We are all intelligent people here, the subject does have relevance to our little tech-news discussion community and not everyone in this community follows the group think. The submitter probably though that having a little faith in those people is better than letting the Slashdot bandwagons run wild and so decided to ask the question anyway.
Well you do have points, but slowdown. There's no need to make such a big commotion about being on the anti-RIAA bandwagon. For example copyright infringement is infringement regardless of whether it represents a lost sale, and the thing about acting quickly was argued because ISPs delete their logs periodically.
Now, the comment about IP addresses is indeed a big issue. What needs to happen is either a change in law or a legal precedent establishing that whoever 'owns' the IP address must either take legal responsibility or be responsible for making sure those who use the address can be identified. Think about the protection an ISP has as a common carrier. They shoulder no responsibility for crimes their users commit, but in exchange they have to reveal IP addresses. The same logic says that we should somehow legal codify that either owners of an IP address must take responsibility or balance their immunity with adequate identification of their users.
So? I can only interpret your comment meaning Linares is 'against' us so if we were to examine the affidavit it would be helping him. If that is indeed what you meant then it is nonsense.
To add to the above sentiment, I would think judges generally scold those who are being litigious when the other side is trying to be cooperative (if that is indeed the case).
WC3 did however make it so you didn't spend half the game clicking peons, you could cast spells easily, and all around had subtle micro improvements. As much as I like starcraft, warcraft 3 was much more accessible. I'm still only a touch better than hopeless at starcraft, whereas in less time with wc3 I can understand the game very well. For me this makes being hero centric and small scale irrelevant, and it is where I want sc2 to be exactly like wc3.
Maybe we could create a simple way for people to report forced traffic from their browsers? I'm thinking of having a button on the toolbar and when a pop-up opens you click the button to report it as forced (and have the button simultaneously close the window naturally). If you recieve widespread reports for a certain site then there is a degree of certainty that this site is really getting forced traffic (and not just malicous people playing with the button). With this information you can compile a public list of sties that get forced traffic.
I hope you don't think I was trying to put words in your mouth. I thought it was clear that the honor system was an idea I was dreaming up, and I was just trying to be even handed with myself by casting doubt on it. Whatever.
If you have worked out any of your ideas on how to make a new copyright system enforceable I'd like to listen. Also I'm curious if you are thinking that the new system should replace copyright or be an alternative to it. Replacing the current copyright system (or changing it) will be hard like you said. However no one can stop you from coming up with your own system, and if it is a better system artists will use it.
Here is a radical thought, why not just dust our hands and call what your wrote "the system". If I may put myself in your shoes for a moment I believe you wrote that thinking that this would not work until someone come up with an idea for ensuring that the creator actually gets compensated.
Let's say we do what you say but rely on the honor system for compensation. The creator sticks an address or paypal account or such on the work for you to pay him/her. You make it another rule that you have the reproduce this information in each copy. Not following any of the rules (breaking the honor system, if you will) would be illegal and have reasonable penalties.
There isn't anything in the system that makes people think they will be caught, but how is that any different from regular copyright? Do you ever fear the Feds busting down the door when you photocopy pages from a book? When you download a video game rom? When you download a torrent?
Maybe this isn't a radical idea and such a system would never work. In this case, the lesson is that if there was a way to make a new copyright akin to what you wrote (and what many like us would like to see) and make it enforceable, then it would be possible to make the current copyright system enforceable.
Hopefully someone will respond to this with additional insight. I've been thinking a lot about copyright recently and can't find any satisfactory solutions.
Is it just me or does making money just from google toolbar searches seen awfully limited? How would one make money from open source apps that aren't web browsers? It sounds like mozilla's other apps are just dead weight, or maybe goodwill for users at best.
Thank God they didn't find any litebrights. I don't even want to THINK what someone with a hammer, a litebright and access to a Doom level of a school is capable of. We should probably search his house again to make sure he wasn't hiding any toy guns, baseball bats, butter knives or toe nail clippers.
Sending data is not the same as protected speech. Distribution of illegal programs of any sort is not protected speech, and posting an encryption key (might) be considered in the territory of "distributing a means to circumvent a technological measure..." I'd argue that the problem with the DMCA is not speech vs censorship it is that it criminalizes decryption into order to prevent a completely unrelated action, copyright infringement.
How silly is this? If you wrote a novel, copyrighted it, and then published an encrypted version of the novel using a simple Caesar cipher the DMCA would make it illegal for any person to decipher your book should they happen to see how to. For decrypting your novel is a circumvention of a "technological measure designed to control access" ('technological' is probably not arguable for physical media, but the point stands).
Seconded, although Wikipedia's search engine itself is quite useless. How many times does Wikipedia give you no results so you click the "try searching with Google" button and find that Wikipedia is at the top spot? *rolls eyes*
Yes, Google is entitled to their own opinions. But their opinions are stupid (in my opinion at least!). Forget the TFA for the moment where we know they hired a consultant. What stops random people from intentionally using shady sites to link to reputable sites without their knowledge? People already are immature enough to pull Google bombs, this could be the next prank.
Lying like this has to be punished, period. Even if it were not for maintaining the university's public image it is still otherwise in their best interests for people to tell the truth when applying for a job.
Going public does mean that a company's boss is no longer a person, it is a board of directors. An original founder running the show can give a company it's soul and he can force the company to put the customer's best interests ahead of profits. A board of directors is almost invariably more cold and calculating. They'll just as easily fire the founder if it will avoid some public embarrassment over a minor setback or scandal.
Whereas Hershey's, Cadberry's etc. are familiar brands to Americans and so can get away with using different ingredients, the fancy chocolates/European chocolates are packaged as gourmet foods and so they get away with charging high prices. There are even a few brands of 'fancy chocolates' that are actually no different ingredient wise than a Hershey.
When you get down to it even the best premium chocolate has just as much saturated fat (sometimes more) as the run of the mill stuff. This is what I don't understand, people go crazy about the 'pure chocolate ingredients' when it is all still bad to eat in significant quantities. I can find (great tasting) yogurt and hot cocoa mix that has 0g sat fat and no cholesterol made using non-fat milk. Why can't I find chocolate bars or chocolate candies like that?
This is what I hate about graphics cards. By the time you read the back of the box for a game there is probably a new family of cards out which they could never have considered when writing the crazy "your card must bigger than these numbers but not contain this digit or letter". They always add in 'or better' too. If it was so easy to determine what 'or better' is then the requirements would be so convoluted in the first place.
In general the first number tells you which family/generation of cards it comes from and this has little correlation to its power; The top models of older families still beat half the cards in a newer family. You also have to deal with the random acronyms like GS, GX, MX which are always some codeword for 'economy family' and 'performance family'. The lowest number of the cheapo family (no matter how brand spanking new the card) is basically shit, it is just a step above integrated graphics. And likewise a performance family card may be serviceable even when the card is ancient.
Yea, not only do generally avoid looking at other people on the street I also don't see myself taking their pictures. Who wants to be stopped and harassed for taking pictures of other people (even if you have every right to)?
"Sorry you just look like someone the police are trying to find. One sec, I'm sending them your picture and location right now. Well, see ya!"
With the way computers are proliferating it's not hard to imagine a future where the average person has opposite preferences: digital over analog whenever possible.
In any case, if you want digital copying of books to be legal you are shutting out a possible avenue for independent authors to release books. If I write a book that has only a small potential audience why should I sign half my rights away to some publisher who isn't going to care 2 cents about his smallest client and probably has no clue how to reach my audience? It'd make much more sense to sell copies of the book online myself, even if the only thing that prevents my customers from making copies themselves is a kind request and the backing of the law.
Music goes to live performances for revenue. Movies go to selling theatre tickets for revenue. Authors go to selling hard copies for revenue.
Software goes to what? PC games go to what?
I guess the Slashdot response is that software should go Free/Open Source and make their revenue by selling support services. This doesn't work for games though. Even if you think you can resolve this I think we all need to step back and admit that forcing movies to make money ONLY from theatres or music making money ONLY from performances maybe getting a little silly.
I admit I'm just as bad at filesharing as half the people here. And I recognize that copyright was never intended to handle digital copies which are essentially free to create. I'd like to believe though that if I ever got around to creating that videogame I've been dreaming about that I could be successful selling it without filesharing ruining my efforts. So unless anyone has a better idea than legalizing copyright infringement you can count me as someone who would rather be a filesharing criminal with a dream over being a law abiding file sharer without one.
Slashdot Mirror
We are all intelligent people here, the subject does have relevance to our little tech-news discussion community and not everyone in this community follows the group think. The submitter probably though that having a little faith in those people is better than letting the Slashdot bandwagons run wild and so decided to ask the question anyway.
Well you do have points, but slowdown. There's no need to make such a big commotion about being on the anti-RIAA bandwagon. For example copyright infringement is infringement regardless of whether it represents a lost sale, and the thing about acting quickly was argued because ISPs delete their logs periodically. Now, the comment about IP addresses is indeed a big issue. What needs to happen is either a change in law or a legal precedent establishing that whoever 'owns' the IP address must either take legal responsibility or be responsible for making sure those who use the address can be identified. Think about the protection an ISP has as a common carrier. They shoulder no responsibility for crimes their users commit, but in exchange they have to reveal IP addresses. The same logic says that we should somehow legal codify that either owners of an IP address must take responsibility or balance their immunity with adequate identification of their users.
So? I can only interpret your comment meaning Linares is 'against' us so if we were to examine the affidavit it would be helping him. If that is indeed what you meant then it is nonsense.
To add to the above sentiment, I would think judges generally scold those who are being litigious when the other side is trying to be cooperative (if that is indeed the case).
Voting doesn't take a day's effort. It doesn't even take a half hour. If you aren't going to vote you would probably just piss off the day anyway.
WC3 did however make it so you didn't spend half the game clicking peons, you could cast spells easily, and all around had subtle micro improvements. As much as I like starcraft, warcraft 3 was much more accessible. I'm still only a touch better than hopeless at starcraft, whereas in less time with wc3 I can understand the game very well. For me this makes being hero centric and small scale irrelevant, and it is where I want sc2 to be exactly like wc3.
Maybe we could create a simple way for people to report forced traffic from their browsers? I'm thinking of having a button on the toolbar and when a pop-up opens you click the button to report it as forced (and have the button simultaneously close the window naturally). If you recieve widespread reports for a certain site then there is a degree of certainty that this site is really getting forced traffic (and not just malicous people playing with the button). With this information you can compile a public list of sties that get forced traffic.
I hope you don't think I was trying to put words in your mouth. I thought it was clear that the honor system was an idea I was dreaming up, and I was just trying to be even handed with myself by casting doubt on it. Whatever.
If you have worked out any of your ideas on how to make a new copyright system enforceable I'd like to listen. Also I'm curious if you are thinking that the new system should replace copyright or be an alternative to it. Replacing the current copyright system (or changing it) will be hard like you said. However no one can stop you from coming up with your own system, and if it is a better system artists will use it.
For god's sakes man, at least put some pants on if you refuse to be briefed!
Here is a radical thought, why not just dust our hands and call what your wrote "the system". If I may put myself in your shoes for a moment I believe you wrote that thinking that this would not work until someone come up with an idea for ensuring that the creator actually gets compensated.
Let's say we do what you say but rely on the honor system for compensation. The creator sticks an address or paypal account or such on the work for you to pay him/her. You make it another rule that you have the reproduce this information in each copy. Not following any of the rules (breaking the honor system, if you will) would be illegal and have reasonable penalties.
There isn't anything in the system that makes people think they will be caught, but how is that any different from regular copyright? Do you ever fear the Feds busting down the door when you photocopy pages from a book? When you download a video game rom? When you download a torrent?
Maybe this isn't a radical idea and such a system would never work. In this case, the lesson is that if there was a way to make a new copyright akin to what you wrote (and what many like us would like to see) and make it enforceable, then it would be possible to make the current copyright system enforceable.
Hopefully someone will respond to this with additional insight. I've been thinking a lot about copyright recently and can't find any satisfactory solutions.
Is it just me or does making money just from google toolbar searches seen awfully limited? How would one make money from open source apps that aren't web browsers? It sounds like mozilla's other apps are just dead weight, or maybe goodwill for users at best.
Go perform a piece of software or a video game.
If there was such a sense we wouldn't we be using it to avoid more serious things than harmless spiders?
Thank God they didn't find any litebrights. I don't even want to THINK what someone with a hammer, a litebright and access to a Doom level of a school is capable of. We should probably search his house again to make sure he wasn't hiding any toy guns, baseball bats, butter knives or toe nail clippers.
Sending data is not the same as protected speech. Distribution of illegal programs of any sort is not protected speech, and posting an encryption key (might) be considered in the territory of "distributing a means to circumvent a technological measure..." I'd argue that the problem with the DMCA is not speech vs censorship it is that it criminalizes decryption into order to prevent a completely unrelated action, copyright infringement. How silly is this? If you wrote a novel, copyrighted it, and then published an encrypted version of the novel using a simple Caesar cipher the DMCA would make it illegal for any person to decipher your book should they happen to see how to. For decrypting your novel is a circumvention of a "technological measure designed to control access" ('technological' is probably not arguable for physical media, but the point stands).
Seconded, although Wikipedia's search engine itself is quite useless. How many times does Wikipedia give you no results so you click the "try searching with Google" button and find that Wikipedia is at the top spot? *rolls eyes*
Yes, Google is entitled to their own opinions. But their opinions are stupid (in my opinion at least!). Forget the TFA for the moment where we know they hired a consultant. What stops random people from intentionally using shady sites to link to reputable sites without their knowledge? People already are immature enough to pull Google bombs, this could be the next prank.
Lying like this has to be punished, period. Even if it were not for maintaining the university's public image it is still otherwise in their best interests for people to tell the truth when applying for a job.
Going public does mean that a company's boss is no longer a person, it is a board of directors. An original founder running the show can give a company it's soul and he can force the company to put the customer's best interests ahead of profits. A board of directors is almost invariably more cold and calculating. They'll just as easily fire the founder if it will avoid some public embarrassment over a minor setback or scandal.
Whereas Hershey's, Cadberry's etc. are familiar brands to Americans and so can get away with using different ingredients, the fancy chocolates/European chocolates are packaged as gourmet foods and so they get away with charging high prices. There are even a few brands of 'fancy chocolates' that are actually no different ingredient wise than a Hershey. When you get down to it even the best premium chocolate has just as much saturated fat (sometimes more) as the run of the mill stuff. This is what I don't understand, people go crazy about the 'pure chocolate ingredients' when it is all still bad to eat in significant quantities. I can find (great tasting) yogurt and hot cocoa mix that has 0g sat fat and no cholesterol made using non-fat milk. Why can't I find chocolate bars or chocolate candies like that?
This is what I hate about graphics cards. By the time you read the back of the box for a game there is probably a new family of cards out which they could never have considered when writing the crazy "your card must bigger than these numbers but not contain this digit or letter". They always add in 'or better' too. If it was so easy to determine what 'or better' is then the requirements would be so convoluted in the first place.
In general the first number tells you which family/generation of cards it comes from and this has little correlation to its power; The top models of older families still beat half the cards in a newer family. You also have to deal with the random acronyms like GS, GX, MX which are always some codeword for 'economy family' and 'performance family'. The lowest number of the cheapo family (no matter how brand spanking new the card) is basically shit, it is just a step above integrated graphics. And likewise a performance family card may be serviceable even when the card is ancient.
Yea, not only do generally avoid looking at other people on the street I also don't see myself taking their pictures. Who wants to be stopped and harassed for taking pictures of other people (even if you have every right to)?
"Sorry you just look like someone the police are trying to find. One sec, I'm sending them your picture and location right now. Well, see ya!"
With the way computers are proliferating it's not hard to imagine a future where the average person has opposite preferences: digital over analog whenever possible.
In any case, if you want digital copying of books to be legal you are shutting out a possible avenue for independent authors to release books. If I write a book that has only a small potential audience why should I sign half my rights away to some publisher who isn't going to care 2 cents about his smallest client and probably has no clue how to reach my audience? It'd make much more sense to sell copies of the book online myself, even if the only thing that prevents my customers from making copies themselves is a kind request and the backing of the law.
In other words you are fine if only mutliplayer games get created. I'm not.
Music goes to live performances for revenue.
Movies go to selling theatre tickets for revenue.
Authors go to selling hard copies for revenue.
Software goes to what?
PC games go to what?
I guess the Slashdot response is that software should go Free/Open Source and make their revenue by selling support services. This doesn't work for games though. Even if you think you can resolve this I think we all need to step back and admit that forcing movies to make money ONLY from theatres or music making money ONLY from performances maybe getting a little silly.
I admit I'm just as bad at filesharing as half the people here. And I recognize that copyright was never intended to handle digital copies which are essentially free to create. I'd like to believe though that if I ever got around to creating that videogame I've been dreaming about that I could be successful selling it without filesharing ruining my efforts. So unless anyone has a better idea than legalizing copyright infringement you can count me as someone who would rather be a filesharing criminal with a dream over being a law abiding file sharer without one.