I never said we ignore it, I just meant that it isn't the only way that a right can be defined. It doesn't outline the only rights that people have. I never said that we should ignore the rights already stipulated. Maybe if you had read my reply in full, you would realise this.
Look, I don't pirate. I don't care about you young'uns music. I have Netflix for all my movies (Some Like it Hot is on for the weekend). Thanks for your amazing leap to conclusions.
Good for you, but the comment wasn't really aimed at you. It's more addressed to those who are gathering flimsy reasons why they have the moral high ground when they do pirate (which may or may not have been you). They do exist, and I do think they need to know how bizarre some of their claims are.
My argument is about the restrictions lobby groups like this one want to impose.
Before we get into the slippery slope stuff, let's confirm where we are now. You are currently talking about entertainment and lobby groups that care nothing for political stifling. They just want to monopolise entertainment, which is a completely separate issue. Now, I appreciate that with such a precedent set, there is a slight potential for political abuse, but it will only be the tool of a corrupt government to abuse their power. It makes little sense to abolish or change copyright law (again, I'm not pointing the finger at you) in anticipation that it will be used to abuse power. Especially since copyright has many other benefits, and the use of enhanced copyright to censor information is only one way to destroy democracy (and certainly not the easiest).
Right now, if you want to legally review a DVD, you must get the pre-approved, licensed clips from the distributor to use in review.
Look, I have no idea what the laws are like in whatever neck of the woods you happen to be in, but where I come from, anyone can buy and watch a DVD. That same person can then write whatever they like about the DVD, so long as they don't directly quote too much of it. There is no license that anyone agrees to that dictates the usage of the DVD. I see no such threat to freedom of information here.
Universal and Disney are also pushing to have plots and storylines patentable. They have already submitted a few for patent review. If they pass, expect more. Does that scare you?
No, but I admit I'm a little shaken, but I take comfort in the fact that they haven't been approved yet, and that we are still only in the entertainment realm. I also believe that by the time they are approved and the patent is used against someone in court, the judge would take very little convincing from the defence lawyer before he/she would toss the suit out of court. The system does have safeguards against this sort of thing, but if they fail, maybe we will have to accept that not enough people care about the freedom of information. That would be sad, but not necessarily avoidable.
I'm a fan of 30-50 year copyrights
Well, that's a surprise. I just assumed that because you were accusing copyright of being the death of democracy that you didn't support copyrights (or IP in general). My bad.
The result of being apathetic in politics is to be run by evil men.
Right, because democracy only works if you manage to convince the public into believe your logic, as opposed to the evil men managing to brainwash people into believing their propaganda.
Please note the similarity in concept between the two scenarios.
Please take another look at our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Why?
While I mean no disrespect to your founding fathers, or to their ideas and ideals, they existed in the 18th century America. They did a damn good job in trying to make policy that would stand the test of time, and they have managed to cover most of the basics, but that doesn't mean that they are the only rights that Americans can have. We have all come forward more than two centuries, things have changed. A lot. There is nothing to say that Americans can't grant our their rights on top of the basics. I hate the way that people take the bill of rights as the be all end all of human rights, as if over two centuries produced no difference in people's values and economic dynamics. And that's not even mentioning the assumption that everyone who posts on/. is covered by the bill of rights (i.e. that everyone has US values).
It's a bit of a stretch to say that copyright is killing democracy. You seem to be assuming two things: that the restriction of information is detrimental to democracy, and that copyright is restricting information in a way that it is detrimental to democracy. While I agree with the first, I think you are overstating the effects. Restricted information makes it impossible to make a truly informed vote, but since it is almost impossible to be completely informed about political issues, it takes quite a bit of censorship to destroy democracy. It actually takes quite a bit of effort to destroy democracy through lack of information, since information wants to be free, and censorship is hard to do in practise.
Censorship needs to be politically focused, which copyright is not. Censorship needs to be concept-based, which copyright is not. You can freely create/read paraphrased or summarised versions of the concepts in copyrighted works. Same concepts, different wording. Face it, copyright is utterly useless for political censorship. Patents (which are more contentious) are designed to cover concepts, but thankfully don't really apply to information.
But hey, don't let me stop you. Just keep telling yourself that you are saving democracy when you download the latest music/movies/software via bittorrent.
Read the summary again. It's surprisingly objective, a damn sight better than most/. submissions. Don't feel too bad, I read "nefarious" instead of "nebulous" too.
Does not compute philosophically. You'd think a free market idealogue would be against copyrights...
If he were an ideologue, it would not compute. Perhaps he believes in a healthily regulated mostly free market? Perhaps he is more of a moderate rather than an ideologue?
It doesn't sound like they will define copyright to people, rather to explain the role of copyright in society, about its benefits and importance, and attempt to reverse the recent trend in people believing they are entitled to an artist's work for free.
That said, they will also no doubt tout the evil of copy protection evasion, and brush over the concept of fair use.
"Oh yeah, you are allowed to copy songs to your iPod, but you aren't allowed to copy your DVDs. That's piracy."
I can't really see how Apple can claim some sort of copyright over silhouettes. I mean - the original iPod adds seemed very.... reminiscent of the James Bond opening credits sequences from the 70s.
For the same reason that the latest Hollywood blockbuster can be copyrighted, even though it contains nothing original. "Shooter", I'm looking at you.
I bought a laptop. I didn't need to take it anywhere, I don't need another computer at work, it barely leaves the house. Still, I find it much more usable than a desktop. I've always enjoyed the way I could sit anywhere in the house and surf the net, play some games, or do some programming. It gives me something to do on the toilet (where I am right now). I realise that I probably fit your definition of people who don't need laptops, but I honestly can't imagine returning to desktops. No way, I've seen the light.
That said, if you're a PC geek, I appreciate that a desktop provides the best expandability, but that isn't exactly me, and it definitely isn't most people out there.
However, that does make me wonder: why would Dell invest the money and time in developing a series of Linux computers (testing, support services, marketing, etc) if they weren't certain that it would be profitable?
The only way for your scenario to work would be for MS to pay the OEMs to install windows (since they are competing against a free OS), but, as I'm lead to believe, it is a combination of the unbelievable discount that OEMs receive off the price of Windows and the subsidy that crapware makers pay to have their product installed by default.
Now all we need to make linux truly competitive is a port of AOL and MusicMatch.
Fair enough. I guess you may be right then. I still can't imagine that most people would be so committed to a media problem, but you'd know better than me. Oh well, it was a nice chat while it lasted.:)
No seriously. Do the world a favour and sue them. You're completely right: it is credit card fraud, and even as an honest mistake, it's completely unacceptable. If they can't take care of your details and be responsible with them, they should be severely punished.
Look, I know that it's part of your heritage and culture to be suspicious of the government for anything and everything that goes wrong in life, but it's starting to get repetitive.
Slashdot Mirror
And after choosing Ubuntu (-$50) a pop-up should warn that users who cannot define the word "Linux" or "OS" should choose Windows Vista (included).
Of course. Anything that *snort* MAFIAA wants, you obviously don't want. It's either us or them. What's good for them is bad for us.
I never said we ignore it, I just meant that it isn't the only way that a right can be defined. It doesn't outline the only rights that people have. I never said that we should ignore the rights already stipulated. Maybe if you had read my reply in full, you would realise this.
Please note the similarity in concept between the two scenarios.
While I mean no disrespect to your founding fathers, or to their ideas and ideals, they existed in the 18th century America. They did a damn good job in trying to make policy that would stand the test of time, and they have managed to cover most of the basics, but that doesn't mean that they are the only rights that Americans can have. We have all come forward more than two centuries, things have changed. A lot. There is nothing to say that Americans can't grant our their rights on top of the basics. I hate the way that people take the bill of rights as the be all end all of human rights, as if over two centuries produced no difference in people's values and economic dynamics. And that's not even mentioning the assumption that everyone who posts on
It's a bit of a stretch to say that copyright is killing democracy. You seem to be assuming two things: that the restriction of information is detrimental to democracy, and that copyright is restricting information in a way that it is detrimental to democracy. While I agree with the first, I think you are overstating the effects. Restricted information makes it impossible to make a truly informed vote, but since it is almost impossible to be completely informed about political issues, it takes quite a bit of censorship to destroy democracy. It actually takes quite a bit of effort to destroy democracy through lack of information, since information wants to be free, and censorship is hard to do in practise.
Censorship needs to be politically focused, which copyright is not. Censorship needs to be concept-based, which copyright is not. You can freely create/read paraphrased or summarised versions of the concepts in copyrighted works. Same concepts, different wording. Face it, copyright is utterly useless for political censorship. Patents (which are more contentious) are designed to cover concepts, but thankfully don't really apply to information.
But hey, don't let me stop you. Just keep telling yourself that you are saving democracy when you download the latest music/movies/software via bittorrent.
Read the summary again. It's surprisingly objective, a damn sight better than most /. submissions. Don't feel too bad, I read "nefarious" instead of "nebulous" too.
It doesn't sound like they will define copyright to people, rather to explain the role of copyright in society, about its benefits and importance, and attempt to reverse the recent trend in people believing they are entitled to an artist's work for free.
That said, they will also no doubt tout the evil of copy protection evasion, and brush over the concept of fair use.
"Oh yeah, you are allowed to copy songs to your iPod, but you aren't allowed to copy your DVDs. That's piracy."
Two CEOs enter...
Three CEOs leave!
Luddite.
What? No "now that I have your attention..."?
I bought a laptop. I didn't need to take it anywhere, I don't need another computer at work, it barely leaves the house. Still, I find it much more usable than a desktop. I've always enjoyed the way I could sit anywhere in the house and surf the net, play some games, or do some programming. It gives me something to do on the toilet (where I am right now). I realise that I probably fit your definition of people who don't need laptops, but I honestly can't imagine returning to desktops. No way, I've seen the light.
That said, if you're a PC geek, I appreciate that a desktop provides the best expandability, but that isn't exactly me, and it definitely isn't most people out there.
Maybe...
However, that does make me wonder: why would Dell invest the money and time in developing a series of Linux computers (testing, support services, marketing, etc) if they weren't certain that it would be profitable?
The only way for your scenario to work would be for MS to pay the OEMs to install windows (since they are competing against a free OS), but, as I'm lead to believe, it is a combination of the unbelievable discount that OEMs receive off the price of Windows and the subsidy that crapware makers pay to have their product installed by default.
Now all we need to make linux truly competitive is a port of AOL and MusicMatch.
Of course, since police officers are omnipotent, corrupt, and sadistic. I don't know why I ever thought they were human.
Fair enough. I guess you may be right then. I still can't imagine that most people would be so committed to a media problem, but you'd know better than me. Oh well, it was a nice chat while it lasted. :)
When your workplace starts looking like Doom 1, you probably need glasses.
It's a fine policy, but let's just say I wouldn't recommend it to my parents...
No seriously. Do the world a favour and sue them. You're completely right: it is credit card fraud, and even as an honest mistake, it's completely unacceptable. If they can't take care of your details and be responsible with them, they should be severely punished.
Look, I know that it's part of your heritage and culture to be suspicious of the government for anything and everything that goes wrong in life, but it's starting to get repetitive.
Now all of Slashdot has the opportunity to RTFA!
But that's about as far as it goes.