people who assume that copyright is an inherent right, when it is so obviously not
No, but it isn't unreasonable to reward an investment of time and labour with some power over their investment (and money).
people who think that without our current copyright structure, there could only be chaos.
You'll be hard pressed to find anyone like that. I, on the other hand, believe that music industry would become barely a shadow of what it is now. It would filter down the music industry to the truly dedicated (but not necessarily very good) and the vocal retards who populate the net, who just like to be famous. I reckon the latter would be more common. Plus, only the web-connected demographic would have reasonable access to the music, and so you'd find that some genres of music would suffer greatly. It's not chaos, but it ain't all that great either.
I thought the point of the GPL was to ensure the distribution of, and the right to easily be able to modify, the source code of certain pieces of software. In a copyright-less world, we'd just have legally disassemble-able binary blobs. Who would go to the trouble of providing the source code at their own expense?
Most spammers wouldn't really have an interest in spamming children, so assuming the email addresses largely belong to children, it could have been effective. It'll fall to pieces when (inevitably), people start registering their own addresses as children's addresses.
But it is illegal to post a string of numbers that is a credit card number, and identify it as a specific credit card, and provide the information required to use it. Just as posting the HD-DVD key is not illegal, but posting it and identifying it as the HD-DVD key is illegal under the DMCA.
Ah, but which is the real straw man, the pirating or the **AA? The pirating is by no means an integral part of taking down the entertainment industry. In fact, one would think they were (almost) mutually exclusive, since you would be less likely to appreciate what they produce. It should be trivial to not pirate, or to stop pirating.
I don't think that's the case. According to a recent Slashdot poll, most people here pirate, many frequently. However, if we look at the situation in reverse, badmouthing the industry is integral to pirating, if you want to maintain a moral high ground. You can't rip 'em off and be moral about it, unless you hate them. Wouldn't this explain a correlation between piracy and hating the **AA?
I'm not saying the **AA don't deserve this treatment (they do, IMHO), but there are artist who are suffering as collateral damage. And the situation isn't going to get any better if we confuse strawmen.
The simple fact is that the current music/movie industry has become too bloated to produce anything really good, baring a few exceptions (and by few I mean probably about 5-10 per month, which is a tiny percentage).
Aside from the obvious fact that this is all a matter of opinion and taste, I'd have to say I agree. But then again, that's how I'd want it. If the industry were to downsize significantly, it would be the pop music/Hollywood blockbusters that would stay, as they are the most profitable. As it stands, everyone can find something good. I personally don't need to see more than 5-10 movies a month, or buy 5-10 albums a month (and that's not even factoring in a decent back catalogue).
I guess it might also be that some of these suggestions have merit.
Re:Wikipedia article on the number is down too.
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
For instance, let us create "sabre86's stanard coding scheme": add 1 to any number. After encoding we have 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C1. Look, it's a different number!
Spooky, isn't it?
Try this one. Take the number, and xor it against itself. What happens? You get a completely different number. In fact, you get that same result from every AACS key!
I repudiate the DMCA, and all who would enforce it. It is a corrupt law, born of a corrupt process, in the service of corrupt people. As such, I will not respect or observe it, and you shouldn't, either.
Are you sure? I remember this article was posted here a while back. It basically said that the "DMCA architect" admitted that he had failed in creating the DMCA. Corrupt? No. Inept? Most definitely.
Besides, it isn't illegal by any measure to post a number on the internet.
It's pronounced wee-seven. I signed up, downloaded a song, and was greeted by a very short advertisement (about 4 seconds long), saying "the time for wee-seven is now". And that was it. It was skip-able so long as you reacted fast enough to skip it before it ended.
How about Ubuntu pre-installed with a "pile of craplets" Windows installer CD, and a note asking the consumer really, really, really nicely to install it on someone's Windows box?
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the point of the GPL was to ensure the distribution of, and the right to easily be able to modify, the source code of certain pieces of software. In a copyright-less world, we'd just have legally disassemble-able binary blobs. Who would go to the trouble of providing the source code at their own expense?
Most spammers wouldn't really have an interest in spamming children, so assuming the email addresses largely belong to children, it could have been effective. It'll fall to pieces when (inevitably), people start registering their own addresses as children's addresses.
"I always thought Utah was a bit religious"
Too little.
"but freaking naive?"
Too late.
But it is illegal to post a string of numbers that is a credit card number, and identify it as a specific credit card, and provide the information required to use it. Just as posting the HD-DVD key is not illegal, but posting it and identifying it as the HD-DVD key is illegal under the DMCA.
Ah, but which is the real straw man, the pirating or the **AA? The pirating is by no means an integral part of taking down the entertainment industry. In fact, one would think they were (almost) mutually exclusive, since you would be less likely to appreciate what they produce. It should be trivial to not pirate, or to stop pirating.
I don't think that's the case. According to a recent Slashdot poll, most people here pirate, many frequently. However, if we look at the situation in reverse, badmouthing the industry is integral to pirating, if you want to maintain a moral high ground. You can't rip 'em off and be moral about it, unless you hate them. Wouldn't this explain a correlation between piracy and hating the **AA?
I'm not saying the **AA don't deserve this treatment (they do, IMHO), but there are artist who are suffering as collateral damage. And the situation isn't going to get any better if we confuse strawmen.
I quite enjoyed movies and music.
Tell me. Does this new definition of "pirate" include those who circumvent copy protection on products they legally bought?
I'm so excited!
Genius! We could theoretically cut down on fanboyism by up to 50%!
I guess it might also be that some of these suggestions have merit.
Try this one. Take the number, and xor it against itself. What happens? You get a completely different number. In fact, you get that same result from every AACS key!
Besides, it isn't illegal by any measure to post a number on the internet.
Don't post that! We'll get another DMCA takedown notice!
It's pronounced wee-seven. I signed up, downloaded a song, and was greeted by a very short advertisement (about 4 seconds long), saying "the time for wee-seven is now". And that was it. It was skip-able so long as you reacted fast enough to skip it before it ended.
How about Ubuntu pre-installed with a "pile of craplets" Windows installer CD, and a note asking the consumer really, really, really nicely to install it on someone's Windows box?
Dammit! Just when you think you've got the space-time continuum sorted!
Could I borrow that time machine for a sec? That slip up was a little embarrassing...
Perhaps Linux wouldn't be such a "sucker's game" if there was support for a specific distribution from the OEMs?
Yeah, yeah. Infantile, lame, redundant. I couldn't help myself.