Slashback V: Espionage, Midwifery, Intrusion 200
First, a word from our sponsor: We heard from the tireless Richard M. Stallman, nothing if not consistent in his argument, who wrote:
" Would you please post this? It is in response to the discussion of congressional hearings on Napster, but please post it however you think best.I ask people to think twice before using the term "piracy" to describe sharing published information with other people. That word is a propaganda term used by the owners of information to convey the idea that sharing is wrong; when you use it, you aid their campaign.
Unless you believe that sharing information is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship and kidnaping the people on it, please don't use the term 'piracy' to describe sharing."
Thanks for the note, Richard. Now tell Lars ...
Birth of an island. Regarding the story posted this week about the ongoing study of an emerging island in the South Pacific, Bobity writes "Additional photos are posted at this site." Why can't we embed some networking cable before it cools completely?
So maybe 730 days from now ... In the ongoing battle for hearts, minds and desktops, fingers and livers of free software users, Helixcode and Eazel aren't the only ones to make cool strides lately. Per Wigren writes: "Kaiwal Software (Shane) Co., Ltd. and theKompany.com have just signed an agreement to sponsor two developers for 2 years in order to focus on developing KWord, the free word processor for the KDE office suite. " And since at this moment, KWord is probably the closest thing to DTP for Linux (excepting demo-only FrameMaker), that news makes me smile. But two years?! That's long term thinking.
Red wine? White Wine. Hot towel? Your hard drive, please, sir? Red wine? With all the intrusions of modern life, it's good to know that at least the computer on your desk at home can't be used by your employer to check who you've been writing e-mail to, and about what. Unless they can. tregoweth writes "MSNBC has a story about one of the Northwest Airlines employees whose hard drives were searched by Northwest's lawyers, as previously mentioned on Slashdot. The last paragraph of the article is chilling. " It also makes you think about the significance of all those "give employees free computer" programs from Ford, et al.
Book larnin' on the cheap: carlos_benj writes "I ran across this site today and thought slashdotters who'd had their interests piqued by the ArsDigita free university subject might want to take a look. Their educational philosophy is interesting but may not appeal to those more interested in accreditation than the acquisition of knowledge. The concept would be a definite boon to those with little money but access to the net. The fact that they will be partnering with industry could lend weight to their degree programs to help offset the lack of accreditation. "
From the Mixed Up Files of James Bond And John LeCarre: SEWilco writes "Over at HNN they noticed that the latest UK military laptop theft included non-classified details of how the next generation of fighter aircraft can be controlled from the ground. Oops. Meanwhile, the US State Department says 16 laptops are missing, although only one had classified information -- but that's only one Department.
We discussed the possibilities of remote controlled warcraft earlier, but Her Royal Highness has not participated in the discussion nor have there been any demands from her laywers."
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:1)
NW execs and "big brother" alarmism (Score:2)
I'm moderately disturbed by the image of management and union officials negotiating the terms of a search... all without consulting the individuals who will also be subjected to the search. However, I'm *very* disturbed by someone casually dismissing the impact of his actions... someone who will undoubtably proclaim that *his* data must be protected because of some intrinsic difference between the plans and concerns of a multimillionaire and a poorly paid flight attendant.
Re:Laptop Theft (Score:1)
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:1)
I'm tired of hearing this stupid old saw about copyright law being necessary to enforce the GPL. If you'd actually bother to listen and read, Stallman himself says that in the absence of copyright law, he wouldn't consider the GPL necessary.
Thinking of copyright as enforcing ownership rights as being the only valid viewpoint is incredibly misinformed and pig-headed of you. Intellectual 'property' is not property. Go out and read a few things about it and start arguing intelligently for a change.
If you need help in modifying you ill-thought out opinion of what copyright really means, perhaps a trip through this website [hosei.ac.jp] or this website [freenation.org] will help open your mind a little.
Re:Damn right - unless you are an idoit... (Score:1)
from Dictionary.com [dictionary.com]:
bootleg (btlg)
v. bootlegged, bootlegging, bootlegs.
1). To make, sell, or transport (alcoholic liquor) for sale illegally.
2). To produce, distribute, or sell without permission or illegally: a clandestine outfit that bootlegs record albums and tapes.
... etc.
Produced, sold, or transported illegally: bootleg gin; bootleg tapes.
-------------------------------------------------
[From a smuggler's practice of carrying liquor in the legs of boots.]
-------------------------------------------------
catch the irony here? see, Seagrams was founded on a legacy of bootlegging alchohol.
We need to put the smack down on this feeb of a ceo. I'm boycotting hard and fast, too. He reminds me of that curmudgeon T. Herman Zweibel, Publisher Emeritus at The Onion [theonion.com]
-=b
Re:Damn right (Score:2)
You are so used to buying your culture that you have forgotten how to make it. Go and sing a song with your friends. You'll be delighted by the results.
You are mixing two totally different ideas. That's like saying, "Don't watch professional sports; go and play with your friends. You'll be delighted by the results."
Well, what is wrong with doing both? Watching a world-class athlete (or musician) is a completely different experience than doing it myself. One is a social experience, and one is experiencing the awe of the epitome of human greatness.
Rather than my repeat my last post, reread it and think about it. The greatest music and art has always been sponsored. Today it's usually corporations, in the past it was royalty, the rich and the church.
Thinking that world-class music and art have ever been developed without sponsorship is just mindless idealism.
--
Re:RMS is wrong [flamebait] (Score:1)
Re:Damn right (Score:1)
Re:Boy, do I feel badly now... (Score:1)
hence copying copyrighted materials is stealing.
Re:Let there be light (Score:1)
Britain hasn't lost the ability to afford a decent welfare state. The bill for that welfare state is growing significantly faster than GDP, so the proportional cost is growing.
I am however in agreement with you over the amount that we spend on the military. I don't think that this expense is justified in a modern world, however the electorate in the UK demand that we have a well equipped and Large military. I think that well equipped and _specialist_ smaller force would be ample.
Re:Let there be light (Score:1)
They do work that is paid for.
Simple. Get another job
And have no more time to make music/software/any other information product. Bear in kind also that they are making music (etc) because thay are good at it. Why shouldn't they have a right to pursue their chosen trade that they are skilled in. If you were a great programmer, but now found that there you could not make money out of it because no one was obliged to pay for your work you wouldn'r like being told that you should continue writing software in your spare time when you were not working as a garbage man.
Or make your living playing live gigs. I imagine that if the music industry were to shut its loud beak for a few moments, the demand for live gigs would be overwhelming. Think what a boon it would be to regional music everywhere
As I have said, most musicians do make their living playing live gigs in addition to selling their recordings. The demand for good live music is already very large as is evidenced that all the concerts and gigs I have been to this year have been sold out, and all but one in the last 6 months have been in Cambridge where I study. Sounds like there is already high demand for regional performances to me.
Stop talking bollocks and realise that musicians have a right to charge people for their skills just as programmers do, and that recordings allow many people to enjoy music that they would otherwise not get the chance to hear because they live in different contries to the artist. Also realise that if all information was free, then people would stop producing CDs as they could get no remuneration and concert ticket prices would skyrocket as the market demand to hear the otherwise unaccessible top bands forced them up (basic supply/demand economics)
Re:Damn right (Score:1)
Well, then, you've just admitted that copyright was never necessary anyways, since there was always someone willing to pay. Neither royalty nor the church had the reach that modern media conglomerates have today, and the institutions of the ancien regime had a sense of being part of a higher purpose, which modern corporations do not share.
Western civilization has given up trying to find anything noble in life since that implies inequality or heirarchy. Liberal democracy trades nobility for hucksterism and kitsch. This means that the majority of stuff that gets produced is literally "farce" or stuffing. Noise meant to fill up dead bandwidth. Haven't you ever watched a sporting event and said to yourself "I wish those commentators would just shut up so I can watch the game". How much does that enhance your experience? What the corporations add is filler. Human beings provide all the real content. If there weren't professional sports "properties" with all the associated TV revenue, merchandising, endorsements, cross-promotions and whatnot, the value of those "properties" wouldn't be anything close to what it is today. The scale of professional sports would be back where it was 80 or 100 years ago. A gentleman's league. I'm not trying to turn back the clock, either. I only contend that we would be perfectly well off if we were left to organize our own venues, events, performances, art galleries. Sports and music will always attract the greatest athletes and musicians. As long as there is a league to play in, Wayne Gretzky will be playing hockey and Michael Jordan will be playing basketball. I may not get to see them play, but I never really saw Michael Jordan play and yet stories about his talent still inspire me.
I don't think philanthropy will up and die, either, if intellectual property rights were eliminated. Activites would would become more regional and would take place on a much smaller scale, but that doesn't imply poor quality. Unless of course you define poor quality as anything that isn't world-class. World-class is great, but someone has to start somewhere, and a community is a great place to start.
I can't believe how willing people are to support the corporate agenda heart and soul, and turn their backs on their neighborhoods and their friends. That's who's being destroyed by this cultural black hole. I prefer a little back-water provinciality to the "world-class" nonsense that buzzword-happy advertising executives dreamed up.
World-class art and music have ALWAYS been developed WITHOUT sponsorship. What sponsorship adds is more RESTRICTIONS on who can hear and see great art. I can only see Mozart play piano if I'm a member of the European nobility. The same thing is true today. Every cultural activity is aimed at the very rich. The rest of us are left to watch reruns on television. I would just as soon see local-class athletes, artists, and musicians as I would world-class ones.
There is no doubt that the truly great at anything are few and far between. That's true by definition. What irks me about your view is that you say only corporations or royalty or the church have the resources to develop talent which is just plain false.
I can live without world-class art, music, and sports if it means knowing that my community is free to celebrate life in its own way; that my neighborhood is a healthy and safe place for my children (i.e. they don't get beaten up and relieved of their sports-insignia emblazoned clothing); that friends can gather and discuss matters of importance to their community.
If this is mindless idealism, then I'm very, very proud to be a mindless idealist.
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:2)
"3
I think the word has been used in this context with this meaning for a long while. You can't deny the meaning of the word because you don't like the other definitions.
On a related note, I'd like to protest the use of the word "computer" to denote a IC based electronic calculating device. Unless you think your Pentium is some how the equivilant of a trained mathematition adding large collumns of numbers.
Re:Vocabulary Change (Score:1)
Piracy... the correct term. (Score:3)
PI'RACY, n. [L. piratica, from Gr. to attempt, to dare, to enterprise, whence L. periculum, experior; Eng. to fare.]
1. The act, practice or crime of robbing on the high seas; the taking of property from others by open violence and without authority, on the sea; a crime that answers to robbery on land.
Other acts than robbery on the high seas, are declared by statute to be piracy. See Act of Congress, April 30, 1790.
2. The robbing of another by taking his writings.
-------------
The word 'piracy' was not only in use, but in common enough use to be canonized in the dictionary, as meaning 'appropriation of content' over 100 years before RMS was even _BORN_. RMS is fighting a fight that was over and done nearly 175 years ago.
He also slanders the original sense of the word, alleging it's synonymous with kidnapping and even rape. Nothing could be further from the truth. Piracy, in the original sense of 'robbery on the seas,' means just that -- robbery. It's analagous to a charge of armed robbery today; that doesn't imply rape or kidnapping, and if those crimes occured during a robbery, the suspect would be charged with those crimes separately.
Just wanted to get that off my chest -- I'm tired of people alleging that this word usage is 'corporate propaganda' when it was in use long before the existance of the corporations alleged to have invented it.
Propaganda cuts both ways.
--
Re:Right, but... (Score:1)
Are you insane? Crimes are by definition wrong. They have been determined by society to be against the rules for living in society. Therefore, crimes are deplorable. The only laws we should have are those that protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Please. The constitution of the USA is a flexible document to contain laws governing other structures ASIDE from those. It gives the states power over these fields and the states delegate these to community level fields. Breaking laws is not just, even if you oppose them. Instead, lobby for their removal. Don't go trying to be all righteous about breaking copyright law, it isn't a righteous thing. Information was not born free of suffering, just ask any author. Therefore, the author deserves compensation for his work.
Re:Illegal != Bad (Score:1)
Me:
Why are artists so important that they should be granted residual property rights in their work, while extremely skilled auto workers must make do with measly hourly wage?
You:
3 words for you: supply and demand.
I had to read between the line a bit (there is only one line, after all). I think what you are saying is this: whoever has a product or skill that is in great demand should be granted the broadest rights and should receive greater government protection of their property. Conversely, those whose products or skills are less in demand ought to have less government protection and fewer rights. In other words, you are proposing that we allocate rights on the basis of an individual's expected future earnings.
Is this really what you meant to say?
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:1)
Re:Piracy... the correct term. (Score:1)
--
Re:Potato-powered web server (Score:1)
You know of a RISC computer that will run a TCP/IP stack and LAN card on a sixth of a watt?
Atlantis??? or not... :) (Score:1)
And if so... what is it?
Did some of the old prophesies of Nostradamous (sp) mention of the rising of atlantis? Or was that something else? Has anyone even considered this? Its the year 2000, we've had the great and mighty planetary alignment, why could atlantis not rise as well? *laughs* Aww well... I'll leave it to you guys to decide.
And do they know how big this island will be when its done fiddling round with itself? I'm interested to find out what sort of life this will support if they just leave it alone... mankind could take a good lesson from this... as it has never really happened before... maybe they should leave it untouched, and see what pops up eh?
Synchis
The worlds most popular, famous, and loved super hero...
Just kidding
How would the courts handle this hypothetical case (Score:1)
Andy works for Acme Computing. His wife Betty is a psychologist. Andy has a Linux box. Betty uses her Win95 box to keep patient notes on it. She backs up her notes onto the Linux box. Andy's company confiscates Andy's Linux box. Patient information is leaked. Now Acme Computing could be held liable for the leaked information, since Andy and Betty kept their information as secure as possible.
If this happened, it could be the end of companies taking information from personal computers.
Damn right (Score:2)
I only wish I'd said it first.
Piracy is exactly the right word. People who download music without paying for it are stealing. Period. People who offer up copyrighted music that they don't have the right to distribute are running a pirate duplication plant. Period.
--
how does this relate to the quote? (Score:1)
dictionary (Score:1)
2. (Common Law) Robbery on the high seas; the taking of property from others on the open sea by open violence; without lawful authority, and with intent to steal; -- a crime answering to robbery on land. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
-------------------------------------------------
piracy n 1: robbery on the high seas; taking a ship away from the control of those who are legally entitled to it [syn: buccaneering]
2: the act of falsely representing the ideas or work of others as your own [syn: plagiarization, plagiarisation] Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
-----------------------------------------------
Honestly, I don't really have a problem with people using the term 'piracy'. People don't really connect it with 'robbery on the high seas' anymore. And another poster was right using the word 'sharing' also has an emotional connotation.
Personally, I think we should use the word 'coping' to describe the act, and 'violating copyright' to describe the crime (if any). Those terms are unambiguous, and have no negative connotation. Using loaded terms to describe the actions of people you don't like is the first sign of someone who doesn't have a valid argument.
Re:Vocabulary Change (Score:1)
Piracy isn't necessarily a bad word, though I have less problems with the software/music pirates than I do with the RIAA. I think one grows out of the other. And the REAL software pirates are those that sell their copies. That I DO have a problem with.
Re:We need to say something about Stallman... (Score:1)
All too often dotters troll attacking RMS's religion, and amusingly enough people write serious articles painting all of the free software community as loons, using his words.
Another problem is that those that promote an open attitude for free software (like ESR) seem to be crazy libertarians. Free market zealots don't impress or represent me anymore than RMS does.
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:2)
OK
--
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:1)
Wow, that's utter b.s. Hmmm.....
Both Aneurin's parents were Nonconformists: his father was a Baptist and his mother a Methodist. David Bevan had been a supporter of the Liberal Party in his youth but was converted to socialism by the writings of Robert Blatchford in the Clarion. [schoolnet.co.uk]
Now I understand.
--
Re:Illegal != Bad (Score:1)
This is about where I draw the line on how to solve the current situation. Copyright, patents and trademark law all have thier place. I just think the need to be redefined. Like this....
But most songs DO have a rightful owner. I wonder what you mean by "stealing it", if that includes listening to it, or burning it to CD and selling it. Those are two different things, and the law needs to reflect that.
--
Re:Boy, do I feel badly now... (Score:2)
Ya know, the Constituation said a "limited" amount of time. Currently it is life +75(?), which is not limited in any sense of the word that I understand.
Thus, when you copy someone's MP3s online, you are stealing in that a) you are taking something without permission of the owner, in this case a copy of the data; and b) you are depriving the owner of their due remuneration.
A) You are "taking" a copy, which is to say you are "making" a copy and not taking anything (and, IMHO taking is necessary for stealing)
B) Due renumeration=value. Value=Demand/Supply. Digital media makes supply infinite, value=0. There are other rewards than what is just "fair" though, luckily for us.
--
Re:Let there be light (Score:1)
Me:
How do you propose that the blacksmith, the stagecoach driver, the lamplighter, the town crier, or the milkman will pay for their food?
You:
They do work that is paid for.
You missed my point, I think. How many stage coach drivers are getting paid in Cambridge? Not too many I dare say. The point is that as technology and society change, so do employment opportunities. Perhaps the plight of the corporate sponsored mega-star is the same as that of the blacksmith. Technology and market forces have conspired to render all of them obsolete. Sure, people will still use a blacksmith for nostalgia and to preserve the historical practice, but no one considers it a viable career choice.
The demand for good live music is already very large as is evidenced that all the concerts and gigs I have been to this year have been sold out, and all but one in the last 6 months have been in Cambridge where I study. Sounds like there is already high demand for regional performances to me.
Are you saying that the market, or the concert venue infrastructure cannot support more live concerts? That would be as difficult to prove as my claim that regional music would flourish if intellectual property laws were abolished. So let's say the jury's still out on that one.
Stop talking bollocks and realise that musicians have a right to charge people for their skills just as programmers do, and that recordings allow many people to enjoy music that they would otherwise not get the chance to hear because they live in different contries to the artist.
To "charge people for [e.g. musical] skills" is entirely consistent with the abolishment of intellectual property laws. As I said, live performances would be even more lucrative than they are today. The market economics would probably increase the supply if the demand (and the price) were to increase dramatically. Many artists who would otherwise not be able to play before large crowds would have that opportunity.
Charging for skills is very different than being granted property rights in the works generated with those skills. If I work in an auto factory, I may be very skilled, but I have no residual property rights in the fruits of my labour. That is, I don't have the right to dictate the terms of the sale or resale of the object I created. I am paid for my time. The same could be the case with a musician. Like lawyers, they could charge a very high hourly fee. The market would determine whether that was an appropriate fee or not.
Regarding the second point, about recordings making music more accessible, this is true to a certain extent. But I would argue against this on at least two fronts. First, there is nothing inherently better about recorded music, even if the recordings are of great performers. Recorded music is like canned meat -- it's edible, but not as tasty as the real thing. Secondly, part of the technological change that is a threat to corporate power is the replacement of "hard media" with virtual, digitized media. The distribution of digital information over networks is less costly and more flexible than the distribution system now used by record store chains. Ultimately, this should mean that music can be enjoyed by even more people than it is now. International distribution of digital data should pose many fewer barriers than distribution of hard media. Look to DVD's for an example of barriers to distributon. DVD's have locale codes burned into them to prevent non-WIPO treaty nations from viewing copy protected material. This is another case where I'd say that at the very least both sides are arguable.
if all information was free, then people would stop producing CDs as they could get no remuneration and concert ticket prices would skyrocket as the market demand to hear the otherwise unaccessible top bands forced them up (basic supply/demand economics)
If megacorporations stopped producing CD's, that would suit me just fine. And what's more, it would probably be a welcome change for all but the tiniest minority of musicians. Selling CD's is no longer necessary to promote music. Even if you really wanted to sell CD's, you could, but you just couldn't earn as much from them as you could from a live performance.
I can see a flourishing trade in "Custom-made" recordings which are not mass-marketed, but recorded individually, each recording representing a unique "session". This kind of market would cater to those who would rather own Jimi Hendrix's guitar than one of his recordings.
I am entirely unconcerned with the fate of big-name music acts, and I submit that if the transnational polycorporate cannons suddenly fell silent, no one else would notice either. "Big-name" acts were invented to rationalize the production and distribution of mass-market music. The only really big name star is "inspiration" and the "muse". And last I heard, no one had a monopoly on those "resources".
Re:Illegal != Bad (Score:1)
I do not feel as you do that intellectual property cannot be copyrighted. It can, and should. It is the artists creation, just like painting or scultpures. It is the same thing as quoting from a book. According to your belief system, it is ok to steal images from companies that sell production-quality art, like Corbis. I admit that it is their property, and I also admit that I am taking it without giving them anything in return.
Most modern people have in incredibly hard time admitting that they are doing something illegal. Everyone tries to justify it with some lame excuse. I am honest and admit that I have none! I pirate because I don't want to pay.
Re:Potato-powered web server (Score:1)
Well it might have helped if I had spelled potato properly
Still no results in my search though.
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:2)
That's because he realized that "software piracy" was an inevitable result of the system that was being created. Thus he made "free software" which, incredibly (I hopy you're following here) amounts to almost the exact same action on the part of the user.(i.e. sharing)
So one was in response to the other so logically it should follow it.
--
Re:Boy, do I feel badly now... (Score:1)
Here's my [radiks.net] DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:1)
secondly, the main reason that I wouldn't consider buying it in a store is that it costs money that I would rather spend elsewhere. I wouldn't download it if I didn't like listening to it. Why wouldn't you buy the content in a store?
RMS has a point, but... (Score:5)
Would Mr. Stallman be happy to learn that a major company was "sharing" a binary-only version of gcc which they had made substantial enhancements to? After all, we all know *sharing* can never be *wrong*.
RMS is a great guy, but never forget that he's just as much into propaganda as anyone else, and arguably moreso than most.
Re:The Pirates used the word... (Score:2)
True, wAreZ DoodZ called themselves 'pirates', but most of us are not accustomed to taking them as experts in usage -- or much of anything. Next you'll start spelling like them...
Warez doods also consider themselves "elite" -- I suppose you agree, since you cite them as authorities. Many of them say they're studs, too. Need I go on? "Pirates" was a ill-informed usage, based on an ignorance about true piracy, and a romantization of their own actions. And make no mistake, they *did* romanticize the pirate image!
Your use of 'pirate' may be fine on a warez BBS or casual conversation. In a court, or a reasoned debate, it is inflammatory.
"Accurate"? At best, it's an analogy -- a poor one. Note that you *made up* the definition you supplied. You didn't even make a feeble attempt at accuracy. I doubt a pirate would copy your possessions and let you retain them.
"Preys on"? Boy, your momma really protected you well, if you've never seen a real victim. Illegal copying is not even in the same category as rape, murder, torture, pillage etc. Those are typical pirate acts. [Apparently, you did not understand what I said about the misuse of words such as 'murder' in my original post]
I think you are simply insensitive to the real meaning of piracy. They do still exist, and they still kill or take their victims hostage, as always. They are generally not just cargo thieves -- the helplessness of their victims on the high seas seems to bring out the worst in them. Piracy is a capital offence in most jurisdictions that allow capital offences. In some nations, the only two capital offenses are piracy and treason.
Ny two bit shoplifter who grabs a CD does worse than the criminal (and I'll grant you that part) who copies a CD, because they have taken it 100%. If my ex steals my CD, I no longer have it. *I* cannot use it. All three people are committing criminal acts, the one you call 'pirate' is actually doing the least damage *per act*
I concede that the *aggregate* effects are huge, but that does not justify the use of such strong term for the individual act. Nor does it justify trivializing the horror of true piracy. [again, see what I said about 'fur is murder']
The act of diminishing the value of a thing is not theft. Theft involves the loss of a thing.
REDUCING THE VALUE OF A THING (is less than) THEFT OF A THING (is much less than) PIRACY
If I don't keep my yard up property, I may reduce my neighbor's property values. This is not as bad as taking my neighbors property from them (theft) and not nearly as bad as capturing their houses, holding them hostage, stealing all their possessions, and possibly raping and killing them.
Accurate? HAH!
Unlawful copying is a civil wrong-doing, a violation of copyright. In a few specific situations, it may be a criminal act, but it is not theft, just as it is not "illegal dumping of toxic wastes" Under no circumstances is it "piracy"
There are many situations where common usage is different from legal usage and the usage of informed discussion. "Assault" in common usage, means an attack. In the law and informed debate, it means a threat of violence (and possibly an attempt) Hence: "Assault and battery" where battery is the actual attack.
You do a disservice to the overall debate if you cloud the terms by calling 'copying' piracy.
_____________
Re:Please don't let the dictionary fight your batt (Score:1)
Here's my [radiks.net] DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Vocabulary Change (Score:1)
I think you missed his point. (Score:2)
his point is that if someone shares something without authorisation (be it a person's music, or their gpl'ed code) it's not the moral equivalent of attacking a ship at high sea and kidnapping the crew.
do you really think that an illegal copy of ms word, a metallica song, or a binary only copy of emacs are crimes of the same level as theft of a ship and kidnapping/enslaving/murdering a fair number of people? i'll be bent out of shape if someone distributed binary copies of any stuff i write that's gpl'd, but i don't think it's on that level!
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:1)
Re:Illegal != Bad (Score:1)
Re:"Intellectual Property" is propaganda, too! (Score:1)
Please, someone tell me how exactly that was a troll.
I'd find the discussion enlightening, at the very least.
Re:Vocabulary Change (Score:1)
And you thought laws were difficult in the first place. What happens when a law, which is clearly defined under current definitions of verbiage. What happens when people start changing the definitions of words? We need to keep our eyes on unseen effects. What if there were a law (this is a hypethetical and simplified example) which made it illegal to be a hacker. (Here where hacker is the common definition often used in the pressed.) Then all coders who deemed to take on that definition would ultimately be incriminating themselves, even though what they are doing (hacking) is nothing like the criminal behavior formerly known as hacking. What then?
Re:Let there be light (Score:1)
Negative Income Tax. ( devised by Nobel exonimist Milton Friedman ) if you made less then the established minimum income, you would get a check from the IRS, for bring them up to that standard.
or read the idea of Ezra Pound, Robert Theobald, etc....
there is lots we can do to comisate, those who's jobs the internet has made opsoleite.
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
Drives (Score:1)
Re:Damn right (Score:1)
Re:We need to say something about Stallman... (Score:1)
You are correct: too much zealotry in the OSS community; too little rationality.
However, the last thing you are doing is Karma Whoring, since you will probably be marked down as a troll. :)
--
Re:i'd have to agree... (Score:1)
:that doesn't make it null. copyright law is still
:law, and 'sharing' copywritten material is still
:piracy, which is illegal.
not in Thailand it doesn't
Re:Is everything a Conspiracy? (Score:1)
Honestly, if you get arrested for a crime, the police, with a court order, can search though your belongings. This includes data on your computer (in fact, they can just take your computer and never return it if they want, they should probably not be able to do this though)
We as a society have decided to give special protection to airline companies to protect them from Strikes and things like that. The guy doing the sickout was breaking the law, so he had his hard drive searched (I think, If I'm wrong then his drive should not have been searched). Monica Lewinsky also had her email searched, as I'm sure many, many people who have broken the law have as well.
This isn't a 'big brother' thing on the part of the airline, only on the part of the government. If you don't agree with it, blame them and try to change the system. But remember, the laws need to be applied fairly.
Actually, there was an article in wired about this a year or so ago, about a guy who recovered deleted email. Apparently, people are more likely to incriminate themselves more in email then anything else
the Potato server. (Score:5)
The Register wrote an article [theregister.co.uk] on how Slashdot and BBC got duped (even though /. used the humor icon), and another article [theregister.co.uk] after many people responded, including one of the guys behind the spud server.
Go get your free Palm V (25 referrals needed only!)
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:1)
I don't understand why some people can't come to terms that they are stealing. I have, and I don't really care that I am.
Re:We need to say something about Stallman... (Score:1)
And, really, your views are just so important.
If you don't have copyright, you don't have a GPL. You also don't need a GPL, ether.
Anyway, is it our fault if some lazy journalist, or ESR wants to assign the opinions of one person to the whole?
Re:Damn right (Score:1)
FWIW, there was a "debate" (or rather, a time-filler between commercials) on CNN (yesterday?) between the lawyer for Dr. Dre and Metallica, Chuck D, a new, unsigned artist, and some lady who works for a magazine or something. Period. Anyway, they were discussing Napster and the lawsuits it's facing. Period. They had an on-line poll (which I'm sure must be about as accurate as Slashdot polls) and something like 89% of respondants said they considered "Napster" (they didn't explain what part of Napster) to be "Sharing", whereas 11% considered it to be "Stealing" (a well thought-out poll, no doubt). Period. It's at least interesting, considering the US considers itself to be similar to a democracy. Period.
Re:"Intellectual Property" is propaganda, too! (Score:2)
>is also propaganda, since the Consitution only
>mentions securing "authors" (not "owners") the
>temporary right to exclusive use of the work.
>Copyrights and patents are more an exclusive
>license than an inherent right of the author,
>but some people keep portraying it that way.
The Constitution does not mention privacy as a right either, yet many of us consider it a fundamental right. I'm sure that's not the only "right" the Constitution does not explicitely define.
This might be hard to understand for some people, but the Constitution of the United States of America is not the only, nor the best, list of "fundamental rights", nor will there ever be one.
The validity of rights is what gives value to that Constitution, and rights are valid if they make sense, not if they are backed by a document. If you wish to invalidate a right, argument against it. Otherwise, one can just invalidate the Constitution on the grounds of Treason to the Crown.
Intellectual Property makes sense as a right. I consider I have the right to not-share what I think, know or invent with you, the government, or society in general. I also consider I have the right to benefit or not benefit from it, no matter how great or how little effort was necessary to create it.
If that selfishness "deprives society", so be it, I have the most fundamental right to be selfish, perhaps that is where Intellectual Property rests as a right.
If someone wants to take away the right to not give to charity, to try to get more of anything than others, to not be nice and to generally be a jerk whenever one wants to, they should expect some oposition. In that sense, there is no reason to be less selfish about Intellectual Property than with normal Property.
What may or may not make sense is the current protections of Intellectual Property.
But that's like arguing against television because of the lack of quality programming: it may make it problematic and almost useless, but the problem is the programming, not the TV set (yep, bad analogy, but what the heck).
IMNSHO, we have spent more than a couple of centuries refining the solutions for books, we might as well use them for a guide.
If I buy a book, I'm paying for its Intellectual Property (plus the paper), and I demand what I buy. I have a right to that Intellectual Property, as a consumer. That includes reading it however I want, scribbling on it as I like, arguing about it, criticize it, quote it within "fair use", photocopy it for personal use, or loan my original copy (as long as I'm not duplicating its users). I may not have the right to redistribute it (unless it was given to me), but I have the right to use it (because it was given to me), and to restrict that use is to take away that right... fraud, or at least a breach of contract.
As far as I know, no author can be put in jail for quoting a paragraph of another book if it is shown as a quote (credit), and is not unquestionably superflous... that is, as long as it is a valid part of the new work.
The extent of valid appropiation of material varies with the kind of content, but people develop an intuitive "sense" of what is right or wrong. It doesn't take an expert to know what kind of content is quotable in a novel, and what is quotable for a scientific paper.
One can write a legitimate "novel about a novel", valid because it gives new meaning or exposition to the material, where in the second a greater semantic difference would be required. But one doesn't need to know that to know if it's right or wrong when one reads it; and usually with greater leniancy than the legal letter which is there to deal with transgressions noticeable enough to end up in court in the first place.
The point is Intellectual Property is valid as a right, per se, but it requires sensible systems and some flexibility by nature.
It works on some instances because most people had time, trials and errors to develop a sense of how it should be; in younger media, that sense is not as developed, and some people try to protect their rights as owners by interpreting obsolete laws in the most restrictive manner (and make newer ones based on those interpretations). They argue that the ease of duplication of material encourages illegal redistribution, but decades of Xerox copy machines with a booming book market proves the argument wrong.
That attitude is to be expected, the problem is that people do not defend their rights as buyers of that property. Without the conflict the solution is not negotiated. Actually, I would be surprised if the attitude was not at first a bluff because they expected conflict and negotiation... it just became unexpectedly easy to go for the jackpot.
And here I cut the disgression before I break the 640K barrier.
Bodrius
Re:how does this relate to the quote? (Score:2)
It's not a crime. It's only a civil offence, not a criminal offence. (If you do it at some huge level it is a crime in the US, but that was only made so within the last few years, and is not true elsewhere).
However, the recording industry and people like Lars use the word "crime", and it enters the public consciousness that it *is* a crime to breach copyright.
Re:The Pirates used the word... (Score:2)
You forgot about shooting/enslaving the men and raping/enslaving the women, which is how it happens today in some parts of the world. Oh, whoops, the analogy breaks down. The whole "skull-and-crossbones" cartoon stuff really trivialises an area of crime which is extremely violent and ruthless.
Re:Let there be light (Score:2)
or read the idea of Ezra Pound, Robert Theobald, etc....
there is lots we can do to comisate, those who's jobs the internet has made opsoleite.
Hmm, would this be paid out weekly? Monthly? Yearly? Who pays for the infrastructure needed to take care of it?
What happens if it's paid out yearly and 3 months into the year an artist finds out they just aren't going to be able to afford food AND art/music/sculpting/whatever supplies.
Not to mention, what if I spend 12 months sleeping on my couch, do I still get paid by the IRS?
Kintanon
Re:Piracy... the correct term. (Score:2)
This is incorrect on Webster's part. Illegal copying has never been a crime, never mind "robbery". (Unless you count the US law change in the last few years which makes large-scale for-profit copying criminal).
It was certainly not "robbery", in 1828, to illegally copy someone's writings.
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:2)
"Property" is a creation of society. We have a list of things you can own.
When you copy something, you deprive them of something that we put on the list. Don't like this? Go change the rules.
Anyway, the fact is, people who "wouldn't really have bought it anyway" are the exception, and a very rare exception. Mostly, it's just a little lie to cover up theft.
(I once got a program without paying for it, because it was clear I would never buy it. The local autocad distributor gave me a full copy of Autocad when I was about 10, because I enjoyed playing with the demo. Note: He gave. That's okay. Taking isn't the same as giving.)
RMS is wrong [flamebait] (Score:2)
Much data has a value, for example contact databases, code, and indeed music. The owner of that information has a right to control the terms under which it is used. Some people choose to release their code under [insert GPL-alike licence here], whilst others charge for it. Likewise some musicians release their information (recordings) for free, whilst others make a living out of selling that information at a rate that the market determines. That is clear from the fact that a CD costs cents to burn, whilst a music CD costs Dollars to buy. The difference is the market attributed value that has been attached the data contained on the CD. Just because music is now frequently stored on media other than CDs it doesn't reduce its value.
Secondly, he has not made the distinction between sharing and copying data. When RMS says that using the term "piracy" is wrong to refer to _sharing_ data that is copyrighted he is clearly correct, however it can be accurately applied to the _unlawful downloading/copying_ of material that you do not have a right to use. He has blurred these two _different_ acts, possibly in order to shift the debate onto safer ground.
The essence of the Napster debate is the question of whether providing tools to help people pirate (used deliberately) IP is in itself unlawful, especially when you provide such tools under a profit motive. This is a completely separate debate to whether the free sharing of information should be restricted, and to whether I have a right to steal data by downloading IP that I do not have licence to use (for example if I already own a copy of the material on a CD).
The record companies are not saying that sharing information is piracy, but that unlawfully downloading it is. Separately they are challenging the ability to provide tools that enable the unlawful copying of protected information without any kind of mechanism to protect against IP theft.
My position on this is that the sharing of information is clearly a good thing (tm), however there must be some protection against the theft of IP or the profit incentive for producing data will be seriously eroded. Secondly, I think that Napster have been irresponsible in attempting to profit (though indirectly) through providing a tool that enables piracy on a massive scale without any kind of protection for the owners of the information that is shared.
The issue of whether allowing some level of piracy as a "taster" actually increases CD sales is, again, another debate. The studies that related copying tapes to increased CD sales are not relevant to whether MP3 sharing will increase CD sales because of the difference in scale, and because this ignores the fact that CDs provide significantly better quality and practicality than tapes (ie. instant track access etc). MP3s provide near CD quality, and with the advent of portable MP3 players, the same portability features as CDs. It would also take a vast amount of time and effort to amass a large collection of bootlegged tapes (not to mention a large number of tapes), whereas Napster (etc. etc.) allow the easy collection of a massive number of tracks that can then be easily archived and stored in a small space, available for instant replay. So whereas buying a CD if you already have a taped copy provides you with additional quality and benefits, buying a CD when you already have an MP3 copy does not provide any additional benefit. As an example, the only music I buy now is on Vinyl, as that provides the additional benefit of being able to mix it on a pair of turntables, whereas if I want any non-dance music, it is freely available for me to steal using Napster or whatever other method you choose.
Misusing the word "pirate" *is* slander (Score:4)
By doing this, they are revealing their own ignorance. True piracy exists on the high seas today and is one of the most serious offenses an individual can commit under international law. There have been several cases around the world where individuals have successfully sued for being libel or defamation after being called 'pirates' inappropriately (for software theft and other actions)
The term 'pirate' for software theft *was* used precisely to place the alleged activities in a more negative light in several early lawsuits. I recall discussion of this in some of the hobbyist periodicals of the early 80's like SoftTalk (perhaps when it was called "Apple something")
It is no more legitimate than calling someone who wears fur a "murderer" - 'murder' means killing a human being (or, in some jurisdictions, causing to be killed, or being involved in a criminal conspiracy resulting in death) Fur isn't murder. Eating prime rib isn't murder. stepping on an ant isn't murder. Annoying Greenpeace isn't murder.
Some additional info:
DuPlessis v. DeKlerk [wits.ac.za] (South Africa) defamation suit against a broadcaster for using the term 'pirate', among other things
There was a case in the 80's in Australia, where a company that was successfully sued for illegal use and sale of commercial software (after ceasing to pay license fees), later turned around and successfully sued for the plaintiffs public use of the term 'pirate'. Unfortunately, i could not find a link for this
_____________
Re:Boy, do I feel badly now... (Score:2)
No, he was stealing. He was actually depriving you of a tangeble object (a CD). Online, you can only copy; you're getting the songs for nothing, but you're not taking anything away from the original owner. All that happens is that the CD is slightly devalued because there is one more copy in existance, but it is by it's very definition not theft. Why is there so much confusion over this?
Theft is the act of depriving someone else of something in their posession. Intellectual property, however, is artificialy restricted to promote creativity. Sharing of information, or music, is natural; copyright law is a compromise of freedom in order to ensure artists have a motivation to keep creating art. But copyright law is not a natural law.
Here's my [radiks.net] DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:3)
Re:RMS is wrong [flamebait] (Score:2)
You probably don't think the owner should have the right to license the information to white people only. You may not think it's ok for me to sell software under a license which I can terminate whenever I want.
What I'm saying is, there is no "absolute right" to control information which you have created, it's not a black and white thing, you just choose the particular shade of grey which is the cut-off point you believe is the best.
But the current system also creates a huge disincentive to building on someone else's data. (You need to negotiate license fees with them, they can pull the plug on you if they want, etc.). It's not at all obvious whether current IP law actually causes more [/better] data to be produced than a simple "use it but don't claim you wrote it" IP law would.
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:2)
Mostly, I'm offended because RMS acts like it's some horrible sin for people to want to place terms on sharing their stuff, but still expects them to follow the GPL. You can't have it both ways; either "sharing" is actually "piracy", or the GPL is actually a joke.
Now, I know that Stallman doesn't, in fact, endorse unauthorized copying. He's attempting to use the word "sharing" because it creates positive connotations, and helps people think about how the world would be if all copying were authorized. I agree, it's an interesting vision. Unfortunately, in the world we *actually* live in, it's essentially an invitation to the ethically-challenged to go steal things.
Re:Boy, do I feel badly now... (Score:3)
sPh
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:2)
Well, I'm glad you have. But you are still not stealing. When you steal something, you deprive someone of that something. When you copy something, you don't deprive anyone of anything. The copyright holders will have a harder time selling you something, but if the opportunity cost of loosing you as a customer wasn't much (if you were not going to buy it anyway, or if you couldn't afford it). Then the 'value' of what you stole is nothing.
"Intellectual Property" is propaganda, too! (Score:5)
Copyrights and patents are more an exclusive license than an inherent right of the author, but some people keep portraying it that way.
Re:Potato-powered web server (Score:2)
The Pirates used the word... (Score:2)
Besides, the term is accurate. A Pirate is one who preys on others, and takes their work and claims the profit.
Re:Piracy... the correct term. (Score:2)
Yep - for the actual headwords being defined. But calling "taking writings" "robbing" is an incorrect explanation of the headword because "taking writings" is not "robbery". (Unless he meant "walking off with someone's book" which I doubt).
Nonononononononono. There's a distinction between a breach of *civil* law, which is not a crime, and a breach of *criminal* law, which is. E.g. parking in a no-parking area is illegal but not a crime (well it isn't in this country; I presume American parking laws aren't excessively draconian).
Breaching criminal law is considered more serious than breaching civil law, so you will be acquitted in a criminal trial if there is "reasonably doubt" that you are guilty, but in a civil trial you'll only be acquitted if you're innocent "on balance of probability". Remember the whole thing about OJ Simpson being innocent of murder but guilty of wrongful death? It's this thing.
Re:Vocabulary Change (Score:2)
Re:"Intellectual Property" is propaganda, too! (Score:2)
It doesn't say those rights are transferable. And the "limited time" has now become "indefinitely."
Re:Remote Controlled Warcraft? (Score:2)
Um, did you ever wonder where the U.S. government forecasts about crop yields in the Soviet Union came from? Or where the current forecasts about crop yields in North Korea come from?
Ever wonder about the geopolitical impact of another year of famine in a country that combines a stone-cold whacko dictator, a not-very-well-hidden nuclear weapons program, a very successful ballistic missile program, and a population with a *long*-standing hatred of Japan?
Yeah--the people in Washington worry about that, too. Which is why there are people at the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture who view information from sattelites that is considered to be classified data.
John Murdoch
P.S.: No kidding: I'm actually a 4-H leader, which is a Dept. of Agriculture-funded program.
Re:Piracy... the correct term. (Score:2)
> incorrect explanation of the headword because "taking writings" is not "robbery". (Unless he
> meant "walking off with someone's book" which I doubt).
Hmmn. Really, what you're doing here is saying that your definition is more correct, which is just you and Noah Webster arguing over how a word should be used.
My point is that, regardless of the actual tiny semantics of the definition, there has been a precedent of 'piracy' being used as 'misappropriation of content' and not just 'robbery on the seas' for nearly two centuries. The fact that Webster defined this, correctly or not, as 'robbery' back in 1828 strengthens my point that this usage, and all of its inherent overtones, is older than the hills and shouldn't be attacked as 'corporate doublespeak.'
> There's a distinction between a breach of *civil* law, which is not a crime, and a breach of
> *criminal* law, which is.
Aha. A subtle, yet very important distinction; I'll take the correction. I was misusing the word 'crime' in my argument, it's true.
So, let me withdraw that part of the argument, but supplement it again by repeating that whether piracy (definition 2 -- 'misappropration of content') is or is not a crime is not the point here. The point is that Webster, recording common usage of English language, recorded that as a definition. You might agree or disagree with the definition, but the fact remains that in 1828, there were people, apparently MANY of them, using this word in this way; the definition has been around for nearly two centuries.
--
Re:Copying of copyrighted material is *Theft* (Score:2)
Incorrect. Robin Hood was a thief even though he gave the stolen goods to other people.
to say using napster is theft is wrong becuase you're being too general.
In the first place, I didn't even mention Napster. In the second place, I carefully indicated that what I was criticizing was gross copyright violation: In the same way, giving away a zillion copies of copyrighted [anything] destroys the value of that [anything] to the one who produced it/owns the copyright. I fully agree that Fair Use covers the creation and trading of MP3s among those who actually own the CDs involved. I have absolutely no problem with that.
if the person d/ling the mp3 doesnt have, and never would have bought the cd(because they couldnt afford it, whatever) then that is ONLY copyright infringement, because they arent lessening the copyright holders [potential]assests.
False. Again, this is a moral dodge. "I wouldn't have ever bought a stereo anyway, so I can go ahead and steal one." It is wonderfully convenient for the thief to soothe his injured conscience like that: "I would never consider buying this CD, so it's okay for me to rip off MP3s of it." This is preposterous, and I sincerely hope you weren't serious.
There is a simple solution to those cases where you can't/won't buy a CD:
DON'T MAKE OR OBTAIN MP3s OF IT.
Re:"Intellectual Property" is propaganda, too! (Score:2)
But "piracy" is the accusation (Score:3)
RMS's choice of focus is unfortunate because it draws attention away from the issues. It was like feminists crying about using the word "Man" to refer to all of humanity. There are women getting abused, rendered homeless, being raped and tortured, etc. etc. but all the feminists can talk about is what words we use.
The feminists weren't altogether wrong to focus on language. Language is shaped by power relations in society and language in part determines what is "thinkable" in any situation. Adding to our vocabulary (such as "chairperson" for "chairman") increases the likelihood that we will consider possibilities that were previously unthinkable (such as "The chairperson has really nice legs, don't you think?").
Re:Damn right (Score:2)
Re:Boy, do I feel badly now... (Score:2)
The scenario you described would actually be:
espionage (sp--näzh, -nj) n. The act or practice of spying or of using spies to obtain secret information, as about another government or a business competitor.
Here's my [radiks.net] DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Let there be light (Score:2)
Security will be a growing issue. (Score:4)
And physical security is a growing issue. So some state department computer was stolen? If you know what you are doing, getting into "secure areas" is apparently pretty easy [cnn.com].
It isn't just a problem for computers, and it won't be goin g away [counterpane.com] any time soon.
Cheers,
Ben
Re:RMS has a point, but... (Score:2)
He's right though, we should all abandon the word piracy and simply resort to the term "stealing." Surely theft makes people feel all happy and rosy inside while piracy just leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
I've got something to say about this... (Score:2)
The Constitution does not mention privacy as a right either, yet many of us consider it a fundamental right.
For your reading enjoyment, I give you the ninth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The right to privacy is a generally accepted principle in this country. Just because it isn't explicitly spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean it's any less valid.
Intellectual Property makes sense as a right. I consider I have the right to not-share what I think, know or invent with you, the government, or society in general. I also consider I have the right to benefit or not benefit from it, no matter how great or how little effort was necessary to create it.
While I personally feel that some degree of control over one's ideas for a very limited period of time can be beneficial, it is hardly a natural sort of right in the same vein as the right to privacy. If you really want to control your ideas, you simply don't disseminate them. Nobody is going to perform a mind-meld with you to take your thoughts or ideas. Therefore you control them. Now, once you've told your idea to others, it becomes theirs as well. You cannot remove it from their brain and you should not be able to prohibit them from acting on it, writing it down, copying it, or repeating or disseminating it to others. That is exactly what "intellectual property" laws attempt to do.
When the Constitution was written, it was recognized that granting limited rights to people who publish their ideas would encourage them to do so, thereby adding their thoughts and knowledge to the public domain. Now their works would not become part of the domain immediately. They would have a period of time where they were legally allowed to prevent others from copying or distributing their works so that they could profit from their sale and/or use. This was accomplished through patent and copyright law. Once the period of exclusive control was up, the works became public domain, free for all to use and build upon. This seems to be a pretty decent idea and would probably work pretty well. Unfortunately people and corporations got greedy and began lobbying our government to extend the period of time they could control these works. In most cases it wasn't even the creators themselves that wanted the extensions, it was the heirs of the creator or a corporation that had purchased the work or idea.
I fail to see how this helps to further the purpose of copyright in the first place. Nothing is becoming public domain anymore. They just keep extending the period of control. They have broken the system. It no longer works. It no longer benefits the people in general. It just benefits the owners of the works out there. They are now playing the creators off against the consumers while they play like they're completely innocent in all this and are just trying to defend the rights of the poor creators to make a buck off of their hard work. What a bunch of crap. They are lobbying for an indefinite period of control. They've twisted the system so much that it no longer accomplishes its goal. They've created a system that does not serve the public interest any longer and then they are shocked when the public no longer wants to play by their rules.
I say to hell with them and their bad-faith lobbying against our interests. If they really wanted to help the artists and serve consumers better, they'd get the hell out of the way and roll back the copyright terms to what they originally were, or even less considering how fast things become obsolete now. Until the system is fixed and once again balances the ability of creators to profit from their ideas and the interests of the public that this information be freely available for others to use and build upon, I do not expect to see copyright infringement keep increasing. I sure won't shed any tears for those corporations, or even many of the creators who do not seem to mind giving the public the shaft.
They've set out to abuse the system, now they're starting to see a backlash. We need to keep fighting them, but not just by continuing to distribute MP3s and other such works as a sign of civil disobedience, but by doing some of our own lobbying and protesting. We need to get people who have the ears of our congresscritters to explain to them that we're tired of Congress continuing to aid these corporations in their attempts to screw the public. I'm just afraid that corporate money speaks a lot louder than anything we can say.
I agree! Bad Moderators! No cookie! (Score:2)
I thought it was a good post.
You're right, "sharing" is bullshit (Score:2)
By calling the act of downloading MP3's civil disobedience, you immediately create a channel of public discourse which aligns itself with a long and respected liberal democratic tradition. Downloading music alone in your basement in the wee hours of the morning does nothing to bring discussion about intellectual property issues to the fore. That means that the agenda is always set by the mass media.
We have to tell people "Yes, I'm pirating MP3's and I'm damn proud of it." This sheepishness is the result of people ACTING like criminals. The word "piracy" is appropriate for people who sneak around the internet like thieves. Broadcast it! Tell the world you think it's wrong. Don't call it sharing. It defeats the purpose of protest.
This is reduntant! (Score:2)
http://www.g nu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Intellectual Property [gnu.org]
Abashed the Devil stood,
And felt how awful goodness is
Copying of copyrighted material is *Theft* (Score:2)
You're on the right track but reach the wrong conclusion. Deliberately destroying the value of something that another person owns is a form of theft. For instance, inflationary monetary policy is stealing: the government makes each of our dollars worth less than what they used to be worth. That is theft: they are taking away the value of our money.
In the same way, giving away a zillion copies of copyrighted [anything] destroys the value of that [anything] to the one who produced it/owns the copyright.
I'm not suggesting necessarily that this is true of you, but a number of people posting here are hopelessly blind to the fact of what precisely is happening when they give away STOLEN copies of music. They are saying that because the owner of the copyright still has his copy, nothing has actually been taken from him.
This is a pathetic moral dodge. It is a feeble attempt at excusing one's behavior. A lot of these people are smarter than this, which is why it's surprising that they would hope to persuade or confound others with such blatant nonsense.
Clue time, folks: the copyright owner is not saying that you've taken his copy. Duh. He is saying that you have damaged (in some cases severely) his ability to profit from his work. He profits by selling copies of his music for others to enjoy. You are destroying his ability to earn a living at doing so when you give away copies.
How hard is this to figure out? If a person is not satisfied at the return on his investment in making music, he is less likely to make music. In some cases he may not be able to do so at all because he will be forced into other work that does not afford him the resources necessary to make music.
You bozos need to wake up and realize that the net result of this continued stealing will be one of two things. Either the feds will start regulating the Internet in a *serious* way, OR you will drive musicians out of the music business. Or both.
Either way: get ready to enjoy a far less luxuriant lifestyle.
OK, Dictionary boy -- now you get it! (Score:2)
I know what you'll say. You'll say "But you harmed Metallica by not buying their music. That means they have less money than they would have had otherwise, and that is substantial harm."
To which I would reply:
- I may not have purchased the CD anyway because it had 12 songs on it that were crappy.
- Since property is a restriction on freedom (by the responsibilities it places on the owner and the restrictions it places on everyone else with respect to that owner's "property"), we ought only to assign property rights where they are absolutely necessary. The right to own ideas is NOT critical to survival. Therefore, we ought not to have laws that treat ideas or information as property. Such laws would be (are) a threat to freedom.
Take that, D-Boy. Go on, knock the block off my shoulder... I dare ya!Please don't let the dictionary fight your battles (Score:2)
Besides that, dictionaries only describe language use, they do not determine it.
Is everything a Conspiracy? (Score:2)
Laptop Theft (Score:4)
I'm a consultant who's been at quite a few companies, and the laptops that disappear always vanish during normal business hours (meaning not when the cleaning staff is in there). What disappears after hours when the cleaning staff is there? Money, radios, food, and other small, cheap things.
The company I'm currently sited at has just cranked the security up a bunch, requiring passes to get hardware out of the building. They keep catching people trying to duck out with a laptop that's clearly not theirs. About one per week.
The thief is usually someone about four desks away from where the laptop was sitting.
We need to say something about Stallman... (Score:3)
But Stallman's views on Intellectual Property as just expressed do not represent my belief in Copyright (if you don't have Copyright, then you don't have the GPL), and I'm tired of people thinking that Stallman is representative of the ideals of Free Software / Open Source community as a whole. Of course I know that people who decide to look deeper into the community have discovered that most of us have a much more open attitude, 'use what works best' - if that's commercial software, so be it.
And, of course this rant of mine comes from having read Lars' commentary on the community, but, if he's managed to create such a view of us from just ESR's and RSM's web pages, we need to do something. I'd like to point out that, if you got to the end of the page, he actually managed to illuminate some good things.
Anyways,
The problem is that when stuff like this shows up in the mainstream press, everyone at the top of the food chain thinks we're all Zealots, even though the opposite is the case. We need to stand up and say that we like good software, that authors of _anything_ deserve compensation for their work (as they see fit), and that ESR and RSM are not representative of the community as a whole.
Whew. So much for all my Karma Whoring, but I just had to say something.
Cyano.
Re:Damn right (Score:2)
Because the artist who owns the rights to the music was not compensated.
The depth to which rationalizations can be applied to this issue is unbelievable. Do you seriously think it's a fundamental right you have to any creative work created by anybody?
If you do believe that, do you really want to see the end of people creating music, or really any work of art? Guess what -- it takes money to create music. It's not just a bunch of guys with his cheap-o radio shack microphone attached to a tape deck. Production is expensive.
If there is no profit in art, there will be no art, except art this is subsidized by the public through or private groups. Is that what you want? A small number of people deciding what should be funded and what isn't?
People, think these things through. It's not about the record companies. These issues are about art itself.
--
Potato-powered web server (Score:5)
Re:Vocabulary Change (Score:2)
You do have a point. I've grown rather suspicious of the hacker vs cracker thing, because I think the two definitions of "Hacker" are related. Many hackers of yore were "crackers" too. Steve Wozniak was a phreaker, for example.
It's clear that "piracy" is a word coined by software vendors to describe just what they were upset about. Remember, they were on the ropes in the 1980s, when executible code could not be copyrighted [slashdot.org].
On the other hand, what were the pirates of yore? They were a small group of people who made their own law, using the superiority of their position to extract gold from others. Sounds more like the RIAA (CD prices, DVD Forum (mandatory advertising) and the creation of the DMCA to me.
Re:Boy, do I feel badly now... (Score:2)
--