Do you just walk into random houses and use their computer or phone whenever you feel like it as well?
Yes, I do, if the computer/home has all of the the following attributes:
-There's a big sign outside that says "computer in here" (access points advertise their presence) -There's an instruction set outside the house that says "To access the computer, rotate the knob on this door and push forward. Walk into home, then enter second room on right. Press power button, wait for authorization, and then use." (access points tell you how to use them) -After pressing the power button, a message says "request for computer use received... access granted" (access points must receive a request for use, and then grant permission)
Actually, in a lot of places in the US, a portion of those things *are* paid for by part of the taxes that appear on your pay stub - under the heading of City Taxes.
Still, in none of the US do *most* local funds come from income taxes; they come from property taxes.
that Federal Taxes thing... helps to pay for part of the other things on your list.
For the things on *my* list, not very much.
If we can zoom back out for a second though, to look at the "big picture", the original claim was (paraphrasing), I don't mind these taxes listed on my *paycheck*, because as a result of that, I get the tremendous benefit of {stuff}. Also, paying for the Iraq War sucks.
Now we see, that despite paying these taxes, he STILL has to be hit with several other taxes to pay for those things, and on top of that, a lot of it is going to a cause he finds morally offensive!
So, I'm not sure how much of a point was left. Again, maybe some of the taxes he pays are absolutely justified. But that doesn't say much about his "paycheck" taxes.
Um, just a "heads up" -- he was referring to the taxes listed on your paycheck. The taxes on that don't pay for your police protection, fire protection, the federal bank insurance, local water, or most of the highways you use, which are funded by different types of governments or taxes.
It may be great to have these things. It may even be the cases that only government can be the source of these things! But if you're going to justify your paycheck taxes, you'll have to use a *different* pretense.
'Jives' is not a particularly useful term to use when describing financial dealings.
Right, because of course, "jibe" is part of the Queen's English that they use in the world of finance!
"Jive" can refer to "b:The jargon of jazz musicians and enthusiasts". It's not unreasonable to read it metaphorically to mean "is compatible with", since two people talking "jive" are compatible with each other. The first time I heard "jibes" I thought the person was saying "jives" for this very reason.
So Fox News is reporting that Microsoft is planning to release a holy-grail of neurology really soon that is ten years ahead of the best academia can come up with?
This is clearly a derivative work. The subject painting this as containing "factual information" is wrong. Nothing about the Harry Potter "world" is factual. None of its characters exist, none of its events really happened. There was a Seinfeld episodes guide a while back that makes the applicable principles quite clear. The court rejected the argument that the guide was just "factual information" about the series--plot points are not facts.
Not a lawyer, but I don't see how this can be the case. Talking about the *fact* of what *a book describes as happening in a story* has never to my knowledge been regarded as infringment. Spend an afternoon on Wikipedia, and see all the literary works that have in-depth plot synopses and character descriptions. I can't even imagine how it would be, esp. given all the Cliffs-Notes type publications out there.
"Harry Potter wandered into the celler and saw a black cat [blah blah blah assume the exerpt is too long to be convered by fair use]" is infringement. "In Chapter 3, Harry Potter sees a black cat upon wandering into the cellar. This is a pivotal foreshadowing moment in the plot..." is not.
That leaders are elected may be very valuable. My individual vote is not. I have a higher probability of of simultaneously winning six state lotteries and getting hit by lightning on the way to pick up the money for each one, than I do of swinging a presidential election. (Even in '00, no one voter was decisive.)
My vote could therefore be justifiably sold for $5, as that exceeds it.
On a separate matter, who exactly are you to tell me I can't vote in a way that aligns with what someone else suggests? If you grant me that right, you've already granted me the right to sell my vote.
Well, you can already be jailed for breaking laws you didn't know existed.
As for how to comply with the law like this (i.e. avoid being in the position of having to give info you don't have)? The only way would be to auto-reject all encrypted communications, which the government may eventually resort to requiring of you.
Worst comes to worst, you can just factor the damn semiprime. (i kid, i kid)
No, hacking into your bank account couldn't be fixed with a few database commands, because you couldn't do anything about the stolen money being used to buy goods elsewhere. OTOH, in this game, the stolen furniture can be removed from the thief's position AND returned to the owner.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but returning the stolen property is a matter of a few database commands, once you know what's happened. I'm definitely no bleeding-heart "pity the poor thief" kind of guy, but since there was apparently little damage, punishment should be proportionally small -- not on the order of physical property theft, which is extremely difficult to recover and get restitution for.
If you're worried about your government ID connecting you to cigarette usage, you're probably *also* not going to be happy with a face-recognizing visual scan that can be passed to the government and linked to your government photo:-P
(Which could, for example, be used to deny health insurance later.)
Oh, yeah, I forgot about the right to defraud insurance companies by getting the rates of a non-smoker when you smoke.
I don't think you addressed my question at all. I understand all the fears feeding into protectionism. The question is, what position should I take if I'm a lefty populist? Because it seems that type of person is inconsistent about whether protectionism is a tool of greedy capitalists or the noble middle class.
Hey, I didn't mean to come off as too critical. Pardon my triteness:-P I was going to expand and give some examples, but I figured I'd keep it short.
The point is (to the extent that I was making a point), people support laws to snare "the bad people" often in ignorance that consistent enforcement would go against them too.
-People want the law to eliminate "tax loopholes" for big evil corporations, and are surprised to find that that implies an intrusive tax authority that monitors their World of Warcraft exchanges. (Any venue for hiding income has to be monitored.)
-People want extensive employment laws, and are surprised to find out how much additional complication that adds to running a business (if they ever try it), even when they go miles out of their way to be fair.
-People want extensive product safety laws, but not when trying to sell their neighborhood-famous pumpkin pies.
Yes, laws will be enforced even in these absurd cases. The solution is for them to vote "as if they really mean it" rather than to express disapproval of gambling.
Maybe someone could help me out here. Let's say I'm a lefty populist trying to shoehorn everything into a "teh evil corporationzorz" story. Now, am I supposed to see protectionism as a noble attempt to protect my job, and the middle class, from competition, or as a way to prop up the superprofits of domestic industry?
Because I've seen the BOTH stories, sometimes within the same book!
What would also be interesting is if the genetically modified mice can learn to fear the smell of cats by repeatedly smelling them just before seeing them, or something.
Or, conversely, if it's possible to train mice not to get fear when they smell a cat.
Or, if it's possible to retrain the emotions humans get from scents that they probably don't recognize are there.
The laws for patents, copyright and trademarks are all very, very different.
Yes, and the laws and social conventions for wives, girlfriends, and fiancees are all very, very different. Still doesn't justify your claim about the evilness of a catch-all term.
The DRM problem people are experiencing is not a 'false positive'. It's working exactly as it's designed to do, deny people access to their own data.
No. What it is intended to do is restrict certain uses. It most certainly was not intended to deny access after a year or so, like it did.
If I lived in a police state, where I was randomly stopped and imprisoned for life for no reason, with no right of appeal and no humans involved in the process, yes I would indeed flee that country. fortunately, I don't live in the US!
That wasn't the question. The question was, would you flee any shop or country that at any time denied anyone access to anything to which they -- once all facts were known -- had a right? (a false positive) This is what happens whenever an enforcement system isn't 100% accurate at instantly knowing who has violated whose rights.
Which is what happened here: the DRM was not intended to have this access cutoff date. Certainly, the company that denied access -- in contravention of the purchase agreement -- should make the victims whole, but that says nothing about DRM.
(Btw, there are humans involved in this process.)
You're being deliberately dense, and you've resulted to insulting me to try and make your case.
I didn't insult you; the feeling you have right now is what it feels like to be proven wrong on an issue you're emotional about.
I'm done with you and your trolling.
If what I posted was trolling, I don't want to be insightful.
I'm not asking this question to justify telemarketing but can I ask how you envision a non-evil charity should raise funds?
I was thinking about a project someone could do where they amass all charities on a website, and sort them by several metrics (admin cost ratio, independent review, reputation ranking, volunteer satsifaction, area of expertise, etc.) and then you'd be able to allocate optimally, and easily find new charities. This would be better than the hap-hazard system of people donating to whoever makes noise ("disabled pet helpers" over "orphan rescue"). There are, of course, charity aggregator sites, but not to my knowledge like I've described.
But I'd like to know if there's a current respectable procedure a charity can follow that's actually effective.
Intellectual property is a fiction. It's an attempt to conflate non-physical legal protections with property to make them sound better. You have patents, copyright and trade marks.... Intellectual property conflates many different laws into one handy label, when they shouldn't be. It's sloppy thinking.
IP is only a fiction in the sense that *physical* property rights are a fiction. Property rights delineate the boundaries of acceptable behavior regarding identifiable things, and so does IP. Remember: physical property rights don't automatically spring from nature; they are things we assign to people regarding physical objects. When you say "I own this item that I can touch and feel and all that crap", what you really own is a bundle of rights that use that item as a referent, and those rights are precisely as intangible as IP.
They are both called "property" in common parlance because each and every honest, intelligent person who approaches the issue sees striking similarities. Namely, behavior restrictions start applying at the moment of discovery, and then can be transferred to others. The reason trademarks, patents, copyrights, likeness rights, etc. are combined into one handy label is because that is how nomenclature works. When someone wants to refer to all members of a set without having to enumerate them, we create terms to avoid excessive verbiage for unnecessary clarity. In the exact same sense, we have no probleem using terms like "significant other" to refer to: {husband, wife, fiancee, fiance, boyfriend, girlfriend} even though there are very different implications to each of these relationships.
DRM is a technical measure over-enforcing copyright. It prevents the exercise of fair use. The DRM on the MLB videos is preventing people watching their purchased copies
I agree that the DRM here violated the purchase agreement. And I agree that they should be made whole with a full refund + damages or restored access. But it is no different from any other time someone fails to uphold their end of a contract or falsely recognizes a property right as not belonging to you. It says nothing about DRM as such; that was simply the means to act on a false positive this time.
But since we're playing this bad analogy between physical property and copyright protection, I again point out that after I buy something from a store, and take it home, it's mine to do with as I please.... If I break a civil law with it, I get sued by the other party. At no point after I've left the mall do the guards get involved with this.
Newsflash: ALL analogies are bad when you don't see the correspondence. The fact that guards don't follow you home is irrelevant to the point I was making. The point was that the provider had a false positive and denied someone access to something to which they had a right. This happens at malls just as online. The fact that someone had a false positive and denied you access says nothing about whether the means they used are inherently unjust. That was the point.
DRM is poisonous to fair use and normal use, and removing it or telling others how to remove it is prohibited by law. That is wrong. If mall guards did what DRM does, I'd refuse to shop at that mall too.
REALLY? If mall guards ever stopped you at any time that you hadn't done anything wrong, you would never shop their again? And I supposed you'd do the same if that happened to someone else. So, to summarize, if mall security ever inconveniences someone who hadn't done anything wrong, you would never shop at that mall. Therefore, you don't go to any malls.
But why stop there? Police pull people over when they haven't done anything wrong. Hell, people are detained and stand trial, when they later turn out to be innocent. I guess to be really consistent, you have to flee those countries.
Of course, you're not. That wasn't the point. Your poin
Slashdot Mirror
Time for analogy wars!
... access granted" (access points must receive a request for use, and then grant permission)
Do you just walk into random houses and use their computer or phone whenever you feel like it as well?
Yes, I do, if the computer/home has all of the the following attributes:
-There's a big sign outside that says "computer in here" (access points advertise their presence)
-There's an instruction set outside the house that says "To access the computer, rotate the knob on this door and push forward. Walk into home, then enter second room on right. Press power button, wait for authorization, and then use." (access points tell you how to use them)
-After pressing the power button, a message says "request for computer use received
Actually, in a lot of places in the US, a portion of those things *are* paid for by part of the taxes that appear on your pay stub - under the heading of City Taxes.
... helps to pay for part of the other things on your list.
Still, in none of the US do *most* local funds come from income taxes; they come from property taxes.
that Federal Taxes thing
For the things on *my* list, not very much.
If we can zoom back out for a second though, to look at the "big picture", the original claim was (paraphrasing), I don't mind these taxes listed on my *paycheck*, because as a result of that, I get the tremendous benefit of {stuff}. Also, paying for the Iraq War sucks.
Now we see, that despite paying these taxes, he STILL has to be hit with several other taxes to pay for those things, and on top of that, a lot of it is going to a cause he finds morally offensive!
So, I'm not sure how much of a point was left. Again, maybe some of the taxes he pays are absolutely justified. But that doesn't say much about his "paycheck" taxes.
Um, just a "heads up" -- he was referring to the taxes listed on your paycheck. The taxes on that don't pay for your police protection, fire protection, the federal bank insurance, local water, or most of the highways you use, which are funded by different types of governments or taxes.
It may be great to have these things. It may even be the cases that only government can be the source of these things! But if you're going to justify your paycheck taxes, you'll have to use a *different* pretense.
'Jives' is not a particularly useful term to use when describing financial dealings.
Right, because of course, "jibe" is part of the Queen's English that they use in the world of finance!
"Jive" can refer to "b:The jargon of jazz musicians and enthusiasts". It's not unreasonable to read it metaphorically to mean "is compatible with", since two people talking "jive" are compatible with each other. The first time I heard "jibes" I thought the person was saying "jives" for this very reason.
Why do people keep modding you up, when all you do is keep "proving" that Cliff's Notes and the like are illegal?
So Fox News is reporting that Microsoft is planning to release a holy-grail of neurology really soon that is ten years ahead of the best academia can come up with?
I'm *so* excited!
This is clearly a derivative work. The subject painting this as containing "factual information" is wrong. Nothing about the Harry Potter "world" is factual. None of its characters exist, none of its events really happened. There was a Seinfeld episodes guide a while back that makes the applicable principles quite clear. The court rejected the argument that the guide was just "factual information" about the series--plot points are not facts.
Not a lawyer, but I don't see how this can be the case. Talking about the *fact* of what *a book describes as happening in a story* has never to my knowledge been regarded as infringment. Spend an afternoon on Wikipedia, and see all the literary works that have in-depth plot synopses and character descriptions. I can't even imagine how it would be, esp. given all the Cliffs-Notes type publications out there.
"Harry Potter wandered into the celler and saw a black cat [blah blah blah assume the exerpt is too long to be convered by fair use]" is infringement. "In Chapter 3, Harry Potter sees a black cat upon wandering into the cellar. This is a pivotal foreshadowing moment in the plot..." is not.
(IAalsoNAHarryPotterFan)
Whole vs. part.
That leaders are elected may be very valuable. My individual vote is not. I have a higher probability of of simultaneously winning six state lotteries and getting hit by lightning on the way to pick up the money for each one, than I do of swinging a presidential election. (Even in '00, no one voter was decisive.)
My vote could therefore be justifiably sold for $5, as that exceeds it.
On a separate matter, who exactly are you to tell me I can't vote in a way that aligns with what someone else suggests? If you grant me that right, you've already granted me the right to sell my vote.
Well, you can already be jailed for breaking laws you didn't know existed.
As for how to comply with the law like this (i.e. avoid being in the position of having to give info you don't have)? The only way would be to auto-reject all encrypted communications, which the government may eventually resort to requiring of you.
Worst comes to worst, you can just factor the damn semiprime. (i kid, i kid)
No, hacking into your bank account couldn't be fixed with a few database commands, because you couldn't do anything about the stolen money being used to buy goods elsewhere. OTOH, in this game, the stolen furniture can be removed from the thief's position AND returned to the owner.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but returning the stolen property is a matter of a few database commands, once you know what's happened. I'm definitely no bleeding-heart "pity the poor thief" kind of guy, but since there was apparently little damage, punishment should be proportionally small -- not on the order of physical property theft, which is extremely difficult to recover and get restitution for.
If you're worried about your government ID connecting you to cigarette usage, you're probably *also* not going to be happy with a face-recognizing visual scan that can be passed to the government and linked to your government photo :-P
(Which could, for example, be used to deny health insurance later.)
Oh, yeah, I forgot about the right to defraud insurance companies by getting the rates of a non-smoker when you smoke.
I don't think you addressed my question at all. I understand all the fears feeding into protectionism. The question is, what position should I take if I'm a lefty populist? Because it seems that type of person is inconsistent about whether protectionism is a tool of greedy capitalists or the noble middle class.
I applaud the way it gives the pre-literate access to online fora.
And the blind...
Hey, I didn't mean to come off as too critical. Pardon my triteness :-P I was going to expand and give some examples, but I figured I'd keep it short.
The point is (to the extent that I was making a point), people support laws to snare "the bad people" often in ignorance that consistent enforcement would go against them too.
-People want the law to eliminate "tax loopholes" for big evil corporations, and are surprised to find that that implies an intrusive tax authority that monitors their World of Warcraft exchanges. (Any venue for hiding income has to be monitored.)
-People want extensive employment laws, and are surprised to find out how much additional complication that adds to running a business (if they ever try it), even when they go miles out of their way to be fair.
-People want extensive product safety laws, but not when trying to sell their neighborhood-famous pumpkin pies.
Yes, laws will be enforced even in these absurd cases. The solution is for them to vote "as if they really mean it" rather than to express disapproval of gambling.
You mean, you thought laws were just for bad people, rather than you?
No, they're for you, too.
Maybe someone could help me out here. Let's say I'm a lefty populist trying to shoehorn everything into a "teh evil corporationzorz" story. Now, am I supposed to see protectionism as a noble attempt to protect my job, and the middle class, from competition, or as a way to prop up the superprofits of domestic industry?
Because I've seen the BOTH stories, sometimes within the same book!
What would also be interesting is if the genetically modified mice can learn to fear the smell of cats by repeatedly smelling them just before seeing them, or something.
Or, conversely, if it's possible to train mice not to get fear when they smell a cat.
Or, if it's possible to retrain the emotions humans get from scents that they probably don't recognize are there.
Taking a shower converts nearby girls to that type.
(For it to work though, the shower must be performed *out* of their view.)
Yeah, that a good point. A lot of axiom sets imply that 50 Gigs is less than 30 Gigs.
(I don't know if that's funny, flamebait, or insightful.)
I'm pretty sure John Locke never claimed there were rights in objects before people existed.
The laws for patents, copyright and trademarks are all very, very different.
Yes, and the laws and social conventions for wives, girlfriends, and fiancees are all very, very different. Still doesn't justify your claim about the evilness of a catch-all term.
The DRM problem people are experiencing is not a 'false positive'. It's working exactly as it's designed to do, deny people access to their own data.
No. What it is intended to do is restrict certain uses. It most certainly was not intended to deny access after a year or so, like it did.
If I lived in a police state, where I was randomly stopped and imprisoned for life for no reason, with no right of appeal and no humans involved in the process, yes I would indeed flee that country. fortunately, I don't live in the US!
That wasn't the question. The question was, would you flee any shop or country that at any time denied anyone access to anything to which they -- once all facts were known -- had a right? (a false positive) This is what happens whenever an enforcement system isn't 100% accurate at instantly knowing who has violated whose rights.
Which is what happened here: the DRM was not intended to have this access cutoff date. Certainly, the company that denied access -- in contravention of the purchase agreement -- should make the victims whole, but that says nothing about DRM.
(Btw, there are humans involved in this process.)
You're being deliberately dense, and you've resulted to insulting me to try and make your case.
I didn't insult you; the feeling you have right now is what it feels like to be proven wrong on an issue you're emotional about.
I'm done with you and your trolling.
If what I posted was trolling, I don't want to be insightful.
I'm not asking this question to justify telemarketing but can I ask how you envision a non-evil charity should raise funds?
I was thinking about a project someone could do where they amass all charities on a website, and sort them by several metrics (admin cost ratio, independent review, reputation ranking, volunteer satsifaction, area of expertise, etc.) and then you'd be able to allocate optimally, and easily find new charities. This would be better than the hap-hazard system of people donating to whoever makes noise ("disabled pet helpers" over "orphan rescue"). There are, of course, charity aggregator sites, but not to my knowledge like I've described.
But I'd like to know if there's a current respectable procedure a charity can follow that's actually effective.
Oh geez, not this again...
... Intellectual property conflates many different laws into one handy label, when they shouldn't be. It's sloppy thinking.
... If I break a civil law with it, I get sued by the other party. At no point after I've left the mall do the guards get involved with this.
Intellectual property is a fiction. It's an attempt to conflate non-physical legal protections with property to make them sound better. You have patents, copyright and trade marks.
IP is only a fiction in the sense that *physical* property rights are a fiction. Property rights delineate the boundaries of acceptable behavior regarding identifiable things, and so does IP. Remember: physical property rights don't automatically spring from nature; they are things we assign to people regarding physical objects. When you say "I own this item that I can touch and feel and all that crap", what you really own is a bundle of rights that use that item as a referent, and those rights are precisely as intangible as IP.
They are both called "property" in common parlance because each and every honest, intelligent person who approaches the issue sees striking similarities. Namely, behavior restrictions start applying at the moment of discovery, and then can be transferred to others. The reason trademarks, patents, copyrights, likeness rights, etc. are combined into one handy label is because that is how nomenclature works. When someone wants to refer to all members of a set without having to enumerate them, we create terms to avoid excessive verbiage for unnecessary clarity. In the exact same sense, we have no probleem using terms like "significant other" to refer to: {husband, wife, fiancee, fiance, boyfriend, girlfriend} even though there are very different implications to each of these relationships.
DRM is a technical measure over-enforcing copyright. It prevents the exercise of fair use. The DRM on the MLB videos is preventing people watching their purchased copies
I agree that the DRM here violated the purchase agreement. And I agree that they should be made whole with a full refund + damages or restored access. But it is no different from any other time someone fails to uphold their end of a contract or falsely recognizes a property right as not belonging to you. It says nothing about DRM as such; that was simply the means to act on a false positive this time.
But since we're playing this bad analogy between physical property and copyright protection, I again point out that after I buy something from a store, and take it home, it's mine to do with as I please.
Newsflash: ALL analogies are bad when you don't see the correspondence. The fact that guards don't follow you home is irrelevant to the point I was making. The point was that the provider had a false positive and denied someone access to something to which they had a right. This happens at malls just as online. The fact that someone had a false positive and denied you access says nothing about whether the means they used are inherently unjust. That was the point.
DRM is poisonous to fair use and normal use, and removing it or telling others how to remove it is prohibited by law. That is wrong. If mall guards did what DRM does, I'd refuse to shop at that mall too.
REALLY? If mall guards ever stopped you at any time that you hadn't done anything wrong, you would never shop their again? And I supposed you'd do the same if that happened to someone else. So, to summarize, if mall security ever inconveniences someone who hadn't done anything wrong, you would never shop at that mall. Therefore, you don't go to any malls.
But why stop there? Police pull people over when they haven't done anything wrong. Hell, people are detained and stand trial, when they later turn out to be innocent. I guess to be really consistent, you have to flee those countries.
Of course, you're not. That wasn't the point. Your poin
Mall security guards stop you from taking property you didn't buy.
DRM stops you from taking property (distribution rights) you didn't buy.
Mall security guards have false positives (stop you when you've done nothing wrong).
DRM has false positives.
You accept the validity of using mall guards to protect mall property.
You don't accept the validity of using DRM to protect intellectual property.
You're not very good with analogies, are you?