It is a very good way to put a point across, but overdone it just makes one look like an extremely frustrated lunatic.
I'm sure there are valid points on your side of the debate, but you're preaching to a highly biased and relatively intelligent crowd. There ought to be a less self-destructive way of making your case.
Cheer up, emo kid. I guarantee that you think very highly of yourself or you wouldn't have typed out that long, holier than thou, rant. You really should, as you tell others, hate yourself more, because you're a pretentious cunt and your message isn't worth the hard drive space it's saved on.
Hate yourself more for your failures, and show some humility.
It doesn't work like that, at least for me. Love yourself more. There's a difference between loving oneself and trying really hard to think of oneself highly. If you love yourself you'll accept your shortcomings, and find it more easy to examine and learn from them.
I'd rather somebody say something obvious, if it were true. To a child it may be less obvious, and there have been countless times growing up where I've wondered why people didn't just point something out. And once someone knows something is obvious (because other people are constantly talking about it), then they can take it one step further and maybe reach something less obvious more quickly.
I agree with you on the moderation. I find myself using +1 Insightful for a post I believe is true, and +1 Interesting for a post I don't think is true but which raises a point. There's always some information about the moderator in a moderation, because terms such as 'insightful' and 'interesting' depend upon the opinion of the moderator.
It's all about capitalism... Pirates are making available a cheaper and often superior (no drm) product. It is our duty as good capitalists to get best value for ourselves.
For the sake of capitalism, I truly hope your statement has boundaries. There is no media that can't be ripped and distributed for LESS than the folks that produce it, or ever will be
That is the quintessential form of capitalism.
If I am producing software, and 1 person buys it, copies it, then distributes it for 1/100 (arbitrary number for "best value") of the cost, what incentive do I have to continue producing software?
You don't. At least not for money. You would continue writing software for the same reasons musicians will still sing and play instruments, artists will still paint and sculpt, and authors will still write books: because you want to.
Or maybe some company hires you to work on something they need, much like medieval artists were hired by rich patrons to produce works of art for them. See: Linux
Okay, before my hearing got out of control, I was a musician: here's a big secret, the model that you're defending is one wher 1% of musicians are doing 99% of the music, and 1% of that 1% is a bunch of overpaid pretty faces overlording over underpaid musicians. The recording industry as it works now is the worst enemy of the artists, so fuck you.
The real income for music is, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, live performance. If the corps had their way, half the music in the world wouldn't exist today because it's derivative work (hell, italian composers ripped off heartily from each other) or because there's blatant tributes.
What I found funny abotu this article was the president's arrogance - "Yes I did violate copyright, but I'm only giving you 1 Euro." Can you imagine any of the rest of us getting-away with that? "Yes RIAA I received you letter demanding $5000. I'll give you 5 instead." Fat chance. ----- Politicians think they don't have to follow the laws that we do. They think we poor schmucks have to pay $5000 settlement to RIAA, or $75,000 per song according to the law, but for THEM.... well now, 1 Euro should be sufficient. Right? After all politicians are "special".
So much for the 1700s ideal of creating a classless society where everyone is treated equally. Politicians still believe they are nobility.
Also, for information, the 3-strikes law will be discussed next week, and implies juicy stuff like "guilty until proven innocent" and "you can only prove innocent if you have installed official government trojan horses on your computer" and "these malware have no requirement of interoperability, which hurts the choice of costumers (!)".
Citizens and bloggers (such as myself) following the Quadrature du Net association are calling for a "blackout" (link in French, sorry) [laquadrature.net] of the French side of the internet in protest.
New Zealand, the government has put the law on hold pending agreement between rights holders groups and internet groups on the law's implementation. If no agreement the law will be suspended (whatever that means).
NZ Herald news link [nzherald.co.nz]
Well, as I understand it, that is one of the guiding principles of French law. The burden of proof is on the accused.
Well, you got that wrong then. It were the French that introduced the concept of presumption of innocence in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen [wikipedia.org] and later structured the way laws are written down in the Napoleonic Code [wikipedia.org]
Of course, The Enlightenment was the source for these ideals as well as the inspiration for the the US Declaration of Independence and the constitution...
This had a major influence on European law making since Napoleon occupied most of it...
I don't hate Americans. I consider religious fanatics dangerous, I find arrogance offensive, I think excessive patriotism leads to conflicts as does ignorance about history. And I expect higher standards from self proclaimed 'leaders of the free world' where you can find that kind of persons as well as you can find them in other parts of the world.
When Bush and Rumsfeld proclaimed my country to be part of 'old Europe' because we did not accept their reasons to go to war in Iraq, I was offended.
Can you imagine what Guantanamo did to the image the free world has of the USA, its previous government - and ultimately those who elected it?
But hey, I like some Americans, I admire a few and I find some very dislikeable. But the same goes for most other nationalities on our planet.
You are misinformed. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted in 1789 and part of the French constitution, explicitly enumerates the presumption of innocence. There is no official English translation of it, and slashdot does not do accents correctly. The original text is here [justice.gouv.fr]. Article 9 is the one for you.
In English that means, "Everyone is presumed innocent until they have been declared guilty, if it is deemed essential to arrest, all onerous treatment that is not necessary to hold that person must be severely circumscribed by law."
Many democracies have similar explicit constitutional guarantees of this right. Curiously, not the USA: it was read into the constitution by the Supreme Court in Coffin v. United States [wikipedia.org] . Damnable activist judges!
This proves a major prejudice about Americans: Most of you don't know shit about the world (outside of your borders).
Was this some kind of self-deprecating meta-ironic remark, or did you really extrapolate to all Americans (which you accuse us of doing) based on one anecdotal example and honestly consider that "proof"? And here I thought Europeans were more culturally aware than us lowly Americans.
I know, it's awful and unfair. But after only 8 short years of Bush being in power, it looks like its going to take a while for these prejudices to subside.
And this proves a major prejudice about non-Americans: Most of you immediately assume that anyone on the internet who makes an idiotic or misinformed comment is American.
In fairness, the guy's handle is "ScrewMaster", so he prolly is American.
For a fair comparison, ask a non-American what the American capital is. America has fifty states, with fifty capitals. I don't expect an American to know what the capital of a random province in my country is.
The reason we think you are stupid is because we are outside of the happy fun curtain. We get to see the effects that American imperialism has on the world, our news agencies actually report on the wars and insurgencies that America funds and / or fights by proxy. We see statistics coming out of America like 92% of Americans believe in a God [washingtonpost.com]. This speaks volumes.
Do you even know what piracy is? Ask the victims of the boats attacked and hijacked off the coast of Somalia. Copyright infringement isn't stealing, it isn't piracy and it isn't theft. When our (mostly Americas, because the rest of the world is forced into following suit by the WHO and WIPO and UN) antiquated notions of property finally catch up to the reality of digital storage and the internet, we might have a chance at getting it right.
I'm going to put this as simply as possible. Religious belief requires the suspension of critical and rational thought. At some point, you have to just accept that God Did It, and stop asking 'why'. As a human being, a member of the sentient species of the planet, I'm not ready to ignore my mental faculties and just accept things on blind faith. Frankly, I consider people that do to be mentally ill, and I normally write off everything else they say as unreliable because if they are willing to give up rational and critical thought for their God, how can I be sure that sound judgment went into any of their thought processes?
The truth is that I am agnostic towards the idea of an almighty being or beings. I believe what I see, what is testable and falsifiable. If you had a testable and falsifiable hypothesis positing the existance of such a being, that didn't require me to accept that 'God Did It' at any stage of the reasoning, I'll gladly eat my words.
I'm going to put this as simply as possible. Religious belief requires the suspension of critical and rational thought.
Not at all. One can critically and rationally assess religious doctrine to determine whether it seems to make sense. Or do you also think philosophy is the province of the mentally ill?
I'm going to put this as simply as possible. Religious belief requires the suspension of critical and rational thought. At some point, you have to just accept that God Did It, and stop asking 'why'.
Not necessarily. For example, I believe that at best, images of God are a loose personification of a divine force that cannot even necessarily be characterized as having a self as we understand the term. 'God' doesn't violate the laws of physics, so anything 'God' does can be explained through physics provided we know enough about physics to do so.
In my view, there can BE no God vs. science. 'God' exists outside of our scientific understanding (that is, the existence or not of God or gods is not a scientific hypothesis at this time).
Spiritual belief is subject to error since even if inspired by the divine, our understanding comes through imperfect non-divine entities (that is, human beings, including ourselves). Where science concludes something counter to spiritual belief, the spiritual belief must be re-evaluated to fit the new knowledge.
Personally I believe that spiritual pursuit mandates the study of science. Know the creation and you gain insight into the creator.
Unfortunately, much of what passes for religion is more like wagging the dog. So-called religious leaders shaping spiritual teaching to conform with their personal preferences rather than the other way around. That and turning simple disagreements into eternal damnation with little or no justification.
So, while I could be said to be one of those in the 92% who believe in 'God', it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does.
How many US citizens know what the capital of Florida is?
Also really.. just national capitals would be nice, capitals of states is a much longer bow to draw since the corollary question would be to ask what the capitals of places like Hunan, Alsace, Free State and Tasmania would be.
I think most people would probably assume the answer is Miami because it's the most known of Floridian cities, I knew it wasn't but had to look up the answer. I'm not from the US and do not live there.
I think in broader terms you're right about ignorance not being uniquely a US trait and that entertainment TV shows are a poor educational tool (because they're not meant to be) but if you're trying to change the preconceptions of people then I would say your post isn't doing it.
It's amazing that most people simply accept that Hypocrisy is the norm. That's sad.
The copyright organizations call for "zero tolerance" and are then caught themselves.
The congressmen who rail against finding teenagers attractive are caught lusting after them.
Preachers who rail on homosexuals are caught fucking gay prostitutes.
Vigilantes who claim to catch online predators are found to be employing young teens in their exploits and having child pornography on their computers.
Educators who rail against drugs and demand for instant lockup of drug offenders... are found to be drug users themselves...
These are all real stories.
Instead of stepping back and recognizing that their viewpoints may be of questionable value and that they may have made errors in judgment... they just ignore their mistakes and continue in their hypocritical ways.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday March 01 2009, @03:20AM (#27028231)
People often hate most of others what they hate most of themselves. They're angry with themselves that they can't control their own behavior, so they lash out at others and attempt to control theirs. It's a compensation mechanism. Either that, or it's plain old game theory--an attempt to persuade others to cooperate while one defects, thus maximizing personal gain.
I once had a lengthy discussion with a mother who was bat-shit loco against people looking at kiddie porn. She thought anyone who looked at kiddie porn should be sterilized, and that producers should be locked away forever. Deeper into the conversation, she admitted to having looked at kiddie porn, and further admitted to having posted pictures of her nude son on her blog (bathtub pictures). She conceded that she was a hypocrite, but defiantly refused to change her opinion about what should happen to OTHER people who did what she did.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday March 01 2009, @03:03AM (#27028191)
Here in Chile, the president of the SCD (Society of Author Rights) was caught with pirated software, in a powerpoint lecture about... you guessed it... PIRACY! (they are triying to copy the spanish law, taxing the internet connection for the "lost of revenues")
An our congress try to pass a 3-strikes law for ISPs... with a word document created by a SCD lawyer with a pirated copy of windows ("UE, The Houze"). There are even commemorative t-shirts!
Not like this is the first time something like this happened. Wasn't there one story where the family of an executive officer of the RIAA was accused of this and he pushed the company to let them off with a warning?
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday March 01 2009, @03:14AM (#27028215)
The french president Nicolas Sarkozy is not directly sued for this copyright infringement. His own party (UMP) used the song during a meeting, and didn't reported it to the french RIAA (SACEM) for artist compensation, wich generally is pretty low.
The UMP party is sued for this, but not the french president, who was not in charge for the organization of this meeting, and has presidential immunity.
Well again it is not the the UMP party fault either. It's their advertising firm that used this song illegally. And it's this firm that is paying for the song. After all they are paid by a political party to make them looks good to the youngters and used, without permission this song.
Let's be clear here, it's not that old party of old folks that knows about MGMT. It's like Reagan and "Born in U.S.A"'s Springsteen song all over again.
I know Nicolas Sarkozy being an omnipresent president and all, but it's not like he personally chose the song, right? It's actually some people among his political party (the UMP) that decided to play the song in two meetings.
Otherwise, the result is the same: the political party from which Nicolas Sarkozy is has been busted for copyright infringement. It's a further proof that copyright laws are being way too tentacular. Can't they just see it?
"The party has admitted to using the popular track, Kids, at its national congress in January, in two online videos and in political advertisements. " - From the link inside TFA. (TFA is more of a blog post than an article.)
But the ire at Sarkozy isn't from the playing of the song and violating the agreement, it's at him trying to offer 1 euro to buy his way out of breaking the law he wrote.
May Sarkozy get the worst possible treatment allowable under law. I hope he gets all his computer (and other electronic devices) seized and thoroughly examined.
Not out of any hate of Sarkozy, or any need for vengeance for the wrongs committed by the RIAA against innocent people.
The purpose is this: I believe that those in power should be feel the impact of their decisions.
You want greater surveillance? Fine, we'll start around your house. You want to wage a war? Fine, any of your eligible children get "volunteered" for army service. You want to give the police power to search people without a warrant? Fine, you'll get searched daily both near your home and near your workplace.
Then, maybe, just maybe, people would think twice. They tend to when there's something at stake for them.
This is really an extensions of Schneier's idea about security: the one in charge will make the decision that matches their own agenda. We the people have to make it a part of the agenda of the people in power to make sure their decisions are sane. I've proposed a way.
May this makes Sarkozy's life really shitty for a while.
Seriously, artists are not all automatically on the side of big media. And you're right: they probably saw this as a way to make a point, that they don't like where he's trying to take copyright.
Of course, offering a single Euro as compensation was kinda ridiculous.
Seriously, artists are not all automatically on the side of big media.
you have no idea how right you are.
I have noticed that the 'artists' who produce schlock and hope someone will hand them a paycheck haven't even looked into copyright.
Serious artists who are making a serious effort to comment on contemporary culture are usually very much against copyright. my next show requires a camera to view the images (photographing a painting is a violation, technically). I know a few bands who encourage people to film their shows, post them to youtube, then they make copyright claims and post ads on that video page. ( no idea how that works out). they no longer want to be 'picked up my a major' now, they talk about 'making it somehow without signing...by using teh internets or something...'
i have yet to find a serious artist who supports strict copyright laws. (and I know a lot of artists; being one myself, and associating mainly with other artists, and I work with musicians fairly often.)
For most of its history, the band chose to stay away from the political realm. However, in 2004, upon learning that George W. Bush's presidential campaign was using "Times Like These" at rallies, Grohl decided to lend his public support to John Kerry's campaign. Grohl attended several Kerry rallies and occasionally performed solo acoustic sets. The entire band eventually joined Grohl for a performance in Arizona coinciding with one of the presidential debates.
The song was used multiple times for his party's political campaign when the license purchased didn't allow that. From the much more informative article [www.cbc.ca] linked in the article, it sounds like they were permitted to use it once but then went on to use it multiple times and, additionally, put it on the internet. Then, rather than paying the difference for such use, the party offered €1. I can't imagine why the band wasn't amused...
In short, this wasn't a case of Joe User downloading a song; it was unauthorized commercial use.
They were hardly protesting against having their music spread to the big masses. They obviously intented to point out that the most influential politician/pro-copyright spokesman of France is a hypocritical asshole.
Sarkozy compares himself to Obama a lot. It's beyond ridiculous. Especially considering the fact that he LOVED Bush, and that he is about as inspiring as him in his speeches. His vocabulary is ~1000 words at most. He's hit quickly hit 35% popularity (although he's bounced back up a bit).
lol. Are you trying to be funny? The agenda that the French president and the recording industry try to push hardly benefits artists. What do you think, that the RIAA is fighting tooth and nail just so your favourite electrohouse artist can get a bigger pay cheque? What Sarkozy does doesn't benefit them, and they know that. That means they're not as stupid as you rushed to claim, how shocking!
Do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do as I say.
Not as I do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this what they call sarcasm?
It is a very good way to put a point across, but overdone it just makes one look like an extremely frustrated lunatic.
I'm sure there are valid points on your side of the debate, but you're preaching to a highly biased and relatively intelligent crowd. There ought to be a less self-destructive way of making your case.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cheer up, emo kid. I guarantee that you think very highly of yourself or you wouldn't have typed out that long, holier than thou, rant. You really should, as you tell others, hate yourself more, because you're a pretentious cunt and your message isn't worth the hard drive space it's saved on.
Re:FUCK ARTISTS (Score:4, Insightful)
Hate yourself more for your failures, and show some humility.
It doesn't work like that, at least for me. Love yourself more. There's a difference between loving oneself and trying really hard to think of oneself highly. If you love yourself you'll accept your shortcomings, and find it more easy to examine and learn from them.
I'd rather somebody say something obvious, if it were true. To a child it may be less obvious, and there have been countless times growing up where I've wondered why people didn't just point something out. And once someone knows something is obvious (because other people are constantly talking about it), then they can take it one step further and maybe reach something less obvious more quickly.
I agree with you on the moderation. I find myself using +1 Insightful for a post I believe is true, and +1 Interesting for a post I don't think is true but which raises a point. There's always some information about the moderator in a moderation, because terms such as 'insightful' and 'interesting' depend upon the opinion of the moderator.
Parent
Re:FUCK ARTISTS (Score:5, Funny)
That's exactly what the RIAA says too.
http://cosmo7.com/safety/safetyriaa.jpg [cosmo7.com]
Parent
Re:FUCK ARTISTS (Score:5, Interesting)
It's all about capitalism... Pirates are making available a cheaper and often superior (no drm) product. It is our duty as good capitalists to get best value for ourselves.
Parent
Re:FUCK ARTISTS (Score:5, Insightful)
For the sake of capitalism, I truly hope your statement has boundaries. There is no media that can't be ripped and distributed for LESS than the folks that produce it, or ever will be
That is the quintessential form of capitalism.
If I am producing software, and 1 person buys it, copies it, then distributes it for 1/100 (arbitrary number for "best value") of the cost, what incentive do I have to continue producing software?
You don't. At least not for money. You would continue writing software for the same reasons musicians will still sing and play instruments, artists will still paint and sculpt, and authors will still write books: because you want to.
Or maybe some company hires you to work on something they need, much like medieval artists were hired by rich patrons to produce works of art for them. See: Linux
Parent
Re:FUCK ARTISTS (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Miss Bruni is the French president's wife?
What I found funny abotu this article was the president's arrogance - "Yes I did violate copyright, but I'm only giving you 1 Euro." Can you imagine any of the rest of us getting-away with that? "Yes RIAA I received you letter demanding $5000. I'll give you 5 instead." Fat chance. ----- Politicians think they don't have to follow the laws that we do. They think we poor schmucks have to pay $5000 settlement to RIAA, or $75,000 per song according to the law, but for THEM.... well now, 1 Euro should be sufficient. Right? After all politicians are "special".
So much for the 1700s ideal of creating a classless society where everyone is treated equally. Politicians still believe they are nobility.
Parent
The band in question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The band in question (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, yes, a black out will work... That scares the hell out of them.
Re:The band in question (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Presumed innocent? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, you got that wrong then. It were the French that introduced the concept of presumption of innocence in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen [wikipedia.org] and later structured the way laws are written down in the Napoleonic Code [wikipedia.org]
Of course, The Enlightenment was the source for these ideals as well as the inspiration for the the US Declaration of Independence and the constitution...
This had a major influence on European law making since Napoleon occupied most of it...
Parent
Re:Presumed innocent? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't hate Americans. I consider religious fanatics dangerous, I find arrogance offensive, I think excessive patriotism leads to conflicts as does ignorance about history. And I expect higher standards from self proclaimed 'leaders of the free world' where you can find that kind of persons as well as you can find them in other parts of the world.
When Bush and Rumsfeld proclaimed my country to be part of 'old Europe' because we did not accept their reasons to go to war in Iraq, I was offended.
Can you imagine what Guantanamo did to the image the free world has of the USA, its previous government - and ultimately those who elected it?
But hey, I like some Americans, I admire a few and I find some very dislikeable. But the same goes for most other nationalities on our planet.
Parent
Re:The band in question (Score:5, Informative)
You are misinformed. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted in 1789 and part of the French constitution, explicitly enumerates the presumption of innocence. There is no official English translation of it, and slashdot does not do accents correctly. The original text is here [justice.gouv.fr]. Article 9 is the one for you.
In English that means, "Everyone is presumed innocent until they have been declared guilty, if it is deemed essential to arrest, all onerous treatment that is not necessary to hold that person must be severely circumscribed by law."
Many democracies have similar explicit constitutional guarantees of this right. Curiously, not the USA: it was read into the constitution by the Supreme Court in Coffin v. United States [wikipedia.org] . Damnable activist judges!
Parent
Re:The band in question (Score:5, Insightful)
Was this some kind of self-deprecating meta-ironic remark, or did you really extrapolate to all Americans (which you accuse us of doing) based on one anecdotal example and honestly consider that "proof"? And here I thought Europeans were more culturally aware than us lowly Americans.
Parent
Re:The band in question (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, it's awful and unfair. But after only 8 short years of Bush being in power, it looks like its going to take a while for these prejudices to subside.
Parent
Re:The band in question (Score:5, Funny)
And this proves a major prejudice about non-Americans: Most of you immediately assume that anyone on the internet who makes an idiotic or misinformed comment is American.
In fairness, the guy's handle is "ScrewMaster", so he prolly is American.
Parent
Re:The band in question (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The band in question (Score:4, Insightful)
The truth is that I am agnostic towards the idea of an almighty being or beings. I believe what I see, what is testable and falsifiable. If you had a testable and falsifiable hypothesis positing the existance of such a being, that didn't require me to accept that 'God Did It' at any stage of the reasoning, I'll gladly eat my words.
Parent
Re:The band in question (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going to put this as simply as possible. Religious belief requires the suspension of critical and rational thought.
Not at all. One can critically and rationally assess religious doctrine to determine whether it seems to make sense. Or do you also think philosophy is the province of the mentally ill?
Parent
Re:The band in question (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going to put this as simply as possible. Religious belief requires the suspension of critical and rational thought. At some point, you have to just accept that God Did It, and stop asking 'why'.
Not necessarily. For example, I believe that at best, images of God are a loose personification of a divine force that cannot even necessarily be characterized as having a self as we understand the term. 'God' doesn't violate the laws of physics, so anything 'God' does can be explained through physics provided we know enough about physics to do so.
In my view, there can BE no God vs. science. 'God' exists outside of our scientific understanding (that is, the existence or not of God or gods is not a scientific hypothesis at this time).
Spiritual belief is subject to error since even if inspired by the divine, our understanding comes through imperfect non-divine entities (that is, human beings, including ourselves). Where science concludes something counter to spiritual belief, the spiritual belief must be re-evaluated to fit the new knowledge.
Personally I believe that spiritual pursuit mandates the study of science. Know the creation and you gain insight into the creator.
Unfortunately, much of what passes for religion is more like wagging the dog. So-called religious leaders shaping spiritual teaching to conform with their personal preferences rather than the other way around. That and turning simple disagreements into eternal damnation with little or no justification.
So, while I could be said to be one of those in the 92% who believe in 'God', it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does.
Parent
Re:The band in question (Score:4, Insightful)
Also really.. just national capitals would be nice, capitals of states is a much longer bow to draw since the corollary question would be to ask what the capitals of places like Hunan, Alsace, Free State and Tasmania would be.
I think most people would probably assume the answer is Miami because it's the most known of Floridian cities, I knew it wasn't but had to look up the answer. I'm not from the US and do not live there.
I think in broader terms you're right about ignorance not being uniquely a US trait and that entertainment TV shows are a poor educational tool (because they're not meant to be) but if you're trying to change the preconceptions of people then I would say your post isn't doing it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How many US citizens know what the capital of Florida is?
Disney World, duh!
Re:The band in question (Score:5, Funny)
How many US citizens know what the capital of Florida is?
had to look up the answer. I'm not from the US and do not live there.
It's Tallahassee. ;-)
Didn't have to look it up; Learned it from Animaniacs
Parent
Hypocrisy as the norm... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing that most people simply accept that Hypocrisy is the norm. That's sad.
The copyright organizations call for "zero tolerance" and are then caught themselves.
The congressmen who rail against finding teenagers attractive are caught lusting after them.
Preachers who rail on homosexuals are caught fucking gay prostitutes.
Vigilantes who claim to catch online predators are found to be employing young teens in their exploits and having child pornography on their computers.
Educators who rail against drugs and demand for instant lockup of drug offenders... are found to be drug users themselves...
These are all real stories.
Instead of stepping back and recognizing that their viewpoints may be of questionable value and that they may have made errors in judgment... they just ignore their mistakes and continue in their hypocritical ways.
And the world is a worse place for it.
Re:Hypocrisy as the norm... (Score:5, Insightful)
People often hate most of others what they hate most of themselves. They're angry with themselves that they can't control their own behavior, so they lash out at others and attempt to control theirs. It's a compensation mechanism. Either that, or it's plain old game theory--an attempt to persuade others to cooperate while one defects, thus maximizing personal gain.
I once had a lengthy discussion with a mother who was bat-shit loco against people looking at kiddie porn. She thought anyone who looked at kiddie porn should be sterilized, and that producers should be locked away forever. Deeper into the conversation, she admitted to having looked at kiddie porn, and further admitted to having posted pictures of her nude son on her blog (bathtub pictures). She conceded that she was a hypocrite, but defiantly refused to change her opinion about what should happen to OTHER people who did what she did.
Parent
Re:Hypocrisy as the norm... (Score:5, Interesting)
These things have *always* happened.
The only difference is that cameras, record-keeping databases, and surveillance have all gotten much better over the last thirty years.
Hell some of the early popes had mistresses.
Power corrupts.
The only real solution is shrinking the amount of power and wealthy any one person can have. And that boat has sailed.
Parent
Re:Hypocrisy as the norm... (Score:4, Insightful)
but still a better place. Remove them from power at the first offence would be better, sarkosy wouldn't have made past student rapresentative...
Parent
Well, if he gets cut off (Score:4, Insightful)
He'll just start mooching off his neighbor's wifi.
Retroactive exemption for political purposes in (Score:3, Funny)
We have our Sarkozy in Chile, too (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in Chile, the president of the SCD (Society of Author Rights) was caught with pirated software, in a powerpoint lecture about... you guessed it... PIRACY! (they are triying to copy the spanish law, taxing the internet connection for the "lost of revenues")
http://www.elnortero.cl/admin/render/noticia/18164
An our congress try to pass a 3-strikes law for ISPs... with a word document created by a SCD lawyer with a pirated copy of windows ("UE, The Houze"). There are even commemorative t-shirts!
http://url.ie/10xd
http://www.elfrancotirador.cl/2009/01/15/ponte-la-camiseta-con-el-acceso-a-cultura/
There are RIAAs scammers in every country.
Not the first time for this stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
He's not directly involved (Score:5, Informative)
The french president Nicolas Sarkozy is not directly sued for this copyright infringement. His own party (UMP) used the song during a meeting, and didn't reported it to the french RIAA (SACEM) for artist compensation, wich generally is pretty low.
The UMP party is sued for this, but not the french president, who was not in charge for the organization of this meeting, and has presidential immunity.
But's that's pretty funny anyway.
Re:He's not directly involved (Score:4, Interesting)
Well again it is not the the UMP party fault either. It's their advertising firm that used this song illegally. And it's this firm that is paying for the song. After all they are paid by a political party to make them looks good to the youngters and used, without permission this song.
Let's be clear here, it's not that old party of old folks that knows about MGMT. It's like Reagan and "Born in U.S.A"'s Springsteen song all over again.
Parent
The title is inappropriate (Score:5, Informative)
I know Nicolas Sarkozy being an omnipresent president and all, but it's not like he personally chose the song, right? It's actually some people among his political party (the UMP) that decided to play the song in two meetings.
Otherwise, the result is the same: the political party from which Nicolas Sarkozy is has been busted for copyright infringement. It's a further proof that copyright laws are being way too tentacular. Can't they just see it?
Re:The title is inappropriate (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't just played in 2 meetings.
"The party has admitted to using the popular track, Kids, at its national congress in January, in two online videos and in political advertisements. " - From the link inside TFA. (TFA is more of a blog post than an article.)
But the ire at Sarkozy isn't from the playing of the song and violating the agreement, it's at him trying to offer 1 euro to buy his way out of breaking the law he wrote.
Parent
May he get the worst possible treatment (Score:5, Insightful)
May Sarkozy get the worst possible treatment allowable under law. I hope he gets all his computer (and other electronic devices) seized and thoroughly examined.
Not out of any hate of Sarkozy, or any need for vengeance for the wrongs committed by the RIAA against innocent people.
The purpose is this: I believe that those in power should be feel the impact of their decisions.
You want greater surveillance? Fine, we'll start around your house. You want to wage a war? Fine, any of your eligible children get "volunteered" for army service. You want to give the police power to search people without a warrant? Fine, you'll get searched daily both near your home and near your workplace.
Then, maybe, just maybe, people would think twice. They tend to when there's something at stake for them.
This is really an extensions of Schneier's idea about security: the one in charge will make the decision that matches their own agenda. We the people have to make it a part of the agenda of the people in power to make sure their decisions are sane. I've proposed a way.
May this makes Sarkozy's life really shitty for a while.
Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
If the president does it, it's not illegal.
Re:Smart move (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they don't like his agenda?
Parent
Re:Smart move (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they don't like his agenda?
Seriously, artists are not all automatically on the side of big media. And you're right: they probably saw this as a way to make a point, that they don't like where he's trying to take copyright.
Of course, offering a single Euro as compensation was kinda ridiculous.
Parent
Re:Smart move (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, artists are not all automatically on the side of big media.
you have no idea how right you are.
I have noticed that the 'artists' who produce schlock and hope someone will hand them a paycheck haven't even looked into copyright.
Serious artists who are making a serious effort to comment on contemporary culture are usually very much against copyright. my next show requires a camera to view the images (photographing a painting is a violation, technically).
I know a few bands who encourage people to film their shows, post them to youtube, then they make copyright claims and post ads on that video page. ( no idea how that works out).
they no longer want to be 'picked up my a major'
now, they talk about 'making it somehow without signing...by using teh internets or something...'
i have yet to find a serious artist who supports strict copyright laws. (and I know a lot of artists; being one myself, and associating mainly with other artists, and I work with musicians fairly often.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For most of its history, the band chose to stay away from the political realm. However, in 2004, upon learning that George W. Bush's presidential campaign was using "Times Like These" at rallies, Grohl decided to lend his public support to John Kerry's campaign. Grohl attended several Kerry rallies and occasionally performed solo acoustic sets. The entire band eventually joined Grohl for a performance in Arizona coinciding with one of the presidential debates.
http:// [wikipedia.org]
Re:Smart move (Score:5, Informative)
In short, this wasn't a case of Joe User downloading a song; it was unauthorized commercial use.
Parent
Re:Smart move (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh.
They were hardly protesting against having their music spread to the big masses. They obviously intented to point out that the most influential politician/pro-copyright spokesman of France is a hypocritical asshole.
It's incredible how anyone could miss the point.
Parent
Naboleon (Score:5, Informative)
Sarkozy compares himself to Obama a lot. It's beyond ridiculous. Especially considering the fact that he LOVED Bush, and that he is about as inspiring as him in his speeches. His vocabulary is ~1000 words at most. He's hit quickly hit 35% popularity (although he's bounced back up a bit).
Parent
Re:Smart move (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Will the 3 strikes policy affect him? (Score:5, Funny)
Fat wife [courant.com]?
Parent