One problem: judges and juries don't seem to give a crap about the technical side of things. As far as the courts seem to care, the RIAA does not download the files, rather it merely snoops the IP address swarm. Sure, technically they do download part of the file, but if copyright law was that technical, wouldn't copying web pages into cache be illegal?
I feel posts like this have an immunity associated with them, not dissimilar from the immunity bills can get from thinking of the children or taking a tougher stance on terrorism. I feel that if I argue this sort of thing, I'll get modded into oblivion, thus keeping the bubble of idealism that surrounds Slashdot. Does anyone else feel this, or is it just me?
To Dunbal, I ask: how do you know that he doesn't care about you and your children? It may only be that he prefers not to see so much negativity in the news, or that he prefers a country where he and his children feel safe. Doesn't it strike you as unfair to flatly contradict and accuse him, without evidence?
Well then, perhaps you should run yourself (or find someone you can trust who will). After all, if it's really that bad, it should be a snap to win against all those lying, cheating politicians, right?
You also didn't answer my other question: what makes you think running to another country will be any different? Are Americans and Canadians so much more dull-witted than other democracies that this won't happen elsewhere?
Since when has this kind of cowardice enveloped Slashdot? Most of us live in a democracy. Hell, if you are living in China, run away, but if you are in a democracy, you vote to change your circumstances. Hell, if it got this way, and it ain't changing, maybe that's what people want (or at least, can tolerate). What makes you think that anywhere else won't go the same way?
That kinda sounds like the argument that anti-piracy measures are good for consumers. You know, that if piracy goes rampant, the music/movie industry will suffer or disappear.
thus eliminating the only thing about the DMCA that was good for consumers
Was it actually good for consumers? I thought it was only good for those who own sites like YouTube or MySpace. How does the average consumer benefit from this exactly?
We have to remember to target more of our hatred at the record companies themselves, rather than the RIAA, otherwise the record companies get off scot free.
The record companies do not get off scot free. Since the RIAA makes up a vast majority of the music industry, referencing the RIAA's record companies as "the RIAA" in these negative stories reflects poorly on the industry as a whole, especially the big labels. The unfortunate side-effect of this is that people may get independent labels confused.
BTW, how is saying "We are God's chosen people" any different than saying "We are the master race".? Tell me! Why is one ok and the other considered rascist?
Will do! The latter is a matter of religion, and is covered by religious freedom, and to tell them that it's racist is implying that their beliefs are invalid. There is always going to be a certain amount of egocentricity when it comes to religion. For example, which species did God supposedly create in his image? I'll give you a hint: it isn't the cockroach.
Also, being "God's chosen people" does not necessarily mean that you are superior (it simply means that you were "chosen" - whatever that means), whereas calling yourself "the master race" means that you do consider yourself superior. Therefore, the self-proclaimed "master race" must be racist.
Finally, and most importantly, claiming that you are "God's chosen people" is a passive affair, whereas claiming to be "the master race" was coupled with the feeling of obligation to the human race to purge the world of all who are not "the master race". It is the very worst kind of racism.
Everyone over 10 has realized that the RIAA is a decaying corpse and (I sincerely believe) would boycott them completely if it were made easy.
No, no, no, no, no!
A) Not many people outside Slashdot read these stories, so they don't realise the damage that the RIAA causes B) Many of the afore-mentioned people support copyright law, and see the RIAA in a positive light, going after those pirates who steal the RIAA's revenue, hurt the artists who make the music that these people enjoy. C) It doesn't make it easy just knowing which CDs not to buy. You actually have to be prepared not to have them, and either live without them, or go to the trouble of finding alternative sources of music. Bear in mind that a little under a third of US households don't have internet access at home and that even if they do, that doesn't guarantee that they'll know about any independent labels online. This means, they'll actually have to go searching for independent music in stores. D) They can't hear samples from independent artists in the media due to payola.
Sorry to disillusion you there. It must be nice to have that kind of faith in humanity.
"Years of old code, the rush to the market, some fast programming, you know. Aren't you here for the same?"
I don't think that line quite fits. For one, it's too geeky. For two, it's too vindictive, especially when the whole premise is about friendly one-up-man-ship, and how the PC just doesn't compare. For three, anything that is wrong with the PC, he tries to gloss it over by pointing out the advantages to whatever the new change is, or else he assumes that everyone else has the same problem. He wouldn't ask them (since that would imply that he has some uncertainty on the matter).
So we have the worst of all possible worlds, the makers of DRM turf around pretending that their broken DRM still works and spread fear that if a publisher releases anything without their DRM it will be instantly stolen. But their DRM is already broken!
DRM isn't broken 'til you actually break it. Until then, it is still an encrypted file that cannot be played by conventional means. To break a certain instance of DRM, you need to know that it exists and what it does, that there might be a program to remedy the situation, the know-how to search the Internet for such a program, and the know-how to install and use the program. Believe it or not, but all those things are beyond many computer users out there. All they know is that they can't share their music collection. They don't look for the "why".
An interesting theory, but I don't think it's right. For one, not that many people care about copyright or the entertainment industry's effect on technology. If anything, people I know seem to be in favour of copyright and feel genuine guilt when they burn their friend's CDs. I know it's easy to forget that here on slashdot, but it's true. There are simply too many people out there who are more concerned with their children's future, or the environment, or their business's future, or whatever else they care about. The RIAA, to them, isn't the company suing old women and young children, but the organisation responsible for all that annoying music on the radio.
This is the way they want it. The friendly music industry going hardline, for the benefit of those poor artists, against the scum on that Internet-thingy stealing their work. If the RIAA were to look bad to the public in general, it would just look bad for the music industry in general. People wouldn't trust the RIAA, the members, and probably even independent labels. i.e. anyone connected with the music industry.
Vote 1 Greens in the state elections tomorrow! Even if you think they're going to drive the economy under, vote for their anti-corruption policies. They are planning on making it illegal for corporations to donate to political candidates, and forcing the entire donation system transparent.
... when applied to the entertainment industries. The simple fact of the matter is that these industries are losing profit (not exclusively) to piracy, which is illegal. Since it's illegal, the government does have an obligation to uphold the law. Until the the law is changed, spouting that same quote will do absolutely nothing.
... and that only counts the problems they know about/want to admit/that they can be bothered fixing. I would prefer Red Hat, since the developers don't mind fixing lots of problems minor problems, since it has very few severe problems, and the problems are fixed a week before MS would get round to fixing them (if they would at all).
Slashdot Mirror
... how do you know the calendar isn't fooling you? ;)
One problem: judges and juries don't seem to give a crap about the technical side of things. As far as the courts seem to care, the RIAA does not download the files, rather it merely snoops the IP address swarm. Sure, technically they do download part of the file, but if copyright law was that technical, wouldn't copying web pages into cache be illegal?
... where your software becomes incompatible half-way through execution!
I feel posts like this have an immunity associated with them, not dissimilar from the immunity bills can get from thinking of the children or taking a tougher stance on terrorism. I feel that if I argue this sort of thing, I'll get modded into oblivion, thus keeping the bubble of idealism that surrounds Slashdot. Does anyone else feel this, or is it just me?
To Dunbal, I ask: how do you know that he doesn't care about you and your children? It may only be that he prefers not to see so much negativity in the news, or that he prefers a country where he and his children feel safe. Doesn't it strike you as unfair to flatly contradict and accuse him, without evidence?
Isn't funny how this conversation always ends in the same logical dead-end, yet the cowards always get the mod points. Shame, really.
Well then, perhaps you should run yourself (or find someone you can trust who will). After all, if it's really that bad, it should be a snap to win against all those lying, cheating politicians, right?
You also didn't answer my other question: what makes you think running to another country will be any different? Are Americans and Canadians so much more dull-witted than other democracies that this won't happen elsewhere?
Since when has this kind of cowardice enveloped Slashdot? Most of us live in a democracy. Hell, if you are living in China, run away, but if you are in a democracy, you vote to change your circumstances. Hell, if it got this way, and it ain't changing, maybe that's what people want (or at least, can tolerate). What makes you think that anywhere else won't go the same way?
That kinda sounds like the argument that anti-piracy measures are good for consumers. You know, that if piracy goes rampant, the music/movie industry will suffer or disappear.
Let's file a class action suit against Viacom! After all, they do depend on us, the consumer...
Also, being "God's chosen people" does not necessarily mean that you are superior (it simply means that you were "chosen" - whatever that means), whereas calling yourself "the master race" means that you do consider yourself superior. Therefore, the self-proclaimed "master race" must be racist.
Finally, and most importantly, claiming that you are "God's chosen people" is a passive affair, whereas claiming to be "the master race" was coupled with the feeling of obligation to the human race to purge the world of all who are not "the master race". It is the very worst kind of racism.
A) Not many people outside Slashdot read these stories, so they don't realise the damage that the RIAA causes
B) Many of the afore-mentioned people support copyright law, and see the RIAA in a positive light, going after those pirates who steal the RIAA's revenue, hurt the artists who make the music that these people enjoy.
C) It doesn't make it easy just knowing which CDs not to buy. You actually have to be prepared not to have them, and either live without them, or go to the trouble of finding alternative sources of music. Bear in mind that a little under a third of US households don't have internet access at home and that even if they do, that doesn't guarantee that they'll know about any independent labels online. This means, they'll actually have to go searching for independent music in stores.
D) They can't hear samples from independent artists in the media due to payola.
Sorry to disillusion you there. It must be nice to have that kind of faith in humanity.
That was actually really funny. Thanks!
Al Gore? Is that you?
An interesting theory, but I don't think it's right. For one, not that many people care about copyright or the entertainment industry's effect on technology. If anything, people I know seem to be in favour of copyright and feel genuine guilt when they burn their friend's CDs. I know it's easy to forget that here on slashdot, but it's true. There are simply too many people out there who are more concerned with their children's future, or the environment, or their business's future, or whatever else they care about. The RIAA, to them, isn't the company suing old women and young children, but the organisation responsible for all that annoying music on the radio.
This is the way they want it. The friendly music industry going hardline, for the benefit of those poor artists, against the scum on that Internet-thingy stealing their work. If the RIAA were to look bad to the public in general, it would just look bad for the music industry in general. People wouldn't trust the RIAA, the members, and probably even independent labels. i.e. anyone connected with the music industry.
You idiot! I just opened all those links in Firefox! Couldn't you have warned me before I voted Verizon!!?
Vote 1 Greens in the state elections tomorrow! Even if you think they're going to drive the economy under, vote for their anti-corruption policies. They are planning on making it illegal for corporations to donate to political candidates, and forcing the entire donation system transparent.
... when applied to the entertainment industries. The simple fact of the matter is that these industries are losing profit (not exclusively) to piracy, which is illegal. Since it's illegal, the government does have an obligation to uphold the law. Until the the law is changed, spouting that same quote will do absolutely nothing.
... and that only counts the problems they know about/want to admit/that they can be bothered fixing. I would prefer Red Hat, since the developers don't mind fixing lots of problems minor problems, since it has very few severe problems, and the problems are fixed a week before MS would get round to fixing them (if they would at all).