IANAL either, but yes. You can release directly into the public domain. Hell, I don't think you don't really need to specify. You can just completely fail to enforce any copyright infringement. That's the whole point of copyright law: to give power over the distribution of the said material to the artist (i.e. you).
I'm sorry, but that comment really grated on me. I'm not at all religious, but I still respect religion. I respect that I (and many others) cannot seem to well and truly disprove most of their assertions. You seem to be pretty sure, so you must have some pretty convincing contradicting evidence. Why don't you share this evidence with the world?
Presenting images of a jackpot win on a gaming machine might just prolong the time that a player is willing to play. Good news for the manufacturer, not so good for the player. Anyhow - what are the changes of a *bug* causing this behaviour?
Does it matter? If it keeps flashing the jackpot, it still is subliminal manipulation, no matter what the cause is. I say to Konami, fix it, and don't ever let it happen again.
your post that draws the right conclusion based on false statements deserves to be promoted. So MOD PARENT UP!!!
Since they are the spawn of Satan, M$ are incapable of telling anything resembling the truth. This leads me to believe they are probably lying, and using legal blackmail to eliminate competition.
I can't seem to decide whether it was due to the "industries are evil" comment, the "acting like total morons" comment, or the "producing crap comment". Maybe it's all three. Maybe it's desperate hope that filtering copyrighted content from public broadcasts (yes I am aware of the DMCA provisions for these things) will make people think "Bastards! I'll never be entertainment industry slave again!"/flamebait
Seriously though, I see nothing wrong with youtube siding with record industry. Why not? Are they not entitled to their own position on the copyright debate?
In future, add more content, and less name-calling/non-sensical spin.
Reading your post, it makes me think. What exactly is the problem with government interfering with the market? What makes it so different to other market forces? I mean, even if he government stayed right away, these companies would still be trying to do the same damn thing: lock you in and lock out competition. They'd just try it from a different angle (like DRM or collaboration with hardware companies). What difference does the government make?
Even something as simple as discussing what the correct copyright period should be, right down to zero, should be discussed and scientifically justified rather than the hand waving like "nobody will create without copyright" (that's nonsense) or "copyright is the only option" (that's also nonsense).
How about we use the science of commerce?
It seems to me (and of course I'm just waving my hand here), that getting rid of copyright will hurt the industry from a commercial perspective. And while we live in a capitalist environment, that will always be unacceptable.
I don't think they care one way or the other. As long as they only sue "pirates", and vilify them to the public, they will have a Public image in some eyes.
However, the moment they start revoking players, the sh*t will really hit the fan. They'll have thoroughly pissed off legitimate users who aren't even trying to exercise any of their fair use rights (apart from watching the thing). This is the sort of thing that can really alienate their supporters (including politicians).
Under true free speech, fraud would be allowed, as well as blackmail, as well as inciting violence, etc, because you can say whatever you damn well feel like. Of course there are other implications which make it illegal (I never said otherwise), but the sole reason stated by the GP for his disgruntled attitude was that we don't have free speech. Period. My point was that that was not a reason in itself.
Raping a child may cause that child real physical harm, but its this society of meddling do-gooder buysbodies that is compounding the _emotional_ harm.
Aside from your omission that raping a child causes more than physical harm, I agree with you. The meddling do-gooder busybodies compound the problem, guaranteeing that child sex offences stay considered as heinous as they are currently. It doesn't help the victims at all. OTOH, you have to admit, all this cotton wool helps prevent the offences in the first place. When everyone jumps at the first non-sign, paedophiles have absolutely no chance.
Just look at the comments people leave on youtube every time someone posts a video of a kid doing the most innocent stuff - people calling a six year old shaking her butt to a pop song a "whore in training" is fucking inexcusable
Sounds like you are acquainted with the problems with free speech.
Free speech is free speech is free speech and if an image CAN be illegal then we do NOT HAVE FREE SPEECH.
...please remember that there are huge disadvantages to "pure" free speech. Let's not forget fraud, blackmail, intimidation, etc. Free speech for free speech's sake is not a reason enough to overhaul the legal system.
I know it's DYING, and it probably won't be the same again, but that's no reason to assume console gaming is going the other way. I always thought PC gaming was dying because it was inefficient (in terms of cost vs pc performance, in terms of a multi-purpose OS trying to be a semi-dedicated gaming machine), because it was complicated (due to the myriad of hardware available), and because the competition from consoles was far too great.
But hey, I could be absolutely wrong, and everyone just wants to spend an extra $20 per month more for their games (not to mention their broadband bill).
Short of running yourself, there really isn't anything you can do to fix the situation then, huh? Then again, maybe the situation doesn't need fixing, and democracy is fulfilling the needs of the people (as demonstrated by the lack of politicians who see these as political leverage). Perhaps the system, in which we continuously try to find problems, is not at fault, rather the fault being with our unpopular opinions. Maybe we're just some insignificant niche whining about a world that simply does not care.
Thank you. I'm a little disturbed by this get-your-way-or-run-away attitude to democracy. Just remember that no matter how much we dissuade ourselves from taking action, we can change our governments (unless you're not currently in a functioning democracy). All we have to do is garner support for our cause.
And if we can't, (in only the most literal sense) who cares?
Whatever justification is supplied for these directives the bottom line is: the bottom line. Information (eg. network logs) creates data. Data can be made to say anything. There is money to be made in making data say what the people with money want it to say.
Or it could be quite genuinely to fight terrorism or some such crap. I guess, if you really wanted to smear politicians unnecessarily, you could say the purpose is to get them good press by exploiting the terrorism problem. I don't know why you default to the more corrupt/paranoid/unlikely possibility.
Either initiate a revolution or adjust behavior accordingly.
Here's a novel suggestion: Vote 'em out! Encourage others to do so too! If you can't seem to manage that, then I don't know how you'll manage to initiate revolution.
...tagged this story with the word "music"? It's barely applicable to this, and, come to think of it, most other submissions relating to the RIAA these days.
I think it has something to do with sex being something that (hopefully) everyone experiences, and reasonably regularly, as well as being very personal and private, as opposed to violence which is comparatively rare in our day-to-day experience.
That said, I can now see why slashdot would oppose this:)
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL either, but yes. You can release directly into the public domain. Hell, I don't think you don't really need to specify. You can just completely fail to enforce any copyright infringement. That's the whole point of copyright law: to give power over the distribution of the said material to the artist (i.e. you).
I'm sorry, but that comment really grated on me. I'm not at all religious, but I still respect religion. I respect that I (and many others) cannot seem to well and truly disprove most of their assertions. You seem to be pretty sure, so you must have some pretty convincing contradicting evidence. Why don't you share this evidence with the world?
Lisa: We're from the MTV generation; We feel neither highs nor lows.
Homer: Wow! How does that feel?
Lisa: Meh...
Ummm, do I get mod points too? Please?
I can't seem to decide whether it was due to the "industries are evil" comment, the "acting like total morons" comment, or the "producing crap comment". Maybe it's all three. Maybe it's desperate hope that filtering copyrighted content from public broadcasts (yes I am aware of the DMCA provisions for these things) will make people think "Bastards! I'll never be entertainment industry slave again!" /flamebait
Seriously though, I see nothing wrong with youtube siding with record industry. Why not? Are they not entitled to their own position on the copyright debate?
In future, add more content, and less name-calling/non-sensical spin.
You complete, utter, pirate scumbag!
What if there was a tiny sticker on the front door saying "By opening this door without prior invitation, you are hereby permitting me to shoot you"?
Reading your post, it makes me think. What exactly is the problem with government interfering with the market? What makes it so different to other market forces? I mean, even if he government stayed right away, these companies would still be trying to do the same damn thing: lock you in and lock out competition. They'd just try it from a different angle (like DRM or collaboration with hardware companies). What difference does the government make?
It seems to me (and of course I'm just waving my hand here), that getting rid of copyright will hurt the industry from a commercial perspective. And while we live in a capitalist environment, that will always be unacceptable.
Information may want to be free, but we can't always get what we want.
I don't think they care one way or the other. As long as they only sue "pirates", and vilify them to the public, they will have a Public image in some eyes.
However, the moment they start revoking players, the sh*t will really hit the fan. They'll have thoroughly pissed off legitimate users who aren't even trying to exercise any of their fair use rights (apart from watching the thing). This is the sort of thing that can really alienate their supporters (including politicians).
I know it's DYING, and it probably won't be the same again, but that's no reason to assume console gaming is going the other way. I always thought PC gaming was dying because it was inefficient (in terms of cost vs pc performance, in terms of a multi-purpose OS trying to be a semi-dedicated gaming machine), because it was complicated (due to the myriad of hardware available), and because the competition from consoles was far too great.
But hey, I could be absolutely wrong, and everyone just wants to spend an extra $20 per month more for their games (not to mention their broadband bill).
Pardon my ignorance, but could you inform me on why you can only "see" 3gig, when you should (in mathematical theory) be able to see all 4gig?
32 bit addressing = 2^32 bytes
= 2^22 kilobytes
= 2^12 megabytes
= 2^2 gigs
= all 4gig of memory
Short of running yourself, there really isn't anything you can do to fix the situation then, huh? Then again, maybe the situation doesn't need fixing, and democracy is fulfilling the needs of the people (as demonstrated by the lack of politicians who see these as political leverage). Perhaps the system, in which we continuously try to find problems, is not at fault, rather the fault being with our unpopular opinions. Maybe we're just some insignificant niche whining about a world that simply does not care.
Just a thought.
...is SuperFetch (or whatever it is) any different to what my Ubuntu machine does (and always has done)?
I know, I know, slightly offtopic, but I gotta know what the hype is about.
No, 439000 phones were tapped (not crimes). It's probably about 1 in 36.
Still, you have to admit, that's a disturbing figure.
Thank you. I'm a little disturbed by this get-your-way-or-run-away attitude to democracy. Just remember that no matter how much we dissuade ourselves from taking action, we can change our governments (unless you're not currently in a functioning democracy). All we have to do is garner support for our cause.
And if we can't, (in only the most literal sense) who cares?
Come on. All Germany is proposing is the email law. Where exactly are the parallels between this and Nazi Germany huh?
We both know that isn't the true meaning of piracy!
...tagged this story with the word "music"? It's barely applicable to this, and, come to think of it, most other submissions relating to the RIAA these days.
I think it has something to do with sex being something that (hopefully) everyone experiences, and reasonably regularly, as well as being very personal and private, as opposed to violence which is comparatively rare in our day-to-day experience.
:)
That said, I can now see why slashdot would oppose this