Here's an interesting read. The site is currently a bit slow, but I recommend checking it out. As a consumer, I would like to have more options, not fewer. Large companies are pushing every day to limit our rights in the name of their business models.
Assholes. Grade-A, Top of the Line, Home-baked Assholes!
I dont get bothered by much. Doofuses trying to change the Pledge, People accusing Cartoons of being gay or satanic, EA straight-out buying Microsoft wouldnt phase me-
But when you try to stop technological process, put a hold on the age-old dream of the future- for your own jackass reasons, you can friggin Kiss my ass!
I guess all we can do is show innovation all the support possible- (except for the one where you can just open any garage, thats just creepy.)
A big EFF You! to the Entertainment Industry!
Its like in South Park; "Dont you get it? if people keep downloading music we'll only be able to buy two mansions instead of three... and my little daughter will have to go without her private island this Christmas..." (paraphrased)
I myself dont download music, but whatever- its all the same.
On the one hand, an HDTV tuner card is kinda neat. On the other hand, what's your justification for this:
What it is: Software to decrypt encrypted Adobe's electronic books.
What it allowed you to do: Open and read Adobe electronic books.
Why it's extinct: The FBI arrested Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov while he was attending a security conference in Las Vegas -- making him the first person to be criminally charged under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Adobe initially pressed the case, but after meeting with EFF called for all charges against Sklyarov to be dropped. There is no DMCA in Russia, and a jury eventually acquitted Sklyarov's company, ElcomSoft, of willful violation -- but only after the judge had ruled the software illegal.
Some people are selling e-books, and wish to encrpyt then so you can't simply take them for free. What's wrong with that?
Originally posted by Guru ZimCopyright terms expire.
At some point, that E-book should be in the public domain. Currently, there is no way for this to happen.
That's an extreme example, but a valid one.
The current international legal standard is that copyright of any work expires 50 years after the author's death, at which time the work becomes public domain.
Every publishing company in the world works within these practices. Why should publishers of e-books work any differently? In the meantime, these publishers should have the right and means to protect their investment, for their own sake and for the sake of the authors they represent. Why should an author work for years to produce a work that will quickly be stolen and distributed for free?
How many people would be willing to paste their hard-earned paycheck to the front door with a note that says "Please take me"?
The Goal: SLACK The Method: The Casting Out of False Prophets The Weapon: Time Control The Motto: "Fuck Them All of they Can't Take a Joke"
The only thing that surprises me is that many of you come off as genuinely shocked that things like this are happening.
Of course people are out there to maintain the current status quo rather than let it bud into, well, another status quo. As of right now, the rich are rich. However, another guy comes along with a product that has any of the slightest potential to take money out of their pocket, and I mean even in the margins of mere pennies, the rich will quickly stand up for their money. After all, if another guy is getting the money, they aren't, right?
And it isn't as if the inventors who come up with these 'gizmos' are doing it for the sheer benefit of mankind, either. Medical breakthroughs and military innovations notwithstanding, pretty much every invention of the 20th century was put forth to make a buck. If I made a device that allowed you to shave your pets, water your azaleas, record Montel Williams, whip creamy smoothies, and organize your stamps, sure, it'd be handy for some, but in reality, you can already do all of that by yourself with stuff that's already out there. Go free trade and equality in the market place, hell yeah, but it really looks like EFF is trying to make it seem like there's more at stake than that.
Hold nothing sacred and you'll never be dissapointed. Especially not this statement.
Originally posted by Lexus As of right now, the rich are rich. However, another guy comes along with a product that has any of the slightest potential to take money out of their pocket, and I mean even in the margins of mere pennies, the rich will quickly stand up for their money.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the majority of people whose work is protected by copyright are rich. Copyright was invented to protect the little guy from being screwed and plagiarized as much as the big players, but for the laws to be effective, they have to applied equally to all.
(edited by Stilton on 29.1.05 0454) The Goal: SLACK The Method: The Casting Out of False Prophets The Weapon: Time Control The Motto: "Fuck Them All of they Can't Take a Joke"
The difference between Blair and Limbaugh and O'Reilly is that one is a journalist, the others are talk show hosts. One presents news (well, is supposed to), and one presents opinion and analysis. The difference is pretty clear cut.