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!

Online Newshour Tackling Digital Copyright

CowboyNeal posted more than 11 years ago | from the opening-the-worm-can dept.

The Media 173

dmabram writes "The online version of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer is tackling copyright in the digital age. They are sponsoring a forum where Lawrence Lessig will square off against RIAA executive Matt Oppenheim. Anyone can submit questions, and the best questions or comments will be posted to Lessig and Oppenheim for debate and discussion. I know that the producers understand the importance of this debate, and would love insightful questions." Looks worth tuning in for.

cancel ×

173 comments

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

yeay! (1)

TalonKarrde989 (637177) | more than 11 years ago | (#5968918)

w00t! Hurray, we get more representation!

Re:yeay! (1)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 11 years ago | (#5968968)

No taxation without representation?

FP (-1, Offtopic)

ralphclark (11346) | more than 11 years ago | (#5968920)

ha ha ! I am the master!

Re:FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5968955)

Ni, YOU ARE THE FAILURE! You failed to post first, therefore you're not the master.

YOU FAIL IT!

KDE Myths (-1, Offtopic)

Michael's a Jerk! (668185) | more than 11 years ago | (#5968921)

The KDE project is famous for its funded and organised trolling of
weblogs and message board associated with Linux and Free software/open
source. Outrageous newbie impressing claims are made for the software
and huge quanities of FUD are spread to destroy competitors. If this
sounds familiar, then you are correct, most of these tactics were
lifted straight from Microsoft's arsenal of dirty tricks. The Windows
look and feel is not the only thing the KDE project has copied! In
this short article I will address some of the lies and FUD spread by
the KDE trolling teams. It is my hope that this, in some small way,
will redress the balance and re-introduce two things almost eradicated
by the KDE project: Honesty and facts.

Myth #1 - KDE is more integrated than GNOME

The oft-heard cry of the noisiest KDE advocates. No explanation is
given, the reader is expected to simply grok the wholesomeness of KDE
and the lack of this mystical quality in GNOME. It is nonsense of
course. Neither desktop is particularly "integrated" compared to
Windows XP, and certainly not compared any version of the Apple Mac.
Whatever "integrated" actually means.

Myth #2 - KDE is easier to use

Again, such nebulous arguments are never explained, and the reader is
expected to simply understand the truth of the zealots statement. Both
KDE and GNOME have user-interface irritations (all systems do), but
"ease of use" is not a simple thing to measure. KDE has never been
subjected to detailed user testing, unlike GNOME [gnome.org]
[gnome.org], and the claims of user-friendliness are from crazed
supporters and not average users. Furthermore, the KDE faithful rarely
look beyond simple-minded copying of Windows, and forget that
administering a desktop system is just as important as having widgets
in the correct place on the toolbar. For example: What about
application installation and removal? GNOME has the excellent
RedCarpet by Ximian [ximian.com] [ximian.com], which makes the
installation, removal and updating of applications trivial. KDE users
are expected to fend for themselves with brutal command line driven
systems. GNOME also has the excellent Ximian setup tools to handle
various tricky cross-platform and potentially risky system
configuration operations. KDE offers none of this, only a few small
half-assed Linux-only tools, which make no attempt at check-pointing
to return to known working configurations.

Myth #3 - KDE is more popular

In what sense? Arguably more people use KDE, but it is a close run
thing. Most KDE zealots use the results of online polls as proof of
their superior userbase - which is, quite frankly, complete and utter
nonsense. Online polls are the joke of the century; it doesn't even
require a motivated script kiddie to render then worthless. A single
post alerting the faithful on a zealot-ridden site can skew the result
so much it makes American presidential elections look fair and well
organised. Popularity is also difficult to measure when *both* GNOME
and KDE are frequently installed on the same system. The systems can
co-exist and even run at the same time, except for certain
applications such as panels. Many KDE users actually run GNOME
applications for their superior features and stability, not realising
that by doing so they are barely running KDE at all.

One of the few solid measures of popularity is commercial use of a
desktop, and here, GNOME is far ahead with both Hewlett Packard and
Sun committing to using GNOME as the desktop for their Unix systems.
This also ties in with the previously mentioned ease of use. Sun's
major contribution to the GNOME project is in the areas of
user/developer documentation, testing, accessiblity and user-testing.
Three of the less glamourous parts of desktop development. The arrival
of the GNOME 2.x series will see these contributions reach fruitition
and allow GNOME to make a quantum leap ahead of KDE in most of the
basic computer/user issues.

Myth #4 - Konqueror is the best Linux browser

Oh for a penny every time this lie is told in any KDE story! Konqueror
not a bad piece of software. It's authors deserve praise for the work
done on it. However, the sheer amount of orgasmic gushing by the KDE
faithful is completely out of proportion to its actual quality. It is
quite unreliable and even simple standards compliant pages can crash
it quite comprehensively. It is also lax in its support of basic web
standards compared to either Mozilla or Opera. It is also extremely
slow - much slower than the latest incarnations of the GNOME Nautilus
filemanager/browser (a target of much KDE FUD during its development).

Myth #5 - KDE applications are better/more advanced than GNOME ones
due to the ease of developing in C++ using the Qt toolkit

See also: Qt/TrollTech. This is the most common wail heard by KDE
developers, and yet it is easily disproved by looking at the actual
applications for GNOME/GTK and KDE/Qt. KDE applications often have
larger version numbers than GNOME ones... an old trick played by
commerical software developers. Most KDE apps seem to jump for 1.x
releases long before they are ready - KOffice being the best example.
None of the components in Koffice are worthy of a 1.0 release, let
alone 1.1 or 1.2.

GNOME applications get much more testing in their 0.x stages and
despite shorter development phases they mature and reach stable
featureful release states much more quickly. Some examples of this
are: the superb Evolution (groupware/email), Gnumeric (spreadsheet),
Pan (newsreader), The GIMP (image manipulation), Abiword (word
processing), RedCarpet, X-Chat (IRC client), XMMS (media player),
Galeon (web browser), and for developers: Glade and Anjuta. All of
these packages ooze quality, and far outclass their KDE counterparts.
It is no understatement to say that GNOME is at least 18 months ahead
of KDE in applications, and pulling still further ahead.

It's not only in the area of user applications that GNOME is vastly
more advanced. With the forthcoming 2.x release, a number of
impressive behind the scenes technologies will finally mature:
component technology (bonobo), media (Gstreamer), internationalisation
(pango). As a developement platform, GNOME 2.x is, conservatively, 2-3
years ahead of KDE. And what is more, because it is not tied to a
lowest common denominator cross-platform bloat-fest like the Qt
toolkit, the lead (as with applications) can only increase further.

It is also worth noting that GNOME also develops code for use outside
the project (see the XML libraries as one example) - the KDE project
rarely (if ever) engages in this kind of work. KDE developers ensure
that all software must link with Qt, and hence tie it closely with the
Qt toolkit preventing re-use and enhancing the value of TrollTech
intellectual property.

Yet despite all this, we are still regularly fed the lie that Qt and
C++ makes application and desktop development easier. Judge for
yourself.

Myth #6 - KDE is faster and takes less memory than GNOME

KDE is written in C++. While this is not necessarily a problem, it can
be when Visual Basic reject programmers (which the KDE project is
overrun with) do not know enough to avoid important pitfalls that
plague C++ software projects. Stupid use of autoincrementing operators
and iteration with C++ objects; and masses of unnecessary allocations
and deallocations of memory are two of the most common. KDE suffers
badly from both problems.

Perhaps the most cretinous of all problems is blaming the extremely
slow startup times of KDE apps on GCC. The GNOME 1.x releases were
hardly svelt (2.x fixes many of these issues), but GNOME is a fashion
cat-walk superwaif when compared to KDE's 500lb fat-momma
cheese-burger scoffing trailer trash. One need only look at the recent
fuss over ugly KDE hacks (such as prelinking) used to bandage up the
design and coding flaws in the decrepit KDE architecture to see the
truth.

Myth #7 - GNOME development is slower. KDE releases faster.

Fundamental misunderstanding. The KDE project releases as one big lump
of code due to its use of C++ and the many problems this causes with
libraries. The project bumps the version number of the entire KDE
system for the smallest modifications. GNOME, on the other hand is
componentized and each component releases on a (almost) separate
schedule, bumping it's own version number but not the main GNOME
version (1.4, for example). Occasional releases of the entire GNOME
system happen, and that's when the GNOME version number is bumped
(currently it is at 1.4). To see this in action, use RedCarpet and you
will regular updates to GNOME components. GNOME development is not
slower, it is in fact faster and more advanced. Lamers and newbies,
however, fail to understand the advantages of this method and just see
KDE 1.1.1 followed a few weeks later by KDE 1.1.2. Wow! KDE roolz.

Re:KDE Myths (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5968943)

Musta missed the relevance on that one. I thought the article was about squaring off against the RIAA. Didn't realise it was an anti-KDE article.

Troll Police (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969149)

Excuse me, sir, but are you aware you doing way too many paragraphs in a 4-paragraph zone? May I see your troll license please?

Re:KDE Myths (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969194)

Another myth: KDE users are leeter than me. Every time I get shit for using Windows, it's from a fucking KDE user. At least when I use Lunix I use a real [cs.tut.fi] window [sf.net] manager [windowmaker.org] .

Yay (2, Interesting)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 11 years ago | (#5968922)

Does squid violate copyright laws, if you sell access to your cache? :)

Re:Yay (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969049)

As a matter of fact, it would. Selling access to another person's work without their permission is illegal. Not only is it illegal; it's also wrong.

I love it when FP gets wasted by some moron (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5968925)

who doesn't even have anything to say.

Love it.

Cool (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5968926)

Yet another story about digital copywhatever and digital rightswhatever.

Doesn't this ever get old?

PS: First post!

PSS: Since an AC got First Post it looks like the subscription service is working out reall well.

Re:Cool (0, Offtopic)

xingix (601512) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969050)

Bonehead.

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969490)

check the little box that says "Post Anonymously".

Voila! AC FP..... AFAICT.

HAND.

santa sex (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5968933)

The alarm next to the bed went off precisely at 7 a.m., and Latex Slave Lola fumbled it to silence with some difficulty in the semidark chamber that had been "her" bedroom for the last five days. She sat up and pushed back the bedcovers with a yawn, stretching luxuriously in the gloom of her sleeping chamber.

The week of her servitude had gone by with astonishing swiftness and she had been surprised to find that she had enjoyed every moment of it without reservation. In fact, under the stern tutelage of the Amazon - whom she had been allowed to address only as "Mistress" - she had spent every waking moment as an abject servant, waiting hand and foot on the powerful woman who had taken her prisoner late Christmas Eve.

She had cooked and served meals for her rubber-clad captor, brought her tea in the afternoons and a glass of port each evening, dusted, mopped and vacuumed the house repeatedly, and crouched on her hands and knees licking her mistress's shiny black patent boots sparkling clean several times each day. What's more, she had done it all without a murmur of protest - and with an admiration and sexual desire for the dominatrix that grew strongly with each passing day. She had submerged herself so completely in her servile role that she had stopped thinking of herself as Santa Claus entirely. She was totally absorbed with her new identity as her captor's latex sex toy and handmaiden, Lola.

The slave rose and walked quickly to the closet across her room, where she had hung her work outfit before retiring the night before. She had long ago mastered walking in her ridiculously high-heeled shoes with a sinuous feminine stride, her hips swinging with an attractive grace with each stride. She had been forced to sleep in the shoes, her rubber face and gloves and her tightly laced latex corset every night - she had no choice, since the garments were literally locked onto her body with the Amazon's small but strong padlocks. At first she found the outfit uncomfortable, but as the week had progressed, she had come to glory in its cruel constriction. She had grown particularly pleased with the utterly feminine image that peered back at her from every mirror in the Amazon's house, and had gradually adapted her walk, speech and movements to a perfect counterfeit of femininity. No casual observer would ever guess that underneath her rubber costume, the buxom and sexy woman who served the dominatrix was Father Christmas, himself, a chubby, aging - and decidedly masculine -- elf.

Lola wriggled into the shiny black and white PVC maid's dress her mistress had ordered her to wear during her waking hours, zipped the back up snugly and fastened the little vinyl maid's cap to her long curly auburn hair with bobby pins. She then fluffed her ringlets out so they framed her gorgeous rubber face like a perfect halo of femininity. After a last glance in the mirror to make sure she looked just right, she click-clicked out of the room and down the hall to the kitchen to prepare the Mistress's breakfast.

By 7:45 a.m., she had prepared a soft-boiled egg, dry toast, tea and a glass of freshly squeezed orange juice and arranged the items on a serving tray with a small vase that contained a single, blood-red rose. She carried the tray to the Amazon's bedroom and tapped gently on the door.

"You may enter, slut," a low female voice ordered from inside the room. Lola allowed herself a moment's smile at her mistress's smoky soprano, a voice she had grown to both fear and love, then opened the door and entered with the Amazon's morning meal.

"Good morning, Mistress," the latex maid murmured in the passably female contralto that the Amazon had forced her to adopt. "I hope you slept well last night."

The Amazon was propped up in bed, already smoking one of her long filter-tipped cigarettes in her plastic holder. She smoothed the imperial purple satin bedclothes to allow Lola to place the tray on her lap and looked at her maid imperiously as she crossed the room with small, mincing steps to draw open the drapes at the far window.

"I slept well, Lola," she said with a throaty chuckle. "The sleep of the wicked, I guess. You may sit on the small chair by the bureau while I eat."

Lola did as ordered, arranging the short skirt of her maid's uniform carefully in ladylike folds over her lap, placing her legs at a slight angle with her ankles crossed under the chair and awaiting her mistress's next order obediently.

The Amazon ate in silence, stopping occasionally to study her captive as she did. When she had finished, she gestured for the maid to remove the tray.

"Lola, you have done exceptionally well this last week," the Amazon drawled as she lit another cigarette and exhaled a thin plume of smoke into the air with satisfaction, her head tilted back luxuriously. Lola, still holding the tray, admiringly watched the small muscles in her mistress's elegant neck move slightly as she smoked. The maid's sexual desire was stronger than ever before, and she swallowed heavily as she felt the male member trapped under her black latex panties strain inside its rubber sheath. Her mistress was so cruelly beautiful that Lola had become obsessed with fantasies of being her love slave as well as her handmaiden.

"I believe a week of servitude has done you a world of good," the mistress continued. "You appear to have lost several pounds during your stay, and your figure is much improved by it. Your feminine deportment has been completely praiseworthy. I am very proud of the way you have adapted yourself to my service. Your training has gone very well, and you have exceeded my expectations in virtually every respect."

Lola curtseyed in a pretty gesture of thanks, listening in silence and aching with suppressed passion. That she had lost weight was no real surprise. The Mistress had forced her to give herself two enemas during every day of her service, and had watched her carefully to make sure that she did the job correctly; that coupled with the sparse diet she had been eating - mostly salads and hot broth - had insured that she had felt empty for most of the last five days.

"It is now New Year's Eve," the Mistress continued. "I have decided to discharge you, Lola. You will soon be free to go - and I will finally make clear to you the reason for this elaborate entrapment."

"Yes, Mistress - as you desire," Lola said with a somewhat dejected bow, her disappointment obvious.

The Mistress looked at her appraisingly. "You seem distressed - I should have thought you would be glad to return to your duties at the North Pole," she said, the tone of her voice making it clear that the statement was actually a question.

Lola blushed under her latex mask. "May I speak candidly, Mistress?" she asked hesitantly.

The Amazon, still watching her servant carefully, inclined her head, gesturing for Lola to continue.

"I must be honest, Mistress," Lola said with a schoolgirlish gush. "I have enjoyed being in your service. I have become very fond of helping to dress you each morning, brushing out your beautiful hair and lacing you into your corsets. I have enjoyed preparing and serving your meals, and washing the implements you have used. Most of all, I have enjoyed just being allowed to be in the presence of one so overpoweringly beautiful. Sometimes, when I am in the kitchen alone, cleaning up, I have stood for many moments holding one of your forks or spoons before washing it, feeling a joy in handling something that you used - something that was close to your sensual lips. When I have hand washed your lingerie, I have held your panties close to my face, enjoying your woman's fragrance still clinging to them.

"I now regret the fact that I resisted you at first," Lola continued, groping for the words to express how she felt. "You have been stern with me, but behind that sternness, I sensed a deep and abiding love. Even when you made me spend an hour on the Iron Cross each afternoon - my period of penitence, you called it - the entire time I was hanging suspended there I was filled with fantasies of you. I have come to adore you over the last week - I will be truly sorry to end my period of service. It has been one of the most frustrating, but exciting times of my long life."

When Lola finished speaking, she was trembling. She had no idea how the Mistress would take her admission. She dreaded the thought that the Amazon would laugh cruelly and tell her she was a silly fool to dream that her Mistress would ever return her affection, even with a gentle touch of the hand. She feared that she might have gone too far in confessing how truly and deeply she had come to love her cruelly beautiful captor.

The Amazon sat in silence, drinking in the maid's admission thoughtfully. She took another deep puff on her cigarette, then rose slowly from her bed and placed the holder in an ashtray on a side table. As she slipped out from under the satin sheets, Lola could see that her mistress was wearing nothing but a filmy black teddy. The heart-shaped patch of hair between the Amazon's ample thighs made Lola's heart skip a beat. She decided that whatever punishment she might receive for speaking her mind would surely be worth it, just for the brief glimpse of feminine heaven she had been given.

The Mistress stepped close to the latex maid and gestured for her to get down on her knees. Lola complied, quivering with anticipation. As she crouched on the floor, the Amazon closed the distance and stood with her firm, porcelain white thighs only inches from the sides of Lola's latex face.

"Smell me, slave," the Mistress commanded. Lola eagerly complied, her rubber nose almost touching the Amazon's mound of Venus, drinking in the wonderful, sweetly sour perfume of her sex.

"Now, I want you to lick the lips of my vulva, slut - I want you to lick them hard, and push your tongue back as far as it will go," she said in a voice that was a smoky growl.

Lola did as she was ordered, her hands at her side, lapping firmly at the sweet juices concealed inside the Amazon's vagina, savoring the salty taste as she massaged her mistress's clitoris with her tongue.

As Lola's tongue worked, she felt the Amazon's hands gently rest on the back of her head, pulling her face snugly into her female sex. Lola's excitement increased as she felt her mistress's body begin to rock into her face, slowly at first, then with increasing passion as the latex slave continued to massage her sex.

Finally, the Amazon stiffened and climaxed with a groan of satisfaction, and Lola could feel a gush of sweet woman juice squeeze forth with the orgasm. She continued to lick her mistress's crotch frantically, desperately, wishing that the moment could last forever. For what seemed an eternity, the Mistress continued to buck and moan with twitches of passion. Finally, she released the back of Lola's head and stepped back, panting.

Reaching down with both her hands, the Amazon pulled Lola back to a standing position and stood looking hungrily into her slave's eyes.

"You have served me well, rubber slut," she said breathlessly after a prolonged silence. Then, without another word, the dominatrix reached back behind her head with both her hands, fumbling under her silky black hair. As Lola watched in silent fascination, she could hear the sound of a tiny zipper being undone.

With a dramatic flourish, Lola's mistress pulled at both sides of the back of her head - and quickly peeled away her face and hair with a rubbery rustle.

At first, Lola stared only at the empty latex mask that the Amazon held jiggling limply before her, stunned at the sudden realization that the cruelly beautiful face she had come to love during the last week was actually a counterfeit, just like her own. Then she looked up at the face that had been obscured beneath the latex disguise - and was utterly struck dumb with surprise.

For standing with mischievously twinkling eyes in front of her was Santa's own wife, Lorraine- wearing a smile of satisfaction at the rubber maid's complete shock. As she stared at her mistress, Lola realized that the gorgeous female body she had so admired and secretly desired for the last week was Mrs. Claus's own voluptuous torso. Her curves, of course, had been enhanced by the corsetry and lingerie she wore as Lola's captor and dominatrix, but underneath them was the same soft, feminine figure that had shared his bed for years. Somehow, with the crush of his workshop duties, the relentless deadlines they entailed and the mindless dedication he had given to his annual duties, Santa had simply stopped seeing how beautiful and sexually desirable Lorraine really was. In order to break through and make him want to make love with her again, she had been forced to disguise her familiar face with a latex mask that was every man's fantasy of a wanton, lustful woman.

And, as Lola gaped at her wordlessly, she realized - for the first time in far too many years -- that Lorraine Claus's familiar face, while not an exaggerated mask of obvious feminine sexuality, was very beautiful in its own glowing, gentle way.

Mrs. Claus blushed at Lola's continued silence. "I know this was selfish of me to drug you and hold you prisoner for a week," she said at last, "but I was desperate. It has been ages since you paid any attention to me, dear. You were always so busy - there was always something to do that took precedence over me. I had to find a way to break you out of this rut we'd got into. I had to find some way to get you interested in me again."

Lola swallowed heavily and stepped forward, taking Mrs. Claus in her arms. As the latex man-maid held her mistress, she felt the masculine organ imprisoned under her rubber panties trying to stand rigidly at attention. Despite the bizarre circumstances she found himself in - or perhaps because of them - Lola was incredibly aroused.

She gently lifted Mrs. Claus and carried her to the bed, striding with perfect confidence in her high-heeled pumps, moving with all the feminized grace that she had spent the last week learning. Spreading Lorraine's legs, Lola freed her male member from its rubber prison and guided it gently into the hungry mouth of her mistress's vagina. They made love passionately then - and again, and again. Lola's gasps of joy mingled with Lorraine's moans of pleasure as they climaxed together repeatedly for the first time in as long as either of them could remember.

Hours later, Lola propped her pretty latex face up on one hand while her mistress idly caressed the artificially mounded flesh of Lola's "breasts." Lorraine looked into her latex maid's eyes with a smile. "I can unlock your mask, shoes and corset now if you want," she said tenderly. "I have to admit you make a very lovely and submissive woman, but you have probably had enough of it by now."

Santa/Lola smiled, and the cat like lips of her latex woman's face mimicked the expression. "Maybe later,"she said, her voice slipping easily back into Lola's contralto purr. "Right now, I am perfectly content. It seems I had to become a completely different person - even a different gender - to get to know who I really was."

"Me too," Mrs. Claus said with a smile. She lifted her latex dominatrix face and wig and pulled the lifelike mask back over her own features, zipping its back closed with a quick motion. "And somehow, I like the people we had to become as much as I like the ones we really are - maybe even more," she added, her old familiar Mrs. Claus voice coming from the swollen, sensual red lips of the latex Amazon's face. She dropped her voice back into a dominatrix's smoky growl and added, "Now get over here, you little rubber slut, this time your Mistress will be the one on top..."

THIRD POST FOR SOUTHERN V. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5968934)

Yes, that's right.

Free Advice (3, Insightful)

s20451 (410424) | more than 11 years ago | (#5968936)

Don't post your questions here. Post them at the link.

Or (1)

qortra (591818) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969083)

Or, you can post them at both places and thus start a discussion at Slashdot. I'm sure some of the lamer question don't even have to be debated; I can answer them for you...

Re:Or (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969186)

Or, you can post them at both places and thus start a discussion at Slashdot.

Translation: there hasn't been a decent flame war around here for HOURS. Won't SOMEBODY please post SOMETHING with which I can violently and profanely disagree? PLEASE? Slashdot is so BORING when nobody is fighting.

Re:Or (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969211)

and there it is...

Sure (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969270)

Won't SOMEBODY please post SOMETHING with which I can violently and profanely disagree?

George W. Bush is an erudite and effective president.

DVR (3, Funny)

ArsonPanda (647069) | more than 11 years ago | (#5968937)

Better Fire up my Tivo so I can steal this by skipping over the ads!!

DVR is overkill for skipping ads on PBS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5968996)

This is PBS; ads only in the begining and at the end; Tivo not needed!

Re:DVR is overkill for skipping ads on PBS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969075)

if it's during the news hour, they have a commercial break in the middle.

Re:DVR (1)

hazem (472289) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969338)

Of course, this program is on PBS, so all the ads are at the end anyway..

"Corporate Jim" I call him (1, Interesting)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 11 years ago | (#5968949)

Is this from the same Jim Lehrer that allowed Harry Browne and Ralph Nader to be disincluded from the 2000 Presidential debates? Who stood by and joked when Secret Service thugs carted Mr. Nader off the Michigan campus, where the 1st debate was being held?

The only reason PBS exists is so that the corporate fatcats can pretend that there is real diversity in the airwaves. This stifles any type of comprehensive public access before it can start. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting stood right along Clear Channel as they obstructed microradio rollout in the FCC.

You're not gonna get fair representation from Jim Lehrer. And you're not gonna get anything from PBS but stale British comedies and dull nature programs. If PBS were dismantled, maybe people would realize what a hoax the whole "public airwaves" thing has become.

Re:"Corporate Jim" I call him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5968992)

Off topic??

Very much the contrary. Any other network would be a lot fairer.

Re:"Corporate Jim" I call him (4, Insightful)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969001)

Obviously someone doesn't think it's important for Slashdot readers to know the context in which this discussion on copyright will be presented.

I'd like to be an optimist, but notice this is online only. It's not even gonna hit the radar of the average PBS-watching yuppie, let alone the mainstream audience.

Perhaps you should encourage Mr. Lehrer to move this copyright discussion into a broader arena. I doubt he will be convinced, but you never know.

ask him yourself, silly. (3, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969080)

Ask useful questions. If there's enough interest, of course they will set up an interview. Lessing, hmmm, think deep thoughts about the purpose of copyright. "US Copyright law was designed to encourage artists before the industrial revolution. How is it that the period of exclusivity has increased while publishing costs have decreased until today where they are practically zero?" and about ownership in general [slashdot.org] .

Vlad and his old lady have sex (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5968954)

The sweat glistenes on Vlad's wife's bald head and Vlad makes grunting sounds as his pot belly sways and smacks into her size 24 ass which quivers like a bowl of jelly and reeks of urine and day old fecal particles. Sweat covers the crumb covered sheets as they slap together again and again until they collapse in an orgasmic stupor or Vlad goes flaccid. Afterwards, her little nigglet comes into the dimly lit tenement room to see if momma is allright. They both take a swig of off a 40 of warm Olde English and a take toot from the crack pipe as the bed bugs and lice bite them again and again. The End

Valuable questions (4, Funny)

NetSettler (460623) | more than 11 years ago | (#5968970)

Anyone can submit questions, and the best questions or comments will be posted to Lessig and Oppenheim for debate and discussion.

If I ask a good question, do I get to claim the copyright on it? And how will I enforce payment?

Balance of Power (5, Insightful)

NetSettler (460623) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969031)

If I ask a good question, do I get to claim the copyright on it? And how will I enforce payment?

I decided to be a little less flippant and submitted a question quite like this one to the site.

One thing that occurred to me and that I asked in the extended question was this:

In the new world of license enforcement, every time I make a tiny use of a song I end up having to seek a license and pay for it. But here I am the little guy submitting a question to the big guys in Television Land and I have no mechanism for forcing them to pay at all for a BIG use of my words if they decide they are important enough to use on their show. Something seems unbalanced about that.

As a straw man, shouldn't they be forced to offer me royalties and trickle out money to me every time they rerun their show? In a world that's becoming increasingly peer to peer, why should an individual do all the paying and none of the receiving?

I suspect the answer is "Because we can" from the big guys. That doesn't seem very fair though.

Re:Balance of Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969119)

In the new world of license enforcement

Your very phrasing reveals your bias. This isn't a new world at all. You were ALWAYS required to seek a license for any use of a copyrighted work. It's true that we're now starting to see the deployment of technologies that enforce this requirement (largely in response to widespread abuse by those who have neither respect for the rights of creators nor for the law, it shoud be noted), but it's completely misrepresentative to call it a "new world."

But here I am the little guy submitting a question to the big guys in Television Land and I have no mechanism for forcing them to pay at all for a BIG use of my words if they decide they are important enough to use on their show. Something seems unbalanced about that.

There's nothing unbalanced about it at all. If you lack a mechanism for arriving at an agreement on use and/or for enforcing the terms of such an agreement, then you can choose not to release your work through that channel at all. The same is true of the media corporations. If they lack a way to enforce their agreement with their customers, they can choose not to release their products.

Of course, that's not their ONLY choice. They can also work to develop a mechanism for said enforcement. You could do the same thing, if it were important enough to you.

As a straw man, shouldn't they be forced to offer me royalties and trickle out money to me every time they rerun their show?

If you want to try to offer the News Hour such a deal, go right ahead. They're free to say "no thanks" and walk away, just as you're free to say "no thanks" and walk away from any offer they might make.

I suspect the answer is "Because we can" from the big guys.

Well... basically, yeah. The thing is, they have something you want. They can ask you to pay for their product, and you'll agree, because you'd rather have their product than your money. (Within reason.) If the situation were reversed and you had something they wanted, you could ask them to pay for it. But since you have nothing to offer a (say) multibillion dollar media corporation, you're not going to get a penny from them.

Oh, and by the way, that little remark about "a world that's becoming increasingly peer to peer?" It's crap. The world is no more or less "peer to peer" (ack; buzzword alert) today than it was five or ten or fifty years ago.

Re:Balance of Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969293)

From your question, it's obvious you care more to hear your question asked than answered.

Re:Balance of Power (1)

CaptainStormfield (444795) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969562)

I have no mechanism for forcing them to pay at all for a BIG use of my words if they decide they are important enough to use on their show. Something seems unbalanced about that.

Its called an implied license. By submitting a question for them to ask on their show, and by doing so without any suggestion of compensation, you impliedly give them a license to use your copyrighted work on the show, for free.

Music, Novels, Liberty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969596)

[ I tried posting a question too, but the script is broken, so I'll just post here instead ]

Music, Novels, Liberty

Do you think there will be a large, profitable music industry five years from now? If so, how will it be different from what it was a few years ago? Will the quality of popular music be better as a result?

A number of years ago a music industry was launched and quickly generated massive financial success for those running the industry. In a statistically small number of cases, this industry also generates high profits for musicians.
It appears to me that the main reason we are facing a "problem" is this: the music industry's success was based on a great business plan some time ago, but today the world is a different one (both in terms of personal consumer technology and the increasing connected-ness of this planet's citizens) and the once great business plan is now doomed.
Why? Because innovations have been achieved that allow: 1) A sound to be recorded and re-recorded without causing loss of significant value, and 2) electronic data to be transmitted efficiently, cheaply and with some degree of anonymity.
Now let's look at print media, specifically novels. Innovation #2 above applies equally to this medium, but there is to-date no print corollary to innovation #1 above. The use of scanners together with OCR software could perhaps re-record a novel without loss of information. But the process is time-consuming and error-prone. Furthermore, while the preferred medium for music is electronic, the preferred medium for novels is paper. Why, because of the way we use the data. If we were to "read" music, audio-tapes would be a lot less tricky to "read" than a CD, though still un-reasonably difficult. We must compare "listening" to "reading": listening music works better with electronic data, while reading novels works better from a printed book. For novels to be released in electronic format, great innovation in the display of electronic text is required. When the "portable discman" for novels is available, this type of data too will be widely shared amongst the technologically-enabled members of society.
I believe the music industry can not survive as it is now; its future is one without profits from the sale of music recordings. Faced with this fact, the music industry has decided to fight back at any cost (rather than transforming itself for the inevitable future). Its protagonists seek desire laws that enable the detection and penalisation of current practices that, although possibly illegal, are exceedingly ubiquitous and common nature to many people. File-sharing is not a danger to the public (such as for instance using a cell phone while driving), it is not a danger to musicians, it does however reduce the profit margin of the music industry and its stars.
Finally, why do movie theatres exist? Everyone has a VCR these days, many have DVD players. Noone has a 1500 square foot TV. The music recording industry must change its business plan: they will need to make far less money from the repeated playing of music in private (which is why CDs sell), and perhaps increase their profits due to live shows. Perhaps create live radio broadcasts over the internet, charging a small monthly fee akin to MTV cable television. The days of the pre-recorded CD are numbered, and the existing music industry seems bent on reducing our liberty in the process.

It's more than just the right questions. (5, Insightful)

I'm a racist. (631537) | more than 11 years ago | (#5968989)

Just like in a debate between political candidates, the issue isn't so much about what the good questions are. Afterall, they're each pushing an agenda, and will try to get their point across in every question.

The real problem is getting them, specifically Matt Oppenheim, to actually answer the question that is asked. Just like a politician, I assume he's going to go off on a tangent, sidestepping and dodging anything that would make the RIAA smell like shit.

Here's an idea - Give me a camera, a room with a locked door, an RIAA executive (or any politician or lawyer), and I'll show you how it's supposed to be done.

You have to keep pressing them, don't let them change the subject. If they start to go off on a tangent, you need to "violently" (physical violence is good, but just being forceful is enough) bring them back to the point. Also, watch out for doubletalk, make sure they define their terms clearly.

Re:It's more than just the right questions. (1)

rzbx (236929) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969130)

My questions that I posted are hard to sidestep.
Here they are:
"Is copyright more important than plaigarism?"
"What do you think would happen if copyright law no longer existed, but plaigarism laws did?"

It would be hard to just go off in some other direction with these. Then again, they may have experience in dodging the question asked.

Sidestepping isn't necessary, in this case. (0)

I'm a racist's. (673425) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969373)

Is copyright more important than plaigarism?
RIAA Executive: I feel that both principles have their uses in a free society. To not afford protection to the citizen's of this nation, from all forms of intellectual theft, would be similar to allowing terrorist cells to operate freely within our borders.
What do you think would happen if copyright law no longer existed, but plaigarism laws did?
RIAA Executive: Copyright and plaigarism cover two different things. Copyright protect's an artist's right to control the distribution of their work. Plaigarism is a precept that guards against people passing of the work of others as their own. There is a vague connection between these two ideas, but they really are at different ends of the intellectual property spectrum.

These are only some of the many possible ways to answer that, without going against the RIAA's stance. Maybe you can tear these arguments down, but in such a format (ie. this debate), I seriously doubt that will happen. In fact, copyright and plaigarism are truly different, and should be treated as such (in my opinion).

Anyway, the point of my original post is, nobody will walk through the logic with them, making sure it's valid. Nobody will question either of them (Lessig or Oppenheim) if they say something ridiculous. They'll be asked a question, give some answer, and then not have to support that answer with a logical argument and/or facts.

Re:It's more than just the right questions. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969132)

I'm absolutely astounded that this comment got moderated up. The poster, who is a known troll, is basically saying that you have to use interrogation techniques to establish meaningful discourse.

Well, here's a little clue for you, "Racist." In a substantive conversation, you do not always get to hear what you want to hear. The objective is not to get the other guy to say what you want him to say. The objective is (or, rather, should be) to LISTEN to what the other guy has to say and form opinions based on it. "'Violently' bringing them back to the point" isn't going to do anything to further that.

Of course, you'll probably perceive my comment as being a tangent, and attempt to "violently" bring me back to the point now. Thank god I don't actually have to be in the same room with you to have this discussion. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be fun in the least.

They would have interviewed RMS .. (5, Funny)

McAddress (673660) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969003)

but then they would have had to call it GNU/NewsHour or would that be GNUshour

Thank god for Jim Lehrer & PBS... (4, Insightful)

macshune (628296) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969013)

I know this is slightly OT, but damn, can you imagine any of the big 4 broadcasters doing a piece on this? They are all tied at the hip to conglomerates that have deep interests in the music industry.

Well, I can imagine Fox News doing a piece in 2005...

When Copyright Kills: RIAA sniper bill signed into law

PBS can be part of the problem too. (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969200)

PBS is the voice of Big Brother and he has a big intrest in IP ownership. Copyright are created rights which require positive government action to exist. One of the reasons we have such screwy copyright and patent laws is that they feed the federal government. You realize, of course, that property that's only owned by virtue of govenment intervention belongs to the government, don't you? The more locked down IP gets the more powerful Big Brother is and the more the government can charge to fool with it. Taxes grow where money is made. Mickey Mouse is Big Brother's bitch and you should not expect impartial news from the government.

Notice that this is unAmerican. Hatred of privalige and exclusive franchises are what the American revolution were all about. Throughout history, people trap themselves with Byzantine guilds and societies where no one outside the society is allowed to practice the art. They have the mistaken notion that by extorting their neighbors with monopoly prices for their particular wares they can maximize their incomes. Typically, the govenment implements regulations and eventually price controls and everyone ends up paying monopoly prices for everything. Adam Smith and others at the time realized the folly of this and expressed it strongly. Press and speech rights were especially important things to the US founders. Today, through bogus patent and copyright laws, we are slipping back into the Byzantine mould. Governments love being in that position and ours will be that way if we don't remember what copyrights and patents are supposed to be - reasonable and temporary (less than 20 year) restraints on free speech and trade to encourage individual inventors and artists.

Witness the ownership of electronic publication, aka broadcast, by three or four large companies. This is a thing the federal government likes because it's easier to control. The government will extend this ownership to the internet, unless we stop them.

You can only get accurate news when you have many independent third party reporters. A single state run news agency, or two, is what the Soviet Union had. What we have is infinitley better, but still flawed. It is only internet reporting that is keeping the big broadcasters reasonably honest. Make noise to keep it that way.

Re:PBS can be part of the problem too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969334)

PBS is the voice of Big Brother

Oh, boy. Troll meter is hovering at about 9.5.

Copyright are created rights which require positive government action to exist.

Boom! Off the charts. Yup. This is definitely a troll.

(skim, skim, ignore, ignore)

A single state run news agency, or two, is what the Soviet Union had.

Aha. There it is. Thanks for confirming your trollish nature for us.

Re:PBS can be part of the problem too. (1)

LMCBoy (185365) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969372)

Mickey Mouse is Big Brother's bitch

I think it's the other way around...

Anyway, I don't know what to make of the reest of your post. You seem to be equating PBS with a state-run news agency. It isn't.

Forced copyright assignment (4, Insightful)

jc42 (318812) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969021)

One of the big issues with musicians is that for decades, the distribution channels have been held by a small groups of corporations that enforce a "standard contract" requiring that a musician assign the copyright to the corporation. This has meant only a handful of musicians can actually make any money selling recordings. This is also why so many people don't consider copying music to be stealing. After all, the music was already stolen from the musicians, and nobody who understands the issue has any sympathy for the thief, i.e., the recording industry corporations.

The Internet poses a serious threat to this. However, ISPs have been working to take control themselves. Most of them in the US now block port 80, so most musicians can't legally run a web site on their own machines. The ISPs then offer web space on their machines, but the license states that all files on such a web site belong to the ISP. The result is that, once again, musicians must give the copyright to the corporation that controls the distribution channel. The most notorious of these is msn.com, of course, but others have been doing the same thing.

If they succeed with this approach, it will mean the end of the recording industry, since the ISPs will own the copyrights to everything on the Web. But it will be just as big a financial disaster for musicians, who will still live in a world in which the local internet monopoly controls the distribution channels and can demand the copyright in exchange for making files available.

Is there any solution to this?

Re:Forced copyright assignment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969110)

teach people how to set their browser to use a different port number.

And then a different name resolution service.

And then a different protocol.

But that's not what's happening. ISPs are blocking uploads. Port numbers don't mean a thing. And they're not really ISPs. ISPs have almost all been put out of business by media and telecom corporations (and Mirosoft)

Re:Forced copyright assignment (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969163)

This is also why so many people don't consider copying music to be stealing. After all, the music was already stolen from the musicians, and nobody who understands the issue has any sympathy for the thief, i.e., the recording industry corporations.

People who say shit like this drive me up the wall. Seriously, dude, how dare you equate the way a record company does business to theft? Theft is taking something without permission. Downloading music from Napster (or whatever) is theft. Nobody who ever signed a record contract ever got anything taken from him without his permission. Never happened. Because, by definition, signing the contract is giving permission to whatever the contract happens to say.

Are the record labels tough? Bet your ass! If you're not tough, you don't get to stay in business long, and that's true of all businesses. But they never stole anything, and to characterize their behavior as theft is irresponsible and wrong.

What makes it all the worse is that you use an INappropriate and UNjustified accusation of theft to excuse ACTUAL ACTS of theft. That just makes me sick.

Have you really lost your sense of right and wrong? I mean, seriously. Can you not tell the difference between a lawful and acceptable act and an unlawful and unacceptable one just by looking?

The prospect that you--and you're not alone--are really this confused terrifies and depresses me.

Re:Forced copyright assignment (1)

tenordave (461908) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969278)

You equate lawful and acceptable, and unlawful and unacceptable, as if when something becomes law, it becomse ok to do moraly, which is total b.s. That's why some laws don't stick around for long.
Just because a company acts lawfully doesn't mean it is acting moraly. If the musicians have little choice but to sign the contract to the record industry because they control all the channels of distribution due to monopoly, by the law it is not 'stealing', but it may have just as well have been.

Re:Forced copyright assignment (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969327)

The prospect that you--and you're not alone--are really this confused terrifies and depresses me.

I don't think I'm the least bit confused, and neither are the many musicians who consider the "industry standard" contract nothing more than legalized theft. The fact that the legal system is behind it doesn't make it moral or ethical.

As Woody Guthrie pointed out -

Some will rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain pen.

Re:Forced copyright assignment (1)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969661)

My (cable) ISP blocks port 80, so I run my HTTP server on port 83. Then I went to dot tk [dot.tk] and got a free forwarding domain (it opens the page you tell it to point to in a frame). There: I have an easy to remember domain (no colon at the end) and it's running off my own server. (Link is my homepage)

Big easy question of ownership (4, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969044)

Let's see them answer this one or one similar:

Microsoft's new EULA demands the use of "Windows Updater" and grants Microsoft the ability to search for and remove files they consider copyright infinging. The music and film industry has demanded the same "protection" for all digital devices. Do I really own a computer that I can't write files on and that's run by someone else? What does this kind of ownership do to journalism and free press?

Re:Big easy question of ownership (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969174)

Do I really own a computer that I can't write files on and that's run by someone else?

Yes. Do you really own a car that can't be started without a key? Do you really own a microwave oven that won't operate with the door open? Do you really own a lawn mower with a dead-man switch that won't run unless you're physically holding on to the handle? The answer to all of these questions is "yes." Machines are often built in such a way that they either cannot be used in dangerous or unlawful ways, or that such use is very difficult. Computers are no different.

What does this kind of ownership do to journalism and free press?

Not a single thing. Why would it?

an inflamatory question from a coward. (2, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969295)

An AC invents several false analogies and asks, "Machines are often built in such a way that they either cannot be used in dangerous or unlawful ways, or that such use is very difficult. Computers are no different."

There is nothing dangerous or unlawful about my the files on my computer. For you or anyone else to search them would be unlawful as I run free software and have not granted anyone permission to bother me.

It astounds me how people who threaten others with all the force of law over file copying turn around and call those engaged in such activites violent. The felony convictions they have aranged for copyright violation include loss of livelyhood, loss of life savings and jail time. Yet proponents of these insane copyright laws refer to their victims as "dangerous", "pirates" and all that. Try as they might, copying a file against the wishes of a publisher will never be the moral equivalent of murder on the high seas or any other violent act.

The AC then states that DRM will have no effect on journalism or free press. Think about it some more AC. When DRM gets to the point that your post to any electronic network must pass a copyright violation filter that's embeded in your hardware in some mysterious way, you might understand. Yes, your silly post to Slashdot might one day be filtered by your own computer to make sure it's "safe" for public consumption and violates no copyrights. If your computer is smart enough, you won't even know your post did not make it through. If you don't control your press and someone else does, you have no free press.

Problems with questionnaire form? (1)

$uperjay (263648) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969084)

When I fill my form out, and enter it, I get a 404. What's the juice?

Re:Problems with questionnaire form? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969172)

Did you press the mouse button really hard?

The answer to everything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969175)

"When I fill my form out, and enter it, I get a 404. What's the juice?"

The servers borked. You should have gotten a "42".

My question to Lessig would be (0, Flamebait)

Bold Marauder (673130) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969091)

How do you sleep at night?

Copyright infringement is a phenomenon that has:

Drained our corporate resources (bandwidth, lost productivity)

Drained BILLIONS of dollars out of our economy
(not just the profits of the copyright holders, but also the profits of the distributors and the salary of the sales people as well, and this isn't even touching on the millions of jobs lost)

Caused the spawning of underground networks that are undoubtably being used by terrorists cells as well as anti-corporate music leeching anarchists.

How is it he can sleep knowing that is who he represents?

Re:My question to Lessig would be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969157)

You're a moron. No doubt about it.

Re:My question to Lessig would be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969214)

Nice ad hominem attack there, fag.

Re:My question to Lessig would be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969206)

You know, if we translate this from troll to English, I think he's got valid points.

1. The Napster phenomenon (widespread copyright infringement over the Internet) has been huge. I don't have numbers--I doubt anyone does--but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that Internet copyright infringement has had approximately the same impact on ISP's and corporations as spam has: gianormous, in other words. Isn't this a bad thing?

2. The billions and millions and whatnot is a silly exaggeration, but isn't it true that widespread copyright violation has had a negative impact on the US economy?

3. Isn't is also true that the time and energy spent developing copyright infringement devices and services like Napster and its successors could and should have been better spent on more constructive pursuits?

It seems to me that there's a good case to be made for the seriously negative impacts of the Napster phenomenon.

Opinions?

Re:My question to Lessig would be (1)

Bold Marauder (673130) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969261)

The RIAA has numbers, but people are quick to dismiss them, just as they were too quick to dismiss my points under the heading of 'flamebait'.

Since you're reasonable, let me try to explain one of the more important points I was trying to make.

Because of illegal filesharing, decentralised technologies were developed. This was done with the theory that without a central hub (a central point of attack, if you will), the networks would be less vulnerable to being shut down.

And they're correct.

What scares me is the potential application of this. Given the open source nature of most of these projects, I can easily see al quaeda (sp?) getting ahold of this idea and having a distributed network of terror computers, all attempting to DOS the whitehouse while sharing tips and techniques on how to make bombs or realtime locations of illecit chemicals of [mass] distruction.

That is not a thought that makes *me* sleep any easier, I'll tell you that.

Re:My question to Lessig would be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969577)

The internet is a decentralized network. What you are worried about can already be done, using websites.

I would think that terrorists would not want to use a network that is so completely open because it would be easier to catch them, track things down, etc.

Another way to look at this is we have open highways where you can travel from state to state withithout registering or showing papers at checkpoints. Somehow, our law enforcement seems to do okay. What scares me more is knee jerk reactionists taking away everybodies rights out of fear, without realizing that the damage they do outweighs the damage they are trying to prevent.

"The bad guys" may be you.

Re:My question to Lessig would be (1)

Flower (31351) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969783)

Whatever. You might as well outlaw crypto, VPNs, anonymous email (which would let someone inside a terrorist cell leak info to the authorities), PDFs (hey I can write an innocent environmental piece and a suicide bomber can use a template to get a coded message within), etc., etc.. Disposable cell phones? Get rid of them. Flight simulators? They gotta go!

And that's not why decentralized technologies were developed. But you go on believing that.

DoS the whitehouse isn't terrorism. As Bruce Schneier says "If I don't get my email for a day I'm not terrorized." If someone had half a brain, years ago they get instructions on how to make explosives from a forestry manual published by the US government no less. The terrorists who commited 9/11 were hooking up at a tittie bar not over AOL.

The terrorist aren't going to win because they have P2P. They're going to win because people won't be stuffing BILLIONS of dollars into strippers g-strings. Now there's a depression.

Re:My question to Lessig would be (1)

rzbx (236929) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969282)

"Drained our corporate resources (bandwidth, lost productivity)"
So you blame the people for finding easier and cheaper ways to get music and not the recording industry. Downloading music is not stealing. Please for the sake of humanity do some reading. It is copyright infringement. Stealing does not relate to copying. It is up to companies to stop the employees from abusing the bandwidth anyway.

"Drained BILLIONS of dollars out of our economy"
Ok, you can look at it that way or you can see it in a more economical sense. Music is a resoure, an infinite one at that. Finding ways to get that music to everyone cheaper, faster, and with better quality means more. Using a rent seeking behavior like the recording industry is doing does not in any way improve our economy. People will always create music, with or without copyright. People will always get paid for music (but not as a product on a piece of plastic). Instead, musicians perform (concerts, weddings, parties, etc.), are DJ's, teach music, etc.

"Caused the spawning of underground networks that are undoubtably being used by terrorists cells as well as anti-corporate music leeching anarchists.
"

Where did you come up with this? Terrorists need music downloading networks to communicate? Anarchists? What do they have to do with music besides the fact that they will always be breaking some sort of law?

You can't stop this phenomenon, but you can stop real crime. Downloading isn't a crime. Rent seeking behavior by the RIAA should be.

Re:My question to Lessig would be (3, Interesting)

Bold Marauder (673130) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969417)

So you blame the people for finding easier and cheaper ways to get music and not the recording industry.
I blame the people for the waste of bandwidth, when it is a corporate resource. I blame people for the loss of jobs, when they are due to declining profits -sometimes due to low productivity, other times due directly to the theft of intellectual property.

It is up to the employees to be responsible members of a productive workplace, or to stop being a drain on much needed resources.

Music is a resoure, an infinite one at that.
Music does not get made without studio time, equipment, expertise and salaries. All of those, and the money that purchases them, are finite resources.

Just ask your wedding singer what he'd be willing to do unpaid and you'll quickly get my point.

Finding ways to get that music to everyone cheaper, faster, and with better quality means more.
More? To whom? Not to the people who have made signifigant investment in the viability of an acts' career only to see that investment go up in smoke due to peer-to-peer pirating.

Where did you come up with this? Terrorists need music downloading networks to communicate? Anarchists? What do they have to do with music besides the fact that they will always be breaking some sort of law?
Nothing to do with music; it's the technology I'm concerned with; as I outlined here [slashdot.org]

Downloading isn't a crime.
Actually, it could be said that in light of recent legislation, it is, in fact, a crime. At least with regards to illegal IP and technologies (such as the DVD decryption flap a while back).

Question everything
I question why so many intelligent people would have such a glaring blindspot just because the object being discussed is intangible.
If I opened up a store where people brought me in copyrighted works to redistribute to other people -sometimes for a fee- (ala' new napster) how long would I stay in business?

Not very, you can bet on that!

Re:My question to Lessig would be (1)

rzbx (236929) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969526)

Your still viewing and treating ideas the same way as property. That, my friend, is blind. Ideas do not equal physical property. Do a search on google for "Brian Martin Information Liberation" click the link and read chapter 3. It is long, but you'll be more informed having read that.

Re:My question to Lessig would be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969720)

[If I opened up a store where people brought me in copyrighted works to redistribute to other people -sometimes for a fee- (ala' new napster) how long would I stay in business?]

you mean like a used cd store? last i heard those were legal. also librarys seem to do well with this... or blockbuster, as people (distributers) bring in copywrighted works (videos) to distribute to other people (rent) for a fee ($3) you could stay in buisness forever, as long as people still had tvs and vcrs to watch them.

just dont do it online ;p

-compn

my questions (4, Interesting)

renard (94190) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969093)

  1. If I own a music CD, is it all right for me to download the digitally compressed version of the songs on that CD via a peer-to-peer file sharing service?

  2. Is it all right for me to make and distribute, to my friends and non-commercially, "mix CDs" that consist of compilations of music from my collection?

    If not, please reconcile explicitly with the language of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.

  3. Under current law, is online file-sharing both illegal and punishable?

    If not, then why is the RIAA pursuing legal action against so many individuals and their ISPs?

    If so, then why is the RIAA lobbying Congress for legislation allowing them to, for example, commit cybercrimes against suspected file-sharers?

Thanks!
renard

Re:my questions (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969284)

If I own a music CD, is it all right for me to download the digitally compressed version of the songs on that CD via a peer-to-peer file sharing service?

No. It's not okay for the same reason that walking out of a store with a CD is not okay. Buying one instance of a thing does not entitle you to a second instance of that thing. (Unless your agreement with the seller so stipulates, of course.)

Is it all right for me to make and distribute, to my friends and non-commercially, "mix CDs" that consist of compilations of music from my collection?

First of all, you have a misunderstanding of the term "non-commercially." It doesn't mean "not for money." Commerce is a broader notion than simply transactions in which money is one side of the equation. Commerce means trade in the broadest terms, and trade includes gifts and loans.

So basically the AHRA prohibits commercial uses of home recordings. Which means you can make a home recording and use it yourself, but you CANNOT legally transfer that recording to another person, either by sale, barter, or gift.

The answer, therefore, is no. It is lawful to make "mix" recordings, but it is not lawful to distribute them to anybody under any circumstances.

Hypothetically, if your friend brought you six CD's and asked you to make a "mix" recording for him from selections from those CD's, that would be lawful. But you wouldn't be allowed to keep a copy of the "mix" recording after you're done.

Under current law, is online file-sharing both illegal and punishable?

The details depend on the circumstances, but the answer is generally yes. The copying of copyrighted materials without express permission from the copyright holder is unlawful, and can be remedied either through civil action or (under certain circumstances) by criminal prosecution. So yes, online file-sharing (as it pertains to copyrighted works) is both illegal and punishable.

If so, then why is the RIAA lobbying Congress for legislation allowing them to, for example, commit cybercrimes against suspected file-sharers?

Because there are those in the RIAA who believe that current statutory remedies are insufficient. For example--and I'm not advocating their reasoning here; I happen to disagree with it--it is lawful for a person to act to stop a violent crime in progress. If you see somebody with a gun behaving in a threatening or intimidating manner, it's lawful for you to commit an act that would under other circumstances be considered felonious assault. There are those who believe it should be lawful for copyright holders to take action to stop acts of copyright infringement while they're in progress. The rationale is that once an act of infringement as occurred, it's often darned near impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. Once a pirated copy of a work has made it out into one of the various computer networks whose purpose it is to facilitate such things, essentially no post hoc remedy can restore the situation to the status quo ante. Just like a murder, once committed, can't be undone by any civil or criminal action. Yes, comparing copyright infringement to violence is melodramatic and deceptive, but in a very narrow context the comparison is valid: acts of piracy can, with the advent of new technologies, be essentially irrevocable, just as acts of violence can be. So there's an argument to be made that acts of piracy should be lawfully preventable, just like acts of violence are.

Hope that clears a few things up for you, Renard.

Re:my questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969414)

Why can't you see the difference between taking and duplicating?

That's like saying "Just because you bought a golden delicious apple doesn't give you the right to plant the seeds and grow apples for yourself."

Fuck off and die with your stupid intellectual property nonsense.

Re:my questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969707)

Ill bet that one dumb fuck who shot down all your question worked for the RIAA. dumb mother fuckers reading slashot and still dont get the messege

Question (-1, Troll)

CrazyGringo (672487) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969096)

Mr. Oppenheim, Are you now, or have you ever been, a cockgoblin?

This was my question (1, Interesting)

Milo Fungus (232863) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969105)

Does unauthorized copying of copyrighted works fit the legal definition of theft? The UK laws define theft as "the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it (reference [police.uk] )." If US laws are similar, it seems that "theft" is the wrong term to be using for the act. Similar questions could be asked about other terms such as "piracy."

Thanks in advance for your answers.

I'm bothered by the abuse of language for purposes of propaganda. It is deceitful and dishonest, and therefore I despise it.

My questions... (1)

oaf357 (661305) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969161)

I don't expect an answer but here are the questions I asked:

If the RIAA is going to say that they won't go after people and then change directions and then sue Verizon for access to private information about its users then sue four college kids for operating Windows file sharing search engines, why would consumers continue to support the RIAA (an organization that obviously goes back on its own word) by purchasing music or other media from the organizations that support the RIAA?

Also, with the increase of recent anti-spam legislation what will the RIAA do to counteract the "destined to come" lawsuits due to its spamming of P2P networks?

This will be a wonderful display of how "ready" the RIAA is for the public.

They gotta stick... (1)

RightInTheNeck (667426) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969177)

The people who are to argue against the RIAA in this debate must stick to the real relevant issues. If they start babbling on about how music should be free and downloading whatever you want is a basic human right and needs to be liberated, coming off sounding like some retarded never had a job high school smuck, they are going to look really stupid and miss an opportunity to deal with the real issues. They need to talk about how the legnth of copyright has basically turned into eternity, how the RIAA tries to kill technology that threatens them financial, how they buy legislation in Washington to automatically treat everyone as if they were naturally criminally oriented and need to be protected from everyones naturally criminal oriented impulses to steal everything in sight. How they send goons out to find the best up and coming talent, and fill thier heads with a bunch of BS and get them to sell thier souls and sign on the dotted line. Of course the young kids in the band dont realize they just signed away rights to everything they ever do including thier band name. Of course they dont know they will have to have 2 or 3 major hit albums just to pay off what they owe to the record company and recording studio just to START making money for themselves. Stick to the real topics guys.

Re:They gotta stick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969462)

The people who are to argue against the RIAA in this debate must stick to the real relevant issues.

Lawrance Lessig is arguing against the RIAA. He is on record as asking for "balanced copyrights". He is on record as opposing Realtime Blocking Lists for spam. He is a professor at Stanford University. He is not your typical Slashbot. He is not going to throw his reputation away by acting like one.

watching it (1)

Triumph The Insult C (586706) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969181)

Looks worth tuning in for.

Ain't that an understatement.

Money says Larry makes him look like a fool inside 5 minutes.

Re:watching it (1)

oaf357 (661305) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969205)

Money says Larry makes him look like a fool inside 5 minutes.

I bet you're right.

When does it air? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969483)

Looks worth tuning in for.

Ain't that an understatement.

When will it be on?

DMCA as modern Stationer's Guild (4, Insightful)

smiff (578693) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969223)

The question I want answered, how do Lessig and Oppenheim feel about this argument [eff.org] ? Forty-six professors of intellectual-property law argued that the DMCA's anti-device provision creates a modern Stationer's Guild. It allows copyright holders to control technology, much like the Stationer's Guild controlled the printing press. The court declined to address this argument and I have been itching for a good response to it.

Re:DMCA as modern Stationer's Guild (2, Insightful)

frumiousbar (587038) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969468)

Laws controlling devices are nothing new. There are laws about automobile safety that requires cars to meet certain standards and this allows the government to control technology. There are laws about FCC compliance and this allows the FCC to control devices. Etc. etc.

Re:DMCA as modern Stationer's Guild (1)

smiff (578693) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969590)

Laws controlling devices are nothing new. There are laws about automobile safety that requires cars to meet certain standards and this allows the government to control technology. There are laws about FCC compliance and this allows the FCC to control devices. Etc. etc.

The constitution enumerates 18 powers (plus several amendments) which congress may exercise. In order for congress to do anything, they must exercise a power that the constitution grants them. With regards to cars and the FCC, that power is under the interstate commerce clause (Article I, Section 8 [cornell.edu] , Clause 3).

The professors argue [eff.org] that congress can not use the interstate commerce clause if the intellectual property clause already restricts congress' behavior.

The intellectual property clause allows congress to grant patents only to inventors (not authors):

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;

The distiction, for example, keeps congress from granting Random House a monopoly on the latest and greatest printing press. The constitution also requires that monopoly powers only be bestowed upon original works and only apply for limited times. Both of these requirements would preclude the DVDCCA from being the exclusive licenser of CSS. If they wanted that power, they should have applied for a patent.

Irregardless of whether or not the law is constitutional, the question still remains, does the DMCA create modern Stationer's Guilds? Suppose the RIAA creates a new alternative to MP3, complete with DRM. The technology proliferates everwhere. Next thing you know radios, TVs, and all other audio equipment use nothing but the RIAA's new encoding standard. How can anyone publish in this realm without the RIAA's permission?

Re:DMCA as modern Stationer's Guild (2, Interesting)

Stephen VanDahm (88206) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969601)

"Laws controlling devices are nothing new. There are laws about automobile safety that requires cars to meet certain standards and this allows the government to control technology. There are laws about FCC compliance and this allows the FCC to control devices. Etc. etc."

True, but with very few exceptions, once you buy a car there are no restrictions on what you can do with it. If you want to remove the catalytic converter or drive around without a safety belt, you can do that as long as you don't take it out on public roads. With the DMCA it is illegal to circumvent copy protection even on devices that you own so that you can watch DVDs (or whatever) that you paid for.

Furthermore, if I wanted to start VanDahm Motor Company and sell VMC automobiles to the public, I would be free to do that as long as I complied with the government regulations. If I wanted to make DVDs or DVD players, however, I have to get licenses from a consortium of private companies, who could very well deny me a license if they felt that my business interests were in conflict with their own.

When the government makes it illegal for company A to do business simply because it would interfere with company B's profits, it's widely considered to be corruption. However, that's exactly what the DMCA allows, and that's what the RIAA and MPAA are trying to do with music and movie production.

copyright extension (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969228)

Extending copyrights to life +70 will keep much of our literature, film, and culture out of the public domain where it belongs, creating massive distortions in our educational and cultural fabric. Kindly explain to the world (much of whom find American Copyright Law onerous and absurd) 1. how sequestering said culture in the hands of giant for profit publishing conglomerates is fair, just and reasonable and in the best interests of the free growth of human society and culture? 2. How it's not just a typical powergrab by plutocrats and their corrupt perfidious minions in the American Government?

Great! (1)

fizban (58094) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969257)

Yay Public Television! Take it onto the TV as well, please!

Man, could you imagine this type of debate on Fox News? The host would be interrupting Lessig every second while letting the RIAA spokesperson speak for days...

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969556)

You know, you really might want to look at which party actually gets the vast majority of the loot from the entertainment industry before starting in with your knee-jerk political crapola.

The Republicans have their own set of problems, but on THIS ISSUE it's the Dems who are selling your ass down the river.

Don't believe me?

Read this [opensecrets.org] .

When and Where please (1)

joejoejoejoe (231600) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969283)

Can someone please point me to where (on tv, or online) this will be?

And WHEN will it be on?

I looked over the linked pages briefly and cannot find it.

thank you.

Re:When and Where please (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969586)

Nah, just post a link to the transcript (or mp3) of the program here. Then those of us who rarely watch tv will find out about it.

If it's on NPR, I might hear it, but probably not. But if there's a followup here that links to it, I and all the /. geeks will read it.

Can I sue the RIAA back? (3, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969302)

Here's the question I submitted:

If lawyers can't even define it, technology can't possibly contain the intelligence necessary to determine the difference between fair-use and illegal copying in every case; so how can the RIAA hope to enforce copyright without violating the fair-use rights reserved to the public? Is there a market for a piece of software that files a lawsuit against the RIAA every time a person tries to make a rightful copy of a recording and is prevented from doing so?

Online or On Air? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969311)

I'm a little bit confused. Is this something that's going to be put on the pbs website, or is it actually going to be aired?

We actually get this program in Australia, so it'd be interesting to see it if it's going to be screened. If it's just online, it's too much trouble to bother with on our crappy "Broadband" internet.

I hate the RIAA but I just feel bad for..... (0)

8-balll (655546) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969345)

the bands... The ones that are actually out there to make music for the love of music.. I love Metallica, I've listened to them for years, but I'd rather download there new songs and listen to them, before I spend the money I worked hard for on their CD. Before I was getting music off of the internet, I was listening to my friends tapes,CD's and records; should I have been sued when I got a friend to copy a tape for me till i had the money to buy my own??All it meant was that I would rather own the real thing instead of a copy and make sure that the group I was listening to could keep their contract with whateverthehell company, so I can hear their music. The only thing that all this BS has been doing for me and some of my friends to do is to look more for local bands and underground music(not supported by the mainstream companies) because they are looking for an airtime, so they are more willing to let their music out. If people like their music, guess what, they would buy their music... My 2 cents are out now....

Civil Disobedience (4, Funny)

A_Non_Moose (413034) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969368)

Things have gotten so bad with the RIAA now, I almost fear I'll get sued for admitting this, but:

I sing along with the radio, cds I play, and sometimes...well, I don't *KNOW* the lyrics, so I'll look them up on the internet!

I can't help it! Honest! It is the Artists!! They made me do it...why, just look at Mick Jagger (ok, bad Idea)...consider Mick Jagger and the Stones in the song "Miss You" with:

what's them matter man..{something, something} with some Puerto Rican girls just diiieeng to meet-chu. We gonna bring a case of wine {long string of words...I think} like we used to!

And the woohoo-hooo-hooo is just so damn fun to sing I don't know when I'm over the line with; Copyright Infringment, Public Performance and Wreckless Endangerment and Public Indecency.

See what happens when you "Start Me Up"(c)(r)(tm) of Microsoft Corp (right?).

/where's that sarcasm tag in the HTML specs?

Someone Help Me Out (1)

telstar (236404) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969379)

I know I just got back from the bars and am a bit drunk but when the hell is this episode airing? I can't seem to find a time or date listed anywhere....

My Question (Slightly Reformatted) (3, Interesting)

Catiline (186878) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969383)

"With online sites such as the Baen Free Library (Link: http://www.baen.com/library/ [baen.com] ) or MP3.com as well as online projects such as the Linux operating system showing that unrestricted distrobution of a work does not always diminish the monetary value and may instead increase that value, has the legal definition of copyright become outdated? If so, what would you see it redefined as and if not, what do you see as keeping copyright relevant to the digital era?"

In other words: Lessig, explain to me what you really think about copyright and Matt, don't just give me your organization's standard rhetoric, please try to find a convincing argument for once.

What I posted (1)

DaPhoenix (318174) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969565)

This is what I posted:

With the recent Grokster ruling it is legal to operate a search engine which catalogs public INTERNET shares indiscriminant of content. That being said 'search engines' such as Phynd and Flatlan are then legal to operate since they indiscriminantly catalogs user shares without reguard to content on an INTRANET.

Mr. Lessig: Do you think that along with fair use, the definition of 'legal file sharing within an INTRANET' as opposed to the 'legal file sharing within the INTERNET' is an important definition to make legally?

If so do you see this recent lawsuit against college students as a missed opportunity to define this share space?

Continuing, Mr. Oppenheim: I might be uninformed (as I am not a lawyer) but I was under the impression that in a Federal Civil Lawsuit Plaintiffs (RIAA) can only seek damages from the defendents' Fixed Assets. If this is correct, gargantuan 97+ billion dollar civil suits are being used as scare tactics against poor in-debt college students. yield no monetary assets.Why use scare tactics such as the aforementioned to shut down what is now ruled to be 'legal filesharing'?

Do you feel action like this will improve the image of the RIAA to future consumers of the following generations?

My Question (4, Interesting)

MacDork (560499) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969616)

In 1790, the first US Copyright Act was created by George Washington and enacted by Congress. It gave creators ownership of their work for up to 28 years. Today, the period is the lifetime of the creator plus 90 years. Given that methods of distribution and mass marketing have only improved, it seems that time period should have been decreased if it were to be changed at all. Could you explain why copyright holders have been granted more than three times that original amount of time to allow for just compensation of their contribution to the public domain?

The RIAA might dodge the question, but if it is even posed, I will have made my point :-)

digital copy versus material copy (2, Insightful)

stock (129999) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969664)

The principle of a digital copy is thats a exact copy with the same quality's as the original. in fact they are the same by the last digit. All you need is a computer and a copy or cp command. So cp msoffice1.iso msoffice2.iso can be done on any PC. It shouldn't be illegal. Next the copy command can be used to copy and burn that iso on a CDR recordable. We go ahead and do it and place it on the shelf next to the orginal. Thats not illegal. Next we buy a 2nd PC and install msoffice1.iso on the 2nd PC. Well according to that big software company, thats illegal. I say it isn't if you can just do it without more effort as just inserting the office cdrom into the 2nd PC. Now what efforts did we have to take here? Yes we paid $1500,= for the 2nd PC.

Now another scenario. We have again a 2nd PC , however its the neighbour's PC. This time he paid the $1500,= for his PC. He wants to run that msoffice too. I give him that CDR with msoffice on it. He inserts it and install/runs MS Office completely without extra efforts than inserting that CDR. Now we ask again, is this illegal??? Some say yes, some say no. It depends. lets assume that the $1500,= covers also the expenses for running msoffice, then its completely ok. If the $1500,= does not cover running msoffice then it is not ok to give your neighbour that CDR. But then again. What value does the msoffice CDR represent? The CDR itself is just a lousy $0.25 media costs. If you find it in a desert with no PC's for over 5000 miles, you can only use it as a coaster. The msoffice CDR will only be of use if you have a running PC.

Bill gates said exactly the opposite to the director of the Altair factory : "Without my software your Altair is completely useless". Well that is just not true. You can always find some other version of a office package or OS to run on your PC. There's expensive ones, cheaper ones and even free to download iso versions which you then burn and install.

What i want to make clear is that for a digital copy to work one needs some sort of a materialized copy to go along too. Staring at a directory and watching at two files : msoffice1.iso and msoffice2.iso ain't a real copy. It takes a extra CDR to burn and a 2nd PC to install/run msoffice also on that one.

Now comes the Internet. suddenly people don't need CDR's anymore to transport iso's from Joe's PC to Jack's PC. Jack anyway burn the msoffice2.iso on a CDR and installs/runs it. Jack also paid $1500,= for his PC. If that price covers running/installing msoffice its ok. If not, then Jack is the bad guy. Not for having a $0.25 CDR with msoffice2.iso on it, but for installing/running it.

Oh what a mess. In the old days making a copy was technically also easy, but media, harddisks and tapes were way more expensive. What i want to point out here, is that a digital copy technically takes no effort at all. its sometimes just 1 command on a prompt. There's no regulations i can think of that can prevent that from happening. Its a digital cyberspace thing. What matters in the end is the materialization efforts/costs which are needed to run a copy on a different street address. That would take a 2nd PC and CDR. if we want to have a sane digital copying act , let it act on the extra materalization efforts needed to run it on a different place.

Feel More Strongly about Patents (2, Interesting)

Josh (2625) | more than 11 years ago | (#5969765)

In my mind, both copyright and patents can be appropriate in some situations, while problems come in when the range of those situations are overextended and enforcement is overzealous or infringes on other important rights. But at core, the very notion of copyright, even digital copyright, is so much more ethically benign than the notion of patent that it's hard for me understand advocacy against the former in absence of advocacy against the latter. Even a digital copyright only applies to a specific, original form (albeit, wherever that form is instantiated), while a patent restricts a whole class of behaviors that were not even explicitly, sometimes not implicitly, imagined by the creator. Patents are *intrinsically*, at best, a pragmatically necessary, basically fascistic, evil. Copyright intrinsically seems like a buyers choice (not talking here about broken laws that restrict devices or services that might be used to violate copyright copyright).

Yah right (2nd submission) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5969796)

OK, so I bought hundreds of records in the 80's and I confined them to the dustbin (or lost them) when CD's became mainstream. Do you really expect me to pay once for tape, again for vinyl, again for CD's, and again for your next format, and the next... ?
The same for the MPAA! I bought a DVD and it developed a crack not through my own fault of abuse. I sent it back to the 'house' that produced it and never received a response.
Oh my question: When we buy a CD or a DVD what exactly are we buying ? (rights to view/listen ? a piece of plastic ? rights to put on another medium ?)

My answer: The right to spend money so these greedy assholes can get million dollar salaries, lawyers, and not answer questions!
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>