MegaUpload Has Been Taken Offline

Forums › Off topic › MegaUpload Has Been Taken Offline

1 | ... | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | ... | 40

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#576895 3-Feb-2012 16:15

There is no legal speed tolerance of 10kph. If the posted speed limit is 100kmh then the maximum allowed speed is 100kmh.

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#576898 3-Feb-2012 16:27

KiwiNZ: There is no legal speed tolerance of 10kph. If the posted speed limit is 100kmh then the maximum allowed speed is 100kmh.

New Zealand police can pull you over when you exceed 100kph, but they don't. Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing things like announcing that they're setting the tolerance to 4kph instead of 10kph for the holiday weekend.

While there is no tolerance written into the legislation, there is a tolerance built into the enforcement.

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#576899 3-Feb-2012 16:28

tdgeek:
Brendan:
I think we can come up with an alternative that has the advantages of a free-for-all system of innovation but also brings some form of incentive towards the inventor.

Brendan!

Firstly, while we disagree, and I do have something constructive to ask below, I do wish to let you know I appreciate the time and detail in your last post. Responses like that do add to this topic, irregardless of what side of the fence the reader is on.

Thank you.

I'm keen to hear what you suggest re the quote above. My key is giving cost recovery and reward, for a period, for the creators, whether that be music, movies, or cars. How can you balance the protection by copyright and patent aganst those who will digitally copy or physically copy, to reap the rewards of the creators creativity effort? From where I sit, it's a time thing, how long between protection and public property.

I have not thought in detail about it, and I think it is a subject that could occupy the best minds for decades. How to stimulate progress while at the same time enabling a higher degree of creative freedom (e.g. copying and modifying).

However, I will share some speculation / hypothesis level ideas I have had on the subject.

It seems to me that the best innovation and discovery is done in an environment of relaxed atmosphere and plentiful resources. This can further be fostered by instituting a tradition of intellectual rigor and acheivement.

I suggest that we should move our scientific and technological efforts for progress back out of the board room and back into the class room. Universities would become incubators for innovation and discovery much more than they are now.

These efforts would be mostly tax payer funded and it would be mostly the tax payer that would benefit. Companies would pay a license fee to use these discoveries, but in the form of a bit more tax.

These companies in turn would profit from the production of resulting products sold to the consumer. They could differentiate themselves from competitors by combining knowledge from any source - e.g. there innovation would be more towards presentation and features, and this itself might be copied by other companies. In a simular way that the fashion industry operates now. Competition would be fierce, driving down prices and lessening corporate influence over government.

People would find legitimate and fulfilling employment in these universities doing reasearch, or in these companies facing the practical problems of implementation. It would employ a lot of people.

Having a lot more people doing important and well funded research is exactly what we need now to face the problems we have in the world. We need more flexibility, not more restrictions.

Copyright would not exist in it's current form, but in a much weaker state and perhaps not at all. The production of music would revert to it's true roots - a cultural art form that people do not expect to become millionaires off. Artists would earn their money through live performaces much as they did before the 1900's. Popular artists could expect to be well off - but maybe not millionaires.

Film would hopefully follow a simular pattern, but perhaps leaning more towards a open source software model. A group of people would make these films in co-operation with each other in an amatuer fashion. Much like what happens with YouTube now, but more evolved. they might be rewarded with advertising dollars for discrete product placements etc. Distribution via internet for free. Prices charged for advertising dictated on popularity. No million dollar salaries.

So: basically at it's core is a free information sharing, science and achievement based engine. Research is done with only a mild connection to a profit motive, and it's up to various companies to implement it's uses and profit there by - for which they pay a stipend to the universities.
Consumers benefit from cheaper prices and better products unencumbered by patents and copyright.

As I say, this is off the top of my head and needs work.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#576903 3-Feb-2012 16:37

jpollock:

The same level of intervention is going to be required to stop copyright infringement. So, where's the line? How much freedom are we willing to give up to stop infringement? Are we willing to give up on general purpose computers? Putting borders on the Internet? Making SSL/SSH illegal? Making steganography illegal?

Truth be told I don't think the amount of freedom we are willing to give up will be the deciding factor. We humans are more likely to trade our freedoms and now our personal information for convenience than the high ideal of stopping piracy.

I think the answer will eventually be that there is more money to be made by not trying to crush piracy than there is by trying to do so.

Game consoles used to be a loss leader, the money was made up on games.

I think the iPod will be seen as the change point here. The proposition was to buy and iPod for around US$500 then iTunes was going to sell you a song for US$1 each, and your iPod holds 20,000 songs. So that would be .... yeah.

So, nobody took the idea that the money was in the songs seriously. Where ever people got those songs they were not paying $1 per song.

But this didn't, and doesn't, stop Apple being very successful. Because there is still money in 'the business'. Sooner or later, it looks to be later, 'the business' will figure out how to distribute that money fairly. Because an iPod without any music is a paperweight, and an expensive one.

The business requires content; no content, no device to view or listen to it, no need for more bandwidth etc. The business will sort it out or completely loose out.

I would say that is too much money to loose.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

nzlemming

79 posts

Master Geek

#576915 3-Feb-2012 17:04

jpollock:

New Zealand police can pull you over when you exceed 100kph, but they don't. Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing things like announcing that they're setting the tolerance to 4kph instead of 10kph for the holiday weekend.

While there is no tolerance written into the legislation, there is a tolerance built into the enforcement.

You're right in practice, but the reasoning is a little different. Through experience (i.e. case law) the police know that a) speedometers are not universally accurate, b) the radar guns are not accurate to the third decimal point, and c) speed varies +/- 5 kmh even when you are attempting to travel at a constant speed, depending on road conditions, wind, even slip-streaming from trucks. Consequently, they have developed the practice of generally not stopping you unless they can prove beyond doubt that you were infringing, and the 110 mark gives them that point.

The reason for the no tolerance weekends is not that they can be more accurate, but that you will take more care to be well below the limit.

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#576967 3-Feb-2012 18:47

nzlemming:
jpollock:

New Zealand police can pull you over when you exceed 100kph, but they don't. Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing things like announcing that they're setting the tolerance to 4kph instead of 10kph for the holiday weekend.

While there is no tolerance written into the legislation, there is a tolerance built into the enforcement.

You're right in practice, but the reasoning is a little different. Through experience (i.e. case law) the police know that a) speedometers are not universally accurate, b) the radar guns are not accurate to the third decimal point, and c) speed varies +/- 5 kmh even when you are attempting to travel at a constant speed, depending on road conditions, wind, even slip-streaming from trucks. Consequently, they have developed the practice of generally not stopping you unless they can prove beyond doubt that you were infringing, and the 110 mark gives them that point.

The reason for the no tolerance weekends is not that they can be more accurate, but that you will take more care to be well below the limit.

:) Yeah, I got out of a speeding ticket once by letting the cop drive my truck around the block. Yes, it was a very small town, and he was very bored. :)

Anyways, we could easily require more accurate speedometers and legislate that the driver is responsible for the accuracy of the reading. Then the speed limit becomes a hard maximum instead of the point where you start paying attention. The fact that governments don't do this says a lot.

I'm still curious what freedoms people would give up to the government to allow them to effectively enforce copyright.

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#576979 3-Feb-2012 19:25

I think it's maybe time this thread was locked as it has now gone way off track..

Regards,

Old3eyes

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

nzlemming

79 posts

Master Geek

#576986 3-Feb-2012 19:46

old3eyes: I think it's maybe time this thread was locked as it has now gone way off track..

I think it's doing just fine. Conversations do mutate, you know.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#576989 3-Feb-2012 19:56

wow, I see the same people are arguing the same points over and over again.

As a group of internet savvy people I wonder if it is our responsibility to lead with new thinking ?

Therefore if someone comes up with a new viewpoint they should not automatically be wrong/brain damaged/social outcast/moron etc.

(some) examples of new thinking might be.
Blanket Boycott - Never ever talk about movies or songs again. Never repeat a weather forecast or discuss news.

Selective - Put pressure on hollywood companies to "think" of new ways to add value to entertainment without charging for the viewing opportunity. If they can't think of new ways what hope have they got of innovating a storyline .

Reverse the situation - Make movie companies pay for distribution via the internet, have people get paid for downloading a movie, even more if they share it, as you have saved the movie company from distribution costs. devices could monitor what you watched , how long you watched it for. etc etc etc.

Then perhaps we could come up with a solution to a very greed based problem on both parties behalfs.

Or we could just carry on and argue if its ok or not to steal/copy whatever

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#576990 3-Feb-2012 19:59

and no , don't lock the topic, it's interesting and we could influence the future with our thinking !

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#577179 4-Feb-2012 12:42

I see that Dotcom has been denied bail again. Guess we can say that NZ Justice has been well and truly bought by the US Gov and Hollywood. Pity these same judges didn't have the same care when they let other low life out on bail for way worse crimes who go on to kill , rape etc when the get out on bail..

Regards,

Old3eyes

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#577189 4-Feb-2012 13:20

old3eyes: I see that Dotcom has been denied bail again. Guess we can say that NZ Justice has been well and truly bought by the US Gov and Hollywood. Pity these same judges didn't have the same care when they let other low life out on bail for way worse crimes who go on to kill , rape etc when the get out on bail..

Possible, but only your assumption. Extreme flight risk was the judges reason, and thats clear to see