Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 48
31  Community / Bar Sport / Re: Who would you bring back from the dead? on: September 24, 2012, 07:30:18 am
Oh, I would bring back Alexander.
32  Community / Bar Sport / Re: Who would you bring back from the dead? on: September 24, 2012, 07:29:25 am
Good video on Noyce. Too bad the guy died kinda young.

I'd bring back Ben Franklin. I'd like to hear his reactions and thoughts on where technology has gone. Ditto on politics.

Given that choice you might like this book, http://www.amazon.com/Tempus-Fugit-Lawrence-Rowe/dp/0976766809/ref=la_B005W3LFAE_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348489634&sr=1-1

The author has gone to great pains to try and accurately portray the three Presidents in today's world.  Besides it is great fun to think of Franklin running for President today!
33  Using Arduino / General Electronics / Re: Favorite Electronics Supplier? on: September 10, 2012, 12:38:21 pm
Since it is US based, I'm not sure how much it will help you, but my preference is Mouser, though I prefer Digi-key's web interface.  I will routinely use the Digi-key interface to identify parts that I will then purchase from Mouser.  Mainly since I get better service from Mouser.
34  Using Arduino / Microcontrollers / Re: Using small voltage for Aref on: September 10, 2012, 10:25:57 am
The only way to measure voltages (with an a2d) down to the tenth of a millivolt range with any accuracy is to use an amplifier and measure the amplified voltage
35  Community / Bar Sport / Re: Your opinion on piracy? on: September 07, 2012, 07:52:51 am
Obviously, this works against companies like Microsoft and Apple. The reason for this is, that these systems ("alternative business models") are empowering to the individual, small entrepreneur (like myself) and detrimental for large companies. Which could mean that in the future we will see markets controlled not by one or two quasi-monopolies, but by a plethora of smaller companies (which, in my opinion would be a very good thing). Large companies feel threatened by this, and that is why they are pushing for protection of the current copyright and property system. Maybe it will work, but this is something I am scared of, because I am afraid it will lead to a society ruled continuously more and more by company policies than by actual democratic systems.

Frankly, I believe most of that paragraph shows a distinct lack of understanding of human history.  I also think it places an unwarranted amount of faith in what 'alternative business models' can accomplish.  Large businesses exist for the simple reason that they are able to provide most cost effective products to the public, which will always choose the cheaper item.  'Alternative business models' have so far only proven themselves when dealing with new, or unique niche products that are not in large demand.  Whether that will change is debatable, though I personally doubt it.

I would rather live in a world where copyright completely fails, as I believe it to be the freer, more interesting and more progressive scenario.

It is most certainly less free (though it certainly fits with the term 'progressive'), since by depriving the content creator the ability to benefit from their labor or even to control its use (ie, work product), it effectively turns the content creator into a slave, whose very purpose is to serve at the whims of others...

36  Community / Bar Sport / Re: Your opinion on piracy? on: September 07, 2012, 06:48:19 am
Quote
I think Locke was correct when he stated that the basic human rights are 'Life, Liberty, and Property' and Jefferson did a disservice in his paraphrasing of Locke.

It is possible to have a societies where there is little concept of personal property so it is not a basic human right.

You have to pare things back to the bare bones of do most people feel morally wrong doing something.
If they don't then do not let somebody pass a law that makes that thing illegal.
By sticking to the principle of having laws that uphold moral views you will have good laws and avoid manipulation of the legal system for the benefit of a few.

What is regarded as moral will change with time and will vary from place to place and laws must be adjusted accordingly.

I would suggest that you read Locke's Two Treatises of Government, he offers a clearer delivery of his argument than any I could hope to convey here.  That said, he defines property as the product of one's labors...  Given that definition, I can't think of any society in the history of the world that didn't believe (at least for those in power) that they have the right to their 'property', even the polynesian cultures you mention.  While they did have a strong communal approach (as did many aboriginal cultures) to property, they still respected personal property and more importantly they had a belief that each individual earned their share of the communal property by their labors which they also contributed to others...


It is possible to have a societies where there is little concept of personal property so it is not a basic human right.

It is not only possible, but factual, that societies have decided that liberty is not a basic human right...  Doesn't make it so.  Ask any slave if their basic human rights were being violated smiley

I really do suggest reading Locke, he spends far more time and is more eloquent than I am elucidating the point.
37  Community / Bar Sport / Re: Your opinion on piracy? on: September 06, 2012, 02:44:08 pm
Quote
I think Locke was correct when he stated that the basic human rights are 'Life, Liberty, and Property' and Jefferson did a disservice in his paraphrasing of Locke.

Yes its a very the analogy is very succinct. Had to look it up, think i'll go back and read the rest of the wiki page. Don't really know anything about this era of American history beyond what i've gleaned from films.

Actually, Locke was one of yours (well and ours as well smiley), from about a generation (or so) before the revolution over here.
38  Community / Bar Sport / Re: Your opinion on piracy? on: September 06, 2012, 02:06:05 pm
about "something being wrong with the system:"

let me try to show you an example of what I mean

lets start with your statement that "piracy will not stop". I agree. Everything which follows is a result of that thought.

I think on a small scale, you will also agree to the consequences I personally draw from that:

I (as a recording artist) assume that people will copy my work anyway. I still want to distribute my music. I have two options
a) I try to go to court with the people who illegally took my work. This incriminates my customers, so I think its not a smart thing to do. After all, I want them to stay my customers for a long time.
b) I try to leverage the fact that my music has been copied so many times. I think this is the better choice, as it will not alienate me from my customers. I organize a party where my music is played or where I perform (with a door charge of course), I offer that anyone can bring a copy of my CD and for 2.50€ I sign it for them (I actually think this would work :-D).

As a small recording artist, I believe option b) to be 100% preferable. It is also preferable over having nobody stealing my music on the internet, as my music would never have become popular enough to do the event I described without file sharing. I see it as a win-win situation.

(this is actually almost a real life example. I recently figured out, that an old band of mine has become quite popular in poland, for reasons beyond my comprehension (enabled by illegal file sharing). Right now I am contemplating what to do about it.)

*

I think on the small scale my reasoning is obvious and there is little to dispute on that. On a large scale, I believe that we would all be better off if the creative industry also would find creative solutions to the problem of piracy.

I am not saying piracy is the creative industries fault.

Does that clear my standpoint up a bit, when I talk about "there is something wrong with the system" ?

For your scenario, as the copyright holder I have no problem with whatever you choose.  In my own case, as a programmer, I simply make what I write 'open source' and sell my labor.  That said, the industry has been making efforts to provide its paying customers with what they want--this is one reason that companies (Such as Apple, and Amazon) do exist that provide authorized copies of that media.  The problem is that no matter what accommodation the industry makes the pirates (or some significant number of them) will continue their theft.  This is why the examples where the IP is provided either very cheaply, or as a 'Try before you buy' are still stolen, almost always in greater numbers than what is actually purchased.

My point is that nothing the creators of the content can do will prevent the theft.  The thieves are moral bankrupt and nothing about the system is what creates their theft.
39  Community / Bar Sport / Re: Your opinion on piracy? on: September 06, 2012, 01:58:26 pm
yes, but the jury is set a "range" within which the fine is lega, no? As in, a jury cannot declare death penalty on speeding? or am I wrong?

Yes and no, a jury is given guidance on such matters, but juries are not obligated to follow.  A judge is able to 'reduce' awards, but I do not believe (and have never heard of a case) where a judge can increase awards.  Further juries have the ability to nullify the laws by simply refusing to find guilt--something that happens all the time.  If interested look up 'jury nulification'
40  Community / Bar Sport / Re: Your opinion on piracy? on: September 06, 2012, 01:55:31 pm
While i agree that trials by jury do give the possibility of a greater degree of fairness i would say that taking the position of letting the state decide your own definition of whats right/just/fair to be dangerous. It is true that for the most part a lot of laws are in line with what most people feel to be right but to say you don't need to think about it because someone else is for you is nothing short of insane. It is the responsibly of each individual to to decide these things. Government don't always get things right. It brings to mind war crimes and the defense that you were only doing what you were told. Having said that that excuse does probably wash sadly in most of the western world.
You right people don't need to rely on anything mystical just there own brain.

I didn't say the state (which typically means government) defines right/wrong, but that the society (the people) does.  The problems only occur when there is a discrepancy between the two.  Ultimately, the people who live under a government are responsible for the actions of that government without regard to the form of government (democracy, republic, dictatorship, etc...)

This is the key to why I am so passionate about this issue.  A large portion of my society feels it is just to steal someone else's property (software, music, etc...) for whatever reason...  Unless that can be changed, I don't have much hope for the society in general.  I think Locke was correct when he stated that the basic human rights are 'Life, Liberty, and Property' and Jefferson did a disservice in his paraphrasing of Locke.
41  Community / Bar Sport / Re: Your opinion on piracy? on: September 06, 2012, 01:43:29 pm
    • No one has been, and no one will be charged with violations of those laws for 'fair use' because all parties understand they would loose, so despite the stupid law they are not criminals
    you hope. we have no guarantee of that.

    Yes, but is a reasonable belief.  As I mentioned in the previous post, in the U.S. we have jury trials.  I find in unlikely that anyone in the U.S. would be convicted of violating the DMCA for what is also regarded within the law as 'fair use' (I frankly doubt anyone would be stupid enough to push such a case).  But even if that happens, I find it very unlikely that a jury would convict.

    • Those fines are fair by definition. After all we don't let murderers, rapists, etc.. define what would be their fair punishment.
    This I find questionable. I mean any fine is arbitrarily established. In Texas, I believe you have the death penalty. In most of Europe this is considered barbaric. I am not implying judgement here - I just mean to point out that even the way murderers and rapists are treated is open for debate. Saying a fine is fair by definition assumes that there is some higher moral authority who has the right to decide on what a fine is. I believe that is wrong.

    Concerning fines for data-sharing, you can imagine that there are very strong political lobbies putting pressure on politicians. I do not believe that lobbyists who are trying to have stricter convictions for rapists have even  a fraction of the power that lobbyists going after file sharers have. (before you ask... I dont know that as a fact. This is simply my assumption, as there is no group with an economic interest in prosecuting rapists.)[/list]
    As a society, Europe has decided that things such as the Death Penalty are not fair.  The U.S. has (at least the civilized parts of it smiley)  The same is the case for these criminals who are claiming their punishment for theft is not 'fair'.  Our society has established that it is fair.  And unlike Europe (or at least Germany from what you told me), we have at least one more check and balance to ensure that 'fairness', a jury trial.

    We have jury trials, because the system was designed to allow for jury nullification.  A concept, where the judgement of your peers is capable of saying, "You may have broke the law, but we don't think the law is fair, so we are not going to let you be punished by that law."
    42  Community / Bar Sport / Re: Your opinion on piracy? on: September 06, 2012, 01:36:04 pm
    @ wizdum & wanderson

    you do realize that you are arguing different things, right?

    wizdum (and I and others) are saying:
    there is a problem, and ultimately the creative industry will need to come up with better ways of dealing with it than it is now.
    (ok, yes, extremely simplified)

    wanderson (and retrolefty and others) are saying:
    nothing justifies pirating.
    (ok, yes, extremely simplified)

    its only a minority here and not even a very prolific one which claims that there is *nothing* wrong with pirating. (ok, we can - and have - argued about that as well.)
    I guess my point is that I see these two standpoints being exchanged and neither is really a good reaction to the other. Nor do they actually contradict each other.

    Another thing which is constantly being mixed up is "what is right" with "what is legal"... wizdum was not saying, that the 60.000.000$ sum that guy has been fined (or whatever it was) is illegal. He is saying it is not right (ok. whats the standard. no idea.)

    I am sure wanderson would respond to AlexDroidDev: "well, it may be legal, but that does not make it right. (again. whats the standard)"

    *

    Just my thoughts when skimming over the last couple of posts...

    I don't agree with your summary of wizdum's posts.  He has said (among many other things) that since the DMCA declares him a criminal (which it doesn't) for removing DMA on media he has purchased he 'might as well just steal the media anyway.'  I also disagree that there is something wrong with the system, in particular I find fault with claiming that since people are stealing it is proof that the system is faulty argument that he seems to be making.  People commit crimes, that doesn't therefore mean that the laws which define those crimes are the problem...

    And there is no need in the US to rely on a higher mystical authority to decide if something is right/just/fair, our society that creates its rules define such concepts.  And our society has decided that such penalties are right/just/fair.  In the US these decisions are made, ultimately not by corrupt politicians, nor the corporations that line the politicians pockets, but a jury of one's peers.  We have jury trials for a reason, jury's have an obligation to not only determine guilt, but also evaluate the 'fairness' of a law.
    43  Community / Bar Sport / Re: Your opinion on piracy? on: September 06, 2012, 10:40:10 am
    I'm out, theres no point in arguing with someone that thinks saying "no" to my statement is proof of its falsehood. You are either ignoring the law on purpose to suit your argument, or you don't understand it.

    One of us doesn't understand the law.  Would you care to show where the law requires the use of expert system software?  I certainly can't find such a mention.  Any more than I could find any references to law enforcement 'working' for RIAA or MPAA...

    Even the Viacom court case you mentioned was lost, not because they were unintentionally distributing copyprotected material, but rather the opposite.  Internal YouTube emails were introduced as evidence that they were knowingly allowing their users to violate copyright.

    As a side question, do you only object to the greed of the companys that produce and distribute the original material, since you do not seem to include the greed of the corporations that are facilitating theft from those copyright holders?

    44  Community / Bar Sport / Re: Your opinion on piracy? on: September 06, 2012, 07:45:05 am
    The software is required if you want to avoid being sued into oblivion. Find me one company that doesn't use it. They are not stopping use of all bot software, they are stopping the use of that particular software, and finding a different solution (and only because someone "famous" was hurt). One that honors fair use would be nice. Speaking of overzealous anti-piracy measures : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/youtube-flags-democrats-convention-video-on-copyright-grounds/ It happened again today.

    No, the software is not required.  It is simply more cost effective than having a human being screen content.  It is impossible for software to determine 'fair use', since it requires human judhement.  Relying on software, and loosing the Expert System AI's rules will simply result in actual violations.  Again, no one was harmed by the convention link you included.  You tube, doesn't wish to have to pay for human judgement, instead relying on an AI expert system with very tight rules.  Therefore, as a corporation, they are making a choice for the most cost effective approach.  Just as no one, other than possibly the corporation who chose that approach, was harmed by your previous link.

    The RIAA and MPAA have both the FBI and ICE working for them. There are entire departments at Time Warner Cable and Google that are dedicated  to finding pirates, and yet... it continues. Meanwhile, I can't even play a singleplayer game that I purchased, without an internet connection anymore, due to the DRM.

    No private organization has any law enforcement agency working for them, and the assertion is ridiculous.  Those agencies are simply enforcing the law, which is what they are tasked to do.  The corporations involvement is simply providing evidence of crimes, something any citizen could do...

    As to your game issue, did you not know that such a limitation was included when you purchased the game?  If not, was it because you didn't read the fine print?  Your recourse when you purchased the game was to return it for a full refund.

    I am not arguing the degree of pirating, I am arguing that the comparison is unfair and the metrics used are smoke and mirrors. You are comparing two different pools of users. The Humble Bundle is going to have a higher percentage of pirates because it is only known in the pool of users that know how to pirate things. If I were to go to Times Square and randomly ask people how many of them knew what an Atmega 168 was, i'd see a very low percentage of correct answers. If I asked here however, the percentage would be much higher. The percentage here isn't higher because of a sudden interest in ICs, it was because I changed the pool. With the Humble Bundle example you successfully argued that some people are dicks.

    The metrics are hardly smoke and mirrors, and the specific Humble Bundle example is just one of many.  There have been other examples with other media, such as music--another media where the cost for purchase is also quite low, yet many still prefer to steal.  And the point is that all pirates are thieves, and their rationalizations for their theft are just that--rationalizations.  There is no justification for such theft.

    So lets review the various points:

    • DRM is an unfortunate consequence of thieves and their behavior
    • No one is forced to deal with DRM limitations if they so choose. For instance, you could simply have not purchased that offensive piece of software you mention
    • In the US, stupid politicians wrote laws that conflict with 'fair use' provisions
    • No one has been, and no one will be charged with violations of those laws for 'fair use' because all parties understand they would loose, so despite the stupid law they are not criminals
    • No one, who was not guilty of theft, has been forced to pay fines
    • Those fines are fair by definition. After all we don't let murderers, rapists, etc.. define what would be their fair punishment.
    • No one, who was not guilty of theft, has been convicted of such
    • Those who have been fined, charged, etc.. simply don't feel their punishment is 'fair'
    • No one expects to eliminate piracy, any more than we have eliminated any other kind of theft.
    • More 'pirates' will be prosecuted and fined.  The message has to be sent there will be consequences, and that those consequences are fair and just
    45  Community / Bar Sport / Re: Your opinion on piracy? on: September 05, 2012, 12:26:09 pm
    If there is harm, it is not caused by the law or the copyright holder.

    And who started requiring the use of copyright bots against fair use? The copyright holders. Mostly because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc.

    No one requires the use of such software, as evidenced by your own cite stating they would stop using such software. Oh and the software is not designed to prevent fair use, but rather prevent illegal uses--the mistakes are related to the lack of intellegence in the software, not intent.  The software is simply an easier way for such corporations to make sure they comply with the law--they are not the only way.

    You can lock down the content and pour the entire world's resources into stopping copyright infringement, and you still wont stop pirates. You are trying to control the distribution of something that is infinitely copy-able for zero cost. Its not going to happen. All you do is hurt innocents and drive more people to piracy.

    It is happening.  That is why so many of your complaints and arguments against it are people who got caught stealing and they don't think the punishment is fair...

    It is sad that so many people pirated the Humble Bundle, but you have to look past the percentages. That is a movement that is mostly only known to computer savvy people. Pirates are generally computer savvy. When compared to a game like Battlefield 3, the Humble Bundle sold next to nothing (which is not the same as wasn't much used). You also have no way of knowing how many of those pirates were the "try-before-you-buy" variety, or even how those numbers were created.

    Yes argue about the degree of pirating...  We are talking about a piece of software that costs as little as something can possibly can,  and yet people steal it... Which I believe is adequate evidence against the earlier arguments in this thread that pirating was just being caused by the greed of the sellers...
    Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 48