Old-fashioned artist complaining about how music was better back in his day when he was creating it? Say it isn't so!
Seriously, it's all well and good to have your own luddism privately, but this guy is calling for the end of the internet. That's right. If you RTFA, that's exactly what he does. And all because music these days isn't catering to his tastes, and that for some reason, his tastes trump everyone else's. Pathetic.
That's different. You are still innocent until proven guilty, it's just that now you can be found guilty of intent to pirate. They still have to prove that before they can dish out any punishment.
As damn stupid as the laws may seem, they are actually possible to obey. You may not like the idea that (due to poor infrastructure planning) you have to stop at two stop signs almost immediately, but you could do it. You can also be obey stop lights and obey the low speed limit. All you'd have to do is be more cautious and plan more time for car trips. It feels like a passing of the buck to say the system is screwed and out of your control.
Quotas: Absolutely police have quotas. If the police REALLY cared about stopping bad behavior then they would stop reckless driving. But of course that is harder to catch and requires being on guard and active. Yet speeding is easy. Sit in a corner and wait!
I realise that police have quotas. What I object to is the prejudice against police, saying that they are corrupt. I have little doubt that they prefer to catch mild speeders rather than the faster, more difficult offenders. They are human, have a job to do, and get paid the same no matter how much effort they put towards individual cases. It would be nigh impossible to keep them all idealistic. However, it is unfair to simplify their efforts as purely selfish.
Besides, if people are speeding, it is (at least partly) their fault that they left themselves open for an easy-picking arrest. With a little effort, they could easily make them immune to such attention.
The roads are a mess in terms of law enforcement IMHO. It seems to be ingrained into our society's psyche that it is OK to break traffic laws when it suits you.
What do you do if you're late? Speed and drive recklessly, of course. Really want to do a U-turn on a no-U-turn street, and there's pretty much no traffic? Just do one anyway. What do you do if you see a speed limit sign? Adjust your speed to the limit plus 10%, because the cops won't bust you for it. What happens if there is a person in front of you who's obeying the speed limit, or who stops at stop signs, or who refuses to illegally overtake? You tailgate them, flash your lights, and/or beep the horn.
People seem to expect, as their right, to break traffic laws, and any increased police activity on the roads is painted as "revenue raising", or policemen trying to meet quotas, or even just power tripping. And since the behaviour is so ubiquitous, the responses are loud enough so that any serious plans to reverse this trend are considered political suicide. So yes, if you don't have anything to hide, then you don't have anything to fear. The problem is, almost everyone has something to hide when it comes to the roads, and so these sort of measures will never succeed. I wish them luck though.
It's true that it only takes a relatively competent 15 y.o. to install Linux, but it takes a much higher degree of competency to set up, administer, and cope with Linux day to day. And while I don't personally enjoy MS bashing as much as some seem to, I can sympathise with those who do. MS products do tend to pale in comparison with products from those in competition with them (there are exceptions, like MS office). Slashdotters' views of MS are even more negative than the average MS customer, because they are aware of alternatives, they know their track record, and have deeper knowledge of the behind-the-scenes tech. There are also shared ideological beliefs that MS flies in the face of.
But all that is obvious. In fact, judging by your lack of appreciation for these opinions, I would hazard a guess that is, in fact, you who are inexperienced and big-mouthed.
It's hard for parents to stop kids from viewing offensive content. I remember hearing on the radio that children as young as ten years old are learning how to bypass filtering. Particularly in (previous versions of) Windows, where every user is a root user, it's very difficult to stop the kids from using these root privileges to undo all the work you put in.
Perhaps we need ISPs willing to filter the web on their end for certain customers who request it?
Oh, and it should also be non-transferable---stop (most) record companies forcing the songwriters to give up the rights to their own songs in their contracts
Correction: they sell their rights in exchange for some security in their investment. I don't see why we need to cut down the artists' options just because a business you don't like is doing well. Not to mention how it would seriously cut down the number of potentially talented potential artists willing to try a career as an artist.
I don't know why I'm responding to what's probably a hit-and-run anonymous coward attack, but what the hell...
there was never a natural right to control content. there was only a system, which created the illusion of rights.
That's almost correct. It's not a natural right, rather an artificial right that we have created so that our society can have a rich culture. However, just be cause it's artificial (just like our "right" to live, our "right" to speak without persecution, etc) does not mean it isn't a valid right to have. We have the right to live to make us feel secure, we have the right speak without persecution because it helps our system of government to work, and we have copyright because it is so far proven to be the best way to help our culture flourish. You may think that everyone has the intrinsic right to hear my (or anyone else's) music, and you'd probably be right, but that doesn't really help society very much now does it?
but rest assured the world will not miss the next big hit by "the velvet flamebait" because someone else, someone who loves music and makes music simply for the love of making music, will create something just as good and give it away for free.
Let me remind you that enthusiasm != talent (money, if nothing else, is a fantastic motivator after all). A legal free-for-all of copyrighted works will cut down artists to those who are enthusiastic, nothing more. Just because they really, really like music/movies/games, doesn't meant that they are any good, that they can afford to spend anywhere near as much time and effort as those making their art full time, or that everyone will consider something as subjective as their art to be objectively better than art created by artists expecting to be paid for their work.
Some people like Hollywood blockbusters, for example. I honestly can't imagine that artists who doesn't want money for their work, and are happy to pour their extra income and spare time into making movies could adequately replace Hollywood. You may well say that it isn't a big loss, due to the crappiness of the movies, but you can't tell someone that their tastes are "wrong". And you sure as hell can't enforce your own tastes at the political level. One of the beauties of copyright law is that it allows people to give their stuff away for free if they want to, but also allows people to control the distribution of their work if they want to. If you get rid of copyright, you won't be enhancing our culture, you'll just be cutting out the majority of it, leaving behind the enthusiastic with too much time and money on their hands. There's no reason to get rid of copyright, since it won't provide you with anything more than you can currently get.
The idea that politicians are fundamentally different from you or I is simply ridiculous. They do live in the same country, they abide by the same rules. They are elected democratically, and there is no filter that turns the proverbial mouse into the proverbial cat as soon as they enter any position of power. They don't instantly become corrupt just because they have some small amount of power. They (more likely than not) grew up in the same country as you, many with similar upbringings and some with similar beliefs to you. If you find that I'm wrong, and that there really aren't any people who share your views, or that they never get voted in, and you still aren't satisfied, then perhaps you aren't right for democracy, and should direct your political ambitions to the goal of running your own dictatorship.
Society would be safer, more constructive, and more efficient if people would highlight each other's similarities, rather than demonise each other based on their differences.
Yet somehow PC games have managed to survive all of the doom and gloom. It's been 20 years already with rampant piracy the whole way and they're still around.
With aids like copyright law, copy protection, and the fact that rips of contemporary games are still too large for convenient transfer over the internet.
That just goes to show that if you put out a good product and don't abuse your customers too much, people will still pay for your stuff even if it is readily available for free.
Don't count on that goodwill lasting if copyright infringement becomes legal, or if no-one bothers to enforce it.
That is the "business model shift" that both the RIAA and the MPAA need to make. They need to stop acting like they are entitled to success. They have to act like they are willing to work for it.
They are working for it. Granted they could be working harder, but they sensibly realised that they can't turn a profit if their legal rights keep getting trampled on by selfish consumers. We have copyright law as stabiliser, to protect our culture from unfair competition and unsustainable practices. It's not so much a "business model shift" as it is unnecessary corporate suicide.
As I like to say: When it comes to ripping off artists, consumers really are amateurs compared to the labels.
That makes no sense. The RIAA at least pays its artists money. What do the hardcore pirates do for the artists, hmm? Well, they enjoy the fruits of their labour without paying a cent, they (more often than not) help many others to do the same thing, and they perpetuate this fallacy that copyright law is bad for our culture. Personally, I'd rather receive a few bucks a CD, or live concert/merchandise revenue (however way they do it nowadays), than to give my art away for free to any ungrateful and disrespectful yobbo who can be bothered running a P2P program.
It is worse than writing your password down and putting it in your desk.
You're right! From now on, I'm going to write all my passwords, with the sites they correspond to, on a sheet of paper pinned to my desk. Any leet hacker looking through my computer will be so frustrated with the lack of a password manager file, that they'll just completely forget to look on the desk beside them, right? Right?
GPLv3 is an attempt to rectify certain "loopholes" in GPLv2 that allow individuals and organisations to use GPLed code in ways that contradict the ideology of the FSF. The license restricts the use of software with DRM technology, as well as preventing IP indemnification deals (with ramifications affecting the MS-Novell deal). Anyway, I don't really know too much on the subject, but here's some reading: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2108409,00.as p
Throwing their own students in front of the RIAA bus would only lose them potential (and maybe current) students, and all the revenue they represent.
If any other organisation were to protect their revenue by blocking the judicial system, they would be considered corrupt. Oh well, I guess anything is permissible while upholding a narrow bastardisation of the concept of common good.
Great. That's what we need: Slashdotters in power. I can just imagine: economy and culture would go to hell, the government would wither, the system would turn decidedly undemocratic (ironically enough), but internet penetration and speeds would soar.
As a rule the systems are setup in gambling so that the Casino has an expected payoff. That is, the balance is deliberately tilted towards the operators.
Naturally. If the odds were even, it would be impossible for the casino to glean profit over the enterprise. They would quickly leech all their business capital on running costs. When they start to lose money due to customers exploiting faults in the system, they absolutely do deserve some sympathy. The fact that they can turn a profit and that they're wealthy does not give you license to steal from them.
Of course it is -- why else do you think it's ILLEGAL?
Because it's harmful to those who use it, and it isn't a cemented part of our culture like tobacco and alcohol are. (Hint: I don't buy the assertion that everyone in power is corrupt)
So, owning a device which can contain copyright-infringing music is grounds for the government to assume you *are* using it to contain copyright-infringing music?
No. You are paying for everyone's piracy. Society, as a whole, is supporting copyright and is, as a whole, taking responsibility for it.
If so, is there going to be a tax on plastic baggies? Cause they could be containing cocaine...
Yes but the cocaine trade isn't taking the earnings from legitimate businesses. Before you come up with another more relative example, bear in mind that the problem must be widespread and under-appreciated as an offence in large circles of the community.
IF this tax is put in place on iPods, and the reason behind it is because they assume that the contents of the iPod have been obtained outside of the legally approved methods, does this mean now that you can steal as much music as you want in canada, if you own an iPod?
The implication of your statement seems to be that you don't want the Canadian entertainment industry to compensate for losses to piracy twice, right? What if neither the lawsuits or the levy pay for piracy against the industry in its entirety, and only a combination does? If piracy were to be paid only levy, there would be no incentive for people to abide by the law, and everyone who bought music devices/blank media, no matter how good they've been, would pay for their sins. If only the lawsuits were to pay for piracy, then the amount asked for by the suing party would have to be much, much larger, with the result being disproportionately large penalties. I can see why they want to mediate both channels.
Terrorism is equivalent to rebellion if you smudge the definition of terrorism. From the first line of the Wikipedia article:
Terrorism is a term used to describe unlawful violence or other unlawful harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target non-combatants.
The truth is that terrorism is a kind of rebellion. The kind that is violent towards non-combatants and is designed to strike fear into people.
Slashdot Mirror
Old-fashioned artist complaining about how music was better back in his day when he was creating it? Say it isn't so!
Seriously, it's all well and good to have your own luddism privately, but this guy is calling for the end of the internet. That's right. If you RTFA, that's exactly what he does. And all because music these days isn't catering to his tastes, and that for some reason, his tastes trump everyone else's. Pathetic.
Sorry sir. This is antiterrorhype. Terrorhype always seem to point people here. Logic and reason exist somewhere in between.
Since when did we ever let little things like evidence or common sense get in the way of a nice bit of conspiracy theorising?
You're not thinking of Dissociative Identity Disorder are you? Schizophrenia is when your perceptions are impaired, and you may start hearing voices among other things.
That's different. You are still innocent until proven guilty, it's just that now you can be found guilty of intent to pirate. They still have to prove that before they can dish out any punishment.
Besides, if people are speeding, it is (at least partly) their fault that they left themselves open for an easy-picking arrest. With a little effort, they could easily make them immune to such attention.
The roads are a mess in terms of law enforcement IMHO. It seems to be ingrained into our society's psyche that it is OK to break traffic laws when it suits you.
What do you do if you're late? Speed and drive recklessly, of course.
Really want to do a U-turn on a no-U-turn street, and there's pretty much no traffic? Just do one anyway.
What do you do if you see a speed limit sign? Adjust your speed to the limit plus 10%, because the cops won't bust you for it.
What happens if there is a person in front of you who's obeying the speed limit, or who stops at stop signs, or who refuses to illegally overtake? You tailgate them, flash your lights, and/or beep the horn.
People seem to expect, as their right, to break traffic laws, and any increased police activity on the roads is painted as "revenue raising", or policemen trying to meet quotas, or even just power tripping. And since the behaviour is so ubiquitous, the responses are loud enough so that any serious plans to reverse this trend are considered political suicide. So yes, if you don't have anything to hide, then you don't have anything to fear. The problem is, almost everyone has something to hide when it comes to the roads, and so these sort of measures will never succeed. I wish them luck though.
It's true that it only takes a relatively competent 15 y.o. to install Linux, but it takes a much higher degree of competency to set up, administer, and cope with Linux day to day. And while I don't personally enjoy MS bashing as much as some seem to, I can sympathise with those who do. MS products do tend to pale in comparison with products from those in competition with them (there are exceptions, like MS office). Slashdotters' views of MS are even more negative than the average MS customer, because they are aware of alternatives, they know their track record, and have deeper knowledge of the behind-the-scenes tech. There are also shared ideological beliefs that MS flies in the face of.
But all that is obvious. In fact, judging by your lack of appreciation for these opinions, I would hazard a guess that is, in fact, you who are inexperienced and big-mouthed.
It's hard for parents to stop kids from viewing offensive content. I remember hearing on the radio that children as young as ten years old are learning how to bypass filtering. Particularly in (previous versions of) Windows, where every user is a root user, it's very difficult to stop the kids from using these root privileges to undo all the work you put in.
Perhaps we need ISPs willing to filter the web on their end for certain customers who request it?
Some people like Hollywood blockbusters, for example. I honestly can't imagine that artists who doesn't want money for their work, and are happy to pour their extra income and spare time into making movies could adequately replace Hollywood. You may well say that it isn't a big loss, due to the crappiness of the movies, but you can't tell someone that their tastes are "wrong". And you sure as hell can't enforce your own tastes at the political level. One of the beauties of copyright law is that it allows people to give their stuff away for free if they want to, but also allows people to control the distribution of their work if they want to. If you get rid of copyright, you won't be enhancing our culture, you'll just be cutting out the majority of it, leaving behind the enthusiastic with too much time and money on their hands. There's no reason to get rid of copyright, since it won't provide you with anything more than you can currently get.
[rant]
The idea that politicians are fundamentally different from you or I is simply ridiculous. They do live in the same country, they abide by the same rules. They are elected democratically, and there is no filter that turns the proverbial mouse into the proverbial cat as soon as they enter any position of power. They don't instantly become corrupt just because they have some small amount of power. They (more likely than not) grew up in the same country as you, many with similar upbringings and some with similar beliefs to you. If you find that I'm wrong, and that there really aren't any people who share your views, or that they never get voted in, and you still aren't satisfied, then perhaps you aren't right for democracy, and should direct your political ambitions to the goal of running your own dictatorship.
Society would be safer, more constructive, and more efficient if people would highlight each other's similarities, rather than demonise each other based on their differences.
[/rant]
GPLv3 is an attempt to rectify certain "loopholes" in GPLv2 that allow individuals and organisations to use GPLed code in ways that contradict the ideology of the FSF. The license restricts the use of software with DRM technology, as well as preventing IP indemnification deals (with ramifications affecting the MS-Novell deal). Anyway, I don't really know too much on the subject, but here's some reading: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2108409,00.as p
Great. That's what we need: Slashdotters in power. I can just imagine: economy and culture would go to hell, the government would wither, the system would turn decidedly undemocratic (ironically enough), but internet penetration and speeds would soar.
Is it wrong that I'm aroused by this submission's title?
(Just my luck. I get the word "sucked" in my CAPTCHA)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the justification behind the zoning of free speech?
The implication of your statement seems to be that you don't want the Canadian entertainment industry to compensate for losses to piracy twice, right? What if neither the lawsuits or the levy pay for piracy against the industry in its entirety, and only a combination does? If piracy were to be paid only levy, there would be no incentive for people to abide by the law, and everyone who bought music devices/blank media, no matter how good they've been, would pay for their sins. If only the lawsuits were to pay for piracy, then the amount asked for by the suing party would have to be much, much larger, with the result being disproportionately large penalties. I can see why they want to mediate both channels.