Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Crime of Sharing

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the greed-kills dept.

Editorial 328

John Perry Barlow has an editorial piece on recent developments in law and file-sharing networks. Most slashdot readers have read this sort of thing before, but sometimes it's nice to see how different people approach the same sort of persuasive argument, to bolster your own persuasive ability.

cancel ×

328 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Official 9-11 Story Impossible (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006001)

Russian Air Force Chief Says
Official 9-11 Story Impossible

[Posted 13 September 2001]

As one considers the terrible events of Sept. 11 and observes U.S. media reaction, so pervasive and consistently military that it appears choreographed, doubts increase. The following is from pravda.ru, a Russian language Website (politically centrist, nationalist). In some places the English translation is confusing, so we added alternate phrasing in brackets.
- Jared Israel

[Start report from Russia] "Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday." This was said by the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov. "We had such facts [i.e., events or incidents] too", - said the general straightforwardly. Kornukov did not specify what happened in Russia and when and to what extent it resembled the events in the US. He did not advise what was the end of air terrorists' attempts either.

But the fact the general said that means a lot. As it turns out the way the terrorists acted in America is not unique. The notification and control system for the air transport in Russia does not allow uncontrolled flights and leads to immediate reaction of the anti-missile defense, Kornukov said. "As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up," - said the general. [End report from Russia.]

Pasted from: The Emperor's New Clothes [tenc.net]

YAY FOR STALIN!!!!! (-1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006054)

"The notification and control system for the air transport in Russia does not allow uncontrolled flights "

A country that cannot feed itself supposedly has electricty and radars and whatnot? PRAVDA, MOI KURVA!!!

Re:YAY FOR STALIN!!!!! (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006158)

Be good or I will send you to a gulag.

Re:YAY FOR STALIN!!!!! (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006161)

YOU NEED TO GET MORE BLACK PEOPLE ON YOUR TEAM LINUS!!! Since they are SO good at picking and cleaning cotton, just think of how good they will be picking and cleaning those bugs out of your code!!!! AND!! they will steal it while you arent looking, and sell it at high prices on the streets.. so you get more publicity! You can have them pay you %55 of the profits, oh wait, your white and taking an extra %5. racisim.

Deja-vu?

Funny Joke (must read!) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006010)

Q: What's the difference between a bowling ball and a nigger's pussy?

A: If someone put a gun to my head, I could make myself eat a bowling ball.

Re:Funny Joke (must read!) (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006019)

Pretty good.


Why do Niggers keep Chickens in thier backyards?
To teach thier children walk.

Re:Funny Joke (must read!) (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006027)

What do you call a nigger in a three piece suit?

The defendant!

Attention fellow trolls (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006050)

Let us all post nigger jokes to this thread. I will try to post as many as I can, but the 2 minute post limit is annoying.

They're not really human... (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006058)

... that's why their skin is the color of shit.

Q. What do you say to a nigger in a uniform?
A. "Yes, I WOULD like fries with that!"

Re:They're not really human... (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006098)

Question: What's the difference between dog shit and niggers?

Answer: When dog shit gets old it turns White and quits stinking.

Re:They're not really human... (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006167)

Who won the race down the tunnel, the black or the Pole?
The Pole because the black had to stop to write "motherfucker" on the wall.

What do you get when you cross a black and a groundhog?
6 more weeks of basketball season.

What's long, black and smelly?
The unemployment line.

Re:They're not really human... (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006173)

Q. Why don't blacks like blowjobs?
A. They don't like any jobs.

Q. Why do blacks smell so bad?
A. So the blind can hate them too.

Q. What do you call a black man in Thailand?
A. A tycoon.

Q. Why do blacks keep their fly's open?
A. In case they have to count to eleven.

Re:They're not really human... (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006181)

Q. Who are the two most famous black women in history?
A. Aunt Jemima and Mutha Fucker.

Q. How do you stop a black baby from crying?
A. Wet his lips and stick him to the wall.

Q. Why do blacks wear white gloves?
A. So they don't bite their fingers eating tootsie rolls.

Q. Why did God invent the climax?
A. So blacks would know when to stop fucking.

Re:Attention fellow trolls (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006109)

1. Why do blacks always have sex on their minds?
Because of the pubic hair on their heads.

2. What did the black kid get for christmas ?
my bike.

3. Why shouldn't you hit a black kid riding a bike in the street?
It's probably your bike.

4. Do you know why flies have wings?
So they can beat the blacks to the watermelons.

Re:Attention fellow trolls (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006121)

1. Why don't sharks attack blacks?
They mistake them for whale shit.

2. Why don't blacks like Tylenol? They have to pick cotton to get to them.

3. Why do jews have big noses?
Air is free. For good measure a Jew joke.

Re:Attention fellow trolls (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006133)

1. How do you keep niggers out of your back yard?
Hang one in the front!!

2. What is the worst 3 years of a niggers life?
First grade.

3. How was break dancing invented?
Niggers trying to steal hubcaps from moving cars.

4. What's the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead nigger in the road?
The dead dog has skid marks in front of it.

5. Why are chimps always frowning?
They know in a million years they are going to turn into niggers.

Re:Attention fellow trolls (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006153)

How many niggers does it take to pave a road?
Depends on how heavy the roller is.

When is the only time you concentrate on a black man?
Behind the eyepiece of your rifle.

What's the difference between batman and a blackman?
Batman can go to the store with out robin.

Re:Funny Joke (must read!) (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006140)

1. A nigger and a spic jump off the Empire State Building, who hits the ground first?
Who cares.

2. A nigger and a spic jump off the Empire State Building, who hits the ground first?
The spic, because the nigger had to stop on the way down and spray paint "motherfucker" on the wall.

3. You hear about the new car made in Israel?
Not only can it stop on a dime, it will go back and pick it up.
And a free Jew joke.

Re:Funny Joke (must read!) (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006149)

1. How do you start a foot race in Ethiopia?
Roll a doughnut down the street.

2. How many niggers does it take to pave a driveway?
One if you spread him real thin.

3. What's the difference between a nigger and a bag of shit?
The bag.

4. What's the most confusing day in Harlem?
Father's Day.

you forgot to mention... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006015)

We are born savage and self-centered, and then, unless we move to Hollywood, we get over it.


I thought Bush lived in Washington?

Frost piss (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006016)

No, wait. it's alreadt 3rd Post or something. D'uh.

Sharing is evil! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006018)

In afganistan, a highly advanced version of unix was exported out of the country! A geek then decompiled the code and put it under a evil licence that is viral!

It is taking over the world, even slashdots been fucked up by it!

Bah. Weak argument at best. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006023)

It's quite a stretch to equate the *voluntary* dissemination of HTTP, TCP, and other widely used technologies by their creators, with the *involuntary* sharing (theft) of the property of authors and musicians.

The sad part is that my kids are growing up in a time where the message is that it's ok to steal what you don't want to pay for, if you feel the price is too high.

Re:Bah. Weak argument at best. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006102)

No, the sad part is your children are growing up in a time when people think that knowledge can be "owned". If pythagoras were alive today and had patented "x^2 + y^2 = z^2 where would we be? If someone wants to make money off of "intellectual works", let them become a teacher.

Re:Bah. Weak argument at best. (-1, Troll)

vortigern00 (443602) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006143)

Oh Shut Up.

Re:Bah. Weak argument at best. (4, Interesting)

BlueWonder (130989) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006124)

You talk about "stealing" and "theft", when in fact you seem to mean copyright infringement. Please don't confuse these, they're totally unrelated. (I'm not saying that copyright infringement is okay, but it's not theft!)

Serious question though: How is "theft" defined in U.S. law? Im my country, it only applies if you take something away [uni-mannheim.de] (sorry, link to German site), which is different from copying something.

Re:Bah. Weak argument at best. (1)

texchanchan (471739) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006134)

Theft is wrong because it impoverishes the original owner or originator. If "sharing" does not result in loss to the originator, but in increased sales, as the essay claims, possibly "theft" is the wrong word for the act.

Re:Bah. Weak argument at best. (2, Insightful)

xyronix (254256) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006213)

The funny thing about copying is you can't predict the loss in sales. Who knows if the person would have bought that item if they couldn't get it for free!
Who wants to buy a whole album just because they like one song that's played on the radio 10 times a day. Or the Music is just not available on CD. ( I know I'm clouding the issue by making a specific example, but this is the only reason I have downloaded songs)

Re:Bah. Weak argument at best. (5, Insightful)

pubjames (468013) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006207)

The sad part is that my kids are growing up in a time where the message is that it's ok to steal what you don't want to pay for, if you feel the price is too high.

I assume that you are referring to software and music here. Why might your children think this way?

There is a fudamental difference between stealing, say, someone's TV, and downloading music from the Internet. In the first case, the owner no longer has a TV. The original owner loses something, you gain something. In the second case, the original owner (the artist) does not lose anything, but you gain something. Let's make this clear - when you download music from the internet, the artist does not lose anything. They don't gain anything either, but absence of gain is not a loss, a basic point that often confuses people debating this issue. You have not taken anything from the artist, nor have you given them anything.

So don't confuse your kids "stealing" music or software off the net with them shoplifting or pickpocketing. They are completely different. Your kids understand this difference, which is why they don't feel bad about doing it, and they are right to feel like that because from a moral viewpoint what they are doing is an extremely petty "sin" (for want of a better word - I'm not talking in a religious sense).

Your kids probably have sound moral judgement. Most kids do. Don't corrupt them with your own confused ideas about right and wrong.

Trolls in other contexts (-1)

Carp Flounderson (542291) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006026)

I was digging through c:\mail\old\old\old\email and noticed this great email I got a few years ago. I guess I've been associating with trolls longer than I thought... Slashdot just helped me get in touch with the concept. Anyways, here it is.


Note: The concepts below will be shocking and offensive to some readers.
Each of you on the list has either specifically requested e-mail updates
or has already received bulk postings prior to this one without
complaint. If you do not wish to receive any more bulletins, send a
return message with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
The following news release is exclusively for the purposes of
entertainment, the preservation of the human race, and shameless
self-promotion of Alan Gordon's scientific and legal work. please fwd.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

UNSTABLE MARIJUANA ACTIVIST
LOSES LAST VESTIGES OF SANITY,
CLAIMS ALIENS GAVE HIM LETTER
ADDRESSED TO WORLD LEADERS
By Dr. Avram Leib

[Atlanta, GA 10/14/98] Marijuana activist Alan Gordon, (who gained
minor fame last year for his scientific publications about marijuana and
his series of civil disobedience test cases for what he claims is an
unbeatable scientific defense for criminal pot charges -- see
www.groovyweb.com/adhi), is now claiming that he's been in contact with
extra-terrestrials since 1993.

Gordon, the self-labeled "insane clown" of the marijuana reform
movement, claims that the aliens last week gave him an open letter
addressed to all world leaders, and that the ETs seek to welcome the
human species into a galactic federation pending effective removal of
marijuana bans and other cruel human behavior. "This is
precedent-setting," says the activist. "To the best of my knowledge,
aliens have never publicly addressed the marijuana issue before."

Gordon claims that his own remarkable peer-reviewed demonstration of
marijuana's evolutionary role as a medicine for mammalian
neuro-endocrine over-excitation (see www site) was given to him in 1993
by the aliens, with instructions to disseminate it to the world so that
humans would know what pot actually is and reform policy accordingly.

Gordon says the aliens gave him the material five years ago for
presentation because he doesn't look as intimidating as the aliens with
their high-tech warp drives and nuclear lasers. "Now they say I've been
slacking, spending too much time chasing girls and stuff, and I've
fallen way behind schedule, so they have to step forward themselves with
an open letter to world leaders" ( 2500 words, immediately below).
"Thank goodness the aliens speak English like on Star Trek," says the
activist.

An Open Letter to World Leaders
from an Extraterrestrial:

I. Introduction

I have been watching human civilization for thousands of Earth-years,
observing your slow spiritual growth. Now I have prepared a question
for you: If Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed or Moses lived in the contemporary
world, would today's governments treat them the same way as the less
enlightened governments of the past? Seen by many as a necessary evil,
government involvement in arenas of societal dispute frequently places
the State in a position of conflict with one faction of society or
another.

II. Government & Martyrs

The rule of human government, while not perfect, has come a long way
since the time when the prophets of the world's religions walked the
Earth -- ruthlessly oppressed by harsh arbitrary governments were
Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Baha'alula, Sundjata, Socrates and untold scores
of other enlightened religious and cultural founders.

In more modern times, governments battled such notable humans as Gandhi,
Thoreau, Mandela & Tutu, King, Jr., the Dalai Lama, Haile Selassie,
Washington & Jefferson, Newton & Galileo, William Penn, Wilhelm Reich &
Edgar Cayce, Nikolai Tesla, and innumerable Native Aboriginal chiefs and
shamans of the American, African, Australian, Asian and other Atlantic
and Pacific landmasses.

In each case, government persecution contributed to martyrization of the
individuals and their value systems. Even lethal fire-bombers like Eric
Rudolph, Unabomber, and Tim McVeigh can unfortunately be turned into
folk heroes just by government's attempts to safeguard the public.

Today's contemporary world has reached a point where a greater
proportion of disputes are settled diplomatically, leaving government
freer to mediate disputes in a non-martial manner.

We might imagine that if Jesus returned as a human, criminally refusing
to pay taxes on a politicized religious institution, that the dispute
would be settled ultimately in the United States Supreme Court with
Jesus' attorneys eloquently arguing Constitutional separation of church
and state as a matter of inherent natural God-given human right.

Rather than using capital punishment like the Romans of old, wouldn't
today's government offer Jesus' adherents a corporate pre-arrest (i.e.
arrest-free) guilty plea for tax non-payment, at a discounted fee less
than the normal full fee, less than the contested tax and less than the
price of fighting the tax in court, yet which would cost the government
far fewer resources to enforce than the hypothetically unconstitutional
tax itself, thereby preserving the integrity of the tax statutes and the
Rule of Law for the desiring masses while still solving the dispute?

Such a solution might seem blocked by hypothetical business interests
which DO pay taxes and which are financially threatened by the teachings
of Jesus. To what could we offer these parties in the interests of
fairness?

Barring the outrageous suggestion that such entities merely accept
Jesus' teachings and alter their business practices accordingly, society
could ensure that humans financially dependent on business practices
contrary to Jesus' ways are profitably ushered into concurrence with an
identical offer of corporate pre-arrest pleas for tax non-compliance -
provided a viable religious faction (equal to Jesus' followers in
spiritual conviction) were practicing the "untaxed" business. Fair is
fair, yes?

Wouldn't such a model be the pinnacle of human spiritual evolution
towards which the prophets of yesteryear were pointing? Given the
choice, would Jesus rather have suffered for your sins, or lived
blissfully to abolish them? The choice was not up to Jesus -- the
choice is one only humans can make if ever again offered the
opportunity.

III. A Parable

PRETEND for the sake of argument that Jesus, instead of being a
"sacramental incense tax rebel," was a instead a "marijuana incense tax
rebel", in a world where the Roman government did not recognize
marijuana as an approved Roman pagan spirit, where religious users of
the non-Roman sacrament were legally tolerated only if they came
annually to a central marketplace to register their names and purchase
their marijuana only in taxable Roman coin (available at a poor exchange
rate outside the gates of the Roman incense-vending store)?

Jesus' historical legal argument was that if the government didn't
recognize the Hebrew God, that it had no business selling sacrament in
Roman coin or demanding tax. This argument was mirrored by Nelson
Mandela's historic legal argument that if the nation of South Africa did
not recognize Black African citizenship under apartheid, that Mandela as
a Black South African could not be legally tried in their court as he
was a statutory non-person. Jesus' argument led to crucifixion, and
Mandela's led to a life sentence (although he is now President of the
nation that sentenced him). Such harsh treatment is the direct result
of a financial threat posed by enlightened rebels to both the government
and its tax-paying merchants.

In today's more enlightened age, we have hopefully evolved spiritually
to a point where government, merchants, and citizens in a hypothetical
scenario like the one above would realize that cooperation holds a place
in business equal to the role held by the innovation-spurring
capitalistic spirit, and is more profitable to society than government
failure to enforce its laws or martyrization of a spiritual leader.
Would you rather be rulers of a planet of paupers, or a planet of
wealthy citizens?

Perhaps instead of forcing a slaying, the money-changers in the
fictional Jesus parable above should form a centralized merchant bank
with remote branch offices, each paying the Roman government a voluntary
discount fine for criminal non-compliance with the marijuana laws, and
simply sell the stuff regionally, accepting coin of any mint at exchange
rates appropriate for the economic region where the coin is tendered.

IV. Your Challenge

Will current citizens of Earth not learn from the mistakes of the
Romans? If Jesus came back today, would you kill Him again, or would
you get it right this time? If God made this earth as a den of
temptations to punish you, for what reason could He have done this other
than to teach you to be Kind and Just and Fair to one another?

Can you not act in greater accordance with God's wish that you be in His
image, or shall you admit in self-defeat that you are just ruthless
animals who will go to heaven if you acknowledge your cruelty and yet
continue to be cruel?

Did Jesus mean for you to abandon your duty to yourselves and neighbors
in favor of allegiance to Him, or did he mean for you to be respectful
of one another as demonstration of your allegiance to the infinite
wisdom of His teachings?

V. A Workable Solution to Your Marijuana Problem

There is no room for blame. Multinational corporations, marijuana
users, and government can come together and introduce value into
society, while wasting less money and effort by ceasing aggressive
perpetual battles with one another. How? The answer is simple: look
for a way to achieve the same ends you have already achieved or wish to
achieve, but with greater efficiency.

In practical terms, government could allow corporate and individual
pre-arrest "no contest" pleas for marijuana "crimes" with a "penalty"
greatly reduced from one requiring detection, arrest, pre-arraignment,
etc. This would greatly increase revenue collection (by taxing many
slightly rather than taxing a few greatly) and improve safety conditions
because the dangers which marijuana bans seek to reduce can be better
minimized in a regulatory system. The total revenues collected would be
a far greater debt paid to society than is currently being extracted
from statutory marijuana criminals.

Hundreds of marijuana users surveyed by our agents expressed
near-unanimous willingness to acquiesce to such a plan as it is more
comfortable than the chance of being caught and because it gives them
opportunity to contribute more to society than is currently allowed.

VI. De-Bunking Global Catastrophe in the New Millenium

Unshakable faith alone will guide your species through the coming global
catastrophes of the next decades. I arranged the Y2K computer bug as a
practice run for you (by giving your military memory-deficient computer
technology from a staged UFO "crash" at Roswell, New Mexico in the
50's). I reiterate: the reason I foisted the Y2K computer disaster
upon you was to prepare you for an even greater disaster to come, to
teach you as a species how to take care of your basic needs.

Keep in mind that there could be no Y2K bug if you had not changed from
Jesus' calendar to the Romans' (your months are not lunar and two are
named after Caesars causing your ninth month to be misnamed
sept-/seventh, your tenth month to be mislabeled oct-/eigth, and so
forth). This will be a lesson that the official decrees of humans
cannot change the Laws of Nature, Mathematics, and Physics.

Your own geologic surveys indicate that soon your planet's magnetic
polarity will reverse, causing a temporary disruption of the ionosphere
(the electromagnetic field which normally blocks harmful solar radiation
from reaching your planet's surface).

Your own fossil surveys show that each time this has occurred in the
geologic past (approximately every 450,000 solar years on average, but
without periodicity), a major evolutionary leap also occurs in the
fossil record. You will also note that all evolutionary leaps in the
fossil record coincide with such magnetic reversals, and that extinction
episodes in the fossil record DO NOT coincide with polar reversals,
barring a single incidence between a regular periodic 26-million year
extinction wave that once coincided randomly with one of the sporadic,
irregular polar reversals.

The unusual radiation reaching your planet's surface during such events
causes fairly uniform mutations within genetically similar individuals,
and is the driving force behind the evolution of your planet's life
forms. Many life forms on the planet have survived (as a species)
several such occurrences.

Your greatest problem will be maintaining adequate food supplies:
grains, your carbohydrate source necessary for serotonin-based neural
intelligence, have been overly hybridized for sugar content and have
relatively little resistance to radiation, as is also the case with soy,
a crop over-hyrbridized as your staple protein source. Simply put,
too-rapid hybridization of any organism for particular attributes,
(whether plant crops, show horses, or Hitler-esque eugenics humans)
unfailingly leaves the organism inbred and deficient in other
attributes. Today's soy and grains have little resistance to harmful
solar radiation.

When the predicted burst of solar radiation reaches your planet's
surface, food crops which have been rapidly hybridized since the last
polar reversal (approximately 780,000 of your years ago) will wither in
radiation they are not acclimatized to, and your people will ultimately
be forced to grow vast quantities of hemp seed, as the hemp crop is
among the most resistant of all useful plants to radiation. Hemp seeds
are rich in all the most important nutrients (carbohydrates, proteins
and oils, the three true food groups) and totally able to sustain
optimal human health, but they will become boring after a while, much
like the over-used coconuts on the popular American children's
television serial Gilligan's Island..

Fortunately, the extra radiation will cause hemp plants to increase
production of ultraviolet pigments called THCs, which are capable of
reversing the effects of radiation sickness in humans, via a nerve and
immune cell receptor which your gene sequencing surveys have noted is
genetically nearly identical to other radiation defenses like melanin
(see www.groovyweb.com/adhi). Hemp plants will also provide all fiber
necessary for your clothing, shelter and paper.

VII. Your Economic Crisis

Wealth in society depends on the efficiency with which nutrients,
materials and energy are extracted from the planet and its sun, whether
agriculture, mining, or solar energy.

Wealth comes about either directly from improving the efficiency of
extraction of resources or directly from increasing efficiency of
utilization of these resources. No amount of clever re-alignments of
wealth (such as the U.S. Federal Reserve system) can increase wealth in
society unless it actually improves efficiency of collection or use of
resources.

Geneticists have long known that any plant which is high in a particular
nutrient or material content has been selectively bred that way by the
animals which utilize that component, e.g., corn is simply a giant grass
that was selectively bred for carbohydrate content by sugar-hungry
mammals, who by over time interacting with only the largest and sweetest
grains, caused only those grains to scatter pollen and drop seed with
high frequency.

So, if the seeds of the hemp plant are high in not one major nutrient
category, but four (carbohydrates, oils, proteins and
vitamins/minerals), and the stalk of the plant is of exceptional fiber
quality and quantity, and the plant has high resistance to most
microbial infection as well as produces a valuable medicine used by many
animals, isn't this direct evidence that hemp is one of the planet's
most often-utilized plant resources over extended geographic time spans?

And, if hemp is among the most well-rounded, slowly and thoroughly
hybridized of the useful plants (compared to the rapidly hybridized food
and material crops upon which you now depend), then wouldn't a healthy
economy be based and centered upon such an efficient extractor of solar
and earth materials and energy?

Could it be that the perpetually nagging shortages of human time, money,
materials, energy and nutrients on your planet is due to a human-imposed
shortage of the plant that you humans hybridized to meet those very
needs?

Your beloved Jesus Christ is said to have asserted that The Meek Shall
Inherit The Earth. The irony of this is that meek humans (those with
the most sensitive neuro-endocrine systems, the most sensitive to the
world around them), like canaries in a coal mine, are always the first
to feel the effects of environmental change. These Blessed Beings,
called the "True Treasures of the Church" by the martyr Saint Lawrence
shortly before his execution for failure to pay taxes to the Romans,
have over the ages been the first of their populaces to use hemp
medicines as their ancient evolved defense against stress-induced
neuro-endocrine over-excitation (see www.groovyweb.com/adhi).

Those individuals not as sensitive to the world around them, the
"un-meek," have historically allowed their animal nature to persecute
the meek much as wolves in a pack tear apart their meeker members. The
un-meek have rejected the warnings of those who perceive the environment
with greater acuity. The un-meek may go to their graves from starvation
and radiation sickness, rejecting hemp as a temptation from the Devil or
perhaps as a brainwashing attempt by the purportedly evil governments on
the other side of the planet, no matter which side of the planet they
are on. The meek shall indeed inherit the Earth.

This concludes my communication to you. Your answers to my questions
shall be made evident by your actions. I look forward to the ingenuity
with which humans will weather the difficult times ahead. Search your
scriptures of all faiths for clues, prophesies, and instructions about
geomagnetic disturbance such as has been predicted for your planet.
Have fun, be kind to one another, follow the Golden Rule (the true basis
of alchemy) and you will emerge stronger and more advanced than you ever
thought possible.

IF YOU ENJOYED THE WRITING OF DR. LEIB AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE A
PUBLISHER GIVE HIM A CONTRACT, PLEASE REPLY WITH THE WORDS "publish the
doctor" IN THE 'SUBJECT' LINE.

Help me troll this message (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006039)

Troll on this message. It is the most devious troll ever devised.

Russian Air Force Chief Says
Official 9-11 Story Impossible

[Posted 13 September 2001]

As one considers the terrible events of Sept. 11 and observes U.S. media reaction, so pervasive and consistently military that it appears choreographed, doubts increase. The following is from pravda.ru, a Russian language Website (politically centrist, nationalist). In some places the English translation is confusing, so we added alternate phrasing in brackets.
- Jared Israel

[Start report from Russia] "Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday." This was said by the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov. "We had such facts [i.e., events or incidents] too", - said the general straightforwardly. Kornukov did not specify what happened in Russia and when and to what extent it resembled the events in the US. He did not advise what was the end of air terrorists' attempts either.

But the fact the general said that means a lot. As it turns out the way the terrorists acted in America is not unique. The notification and control system for the air transport in Russia does not allow uncontrolled flights and leads to immediate reaction of the anti-missile defense, Kornukov said. "As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up," - said the general. [End report from Russia.]

Pasted from: The Emperor's New Clothes [tenc.net]

Great editorial, but... (0, Flamebait)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006031)

I think the editorial is right now, but I don't see its anything different or detailed than what we've arguing about on here for years.

It seems to be a religious debate at this point. Either you support the idea that people should be able to share books, musics and other entertainment or you don't.

But please, lets stop calling it "intellectual property". The phrase is an oxymoron.

Wrong (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006049)

An Oxy-Moron is a fat, greasy Linux user who thinks that using acne cream would somehow make him attractive to women. Ignoring the fact they still live with their parents and have coagulated cum-stains down their stretch pants from prolonged autopr0n.com [autopr0n.com] sessions.

Re:Great editorial, but... (3, Insightful)

squaretorus (459130) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006066)

It seems to be a religious debate at this point

Most worthwhile debates do take on a life similar to religious debates. People have a fundamental feel for what is right and wrong - and no matter what evidence is put forward they don't, on the whole, change their minds.

Thats why a debate is required, because if you say to most people - will we ban people squashing their dog under their car for fun on a friday night - most will say 'of course' but a few will say 'hell no! thats all I have left since you banned squirrel baiting'.

Ask about sharing music and you get a 50:50 split of people who think its great, and people who think its a first step twards lawless anarchy!

Re:Great editorial, but... (1)

UncleFluffy (164860) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006147)

"Ask about sharing music and you get a 50:50 split of people who think its great, and people who think its a first step twards lawless anarchy!"

Sounds like a tautology to me...

Re:Great editorial, but... (1)

ThePilgrim (456341) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006068)

True. The news hear isn't the story. Its the fact that the story has taken another step towards the main stream.

Re:Great editorial, but... (4, Interesting)

Shiny Metal S. (544229) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006169)

It seems to be a religious debate at this point. Either you support the idea that people should be able to share books, musics and other entertainment or you don't.
Read The Right to Read [gnu.org] . It was first published in February 1997 and was perceived as an exaggeration, but now after five years it starts to sound more like a prophecy.

If both Music City and Kazaa go down.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006032)

They should just open source the code - the end

So why aren't they Open Source already, shithead? (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006088)

Hmm... Let's see.

"Use our software to 'share' other people's Intellectual Property, but we're not going to share OURS!"

That's the GNU/Fascism way, isn't it?

maybe... (5, Insightful)

tony_gardner (533494) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006033)

"That's why I'm stunned that so many kinds of sharing have suddenly, without public debate, become criminal acts. For instance, lending a book to a friend is still all right, but letting him read the same book electronically is now a theft."

This kind of statement has always stunned me. The division between lending and copying is pretty clear. If I lend something, then I don't have it any more. The value of the object is preserved (or nearly). If I print copies of my favourite books, and give them to my friends, then I still have a copy, and the value of the object is divided by (some fraction of) the copies made. The justification of Napster is that people go out and buy more music because of it. Even assuming that's true, will it be true in 10 years? 50 years?

If you can't afford a car, because of collusion and price fixing, is it OK to steal a car from the dealer? Not liking price fixing is obvious. Not stealing is also obvious. I'm clear that when I copy music, I am doing something that is both legally and _morally_ wrong.

Re:maybe... (1)

BlueWonder (130989) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006090)

You seem to contradict yourself. If you steal a car from the dealer, the dealer doesn't have it any more. But as you have pointed out yourself, if you copy something, the original owner still has it.

Re:maybe... (4, Insightful)

Pentagram (40862) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006096)

Your logic is internally inconsistent. You start off making a good point, that of the division between copying and transferring property and then create a stupid analogy about stealing a car to illustrate why copying is wrong!

I'm clear that when I copy music, I am doing something that is both legally and _morally_ wrong.
It's not clear to me. If I wasn't going to buy the music anyway, then no one loses anything by me having a copy. Not getting a copy under those circumstances, i.e. no one is hurt by my actions and I (mildly) feel like listening to a song seems logically ludicrous to me.

Regardless, it's only going to become easier for me to get copies of music anonymously and freely so I don't need to even consider your opinion.

Re:maybe... (2)

Skinny Rav (181822) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006227)

If I wasn't going to buy the music anyway, then no one loses anything by me having a copy.

You're right of course, but the service or software that enables you to do it this way enables also millions of others who download _instead_ of buying. And there is _no_ possibility to distinguish. Either you ban both groups or allow both groups.

Of course, the logical solution is to lower CD prices to the point when better sound quality plus additional benefits (lyrics, nice cover, "good" feeling of supporting artists and not recording companies) will persuade enough people to go and buy the CD. I have no problem paying 10$ for a good CD, it is 15£ like in the UK that makes me start AudioGalaxy.

But if companies want to keep their revenue same obscenely high - they have no other way than to make the whole thing illegal.

Raf

Re:maybe... (4, Insightful)

Little Dave (196090) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006246)

If I wasn't going to buy the music anyway, then no one loses anything by me having a copy.

If you weren't going to buy a copy, why would you *want* a copy?

Seems to me you can justify your theft by simply saying that you weren't going to buy it anyway, so its fine and noone loses out.

Re:maybe... (1)

Quaryon (93318) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006112)

This is why it is so essential to make the distinction between so-called "intellectual" property and physical property. If I steal a car from a dealer, that dealer has lost something tangible and is worse off. If I copy a CD for a friend, the artist (and more particularly the media companies involved) haven't lost anything tangible. You can argue that they've lost a potential sale, but you can also argue that they may gain more potential sales in the future when that friend decides they like the CD. It's the latter argument that the Napster statistics quoted in the article are trying to point out.

Even more important is that if I make a copy of the CD for myself, for personal use only, no-one has lost any money, not even a potential sale. This is highly relevant to me - with mroe and more copy protection it gets harder to rip CDs to MP3 which is how I listen to all my music currently.

Q.

Re:maybe... (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006286)

Even more important is that if I make a copy of the CD for myself, for personal use only, no-one has lost any money, not even a potential sale.

Actually they have lost potential sales. Those from selling you the same thing on different media and replacement copies if the original media breaks.
The problem is that here they are playing "have cake and eat it". Since they like to claim thay have really sold you a licence to use the content...

Re:maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006141)

I fail to follow your logic, you equate copying a book to stealing a car, this does not follow. If I copy a book, you still have your book. If I steal your car, you don't have a car anymore. Am I depriving you of use of your book by reading a copy of it? No. The analogy doesn't work. Do I feel I've cheated an artist by downloading a song/movie/game/application? No, I don't because I have not deprived anyone of the "property" itself. Musicans made a living for a long time before recorded media came along, its called live performance (aka, WORKING). Have I cheated the performing arts by copying a movie, no, I still pay to go to see plays live (what, performers actually having to work each time rather than doing a job once and profiting forever?). Games- lets be realistic, the day I pay for games that don't involve being outdoors is the day I die. Software- I have only one piece of buisness software I use, and I pay the programmers for the support they provide me, but I don't pay them for the software.

Re:maybe... (5, Insightful)

MrFredBloggs (529276) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006145)

>I'm clear that when I copy music, I am doing something that is both legally and _morally_ wrong.

I just made a compilation cd of classical music for a friend. She wont have heard most of it before. When she gets it, she may well discover she likes some of it, and may buy some cds - Bachs `Art of Fugue` for example. I promise you there is practically no chance she`ll ever buy that until she hears my cd - why should she? Where will she here it being played? National radio?

One new person gets to hear Bach. One new person may buy a bach cd, or 2 or 3. Remind me why that is immoral again.

Re:maybe... (5, Insightful)

pubjames (468013) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006146)

The division between lending and copying is pretty clear.

With physical objects it is, yes.

Many years before electronic computers were invented George Bernard Shaw observed :

If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.

Thus demonstrating a basic difference between sharing physical and non-physical things. They are different. It is pointless making comparisons.

Before recorded media was invented, if you wanted to share a song, you would sing it so that others could learn it. Similarly with stories. Then we developed ways to make these entertainments into physical objects. This cost effort/money, but allowed these entertainments to be brought and sold, and their distribution could be controlled and limited. We have now invented technology which means that they can be shared in a non-physical way again, digitally via networks, and copied at virtually zero cost.

We have a choice now. We can deliberately create mechanism and laws to limit the copying and distribution of digital files, or we can choose not to. The debate should be "What is the most civilized thing to do? What would be best for mankind?" Unfortunately these days global lawmaking is heavily influenced by America, and America has been corrupted by corporate power arising from a basic selfishness in the modern America value system. This means that civilized debate about this very important issue is not occuring.

It wasn't always this way. There used to be things called vision, ideals, morals, justice and great men who fought for them. America was founded by great men. Today it is run by corrupt, small-minded intellectual dwarfs.

Time for a change.

Re:maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006222)

Please mod this post [slashdot.org] up as high as you can.

This is the most insightful thought I've read on Slashdot in the last few months.

Re:maybe... (3, Insightful)

TheFrood (163934) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006261)

I agree with everything you say up to this point:

It wasn't always this way. There used to be things called vision, ideals, morals, justice and great men who fought for them. America was founded by great men. Today it is run by corrupt, small-minded intellectual dwarfs.

Even a casual reading of U.S. History is enough to show that the United States has always been run by the folks with money and power. The railroad tycoons and oil barons of the 19th Century regularly enlisted government authority to break strikes and get good deals on land purchases. Even the Founding Fathers were mostly wealthy men, and one of their main motivations for seceding from Britain was creating a government closer to home and therefore easier to control. (At the time of the Revolutionary War, George Washington was the richest man in America.)

I'm not bringing this up to say "Well, things have always been this way, so we shouldn't bother trying to change them." Rather, I'm trying to point out that all the good things that were accomplished in the past were accomplished in spite of the greed and corruption at those times. Corruption has been beaten before, and we can do it again.

TheFrood

Re:maybe... (2)

sporty (27564) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006280)

Many years before electronic computers were invented George Bernard Shaw observed :

If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.


Clearly he wasn't married or had kids. "How many times have I told you..." or "Can you please..." Right in one ear, out the other. :)

Re:maybe... (3, Insightful)

Shiny Metal S. (544229) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006195)

If you can't afford a car, because of collusion and price fixing, is it OK to steal a car from the dealer? Not liking price fixing is obvious. Not stealing is also obvious. I'm clear that when I copy music, I am doing something that is both legally and _morally_ wrong.
Remember that when you steal a car, the dealer loses one car. When you copy a book, the publisher doesn't lose a book, the effect is that he doesn't get a potential payment.

It's a very subtle, but extremely important difference.

Re:maybe... (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006271)

"That's why I'm stunned that so many kinds of sharing have suddenly, without public debate, become criminal acts. For instance, lending a book to a friend is still all right, but letting him read the same book electronically is now a theft."

Odds on that once people are used to the idea of an E-book not being sharable publishers will attempt to "harmonise" the law so that paper books are also unsharable.

what gonna be the next killer sharing app? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006035)

we have had AG, napster, morpheus etc... and all have failed in more ways than one.

is there ever going to be another to rise to the status of napster again?

Re:what gonna be the next killer sharing app? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006118)

It's here already! Direct Connect. Sharing over 1 petabyte of data.

Triple the amount of Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster combined.

Re:what gonna be the next killer sharing app? (1)

NiPNi (471241) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006198)

Of course, what Neo-Modus fails to mention is that most large files, like movies, are shared by hundreds of users, so the amount of _unique_ files is not even close to 1PB.

Re:what gonna be the next killer sharing app? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006279)

Good to point it out...but it should be assumed. They made no claim of originality...just lots-o-files.

Think about it though...all the different bitrates encoded by users...who expects anything else?

Re:what gonna be the next killer sharing app? (1)

NiPNi (471241) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006157)

Direct Connect (http://www.neo-modus.com) might stand a chance. I've used it, and it usually finds what I'm looking for.

I might be wrong, but I don't think anyone have sued or made any trouble for Neo-Modus yet, while they continue their race for the petabyte :-)

Other sharing (5, Insightful)

sql*kitten (1359) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006043)

Well, let's say you have a train ticket, good for unlimited travel for a day on the London Underground. You finish with it, but it is still valid for several hours, is it stealing or sharing if you give it away to someone? If you sell it to someone? If you enter it into a turnstile and you and a friend squeeze through? If you buy a ticket most days, but not today, and climb over the turnstile?

These are all things to consider, because contrary to the article, the act of "sharing" is subjective, and not inherently good.

Re:Other sharing (2, Insightful)

doctor_oktagon (157579) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006060)

If you enter it into a turnstile and you and a friend squeeze through? If you buy a ticket most days, but not today, and climb over the turnstile?

Giving your day ticket to someone else once you have finished is re-selling a service you have bought a right to, which may be prohibited, but does not lose the company any more money, as you were entitled to use it anyway.

Jumping the barrier or squeezing two through is a theft of their service, as you have avoided paying!

Anyway: I always give my ticket to one of the homeless, if they manage to flog it for a quid good on them!

Re:Other sharing (3, Insightful)

sql*kitten (1359) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006074)

Giving your day ticket to someone else once you have finished is re-selling a service you have bought a right to, which may be prohibited, but does not lose the company any more money, as you were entitled to use it anyway.

Well, it does mean that LU sold one ticket where they expected to sell two. It's not like using a copied piece of software, in which case many people possessing an illegal copy wouldn't have bought the original anyway - the second traveller would have otherwise bought a ticket.

Jumping the barrier or squeezing two through is a theft of their service, as you have avoided paying!

Indeed, this is (from the point of LU) identical to giving a ticket away.

The Homeless (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006075)

The best thing you can do for the homeless is wait until they are asleep and pour gasoline over them. The subsequent addition of a match will ensure they have a nice warm night's sleep. Hopefully an eternal sleep as well.

They're homeless for a reason, because they are TOO STUPID to contribute effectively to society.

I laugh at your petty socialist government that offers subhuman filth free medical care, when it is clear that they will waste every penny spent on them on heroin and cheap malt.

Cheap malt??? Not in London (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006166)

Cider and Special Brew shurely.

Re:Other sharing (1)

Make (95577) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006081)

Record and movie companies aren't involved in file sharing - trying to figure what your point has to do with file sharing, I can't see how these companies lose money on file sharing..

They miss the chance to make more profit, but that's not exactly the same as losing money. It's only what they want us to believe.

The example just doesn't fit here..

Re:Other sharing (2)

Beautyon (214567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006115)

Well, let's say you have a train ticket, good for unlimited travel for a day on the London Underground. You finish with it, but it is still valid for several hours, is it stealing or sharing if you give it away to someone?

Yes, because you are preventing the London Underground from selling a ticket.

A ride on the underground cannot be copied without loss, and so two people sharing the same ticket is "stealing". This is true if the ticked is unexpired or not. A ticket that is sold to you is for you alone; one ass on one seat.

Tickets for journeys and services are the same as physical objects like CDs. Taking one or the other from someone who has them for sale in a shop or terminal is stealing.

Digital copying is something completely different.

Copying bits without charging for them removes nothing from anyone and so is not stealing, just as reading from a book to someone is not stealing, or playing a song on your guitar on the sidewalk in St. Marks Square, Venice is not stealing from the composer of that music.

This is deeply objectionable to people who sell software as a business, but it is true.

If you enter it into a turnstile and you and a friend squeeze through?
Stealing obviously.

Re:Other sharing (2)

smaughster (227985) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006156)

Making a copy of a program or CD without charging for them should not be compared to the lending of book, it should be compared to the copying of all pages of that book. This is something which usually is prohibited, copyright and such, so why should the digital equivalent be any different?

Re:Other sharing (2)

sql*kitten (1359) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006163)

Tickets for journeys and services are the same as physical objects like CDs. Taking one or the other from someone who has them for sale in a shop or terminal is stealing.

Digital copying is something completely different.


Ah, but that's the crux of the matter. When you buy a ticket, you aren't buying a piece of printed cardboard, or even the data contained in the magstripe on the back. You're entering into a simple contract, you give them money and they take you places. The only verification is that you are the bearer of the ticket - in this way, it acts like a currency token. But it was sold to you, and even tho' the system in its present state is incapable of verifying that the person who bought the ticket is the one who is uses it, that doesn't change the terms and conditions.

Copying bits without charging for them removes nothing from anyone and so is not stealing,

Well, I saw a posting here yesterday (I can't be bothered to link to it) about someone who says as soon as he buys a CD, he rips it to MP3 for playing in his car. That's fair use. But if he were to give it to someone who hadn't already bought the CD then he has cost the publisher a sale. By your definition, that is theft.

Copy from the radio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006200)

Why do discussions on this subject hardly ever discuss the possibility of a person copying songs from the RADIO into a computer and then making a CD?

Is one not allowed to tape a radio broadcast now?

If it is ok for me to tape off of the radio, is it then ok for me to let someone else hear my tape?

Keep asking honest questions?

fair use.. (0, Flamebait)

bo0push3r (456800) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006048)

..is sharing and it isn't. you can have a copy of a work made available to the public for your own fair use but you can't distribute it.

i don't think that cracking copy protection on CDs or ebooks is cool, i think it's hillarious! there are plenty of ways to go about it if you really wanted to copy the material. i love watching 'the man' flail at every attempt to halt the progress of computerization.

with the price of CDs being what it is i think the media giants can afford to throw money at it. whatever makes the fat bastards sleep better at night..

Sharing... (0, Redundant)

K1erck (558779) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006052)

Shouldn't be a crime!

Why must these people be so greedy!

Re:Sharing... (1)

Make (95577) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006069)

Cite from Andy Mueller-Maghun, ICANN [icann.org] director and Chaos Computer Club [www.ccc.de] lead member:

"No intellectual property was stolen on 18C3 [www.ccc.de] - it was augmented" (ok my bad direct translation from German..)

original link (German Heise newsticker article): 18C3: Hackernetzwerk war Europas größter File-Sharing-Knoten [heise.de]

Re:Sharing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006095)

Right on! Mind if I share your bank account?

Law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006062)

You know, I've read so many different takes on this same issue, it makes my head spin.

Everyone keeps arguing about court decisions. Lets be a little more realistic here though. Regardless as any law decided by the courts, unless networking itself is outlawed (don't see that one coming), information sharing is here to stay. Ok, so we change how we do it every so often - I'm not using Napster anymore, but then again, I can't remember the last time I opened an ftp client - I've moved on to "newer" things. Who cares what the courts decide or how much money corporate interests put behind legislation (in any nation), or even if they throw a couple of people in jail for it, it won't change the reality of the fact that the concept of "intellectual property" is meaningless to a 13 year old who wants to listen to a song or watch a movie, and like it or not, even 13 year olds can figure out the tech good enough to get it. I don't see courts (at least in the US) trying to come up with the money to house every 13 year old in a prison system for listening to "Britney Spears" without paying for it - its just not economically feasable to enforce such crazy laws.

Why isn't the public making a fuss? (4, Insightful)

OpenSourced (323149) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006072)

Why isn't the public making a fuss?


Because nobody has ever prosecuted a private-sharer. There is no practical difficulty in sharing. Only companies that seem to profit from the sharing are harassed. That's why the public isn't making a fuss, because nobody is treading on their toes. Not too much, at least.

Why sharing can be bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006078)

In the nerd world, they like to share everything for example CPU power and their favourite Operating system (Think Penguin). But sharing stuff like nuttella is illegal.

255.255.255.255 has really_cool_song.mp3
000.000.000.000 wants it

So 0.0.0.0 MAKES A COPY! A COPY! Copying is bad, thats why they wan't to shut it down, and they will make it harder for you to copy again! Wandering why the RIAA is evil, its all your fault!

Only share LEGAL FILES (such as linux_2.4.17.tar.gz)

Re:Why sharing can be bad. (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006135)

Sorry, the Linux Source code cannot be shared legally, as it qualifies on all counts as "Hate Speech"

Fees? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006080)

At the same time, the Internet gives intermediaries the potential to extract a fee from every single repetition of an expression.

The ISPs and telcos extract quite some fees. Without sharing they wouldn't get near as much money. The entertainment industry can turn to them.

Fees are always paid by you! (1)

danro (544913) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006113)

What good would that do?
In the end, the price is always paid by the little guy.

Corporations buy our work, then sell us back the fruits of our labor (at a profit naturally).
Simply because the work a person do is the only source of wealth there is. A company may live on other company, but then that company has to make up for it by extracting more money from someone, and in the bottom of the food chain are always regular people.

Face it, we always pay!
I wish there was an obvious better solution, but this shitty system seems to be what works...
Human nature I guess...

NY Times Article cited (2)

TheFrood (163934) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006085)

Two overlapping graphs in the New York Times last April 1 (in an article called "Paperback Music") made the point vividly.

Unfortunately, April 1st is not the best date to be citing newspaper articles from.

TheFrood

Devil's Advocate (3, Insightful)

Oink.NET (551861) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006086)

The fact that the Internet makes it possible for individuals to distribute their intellectual creations directly to consumers terrifies the old industrial intermediaries. At the same time, the Internet gives intermediaries the potential to extract a fee from every single repetition of an expression.

The opposites are true too: the Internet makes it possible for individuals to distribute other non-consenting individuals' creations directly to "consumers" (the most prevalent use of Napster). At the same time, the Internet could cause intermediaries to lose the ability to extract a fee from every single piece of content they used to sell (the death of the media giants).

Until someone can create a system that accurately models the way "real life" ownership works, we will have these kinds of "reality disconnect" problems, where you can loan a book to a friend, as long as it's not an e-book.

People take for granted the way physical ownership works, with all its limitations, and the unspoken rules of ownership that go along with it. When you transition to a wide-open medium like the internet that takes away the physical limitations but leaves the old rules of ownership unmodified, the old rules become insufficient. Big media is scrambling to come up with a way to re-implement the old physical limitations of ownership in this new medium, but the results are pretty weak. So in the meantime, it's legislate legislate legislate! However even that is harder to enforce in this new medium than it was in the old.

This is a very thorny problem, and I don't think it's going away any time soon.

Re:Devil's Advocate (1)

sholton (85051) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006139)

Until someone can create a system that accurately models the way "real life" ownership works...

Explain to me again which part of the Internet isn't "real life"?

Things change, technology advances. Sharing digital copies is not as encumbering as sharing physical objects. That fact is neither good nor bad in itself.

Re:Devil's Advocate (2)

Oink.NET (551861) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006183)

Explain to me again which part of the Internet isn't "real life"?

I was being facetious when I said "real life" ownership, hence the quotes. I meant to imply "your grandma's idea of ownership."

Things change, technology advances. Sharing digital copies is not as encumbering as sharing physical objects. That fact is neither good nor bad in itself.

And a door without a lock is neither good nor bad in itself. It's when you throw human beings into the mix that you get problems.

Re:Devil's Advocate (2, Insightful)

dachshund (300733) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006290)

Big media is scrambling to come up with a way to re-implement the old physical limitations of ownership in this new medium, but the results are pretty weak. So in the meantime, it's legislate legislate legislate!

Problem is, it's no small coincidence that much of this legislation also significantly increases the media companies' potential profit. Even basic notions like the lending library go out the window under these new laws. People are either going to accept the new world order or they're going to infringe like crazy... and I'm not sure I blame them.

The problem is... (3, Interesting)

AdeBaumann (126557) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006091)

... that, in my opinion, loads of people who downloaded Morpheus or Kazaa don't do it to be able to share music, but just to get stuff without paying for it. When they see their favourite freeloading tool under attack, they're screaming blue murder.

Don't get me wrong, I'd hate to see p2p go, and I'm ready to do something for it (EFF, here I come...). I just don't expect millions of other users to do so. Sad, innit?

Greed (2, Interesting)

codeButcher (223668) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006099)

Yeah, the whole sharing-ideal is great. But if the rightful owner doesn't want to share it, that's it. The choice of sharing or not should still be his, not so?

I suppose it is ALSO greedy to want to have something without having to pay for it. Or force someone to share without him having a choice.

Re:Greed (2)

Arker (91948) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006193)

But if the rightful owner doesn't want to share it, that's it. The choice of sharing or not should still be his, not so?

You assume that patterns can be owned. A rather dubious assumption.

Re:Greed (2)

Twylite (234238) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006264)

rightful owner? That is the crux of the matter, but you are using it as a foregone conclusion.

Copyright and parent laws were created to balance the rights of individuals and the rights of society. An individual who stands to gain nothing from creating is unlikely, or less likely, to create. So too an individual who creates by still stands to gain nothing has no incentive to reveal that creation, or its details. On the other hand society stands to benefit from most creations, and to benefit even more when the details are available.

So laws were created to protect the individual's creations while ensuring the society could benefits from them immediately and in the future. It used to be an unchallanged assumption that freedom of knowledge was the road to humanity's future.

The issue we currently face is: where should the line be drawn on the rights of copyright holders? This is not an easy balance to find. On the one hand you have industry, whose game settings are "Allow economic victory". On the other side are some individuals. Politicans and capatalists are somewhere in the middle.

Appearance Fees? (1)

bunungs (536665) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006114)

This might seem a bit off-topic.

But with the ways things are going, it might come to the point that the only way that artists/record companies can make money is through appearance fees.

And that record companies will still produce CD's for those that are willing to pay for it. But also allow people to download tracks in mp3 or another format.

The way that record companies would make a buck through this is from taking a cut of appearance fees as well as from the CD's being sold.

Re:Appearance Fees? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3006230)

>>>But with the ways things are going, it might >>>come to the point that the only way that >>>artists/record companies can make money is >>>through appearance fees.

Like it was a hundred years ago. Imagine that: Madonna gettting a day's pay for a day's work.

Nothing lasts forever: absurdly inflated recompense for minimal labour might just have to go the way of nutmeg importing or tulip speculation.

Spurious assertion (pronounced "lie") (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006138)

  • [The courts] also ruled that it was legally appropriate to prevent a scientist from presenting a paper that explores the inner workings of the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) music encryption system

Oh, way to spread the FUD. Judge Garrett Brown dismissed [slashdot.org] the Felten case because there was no longer any case to answer. As he pointed out, he was obliged to restrict himself to the immediate and ongoing threat of prior restraint to Felten, and to consider larger and theoretical consitutional issues.

Don't get me wrong. Judge Brown appeared to be incapable of understanding the issue, and would possibly have ruled incorrecly if there was still a case to answer. But there wasn't, so the EFF's assertion that the Felten dismissal was a ruling against First Amendement is a bare faced lie. Their FUD disappointed me at the time, but the fact that they keep harping on and on about it is really starting to piss me off. The EFF are trying to paint what was actually a small victory as a crushing defeat to whip up sympathy and anger. That's the kind of crap I'd expect from the MPAA/RIAA, not from the white hats.

Re:Spurious assertion (pronounced "lie") (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006144)

Heh, that was of course "and to not consider larger and theoretical constitutional issues". I said this was pissing me off, now I can't even type straight. ;-)

What is Piracy ?? (1)

mystran (545374) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006154)

It actually appears really weird to me, that there actually exist a lot of people that are happy to copy music with tools like Napster (the old free one) but still say that they "hate piracy". Weird thing this world :(

Actually, once one can save money by using Free Software, one should spend that to support what is important to them, was that good music or great movies.

Re:What is Piracy ?? (1)

BlueWonder (130989) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006174)

Boy, I do hate piracy! If I were on a ship, and it'd be entered by strangers who'd kill me and the other crew members, I'd really hate that.

Oh wait, you were talking about copyright infringement...

Re:What is Piracy ?? (1)

gazbo (517111) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006267)

Oh, please. Don't start this crap again.

The term piracy has been around for so long that when somebody uses the term 'pirate' my first instinct is to think of software piracy. People do not hear the word piracy and equate the people involved to murderers on the high seas - I do not know where the word originally came from, but I do know that it is now ubiquitous, and accepted by the public to mean the illegal distribution of software.

Whinging about the use of the word piracy is as bad as the people who moan bitterly about the use of the word 'hacker' to mean 'he who breaks into systems' Most people wouldn't care in the least, and my personal opinion is that they only whinge about it so much because ESR told them to. I don't know what he has to say about the use of the word piracy or its etymology, but it wouldn't surprise me if most people who complain about the word only do so because it was suggested by somebody influential.

In short, stop being petty. Oh, and stop using words like 'koans' or 'MIT hacks' - these may be used at MIT, but nowhere else. If you use them, be aware that you are only doing so because the almighty Jargon File (peace be upon it) told you so.
</rant>

No one is trying to make file sharing illegal (3, Informative)

kaden (535652) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006258)

Napster existed for a long time with illegal sharring effectively stopped. Hey, isn't this what the whole Slashdot crowd claimed to want? It's a fileshare and there's no illegal swapping, so shouldn't you guys have loved it? Nope, you all moved on to Kazaa and Bearshare. I've yet to see anyone provide an actual reason for filesharing other than to pirate copyrighted material. Everything legitimate is already available on the web and ftp. It makes no sense to get all mad at the RCAA simply for trying to protect it's profits. If someone was cutting out 33% of your salary (if you have a salary, hah) would you be like "Well I can't infringe on his rights..." or would you do something about it? The record industry isn't trying to stop you from trading Linux binaries or whatever you claim to be using File Sharing for. They're just guys trying to watch their backs. Yes, I agree that most of them are overpaid whores, but that really doesn't matter. Ok label this as a troll. It's a different viewpoint! Ahh!!! I bet he even runs Windows!

Re:No one is trying to make file sharing illegal (2)

radja (58949) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006288)

well.. if i like a CD, and a friend doesnt know the cd yet, I share my* music with him. if he's on the other side of the ocean, the easiest way is to send him an mp3(or ogg etc..). i can have him listen to the CD with me at home (sharing), but I can't do it over the net. perfectly legitimate, if not legal..i am also allowed by law to give him a tape of said CD. but not over the net.

//rdj

*music i have at home, not (c) me

Re:No one is trying to make file sharing illegal (1)

slow_flight (518010) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006300)

No, you can't legally make a tape and send it to him. What you CAN do is BUY him a copy of the CD and send it to him. Or, you can legally send him your copy of the CD and do without until he is done 'borrowing' it.

More emphasis on live performances (1)

texchanchan (471739) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006275)

What copying technology really means is a high probability that the focus of creative money-making will move to the uncopyable--which is, live personal appearances. If the industry uses advertising and other opinion-changing techniques to make seeing a singer IN PERSON even more desirable than it is now, suddenly music-sharing becomes free advertising and should be encouraged.

It seems to me that the live-performance effect will be a natural result of increased copying. When mass production of any kind moves in, suddenly people get to desiring authenticity and personalization.

A quick shift in Perspective (4, Insightful)

Catiline (186878) | more than 12 years ago | (#3006281)

We carry little metal disks and (mostly) green pieces of paper around. They don't have a whole lot of intrinsic value, but because they embody the concept "legal tender" we assign them a greater value depending on how they look. They are not the only way one can spend or transfer "money" as shown by EFTs and other such digital flows where nothing physical moves around, except bits in a computer get changed. These transfers are much harder for a criminal to intercept and modify than the practice of train transfer of gold or currencies was.

Likewise, the "original" medium for movies and music (video film reels and wax records, respectively) also had a physical/intellectual link where the value was the information and not the medium. If the RIAA and MPAA choose to keep themselves chained to the thought that the product they sell is physical (a CD, cassette, VHS tape or DVD) and not the information within, they will find themselves drowned in the swelling tide of digital transfers. And no legislation or fancy technology will be able to save them-- except to embrace the new model of business.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>