "printing press". The law was not made with todays technology in mind. The law was not made to stop individuals from copying and shareing works, it was made to stop big publishing houses from publishing works and making money, and not paying authors.
Now they are trying to take old ideas and patch them with duct tape and bubble gum to try and keep the old ideas from passing away. Thats not surprizing, througout history those who were in power before, opose any change that makes them obsolete.
> Whoa bucky, slow down there. Are you saying > Copyrights are unenforcable, or that you'd like > them to be unenforcable?
I am saying that they ARE unenforcable. The most that can be done is a few people be caught now and again, only the biggest "offenders". When someone copies a work, no dead body is left. Nothing that would tip someone off to the fact that it has happened. It is impossible to stop unauthorized copying now that everyone and their brother has the ability to do it. (back when only a small number of people had ready access to the technology needed, then copyright was enforcable)
> Are you saying authors/artists/programmers have > no right to protect
Claiming the rights of the authors or artists seems a little backwards. What you are advocating is the right of an author to dictate the actions of other people. This is, in essence, my problem with "Intellectual property" claims. it is claiming the rights to something which exists entirely in someone elses posession and on someone elses equipment.
Rememeber, the original intent of copyright was to make producing works profitable to authors so that they would make works, in a time when most authors did not have the ability to publish on their own and thus to encourage them to publish, offered them a way to make sure that the publisher pays them.
Today, the means needed for publishing is available to any author. The technology for publishing is available to most any author. I do not believe that we need, any longer, to cede our rights to copy to the authors (which is what copyright technically is) to encourage the production of works.
Is this bad for some buisnesses? Only if they are unwilling to adapt. Change happens. It will happen no matter how much the RIAA and others kick and scream about it. Survivors adapt and move on. Its called progress.
> what does the RIAA get out of stopping Napster? > People have always been copying tapes, taping > shows
Yup...and the RIAA tried to put a stop to that stuff to. They arte the reactionaries. Whenever new technology comes out that could give the public the ability to do things only RIAA memebers and few others could do (ie, most people can't stamp out vinal...until the past few years couldn't make CDs...) they react by trying to stop it.
Just look at the rukus over casset tapes when they first became available and econimical for people to use for copying music. Its the same thing all over again.
Personally, I think that copyright is an outdated system that is no longer socially useful, and simply serves as a baton with which large corperations can use to bully people and keep everyone else at the bottom of the "IP Hill".
It was designed to help authors in a time when mass production and distribution was out of reach for all but a few people, ie those who could afford a printing press. It was designed to stop publishers from taking authors works, selling them and not paying the author (the original meaning of "pirate")
Now that technology is rapidly bringing mass publication into the relm of the average person, its time to abandon these outdated ideas. If the current day media powerhouses lose money because of it, then it was because they couldn't adapt and were unfit for the world.
Now of course, the RIAA and record companies see this happening. Like any organism facing facing possible extinction, they are fighting to remain alive.
> We live in a capitalist society, and all > corporations try to increase profits as > much as possible.
Are you saying that we should protect the "right" of a company to try an make money to the exclusion of the rights of individuals?
It does seem these days that companies only talk about "rights" when it is the "Right" to do something profitable.
If someone finds a way to makemoney...hey great. If they can profit...fine. however, I don't believe in any "Right to profit". If your buisness model is not profitable in the face of new technology, then it should die. Whether your buisness and livelyhood die with it is up to you and your ability to adapt.
The RIAA wants to perpetuate their way of doing buisness, by strangling new technology. They would rather force everyone to continue with buisness as usual then have to actually adapt to new challenges and actually compete on a level playing feild.
They want to perpetuate utterly unenforcable things like "Copyright" by trying to eliminate peoples ability to copy without authorization.
Or the "Hillary Farias Date Rape Prevention Act" named after a girl who police said died from a drug overdose (GHB) even though it wasn't consitant with the evidence and a medical doctor who examined the case said otherwise. (anyone with more information on her case would be a great help...the web pages that had the info dissapeared when I checked them shortly after the bill passed...guess they gave up)
Luckily this bill hasn't had too much effect...all it has done is make posession, sale, or distribution" of red meat to any person without a licence to handle schedual 1 substances very illegal. (yes folks its true Red Meat is illegal in the US...mere posession of it could mean years in prosion)
Ahh yes....but that information was secret. How do you expect Mark Smith to have known about it before he went off in his time machine and got a machine?
Actually....the Freenet Has a huge technical advantage over http protocols. The thing is... its not just hard to track down who wrote it (unless they sign their name...its only anonymous if you want it to be) and where its stored...
It has cacheing built in. When you request something, it propagates. Thi smeans more copies exist. So if a document is REALLY popular, then no one server is bogged down with distributing it.
Imagine some really popular band that believes in mp3 distribution puts out a new mp3. Now everyone 80% of colledge students go to download it.
WHat happens? After the first few downloads at each colledge...the local university freenet server will have a copy of the mp3 and will be serving it to that university.
None of the requests for it will be going outside the local university network. Its the basic equivalent of everyone in the world being behind multiple layers of httpcacheing proxy, except somewhat better (its built into the protocol)
From looking at things, the freenet system really isn't designed with "dynamic content" in mind. It is designed as a place to publish information in a way that it can not be forcibly removed. Dynamic content isn't really possible without some sort of central system.
Freenet is more than just "multilevel cache" no document has a "home". Wherever it is copied to IS its "home". It may dissapear completely from the server it started on and live on another node. (or multiple other nodes) if it is more popular in other places than where it started.
Basically...when data is requested, it propagates ie is copied out to more servers, then those servers also serve that data when it is requestd.
ie data has no "fixed home" it stays where it is popular, and is eventually deleted from servers that never see requests for it.
How would you do dynamic content when there is no central area to hold a database or run code on? I supose it could be done with javascript or some such...but it would have to be all client-side code.
Interesting coincidence. Today there is talk of an "anonymous phone in" for students to report "Depressed or dangerous" classmates, one day after reading about a supreme court decision that an anonymous tip is not enough information for police to conduct a search.
So I have to ask...what would the procedure be if a "tip" is made? Could this be abused by students as a way to harass their classmates? (and don't pretend that no student would ever do that).
How do we tell a "Dangerous" kid from a "Nondangerous" one? Interest in explosives and guns? Hell interests like that are very common. I used to read about and talk about stuff like that all the time when I was in school. It was good fuel for healthy adolecent fantasy.
Same thing for violent games like quake and doom. It was alot of fun to let loose a little of that pent up teenage angst in a video game with no consequences.
I don't see how you can tell that a person is going to "snap" and actually carry out violent acts before they actually do it.
I have a feeling that anything like this will do little more than catch people who were not going to do anything anyway. If someone goes around talking about wanting to blow up the school and kill people, chances are they are not gonna do it. The ones who are, wont be talking about it.
Seems to me like another case of a company that wants to use public hysteria fueled by paranoia to make money off some professional witch hunting.
> Firstly, please do not add breaks at the end of each line.
Fine just this once...really the slashdot comments box needs to be much larger. Personally, I prefer narrow collumns of text, easier to read.
> Secondly, our economy is already strangled by > the slew of so-called "consumer rights" > which are basically ways for the government to > exert its control
I am not asking for any "government control" in fact I am arguing AGAINST government control.
Capitalist ideas (which I do fundamentally disagree with) say that you should be able to sell your product. Fine. What I am arguing is NOT that they should not be able to sell a product, it is that they should NOT be allowed to lie about it.
Market forces alone are IN THEORY enough to stop these things. The fact is, IN PRACTICE , they are not. Companies have found that it is more profitable to make shoddy product and hide the fact that its shoddy than to actually compete and make a good product.
> And of course their is such a thing as the > "Right to make a profit".
No you have the right to TRY and make a profit. Whether you make one or not is completly a differnt story.
What you are defending is the right of a company to stop consumers from looking at their products and making informed decisions.
Why is it that the only recognized "individual liberties" are the "right to be profitable"? Should I not have the right to speak out?
If you make a car that is unsafe, shouldn't I be able to tell people why it is unsafe? Should you be allowed to make untrue claims about your product?
Now, I am not asking for government control. I am asking for the removal of a government control. The removal of a control that serves NO purpose except to allow companies to hide the defects of their products from the public.
Just because we are "capitalist" doesn't mean that profit can be our only motivation. What is wrong with a person publishing information to help people make informed decisions?
There are some things that are just more important than a companies "ability to profit" and if they violate these things, then they deserve what they get.
> Yet another story about "Your Rights Online" > which, translated into/. speak, is "My Right To > Not Pay For Anything", which admittedly isn' > quite as snappy.
Not only is it not as snappy, its not an argument that anyone has actually made, except you in your straw man.
Do you have no concept of the fact that other people think differently then you? Is your view on the way things "should be" the only possible "correct viewpoint"?
I am sorry, I don't agree. I recognize, yes. If you create something, you have the right to do whatever you want with it. However, I do not recognize your claimed "right" to tell other people what they are allowed to do with their copies of it (assuming you allowed them to have copies).
I can't really speak about this in a legal sense because I am no lawyer and the body of law on the subject is (as usual with law) much more large and convoluted than even some of the more interested people, like myself, have time to actually read.
What you are asking for is the "Right to restrict what other people can do". That is not a right that I recognize. (unfortunaly my government may in some circumstances recognize this suposed right, however, my government has never actually represented my interests...but thats ok...I don't represent their interests either. (they don't recognize my rights to do what I want, I don't recognize their right to tell me what to do...its a weird relationship...we just ignore eachother mostly...)
Anyway,...noone is arguing for the "Right to have everything for free". Just simply arguing that just because you worked on something, doesn't give you the right to bully other people around.
As a matter of fact, I have read a small bit of copyright law, and some descriptions of it by people who have law degrees and actually understan the legal mumbo jumbo.
Even copyright law doesn't say you "own what you make". It says you "hold copyright". Its a limited time thing. it is not "property". Is there any concept in real physical property that says "75 years after the person who claims the propery (or builds it, makes it) dies, it becomes public domain for anyone who wants it, even if the builder has living relatives who are using it at the time"?
Talking in terms of "theft" and "property" is just plain wrong. Its not.
Oh in general I agree. I usually refer to the OS I run as just "linux". However...I don't think its silly to use GNU/Linux either.
However, I am a definite supporter of what GNU and the FSF stand for. While I don't see the need to make everyone call it "GNU Linux", I do think the GNU proect deserves some credit.
As far as being major parts of the OS...I don't use GNOME or KDE (blah). I spend most of my days in an ETerm typeing into vi and pushing files around. I think all of those things are fairly major parts of the OS.
In any case...It doesn't really matter what you call it. I just favor GNU/Linux for the reasons that it gives credit to the FSF, and it makes the note that Linux is just a kernel...there is alot more to the system than that.
Is it silly? I don't think so. Is it silly to argue about? yes it is. (tho...I kind of enjoy arguing over stupid things)
If a consumer decides, based on information that you give them, not to buy a product. Then you have not "stolen" from the company.
The company did not "lose money" they simply did not "make more". No company has a right to any money that they do not already have.
Under you rlogic any sort of consumer protection advisories should be outlawed.
I am sorry, but a consumer has a RIGHT to know about a product before they buy it. They have a RIGHT to be able to make sure that it doesn't do nasty things. Furthermore, they have a RIGHT to NOT buy it, if they find that it does something other than what it is advertised as doing.
If the company loses money because people find out what it REALLY does, then it is their own fault for making a bad product. Consumers have a right to know about these things.
There is no such thing as a "Right to make a profit". If they want profit, they should have to work for it, and make something worth buying, not just make a bad product and supress any dissenting opionions.
> For christ's sake, i thought this was america. > this shit pisses me off.
You thought this was america? Well thats what you are suposed to think. Big money buys legal force. Thats the way things have worked for several centuries, all over the globe. Where have you been?
There are basically 2 ways anything gets done in a republic like ours.
1) Someone throws a shitload of money at congress and gets themselves what they want (common) or 2) Enough people get together that the people in congress realise that if they do not ignore #1 and do what these people want, they will not be re-elected. (very rare)
Barring those two, its a crapshoot of mostly doubletalk and bullshit to make people think they are making a difference.
As RMS said in his recent interview (no I am not a blind RMS follower, I just happen to think he hit the nail right on the head) there is a big tendancy of people in power to ignore "individual rights" unless its the "right to do something profitable"
(if you don't believe this...look at the absolute beating that Free Speech has taken in congress the past 5 years or so... CDA I, CDAII, Methamphetamin Anti-proliferation act, DMCA. The people in power are very willing to disregard individual freedom if it meets their political agenda.)
This reminds me of one of those weird little moments that I had last summer.
I was walking through Harvard Square (Cambridge MA). I saw a man dressed up vageuly like "Uncle Sam" with a big pot and a sign about legalizing marijuana.
I went over and threw a dollar in his pot to show my support, then he turned to me and said "good but thats not going to help much. If you really want to help, save up and buy us a Senator or two, thats how you get things done"
I know responding to trolls is stupid...this time I just have to...
Yes... Linux is not GNU. It is Linux. RMS never said any differnt either. Linux is also useless on its own. The "Linux OS" is mostly GNU, with the Linux kernel.
[sjc@brake sjc]$ cp --version cp (GNU fileutils) 4.0o [sjc@brake sjc]$ ls --version ls (GNU fileutils) 4.0o [sjc@brake sjc]$ tar --version tar (GNU tar) 1.13.17 [sjc@brake sjc]$ df --version df (GNU fileutils) 4.0o [sjc@brake sjc]$ grep --version grep (GNU grep) 2.4
Need I go on? Sure lots of tools are not GNU, but the most common ones, the ones most people use most of the time are GNU. (unless there are linux distros that wrote ALL of their own tools from scratch? is there one? Maybe a BSD toolset?)
> Sorry, that is a Mainer saying, used in the 60's > comedy routine Bert & I by > Marshall Dodge and Robert Bryan. Close, but not > quite.
That may be the origin....however Here in boston is where it is litterally true...and its certainly popular around here.
> Though I agree driving around Boston can be > painful -- especially if you are > looking for a place to park under $8/hr.
Depends where you are. I used to work for MGH so if I need a parking garage I sometimes go to the Navy Yard garage (right across from building 149 in the Charlestown Navey yard). Nice MGH shuttle goes from there to North Station (orange line & green line, fleet center (why anyone would go there beats the hell out of me), lots o bars). Or continue on the shuttle to the main hospital (take sabout 15 mins and is free btw) and you can jump on the red line.
Used to be a maximum of $7/day to park there.. tho...I think they raised prices. Course...if your actually driving into boston itself...well.. I avoid that at all costs. I fi am downtown in boston it either means I have snapped and lost the last threads of sanity I have left, or I took a wrong turn in cambridge into one of those trap areas that forces you away from your destination.
> Hope that helps. If you've never visited the > Commonwealth before, I wouldn't recommend > driving here. We're notorious for road rage and > poor driving skills.
Well I dunno about that....I like to think of us as "extra Skilled". In other states, one wouldn't imagine turning left from any lane except the left lane.... we here in boston are not so limited in our thinking.
While in other places people yeild until an opening to make a left turn, we in boston are assertive. We even have our own "Boston Left Turn" which entails creeping out until the traffic on ones left is completely blocked off...then creeping forward further until the peoplke on the right have to stop...thus making an opening.
(the best part is...those of you who don't live here may be tempted to take this all as a joke, or an exageration)
Now remember...this is the city that is known for the expression "You can't get there from here" and...it is true fairly often. While your destination may be only 2 or 3 block away "as the pedestrian walks" but, for you it could be a 4 or 5 mile drive through all manner of streets... the path would often entail leaving the city, and re-entering from a differnt entrance (this is fairly common in cambridge where their motto is "All one way streets going the wrong way, all the time"
Also remember, all roads lead to a "square". A "Square" can be thought of almost as the singularity of a black hole, which warps all space around it such that all paths lead directly to it.
Unlikc black holes, you can escape a square, but you must go through it. Generally a square diverts all nearby roads through it such that the only way to get to the other side of a square is through it.
The "squares" are not places where you actually WANT to drive (unless your destination is actually IN one, even then your best not driving to it... there is usually no available parking anyway).
Since I mentioned parking. Do remember, double parking is not merely the "exception to the rule" it IS the rule. Some of the wider streets in boston proper (usually in residental areas with lots of high priced apartments) usually have cars double parking on both sides. You should feel free to do like we do...act as if its perfectly legal to park anywhere, for any length of time, as long as your four-ways are on.
To illistrate this point, once I parked at a parking meter and had no change. I ran to the store half a block away to get change. When I returned less than 5 mins later, there was a cop just putting a ticket on my windsheild. he said that he already wrote the ticket so he couldn't do anything about it but... "You should have just put your four-ways on".
-Steve (I am not making any of this up...I am sure other bostonians will attest that all of the above is true)
> Not that I have anything against gay's, but > do you really want to equate "geek" with "gay"?
Well I dunno about you, but I am going to the event, and I am secure enough in my own sexual identity to not care if some people go making paralells that have nothing to do with the event.
The whole point of such an event is to have a "get together" of people who have something in commone ie geeks. Its a time and a place where we can come together and talk, discuss and just BE geeks.
Its taking a little pride in who we are, getting together and doing "geeky" things. Its just some time to get together and have some fun.
> Better yet, avoid Boston altogether. > Massachussetts has long been known as a center > of moral sickness and depravity
Really? Thats interesting. I live here near boston Which moral depravity are you talking about?
I would have thought Washington DC was the center of moral depravity. Silly me.
> Have YOU accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and > personal Savior?
Nice SIG....nope I havn't. Started out a Roman Catholic (like many bostonians) tho...once I turned 11 I realized it was a crock of shit and left the church.
I am my own Lord and Personal saviour. For a mere $49.95 I will be your Lord and Personal Savior too. Unlike other Lords and Personal saviours...I do NOT require or even ask you to devote large portions of your life to me. I don;t ask you to go out and convert others..in fact... I would rather you don't!
Yes it is "kind of like" clean room reverse engineering. However...I have trouble calling reading source code and describing how it works "reverse engineering".
However...I supose it is. I would think a "friend" would work fine. Afterall...the whole point of the "clean room" is that you can argue that since you NEVER saw the original code...you couldn't have possibly copied the original code...ergo, you can't violate its copyright.
The reason I say "have him write a 'review'" instead of calling it "reverse engineering" is that by possessing the source, he can still do anything that is covered under "fair use" and that includes writting reviews...ie its protected. (he could even include code snippits but that would defeat the purpose)
And of course I am trying, in this explained procedure, to skirt around original copyright law (clean room) and any anti-reverse engineering laws (which are poping up lately)
Whether it would work or not...who knows?
hmmm how big is the source? If its not too big I would bet a good quality review could be written in a few hours.
However...now I must ask...what constitutes "Payment"?
This ties in very well with the RMS interview a few days ago when he said that they (they being corperations) "dislike freedom, they only recognize the freedom to do things that are profitable".
However...what if I consider the good feeling I get from thinking that someone else is using my program as "payment"? Really...thats all the payment that I need.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not at all hard to understand. Its also
fairly tangental to the discussion.
Where does the author get these rights?
The author gets these "rights" because we as a
society have ceded our right to copy freely to
them for a certain period of time. NOT because
they created it and deserve it. Simply because
our society felt it would encourage authors.
I argue that this cedeing of rights is an old
system and should be retired. It was designed
to protect Authors from Publishing Houses NOT
Publishing houses from individual comsumers (which
is what the RIAA - an association of publishing
houses - is trying to use it for).
As such, I support things like napster. Napster is
a perfect example of why copyright is both
unenforcable and outdated. Any individual can
copy works and share them with any other
individual. There is no real way to track them,
no way to catch them (all but the most public
of them, like the people who run napster itself
or rogue publishin ghouses that sell works - which
are rare when compared to simple everyday users
who do it)
Copyright was designed when the technology was
differnt. It was designed when the means for
distribution was outside of the reach of most.
Publishing houses served a purpose then.
Replication of information was a limited resource
as it took considerable time and investment to
do nothing more than make copies. As such, there
was a market, and they filled that market.
Now, these works can be copied for essentially
0 cost. There is no scarcity. With no scarcity
(ie anyone can do it for 0 cost, like breathig
air or drinking water) there is no market for
their service. The current market is created by
an artifical scarcity, caused by copyright law.
You are right, your example does not make a valid
argument.
What I am saying is that the law needs to make
sense. The law, as it stands today, is
unenforcable.When a law becomes outdated it should
be removed.
The RIAA and freinds are trying to use the law
to stifle change, to maintain the status quo
because it is better for them.
If their buisness model becomes unprofitable (like
the ice industry and countless others over time
have) then their industry will die out. I do NOT
suport the passing of new laws to support
companies that can not adapt.
Yes. However, if new technological developments
make their buisness model unprofitable, then they
must adapt.
As someone said in another group (mailing list) a
few weeks back...There used to be an
"Ice Industry" where workers would cut ice from
lakes and places where ice naturally formed, and
ship it to places where people could buy ice.
With the advent of freezers, any person who can
afford electricty to their home, can make ice.
Do you think that the Ice Industry would have been
right to lobby congress at the time to have laws
passed, to stop individuals from buying freezers
and making their own ice?
This is effectivly what the RIAA wants. They want
to stop new technology from being used by
individuals, because it conflicts with their
buisness model's profitablity.
The problem I see is that these laws of copyright
were designed in a time when coping a work was
either done laborously by hand or on a big
expensive machine called a "printing press".
The law was not made with todays technology in
mind. The law was not made to stop individuals
from copying and shareing works, it was made to
stop big publishing houses from publishing works
and making money, and not paying authors.
Now they are trying to take old ideas and patch
them with duct tape and bubble gum to try and
keep the old ideas from passing away. Thats not
surprizing, througout history those who were
in power before, opose any change that makes them
obsolete.
> Whoa bucky, slow down there. Are you saying
> Copyrights are unenforcable, or that you'd like
> them to be unenforcable?
I am saying that they ARE unenforcable. The most
that can be done is a few people be caught now
and again, only the biggest "offenders". When
someone copies a work, no dead body is left.
Nothing that would tip someone off to the fact
that it has happened. It is impossible to stop
unauthorized copying now that everyone and their
brother has the ability to do it.
(back when only a small number of people had
ready access to the technology needed, then
copyright was enforcable)
> Are you saying authors/artists/programmers have
> no right to protect
Claiming the rights of the authors or artists
seems a little backwards. What you are advocating
is the right of an author to dictate the actions
of other people. This is, in essence, my problem
with "Intellectual property" claims. it is
claiming the rights to something which exists
entirely in someone elses posession and on
someone elses equipment.
Rememeber, the original intent of copyright
was to make producing works profitable to authors
so that they would make works, in a time when
most authors did not have the ability to publish
on their own and thus to encourage them to
publish, offered them a way to make sure that the
publisher pays them.
Today, the means needed for publishing is
available to any author. The technology for
publishing is available to most any author.
I do not believe that we need, any longer, to
cede our rights to copy to the authors (which
is what copyright technically is) to encourage
the production of works.
Is this bad for some buisnesses? Only if they
are unwilling to adapt. Change happens. It will
happen no matter how much the RIAA and others
kick and scream about it. Survivors adapt and
move on. Its called progress.
> what does the RIAA get out of stopping Napster?
> People have always been copying tapes, taping
> shows
Yup...and the RIAA tried to put a stop to
that stuff to. They arte the reactionaries.
Whenever new technology comes out that could
give the public the ability to do things only
RIAA memebers and few others could do (ie, most
people can't stamp out vinal...until the past
few years couldn't make CDs...) they react
by trying to stop it.
Just look at the rukus over casset tapes when they
first became available and econimical for people
to use for copying music. Its the same thing all
over again.
Personally, I think that copyright is an outdated
system that is no longer socially useful, and
simply serves as a baton with which large
corperations can use to bully people and keep
everyone else at the bottom of the "IP Hill".
It was designed to help authors in a time when
mass production and distribution was out of
reach for all but a few people, ie those who
could afford a printing press. It was designed
to stop publishers from taking authors works,
selling them and not paying the author (the
original meaning of "pirate")
Now that technology is rapidly bringing mass
publication into the relm of the average
person, its time to abandon these outdated
ideas. If the current day media powerhouses
lose money because of it, then it was because
they couldn't adapt and were unfit for the world.
Now of course, the RIAA and record companies see
this happening. Like any organism facing
facing possible extinction, they are fighting to
remain alive.
> We live in a capitalist society, and all
> corporations try to increase profits as
> much as possible.
Are you saying that we should protect the "right"
of a company to try an make money to the exclusion
of the rights of individuals?
It does seem these days that companies only talk
about "rights" when it is the "Right" to do
something profitable.
If someone finds a way to makemoney...hey great.
If they can profit...fine. however, I don't
believe in any "Right to profit". If your buisness
model is not profitable in the face of new
technology, then it should die. Whether your
buisness and livelyhood die with it is up to you
and your ability to adapt.
The RIAA wants to perpetuate their way of doing
buisness, by strangling new technology. They
would rather force everyone to continue with
buisness as usual then have to actually adapt
to new challenges and actually compete on a
level playing feild.
They want to perpetuate utterly unenforcable
things like "Copyright" by trying to eliminate
peoples ability to copy without authorization.
Or the "Hillary Farias Date Rape Prevention Act"
named after a girl who police said died from a
drug overdose (GHB) even though it wasn't
consitant with the evidence and a medical doctor
who examined the case said otherwise. (anyone
with more information on her case would be a
great help...the web pages that had the info
dissapeared when I checked them shortly after
the bill passed...guess they gave up)
Luckily this bill hasn't had too much effect...all
it has done is make posession, sale, or
distribution" of red meat to any person without
a licence to handle schedual 1 substances very
illegal. (yes folks its true Red Meat is illegal
in the US...mere posession of it could mean years
in prosion)
Ahh yes....but that information was secret.
How do you expect Mark Smith to have known about
it before he went off in his time machine and got
a machine?
Actually....the Freenet Has a huge technical
advantage over http protocols. The thing is...
its not just hard to track down who wrote it
(unless they sign their name...its only anonymous
if you want it to be) and where its stored...
It has cacheing built in. When you request
something, it propagates. Thi smeans more
copies exist. So if a document is REALLY popular,
then no one server is bogged down with
distributing it.
Imagine some really popular band that believes in
mp3 distribution puts out a new mp3. Now everyone
80% of colledge students go to download it.
WHat happens? After the first few downloads at
each colledge...the local university freenet
server will have a copy of the mp3 and will
be serving it to that university.
None of the requests for it will be going outside
the local university network. Its the basic
equivalent of everyone in the world being behind
multiple layers of httpcacheing proxy, except
somewhat better (its built into the protocol)
From looking at things, the freenet system
really isn't designed with "dynamic content"
in mind. It is designed as a place to
publish information in a way that it can not
be forcibly removed. Dynamic content isn't really
possible without some sort of central system.
Freenet is more than just "multilevel cache"
no document has a "home". Wherever it is copied
to IS its "home". It may dissapear completely
from the server it started on and live on another
node. (or multiple other nodes) if it is more
popular in other places than where it started.
I must ask if you read up on freenet?
Basically...when data is requested, it propagates
ie is copied out to more servers, then those
servers also serve that data when it is requestd.
ie data has no "fixed home" it stays where it is
popular, and is eventually deleted from servers
that never see requests for it.
How would you do dynamic content when there is no
central area to hold a database or run code
on? I supose it could be done with javascript or
some such...but it would have to be all
client-side code.
kind of an interesting idea though.
Interesting coincidence. Today there is talk of
an "anonymous phone in" for students to report
"Depressed or dangerous" classmates, one day
after reading about a supreme court decision that
an anonymous tip is not enough information for
police to conduct a search.
So I have to ask...what would the procedure be
if a "tip" is made? Could this be abused by
students as a way to harass their classmates?
(and don't pretend that no student would ever
do that).
How do we tell a "Dangerous" kid from a
"Nondangerous" one? Interest in explosives and
guns? Hell interests like that are very common.
I used to read about and talk about stuff like
that all the time when I was in school. It was
good fuel for healthy adolecent fantasy.
Same thing for violent games like quake and
doom. It was alot of fun to let loose a little
of that pent up teenage angst in a video game
with no consequences.
I don't see how you can tell that a person is
going to "snap" and actually carry out violent
acts before they actually do it.
I have a feeling that anything like this will
do little more than catch people who were not
going to do anything anyway. If someone goes
around talking about wanting to blow up the school
and kill people, chances are they are not gonna
do it. The ones who are, wont be talking about it.
Seems to me like another case of a company that
wants to use public hysteria fueled by paranoia
to make money off some professional witch hunting.
> Firstly, please do not add breaks at the end of each line.
Fine just this once...really the slashdot comments box needs to be much larger. Personally, I prefer narrow collumns of text, easier to read.
> Secondly, our economy is already strangled by
> the slew of so-called "consumer rights"
> which are basically ways for the government to
> exert its control
I am not asking for any "government control" in
fact I am arguing AGAINST government control.
Capitalist ideas (which I do fundamentally
disagree with) say that you should be able to
sell your product. Fine. What I am arguing is
NOT that they should not be able to sell a
product, it is that they should NOT be allowed
to lie about it.
Market forces alone are IN THEORY enough to
stop these things. The fact is, IN PRACTICE ,
they are not. Companies have found that it is
more profitable to make shoddy product and
hide the fact that its shoddy than to actually
compete and make a good product.
> And of course their is such a thing as the
> "Right to make a profit".
No you have the right to TRY and make a profit.
Whether you make one or not is completly a
differnt story.
What you are defending is the right of a company
to stop consumers from looking at their products
and making informed decisions.
Why is it that the only recognized "individual
liberties" are the "right to be profitable"?
Should I not have the right to speak out?
If you make a car that is unsafe, shouldn't I
be able to tell people why it is unsafe? Should
you be allowed to make untrue claims about your
product?
Now, I am not asking for government control. I am asking for the removal of a government control. The removal of a control that serves NO purpose except to allow companies to hide the defects of their products from the public.
Just because we are "capitalist" doesn't mean that
profit can be our only motivation. What is wrong
with a person publishing information to help
people make informed decisions?
There are some things that are just more
important than a companies "ability to profit"
and if they violate these things, then they
deserve what they get.
> Yet another story about "Your Rights Online" /. speak, is "My Right To
> which, translated into
> Not Pay For Anything", which admittedly isn'
> quite as snappy.
Not only is it not as snappy, its not an argument
that anyone has actually made, except you in your
straw man.
Do you have no concept of the fact that other
people think differently then you? Is your view
on the way things "should be" the only possible
"correct viewpoint"?
I am sorry, I don't agree. I recognize, yes. If
you create something, you have the right to do
whatever you want with it. However, I do not
recognize your claimed "right" to tell other
people what they are allowed to do with their
copies of it (assuming you allowed them to have
copies).
I can't really speak about this in a legal sense
because I am no lawyer and the body of law on
the subject is (as usual with law) much more
large and convoluted than even some of the more
interested people, like myself, have time to
actually read.
What you are asking for is the "Right to restrict
what other people can do". That is not a right
that I recognize. (unfortunaly my government may
in some circumstances recognize this suposed
right, however, my government has never actually
represented my interests...but thats ok...I don't
represent their interests either. (they don't
recognize my rights to do what I want, I don't
recognize their right to tell me what to do...its
a weird relationship...we just ignore eachother
mostly...)
Anyway,...noone is arguing for the "Right to have
everything for free". Just simply arguing that
just because you worked on something, doesn't
give you the right to bully other people around.
As a matter of fact, I have read a small bit of
copyright law, and some descriptions of it by
people who have law degrees and actually understan
the legal mumbo jumbo.
Even copyright law doesn't say you "own what
you make". It says you "hold copyright". Its
a limited time thing. it is not "property".
Is there any concept in real physical property
that says "75 years after the person who claims
the propery (or builds it, makes it) dies, it
becomes public domain for anyone who wants it,
even if the builder has living relatives who are
using it at the time"?
Talking in terms of "theft" and "property" is
just plain wrong. Its not.
Oh in general I agree. I usually refer to the
OS I run as just "linux". However...I don't think
its silly to use GNU/Linux either.
However, I am a definite supporter of what GNU
and the FSF stand for. While I don't see the need
to make everyone call it "GNU Linux", I do think
the GNU proect deserves some credit.
As far as being major parts of the OS...I don't
use GNOME or KDE (blah). I spend most of my days
in an ETerm typeing into vi and pushing files
around. I think all of those things are fairly
major parts of the OS.
In any case...It doesn't really matter what you
call it. I just favor GNU/Linux for the reasons
that it gives credit to the FSF, and it makes
the note that Linux is just a kernel...there is
alot more to the system than that.
Is it silly? I don't think so. Is it silly to
argue about? yes it is. (tho...I kind of enjoy
arguing over stupid things)
No no no.
If a consumer decides, based on information that
you give them, not to buy a product. Then you have
not "stolen" from the company.
The company did not "lose money" they simply did
not "make more". No company has a right to any
money that they do not already have.
Under you rlogic any sort of consumer protection
advisories should be outlawed.
I am sorry, but a consumer has a RIGHT to know
about a product before they buy it. They have a
RIGHT to be able to make sure that it doesn't do
nasty things. Furthermore, they have a RIGHT to
NOT buy it, if they find that it does something
other than what it is advertised as doing.
If the company loses money because people find
out what it REALLY does, then it is their own
fault for making a bad product. Consumers have
a right to know about these things.
There is no such thing as a "Right to make a
profit". If they want profit, they should have
to work for it, and make something worth buying,
not just make a bad product and supress any
dissenting opionions.
> For christ's sake, i thought this was america.
> this shit pisses me off.
You thought this was america? Well thats what
you are suposed to think. Big money buys legal
force. Thats the way things have worked for
several centuries, all over the globe. Where
have you been?
There are basically 2 ways anything gets done in
a republic like ours.
1) Someone throws a shitload of money at congress
and gets themselves what they want (common)
or
2) Enough people get together that the people in
congress realise that if they do not ignore #1 and
do what these people want, they will not be
re-elected. (very rare)
Barring those two, its a crapshoot of mostly
doubletalk and bullshit to make people think
they are making a difference.
As RMS said in his recent interview (no I am not
a blind RMS follower, I just happen to think he
hit the nail right on the head) there is a big
tendancy of people in power to ignore "individual
rights" unless its the "right to do something
profitable"
(if you don't believe this...look at the absolute
beating that Free Speech has taken in congress the
past 5 years or so... CDA I, CDAII, Methamphetamin
Anti-proliferation act, DMCA. The people in power
are very willing to disregard individual
freedom if it meets their political agenda.)
This reminds me of one of those weird little
moments that I had last summer.
I was walking through Harvard Square (Cambridge
MA). I saw a man dressed up vageuly like "Uncle
Sam" with a big pot and a sign about legalizing
marijuana.
I went over and threw a dollar in his pot to
show my support, then he turned to me and said
"good but thats not going to help much. If
you really want to help, save up and buy us
a Senator or two, thats how you get
things done"
I know responding to trolls is stupid...this time
I just have to...
Yes... Linux is not GNU. It is Linux. RMS never
said any differnt either. Linux is also useless
on its own. The "Linux OS" is mostly GNU, with the
Linux kernel.
[sjc@brake sjc]$ cp --version
cp (GNU fileutils) 4.0o
[sjc@brake sjc]$ ls --version
ls (GNU fileutils) 4.0o
[sjc@brake sjc]$ tar --version
tar (GNU tar) 1.13.17
[sjc@brake sjc]$ df --version
df (GNU fileutils) 4.0o
[sjc@brake sjc]$ grep --version
grep (GNU grep) 2.4
Need I go on? Sure lots of tools are not GNU, but
the most common ones, the ones most people use
most of the time are GNU. (unless there are linux
distros that wrote ALL of their own tools from
scratch? is there one? Maybe a BSD toolset?)
> Sorry, that is a Mainer saying, used in the 60's
> comedy routine Bert & I by
> Marshall Dodge and Robert Bryan. Close, but not
> quite.
That may be the origin....however Here in boston
is where it is litterally true...and its certainly
popular around here.
> Though I agree driving around Boston can be
> painful -- especially if you are
> looking for a place to park under $8/hr.
Depends where you are. I used to work for MGH so
if I need a parking garage I sometimes go to
the Navy Yard garage (right across from building
149 in the Charlestown Navey yard). Nice MGH
shuttle goes from there to North Station (orange
line & green line, fleet center (why anyone would
go there beats the hell out of me), lots o bars).
Or continue on the shuttle to the main hospital
(take sabout 15 mins and is free btw) and you
can jump on the red line.
Used to be a maximum of $7/day to park there..
tho...I think they raised prices. Course...if
your actually driving into boston itself...well..
I avoid that at all costs. I fi am downtown in
boston it either means I have snapped and lost the
last threads of sanity I have left, or I took a
wrong turn in cambridge into one of those trap
areas that forces you away from your destination.
> Hope that helps. If you've never visited the
> Commonwealth before, I wouldn't recommend
> driving here. We're notorious for road rage and
> poor driving skills.
Well I dunno about that....I like to think of us
as "extra Skilled". In other states, one wouldn't
imagine turning left from any lane except the
left lane.... we here in boston are not so
limited in our thinking.
While in other places people yeild until an
opening to make a left turn, we in boston are
assertive. We even have our own "Boston Left
Turn" which entails creeping out until the
traffic on ones left is completely blocked
off...then creeping forward further until the
peoplke on the right have to stop...thus making
an opening.
(the best part is...those of you who don't live
here may be tempted to take this all as a joke,
or an exageration)
Now remember...this is the city that is known
for the expression "You can't get there from here"
and...it is true fairly often. While your
destination may be only 2 or 3 block away "as the
pedestrian walks" but, for you it could be a 4
or 5 mile drive through all manner of streets...
the path would often entail leaving the city, and
re-entering from a differnt entrance (this is
fairly common in cambridge where their motto is
"All one way streets going the wrong way, all the
time"
Also remember, all roads lead to a "square".
A "Square" can be thought of almost as the
singularity of a black hole, which warps all
space around it such that all paths lead
directly to it.
Unlikc black holes, you can escape a square, but
you must go through it. Generally a square
diverts all nearby roads through it such
that the only way to get to the other side
of a square is through it.
The "squares" are not places where you actually
WANT to drive (unless your destination is actually
IN one, even then your best not driving to it...
there is usually no available parking anyway).
Since I mentioned parking. Do remember, double
parking is not merely the "exception to the rule"
it IS the rule. Some of the wider streets in
boston proper (usually in residental areas with
lots of high priced apartments) usually have
cars double parking on both sides. You should feel
free to do like we do...act as if its perfectly
legal to park anywhere, for any length of time,
as long as your four-ways are on.
To illistrate this point, once I parked at a
parking meter and had no change. I ran to the
store half a block away to get change. When I
returned less than 5 mins later, there was a cop
just putting a ticket on my windsheild. he said
that he already wrote the ticket so he couldn't
do anything about it but... "You should have just
put your four-ways on".
-Steve
(I am not making any of this up...I am sure other
bostonians will attest that all of the above is
true)
> Not that I have anything against gay's, but
> do you really want to equate "geek" with "gay"?
Well I dunno about you, but I am going to the
event, and I am secure enough in my own sexual
identity to not care if some people go making
paralells that have nothing to do with the event.
The whole point of such an event is to have
a "get together" of people who have something
in commone ie geeks. Its a time and a place where
we can come together and talk, discuss and
just BE geeks.
Its taking a little pride in who we are, getting
together and doing "geeky" things. Its just some
time to get together and have some fun.
> Better yet, avoid Boston altogether.
> Massachussetts has long been known as a center
> of moral sickness and depravity
Really? Thats interesting. I live here near boston
Which moral depravity are you talking about?
I would have thought Washington DC was the
center of moral depravity. Silly me.
> Have YOU accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and
> personal Savior?
Nice SIG....nope I havn't. Started out a Roman
Catholic (like many bostonians) tho...once I
turned 11 I realized it was a crock of shit and
left the church.
I am my own Lord and Personal saviour. For a
mere $49.95 I will be your Lord and Personal
Savior too. Unlike other Lords and Personal
saviours...I do NOT require or even ask you to
devote large portions of your life to me. I don;t
ask you to go out and convert others..in fact...
I would rather you don't!
Yes it is "kind of like" clean room reverse
...ie its
engineering. However...I have trouble calling
reading source code and describing how it
works "reverse engineering".
However...I supose it is. I would think a "friend"
would work fine. Afterall...the whole point of
the "clean room" is that you can argue that since
you NEVER saw the original code...you couldn't
have possibly copied the original code...ergo,
you can't violate its copyright.
The reason I say "have him write a 'review'"
instead of calling it "reverse engineering" is
that by possessing the source, he can still
do anything that is covered under "fair use" and
that includes writting reviews
protected. (he could even include code snippits
but that would defeat the purpose)
And of course I am trying, in this explained
procedure, to skirt around original copyright
law (clean room) and any anti-reverse engineering
laws (which are poping up lately)
Whether it would work or not...who knows?
hmmm how big is the source? If its not too big
I would bet a good quality review could be written
in a few hours.
-Steve
However...now I must ask...what constitutes
"Payment"?
This ties in very well with the RMS interview
a few days ago when he said that they (they being
corperations) "dislike freedom, they only
recognize the freedom to do things that are
profitable".
However...what if I consider the good feeling
I get from thinking that someone else is using
my program as "payment"? Really...thats all
the payment that I need.