Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Ways around this (Score 1) 402

American border patrol was just given authority to conduct is security theatre in Canadian airports too

There is one subtle difference doing it in Canada though and that is while Canadian law requires you to tell the truth you have the option to withdraw from the process at any time and not enter the US. Hence if you are asked for your phone you can choose to decline but then you will not be allowed to travel to the US. This is actually quite a sensible arrangement: countries should be free to set their entrance requirements and foreign travelers should be free to decline to travel there if they do not like them. The problem is that if you come from Europe you are already in the US and declining leads to arrest and detention not just denied entry and a return flight home.

Comment Re:1984 is not a utopia (Score 1) 94

So just to be clear, you're not actually saying that Google are routinely listening in to everyone's surroundings, you're saying that an optional voice-activated feature on Android devices sometimes has false positives on the trigger word if it's enabled and in those cases it may record a short part of the audio around the phone and send it back to Google the same as it would if you were actually intending to use the voice-activated feature? I think it's fair to say that one of these is quite different to the other.

Comment Re:Be careful what you ask for.... (Score 1) 465

As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House
will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron.

~H.L. Mencken

And now that he's had his 8 year term, people elected Trump.

Living up to your nickname, eh?

Comment Re: As opposed to a great American . . . (Score 1) 54

Because Obama was such a great peace loving man...oh wait a tick, he bombed the countries that Trump banned, killing thousands in the process, but of course the press didn't say shit about that. I guess murdering them is okay, its only banning them that is racist...maybe Trump should follow Obama's example then and start letting loose the drones?

Hey maybe if he racks up as big a body count as Obama he can get a peace prize too!

Comment Re:TANSTAAFL (Score 1) 162

So it's not a personal law protecting your property because some other people have property too, but millions of people who work in creative industries are all getting special treatment?

If it's all so unfair, and the efforts of content creators are of such little value, the same laws do apply to you, and you're welcome to take advantage of them just like anyone else.

Comment Re:TANSTAAFL (Score 1) 162

I was with you until you said copyright hasn't benefitted us. Given that most of the best quality and most widely distributed creative content we produce today is supported through copyright in one way or another, I don't think that argument stands up in the face of the evidence. Just compare a summer blockbuster with an amateur movie on YouTube, or fan fiction with a bestselling novel, or most community-developed FOSS with its commercial competition.

Art surely wouldn't go away completely without copyright, but unless some other model was developed for funding all the people whose effort goes into making creative works under copyright today, it seems reasonable to assume that both quantity and quality would drop sharply. There's very little stopping anyone from adopting a better model today if they wanted to, including old school approaches like the patronage model that paid for most demanding works before we had things like copyright. And yet almost no-one does, and those who've tried rarely reach even the same order of magnitude of funding, which I think is a pretty strong argument that we haven't actually found a better model yet.

Comment Re:TANSTAAFL (Score 1) 162

That doesn't make sense. You're perfectly entitled not to pay for a copyrighted work that you don't find to be worth the asking price. What you're not entitled to do is have it anyway, even if you don't want to pay for it. If it truly has no value to you, then obviously the latter won't be a problem for you. But if you still want it even though you aren't willing to pay anything for it, it takes some serious mental gymnastics to argue that the work has value in one context yet not in another.

Comment Re:TANSTAAFL (Score 1) 162

That's an argument that makes some sense in very limited circumstances, mainly those where works can be presented as live performances, which basically means music or live theatre.

Unfortunately, there is no equivalent for the work done by almost everyone who works in creative industries behind the scenes, or even as a direct creator of other types of work.

The problem we have is that, as you rightly say, the marginal cost for copying creative works is now close to zero, and people only look at that without considering the cost of creating the work in the first place. The copyright principle works pretty well as a way to amortize that initial cost over many people who will enjoy the finished product, but only if enough people play by the rules.

Comment Be careful what you ask for.... (Score 5, Insightful) 465

As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House
will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron.

~H.L. Mencken

Comment Re:It disincentivises (Score 1) 162

Because you can get away with charging full monopoly rents for your "work", you don't have to produce a new one to keep eating.

Only if your work continues to provide enough value to other people that the market is willing to keep paying for it indefinitely. A tiny number of people ever reach that point, and arguably those people have generated so much value for society that maybe they do deserve to be set up for life.

Moreover, you have already broken the copyright laws by your land grab extensions of time and coverage

Erm... What? By definition, those extensions were changing the law, not breaking it. I agree with you that a lot of the terms have become unreasonably long and some of the laws should be changed. However, I also don't think that matters very much in the context of piracy, because most piracy is of works that are recent and won't be affected by the "land grab", as you call it, for several decades.

Be thankful that we still feel sorry enough for you to spend as much as we do on it. We have no debt to pay for you when you broke the rules decades ago.

Your attempt to tar millions of people working in creative industries with the same brush is crude and illogical. If you think you shouldn't have any debt to pay to those people when you enjoy the fruits of their labour, feel free to campaign to get the laws changed to something you consider fair. If you succeed, good for you. But if you don't, or if you don't even try and just choose to break any rules you happen not to like, maybe you should be thankful that your name hasn't come up with one of the big content creators that has the resources to take real action against you. At some point you might find out the hard way that you're not above the law.

Comment Re:Too bad Mozilla needs to be forked again (Score 0) 45

Except they are getting rid of the only reason anybody uses their product so tell me again how its all about security? If you are arguing the web will be more secure when Mozilla is gone? Alright then argue that, but this move is completely pants on head retarded and considering how many users they've lost since the Australis debacle this could not have come at a worst time.

To use a /. car analogy it would be like the only car your company has enough sales of to keep you afloat is the convertible line so the CEO goes "Ya know what? Convertibles are unsafe, we're getting rid of them! The customers will love our attention to keeping them...hey where did everybody go?"

Meanwhile I'd love to see the figures from the Pale Moon guys about how many downloads they've been getting the past few months as I bet its through the roof, I know every article with another Mozilla stupid move in it has a comment section with users advising to bail on FF and go for Pale Moon instead. Ya know what? Can't say as I blame 'em, I switched to PM myself when I finally got tired of FF screwing with the UI and its actually a really nice browser, all my extensions work (and for the few that don't they have a handy list with links to the previous version of said extension that works with the latest PM), my theme worked, and for the couple of websites that put up a fit? One quick change of the UA string and it was all golden. Its like FF used to be before they went down the road to suckage, which just FYI I'm betting by Xmas they will be just another rebranded Chrome like Opera and a year or so after that they'll close up shop. After all what is the point of using FF now if it looks and acts like chrome and only uses chrome extensions? If I wanted chrome I'd bloody well use chrome!

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.