Actually, you're wrong. Art is protected under the intellectual property act. meaning, if create a drawing, or a picture, it is copyrighted to me for a finite amount of time from creation by DEFAULT. So, you can buy a copy of the picture, you can color all over it, but you may not claim that artwork as your own. Just a clarification. Don't even go into photographic laws, those are whacked beyond reason. -Janus
I agree. Frankly, I don't agree with locke. However, we see eye to eye in some respects. Feudalism did not work, it died for the most part.
However, i do not agree that corporations will create a new type of feudalism, that, in and of itself, would be self destructive. The idea behind my political standing, if you would, is that in a truly free market, the corporations are forced into a hell of competition, forced to better themselves in order to survive. (Survival of the fittest, genetic law). I know, this is a near utopian viewpoint, as pure capitalism is impossible given current standards.
I guess, in all honesty, I, in current political methodology, lean towards a libertarian viewpoint. But, Being of a capitalist bent, I also realize the need for less government, small government, and the need for the government to stay out of our lives.
I said this in response to a different post, but, in all honesty, who can we blame for making the BILL into LAW?
It was not the companies who made this law, it was the government. I don't care about lobbying, the government should not have the power to pull actions such as these. It's ridiculous. So what if the corporations rail-roaded this, would this have happened if our strangely out-dated dinosaur-like government had even a modicum of respect for our rights, our freedoms? No. Would this have happened if the government had not had the power to shred our rights like so much wet toilet paper? No.
In the end, i find we disagree in ideologies, but we do agree in the simple matter: This DMCA does need to be repealed. it was a knee-jerk reaction, and an extremely unjust and bad one at that.
Ok. If Ayn Rand is wrong, show me how. It's that simple. Back up your own pompous and gaseous ramblings with something concrete.
Free market, it's that simple. Period. I create something, I sell it on my own, or, I go to a company to sell it for me. It's my choice. I sign on the dotted line. They have the right to wish to make money, as I do also.
So. What's wrong with that? If I want to make money (which is not evil. Greed is not evil, and altruism is a fairy tale) what is wrong with that? Supposedly Utopian theory extorts that everyone would be better off if we were all equal, shared everything, and basically went around wearing fig-leafs. BS.
People are NOT equal. Some are smarter, faster, and stronger than you. It's that simple. Rules of nature and all that, survival of the fittest. If you are not strong, fast, or smart, you do not evolve. (However, in current society, this has been negated, contributing to the declination of society) Don't get me wrong, i am not talking about skin color, race or religion, I am talking about basic bloody genetics.
This, combined with a will to want, yes, I WANT money, I WANT a new computer, as i suppose you do also (This "want" feeling, is known as greed in some circles) gives us the wish to excel. I want a new camaro, so, me, being smarter than you, or faster, get the better job, make more money, or create something to fill a niche.
Tell me where I am wrong, please. If I create a service, where I fill a niche, and I perform that service well, making loads of money, who are you to ask ME to give that up?
Maybe they are doing it incorrectly. If you weren't so hellbent on insulting me, maybe you would have seen that i called the corporations old, dusty dinosaurs. I don't agree with thier business practices, they are bad ones. And if you perform bad business practices, and are unwilling to change with the times, you die off. Natural bloody evolution.
yes. next time you decide to call a person Pompous, and intellectually immature, maybe you should try and read, even comprehend what one is saying. I admit, it was not *ting* crystal bloody clear. But think for one second. I also, do not believe, anyone has any right, to take away rights. BUT, did disney sign the bill into law? NO. This bloody government did. THEY SIGNED IT INTO LAW, not disney, not time-warner, not RoadRunner records. The President, and Congress did so.
Who to blame? A clueless government hellbent on stripping our rights away piece by piece to re-enforce thier power-base, or media giants out to make a buck at the cost of other media giants? Let them fight it out for themselves, evolution teaches us only the worthy survive.
And no-where, did I say not to fight this. I hate the DMCA, I would personally like to castrate whomever thought the damn thing up. It infringes on my right to create, and move freely, the government had no RIGHT to pass this into law.
Funny I should read this when I first get to work monday morning after spending the entirety of Sunday night reading the Illuminati trilogy, as well as Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It creates a stewpot in my mind that begs to be posted.
The DMCA is, in fact, as put in another post, the last ditch attempt by large media conglomerates to fight the future (I don't know if this sentence has been patented yet, my bad). The future being an almost golden-apple scoiety.
The group of pioneers who opened this "inner space" called the internet could not forsee how far-reaching it would become. How, for many people, the internet has become thier source for friendship, love, learning, and growing. I for one, am one of these faceless people flying through cyberspace existing sometimes as only an IP footprint in a server's logs. The internet itself, exists in our minds, with our minds, it has become reality, a medium, through which, a free stream of thought and ideas may be passed.
Theoretically, those of a more intellectual bent are the ones that will use the internet to it's fullest potential, distributing thier works freely, for the rest of the community to alter, and improve. So comes the OSM (Open Source Movement), an exchange that allows intellectual property creators to freely exchange thier code, ideas and thoughts onto a 'net that will allow it to permutate and grow into something that may, one-day, change the world, and reality, as we know it.
Enter the lumbering beast of the Media Conglomerate and old-world corporation. being a person who supports Capitalism to an extreme (free market, little, or no, government) I find that sometimes my ideals and ideology come into question. Namely, how do we use the internet for what it has become, namely, a free exchange or ideas and concepts, material and immaterial, and still provide a free-market where corporations can make money providing certain IRL-material services, while also using the internet as it probably should be?
The answer is not simple. Media giants have a marketing-map which has worked for eons, provide a service, or a material good, and make money off of it, providing it to the common citizens. This, in and of itself, is a simple idea. But what happens when that material good comes to the point when providing it in the material plane no longer turns a profit due to a new "schema" that in turn, allows the private citizens to freely exchange, and re-distribute the works that the conglomerate provides?
The answer, once again, is not simple. it is not as simple as to say that the media giants do not deserve what they earn. That the media giants are nothing more than facets of a faceless "system" hellbent on controlling our lives, and making us purchase name-brand products while churning out endless amounts of new products, which the corporations may in turn, purchase, an re-distribute.
No, in fact, in many cases, the media giants are correct in defending thier proprietary works, due to the fact, they, in fact, DID create those works. They DID distribute those works. They provided a service, to someone, that allowed you to "burn that cd" or mp3 that song. After all, the chain begins somewhere, with someone purchasing that cd, and burning it into a new format.
however, in many respects, the corporation's method of thinking about this is flawed. I, for one, will never stop buying hard-copy cd's. I prefer sticking that magical piece of plastic into my car, my cd-player at home, etc, while curled up on the couch reading a good book (which this post is becoming). The corporations, however, do not see the good that can come from this situation. They do not see me, average joe-schmo using napster to download songs from the internet, listening to them, and the going out and purchasing the cds. because I understand someone DID have to work to create this product, therefore, I will help support thier creation by helping fund them in future endevors.
I for one, will probably never take songs I downloaded and burn them onto hardcopy. There is a simple reason. I don't have the time. Although i spend an average day of 15 hours or more sitting in front of a computer, I don't have the time to sit down, sort, format and burn music cds. it's that simple. Others, however, do.
In some ways, it is in the corporations' right to try to defend thier works. In many more ways, however, they are incorrect. They are like the man, who is stuck in cryogenic suspension for a hundred or more years, and then thawed. Would not that man have problems adjusting to the new age? What if, when he woke up, we lived in a society where no clothes were worn, and people wandered around wearing little plastic buttons that allowed then to instantly have an orgasm? Would he, the man, not have troubles coming to grips with the new reality? He would.
This, in essence, is what has happened. Seemingly overnight, the entire world has altered it's method of thinking, while, the corporations have been in a coma for all intensive purposes.
They are performing knee-jerk reactions to solve what they view as a problem. They are right, in some places, but mostly wrong. They must come to grips, change thier business schema, which, of course, has worked for centuries, alter thier course, and change with the times. This is not easily done, therfore, they are performing knee-jerk reactions, trying to fight the future, trying to fight the world instead of flowing with it like a plasmatic ever-changing organism.
The DMCA is like a child standing there, looking at you saying "Unless I get to be first to bat, I am taking my ball home". The government acts in much the same way. These halls, offices and cities are not filled with the intellectuals the internet is, they are filled with slow thinking dinosaurs that cannot understand the animal, the organism, which is the new society. Eventually, this will change, as those of us brave enough, will stand up to take the places of the old, changing the world as needed. However, by the time that happens, we too, will have become slow-thinking and possible dusty in the old attic. It is a generation gap, it is a time-gap.
All things change given time, all organisms grow, and alter thier makeup to adapt. It takes time however, and, with life moving as quickly as it is, time is of short order.
-Janus
Reccomended reading:
The Illuminatus Trilogy -Robert Shea and Robert Wilson ISBN: 0440539811
Personally, looking at my job description, I find that my actual duties, and or stuff that I work on range to almost facet of the company I work for. Although, my workload is not one you might call "heavy".
The government is basically, a bunch of overpaid pontificating farts. The actual time, i spend, in my building, at work, ranges from 50-80 hours a week. During that time, i can be working, sleeping, or screwing around. I actually have no measure of how long I actually WORK. Hell, even when i go home, I spend another couple of hours on the Net, doing both work and play.
I literally have to measure my time as a whole, rather than work, and/or play, because the two are tandem to each other. My work is play, my play is work. And I can no longer measure it in hours, I have to measure it in days.
Looking at it, however, I am underpaid. For both my experience and knowledge set, not to mention the quality of the work I pump out, i am severley underpaid. But, on the flip side, i don't answer to anyone, I don't have a boss in the conventional sense of the word. I can come and go as i please, and do anything I want to, within the normal bounds of reason.
Example? Last week I came in at 8am on a thursday. i did not leave until 7pm friday. i didn't mind, although the hallucinations were getting pretty bad, and the 60 minute commute home was terror personified. I basically wandered around in torn jeans, sandals, and a Vandover t-shirt I got at the/. party for the Linuxworld expo, music floating out of my cube like glass frgaments underfoot.
In closing, there is not particular manner with which to measure our type of jobs anymore. If we measure time at our place of employment, we have to examine how much of that is work, and how much of it is us on IRC, or playing pool?
No standards of measurment created by some dusty old fart sitting in a cube in some government ran rat maze can adequatly measure our time anymore.
-jesse "What would be meglomania, in a lesser being"
A few questions regarding publicizing on the Internet.
Number 1: I have noted that many campaigns which are posted on the internet, tend to avoid actually posting in-depth responses to issues, namely, on the Internet/Censorship.
We tend to overlook the fact that many canidates look at this situation, thinking that they can post what seems to be nothing more than a glorified banner ad in an arena which thrives off of knowledge, disclosure and the very trading of ideas.
it seems in many cases, canidates (Al gore is not the only one.) tend to simply post the propaganda that you can see watching TV, how do you make choices on what to post, where and when?
2: How much revenue do you actually generate from an online campaign such as this. Do you seem to be recieving many more donations, or is it pretty much the same.
3: Do you find that the internet is/is becoming a medium through which you can effictivly gain mindshare-time over and above 60 second infomercials?
4: The structure of the site seems to lack the ability for the end-user to properly interact. Take Slashdot for instance. Would it be feasible for you to set up an arena where the canidate could possibly respond, in person, questions posed to him/her. I know that in many ways, this in unfeasable. But even making the effort, tends to help public relations. Noting, of course, you will get alot of people who will abuse this syetm, to send nothing more than flames and insults, but, with the internet, you take the good and the bad, hand in hand, no?
/end rant /end questioning.
I hope you all have a good day, and I look forward to hearing your responses.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm. No. Seeing as I personally have known about it for several weeks.
Also seeing as it was posted in the quickies, a couple of weeks back.
*Think back, you remember don't you?*
-Janus
Actually, you're wrong. Art is protected under the intellectual property act. meaning, if create a drawing, or a picture, it is copyrighted to me for a finite amount of time from creation by DEFAULT. So, you can buy a copy of the picture, you can color all over it, but you may not claim that artwork as your own. Just a clarification. Don't even go into photographic laws, those are whacked beyond reason. -Janus
I agree. Frankly, I don't agree with locke. However, we see eye to eye in some respects. Feudalism did not work, it died for the most part.
However, i do not agree that corporations will create a new type of feudalism, that, in and of itself, would be self destructive. The idea behind my political standing, if you would, is that in a truly free market, the corporations are forced into a hell of competition, forced to better themselves in order to survive. (Survival of the fittest, genetic law). I know, this is a near utopian viewpoint, as pure capitalism is impossible given current standards.
I guess, in all honesty, I, in current political methodology, lean towards a libertarian viewpoint. But, Being of a capitalist bent, I also realize the need for less government, small government, and the need for the government to stay out of our lives.
I said this in response to a different post, but, in all honesty, who can we blame for making the BILL into LAW?
It was not the companies who made this law, it was the government. I don't care about lobbying, the government should not have the power to pull actions such as these. It's ridiculous. So what if the corporations rail-roaded this, would this have happened if our strangely out-dated dinosaur-like government had even a modicum of respect for our rights, our freedoms? No. Would this have happened if the government had not had the power to shred our rights like so much wet toilet paper? No.
In the end, i find we disagree in ideologies, but we do agree in the simple matter: This DMCA does need to be repealed. it was a knee-jerk reaction, and an extremely unjust and bad one at that.
-Janus
Ok. If Ayn Rand is wrong, show me how. It's that simple. Back up your own pompous and gaseous ramblings with something concrete.
Free market, it's that simple. Period. I create something, I sell it on my own, or, I go to a company to sell it for me. It's my choice. I sign on the dotted line. They have the right to wish to make money, as I do also.
So. What's wrong with that? If I want to make money (which is not evil. Greed is not evil, and altruism is a fairy tale) what is wrong with that? Supposedly Utopian theory extorts that everyone would be better off if we were all equal, shared everything, and basically went around wearing fig-leafs. BS.
People are NOT equal. Some are smarter, faster, and stronger than you. It's that simple. Rules of nature and all that, survival of the fittest. If you are not strong, fast, or smart, you do not evolve. (However, in current society, this has been negated, contributing to the declination of society) Don't get me wrong, i am not talking about skin color, race or religion, I am talking about basic bloody genetics.
This, combined with a will to want, yes, I WANT money, I WANT a new computer, as i suppose you do also (This "want" feeling, is known as greed in some circles) gives us the wish to excel. I want a new camaro, so, me, being smarter than you, or faster, get the better job, make more money, or create something to fill a niche.
Tell me where I am wrong, please. If I create a service, where I fill a niche, and I perform that service well, making loads of money, who are you to ask ME to give that up?
Maybe they are doing it incorrectly. If you weren't so hellbent on insulting me, maybe you would have seen that i called the corporations old, dusty dinosaurs. I don't agree with thier business practices, they are bad ones. And if you perform bad business practices, and are unwilling to change with the times, you die off. Natural bloody evolution.
yes. next time you decide to call a person Pompous, and intellectually immature, maybe you should try and read, even comprehend what one is saying. I admit, it was not *ting* crystal bloody clear. But think for one second. I also, do not believe, anyone has any right, to take away rights. BUT, did disney sign the bill into law? NO. This bloody government did. THEY SIGNED IT INTO LAW, not disney, not time-warner, not RoadRunner records. The President, and Congress did so.
Who to blame? A clueless government hellbent on stripping our rights away piece by piece to re-enforce thier power-base, or media giants out to make a buck at the cost of other media giants? Let them fight it out for themselves, evolution teaches us only the worthy survive.
And no-where, did I say not to fight this. I hate the DMCA, I would personally like to castrate whomever thought the damn thing up. It infringes on my right to create, and move freely, the government had no RIGHT to pass this into law.
Shrug. I need less coffee.
-Janus
Funny I should read this when I first get to work monday morning after spending the entirety of Sunday night reading the Illuminati trilogy, as well as Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It creates a stewpot in my mind that begs to be posted.
The DMCA is, in fact, as put in another post, the last ditch attempt by large media conglomerates to fight the future (I don't know if this sentence has been patented yet, my bad). The future being an almost golden-apple scoiety.
The group of pioneers who opened this "inner space" called the internet could not forsee how far-reaching it would become. How, for many people, the internet has become thier source for friendship, love, learning, and growing. I for one, am one of these faceless people flying through cyberspace existing sometimes as only an IP footprint in a server's logs. The internet itself, exists in our minds, with our minds, it has become reality, a medium, through which, a free stream of thought and ideas may be passed.
Theoretically, those of a more intellectual bent are the ones that will use the internet to it's fullest potential, distributing thier works freely, for the rest of the community to alter, and improve. So comes the OSM (Open Source Movement), an exchange that allows intellectual property creators to freely exchange thier code, ideas and thoughts onto a 'net that will allow it to permutate and grow into something that may, one-day, change the world, and reality, as we know it.
Enter the lumbering beast of the Media Conglomerate and old-world corporation. being a person who supports Capitalism to an extreme (free market, little, or no, government) I find that sometimes my ideals and ideology come into question. Namely, how do we use the internet for what it has become, namely, a free exchange or ideas and concepts, material and immaterial, and still provide a free-market where corporations can make money providing certain IRL-material services, while also using the internet as it probably should be?
The answer is not simple. Media giants have a marketing-map which has worked for eons, provide a service, or a material good, and make money off of it, providing it to the common citizens. This, in and of itself, is a simple idea. But what happens when that material good comes to the point when providing it in the material plane no longer turns a profit due to a new "schema" that in turn, allows the private citizens to freely exchange, and re-distribute the works that the conglomerate provides?
The answer, once again, is not simple. it is not as simple as to say that the media giants do not deserve what they earn. That the media giants are nothing more than facets of a faceless "system" hellbent on controlling our lives, and making us purchase name-brand products while churning out endless amounts of new products, which the corporations may in turn, purchase, an re-distribute.
No, in fact, in many cases, the media giants are correct in defending thier proprietary works, due to the fact, they, in fact, DID create those works. They DID distribute those works. They provided a service, to someone, that allowed you to "burn that cd" or mp3 that song. After all, the chain begins somewhere, with someone purchasing that cd, and burning it into a new format.
however, in many respects, the corporation's method of thinking about this is flawed. I, for one, will never stop buying hard-copy cd's. I prefer sticking that magical piece of plastic into my car, my cd-player at home, etc, while curled up on the couch reading a good book (which this post is becoming). The corporations, however, do not see the good that can come from this situation. They do not see me, average joe-schmo using napster to download songs from the internet, listening to them, and the going out and purchasing the cds. because I understand someone DID have to work to create this product, therefore, I will help support thier creation by helping fund them in future endevors.
I for one, will probably never take songs I downloaded and burn them onto hardcopy. There is a simple reason. I don't have the time. Although i spend an average day of 15 hours or more sitting in front of a computer, I don't have the time to sit down, sort, format and burn music cds. it's that simple. Others, however, do.
In some ways, it is in the corporations' right to try to defend thier works. In many more ways, however, they are incorrect. They are like the man, who is stuck in cryogenic suspension for a hundred or more years, and then thawed. Would not that man have problems adjusting to the new age? What if, when he woke up, we lived in a society where no clothes were worn, and people wandered around wearing little plastic buttons that allowed then to instantly have an orgasm? Would he, the man, not have troubles coming to grips with the new reality? He would.
This, in essence, is what has happened. Seemingly overnight, the entire world has altered it's method of thinking, while, the corporations have been in a coma for all intensive purposes.
They are performing knee-jerk reactions to solve what they view as a problem. They are right, in some places, but mostly wrong. They must come to grips, change thier business schema, which, of course, has worked for centuries, alter thier course, and change with the times. This is not easily done, therfore, they are performing knee-jerk reactions, trying to fight the future, trying to fight the world instead of flowing with it like a plasmatic ever-changing organism.
The DMCA is like a child standing there, looking at you saying "Unless I get to be first to bat, I am taking my ball home". The government acts in much the same way. These halls, offices and cities are not filled with the intellectuals the internet is, they are filled with slow thinking dinosaurs that cannot understand the animal, the organism, which is the new society. Eventually, this will change, as those of us brave enough, will stand up to take the places of the old, changing the world as needed. However, by the time that happens, we too, will have become slow-thinking and possible dusty in the old attic. It is a generation gap, it is a time-gap.
All things change given time, all organisms grow, and alter thier makeup to adapt. It takes time however, and, with life moving as quickly as it is, time is of short order.
-Janus
Reccomended reading:
The Illuminatus Trilogy
-Robert Shea and Robert Wilson
ISBN: 0440539811
Cryptonomicon
-Neal Stephenson
ISBN: 0380973464
Atlas Shrugged
-Ayn Rand
ISBN: 0451191145
jon:
Personally, looking at my job description, I find that my actual duties, and or stuff that I work on range to almost facet of the company I work for. Although, my workload is not one you might call "heavy".
The government is basically, a bunch of overpaid pontificating farts. The actual time, i spend, in my building, at work, ranges from 50-80 hours a week. During that time, i can be working, sleeping, or screwing around. I actually have no measure of how long I actually WORK. Hell, even when i go home, I spend another couple of hours on the Net, doing both work and play.
I literally have to measure my time as a whole, rather than work, and/or play, because the two are tandem to each other. My work is play, my play is work. And I can no longer measure it in hours, I have to measure it in days.
Looking at it, however, I am underpaid. For both my experience and knowledge set, not to mention the quality of the work I pump out, i am severley underpaid. But, on the flip side, i don't answer to anyone, I don't have a boss in the conventional sense of the word. I can come and go as i please, and do anything I want to, within the normal bounds of reason.
Example? Last week I came in at 8am on a thursday. i did not leave until 7pm friday. i didn't mind, although the hallucinations were getting pretty bad, and the 60 minute commute home was terror personified. I basically wandered around in torn jeans, sandals, and a Vandover t-shirt I got at the
In closing, there is not particular manner with which to measure our type of jobs anymore. If we measure time at our place of employment, we have to examine how much of that is work, and how much of it is us on IRC, or playing pool?
No standards of measurment created by some dusty old fart sitting in a cube in some government ran rat maze can adequatly measure our time anymore.
-jesse
"What would be meglomania, in a lesser being"
Sir:
A few questions regarding publicizing on the Internet.
Number 1: I have noted that many campaigns which are posted on the internet, tend to avoid actually posting in-depth responses to issues, namely, on the Internet/Censorship.
We tend to overlook the fact that many canidates look at this situation, thinking that they can post what seems to be nothing more than a glorified banner ad in an arena which thrives off of knowledge, disclosure and the very trading of ideas.
it seems in many cases, canidates (Al gore is not the only one.) tend to simply post the propaganda that you can see watching TV, how do you make choices on what to post, where and when?
2: How much revenue do you actually generate from an online campaign such as this. Do you seem to be recieving many more donations, or is it pretty much the same.
3: Do you find that the internet is/is becoming a medium through which you can effictivly gain mindshare-time over and above 60 second infomercials?
4: The structure of the site seems to lack the ability for the end-user to properly interact. Take Slashdot for instance. Would it be feasible for you to set up an arena where the canidate could possibly respond, in person, questions posed to him/her. I know that in many ways, this in unfeasable. But even making the effort, tends to help public relations. Noting, of course, you will get alot of people who will abuse this syetm, to send nothing more than flames and insults, but, with the internet, you take the good and the bad, hand in hand, no?
/end rant
/end questioning.
I hope you all have a good day, and I look forward to hearing your responses.