http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/24/doj_supports_riaa/
"Barack Obama's Department of Justice (DOJ) has sided with the Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA) in its lawsuit against a Massachusetts man accused of illegally downloading seven songs."
http://www.osnews.com/story/21190/Obama_s_DOJ_Sides_with_RIAA
"This case needs a little history lesson, and El Reg thoughtfully provides us with one. In 2003, Tannenbaum (then 16) received a letter which accused him of downloading 7 songs from a P2P network, and the option to avoid further problems by paying a fine of USD 3500. Tenebaum made a counteroffer of 500 USD, but was denied. Nothing happened until 2007, when several recording companies took him to court, where Tenenbaum offered USD 5000 - the RIAA demanded 10500. No agreement was reached.
The case was never settled, and it still ongoing. Tenebaum is now a Physics grad student at Boston University, and is represented by law students from Harvard Law, mentored by Professor Charles Nesson. This is where things get complicated: the law students are not arguing against copyright, nor that Tenebaum has not violated it - they are arguing against what they call unconstitutionally heavy-handed damages that come from the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, which states that for each willful act of copyright violation, damages of up to USD 150000 can be awarded.
Obama's DOJ has now sided unqeustionably with the RIAA. The DOJ's task is to weigh in on constitutional questions, and it has rejected all of the defendant's claims. The law students argue that the RIAA is acting as a civil enforcement entity, denying citizens of their right of due process. They argue that the RIAA should act like the private party that it is. The DOJ disagrees."
http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2009/02/06/riaa_takes_over_doj.php
"The new Obama administration is shaping up to be a disaster for Copyfighters everywhere. In particular the new Department of Justice is stacked with lawyers who've been on the wrong side of copyright and intellectual property lawsuits for the last eight years. "
"Barack Obama's Department of Justice (DOJ) has sided with the Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA) in its lawsuit against a Massachusetts man accused of illegally downloading seven songs."
http://www.osnews.com/story/21190/Obama_s_DOJ_Sides_with_RIAA
"This case needs a little history lesson, and El Reg thoughtfully provides us with one. In 2003, Tannenbaum (then 16) received a letter which accused him of downloading 7 songs from a P2P network, and the option to avoid further problems by paying a fine of USD 3500. Tenebaum made a counteroffer of 500 USD, but was denied. Nothing happened until 2007, when several recording companies took him to court, where Tenenbaum offered USD 5000 - the RIAA demanded 10500. No agreement was reached.
The case was never settled, and it still ongoing. Tenebaum is now a Physics grad student at Boston University, and is represented by law students from Harvard Law, mentored by Professor Charles Nesson. This is where things get complicated: the law students are not arguing against copyright, nor that Tenebaum has not violated it - they are arguing against what they call unconstitutionally heavy-handed damages that come from the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, which states that for each willful act of copyright violation, damages of up to USD 150000 can be awarded.
Obama's DOJ has now sided unqeustionably with the RIAA. The DOJ's task is to weigh in on constitutional questions, and it has rejected all of the defendant's claims. The law students argue that the RIAA is acting as a civil enforcement entity, denying citizens of their right of due process. They argue that the RIAA should act like the private party that it is. The DOJ disagrees."
http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2009/02/06/riaa_takes_over_doj.php
"The new Obama administration is shaping up to be a disaster for Copyfighters everywhere. In particular the new Department of Justice is stacked with lawyers who've been on the wrong side of copyright and intellectual property lawsuits for the last eight years. "
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
For once, I agree with you. Although I'm surprised you are not on the side of the intellectual property right holders in this case.
It's spam. There's no reason this should be cross-posted to the main page.
Of course, you could always put up with it if the poster is a contributing member, but he's not.
He doesn't post videos. And when he does, he later kills them. All of them (check his comments).
He barely even fucking votes on anything. 18 votes cast so far.
And now he's proven himself to be a troll.
Fuck'em. Discard this shit.
In any event .. it's not spam. It's an opinion.
>> ^Edeot:
I'm sorry, maybe I'm in the minority here, but I don't see why you guys put up with this crap.
It's spam. There's no reason this should be cross-posted to the main page.
Of course, you could always put up with it if the poster is a contributing member, but he's not.
He doesn't <a rel="nofollow" href="http://worldaffairs.videosift.com/member/imstellar28/published</a>. And when he does, he later kills them. All of them (check his comments).
He barely even fucking votes on anything. 18 votes cast so far.
And now he's proven himself to be a troll.
Fuck'em. Discard this shit.
In any case, a troll shouldn't be aloud to cross-post to the main talk page like this.
A large part of my reaching that conclusion of why someone so new could be so well versed on sift protocols was the explanation that you were a long time lurker. So during that long time lurking you hadn't contributed anything at all here. You watched videos, sifted nothing, voted on nothing, made no comments .. etc. In other words, contributed absolutely nothing.
Now you are involved and it's great. Lots of good sifts, interesting comments etc. But that doesn't make you now able to judge people who have been commenting on this site for a very long time, usually in the face of harsh opposition. You can disagree with their posts and you're welcome to do so. But don't take the high ground of being a "contributor" to the site.
Maybe after you contribute here for a year or two you may find yourself making a "troll" post here or there.
>> ^Edeot:
^Yes, maybe. I'll back down if that's what the community thinks. But hell, it isn't hard to hit a damn vote button. I've done it 380 times.
In any case, a troll shouldn't be aloud to cross-post to the main talk page like this.
<embed src="http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/unsuccessful_troll.jpg">
>> ^Edeot:
^Yes, maybe. I'll back down if that's what the community thinks. But hell, it isn't hard to hit a damn vote button. I've done it 380 times.
In any case, a troll shouldn't be aloud to cross-post to the main talk page like this.
So during that long time lurking you hadn't contributed anything at all here. You watched videos, sifted nothing, voted on nothing, made no comments .. etc. In other words, contributed absolutely nothing.
Yes, but I didn't detract from the site either. And that's the crux of my argument.
But don't take the high ground of being a "contributor" to the site.
I was arguing more from my high ground of never calling you all retards and telling you that your site will fail.
>> ^imstellar28:
I think a troll is someone who fails to stay on topic, actually.
I think a troll is someone who calls the admins of a site retards and then takes advantage of their site by abusing the mainpage of their Sifttalk. But let's face it, that's a discussion you're trying to avoid.
[Edit] -
Well, I've said my piece. That's enough for now.Talkin bout my feelings and shit like a real man.and as far as the votes go .. he's right .. I've "hit the vote button" several thousand times and my votes cast count isn't displayed correctly either.
<embed src ="http://ui30.gamespot.com/2397/vaderfail_2.jpg">
>> ^Edeot
Well, I've said my piece. That's enough for now. Talkin bout my feelings and shit like a real man.
You don't want to talk about how you called everyone on the site and the admins retards, do you? Not even so much as a damn apology.
And let me humor you for a second here - Let's say I am trolling. 11 comments and counting and 9 of them focus just on you. And I've failed?
Hey, how about a game of hangman? Free of charge.
It's a bit early in the day but .. are you drunk?
If you want to stop trolling then post something on topic.
>> ^Edeot:
Oh shit, thought I said it all, and I did, but now I gotta repeat myself.
You don't want to talk about how you called everyone on the site and the admins retards, do you? Not even so much as a damn apology.
And let me humor you for a second here - Let's say I am trolling. 11 comments and counting and 9 of them focus just on you. And I've failed?
>> ^Edeot:
You're right. And you're welcome.
Hey, how about a game of hangman? Free of charge.
>> ^jonny:
I've pointed this out before. Cross posting channel specific posts to the main Sift Talk page is a Bad Idea. And the management agrees. But, of course, most users just do whatever hell they want, community be damned. Tragedy of the commons.
This is no big deal. This is kind of what we do here. Throw out something that interests us, that we think will interest others, and talk about it.
I'm seeing a tempest in a teacup here.
Either:
a) He is condescending to 'a site full of retards'.
b) He is attempting a more persuasive, less combative style of argument.
c) He had a bad day and wishes to start anew.
d) He is wearing looser fitting undergarments.
None are against the rules.
Consider how many songs the average person has downloaded:
If we take it to be 1,000 that is a potential $150 million dollar fine!
If we take it to be 10,000 that is a potential $1.5 billion dollar fine!
>> ^cybrbeast:
I came here looking for discussion on Obama and RIAA, but it's only about whether this is a troll post. Did imstellar edit his post? Because I don't see any trolling, I just see posted news articles on Obama, which are quite disappointing and warrant discussion.
Imstell has definitely changed his tone with a more populist article, the silly avatar, wacky pictures in his comments and a more light hearted demeanor.
Either:
a) He is condescending to 'a site full of retards'.
b) He is attempting a more persuasive, less combative style of argument.
c) He had a bad day and wishes to start anew.
d) He is wearing looser fitting undergarments.
None are against the rules.
d) is totally against the rules. You can't talk about politics unless your panties are in a serious twist.
That said, I'm gonna pile on with the shock that imstellar opposes intellectual property law.
How do you reconcile that with your general feelings on property in general?
Do programmers like me have a right to profit from the fruits of our labor?
I have all kinds of moral objections to the way we shoehorn "intellectual property" into our capitalist society, but I'm not quite sure what practical alternatives there are. At least, without losing the ability to earn a living from doing what I do in the process.
Oh, and as for trying to pin this to Obama, it's clumsy politics. I doubt Obama's even heard about this. I doubt Eric Holder was notified about this. This is probably something happening deep in the bowels of the DOJ's bureacracy. To further reverse the spin, the effort is likely being led by conservatives burrowed into career postings by Bush.
The Krugman article is a better weak spot, politically speaking. Republicans, if they were smart, would beat the drum for nationalization/receivership/FDIC-intervention loud and clear. It'd make people like me think that maybe they'd grown up a little bit, and might have some business still being within 100 miles of Washington.
Instead they're doing crap like putting out a non-budget budget.
To use the example here: file sharing of mp3s, When you download a song you aren't trespassing, stealing, destroying, or otherwise utilizing another's property you are simply rearranging the surface of your OWN hard drive based on publicly available information. To claim that one cannot rearrange their own hard drive as they wish, is to claim that one does not really own that hard drive.
The same argument can be made for patents. Imagine if someone had patented the wheel, the house, clothes, or even cooking. Patents do not foster progress, they greatly inhibit it. Property law is, in my mind, intended to protect scarce (tangible) resources; which ideas, inventions, and patterns clearly are not.
As far as programming goes, don't you think the open source movement presents a strong argument against copyright? After all, I am typing this on an Ubuntu system.
I don't think it undercuts the idea that people who create works of knowledge like programmers, musicians, and artists have a right to own their creations, simply because they can be cheaply and effectively duplicated. To follow that reasoning, as a banker it's okay for me to steal from you, because it's easy for me to just modify your balance to zero, and I'm doing it with my own private pen and paper (or more accurately, my accounting mainframe).
I do think there are real challenges ahead, because it does seem like intellectual property law is fighting an ultimately losing battle. I think severing the property aspect of that creative process really would cut back on the quality of our art, culture, and equally important, our engineering.
A world in which the true creative class does not get to reap the rewards of their labors, but where "investors", "executives", and "publishers" get the lion's share seems to have things exactly backwards.
I don't like what RIAA does, and on a gut level I agree that "information wants to be free", I just don't know that it should be free, so long as we're organized under a system based largely on personal property.
Under your previously stated definitions of wealth and work, I create neither, and except for when I was young, I never have. I've always worked in some sort of idea-making role, and while I earn a comfortable living doing so, my creations are largely making other people rich.
I think a lot of this has to do with the disrespect for intellectual property; companies shouldn't be able to say "everything you create while working for us belongs to us alone" -- that is much closer to slavery than taxation ever has been.
socialism would be software created by the government, and how horrific would that be?
Open source software is compatible with the free market because the free market does not require ownership (or copyright), all it requires is an absence of governmental interference on economic matters. A free market requires property rights for scarce resources (tangible goods) only to the extent that a civil society requires such rights (to protect against theft, murder etc).
Socialism specifically requires public ownership, i.e. the software would be owned by the public through the government or state. The only way to enforce the ownership of patterns (source code) is via some kind of copyright system. Thus, open source software is not compatible with socialism because by definition the government would have to copyright it to have ownership.
To use an example, imagine if in the future humans invented a device which could create any object for free out of thin air. If you think about it, your hard drive is a similar device. It can create an almost infinite amount of electronic objects (books, mp3s, webpages, pictures, etc.) out of "thin air" and for "free" (ignoring electricity costs, etc.).
When the government doesn't restrict your personal use of such a device that is the free market.
When the government owns such a device, that is socialism.
When the government restricts the use of such a device (via copyright) that is authoritarianism.
If you substitute "a device" for "a computer which creates software code" you have the example we are discussing.
Obama has failed at everything thus far. It doesn't surprise me that he's failing here too.
I think perhaps the issue is that from your point of view, being "free market", is more about "free of government" than being an actual market. If that's what you mean, I would agree; you don't even need to use any of that dirty government money to participate or benefit from it.
But you have to concede that in many ways open source looks like a collectivist's dream; creative people collaborating freely, and sharing the results with all, even those who don't provide anything to it directly.
The laborers own the means of production (in this case, that means is their mind itself), and the resources come from those with ability, and go to those with needs, and there's no need for money at all.
I don't dispute calling it "free", as it seems to be that in every sense of the word, but calling it a "market" seems a gross misnomer when there is no sale (or price) involved.
Now I do think that what motivates the people who do the bulk of the work in open source projects is that it's a way to advertise their skills in order to get a better paying job. But still, there are also a lot of people chipping in with small fixes or suggestions that add up to a substantial contribution to the overall project, with no real expectation of compensation, and that those contributions can add up to something far more valuable than a single self-interested developer can provide on his own.
Along the way, everyone shares equally in the benefits, or at least gets equal access to the benefits of what was produced.
I don't look at that and see a market; if anything, that sounds very communal. Possibly even small-c communist.
I don't think it'd work with most types of goods, but I think the strategies and methods of open source could be applied to government to good effect; I think democracy really calls for an open-source method of managing the state. The idea of needing to funnel things through elected representatives seems anachronistic in our era of instant communication and mass collaboration.
Two people sharing a computer to produce a program are collectivist, just like a bunch of people living in shared housing (communes). Contrastingly, two people using their own computers to produce a program together are cooperating (joint venture).
Open source code is a free market with price = 0, nothing more. It is incorrect to suggest that a market does not exist unless goods have a positive price. Goods can have a positive price, zero price, or negative price. Take for instance trash, which has a negative price...you pay people to take it. Another example of zero prices would be promotional offers such as buy one get one free, etc.