And who are the good guys again? Oh right, the Department of Homeland Security. Or perhaps the fine folks at RIAA and MPAA will be bestowed emergency powers themselves when the threat level reaches vermilion due to the rising tide of copyrighterrism.
Why does he bother actually fighting malaria? Surely he can just buy up a bunch of douchebag credits from an NGO doing good works and continue to pollute the patent space with a clean conscience.
While I don't completely agree with Jeff, I do think there are those who don't apply perspective after learning some programming.
I have in my time seen far too many people who learn a bit of coding and feel they can now code with the best of them or that their insight has equal value to professionals on technical consultations.
It's as though they've learned to drywall their own basement and now they feel they're ready to trump your design decisions on a 20-storey condo development.
It's natural selection; leave them to them kill themselves if that's what they want to do. The sooner the better.
I just put an antenna on my roof that gets over 20 HD channels, installed MythBuntu on an old PC, and dropped my cable tv completely. By scheduling recordings from the air, I'll have more than enough to watch whenever I want without paying any of them any money and they'll have to live off their advertising like in the bad old days. Oh yeah, and I can skip commercials.
Luckily for now what I'm doing is not only perfectly legal but they are mandated to provide it. Keep your eyes on the small print in those obscure bills from the back benches - we're sure to see some concerted effort to kill free-to-air broadcast.
Au contraire, I think it's fitting that if Sony doesn't want to pay up, they should have to go through each frame and replace all incidental art with something generic, just like WKRP did for syndication. They can't have it both ways.
The "blue sky essay" part of my post was preceded by the following line which Mike didn't include in his quote.
"This is what it’s all about, from a pure philosophical perspective:"
Perhaps even without this preface, you feel that an attempt to express something with philosophical purity equates to wild-eyed optimism.
My goal was not to dismiss the entire real world of pragmatism but to provide a distilled definition of the problem domain and then begin a discussion, which I'm happy to see it has.
Apparently my choice of the qualifier "not too much different from" was not enough to deflect analogy-pedantry. I grant that the problem has little to do with forest-clearing machinery and Brazilian mob rule. Touché.
If the artists hadn't made that content, it wouldn't be being pirated. The MPAA and RIAA should make sure they aren't profiting from their contribution to piracy.
An observer of the gradual constitution-weakening legal and procedural assertions of the last decade or more might well wonder whether the "unintended consequences" of which you speak are in fact the payload of such a broadly painted gift-horse.
I hereby express concern as a Canadian and owner of a Canadian company who is not named Michael and is not a crony of any Michaels nor a purveyor of artificial turf. You are now free to drop your shield of incredulity and consider our side of the argument.
SOPA is NOT censorship. Let me be clear - America does not Censor!
We all have to realize that we can only win the war on Infringerism by accepting that Enhanced Internet-Abrogation Techniques are a necessary and effective method to control those who hate us for our creativity.
Congress should expand their search for systems that need dismantling or breaking up due to bigness. Take their own two political parties for instance. Not enough competition. If one goes out of business all you'll have is the other one.
Clearly the fault in London's 1985 riots lay squarely with the telephone and the postal system. They had best also confiscate any Aldis lamps and semaphore flags they find on these hoodlums.
Since I know as a programmer how easy it is to have access to the camera, I have got into the habit of keeping the camera lens covered when my laptops are plugged in at home.
On a rental machine, I would certainly tape over it. The only reason I don't tape over my own is that I run Prey on them.
Every picture, every expression, every thought is naturally born into the public domain.
Copyright (similarly to patents) is an artifice introduced by humans to alter the natural course of free and open knowledge transfer. In order to accord benefit to the product's creator, they are provided with a legal construct which allows them to restrict other humans' use of their product and demand compensation.
Nobody *owns* the right to copy. They temporarily hold the right to restrict other humans' behaviour with respect to their product.
Copyright is an oddly fitting glove for a foot such as this. There seems to be some conflation between copyright and ownership and the waters are very murky.
I'm struggling to grok how if I as a code monkey click the shutter button on your camera, I have extended control over the resulting image that's on your memory card. If you never choose to do anything with that image or to send it to me, would I have a right to demand it from you? If you copy that image from your memory card to your computer and print it out or post it, do I have some magical dominion over your ongoing behaviour? If it were a film camera where you actually paid for the film that my click caused to be exposed, and you had to pay to process the film, would things be any different?
I'm inclined to say that it's his camera, he owns the pics on it. The person who took the pic should get credit for taking it and perhaps share in ownership somehow, but I have a feeling that somehow it crosses some line to give that person full ownership and control.
On the post: Paper Suggests Letting The Government Use Your Router In An Emergency
Re: Who are the 'bad guys' again?
On the post: Nathan Myhrvold: It's Ok To Kill Innovation If You're Also Killing Mosquitoes
cap and trade
On the post: Matthew Inman Takes Photos Of $211,223 In Cash To Send To FunnyJunk & Charles Carreon
Abbr
On the post: Matthew Inman To Charles Carreon: Take Time Off, Stop Saying Crazy Sh*t To Journalists, Calm Down
I'm waiting for the film
On the post: Can You Understand How Technology Works Without Understanding Code?
I have in my time seen far too many people who learn a bit of coding and feel they can now code with the best of them or that their insight has equal value to professionals on technical consultations.
It's as though they've learned to drywall their own basement and now they feel they're ready to trump your design decisions on a 20-storey condo development.
On the post: Hulu Puts Gun To Own Head: May Require Users To Show Proof Of Pay TV Subscription
Free to err
I just put an antenna on my roof that gets over 20 HD channels, installed MythBuntu on an old PC, and dropped my cable tv completely. By scheduling recordings from the air, I'll have more than enough to watch whenever I want without paying any of them any money and they'll have to live off their advertising like in the bad old days. Oh yeah, and I can skip commercials.
Luckily for now what I'm doing is not only perfectly legal but they are mandated to provide it. Keep your eyes on the small print in those obscure bills from the back benches - we're sure to see some concerted effort to kill free-to-air broadcast.
On the post: Artist Sues Sony Music Because Her Artwork Appears In The Background Of A Music Video
On the post: Knowledge Is A Universal Natural Resource -- And Locking It Up Hurts Everyone
Re: A wonderful sentiment--- if it were true
"This is what it’s all about, from a pure philosophical perspective:"
Perhaps even without this preface, you feel that an attempt to express something with philosophical purity equates to wild-eyed optimism.
My goal was not to dismiss the entire real world of pragmatism but to provide a distilled definition of the problem domain and then begin a discussion, which I'm happy to see it has.
Apparently my choice of the qualifier "not too much different from" was not enough to deflect analogy-pedantry. I grant that the problem has little to do with forest-clearing machinery and Brazilian mob rule. Touché.
On the post: The Internet Strikes Back: Anonymous Takes Down DOJ.gov, RIAA, MPAA Sites To Protest Megaupload Seizure
Operation IP Freedom
Serves them right for continuing to develop Weapons of Mass Distribution.
Oh yeah, sure, they say they're just a bitlocker, but those are entertainment-grade bits.
Mission accomplished.
On the post: MPAA Boss: If The Chinese Censor The Internet Without A Problem, Why Can't The US?
Contributory culpability
Oh yeah, they already are making sure of that.
On the post: NBC Universal Threatens Partners That They Need To Sign 'Grassroots' Support Of SOPA/PIPA Or It Might Have To Drop Them
Not to its existence, to its strength. Perhaps it's a sign of a glimmer of enlightenment that they no longer claim that it is an existential threat.
On the post: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
wooden horses
On the post: Canadians Realizing That Their Websites Will Get Swept Up By SOPA Censorship
Re:
On the post: New Study Shows Majority Of Americans Against SOPA; Believe Extreme Copyright Enforcement Is Unreasonable
Threat level scarlet
We all have to realize that we can only win the war on Infringerism by accepting that Enhanced Internet-Abrogation Techniques are a necessary and effective method to control those who hate us for our creativity.
Otherwise, the Infringerists will have won.
On the post: OnStar Drops Plan To Monitor Non-Subscribers
"OnStar Drops Plan To Admit Publicly That We're Going To Continue To Monitor Non-Subscribers".
On the post: There's No Such Thing As 'Natural' Search Results; Search Results Are Inherently Biased
On the post: British MP Calls On RIM To Shut Down Messenger Services To Stop Riots; Because Pissing Off Rioters Calms Them Down?
Just a bunch of tools
On the post: Court Refuses To Issue Injunction Stopping Secret Web Spycams From Running On Rental Laptops
cover the camera
On a rental machine, I would certainly tape over it. The only reason I don't tape over my own is that I run Prey on them.
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Copyright (similarly to patents) is an artifice introduced by humans to alter the natural course of free and open knowledge transfer. In order to accord benefit to the product's creator, they are provided with a legal construct which allows them to restrict other humans' use of their product and demand compensation.
Nobody *owns* the right to copy. They temporarily hold the right to restrict other humans' behaviour with respect to their product.
At last that's how it _should_ work.
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
ownership vs copyright
I'm struggling to grok how if I as a code monkey click the shutter button on your camera, I have extended control over the resulting image that's on your memory card. If you never choose to do anything with that image or to send it to me, would I have a right to demand it from you? If you copy that image from your memory card to your computer and print it out or post it, do I have some magical dominion over your ongoing behaviour? If it were a film camera where you actually paid for the film that my click caused to be exposed, and you had to pay to process the film, would things be any different?
I'm inclined to say that it's his camera, he owns the pics on it. The person who took the pic should get credit for taking it and perhaps share in ownership somehow, but I have a feeling that somehow it crosses some line to give that person full ownership and control.