Ah, the old "compromise in the middle" proposal. Seems fair, but it is so easily gamed.
An example from (where else) automobiles: seat slides. Used to be the seat would not go back any further than a leg's width in front of the back seat. However, govt testing of crash safety with dummies used a simple technique to position the seat: put it in the middle of the slide. So, an easy way for manufacturers to improve car ratings was to extend the slide further back so the front seat could push into the back seat. The entertainment industry has done the equivalent of extending the slides even further back, and chopping the back seat's depth down to the width of a CD jewel case.
The GP was saying that neither side of the debate had it right, and that there was going to be some compromise. He didn't say that it was going to be "the middle". And besides, the RIAA's claims aren't really the more absurd here. The idea that music is declining in quality is rubbish. Music doesn't have "quality", rather it has audiences. One man's rubbish is another man's treasure, etc, etc. There's no shortage of diversity out there. If you think music in general is sliding down some absolute scale of "quality", then you aren't looking (listening?) in the right places. As for the RIAA's claim, it's not unreasonable to assume a significant portion of the piracy is lost sales. That's common sense.
We aren't offered a cut of the savings, far from it. Instead we get treated to even longer copyright terms and higher prices. And monopolistic practices resulting in terrible music, screwing over of artists, Payola, DRM, defective by design and even infective by criminally negligent mistake products (hello Sony CDs!), and frivolous extortionate lawsuits against their customers.
With the exception of payola, extended copyright terms, and "terrible music" (which doesn't really exist), you can thank piracy for all that.
Once they've been pushed into better behavior or broken, then we can talk about middle ground.
It's only compromise if they compromise your way, is that right?
In a way, piracy is partially responsible for your defection from the RIAA's customer base. The RIAA's just trying to defend their IP in the most cost-efficient way possible, but unfortunately that leads to some really dodgy lawsuits that negatively affect their image. They are also forced to try enforcement aids like DRM, copy protection, and watermarking, all which cost more money and more potential customers. Indirect costs really start to add up.
it appears to fall into the "illicit downloads = lost sales" fallacy
It's not a fallacy. The idea is that every pirated song deserves to be paid for, and thus every one is a lost sale. It's not designed to estimate the difference between what would have happened if there were no piracy and what's happening now, rather to estimate the difference between what could have happened if people paid for what they want and what's happening now.
He needs to be aware of the fact that leaving his router unconfigured results in it broadcasting digital permission outside his house for the "implicit permission" thing to work. Otherwise it would be negligence on the part of the router manufacturer. Basically this case means that (as I was saying in my original post) you need permission - traditional, analogue permission - to legally access a hotspot, unsecured or not.
Yes but bribery implies a strong responsibility to follow through with what you're being paid to do. Lobbying is about supporting the candidate who shares your views, so that he has a slight advantage over other candidates (i.e. that he can advertise more and pull more promotional stunts). You're not actually paying the congressman to do anything, except basically what the guy is doing anyway. It would probably be more accurate to say lobbying==tipping.
... the bottom line is that if you are deliberately using a broadband connection that you don't own, and don't have permission to use, you can be charged with "broadband theft".
No! Revenue is not evil! Revenue is what allows sites like YouTube to exist, and it's gotta come from somewhere. Revenue at the major expense of customers could be construed as evil, but only if the customers had no alternatives. But adding ads to YouTube? Certainly not. It was a long time coming.
DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT GPLv3 seeks to bar users from incorporating restrictive technology in GPL-based applications
PROTECTION AGAINST PATENTS GPLv3 seeks to prevent patent lawsuits against users of GPL code, as well as prevent indemnification agreements for a select group of GPL users, as with the Microsoft-Novell deal
WEB SERVICES GPLv3 seeks to expand the giveback provision and may require Web service providers to share the code on which their network services are built
NEW DEFINITIONS To better address international copyright law, GPLv3 seeks to change the words it uses for copy (propagate) and distribute (convey)
There's more in it than that on DRM and the MS-Novell deal. I must have gotten the wrong impression. Not just from the article, but from the people complaining about the GPLv3, like the outspoken Linus Torvalds.
Care to explain, instead of brooding and hurling misplaced and, well, pathetic insults? What about the second half of the statement, huh? Anything wrong with that?
What is happening here is pure capitalism. People with wealth are using it to further their own agenda, which ultimately they hope will generate a suitable return.
Capitalism isn't just about the wealthy using their influence, it's about rewarding people's contribution to society with a proportional amount of power and influence in the form of money, so they can exercise this influence for personal gain. The best ideas float to the top is just a desired side-effect. What you are describing is the accumulated wealth being used for personal gain, which is only half the philosophy. Unfortunately, capitalism can be spun into an injustice (why can person X afford a Porsche, when I can't?) when people ignore the reason why they get the money (i.e. that they contribute to society, or that someone else contributed to society and gave away the money to them).
You can't use GPLv3'd software with DRM, with or without redistribution. That's restricting use. It also tries to stonewall the MS-Novell agreement. That's also restricting use.
So why the hypocrisy with respect to pornography and other sexual or erotic descriptions.
For the same reason that we see 10-year-old children playing cops and robbers in the yard, but never having orgies. Action and violence appeal to children from a very young age, not so with sex. Perhaps 16 would be a more reasonable age.
There's absolutely no correlation between the cost of production and how enjoyable a game ends up being.
Well, there is a reasonable correlation between cost of production and amount of content in the game, which often means more fun, if not necessarily more fun (if you know what I mean). There's also a very strong correlation between cost and polish. Hey, it may not make a difference to those spartans out there who think gameplay is the only thing that counts, but it does count for the rest of us. I find that while indie games are fun, they often either:
a) become repetitive b) are tragically short or c) lack the innovation needed for it to become one of my staple games.
I'm not saying at all that the big blockbusters are any different, more that I've yet to see an indie equivalent of Morrowind or Ocarina of Time.
How about instead of trolling you actually respond to what I said?
I'm not trolling. I honestly believe that/. as a whole is extremely biased against businesses. If no-one provides a neutral net connection, it means market stagnation, with all the companies far too greedy to listen to the needs of the consumer. If someone goes out on a limb to offer a neutral net connection, pushing net-neutrality into the market place where it can compete and potentially prove itself, the companies are making a quick buck and are (again) being greedy. Personally, I'd rather see a company try something different and fail, rather than not try at all.
If the internet is currently neutral (I am pretty sure it is), why should people pay extra for the level of service they currently get?
This is completely separate from my original point, but you demanded my opinion, so I might as well give it. Most ISPs are not neutral. Most seem to shape Bittorent traffic, so your argument is fallacious from the outset. But essentially what you're paying for is the guarantee that it will not shape or prioritise any traffic (at least without warning). Whether it's worth the extra expense is a matter for the free market to decide, but it it's at least good that it can decide.
IANAL, but I guess the coupons are considered copyrighted material, and the registry entries/files constitute copy protection.
BTW I also think the title is very misleading. I was worried that some crafty lawyer had figured out a way, using the DMCA, to make file-deletion illegal. Perhaps "Deleting Certain Files A DMCA Violation?" would be a better title.
And the parent post is another example of a/.er painting the exploration of new markets, and the creation of competition, as a souless money-grabbing scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't they be just as biased?
In a way, piracy is partially responsible for your defection from the RIAA's customer base. The RIAA's just trying to defend their IP in the most cost-efficient way possible, but unfortunately that leads to some really dodgy lawsuits that negatively affect their image. They are also forced to try enforcement aids like DRM, copy protection, and watermarking, all which cost more money and more potential customers. Indirect costs really start to add up.
He needs to be aware of the fact that leaving his router unconfigured results in it broadcasting digital permission outside his house for the "implicit permission" thing to work. Otherwise it would be negligence on the part of the router manufacturer. Basically this case means that (as I was saying in my original post) you need permission - traditional, analogue permission - to legally access a hotspot, unsecured or not.
Yes but bribery implies a strong responsibility to follow through with what you're being paid to do. Lobbying is about supporting the candidate who shares your views, so that he has a slight advantage over other candidates (i.e. that he can advertise more and pull more promotional stunts). You're not actually paying the congressman to do anything, except basically what the guy is doing anyway. It would probably be more accurate to say lobbying==tipping.
Just like if I leave my internet connection running, my data allowance will spontaneously run dry?
... the bottom line is that if you are deliberately using a broadband connection that you don't own, and don't have permission to use, you can be charged with "broadband theft".
Why is this evil? Because making money off the minor annoyance of your consumer base (who aren't paying a cent to you) is quite evidently evil.
From page 2:There's more in it than that on DRM and the MS-Novell deal. I must have gotten the wrong impression. Not just from the article, but from the people complaining about the GPLv3, like the outspoken Linus Torvalds.
Care to explain, instead of brooding and hurling misplaced and, well, pathetic insults? What about the second half of the statement, huh? Anything wrong with that?
Or? Isn't And more appropriate?
(Mods, I kid, I kid!)
You can't use GPLv3'd software with DRM, with or without redistribution. That's restricting use. It also tries to stonewall the MS-Novell agreement. That's also restricting use.
a) become repetitive
b) are tragically short
or
c) lack the innovation needed for it to become one of my staple games.
I'm not saying at all that the big blockbusters are any different, more that I've yet to see an indie equivalent of Morrowind or Ocarina of Time.
(Just my two cents)
IANAL, but I guess the coupons are considered copyrighted material, and the registry entries/files constitute copy protection.
BTW I also think the title is very misleading. I was worried that some crafty lawyer had figured out a way, using the DMCA, to make file-deletion illegal. Perhaps "Deleting Certain Files A DMCA Violation?" would be a better title.
And the parent post is another example of a /.er painting the exploration of new markets, and the creation of competition, as a souless money-grabbing scheme.
... and 222% of people rejected the survey, making the assumption that everyone used only one form of communication in the workplace.