slashdot crew saw through this plenty fast, so I think it's an indication that hopefully this idea will be shot down before it even gets remotely considered. It's a pretty bad idea.
that's how I've felt about IBM. As soon as a company *ever* drifts into the realm of raising eyebrows, you should never expect a true change. Leopards can't change their spots, etc.
Once corruption is root in a company in some form, be it lack of ethics, or otherwise, you have to expect it will continue even if the source is gone.
Examples: most industries overall: apple, ibm, intel, ms, GM (cars and the cereals), at&t, rogers, time warner, comcast, best buy, the list goes on and on. Heck, those are some of the *worst*, but far from the only. Is it really any surprise? How many of those companies do not do things on a regular basis that are totally illegal or basically are detriments to society at a benefit for themselves?
I mean, we live in a society where it is legal for a corporation (but not an individual) to take a bribe. Nothing stops the corporation from paying the individual.
We already do that. Remember that AP fiasco? I mean come on, they even asked for money from us in order to credit them basically. I can't believe they didn't think about the fact that what if someone denies they are reprinting an AP article?
on my blog (name not shared here), I only credit sites I like. newspaper sites? Never credited. Techdirt, slashdot, arstechnica, wired? Always credited.
seconded. For me it's Colbert Report and Fark, mostly because fark has more amusing headlines (and fact checks). Example fark headline: Scottish men buy bigger condoms than the rest of the UK, but to be fair, you can't make a decent haggis in the smaller sizes.
Think of global healthcare like global patents - do you think we could even agree on principle alone with every country globally? That's likely impossible.
I pity anyone who buys a kindle. It's like buying an apple. It sounds excellent until non-techies realize what kind of crap they're being sold, and rationalize off the buyer's remorse.
"Why can't I read my book anymore?" ends with "I'll just buy another copy" or someone realizing the frustration far too late to back out on the purchase.
Meanwhile, prices for the books are excessively high for something you don't even get to own, and the price of the kindle is it's own scam.
Basically, amazon found a market of a bunch of suckers, and proceeded to squeeze the dumb ones for lots of cash
doesn't work. profiting is subjective, and thus is the issue. The entitlement of "I deserve a piece of the pie even if you take my work and do something entirely new", that risk, still exists. Even if you're a non profit and/or a not for profit.
Meanwhile, CC is actually just different from normal assigned copyright. The only one that is good is creative commons public domain license. The rest restrict all sorts of crap that sounds nice on the one hand but in reality is truly complicated and full of legal wrangling/legal risk. You think my orchestra is going to hire a lawyer just to figure out if we can get a copy of xyz song from the 1600's to play to entertain some young kids and inspire them to play? Not likely, ever.
Most people realize that the minute you start paying for lawyers, you're also putting yourself at risk as you can no longer say you were not cognizant of said issue.
I actually like that CC is a step in the right direction, but it is by far not a solution. I will quicker pirate something than CC mostly because CC is a serious pain in the ass.
Honestly, the equivalent of making a work read-only is what they've done, or "no performance rights", etc.
Who wants to get something which is in fair use but the derivative has been made into CC no performance or no reproduction or no modification or something?
It becomes utterly useless.
I play for an orchestra and we love to find fair use, but can you imagine how much we spend on Mozart copies and such? a ton. There are limited performance rights granted. the IMSLP seemed like a great resource until we saw all the nuclear risks to just perform something from 3-400 years ago. Creative commons changed nothing with that.
Who loses from my orchestra being unwilling to play something that could get us sued? Only 2 groups: society, and more specifically, our audience.
laws are considered unconstitutional if they are too vague. So pretty much makes sense. That is why a lot of stuff has been put out unconstitutionally for a few years to be abused.
If we ever had a law where those who drafted unconstitutional laws were to be held accountable a lot of the bad folks would be put into jail (most).
They know it's coming, but it may take 4-8 years before the pirate party really has a good hold. Lobbyists hate it already and plenty of whisper campaigns are out there and well known on this Mike. RIAA and MPAA are by far not the only folks fighting against it, everyone with vested interest in patents too = lots of old rich people with lots of lobby power.
Meanwhile, it's the first time that we're really heading towards a global political party viewpoint, so that stands for something as well.
It's also kind of hard to label something illegal that a political party condones. Just think of what happens if we ever declared the republican or democratic party illegal for their actions, at best they pay some money out but they have so many hands in congress they can probably sweep anything under the rug.
US pirate party = subdued at the moment, but not for too long I suspect.
I thought the reasoning behind banning online gambling (even beyond the bogus reasons) was that it was considered preying on the disadvantaged? So why would we suddenly want to allow that again?
I mean hey, I think the online ban is ridiculous, but this isn't a solution either really.
I'd read paper newspapers again if they started fact-checking, reporting on events without bias, and actually doing things the right way (you know, using their freedom of speech, fighting for the people, etc). However, that'll never happen and hasn't for years, so good riddance.
just the companies allowed it, thus it's not infringement even though it absolutely is entrapment.
Remember those companies that just renamed themselves, aka mediasentry? How do you suppose mediasentry monitored the torrent without getting sued for infringement?
please. you couldn't pay me to use bing. It's not even a search engine, it's labeled a decision engine. They just don't like not having a piece of the pie.
I hear this same ethical argument BS when this came up on slashdot originally too. The excuses are things about how this is unethical, against psychology, etc. Not that you know, new methods for psychology have ever arised or shall arise again, or anything.
On the post: Are Reporters Looking For Information... Or Ammunition?
neither
that = why blogs are doing better, because blogs aren't compromising values/ethics anymore
On the post: Conde Nast Discovers That The Streisand Effect Reaches Russia Too
Re:
This is like hiding blood in an ocean - sharks will find it.
On the post: Bad Ideas: Trying To Make Content More Like Physical Property
slashdot
It's just DRM again, rebranded.
On the post: IBM Claims Software Patents Promoted Open Source Software?
friends close, enemies closer
Once corruption is root in a company in some form, be it lack of ethics, or otherwise, you have to expect it will continue even if the source is gone.
Examples: most industries overall: apple, ibm, intel, ms, GM (cars and the cereals), at&t, rogers, time warner, comcast, best buy, the list goes on and on. Heck, those are some of the *worst*, but far from the only. Is it really any surprise? How many of those companies do not do things on a regular basis that are totally illegal or basically are detriments to society at a benefit for themselves?
I mean, we live in a society where it is legal for a corporation (but not an individual) to take a bribe. Nothing stops the corporation from paying the individual.
On the post: IBM Claims Software Patents Promoted Open Source Software?
bingo
On the post: NY Post Reporter Admits That It's Company Policy Not To Credit Blogs Or Other Sources
Re: Turn it around...
on my blog (name not shared here), I only credit sites I like. newspaper sites? Never credited. Techdirt, slashdot, arstechnica, wired? Always credited.
On the post: Does No One Remember That Google Tried And Failed To 'Rent' Videos Online In The Past?
standard corporate mindset
On the post: Diebold Finally Dumps E-Voting Division... But Sells It To Equally Problematic ES&S
ess
Really, money changed hands, but back to the originals.
On the post: Reporter On The Roxanne Shante Story Chimes In... Sorta
Re: Re: Yet another example of...
On the post: Bad Ideas: Globalizing The Patent System
here's an easy way to put it
On the post: Is The Kindle's Antisocial Nature Holding It Back?
POS device
"Why can't I read my book anymore?" ends with "I'll just buy another copy" or someone realizing the frustration far too late to back out on the purchase.
Meanwhile, prices for the books are excessively high for something you don't even get to own, and the price of the kindle is it's own scam.
Basically, amazon found a market of a bunch of suckers, and proceeded to squeeze the dumb ones for lots of cash
On the post: Is Creative Commons Bad For Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: CC is like DRM
Meanwhile, CC is actually just different from normal assigned copyright. The only one that is good is creative commons public domain license. The rest restrict all sorts of crap that sounds nice on the one hand but in reality is truly complicated and full of legal wrangling/legal risk. You think my orchestra is going to hire a lawyer just to figure out if we can get a copy of xyz song from the 1600's to play to entertain some young kids and inspire them to play? Not likely, ever.
Most people realize that the minute you start paying for lawyers, you're also putting yourself at risk as you can no longer say you were not cognizant of said issue.
On the post: Is Creative Commons Bad For Copyright?
CC is like DRM
Honestly, the equivalent of making a work read-only is what they've done, or "no performance rights", etc.
Who wants to get something which is in fair use but the derivative has been made into CC no performance or no reproduction or no modification or something?
It becomes utterly useless.
I play for an orchestra and we love to find fair use, but can you imagine how much we spend on Mozart copies and such? a ton. There are limited performance rights granted. the IMSLP seemed like a great resource until we saw all the nuclear risks to just perform something from 3-400 years ago. Creative commons changed nothing with that.
Who loses from my orchestra being unwilling to play something that could get us sued? Only 2 groups: society, and more specifically, our audience.
On the post: Could The Pirate Party Become A Legitimate Political Force?
Re: Re:
If we ever had a law where those who drafted unconstitutional laws were to be held accountable a lot of the bad folks would be put into jail (most).
On the post: Could The Pirate Party Become A Legitimate Political Force?
all the political powerhouses fight it
Meanwhile, it's the first time that we're really heading towards a global political party viewpoint, so that stands for something as well.
It's also kind of hard to label something illegal that a political party condones. Just think of what happens if we ever declared the republican or democratic party illegal for their actions, at best they pay some money out but they have so many hands in congress they can probably sweep anything under the rug.
US pirate party = subdued at the moment, but not for too long I suspect.
On the post: Digiprotect Admits It Shares Files Just To Find People To Demand Settlement Money From
duh
On the post: Would Sports Betting Save US Newspapers?
hmm?
I mean hey, I think the online ban is ridiculous, but this isn't a solution either really.
I'd read paper newspapers again if they started fact-checking, reporting on events without bias, and actually doing things the right way (you know, using their freedom of speech, fighting for the people, etc). However, that'll never happen and hasn't for years, so good riddance.
On the post: Are Copyright Holders Seeding Own Files To Find, Sue Downloaders?
been done since the start
Remember those companies that just renamed themselves, aka mediasentry? How do you suppose mediasentry monitored the torrent without getting sued for infringement?
duh.
On the post: The Myth Behind Craigslist: It's Not Maximizing Revenue Potential
Re: Partner failed doing just that...
On the post: Doctor Who Uploaded Rorschach Images Now Being Investigated
ethics
slashie discussion: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1302475&cid=28695939
Next >>