Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
Open source also demands that you acknowledge the work and creator(s) of the work you're building on. Just go through all the variants of the GPL license.
And in this case it's a direct copy with new paint (lyrics) and finish (production). I hate to break it to you but under terms of the GPL this could, on the surface, end up in court as well.
By the way, don't feel bad about defending Sony. They just released the work after the beer ad became a hit. Others didn't do significant work on the song, they copied it, attached it to a beer ad which became a hit. What she's saying here is that she didn't even get acknowledgement as the songwriter or even a penny of the profits of it becoming a hit. It's the first half of that sentence that I detect saddens her more than the money. But a share of that would be in the best traditions of FOSS, too.
As she says the whole thing has become so arcane and complicated that not only can the wealthy play the game but that it's long since lost it's usefulness as a concept that ensures creators get some coin for what they've done.
Where DandonTRJ goes wrong is that copyright is some sort of guarantee that the creator will ever get paid. The arts is a risky business. Most artists never see a penny from it. Nor, in a perfect world, would I cast this as unfair competition. It's the same song, new lyrics and a new stage as a beer ad. I'd argue the production values are higher too but that's not really the point. It's the failure of the system to allow her to share in what is, after all, the same song with new lyrics. After all, she did the heavy lifting here.
By not sharing it the brewery DOES NOT adhere to the concepts and practices of open source. They abuse them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
I doubt anyone's reading this thread anymore but...
I'd say that copyright, at least the maximalist trends and increasing length of it, is tangential here. McKeown's sadness isn't so much in that this has happened but in that the brewery who sponsored the rewrite and somewhat new lyrics chose to fight instead of just share/settle.
And yes, sunlight and the sun are common analogues for happiness and joy in English speaking societies but when it occurs in the same chord progression at the same point in the song one is left with "plagiarism" ringing through the brain. The refusal to settle is as much a part of IP maximalism as is the gatekeeper attitude of the *AAs. If you can't and won't adapt in one area you certainly can't admit you're wrong when you do it to someone else, deliberately or not.
McKeown's sadness is that they could have worked it out, done something different, even radically different. Instead two parties are staring at each other over the fence, now, with a judge sitting between them. And that IS sad. Something that got her paid something for her creation, her contribution directly to the song, and allowed the copy to remain in place for the same uses it has now. Now it comes down to I win/You lose which, in the end, is everyone loses.
"I'd also like us all to acknowledge that the current copyright system, the unmovable boulder in the stream, rather than protecting rights holders and acting as a deterrent to infringement, is in its very complications a shelter for those who use others' material without permission and an obstacle to those who would like to legally use or remix content. Whether it is done consciously or unconsciously, nefariously or in communal bliss, given the complicated, arcane process, the myriad hoops to jump through, the length and cost of the process, who can afford to participate?"
I fully agree with McKeown's as she outlines them above. Put more poorly it's not the concept that's the problem it's what the concept has become. This is where copyright as a 2 dimensional thing in law fails and fails badly when things, as they do and have these days become multidimensional.
If pop up merchandising works for others why not use it? The point being made here is that there is where Odd Future connects with it's fans before a show. Using something that works for others isn't theft. Doing it better, part of which is in the story, isn't theft either.
That the Beeb chose to do a story on them doesn't mean they thought the idea up just that, as far as the Beeb is concerned, they do it better. So well, in fact, that they literally give their music away and make their income from pop ups and shows and merchandise.
You're right when you say that there are several urban artists doing similar and cool things with new business models that aren't getting the coverage they deserve.
You're wrong when you think you get to declare them illegitimate just because you don't like their music. Nor do you, or I, get to decide who the legit artist is. Thank God.
I expect that's exactly what he's talking about as the Billboard top (fill in number here) is based on record sales. Other rankings are based on airplay and as they freely use the 7 words you can't say on television or radio they don't get a whole lot of that.
You are right in saying this debate is overdone. For better or worse, though, it's going to be with us for a long time.
That said. Sampling above the human audible range does restore side tones that are present in analog recordings and live performances in the upper range which we're aware of even if we can't detect them. The same applies to frequencies below 20Hz which we, generally, can't hear but our bodies can detect as vibration. Sampling too much above the human range is pointless because there are no side tones we can detect or be aware of affecting lower frequencies. Though it does have interesting affects on our cats and dogs who can hear it. (The domestic cat, apparently, can hear below our bass frequency cut off of 20Hz which is how they can detect the movement of prey in it's underground burrows.)
You're also right in that differing quality does benefit the appreciation of music. At least you can hear the difference between narrow and wide band recordings and such.
"Nothing to do with getting off the lawn, it's about knowing good from bad."
Then again, you don't get to decide what's good or bad for others.
Never fear, though, the Lennon/McCartney duo's will rise to the top as cream does if they want to no matter what.
And it's long past time you understood that most artists DO work day jobs. Often in a related field to their art but they do work day jobs. And there's nothing at all wrong with that. In fact it may stimulate them by exposing them to sights, people and situations they wouldn't otherwise be exposed to.
Your evaluation of Marcus' rap/hip hop creations is your personal opinion and it's worth what it's worth. To you. The rest of the world may not agree with you.
And who are you to define "art" or "creation" or "creativity"? Unless, of course, like some kind of Edwardian pooh bah who was sure that the masses, uneducated or outsiders had no idea what art is and so defined it for them/us. I had quite enough of that in High School English courses, thank you very much.
Artists will make an income largely the way they always have which is by the sale of their works. Directly or indirectly. Creators will create and earn their living from their creations much as they always have whether it's something as small as the creation of an attractive front yard garden all the way to the creation of something like Buchart Gardens. ( http://www.butchartgardens.com )
The creative and arts field has always been crowded. It's always been hard to earn a living exclusively from the artist's chosen medium. It was that way before the Internet and it's still that way.
I've known a number of artists in my life and none of them are full time in the sense of a 40 hour work week. Even those who earn a comfortable living from it.
While this manifesto concerns itself with the visual arts, understandable from the viewpoint the authors come from, it applies equally to works in music, design and just about any art form I can think of. Not just the Web and the Internet but the power of programs on our desktops, laptops, smart phones, pads and other computing devices we surround ourselves with.
Not appropriating the works of others simply to make money or out of disrespect for the works but out of respect for the source work and challenge to the person doing the remix.
As we're discovering the two dimensional world of copyright doesn't fit well with the multi dimensional world we're moving into. I'm not saying that copyright failed in it's original purpose or even repeating that it and patents have been stretched so far that they've lost their original purposes in favour of the notion of intellectual property complete with walls around it and expensive tolls to see or use it.
That doesn't negate the original purposes of copyright and patents or say that, till now, they haven't worked fairly well. But they aren't designed for the multi dimensional world we live in now so, of course, they don't work to accomplish their original goals.
This is the second manifest of it's kind we've seen recently. The first was the WebKids and now this one both stating, in their ways, the same thing. Like it or not, the world is changing as I type this.
Given the redesign of her web site and the, now. total lack of posts what journalism was there has vanished. As I said then, not good journalism, not well researched or written but broadly speaking journalism.
Remember that I also said that her attempts at extortion, even then, blew her case out of the water and then some with respect to the protection of the shield law in Oregon.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. What Cox has done there is also despicable. Abusing a child is, IMHO, far from acceptable under any circumstances, sexually or otherwise and that's what Cox has done here. Thank you very much to alerting me to this.
None of us are too sure about the source of the obsession unless it's been that bob has been shown to be wrong so often he keeps coming back just because one of these times he'll have to be right given the law of averages and that sort of thing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
For sake of discussion let's assume that Big Search is Google, not Yahoo or Bing.
And let's further assume that there is evidence of active collusion between Big Search and sites hosting infringing material or links to said material.
Just where is the evidence?
(Ad Sense doesn't count.)
Nice new nickname for Mike, by the way. And if we're sucking you into some sort of vortex why come here?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
"I think this kind of wink-wink linking is very much a conspiracy to commit a crime."
Three are two problems with this statement.
(1) Absent the active participation of those at the other end of the link to create these links and increase their traffic there isn't a conspiracy. You need at least two participants to have a conspiracy.
(2) Try as you might, infringement is NOT a crime.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Speaking of sophistries you're doing a fine job of them yourself, you know.
Directing someone to Hulu as a trusted embedding source isn't an algorithm by any stretch of the imagination. Algorithms are math not verbal direction.
And, one more time, infringement isn't theft no matter how many times you say it is. The real world says so in the courts.
Nor, oh ignorant one, does Google or any other search engine "accept" links from anyone (or reject them if it comes to that) they send out little bots that help them index the Web so that when you search you'll actually get something in return. Search engines make no moral or legal judgement on anything they find out there nor should they.
Nor has anything fallen off a potato truck in front of his blog. He's asking a simple question for which you refuse to give a legitimate answer. Though you do use a fancy word in doing it.
Nor is there physical property here to be displayed in front of anyone just a link or an embedded video. Neither of which constitutes stolen anything as you can't "steal" a copyright.
It's not like I expected you to answer rather than attack. Attack you're hood at. Answers not so good. In fact awful at.
It's people like you that give IP extremists the well deserved bad rap they currently have. And you're less and less amusing as each day passes;.
I actually don't see the use of the term theft in the ruling as troublesome rather it's descriptive in terms of what Aleynikov did rather than legal in nature.
That is he left Goldman with material he was bound by his employment contract to keep confidential which is a civil, not criminal matter. In doing so he deprived Goldman of nothing, they still had the code and could (and do) use it in compiled form every day.
It's appearance elsewhere, as seems likely, is infringement not theft as Goldman wasn't and hasn't been deprived of anything. In finding this the court relies on a number of precedents to come to their conclusion. So the ruling appears to be on very solid ground. What they call it makes no difference.
You can certainly take whatever solace you wish in their use of the word theft but it makes no difference legally. Infringement still isn't theft.
"if a small amount of legit uses of piracy infrastructure makes it "acceptable", then shouldn't the large amount of legit uses of online gaming networks make the small amount of predatory uses of online systems some how enough to block it all off?"
IF we were talking about a sex offender registry that was limited to offenses against children by adults (say over 18 on under 18 just to draw a theoretical line in the sand) but we're talking all those on the registry whether or not they can be classed as pedophiles.
The scope is too broad (drag net approach as I said) and the probability of "escapement" (to use a fishing term) is too great the way it's being done now.
And yes, places where there are children playing on or off line MAY attract a pedophile, though the candy store is more like becoming a coach in organized sports, teacher or janitor at an elementary or junior high or, hell, even a well known university. (Penn State, say.) Or a Sunday School teacher or lay preacher or youth pastor at a church, or just about any other activity you can think of where there are children present and the pedophile can move from stranger to trusted adult in a relative hurry. On line is somewhat more difficult because it often brings with it a log record, say, to restart the game.
As others have noted there's a parental responsibility here. The computer or game box is NOT a cheap baby sitter. Children need to talk to their parents about what's happened in their games that makes them uncomfortable and parents either have to ask or give them express permission to talk to them about it no matter what the creep on the other end of the game box says. Children are almost always creeped out by the pedo at the other end, at first, and the constant demands to "keep it our little secret". And parents need to listen and understand that their son or daughter isn't making this up. (Not all pedos prey on girls only, you know.)
Indeed, why let them do their shopping there? In real life or on the Internet? Don't. At the same time don't penalize those who have no inclination or record of being sexually attracted to and willing to draw the child into their reality/fantasy world. Target it a bit better.
As it is, I'd wager that not a single child is being protected from on line predation by a pedophile or that the instances will drop all that much if at all.
As for the offenders themselves, what is being accomplished if they aren't pedophiles, by blocking them off? Not much, I'd wager, other than to continue to marginalize and punish them as our post modern version of the lepers of old.
As for your attempt to link this issue with real and imagined copyright infringement is nothing short of despicable. The two are not analogous.
Nothing real is lost in copyright infringement whereas lives are destroyed when a child is sexually, physically and/or emotionally abused. You have no idea, none at all of the special kind of hell we go through in life, as long as it lasts for most of us. Children blame themselves for the abuse, you know, and carry that blame and shame with them as they grow into adulthood. I certainly did. I'd go on at length about what it did to my life but you're more interested in using these children as pawns in your silly games than have any real concern for them/us. As children or adults.
One day you may learn to deal with us as real people not abstractions you can use for your despicable analogies. One day politicians may do that too. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
All that said, I pray that you never know the pain and torture a child important to you goes through as you watch him or her grow up, self destructive and none of the promise you once saw gone. Even at then you'll know less than a hundredth of what he or she is going through.
Oh, and nice dodge of the issues presented in the linked article. You don't answer a single one of them.
Now go create a few dozen punch cards that will read out into a 3270 "I will not resort to adhoms when trapped. I will remember that the point of debate or conversation is to offer differing viewpoints in order to sway those holding differing views from mine."
Worse punishment, I'd guess, than writing it out on something as antiquated as a blackboard.
None of which means that you've actually written a line of code, just fed punch cards into ancient mainframes "back in the day" which may have contained code or data as far as you knew.
Nor does it address the incredibly broad patents granted on software by people with less understanding of what goes into actual software or what it really is in the United States and elsewhere.
No, let me rephrase that. Impossibly broad claims contained within software patent applications.
Software patents were, are, and always will be a bad idea and a worse practice. The real pity is that the court that started this by allowing software patents didn't have clue either.
Of course we should deal with the small amount that happens otherwise. THAT is not the problem.
The problem is that all people on New York's sex offender registry were convicted of sexual crimes against children. Some were children themselves when they landed on it because a boy and girl in junior high kissed in the hallways or some such silliness or, even younger, were found playing "doctor".
The problem is the drag net approach of sex offender registries not a desire to protect children. Done for political gain is a problem. And still on line are those convicted of non-sexual criminal offenses against children such as beating and on and on I could go.
If you want to look fearfully at the Internet then this doesn't make it a less dangerous place. Of course, if the Internet is a dangerous place, to you, then Real Life must be a horror show to you as well.
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
And in this case it's a direct copy with new paint (lyrics) and finish (production). I hate to break it to you but under terms of the GPL this could, on the surface, end up in court as well.
By the way, don't feel bad about defending Sony. They just released the work after the beer ad became a hit. Others didn't do significant work on the song, they copied it, attached it to a beer ad which became a hit. What she's saying here is that she didn't even get acknowledgement as the songwriter or even a penny of the profits of it becoming a hit. It's the first half of that sentence that I detect saddens her more than the money. But a share of that would be in the best traditions of FOSS, too.
As she says the whole thing has become so arcane and complicated that not only can the wealthy play the game but that it's long since lost it's usefulness as a concept that ensures creators get some coin for what they've done.
Where DandonTRJ goes wrong is that copyright is some sort of guarantee that the creator will ever get paid. The arts is a risky business. Most artists never see a penny from it. Nor, in a perfect world, would I cast this as unfair competition. It's the same song, new lyrics and a new stage as a beer ad. I'd argue the production values are higher too but that's not really the point. It's the failure of the system to allow her to share in what is, after all, the same song with new lyrics. After all, she did the heavy lifting here.
By not sharing it the brewery DOES NOT adhere to the concepts and practices of open source. They abuse them.
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
I'd say that copyright, at least the maximalist trends and increasing length of it, is tangential here. McKeown's sadness isn't so much in that this has happened but in that the brewery who sponsored the rewrite and somewhat new lyrics chose to fight instead of just share/settle.
And yes, sunlight and the sun are common analogues for happiness and joy in English speaking societies but when it occurs in the same chord progression at the same point in the song one is left with "plagiarism" ringing through the brain. The refusal to settle is as much a part of IP maximalism as is the gatekeeper attitude of the *AAs. If you can't and won't adapt in one area you certainly can't admit you're wrong when you do it to someone else, deliberately or not.
McKeown's sadness is that they could have worked it out, done something different, even radically different. Instead two parties are staring at each other over the fence, now, with a judge sitting between them. And that IS sad. Something that got her paid something for her creation, her contribution directly to the song, and allowed the copy to remain in place for the same uses it has now. Now it comes down to I win/You lose which, in the end, is everyone loses.
I fully agree with McKeown's as she outlines them above. Put more poorly it's not the concept that's the problem it's what the concept has become. This is where copyright as a 2 dimensional thing in law fails and fails badly when things, as they do and have these days become multidimensional.
On the post: The Odd Future Approach: Give Away The Music, Sell Awesome Stuff
Re:
That the Beeb chose to do a story on them doesn't mean they thought the idea up just that, as far as the Beeb is concerned, they do it better. So well, in fact, that they literally give their music away and make their income from pop ups and shows and merchandise.
You're right when you say that there are several urban artists doing similar and cool things with new business models that aren't getting the coverage they deserve.
You're wrong when you think you get to declare them illegitimate just because you don't like their music. Nor do you, or I, get to decide who the legit artist is. Thank God.
On the post: The Odd Future Approach: Give Away The Music, Sell Awesome Stuff
Re: Re:
On the post: Is There Any Merit To Neil Young's Plan To Improve The Quality Of Digital Music?
Re: Re: on sampling frequency
That said. Sampling above the human audible range does restore side tones that are present in analog recordings and live performances in the upper range which we're aware of even if we can't detect them. The same applies to frequencies below 20Hz which we, generally, can't hear but our bodies can detect as vibration. Sampling too much above the human range is pointless because there are no side tones we can detect or be aware of affecting lower frequencies. Though it does have interesting affects on our cats and dogs who can hear it. (The domestic cat, apparently, can hear below our bass frequency cut off of 20Hz which is how they can detect the movement of prey in it's underground burrows.)
You're also right in that differing quality does benefit the appreciation of music. At least you can hear the difference between narrow and wide band recordings and such.
On the post: CISPA Authors Launch Twitter Account To Preach False Merits Of The Bill
Re:
On the post: A Manifesto For Creativity In The Modern Era
Re: Re: Re:
Then again, you don't get to decide what's good or bad for others.
Never fear, though, the Lennon/McCartney duo's will rise to the top as cream does if they want to no matter what.
And it's long past time you understood that most artists DO work day jobs. Often in a related field to their art but they do work day jobs. And there's nothing at all wrong with that. In fact it may stimulate them by exposing them to sights, people and situations they wouldn't otherwise be exposed to.
On the post: A Manifesto For Creativity In The Modern Era
Re: Re: Re:
And who are you to define "art" or "creation" or "creativity"? Unless, of course, like some kind of Edwardian pooh bah who was sure that the masses, uneducated or outsiders had no idea what art is and so defined it for them/us. I had quite enough of that in High School English courses, thank you very much.
Artists will make an income largely the way they always have which is by the sale of their works. Directly or indirectly. Creators will create and earn their living from their creations much as they always have whether it's something as small as the creation of an attractive front yard garden all the way to the creation of something like Buchart Gardens. ( http://www.butchartgardens.com )
The creative and arts field has always been crowded. It's always been hard to earn a living exclusively from the artist's chosen medium. It was that way before the Internet and it's still that way.
I've known a number of artists in my life and none of them are full time in the sense of a 40 hour work week. Even those who earn a comfortable living from it.
On the post: A Manifesto For Creativity In The Modern Era
Re: Hard to read
The rest is quite deliberate.
On the post: A Manifesto For Creativity In The Modern Era
Not appropriating the works of others simply to make money or out of disrespect for the works but out of respect for the source work and challenge to the person doing the remix.
As we're discovering the two dimensional world of copyright doesn't fit well with the multi dimensional world we're moving into. I'm not saying that copyright failed in it's original purpose or even repeating that it and patents have been stretched so far that they've lost their original purposes in favour of the notion of intellectual property complete with walls around it and expensive tolls to see or use it.
That doesn't negate the original purposes of copyright and patents or say that, till now, they haven't worked fairly well. But they aren't designed for the multi dimensional world we live in now so, of course, they don't work to accomplish their original goals.
This is the second manifest of it's kind we've seen recently. The first was the WebKids and now this one both stating, in their ways, the same thing. Like it or not, the world is changing as I type this.
I'm looking forward to it.
On the post: New York Convinces Game Companies To Kick Registered Sex Offenders Off Gaming Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're discpicable, know that?
Given the redesign of her web site and the, now. total lack of posts what journalism was there has vanished. As I said then, not good journalism, not well researched or written but broadly speaking journalism.
Remember that I also said that her attempts at extortion, even then, blew her case out of the water and then some with respect to the protection of the shield law in Oregon.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. What Cox has done there is also despicable. Abusing a child is, IMHO, far from acceptable under any circumstances, sexually or otherwise and that's what Cox has done here. Thank you very much to alerting me to this.
On the post: MPAA Just Won't Quit: Jumps Into Legal Dispute To Argue Links & Embeds Are Infringing
Re: Re:
None of us are too sure about the source of the obsession unless it's been that bob has been shown to be wrong so often he keeps coming back just because one of these times he'll have to be right given the law of averages and that sort of thing.
On the post: MPAA Just Won't Quit: Jumps Into Legal Dispute To Argue Links & Embeds Are Infringing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
And let's further assume that there is evidence of active collusion between Big Search and sites hosting infringing material or links to said material.
Just where is the evidence?
(Ad Sense doesn't count.)
Nice new nickname for Mike, by the way. And if we're sucking you into some sort of vortex why come here?
On the post: MPAA Just Won't Quit: Jumps Into Legal Dispute To Argue Links & Embeds Are Infringing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Three are two problems with this statement.
(1) Absent the active participation of those at the other end of the link to create these links and increase their traffic there isn't a conspiracy. You need at least two participants to have a conspiracy.
(2) Try as you might, infringement is NOT a crime.
On the post: MPAA Just Won't Quit: Jumps Into Legal Dispute To Argue Links & Embeds Are Infringing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Directing someone to Hulu as a trusted embedding source isn't an algorithm by any stretch of the imagination. Algorithms are math not verbal direction.
And, one more time, infringement isn't theft no matter how many times you say it is. The real world says so in the courts.
Nor, oh ignorant one, does Google or any other search engine "accept" links from anyone (or reject them if it comes to that) they send out little bots that help them index the Web so that when you search you'll actually get something in return. Search engines make no moral or legal judgement on anything they find out there nor should they.
Nor has anything fallen off a potato truck in front of his blog. He's asking a simple question for which you refuse to give a legitimate answer. Though you do use a fancy word in doing it.
Nor is there physical property here to be displayed in front of anyone just a link or an embedded video. Neither of which constitutes stolen anything as you can't "steal" a copyright.
It's not like I expected you to answer rather than attack. Attack you're hood at. Answers not so good. In fact awful at.
It's people like you that give IP extremists the well deserved bad rap they currently have. And you're less and less amusing as each day passes;.
On the post: Court Says That Copying Code Is Not Really Theft Under The Law
Re:
That is he left Goldman with material he was bound by his employment contract to keep confidential which is a civil, not criminal matter. In doing so he deprived Goldman of nothing, they still had the code and could (and do) use it in compiled form every day.
It's appearance elsewhere, as seems likely, is infringement not theft as Goldman wasn't and hasn't been deprived of anything. In finding this the court relies on a number of precedents to come to their conclusion. So the ruling appears to be on very solid ground. What they call it makes no difference.
You can certainly take whatever solace you wish in their use of the word theft but it makes no difference legally. Infringement still isn't theft.
On the post: New York Convinces Game Companies To Kick Registered Sex Offenders Off Gaming Services
Re: Re: Re: You're discpicable, know that?
IF we were talking about a sex offender registry that was limited to offenses against children by adults (say over 18 on under 18 just to draw a theoretical line in the sand) but we're talking all those on the registry whether or not they can be classed as pedophiles.
The scope is too broad (drag net approach as I said) and the probability of "escapement" (to use a fishing term) is too great the way it's being done now.
And yes, places where there are children playing on or off line MAY attract a pedophile, though the candy store is more like becoming a coach in organized sports, teacher or janitor at an elementary or junior high or, hell, even a well known university. (Penn State, say.) Or a Sunday School teacher or lay preacher or youth pastor at a church, or just about any other activity you can think of where there are children present and the pedophile can move from stranger to trusted adult in a relative hurry. On line is somewhat more difficult because it often brings with it a log record, say, to restart the game.
As others have noted there's a parental responsibility here. The computer or game box is NOT a cheap baby sitter. Children need to talk to their parents about what's happened in their games that makes them uncomfortable and parents either have to ask or give them express permission to talk to them about it no matter what the creep on the other end of the game box says. Children are almost always creeped out by the pedo at the other end, at first, and the constant demands to "keep it our little secret". And parents need to listen and understand that their son or daughter isn't making this up. (Not all pedos prey on girls only, you know.)
Indeed, why let them do their shopping there? In real life or on the Internet? Don't. At the same time don't penalize those who have no inclination or record of being sexually attracted to and willing to draw the child into their reality/fantasy world. Target it a bit better.
As it is, I'd wager that not a single child is being protected from on line predation by a pedophile or that the instances will drop all that much if at all.
As for the offenders themselves, what is being accomplished if they aren't pedophiles, by blocking them off? Not much, I'd wager, other than to continue to marginalize and punish them as our post modern version of the lepers of old.
As for your attempt to link this issue with real and imagined copyright infringement is nothing short of despicable. The two are not analogous.
Nothing real is lost in copyright infringement whereas lives are destroyed when a child is sexually, physically and/or emotionally abused. You have no idea, none at all of the special kind of hell we go through in life, as long as it lasts for most of us. Children blame themselves for the abuse, you know, and carry that blame and shame with them as they grow into adulthood. I certainly did. I'd go on at length about what it did to my life but you're more interested in using these children as pawns in your silly games than have any real concern for them/us. As children or adults.
One day you may learn to deal with us as real people not abstractions you can use for your despicable analogies. One day politicians may do that too. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
All that said, I pray that you never know the pain and torture a child important to you goes through as you watch him or her grow up, self destructive and none of the promise you once saw gone. Even at then you'll know less than a hundredth of what he or she is going through.
On the post: As Germany Becomes Europe's East Texas, Microsoft Moves Its Distribution Center
Re: Re: Re:
Now go create a few dozen punch cards that will read out into a 3270 "I will not resort to adhoms when trapped. I will remember that the point of debate or conversation is to offer differing viewpoints in order to sway those holding differing views from mine."
Worse punishment, I'd guess, than writing it out on something as antiquated as a blackboard.
On the post: As Germany Becomes Europe's East Texas, Microsoft Moves Its Distribution Center
Re: Re: Re:
Nor does it address the incredibly broad patents granted on software by people with less understanding of what goes into actual software or what it really is in the United States and elsewhere.
No, let me rephrase that. Impossibly broad claims contained within software patent applications.
Software patents were, are, and always will be a bad idea and a worse practice. The real pity is that the court that started this by allowing software patents didn't have clue either.
On the post: New York Convinces Game Companies To Kick Registered Sex Offenders Off Gaming Services
Re:
Of course we should deal with the small amount that happens otherwise. THAT is not the problem.
The problem is that all people on New York's sex offender registry were convicted of sexual crimes against children. Some were children themselves when they landed on it because a boy and girl in junior high kissed in the hallways or some such silliness or, even younger, were found playing "doctor".
The problem is the drag net approach of sex offender registries not a desire to protect children. Done for political gain is a problem. And still on line are those convicted of non-sexual criminal offenses against children such as beating and on and on I could go.
If you want to look fearfully at the Internet then this doesn't make it a less dangerous place. Of course, if the Internet is a dangerous place, to you, then Real Life must be a horror show to you as well.
Next >>