Slashdot Mirror
Hilary Rosen from RIAA will write Iraq's Copyrights?
sould writes "The Register is reporting that Hilary Rosen is to assist in writing Iraq's Intellectual Property laws. Can't have those Iraqi's pirating Eminem now can we?"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I thought that when we ousted Sadaam, that meant the end of cruel and merciless regimes for the Iraqi people. ;-)
;-)
I wonder if the Republican Guard will instinctively rally around Ms. Rosen?
Someone might shoot her!
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
can you say "Client state"
we own it now!
Yeah, freedom, freeeeedoooommm!
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
And to think everyone thought the bombing was the "Shock & Awe" part of the campaign....
I see the four horsemen of the apocalypse on the horizon!!!
Haven't the Iraqi people been OPPRESSED enough already? Why would they welcome new draconian laws like the RIAA would suggest they have? I thought we just liberated these people....
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
As if the Iraqi people were not burried in oppression, now we're going to mire them up in US patent and IP nonsense. By the time we're through, the people will never have a foothold to get any technological endeavor off the ground. They'll be forever burried by our stupid laws. Of course, bad patent & IP laws are better than being murdered by your government, it's still kind of a sinister trade. The Iraqi people have no idea what we may be getting them into -- until they try to make any significant advances in the global technology industry. Someone explain to me how this isn't colonization?
Join Tor today!
(+1, Informative)
Rather than waste time writing copyright laws, why don't they fix their infrastructure, health/education systems and provide essential services. No offense to copyright holders (I myself being one of them) but basic human rights should come before protecting whats yours.
What are they going to do, copywrite broken bricks and bits of windows?
Where ever you go, there you are.
Guess somebody has their priorities straight...
... if they make her wear veils all the time.
Garg
Garg
Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
Did you know that there is a 2% surcharge on all CD recorders sold that goes directly to the RIAA, and a 2% hidden tax associated with the AHRA that is collected by the RIAA to give to artists, yet only roughly 36% of that 2% goes to the artist. www.boycott-riaa.com
If I said I didn't have an incentive to grow oranges uness I could plant a tree in your yard, or if I said I didn't have an incentive to grow cotton unless I could own slaves on the plantation, most people would see this is these as the worthless shallow arguments that they are. But if I said I didn't have an incentive to to make beneficial or creative works without a copyright monopoly, then all of a sudden people just take it on faith, they don't even question it, they just assume that society would fall apart without them. In my humble opinion, this is intellectually dishonest, especially considering that the entire Renassance happened without copyrights.
The simple fact is, there is no equivalency relationship between copyrights and property rights - incentive does not a right make. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from the fact that property has physical limits, while the foundation of copyrights dervives from kings who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. The history of Copyrights is not one of rights, but controll of sharing and restricting the open use of knowledge.
That is why people who copy are not criminals, thiefs, or akin to pirates who board ships and murder people. No, infact they are really victims of a cruel deception. A deception that copyrights somehow financially benefit artists and creators. The simple fact is, that for every artist that makes it "big" there are litterally thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, even hindered, or destroyed.
However, this is not the only failure of copyrights - it is just one in many issues related to copyrighrts that are just blown off ignored, or glossed over. Like the failures of Hollywood culture, the failures of big media to provide quality material, the failures to provide reasonably priced books to college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry to name a few.
While the problems associated with copyrights might have been bearable 20 years ago when the biggist issue was Xerox machines, today we are entering into the information age where information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can be no middle ground. Our society will either half to controll all of it or none of it. Our communications will either half to be monitored or free, our privacy to be either contunuiously probed or protected
In that sense, copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it off at the root. The DMCA, infinite extensions, billion dollar lawsiuts, are all just symptoms of a poor belief system - not the cause. So the efforts to find a "middle ground" on copyrights are a failure because they do not address the core issue. That contrary to copyrights, the right to copy and distribute creative works and knowledge is a right!
Like freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, the right to copy things is a right that exists above government. It is a moral right, it is an inherent right, it defines the very nature of the human condition. It is beyond politics and the petition of leaders.
In fact, the entire foundation of politics rests on the notion that it's better to fight wars with words than wars with bloodshed. But to copy things does not require coercion or viloence at all, the rules are not the same. We will not change the copyright situation by petitioning our leaders, or voteing to change the system. No it can only be changed by defiance.
Defiance by holding the belief that people have rights, even if those rights appear contrary to the popular mob or to the system. Defiance, by shedding off the guilt and shame that those who try to impose copyrights impose on us and understanding that they are the ones who should be guilty and shamefull. Defiance by copying and sharing creative works whenever we have acess to them. Defiance by using technologies that make it harder and harder for copyrights to be imposed upon us. And defi
Or maybe we're going to write the laws, and then if their elected representative doesn't enforce them, we'll get a new representative. Or even better, we could help enforce them ourselves. Joy.
this is why she retired/is retiring? Maybe it wasn't about Oil... it was really about securing all that Iraqi IP and Music! The REAL conspiracy is uncovered!
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
Is she willing to relocate? That would be awesome.
Firstly the article is from the Register, not exactly the most reliable source. Second, this is just an incredibly easy setup for attack and spewfest on this site.
So what are you saying, I can dodge bullets?
When your ready you won't have too!
This will most certainly help the poor image of the US in the middle east. We're showing our strong corporate interests. It's such a nice, clean, humanitarian image the US partrays, isn't it?
Developers: We can use your help.
This is hilarious. In a country where people are looting from hospitals and orphanages... who's gonna give a about copyrights?
This is ironic since the Iraqi Information Minister has apparently been writing the RIAA's sales statistics reports.
You know, it's refreshing that rather than being saddled laws which are based on wisdom and forward-thinking ideals, the Iraqis will be able to skip straight to having laws based on short-sighted greed.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
So the war wasn't about oil after all.. It's about piracy! ;)
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
I don't know -- reading the article didn't fill me with lots of confidence in the accuracy of this story. The whole tone seemed awfully biased to be a 'reputable' source. Can anyone else confirm this information from an alternate news source?
GMD
watch this
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this will make Iraqis hate Americans more and more. For God's sake please stay away from imposing our rules (and ways) on them. Thats probably the last thing you want to do if you want to prove that we are there for liberation and not to force ourselves on them.
Jalil Vaidya
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Hillary "Heinous Hil" Rosen, Iraqi I.P. Minister
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Iraqi intelligence officials were quick to issue a response and a rebuttle: "The great infidel Satans have already failed in their crusade to hijack our intellectual property. We shall plunge the burning spear of Allah deep into the imperialist Satan's black hearts."
Isn't this equivalent to having Michael Jackson run a child care center???
I hear there's an opening for Iraqi Information Minister...
Do not trade mp3's you sick devil dogs!
While the quote is both a funny and insightful comment, it is truely a sad situation that we live in a world where this could happen under any circumstances.
That said, with the freedoms we have we choose to go for a clearly biased party to create other countries laws.
This is world is crazy.
__
cheap web site hosting and reseller packages
The more likely scenario is that an Islamic republic will be formed after an election (much to the chagrin of the US), and Western music will be banned outright.
I used to have the unfettered loathing for Rosen that most Slashdotters have. However, that changed after I read the Wired article that was profiling her.
It was very interesting to see that she did have some disagreements with the methods that the RIAA members wanted to use, but that she did her job by pushing for what the people the RIAA represented wanted, instead of what she personally wanted. (She was in favor of online music distribution and other details, if I remember correctly)
I do think that copyright law has gone way overboard - but that is still a minority view. I think many people, even those involved in enforcing it, haven't given proper thought to what it's all about, what it affects, and what it should be - either they just accept it as it is, or they're corporate folks who are looking at profit and being capitalists - doing whatever they can to make more money.
If Iraq ends up with a government that is trying to catch up to the international community, then what should we expect other than copyright laws that fit the rest of that community. And if they end up with a different gov't, perhaps an Islamic fundamentalist one, copyright law is not going to be high up on the agenda of things to worry about.
Work to get copyright law changed in those countries that are leading the charge to extend copyright periods, and smaller countries will follow their lead.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
I rather expect as soon as the minders are gone they'll do whatever they damn well please, and IP crap dumped on them from american special interests will chafe and be the first things to go or be utterly ignored.
Maybe Jack Valenti can be embedded next time, eh?
"That's right, Bob, we've found a stash of illegitimate Backstreet Boys CD's in An Nasaryah, so the president was certainly justified in this invasion!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Bush lauded the work being done to restore basic services and order in Iraq after Saddam's ouster, but warned "the building of a new Iraq will take time." He said the United States will help Iraqis create a democratic society.
"America has no intention of imposing our form of government or our culture," he said. "Yet we will ensure that all Iraqis have a voice in the new government and all citizens have their rights protected."
My emphasis added. That's what Bush said in a speech in Michigan on Monday to Iraqi-Americans. Guess we're tossing that one out the window...
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
This is ridiculous, yet shows how the Bush administration intends to administer Iraq: as a colony. Luckily, the administration isn't very good at hiding their evil intentions, so now we know about it.
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
That quote is wrong.
Warner Brothers will chop off their hands, not Sony. ;-)
Many Arabs need our ways imposed on them. They are living in a backwards society that is 500 years behind Western Civilization in development of moral principles. Basically, this is a White Man's Burden issue. The Arabs need to be civilized by the Americans BECAUSE if they are not, the Arabs will continue to kill each other in order to appease an invisible person in the sky (no big deal really; I don't care about that so much) AND, here's the real problem, they will continue to attack good, civilized Americans and our allies. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. All Muslims need to turn on a television and realize that wearing veils and cutting hands off is not only fucking queer but it's also outdated as hell. Fuck Iraq. They will do what I tell them to do. If they don't want to be civilized, fine - they can eat some more bombs.
a stat that is run entirely by corporate interests.
this oughtta be fun...
You mean like when the US army didn't protect a single thing after the "Fall of Baghdad" except for the Oil wells and the ministry of Oil ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
read his fucking auto-biography... "I have the long-term goal of establishing "Excellent" karma on this account, then unleashing a plague of +1 trolls upon the Slashdot. discussion forums. I am only a karma whore in my larval stage, but eventually, when I've grown into my adult stage, I'll be a colorful troll. Luckily for everyone here, this should take some time." not only does he have TROLL in his handle, he's TRYING to karma whore so he can +1 troll! jesus christ moderators, what the hell is wrong with you!?!?!?
Mind if I copy your post and claim credit?
--Ryvar
This news proves, in a weird way, that the recent war was about imposing "our" will (the will of a few well-connected insiders, actually) on Iraq, not on bringing it democracy.
I'm reminded of the lyrics of on old Phil Ochs tune (and may the ghost of Phil forgive me if my quoting violates any of his rights):
----------
Manifesto for the Peoples of the Third Millennium
They said it was an "inside job". Hilary's the real pro. Iraqi's invented writing; so we should pay them.
Now why would anybody want to pirate Eminem? Why would anybody even download Eminem songs for free? I honestly think I would have to be paid to listen to Eminem! Let's hope the Iraqis pirate Eminem like hell, put him out of business, and ultimately, make him their makeshift Saddam beat-up-doll!
And THAT freedom! You like that bitch? ...
Here, have some MORE freedom. Ya had enough?! Huh?
Have you?
So in that deck of cards she's what, the Queen of Clubs?
To your average Iraqi, who CARES if they have no concept of fair use.. after all they have no running water, much less a CD burner
Yeah, but watch: Iraq will get one water pipeline that has a high flow rate, and RIAA/MPAA will claim that it is the equivalent of 162 normal pipelines, and that the humanitarian efforts are complete.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Rosen is the perfect person for this job.
The truth of the matter is that Iraq is in desperate need of foreign investment. If media companies aren't able to sell their stuff there without fear of rampant piracy, then how is that investment going to happen?
We've seen the effects of piracy in the third world. It affects the income of the media companies in a big, big way. Billions of dollars in software and media are pirated every day there! You wanna know why the dot com crash happened? Piracy, pure and simple.
Those who misunderstand sarcasm are doomed to FAIL IT.
A US corporate figure is going to have a word about how future LAW will look like in Iraq ???
If there was any doubt that the USA is just acting in the interests of it's corporations, then that doubt is now dead.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
We're dumping all kinds of conservative stupid shit onto Iraq. I hear also abortion is now illegal there, thanks to G.W. He's treating it not as an American protectorate but as a Republican Party protectorate.
Depends on whether it's the US or the Iraqis who want the real Saddam Hussein to please stand up.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Copyrights can and do benefit artists, when applied correctly. All the problems of the present copyright system are an outgrowth of the misapplication of copyright.
Copyright is supposed to benefit the whole of society by making sure that creative people get some recompense for being creative. Furthermore, the copyright laws of the US include a provision for fair use (like burning a disc for your friend); however, we currently have a copyright system that exists soley for the profit of CEO's. Copyrights now never expire, making them couterproductive to their original purpose, and the scope of what is considered fair use is being reduced everyday.
Simply ignoring copyright is not a solution. It gives the likes of Valenti and Rosen more amunition in their crusade for DRM and will lead to laws even worse than the DMCA.
If copyright really were a temporary thing, lasting, at most, 28 years, like it is supposed to, we would be able to freely trade almost everything ever recorded by The Beatles, The Doors, Buddy Holly, Elvis, etc. A great many novels would enter the public domain. Many films would be free to distribute. There would be a plentiful, rich, and significant public domain. As it is, books written by men long dead at the beginning of last century are still under copyright, a short cartoon of a rat is still locked up, and Michael Jackson owns the rights to Jahn Lennon's music. I agree that system is bad, but I think just ignoring will make it worse. The RIAA/MPAA/etc. will have even more fuel for their fires, and will be able to get laws passed that make the situation even worse than it is already. Fight for a return of reasonable copyrights, and artists and consumers will benefit.
my pet machine
How on earth did this get modded to 3:Interesting?
"If I said I didn't have an incentive to grow oranges uness I could plant a tree in your yard, or if I said I didn't have an incentive to grow cotton unless I could own slaves on the plantation, most people would see this is these as the worthless shallow arguments that they are."
Not only are these arguments shallow and worthless, they are not relavent to any discussion of copyright. In what way does copyrigt give anyone ownership of your property or personal freedom?
"A deception that copyrights somehow financially benefit artists and creators. The simple fact is, that for every artist that makes it "big" there are litterally thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, even hindered, or destroyed."
Keep that bit or tripe in you mind as you go to see X-Men 2 this weekend and ask yourself if the studio, writers, actors, etc., would have invested their time and hundreds of millions of dollars to create this work if there was no financial benefit in it for them. Yes there are thousands of of artists who haven't made a dime from their creations - this is a result of a free and capitalist economy, not the fault of copyright. Would those artists have made money without copyright?
I am a book publisher, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that people who write for a living actually like to make a living from their writing. Those that don't...generally cut way back on their production or quit writing altogether.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
...the source of the story: Democracy Now radio. It's a show at Pacifica.org, probably the most left-wing radio you can think of. While Democracy Now is still pretty decent by the radio's standards (for example, when a caller said that he wished more people died in the 9/11 attacks, the talk host didn't expressly agree with him as it happened on other shows of that radio), they are still highly unreliable. I don't trust some of the right-wing media, such as FOX News, but I trust even less what is being said on Democracy Now. Move on; there's nothing to see; the whole thing is most likely a hoax.
Should'nt laws be made by legislators, and in the Iraq's case a constitutional assembly?
Funny how US won't impose the form of Iraq's new regim, but already said no to ismalic constitution and now is writing their laws alone and already... very weird thing...
the right to work for a rich man. Subordination to to corporate interest, not democracy, is the prerequisite for a nation's economic and political growth
Employing Hilary Rosen for this task is shameful. She is the human equivalent of a Weapon of Mass Destruction against Iraqi rights and fair use. Who said this wasn't an occupation?
Billy Bragg's "It's all about the price of oil" MP3... enough said.
I wouldn't think she'd want to count on the Navy. Not after what the RIAA did to their brother cadets.
I believe the Revolutionary Guard are pretty good at that sort of thing though.
Why would Hilary need to worry that we would want to pirate it? Have you ever heard that stuff?
And how many people didn't bush send to the chair.
Looks like capital punishment is still on the books for Iraq.
Back on topic.
So will Apple sue Iraq because it sounds too much like there latest 1U server, the IRack.
Some people just have a hard time understanding the difference between physical entities and
written works. *sigh*. Its quite simple Mr argoff really , try and pay attention: If you sell
someone an orange you've grown they can't go and make 100s of copies and give them to their
friends. However thats EXACTLY what they can so if you given them a piece of code or an image etc etc.
Since a writer has no physical protection for his work there must be LEGAL protection , and that is copyright law. If someone wishes
to give away their work under the GPL or whatever then good for them. If however someone wishes to make money out of it and illegal copies
would prevent this then why on earn shouldn't there be some sort of law to help them? Or are you simply yet another member of the "profit = baaaad , free = gooood" movement
that seems based around some hippy ideas that were proven drivel 30 years ago and are only believed by naive dopeheads and RMS these days?
ROTFLMAO Oh well, I guess they didn't need fair use rights anyway, right? Soon enough we'll have to fly over there and bomb the RIAA out of Iraq because they have established their own cruel Governmental system.
Can't have those Iraqi's pirating Eminem now can we?
Can't have those Slashdotters using apostrophes correctly now can we?
Clearly, Larry Rosen or Alan Greenspan should be invited to participate, in order to get some kind of balanced perspective.
Not that I'm holding my breath for anything other than economic looting, from the Bush admistration.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Suddenly this headline makes more sense!
Could coalition leaders face war crimes charges?
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Hillary Rosen is a beautiful woman, and she can only be improved by my balls on her chin and my goo in her eyes.
She's my Reubenesque cock gobbler.
than Americans, now would we?
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
I can't believe that. I'm sure that at least one of our proud 24-hour news stations would be all over that. Someone check the No-Spin Zone!
Face it, folks: This is an administration which plays the press perfectly and gets away with an astounding amount of this bullshit. We're just lucky it's not in the US this time -- he could be appointing more Enron lackies to head the army or obviously business-biased people to set policy. And he gets away with it 'cause the 24 hour "news" channels don't have the will or the stones to make, afraid that they'll lose interviews or access or credibility among people who made the WWE and NASCAR such powerhouses.
(sigh) Sorry, I guess my cynicism got out for a run again. I'm off to watch a few more hours of Fox News and MSNBC. Maybe I can hear another eloquent defense of that poor Senator from PA who's under attack by crazy lefties just because he hates homosexuals.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
And no, I'm not trolling.
Please don't fall into the trap of believing that all Iraqis are necessarily tribal, tent-dwelling folk - Iraq has a sizeable, educated, (and often relatively westernised) middle class.
Remember, they had running water until the US and UK bombed them.
Mod early, mod often.
Tom Lehrer wrote this song ("Send the Marines") in 1969. It's scary that it's all still true... :)
When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first - send the Marines!
We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott;
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli.
What do we do?
We send the Marines!
For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Till somebody we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war;
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
Ooh, we hate that expression!
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt, Send the Marines!
How does America have any authority? I hope once the new Iraqi government is set up, they toss all the American stuff aside and create their own government. Iraq is Iraq, it's not a mini-America. They can do whatever the hell they want. Silly Americans thinking they can bestow their way of life upon any group of people. How many 9/11's is it going to take for America to wake up and realize they are not in control of the world?
Copyright protection represents a balance, just as patents do. Copyright is a recognition that creative art is good for society, and that artists require some compensation for their work. In the past, wealthy patrons supported artists. Now, we as a capitalist society say that artists can make art and sell it themselves. If they happen to create something that is successful, the public will reward them by paying for it. If they fail and either just do not have the skills or make art that the public is not sufficiently interested in, then they get no money from society.
To address your property examples, the copyright situation is more accurately represented by the following:
You own the only henhouse in a town, and are the only supplier of eggs. You take care of the hens, feed them and collect the eggs for sale. People like eggs and you are the only supplier, so you can charge a premium. You make lots of money. Then the town passes a law that says you are only allowed to sell a portion of your eggs. In the interest of the public, another distributor will take a portion of your eggs and sell them at a price of his choosing. The distributor will pay your costs for the eggs, but anything the distributor makes is his profit to keep.
You and the distributor are selling the same product. If the distributor sells his eggs at a lower price than yours, you will have to lower the price you charge. You are not "harmed", since your costs are being covered, but your profit has been substantially reduced. But you are doing all the work necessary to support the production of the eggs.
Wouldn't this piss you off?
If I create some new piece of art, if I elect to give it away, that is my perogative. However, as an artist, if I wish to sell my art to make a living (which will allow me to buy supplies to make more art, among other things), then I have to charge a certain price for my art. If my art is popular, and in limited supply, then the price will be higher and I will be compensated accordingly. But, if one person can buy my art, copy it and sell it themselves for a price that is lower than my price, why should people pay my price?
Copyright protection ensures my ability to benefit from the public's appreciation of my art.
Do I think that the ideas of licensing and copyright protection have swung too far? Absolutely. Movie companies should not have to license posters or art works that appear in the background in movies. I believe that the copyright term is too long. (MUCH too long) But that's just my feeling on the cost that society is paying to support art.
I firmly believe that copyright protection benefits society by allowing authors and artists to benefit financially from public interest in their works.
John
"The plural of anecdote is not data."
Does this mean than Jack Valenti is going to North Korea?
America's detractors would point out the political grease on the axis of evil.
Actually, no, she's just going home for the pleasant company of like-minded souls in the Baathist party, and to rejoice in an environment where infringing anything at all is punishable by death.
Jesus fucking christ this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
They don't even have power, water, food, an infrastructure, etc. set up and we have to go in there and pwn them with our corporations.
Now that we've liberated them we can treat them as badly as american citizens. We can hold them indefinitely without charging them. We can burden them with frivolous lawsuits. Hell why don't the corporations just sue everyone in Iraq for being Iraqi. I'm sure being Iraqi is gonna be copyrighted soon.
Country: Universal Iraq©
Capital: Viacom Baghdad©
Iraq is a registered trademark of the Vivendi Universal Corporation. Unauthorized reproduction, visitation, deliberation, fornication, quotation is strictly prohibited. Violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of applicable copyright laws.
Baghdad is a registered trademark of the Viacom Corporation. Unauthorized reproduction, viewing, rebroadcasting, discussion, thoughts are strictly prohibited. Violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of applicable copyright laws.
The Bush Administration has stated over and over, VERY clearly that the Iraqi people are now "free" to build any government they want and "free" to write laws.
However, recently the Bush Administration has stated that it is unacceptable if the Iraqi people attempt to build an Islamic government (like that in Iran). And, Rosen is "writing" Iraqi law?
Does anyone see the double-standard here?
"You're free, as long as you agree with what we think is best for you."
I'm I the only one who thinks The Register is trying to become a junky tabloid for geeks. This is the second baseless story today. I'm not saying it's not true, only that they don't even claim to have any facts supporting it. What's next? Bat Boy?
In a sense, intellectual property laws substitute a temporary monopoly for patronage. This allows the creator to reap patronage benefits through the marketplace of ideas, instead of relying on one aristocrat's misguided taste. Can you imagine what Dubya would sanction? Or Santorum?
Nightmares aside, the problem isn't with the concept of copyright, but with the way it has been institutionalized. (The abuse of copyright has been comcomitant with the overall corporate takeover of American Democracy, but that's for another rant.) A 7 year copyright with solid fair use rights is a great idea. A one hundred year limit with 50-year or total rights transfers being the norm is an abuse. The problem isn't with copyright - it's with the way copyright law has changed over the last 20 years.
Free exchange of ideas only takes place if the inventor has some reason to share the idea. Otherwise, human nature is to protect the idea and use it for your own benefit. Thus, elimination of intellectual property laws in this day & age would stifle expression of ideas, not increase it.
BTW, get arrested if you want credibility on the whole protest thing. Copying Eminem late night using campus computers isn't a protest statement unless you get caught (and don't back down). You wanna protest? Go to the front steps of the Capitol building & start clearly & publicly making & distributing CD's to which you do not have IP rights. Now that's a protest. Spend several years in jail & then you'll have a following.
They should've just left the poor bastards with Saddam.
Okay, I'm sure this thread will be overbrimming with vitriol against Rosen, Bush, the RIAA, etc., but I encourage Slashdotters to, instead of, or in addition to, venting your frustration & anger here (a.k.a. preaching to the choir), write to anyone and everyone who has either the power to inform the world of this colonialism/nepotism/whatever it is, or to do something about it. The discussion at Slashdot is often excellent, but sometimes I worry that we spend too much time talking and not enough time fighting for what we so passionately argue for here.
Grammar Nazis = More than one loser aching for a bogwashing. Grammar Nazi's = Beloging to said loser. e.g. This bogwashin's fo you, bitchass! begin a grammar fag is just plain wrong - and stupid.
after the RIAA completed their task in Afghanistan.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
I heard that she is hiring Metallica to enforce copyright protection plans in Iraq.
exit light, enter night...
America v2.0 All the laws of the origional without that pesky 'Bill of Rights' bug...
Here are some news stroies (Google is your friend):
* Palast, BBC journalist, says war is profit-maker for Bush allies
* Post-war carve-up to benefit CDMA standard, record industry
* Journalist says media is biased on war
I encourage you to check out Greg Palast's site. He is the BBC reporter that the original article mentions and the author of "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". Interesting read.
I gave copies of Shakira's "Laundry Service to all my Apple-using friends!
-- Bill Gates III
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
why are there even talks like this going on? I mean how did crap like this take precedence over things like civil unrest, looting, and general anarchy
this sig is deprecated
Iraqi water was shut off during the war, enabling that stuff shouldn't be all that much work. Many Iraqi's have computers, conceivably, many with CD-Burners. This isn't Afghanistan we're talking about. This comment never should have been given a 5.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
A deception that copyrights somehow financially benefit artists and creators. The simple fact is, that for every artist that makes it "big" there are litterally thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, even hindered, or destroyed.
I disagree with that fellow's assertion to a degree -- I think that eliminating copyrights altogether wouldn't be such a hot idea. However, he may be right that copyright in its current form is restricting the flow of new content. I hear all the time that the music industry (and publishing houses) are afraid to risk investment in new material because they're able to rely on publishing rights going back into the 20s on content that's been proven.
Actually, I'm kind of interested in hearing your take on this, what with your line of work and all...
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
as a non-native english speaker, i am often surprised by the pronounciation of english words. but this sure is the weirdest case i've come across so far: it's spelt liberation and pronounced colonialism. weird.
So an even more accurate example would have you, as the sole henhouse, signing a moderately low priced exclusive contract with a distributor in return for the distributor having the rights to price your eggs as he will, and then the distributor warping the law to make it possible to sell the eggs for twice as much as he paid you for them and still not get into trouble for price fixing.
If people were stealing your eggs because of the distributors usurious pricing, you'd certainly have a right to be pissed at them, but wouldn't you be MORE pissed at the distributor who was screwing you and them?
And of course this leaves out the fact that eggs are physical objects that can't be copied....
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
They have announced they've resurrected Hitler to write the civil rights laws in the 'New' Iraq.
Kenneth Lay will be spearheading the committee on democratic corporatism.
Ronald Reagan will come out of retirement to direct the operations of the new Iraqi dept of mental health.
Bush has assigned his brother, Jeb (who will be taking a paid leave of absence from his duties as Governor of Florida) to ensure the Iraqi people have free and full access to fair democratic elections.
Larry Flynt is coming out of seclusion to assist with writing laws regulating morality in print media.
Michael Jackson is relocating his 'Neverland' ranch to the outskirts of Baghdad so he can be on-hand to advise in the creation of child decency legislation.
OJ Simpson, who recently discounted rumors that he would be starring in a new reality series, was asked to provide input on the formation of a forensic unit in the new Republican Republican Guard.
Jeffrey Dahmer's memoirs were found to contain startling revelations that will help solve the problem of food shortages in no time.
Finally, further tests have shown that 55-gallon barrels once thought to contain chemical weapons actually only held 'special sauce' for former President Bill Clinton's big macs. When questioned about the news, one coalition soldier in charge of the search said "Nope, nossir, we haven't found any WMDs yet. But, we do think we might have located Jimmy Hoffa."
These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
Why can't a lesbian write the copyright laws of a nation of Muslims? To me, it poetic justice.
What, when there is a job opening do they Bush folks just go 'well, who is evil?' ... seems that way thus far.
Kinda sad if people didn't already realize this...
Still, for those just catching up, this is Non-Humanitarian Reason #47 for invading Iraq: More or less the same thing that Nicaragua and Guatemala did: Prosper while simultaneously giving the U.S. the finger.
The enemies of Democracy are
Great... they go from being oppressed and threatened by one crazy guy to a stack of crazy laws that threaten their intellectual freedom. When they're jailed for 10 years for making a copy of a CD, they'll realize that not much has changed. J
I think it's time we open that envelope that Thomas Jefferson left us.
So, if copyright is a property, does this mean I can shoot someone who tries to steal it?
Here, Hillary. Here, girl!
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
It would seem to me that the first and most important laws would be those pertaining to PHYSICAL property. I don't think mp3 file sharing is on the minds of all those LOOTERS!
Nuff said.
You mean the same way the pirates in Tripoli were holding U.S. sailors for ransom until the Marines passed through? How many Marines should we risk to rescue Eminem, or how many should get the reward of leaving him in the desert?
In other news: An egnimatic figure known only by the code name "Big Brother" will be writing Iraq's survelliance laws.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
I realize that Iraq is not an islamist nation in the sense that the laws of the land closely follow the teachings of the Koran as in Iran or Saudi Arabia, but Isn't intellectual property contrary to the teachings of Islam? this is what came up after a bit of google searching. Even though Iraq is largely secular, sending IP fanatics there to write their laws seems pretty culturally insensitive.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Great post. Thanks very much.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Considering that Rummy had spent the 80's flying to Baghdad as a corp ceo as a special emmesary of Reagon meeting with Saddam to get the Iraq's to let his and Chaney's pet company build an oil pipeline to the gulf of aquaba (to bypass the nasty iranians and the persian gulf), and offered in exchange a free pass for Saddam to gass the Iranians, only to be spurned years later in favor of French and Russian oil companies a little before the gulf war, it is no surprise that some of these same private corporations and other corporate shills are so deeply involved in rebuilding the "new iraq"...consider it the first "corporate war".
Come on. This is not America 2.0. We should let Iraqis write their own copyright and property laws after they have established a basic government.
Moreover, do we really need to start thinking about this right now? Iraq doesn't even have proper water, power, and food.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
It's sick that taxpayer dollars were spent on liberating Iraq - only to force the newly "freed" citizens to abide by things like U.S. copyright laws. So, all that tax money was spent to deepen the pockets of big business that have the privelage of setting up monopolies over there. Who the hell died and made the Bush administration king of Iraq? Oh, right. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for ousting Sadamm and freeing the people - but there is no way in hell we should be worrying about things like copyright laws when people don't even have enough food to eat because we took down their functioning government.
but I'd liken it more to John Wayne Gacy running a child care center.
Wasn't she the joker, I think?
I suggest you read Slashdot
Actually, if you sell someone an orange they can easily go an make lots of (partial) copies. They just need to plant the pips and wait.
Unless of course it's a genetically modified, patented orange. In which case it would be illegal to drop the pips in your yard and let nature take its course...
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
When will World Leaders realize that our 'mode' of operation doesn't suit everyones needs. This is just wacko...
Why the hell is the US even involved in the creation of the Iraqi legal system at all??? Especially for laws that are mala prohibita (deemed illegal by prohibition as opposed to illegal for moral reasons).
Its things like this that make me wonder about the true aim of the US. Are we trying to make another friendly nation (read as puppet state) like we did with Japan? If so the results of the Paris Convention of 1919 should be a good indication of what we should look forward to.
There are very few intellectuals left in Iraq, and all that remain are ethnic factions that were forced to live under one flag. This country doesn't seem to have the capacity to thrive as a US Style democracy as it is geographically drawn. You have Kurds in the north, and a whole slew of different muslims everywhere else. And they all hate each other. History shows that the only way to enforce unity there is by some archaic form of government, either Despot, Monarchy, or Dictatorship.
If the US truly wants the best for the citizens of Iraq, Iraq must be divided along mutually agreed ethnic boundaries, with the consultation and help of the neighboring nations.
To force upon them US Style Democracy is absurd and doomed for failure. This region has rejected or shown great resistance to Western style governments ever since the Ottoman Empire fell. I say at the very least return it to the three seperate nations that once existed before 1917 and then work from their. Otherwise we will see a major civil war in the region, just like a host rejecting a foriegn organ after a transplant. Our style simply isn't compatible.
Just ask the English... They learned thier lesson and was forced to give Iraq their indepenence nearly 50 years ago...
--
Since I had mod points I looked through the entire discussion looking for one sane person who might have realized that Hilary hasn't been dubbed IP-czar of Iraq just yet, and thus it doesn't matter what the hell she thinks. But, alas...I'll have to write the sane reply to this article myself.
This report is a lot of hype, and no substance. I'm sure good ol' Hilary has a draft of the way she'd like IP laws to be in every country on the globe. Guess what...she doesn't have the authority to implement them anywhere, without the consent of the countries governing bodies. She's going to have to lobby the new Iraqi congress just like she had to lobby the American one and the EU. In the end, it will be the Iraqis who make the decision. Just because she's written out the way she'd like the laws to be does not mean she's "writing Iraq copyright laws". Her version has no more authority at this point than mine or yours. The title and content of this story are amazingly misleading, and I can't believe that no one else picked up on it.
Now, I hate Rosen as much as the next guy, probably only slightly less than Lessig, but the idea that just because she's the head of the RIAA that she will immediately have power in post war Iraq to dictate her will is perposterous and could only be absorbed by someone with the most heinous liberal blinders on.
That's enough...
-R
There are lots of major mistakes, but the portion that really got me was: The word is have not half!!! "Have" means to possess. "Half" means 1/2. Also, you misspelled "control", there should be only one 'l'.
The plural of "thief" is "thieves". Again, they don't sound alike, so I assume you don't pronounce them properly.
One more that I can't let go... "Renaissance".
There are others, but I'll leave them as an excercise for you, since you need lots and lots of fucking practice.
I can only hope that English is not your first language. Sadly, it probably is.
First, I think that there are basic human rights that are not covered by the UN charter-- for example-- the right to adequate and standard health care regardless of age, sex, or race. (Interestingly, sexual freedom becomes a prerequisite for this because without sexual freedom it becomes *very* difficult to provide adequate health care for women.) My fiancee is from Indonesia and I have some strong feelings about the way in which certain cultural aspects stifle the right to health care in many third-world countries. Although aside from that I also feel that every culture also has the right to self-determination.
But that being said, I do *not* think that copyrights are a basic human right because I do not think that they are a basic concept which is portable through time and across culture in the way that tangible property or even medical care is. Copyright is a very nebulous concept and I believe it falls outside the realm of basic human rights in part because it is a two-edged sword and has to be fair and balanced.
If you believe that copyright is a fundamental human right, then the natural corrolaries would have to include that the DMCA is an important protection against the human rights violations inherent in the doctrines of fair use and first sale. I do not believe that anyone save the most embedded in the entertainment or commercial software industries would be prepared to argue that point. I certainly would not.
Copyright is not a protection on the author's fundamental human right. They are a *lease* given back to he author (and today his/her estate as well) in return for the social contribution.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It looks like the only reason they wanted Iraq was as a guinea pig state to test if certain laws work there before they do in the states. If GWB, and his clowns, starts imposing USA laws and making Iraq a US colony, then he will have succeeded in alienating any other country that accepted the Iraq war.
[rant]
Repeat after me: Iraq is and should be treated as a soverign country and the culture of that country should be respected. The people come before the mega-corporation global economics!
[/rant]
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
ARTIST: Tom Lehrer
TITLE: Send the Marines
When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve
Who is it that always intervenes
U.N. and O.A.S.
They have their place, I guess
But first send the Marines
We'll send them all we've got
John Wayne and Randolph Scott
Remember those exciting fighting scenes
To the shores of Tripoli
But not to Mississippoli
What do we do, we send the Marines
For might makes right
And 'til they've seen the light
They've got to be protected
All their rights respected
Till somebody we like can be elected
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means
Stop calling it aggression
We hate that expression
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo
They love us everywhere we go
So when in doubt
Send the Marines
Step 1: Editor posts story regarding building X in Iraq.
Step 2: Someone posts saying that we should wait to do X until we feed them and build schools.
Step 3: GOTO 1.
Come on people. Could we dispense with the redundant posts that come with every story? Could we add something new for a change that's relevant to this specific story? I'm not saying that I disagree with focussing on rebuilding Iraq, but seriously, we get the idea.
Besides, what the hell is Hilary Rosen going to do to build a school? I'm not saying I like Hilary Rosen or anything, but building a country CAN work in parallel. Some might say it has to.
"To wish death upon a person simply because her viewpoints are different from yours is completely barbaric."
Republican. Barbaric. Whichever.
More seriously, WTF is up with worrying about IP laws in a country that collectively doesn't have running water? Are photocopiers and CD burners so much a problem in a nation where most "modern" technology has been embargo'd for the last 12 years?
I can see it now: "Whip the camels faster, Ali, we almost have 'Jagged Little Pill'"
OTOH, Ms. Rosen is free for the first time to establish her dream: The Elite P2P Death Squad.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
"Every copyright holder is a partial owner of my CD burner, my Xerox machine, my hard drive, my VCR, my CD-Rs, etc because they dictate what I can and cannot do with my own property. "
No they don't. They dictate what you can do with their property. You are free to make as many copies of your home movie, term paper, original songs, etc., as you'd like.
"We can turn your next sentence against you for this one:"
Only if you take it out of context as you did. The original poster stated copyright provides no financial incentive to the work owners. He "proved" his point by pointing out all those who have not made money. He was wrong, and so are you.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
creapy? Is this some sort of new Slashdot term to combine 'creepy' and 'crappy'? Or perhaps this is a warning to watch out for crape making IP lawyers? Or 'cream'...well, never mind. -mp
My quess is that she'll help draft proposals for new IP laws. It's not (well, it is my fervent hope that it isn't) likely that her writing will be turned directly into law.
Holland did the same for post-communist Russia: we helped rewrite some of their laws, including IP laws. The difference is of course that our proposals were already laws in Holland, and had become laws by a (hopefully) fair and impartial process. But Hillary will probably not stop at proposing the existing US IP laws, but something far worse from the darkest depths of her imagination.
Stopping short of Hillary actually writing these laws, she will still have a significant influence in the thrust of those laws. I doubt the words 'fair use' will come up much in the draft.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Firstly, the OP reasons that the concept of copyright is a non-starter by embedding the 'copyright argument' in the world of physical property and showing that the resulting situation is nonsense. But then, the OP (rightly) points out that, in fact, ideas and physical property are incomparable, thus invalidating his opening paragraph.
Further, the entire post confuses the concept of copyright with a certain implementation. While it is widely agreed (on slashdot, at any rate) that US IP laws require some catching up, the parent post says little about copyright per se.
The rest of the post tells us that copyright is being used as a tool for misdirection and control, and vehemently encourages readers to rise against current IP laws and to effect changes by defiance, sentiments with which, though quite militant, I am inclined to agree. But I do not yet believe that the OP has any real qualms with the raison d'^etre of copyright itself.
-Tez
Haskell, the static-typed, lazy, polymorphic, programming language.
Hilary Rosen from RIAA will write Iraq's Copyrights?
Talk about misleading agenda bias... That one takes the cake!
My take is this. Publishing houses have no impact on artistic freedom. People can choose to create any type of music, literature, movies, etc., they choose to create. The simple fact is that if you want to make a lot of money then you need to create something that a lot of people want to buy. If you're main driver is in creating art, so be it, but then don't whine if you're not on a top 40 radio station or best seller list. That's the free market component of it.
Lots of people state the music/publishing industry is a hinderance to new music styles. Personally, looking over the past 30 years I can say that metal rock, disco, rap, etc., all started out as small movements outside of the mainstream in small clubs and venues, and were powerful enough to capture a mainstream audience.
Publishing houses do invest in risky ventures with artists. For every Tom Clancy there's hundreds of writers who will never earn out their advances because their works aren't appealing to a big enough audience. And it's not because of funny accounting, it's because their books don't sell.
We publish about 140 books a year. We write off over $5 million dollars a year in unearned advances paid to authors.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
I think I've made my point.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
(nt)
I sent this in to slashdot over a week ago,
why is slashdot so wary of Greg Palast?
Your analogy is wrong. If there were a way to miracelously duplicate eggs, then you needn't to have a law distributing eggs, and the price of eggs would have been lowered to the cost of duplication. This is a good thing. There is no sense in creating eggs from hens, if eggs could be easily duplicated. This happens all the time when new technology(I'll ignore patents for now) comes along, making old production techniques obsolete.
In the case of creative works, there is a problem. There is a demand for many different creative works, and thus the original authors must be compensated somehow in order to encourage the creation of works in the first place. However, this encouragement should be the minimum that is required for the work to be created. There is no sense in giving more encouragment to the author, as it serves to discourage him/her from creating additional new works.
For more about this opinion, see Richard Stallman's "Misinterpreting Copyright", especially the section about "balance".
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
Why not send the Iraqis Eminem? And Michael Jackson, Madonna, Marilyn Manson, and for good measure, all our rap artists? We'll throw Rosen in as a freebee.
Haven't they suffered enough?
They're writing a copyright law for a country that needs clean water and food? give us a break.
Besides, as somebody else mentioned here, Iraq already has copyright laws.
They are not cavemen you know.
...they just don't have copyright with a life + 75 year span. (They have life + 25 up to a maximum of 50 years) They also don't have 97.000.000.000$ fines for copyright violation.
<rant-mode>
One could reasonably argue that when it came to copyright, if nothing else, Iraq actually had more sane laws than both the US and the EU.
I'm, sure that will change real soon now though.
</rant-mode>
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
I'm sorry, your thoughts are too well thought out and intelligent to be posted here. You'll have to delete and resubmit using at least one reference to: copyright Nazis, Micro$oft, etc.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
This is one of the many reasons why America (the government) is hated by the people and other governments of the world. Our government promises and makes statements, then acts in the opposite manner. Our government states that it cares about children, then refuses to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Our government wants to bring criminals to justice, but continues to block a UN International Criminal Court. Our government says it will send food to countries experiencing famine, and then takes issue with a 'right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food' during a UN sponsered World Food Sumit. The US government screams bloody murder if another country violates the Geneva Convention regarding POWs, but shugs off its own blatant violations.
Reminds me of a poem I once read:
I'm not from the US and quite frankly I'm gobsmacked. 90% of the posts on the US Imperialism topic are usally "Wahoo, we rock" type responses or well argued justification based on US culture that doesn't apply to the rest of the world, but not this time. My God, I do believe you guys are finally beginning to "Get It"!
Which will be the official, U.S. sanctioned format for Iraq? I mean, once they get back electricity and stuff. You'd think Jobs would be pressuring the White House to get AAC, but this will never work because only liberal hippies use Macs.
Presented, for your consideration, one word: galgenhumor.
I'm not sure, but wouldn't this copyright also apply to software, i.e. Windows? And since Iraq is a poor country, not many people might have the money to buy a copy. So either pirate or use something free, right ? ...*g*
I see an opportunity here. But first the Iraqis will need their basic needs to be taken care of, and then a good educational system. I hope thats a field in where the Britons have more to say than the Americans
"Be careful or be roadkill" - Calvin
Argoff, I tried finding your contact information but could not. I'd like to use your essay on my site. Despite your views on intellectual property, I'd still feel better getting your permission first.
Regards,
Brandon
Hilary Rosen is to assist in writing Iraq's Intellectual Property laws. Ok, a hardcore Arab country is going to accept legal help from Jewish-American Woman?
I did think about this, and firgured something like this would happen right after the war. I just didn't see it happening about a month after!
Figures that big business would care about such a thing after a war when people should care more about helping the people of Iraq then helping themselfs.
It is even more insulting that a business that just revoves around "nothing" (i.e. RIAA/MPAA/just about any one whose business consits of IP) wants to write Iraqs laws, when the focus should be helping Iraq become stable as well as establish their own government and laws. Hopefully it will be some type of democratcy, and not something that will lead to another Saddom.
To those bussiness who are so concern about their IP being "harmed" by Iraq at a time like this and not being helpful I say "FUCK OFF AND DIE!"
Since you obviously have no access to a dictionary, I thought I'd help. BTW, you're a disgrace to the human race.
tautology ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tô-tl-j)
n. pl. tautologies
Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
An instance of such repetition.
Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
Are you actualy claming that abortion was legal in iraq, and no longer is? Do you have any citation for this claim?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
...who was behind this war!
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, section 27.2: "Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."
Will I retire or break 10K?
Please use the correct terminology when referring to Americans. Our hubris and arrogance all stems from our ignorance. So refer to us as "ignorant", thank you very much. If we look that bad from the outside, imagine what we look like from the inside.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Why is the American Hot Rod Association collecting money for the RIAA?
You're just as bad as those who confuse the Business Software Alliance with Scouting in every single story about the BSA. In U.S. copyright law, AHRA refers to the Audio Home Recording Act, codified as 17 USC chapter 10.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I agree. In fact, it strikes me that far from increasing creativity, the "copyright era" that started about 40 years ago has seen a massive drop in creativity.
Why? because copyright protection lasting decades, like we have today, rewards "one-hit wonders" so much that there's no incentive for sustained creative effort.
If you (and your grandchildren) can retire on the royalties from just a few hit songs or movies, where's the incentive to push the boundaries of your art?
For example, in the 19th century, musicians didn't have royalties, nor did they have rich patrons. They survived by constantly producing new work. Yes it would be copied, but that just meant you had to always stay ahead of the copiers -- the original creator always has an initial monopoly since it takes copiers time to catch on.
Successful musicians could still be rich (though not by today's bloated standards). But they also knew that to stay rich they had to keep working and keep satisfying audiences.
WHy does a musician have the right to keep making a fortune from royalties from old songs, when he hasn't produced anything worth listening to for a decade? What kind of incentive is that?
I agree without copyright we'd have far fewer artists. But the ones who would be les would be those who wanted to make art, not those who wanted to make a quick buck.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
MS Windows XP will become the official National Operating System of Iraq, and end-to-end digital restrictions management will become mandated by law. All digital monitors will have to include Intel TCPA chips to protect the MPAA's intellectual property, and Iraq 2.0 will become the testbed of the mandatory watermark detection mechanisms planned for all A-D converters over a certain sample rate to "close the analog hole".
Anything else and the stinkin' Europeans could steal our hard-won bounty. We won this sucker and damned if we're going to let a bunch of liberal penguinhead hippies undermine the integrity of our future profits.
First of all, please respond to this.
Explain to me how in a world without copyrights, the makers of X-Men 2 would make money unless they owned a chain of movie theaters, and a DVD distribution network? What would stop someone from getting hold of a copy and then just showing it for money, or making copies and selling them. What would make the movie theaters and distributors give money back to the people who made the film???
One other question. Explain to me how a legally enforceable copyright has ever hindered an artist.
--
Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.
Yes, Iraq is becoming a corporate colony of the United States of America.
There are far worse things it could be. The personal fiefdom of a brutal dictator, for example. However, the idea that the US is going in there for strictly altruistic reasons is pure B.S. The case that the invasion of Iraq was for national security reasons is not much stronger.
It's not all about oil either, though oil plays a role. Iraq is an extremely large potential market for US goods and services.
Here's the scenario:
US Oil companies pump lots of oil out of Iraq. But at the same they pump money in to Iraq. This raises the standard of living for the Iraqi people causing them to demand more consumer goods and services.
The same thing happens with the infrastructure. U.S. companies make lots of money rebuilding Iraq, but they also create Iraqi jobs in the process.
The U.S. controlled government makes mutually favorable trade agreements with the US, giving the US an untapped and open market.
US companies want laws favorable to their interests in Iraq, like they do in the US.
Since no one will notice copyright laws when they have no running water, now is the time to enact laws that favor the corporation over the consumer.
Don't get me wrong. I like capitalism. I like the free market. I supported the war in Iraq (to get rid of Saddam) Politically, I consider myself Conservative/Libertarian. I voted for Bush (or more accurately, against Gore)
However, to say the Government is being less than honest with the American people in Iraq is an understatement.
I thought we were going to FREE the Iraqi's... They are going out of the frying pan, into another frying pan.
And yet, the religion remains the same. How interesting.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Does Hilary really think that the majority of Iraqis would be able to afford legal music/movies/software anyhow? Or that they have the hardware to play it?
As an example, look at East Asia -- piracy, for all its evils, helps build a base of demand for your products and fuels the sales of hardware, without which your stuff is useless anyhow.
What do I mean? There needs to be a established base of music listeners and owners of hardware, like CD players, etc first. Without evil piracy, sales of PCs/CD/DVD players in Asia would have been much less than what it is now, and most people would not have heard of most Western software movies or music, if they had not been ubiquitously available.
So, in developing countries like China, piracy, by fueling a demand that would not have otherwise been there, and ensuring a base of owners with hardware, thus laying the foundation for a consumer base. Then, as economic conditions improve, companies move in there and sell legit products at locally-affordable prices. Look at places like Japan and Korea that are considered "developed" now. There's still some piracy in those places -- you can't eradicate it completely, but because you have these people now clamoring for music/movies/software, you now have a thriving music industry and market, both for local artists and for foreign corporations. As a country moves from devloping to developed, so will piracy gradually decrease.
Without piracy, you would not have had that customer base to begin with. It's a win/win situation, for the people, for the hardware makers, and (while it may take time) for the software makers.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
(note sarcasm)
--aiee
Gates signs deal with US government to help put a windows os on the desk of every child in the newly freed iraq.
-AP
So lemme get this straight: we went to war to 'free' the Iraqis so they could have their own democratically elected government, which would in turn craft laws based on the will of the Iraqi people.
Where, exactly, does Fraulein Rosenberg ("sieg heil!") come into this fairy tale story of good triumphing over evil?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I was listening to Off The Hook ( http://www.2600.com/offthehook/2003/0403.html try April 23) on WBAI last week and there was mention of Radio Tikrit (broadcast from Kuwait, possibly with CIA assistance), and BBC Monitoring had picked up a song with a similar hook to Coolio's Gansta's Paradise, only with a Saddam impersonator saying how evil he (well, Saddam) was. I couldn't find it for myself, but it is contained in the WBAI broadcast. More info can be found on clandestineradio.com or just searching for 'radio tikrit' online.
/ iraq-tik rit.htmli c.php?t=81 17 918 65.stm
Some links:
http://www.rnw.nl/realradio/features/html
http://www.dxing.info/community/viewtop
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2
I'm aware that the Coolio song gets its distinctive baseline from Stevie Wonder's Past Time Paradise, but how does one go about clearing that sample, or does one even have to? What happens to the copyright if the CIA, being a part of the copyright-issuer, is sampling it and making a parody/psyops work from it?
fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
I'm sure I'll get moderated down for this post, but how dumb are some people anyways?
/. readers think that because a US citizen suggests something to another country, that it means US government is forcing US values on that country.
According to the article the US government did not write this! So wtf are so many poeple blaming the US goverment for this???
Also, is not a law! It's a freaking draft that a US citizen is writing up to give to the new Iraqi government, when established. It's totally up to the Iraqi goverment if they want to make the draft a law or not.
Apparently half the
My God, did anybody even read that article?!
- Houdini
What cracks me up is the moral high-ground they all have; despite starting all of the holy wars, we still get told to view other religions as "barbaric" and "disrespectful".
The soon the bible is scientifically proven to be complete nonsence, the sooner we can get on with building that Eutopia it speaks of. Oh, and if the worlds oil runs out soon, that'll help as well.
This goes beyond having the fox guard the henhouse. This is giving the fox a fork, knife, and napkin and saying "bon appatite".
If you support George W. Bush, you're supporting corporate totalitarianism the world over. Sorry, I normally don't hold voters personally responsible for the people they vote for, but in the past 3 years I've come to the conclusion that I cannot in good conscience NOT condemn anyone who supports the current fascist regime in the US, either here in the US or abroad.
I'd even back Ralph Nader of George W. Bush, and I hate Nader with a passion.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
Actually, it's not even the length of copyrights that causes the lack of new content, it's the continual extensions, and it's a system that benefits politicians as much as the content industries.
Look at it like this:
You have 2 choices of investments.
Investment 1: For a few million dollars, you can make an investment that has consistently paid off, and which if successful will continue producing significant profit for the next 20 years.
Investment 2: For that same million dollars, you can invest in a work that has proven to be profitable only around 70 percent of the time, and the term of those profits is unclear. There's maybe a 50 percent chance that it will produce profits for more than 2 years, and a 0.5 percent chance that it will be profitable for up to 100 years.
Most organizations would choose investment 1, although the really rich ones would hedge their bets and invest in both.
Well, what are these investments?
1.) Investing in your congressman to encourage them to extend copyrights on the existing works that you already make profits on.
2.) Investing in a new movie.
For the congressman, this is a good investment also. For the cost of a few votes, you get a LOT of campaign funds from the companies, which typically translates into significantly more votes than you lost, and then into getting to keep your job.
If existing copyrights were really for a fixed, non-negotiable time period, ANY fixed time period, the result would be that the money spent on extending copyrights on existing works would instead be spent on creating new works, to replace those that are falling into the public domain.
For any reasonably long copyright term there is no significant economic incentive to investing in extending the term for new copyrights because that money would be better invested in creating new works. With an unreasonably long term it may be true that inappropriate amounts of money is spent maintaining old works, but it is unclear that this money is badly spent, or that this money would not be spent by someone even if the works were in the public domain, since maintaining old works does have value to society as a whole. Certainly some money goes to lawyers to protect additional works under a longer copyright term, but again it isn't clear that this wouldn't be spent with a shorter copyright term, just to protect the works that remain under copyright.
Extendable copyright terms are the real problem preventing the creation of new works under the current copyright system.
[NOTE: The numbers for investment 2 are guesses, but I suspect I'm being generous with some of them. Also, I intentionally didn't mention the DMCA, etc. Those are a whole new type of copyright law, and here I'm talking about traditional copyright.]
Address your letters to:
Crater #23432
(former) Abdullah Street
Baghdad
Do it now!
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
April Fools day is the FIRST day of the month.
This article is NOT even funny for an April 1st prank.
Just get him to unwittingly change the subject ...
Infuriate left and right
RIAA writing copyright law.. A banker who swindled people out of millions as the proposed leader.. a general with strong ties to Israel running the occupation.. You have to love liberty..
Utopia - Thomas More's vision of a perfect society, where people cooperate to make life better for all.
Eutopia - The European Union's vision of a perfect society, where people cooperate to create straightened cucumbers.
...I would love to see what the legislation submitted by Ms. Rosen looks like.
Please, please, please, someone has got to post a link to this monstrosity when it becomes public. (Although knowing Slashdot, I suspect I don't have to worry...)
Jay
No, no, you see, we (where "we" is defined as Bush, the Hawks, and Big Business; the ruling class of the US) don't expect them to make any music, and even if they did, we don't care if they make any money off it. The reason we're using Darth Rosen is to make sure those citizens of Iraq who want to listen to N'Sync's latest abomination have to contribute $20 a piece to the record companies who so generously contributed the legislation.
After all, without the so gererously contributed (and, above-all, critical) legislation, Iraq would be plunged into a state of anarchy in which citizens could listen to pirated music for free and rich americans would suffer millions, trillions, and octillians in lost revenue and probably starve.
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
Not satisfied with angering music lovers all over the world, now she wants to take on a whole country.
One mean biatch.
The oil industry makes campaign contributions. Result: US troops are sent to protect the oil wells and the Oil Ministry.
The RIAA makes campaign contributions. Result: US lawyers are sent to protect the latest Britney Spears and Eminem albums.
The Iraqi National Museum doesn't contribute to the campaign. Result: The museum gets looted, and priceless artifacts thousands of years old are stolen or destroyed.
Perhaps property owners in Damascus should take notice? Or is this just a wild conspiracy theory?
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
"There are no Pirate infidels in Baghdad. Never!"
... stupid, silly. All I ask is check yourself. Do not in fact repeat their lies."
... issued a warning to the civilian population not to pick up any of those pencils because they are booby traps," he said, adding that the Pirates were "immoral mercenaries" and "IP criminals" for such behavior.
... They have started throwing those pencils, but they are not pencils, they are booby traps to kill the children."
"My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all"
"Our initial assessment is that they will all die"
"I blame File-sharing networks - they are marketing for the Pirates!"
"God will roast their stomachs in hell at the hands of RIAA."
"They're coming to surrender or be burned in their hondas."
"No I am not scared, and neither should you be!"
"Be assured. Intellectual Property is safe, protected"
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!"
"We are not afraid of the Pirates. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid" (dramatic pause) "and they are condemned."
"The Pirates, they always depend on a method what I call
"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have
started to commit suicide under the walls of Baghdad. We
will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."
"I can assure you that those villains will recognize, will discover in appropriate time in the future how stupid they are and how they are pretending things which have never taken place."
"We have destroyed 2 web servers, ftp sites, 2 College students and their families - We have driven them back."
"The authority of the RIAA
"I am not talking about the American people and the British people," he said. "I am talking about those Pirates.
"We have them surrounded in their dormrooms"
"Slashdot is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"
"I have detailed information about the situation...which completely proves that what they allege are illusions . . . They lie every day."
"Lying is forbidden in Iraq. President Hillary Rosen will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as she is a woman of great honor and integrity. Everyone is encouraged to speak freely of the truths evidenced in their eyes and hearts."
"Now even the Pirate command is under siege. We are hitting it from the north, east, south and west. We chase them here and they chase us there. But at the end we are the people who are laying siege to them. And it is not them who are besieging us."
"All their bass are belong to us!"
Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf
RIAA Information Minister Iraq
:)(smile)
I know people will dismiss it because it was in the Mirror, but there are a lot of stories like this...
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
They finally get rid of one evil, destructive dictator only to have another one show up!
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
the right to own property.
:)
:(
That's all you had to say.
Arg. This stuff makes my blood boil.
Mine too..
You missed : former senior executive of the largest US grain exporter, Dan Amstutz, to be in charge of agricultural "reconstruction" in Iraq.
Oh, hang on, that actually is true. And in all seriousness, it's way more important; I doubt many Iraqis will be worrying about "intellectual property" while they don't have anything to eat.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
Can't we just have theregister.slashdot.org?
Upgrading the Slashdot editors to a RSS feed would both improve the quality of the stories and save VA Software some money...
You should have known better. Any country that creates music groups like:
* Anthrax
* Chemical Brothers
* Poison
* Public Enemy
yet complains when another country creates anthrax, chemical weapons, poisons, and has public enemies is bound to be up to no good.
I think it's time to retaliate with another round of South Park's Hillary Rosen is a big fat bitch
I can always spot a dunce trying to promote a pathetic argument by the number of times he/she resorts to words like "hippy" or "dopehead" (aka ad hominem attacks). Argoff never said profits were bad. What he/she said is that copyright intereferes with the natural right to use and dispose of one's physical property as one sees fit, by creating an artificial "right" to an idea expressed in a fixed form. There is no natural right to prevent me from using DVDs I buy, computers I own, and blank DVDs I buy (these are all my legitimate possessions) as I see fit-- even if the choices I make about how to dispose of my possessions may indirectly make it harder for those making DVDs to make money. If selling DVDs is not profitable without interfering with my natural rights in my property, then the persons trying to make a living doing that should find a more profitable line of business. Perhaps they could stop selling DVDs altogether and just show their movies in theaters for $20 a ticket.
I am from Poland and in Poland copyrights were
valid for 20 years. But US and UE bullied us
to extend this to 50 years.
People in Poland want 20 years or less - but
our politicians bent under pressure from US and UE
that were threatening with trade sanctions or
not acceptance to the UE.
Looks like it is a modern form of colonialism,
not democracy.
An occupying power that respects their international treaty obligations simply cannot rewrite laws like this. See The Geneva Convention.
I highly doubt intellectual property law is:
Unless the RIAA itself is administrating the occupation.
Totally OT, but nice .sig. I'm atheist, myself, but I have rather strong issues with religious holidays being perverted for commercial gain. Heck, even Christmas has some sense of it's religious foundations... but Easter, the holiest Christian holiday, is completely commercialized. Truly amazing, IMHO.
Glad you aren't informed. Easter and Christmas were both around before Jesus was a twinkle in Gods eye. Easter (Oestera) was the fertility festival, and Christmas was the Winter Solstace celebration to show the Gods people were kind and giving, so they sun would come out more. The shortest day of the year used to be on the 25th of December, and has switched to the 21st now.
Christians are the ones who "commercialized" the holidays... of course it was because they were being slaughtered for being Christians, so they just piggy backed on top of existing holidays so they wouldn't be so conspicuous.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Slashdot geeks move to help draft new legislation in Iraq to outlaw spelling mistakes...
That's like letting the wolf watch the flock.
But-- if you didn't have running water or electricity or food at the moment, these would be more important (See Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs) than being able to create albums of the songs in different albums you bought. More than likely, you would not realize what was happening until it was too late.
My own theory on Iraq is that we had to find someone after the USSR fell (and find them fast) in order to justify continued military spending and undercut the peace dividend so Bush Sr. conspired with the Kuwaiti gov't to lure Saddam into invading Kuwait ("The Fire This Time" by former Atty. General Ramsey Clark gives a good account of this) and then mobilizing world opinion while politically preventing an Iraqi withdrawal. Remember the words of April Glaspie of the US State Department when asked by Saddam about the US position regarding Iraq's claim to Kuwait's territory-- "The US takes no position on Arab-Arab matters."
Until the first Gulf War, Saddam was our ally (even after the USS Stark incident and gassing the Iranian soldiers and Kurds). Personally I think that Reagan and Bush Sr. should be tried along side Saddam at the International War Crimes Tribunal. Wait-- Bush was! Maybe that is why the US is pulling out of its involvement with the war crimes tribunal!
As an interesting musing, the US opposition to the ICC may have very little real practical value. If US allies are tried at the Hague for war crimes in operations where they were fighting along side us Americans, it seems that would have a chilling effect in terms for support for US foreign policy. Just another way that the illusion of power is an intoxicating influence...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
So.... Sending Satan...err Ms. Rosen to Baghdad makes sense. Once there, she can be nuked and all the Good Folks(tm) will be off to the Promised Land.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
Anger Mounts After U.S. Troops Kill 13 Iraqis
Tue April 29, 2003 06:56 AM ET
By Edmund Blair
FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. soldiers killed at least 13 Iraqi civilians who marched on a school west of Baghdad to demand the troops leave the building and get out of Iraq, doctors and witnesses said on Tuesday.
Medics said 75 were also wounded in the march by more than 200 protesters on the school after Muslim prayers on Monday evening in Falluja, 30 miles from the Iraqi capital. Some witnesses put the death toll as high as 17.
Residents said the marchers were unarmed. U.S. forces said the troops opened fire only after they were shot at by a group of gunmen armed with AK-47 assault rifles.
The shooting outraged local people who, like many other Iraqis, welcomed the removal of Saddam Hussein by U.S.-led forces but now want the American troops to leave. It is likely to fuel anti-American sentiment elsewhere in Iraq.
U.S. helicopters hovered overhead as angry mourners buried the dead on Tuesday. The white walls of houses near the school were pock-marked by bullets, bullet-riddled cars stood by the roadside and traces of blood marked the ground.
"Our soul and our blood we will sacrifice to you martyrs," hundreds of mourners chanted as they carried at least four simple wooden coffins shoulder-high through the town.
Ahmed Ghanim al-Ali, director of Falluja general hospital, confirmed the death toll was at least 13 and said the hospital had carried out about 30 operations in the past few hours. "Some were wounded by shots. Some were wounded by shrapnel," he said.
"They are stealing our oil and they are slaughtering our people," said Shuker Abdullah Hamid, a cousin of one of the victims, 47-year-old Tuamer Abdel Hamid.
"Now, all preachers of Falluja mosques and all youths...are organizing martyr operations against the American occupiers," said a man cloaked in white, using the term often used to describe suicide attacks in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
There have been a few isolated suicide attacks at military checkpoints, and U.S. troops killed seven Iraqis during a violent demonstration in the northern city of Mosul on April 15, but most anti-American protests have ended peacefully.
U.S. MILITARY
A U.S. military spokeswoman said at war headquarters in Qatar that soldiers in Falluja opened fire on gunmen who shot at them with assault rifles.
"Members of the 1st Battalion of the 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division came upon a group of Iraqis armed with AK-47s last night," the spokeswoman said. "The Iraqis fired on them. The troops returned fire."
A local Sunni Muslim cleric, Kamal Shaker Mahmoud, said the protesters had asked the troops to leave the school so that lessons could resume there.
"It was a peaceful demonstration. They did not have any weapons," the cleric said. "They (the U.S. troops) opened fire on the protesters because they went out to demonstrate."
"We are asking the Americans to leave Iraq completely but first we want them to leave residential areas," he added.
Murhij Rashid, 52, pointed to a grave where gravediggers were throwing dry earth on top and kicking up dust. His 18-year-old son Hussein had just been buried.
"There was a demonstration but he did not have any weapon," he said.
Some residents said some of the dead may not have been taking part in the protest.
Salah Abdullah Hamid said his cousin, a 36-year-old man employed by the Oil Ministry, was an innocent bystander.
"He was not part of the protest. He did not have a weapon. He was killed by American bullets," he said.
Asked why the troops had fired, he replied: "We don't know. No one knows why...We want the Americans to leave our country completely. We are a Muslim country."
Mahmoud Fawzi Hamdan, 33, said one man, 32-year-old Waleed Saleh Abdel-Latif, was shot dead as he opened the gate to his house for his brother to drive in and two women in the house were hit by bullets but survived.
Now you're going around inciting muslims?
"Microsoft Works"
Well, I more concerned about the effect of Iraqis
on us.
1) I've already read (but not confirmed) that
the U.S. Gov. is going to be printing more money
so that it can be circulated amongs the Iraqis.
That devalues our (your's and mine) money.
2) You can bet that somehow, somewhere, someway,
a lot of Iraqis are going to end-up on U.S.
Gov. "welfare" roles. Yup, that will be
coming out of your pocket too.
3) You can bet that a not insignificant number
of Iraqis will be comming to a neighorhood
near you due to our wonderful immigration
policies. Oh, joy...
"Extendable copyright terms are the real problem preventing the creation of new works under the current copyright system."
Explain to me how copyright extensions are preventing the creation of new works...
I would agree they might stem the creation of derivative works, but not new works.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
I guess we really were fighting for THEIR freedom and now it belongs to us. The western leaders can pin another flag on their map, and us silent observers can marvel at another concrete example of organized violence, hard at work.
Slavery was are greatest aspiration. . . hiding it was our greatest invention.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
The henhouse example was solely in response to the original post's real world property analogies. The original post objects to the theory of copyright, period, not the implementation in the music industry, which is what you describe.
My point was solely that if you were putting in the effort to create something (eggs or works of art), then you should be compensated for it, and having the ability to prevent others from copying your work improves your ability to be compensated.
John
"The plural of anecdote is not data."
According to 'The the' 51st is England, so I guess that makes Iraq the 52nd state, right?
/klang
God damn mother fucking egotistical, maniacal, elitist sons of bitches!
FUCK YOU BUSH, et all you do NOT RULE THE WORLD. Your evil WHITE RACE manifesto, in which you will use as a hammer to denegrate all other cultures of the world, is propaganda for satan(unless of course you ARE satan).
Because of you other countries will probably attack the US, to keep our polluted,capitalistic, virus-like society out of their countries. I hope you burn in hell for your actions you STUPID DUMB ASS PUPPET.
Hilary Rosen is a perfect addition to their IMPERIAL AIMS. Who the fuck are we to tell Iraqi's what laws to create/support. What a BITCH!
Uh, since many historical events described in the bible have already been confirmed through archaeological discoveries, I don't think the bible can ever be proven to be -complete- nonsense. I also don't see how running out of oil is going to bring us any closer to an utopia. Unless, by 'utopia', you mean 'dark age'.
why wasn't it news when i submitted a synopsis AND links to the original source of the story almost 2 weeks ago (also posted links to the interview here if you'd like to hear the interview)
not trying to be a crybaby here, but does slashdot do ANY footwork or do they always simply wait until a fellow tech news site has done so?
i mean, should i even bother submitting story ideas?
to say "if you overturn recent extensions in copyright law, IRAQ will have more protection from its authors and musicians than AMERICA!!!"
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
they should have gotten lessig and stallman.
All this time we thought the USA was trying to extend it's sphere of influence, when it was actually the RIAA doing so. I guess they were looking for WMDs too (Ways of Music Duplication)
How? Why? Oh the humanity!
Free speech is getting expensive...
here's an good interview with the investigative journalist who broke this story 2 weeks ago. worth listening to.
Please. If we don't enforce a strong government with strong laws, things will slip 8-10 years from now, and people like you will be ranting about how the US didn't "follow through" on its promises of a post-war Iraq. You're just one of those trendy counterculturalists who somehow think it's intellectual to say "United Corporations of America" and will find anything to complain about because you're mad Bush won.
Next.
"Sufferin' succotash."
here is how i do my bit(ter protest): i write free software and poetry, and for those pieces important enough to protect using existing copyright laws, i assign copyright to fsf and let their lawyers handle things. those pieces that inflate my ego only i copyright and publish under GPL but do not employ lawyers to check up on compliance. the rest i place in the public domain.
on the consumer side of things, i don't buy music except by going to places to hear musicians practice their craft live. i watch tv and pay a yearly tax (to italy) for the service. i haven't been to a movie theater in years. i read fluff books that i buy in the airport and technical material sometimes (less frequently of late as most up-to-date info is on the net). this may not seem like much of a protest but the trend away from feeding the industry is noticible nonetheless. i have concrete plans to be more of a producer than a consumer in a few years time (guitarist / keyboard player available, btw).
in any case, i feel my actions are in concordance w/ the spirit in which you write and wish you good luck in further expressing these ideas, especially when faced w/ the ignorance and short-sightedness that are sure to be in the responses from those willing slaves already stuck in the pit. if you read this and would like to republish it at glug.org, feel free to write me privately. thanks.
Sigh. The original poster used real world examples and discounted the basic theory of copyright protection, so I used the henhouse example because eggs are basically an identical, fungible good - just like digital copies.
As far as your cite is concerned, I don't disagree with Stallman's basic argument that copyright protection is a tradeoff between the public good and the author's good (although I do disagree with some of his points - I'd be happy to debate them with you offline, as they would be OT). Congress, on behalf of the people, is "paying" artists for producing works, just as patrons supported artists in the past.
However, the article you cite deals with the implementation of copyright law in the US, not the basic theory of whether or not authors/creators should be allowed to prevent others from copying their works.
I agree with you that the term of protection granted to works should be the minimum necessary for the majority of artists to produce works, which is the reason why I said in my original post that I thought we had gone much too far.
John
"The plural of anecdote is not data."
especially considering that the entire Renassance happened without copyrights
And many of the inventors of the Renaissance were paranoid about people stealing their work, and thus either reverted to writing everything in cipher or never wrote anything down at all. Leonardo da Vinci is one example of someone who used cipher to obfuscate his inventions.
So I guess you could say they had encryption to make up for the lack of copyright.
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
I did realize that, I was using that to make a point because it does hold true for the majority of Iraqi's. At this point, even those who DO have computers and CD burners are probably not terribly concerned with them.
The fact is that the vast majority of the Iraqi population (Shiites in particular) did not exactly prosper under Saddam. While the countries GDP was pretty good, it's overall distribution of that wealth was among the worst in the world.
Yes there was a pretty decent Sunni middle class, but the majority of Iraqi's live(d) in near third world conditions. Let's not forget that.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Is that the A'isha that married Mohammed when she was nine years old?
Yah, because the Lord knows that the vast majority of the Muslims in the area give a flying fuck about the Bible.
The original poster stated it well. I have to disagree with your statements.
Ignoring the system is not bad. The bad thing is when people ignore plaigarism. There needs to be more focus towards credibility and plaigarism, NOT ownership or control.
I find your sentence "making sure that creative people get some recompense for being creative" amusing. So without this "recompense" they would not be creative? Are you creative? Do you ask to be paid for it?
Let me ask you a few more questions.
Why did those that created works of art before the copyright system do what they did?
What is art? is it a product? an expression? an idea?
Does copyright guarantee fair compensation?
Does copyright promote more works?
Ideas are far different from physical items. To think about them in the same manner would lead to flaws. The idea of copyright is itself flawed. I highly recommend you do some reading on the subject before posting comments.
Question everything.
The systems varies by Canton, but I thought each adult there had to vote on every major issue. So it has somewhat of a democracy (as opposed to an elected aristocracy).
First the *Israeli-run* antiquities looters lobby wants to "free" the trade of Iraq's heritage, then a US congresman introduces legislation that changes Iraq's mobile phone standard from GSM to the American CDMA system and now Hillary *Rosen* of the RIAA wants to write the new "free" Iraq's copyright law and change it into one under which consumers have no rights.
Geez, what more "freedom" is in store for the Iraqi people?
How about Diane *Feinstein* rewriting the Iraqi firearms laws from ones that allow gun ownership to new "free" ones that ban everything more lethal than a potato peeling knife.
They are already kicking doors down searching for guns in homes and roadblocks. It's LEGAL (by Iraqi law) in Iraq for ANYONE to own an AK-47 machine gun.
Freedom New Style [TM] - Having an *alien* people run your affairs and tell you how you should feel about that.
We in the west should know we have tasted that freedom for decades. We learned how "outmoded" our old culture was and that we should be happy that there is a group of people from a *certain middle eastern region* who know best how to change it.
The Iraqi people don't know yet how "free" they're gonna be!
Part of Iraqi law will be written by: A gay Jewish American Woman! That's a big mouthful of western values!
I agree.
and for those who don't, your choice. Just don't say anything you can't back up, because I will surely be there to attack every defense you have for IP with evidence/support/sources/history/etc.
Question everything.
We've already gotten to the point of keeping UN agents out of Iraq? From Bush to Saddam in 2.5 months.
Banaaaana!
The thing the invaders always seem to forget is that the locals are far faster at getting organized, even if they don't have the same resources. In particular, it's essentially impossible to eliminate or supress the religious authorities in those countries and retain any popular support, so there is a network of clerics that remains in place even under oppressive governments such as Iraq. Under Saddan Hussein, the religious orders were permitted to continue as long as they kept out of politics, a situation which they were able to follow, but never fully accepted.
Back in Iran, these were the groups who organized the revolution that threw out the U.S-backed Shah, and organized a new ruling elite - that's why Iran immediately implemented fundamentalist Islamic laws when it happened. In Iraq, they have already organized the Shia majority into a political movement, now that they're free to do so. The demonstrations among the general population and demands for an Islamic government in Iraq have started rising rapidly.
Basically, the mullahs have an already established "transitional government". The question then becomes, how long will the occupying forces prevent the Islamic government from taking over?
Chances are that the occupiers are so against the idea that they will form their own interim, then "final" Iraqi government against the popular opinion, as in Iran. In that case, it will only be a matter of time before foreign involvement tapers off enough for a revolution to overthrow the imposed government, as happened in Iran.
Again.
I wonder what the Koran has to say about copyright...
Future /. poll .... The purpose of "Operation Iraqi Freedom":
1. "Free the Iraqi people?" No.
2. "Free Iraq of WMDs?" No. None have been found yet.
4. "Elminiate the Iraqi leadership?" Working on it.
5. "Control the Iraqi Oil supples?" Maybe.
6. "Enforce US copyright law?" Hell Yes!
I insist that the purpose of this war was not for #1 to #5. The RIAA has not been attending political meetings and lobbying the Senate to decrease piracy. Rather, they're lobbying to use the U.S. Armed Forces to enforce U.S. copyright laws on other countries.
Sure, but it's pretty difficult to think intelligently when you're starving or dying of thirst.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Japan has the second highest military budget in the world. Not close to ours, but way more then anyone else. Germany spends quite a bit too, and gets involved in some regional stuff as well (such as the NATO action in Serbia)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Glad you aren't informed. Easter and Christmas were both around before Jesus was a twinkle in Gods eye. Easter (Oestera) was the fertility festival, and Christmas was the Winter Solstace celebration to show the Gods people were kind and giving, so they sun would come out more. The shortest day of the year used to be on the 25th of December, and has switched to the 21st now.
;)
Glad you missed my point. Whatever the origins of these holidays are, in recent history (which is really what counts, since we're discussing commercialization of religious symbols/holidays/etc... a recent Western phenomenon), they were pretty well strictly attached to Christianity in Western culture. So, holidays that had strong religious connotations are being twisted to serve commercial interests, so, what, we can sell more bunnies and chocolates?
Basically, my problem is with commercial interests taking essentially non-commercial values/beliefs/etc and manipulating them for their own gain. I hardly thing this argument is debatable, given the way your average Christian "celebrates" Christmas and Easter. I happen to have a similar problem with Valentines day, the (ultimately twisted) wedding industry, and many other things I'm sure I could think of if I didn't have to go to a meeting right now...
Whatever the origins of these holidays are, in recent history (which is really what counts, since we're discussing commercialization of religious symbols/holidays/etc... a recent Western phenomenon), they were pretty well strictly attached to Christianity in Western culture. So, holidays that had strong religious connotations are being twisted to serve commercial interests, so, what, we can sell more bunnies and chocolates?
;)
Now go see how they celebrate Christmas in Japan. You can't steal something that already exists, then get pissed off that some people don't subscribe to the same sets of beliefs that you have.
Basically, my problem is with commercial interests taking essentially non-commercial values/beliefs/etc and manipulating them for their own gain. I hardly thing this argument is debatable, given the way your average Christian "celebrates" Christmas and Easter. I happen to have a similar problem with Valentines day, the (ultimately twisted) wedding industry, and many other things I'm sure I could think of if I didn't have to go to a meeting right now...
Easter and Christmas were always about commercialization, though. There has never been a point in time where Christmas, nor Easter, were about celebrating without buying things for people. It's just one of those things that were around before Christianity, and it's Christians that say the people who celebrate it without religious contexts are wrong.
Jesus of Nazareth didn't die so I could have chocolate bunnies. The fertility celebration is Easter, to me. Just like Christmas is a time for me to be close to the misses, on what used to be the shortest time of the year, and have some romantic moments.
A holiday is just a date, which is made by those who celebrate it for whatever reasons. People buy things on holidays, so people sell things as much as they can. You can't get mad at businesses for doing what businesses do. And it is silly to be annoyed by people who aren't Christian celebrating holidays that were around long before Christians.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
See what happens when women get a hold of stuff.
i cant seem to come up with a sig.
Remember, they had running water until the US and UK bombed them.
Actually, they had running water and electricty even through the bombing. The US and UK intentionally avoided such infrastructure. The problem was when the regime disappeared and people didn't go to work. For instance, there are serious problems in getting one of the major power plants in Baghdad running again (mechanically fine, was shut off when the beaurocracy collapsed) because it needs a jumpstart of 4kW or so, but the nearest power station hasn't been able to supply enough to it to kick over the turbines. (This was a week ago, I'm not sure if it has been resolved) Getting other services up and running again has been problematic because looters have stolen necessary computer equipment and files. The infrastructure was not destroyed by bombing. The lack of power and water is primarily due to social beurocratic collapse.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Greg Palast has an interesting record regarding Investigative journalism. Unfortunately, because he actually does investigation, he is not quoted in the US.
2 8.html )
b le?client.id=utne_web_specials&story.id=10452 or even killed. source: http://www.lovearth.net/fortunateson.htm)
He was the first to talk about the Ballot issues within florida in the 2000 election, but when he tried to get it on the air in the US, (I believe it was with CBS), the editors there told him that his facts did not check out. When asked who they contacted to fact check, the editorial staff replied that they contacted Jeb Bush's office.
I'm not one to believe what someone tells me is true, but, looking at the facts, and putting it all together leads to a certain way of thinking.
1. Most of the government offices in Iraq were either bombed or looted. The only one not bombed or looted? the Oil ministry (thanks to US military guards. Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/119505_oil
2. The US will install a government loyal to itself, IE a Secular Democracy. This at the same time that the shrub is tearing away the separation between church and state here.
3. People that oppose the bushes have a tendancy to get sued Source: http://www.utne.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printa
"the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad" -Salvadore Dali
Remember the good ol' days when the worst thing a president did was bang an intern? Doesn't seem quite so bad in perspective, now, does it?
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
"In what way does copyrigt give anyone ownership of your property or personal freedom?"
You misinterpreted his argument. Basically what he is saying is: Why do artists need to own and control an idea to create and/or share it in the first place? Which is a good argument because even without copyright law art, music, and writing will still be produced. Why would people stop playing their guitar and sharing their songs because they can't control it? As lame as posers or copycats are, they tend to increase the popularity of the original. For some strange reason, the original artist/author is always scared of these copycats instead of fearing plagiarism (which is the real threat).
I don't feel like arguing against your other statements; too much to type and I have other posts to reply to. It is obvious you didn't read about the other side of intellectual property. I suggest doing a search for "Brian Martin Information Liberation" and if you can, find "Owning the Future" a book about IP.
If you have more time and wish to learn more then do some more research, there is plenty out there. You could just ignore the other side of the argument altogether, but that would be ignorant.
Question everything.
If she were even in Iraq, which I guarantee you she is not. Her stomach is roasting in hell!
1. If a person violate a copyright, as determined by the copyright holder, they shall be beheaded.
2. If a person help in any way a copywrite violator, as determined by the copyright holder, they shall be beheaded.
3. Anyone holding a copyright may petition the congress for new and better copyright laws, as determined by the copyright holder.
4. If any unforseen issues relating to copyright law occurs the copyright holder will determine appropriate course of action.
All your sand dunes are belong to us
There is no nation on this earth as good at making enemies as fast as you Americans do.
This choice bit of freedom loving news, along with the news that American soldiers fired into a crowd of demonstrators yesterday is sure to help the Iraqi people's view of the occupying armies as being something to ensure their freedom.
I don't know what's going to happen in Iraq in the long term but I know that it isn't going to be nice.
He did this because he was against war. That is much different than someone simply copying music. If you created a great work of art do you want money for it even if another gets all the credit, or the other way around? or why not both without limiting others from distributing your work? If your an artist, credit ir worth more. We should enforce plagiarism laws, but not fight fair use laws. There are bands that do well even though they openly allow and encourage copying.
Question everything.
I've heard that statement before... concerning Vietnam. I recall it also concerning Iran.
In both places, the US had their wondeful little puppets (Ngo Den Diem and Shah Resa Pahlavi respectively) ruling in a 'democratic' state that very quickly degraded into totalitarianism that only stood because they were backed by the almighty military support of the United States.
What did the public want? In Vietnam, they wanted the Vietminh. They WANTED communism. They HATED Ngo Den Diem; buddhist monks lit themselves on fire in protest.
In Iran, they wanted the Ayatollah Khomeini and his Islamic state. The Shah had serious military backing, however, from the United States (It was Rummsfeld et all who did this, btw, along with war criminal Harry Kissenger).
So what happened? Eventually 'popular opinion' won, but not until long after many abuses of human rights and freedoms by the US-supported governments. Ngo Den Diem was assassinated, and the Shah was exiled. Both countries abhor the politics of the United States to this day for a VERY GOOD reason.
Want to take a bet on whether this is EXACTLY what will happen in Iraq? The US is already abusing their rights and freedoms, and this is BEFORE they've put in the puppet government.
As you can read here and here, USA benefitted from IP theft in 1790 when Samuel Slater stole the blueprints of the the water-powered spinning frame from England and used it to build a textile industry in USA comparable to England's. England called him a traitor, but USA called him a hero and the father of the industrial revolution. Today, USA is the capitol of IP and China benefits whenever they steal some.
Most likely, enforcing US IP laws in Iraq will help USA but hurt Iraq.
That would be true if.../ 98il/i l03.html
First read this and you'll see.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs
Question everything.
You made a subtle distinction there that's important. I didn't say the extensions themselves are detrimental, but the whole system where copyrights are extendable, for the correct fee paid to the correct legislators.
Lobbying congress to extend copyright terms costs money, and lots of it. Unfortunately, under the current system lobbying is a profitable investment, but it doesn't create any new content (besides a few poorly thought-out laws.) If terms were set in stone and not open to debate, then some (I dare say most) of the money spent lobbying congress to extend copyrights on existing works would instead be spent on creating new works since the new works would fall under copyright.
Many if not most of the holders of existing works are also content producers. Certainly this applies to the movie and record industries (although somewhat indirectly.) These are also the industries most strongly lobbying for extended copyright terms. Preventing the retroactive extension of copyrights would encourage these industries to constantly produce new content, in order to make up for the loss of profit from works put in the public domain.
What we're doing here is removing a substitute from one market (Disney, as and example, investing in new laws as a substitute for new works) and adding a substitute to another (Wal-mart's version of Snow White after a fixed number of years as a substitute for Disney's now.) Thus, we are encouraging Disney to invest in content production instead of lobbying or reproduction of older content by making that lobbying and older content reproduction less profitable to invest in than new content production. This was the whole point of American copyright, to make production of new works more profitable than other endeavours, not to make reproduction of existing works profitable.
Now, the only good counterargument I can come up with is that if copyrights really still ARE too SHORT, and the only reason content producers are producing works is that they believe they will continue to be able to extend copyright. If you believe this, then it makes sense to continue retroactively extending copyrights up to a point, as new content producers will just stop creating if we stop extending copyrights, as it won't be profitable. However, the correct solution to this problem is to extend copyrights sufficiently now, and then lock things down.
Actually, they do consider portions of the Bible to be a holy book. Remember, Arabs and Jews split from a single line, described in the Bible. It is the later works, which focus exclusively on the jewish line, and of course the entire New Testament, that Muslims disagree with.
Someone will get rid of those filthy weapons of mass recording.
- Does it have a MIDI Interface?
- What's MIDI in your face?
If I create some new piece of art, if I elect to give it away, that is my perogative. However, as an artist, if I wish to sell my art to make a living (which will allow me to buy supplies to make more art, among other things), then I have to charge a certain price for my art.
You miss a fundamental aspect of the current copyright crisis, which I think is best illustrated by the following question: Should you be able to forbid people to take a picture of your art?
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Zoellick is a former advisor to Enron.
Colin Powell is reported in a later PR to have said "that power usually comes responsibility and some level of respect and some level of resentment -- my three R's. Hey, write that down." (Laughter.)
Presumably the laughter was coming from Mr Joe "I wasn't responsible" Zoellick's end of the table.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Then I looked closely at the Register article. The source of this "news" is one man: Greg Palast.
Who is Greg Palast? Here's a taste of what he's written.
In an interview Palast said, "This guy (Dictator Hugo Chavez) is the real voice of democracy in Venezuela. ... Chavez is the Nelson Mandela of his country."
He accused Bush of "ethnic cleansing of the voter rolls" in the 2000 Election. Then he tried to one-up Baghdad Bob with this statement: "The 2004 race may already be decided - and the vote's just a formality." If he would've used just a little more Saeed-speak, he might have said: "My initial assessment is that the candidates will all lose. In fact, they are already committing concession of the race to Bush. There are no candidates within 1000 miles of the Washington. Never!"
Palast claimed that Saddam is "a Frankenstien created by Bush." Then he tried to discredit Bush by saying: "In the USA, Bush has successfully put a turban and beard on Saddam Hussein - most Americans have no idea that Osama and Saddam have no connection." This is quite funny, now that we have detailed documents on the meetings between Osama and Saddam going back to the 1980s. We've known about other evidence for a long time. IMO, the al-Qaeda training camp we found in northern Iraq should have at least make you think that the ties were more likely to exist than not
From what I've read of Palast, his perception about the motives of the Bush administration couldn't be more off-base. He is a virulent Bush hater and is blinded by his rage. His columns and interviews are full of exaggerated ad hominem and over-the-top crackpot conspiracy theories. This guy is a kook and a muckraker.
"Uh, since many historical events described in the bible have already been confirmed through archaeological discoveries, I don't think the bible can ever be proven to be -complete- nonsense."
Uh, I have a tree outside my house, and last night, I flapped my arms and flew to the moon.
You can confirm that there is a tree outside my house, so the notion of my flying to the moon by flapping my arms is not -completely- nonsensical.
"...That's why the religious parties in Iraq are not being invited to run the country despite having the majority of the population's support..."
Only 60% of the Iraqi population is Shite. The other 40% are Suni, Kurd, Christians and other ethnic groups. Perhaps the biggest problem with a religious theocracy is the fact that nearly half the population will not be represented by the government.
persia, a dynasty of the past, build on tears, grown to bloom, blasted like a star, perrished, and long forgotten.
troubling times.. amex needed a tool in the area, american express raped nature once again, harvested the ressources, and inspired China to the quest for financial glory, and sars were born.
american express bought the tool on credit, sadam hussein and troopers were financed and waged their wars.
american express saw no timely return on investment and were by their market force to abandon the mining project. the mining project continued, but the drivers had left the wheel. new drivers took over, but the wheels were still damaged, and the drivers were in loco motion.
american express had domestic issues which rippled throughout the world that was messed up, things were going for a halt, and a distraction was needed, plus the parasites needed new vains to dry.
back to the early investment, more credit was gained, ROI possibilities matching the less than 6 months requirements, the capos eyed a profitable situation, investments were made, american express moved in, removed the local CEO.
Now new CEO's are placed, puppets like the latter.
now its time to harvest, american express needs to pay interests, everyone to the drillers.
new bloom in the coming? will persia rearise, be the new growth center, powering the credit economy. reagan ohh you were a mighty fine actor. you comf'ed everyone.
jesus christ ab-sport-us-ers in the gov above, heavy bullet industry in the basement below.. will iraq now move like china was made to move?
will iraq now by society spread in red white blue colors over m.east? take over iran, syria.. bridge with israel..
or will a new persia be born? things go different than planned and punch 'em right back in the nose before american express has paid out their loans?
germany
china
iraq
down
south korea
or how about colombia?
uhmm.. no drugs, lots of drugs.
whats the biz? where's da profit?
next, but now? warmongers are planning.
have to figure out.
its a living, and you can't stop or.
SOPH
Uh, Kevin Mitnick anybody? Or how about Craig Neidorf? People have been arrested for distributing information. You have no idea who Argoff is. He might be Craig Neidorf.
For some strange reason, the original artist/author is always scared of these copycats instead of fearing plagiarism (which is the real threat).
Had you said obscurity rather than plagiarism I would have thought better of you (See O'reilly's article). Copycats and plagiarists actually bolster a works popularity and create a sort of strange scarcity e.g. there are 100 copycats of a work, but only one original. In Japanese anime companies they don't let their lawyers run their business, and the artists take this 'copying' or derivative work as a compliment. I'm not making the claim that copyright should be abolished in leiu of this. I only wish to present a society's outlook that comes at this from an entirely different perspective that doesn't automatically try to supress works just because it might have the legal foundation to, but asks whether that is really in its best interest.
You seriously think that IRAN or Syria is as much of a threat to world stability and safety as Wahhabi Arabia?
the Kingdom NEEDS TO FALL
EOM
crud crud crud crud crud crud crud crud
crud crud crud crud crud crud crud crud
crud crud crud crud crud crud crud crud
crud crud crud crud crud crud crud crud
crud crud crud crud crud crud crud crud
crud crud crud crud crud crud crud crud
Well....at least it'll be better than
a fundamentalist government.
That kind shoots you for listening to music,
copyrighted or no.
first the war, shocking. Then the lootings and just as they complained about that lootings and accused the US Army being at fault, the liberators shows them what they are going to do with looters!
Actually, I didn't discuss that aspect because it wasn't relevant to the discussion. The original post said copyright protection was bad. Period. I disagreed and demonstrated how it provides incentives to artists to create.
There are a LOT of problems with the way that the implementation of copyright protection has evolved in this country, but I would still argue that the fundamental premise that you quoted is valid.
For the record, I do not think that I should be able to prevent someone from taking a picture of my art. Copyright protection should not prevent derivative works from being created.
John
"The plural of anecdote is not data."
Uh, exactly. We can confirm the tree to exist, we can't confirm whether you did fly to the moon or not. You can't reject the truthful aspects of something by the parts you don't believe in/agree with/think are crazy. That's why trying to 'scientifically disprove' the bible, as the original poster put it, would never work.
I've always heard Muslim's say that Islam accepts Jesus--Peace be Upon Him--as a prophet, but not as Lord. The Bible, however, is regarded as the foundation for the Koran, and, as I've learned from googling just now, Mohammed is instructed to look to the Bible for confirmation of His revelations. To explain this, some scholars say the New Testament Books (and the Torah) are corrupted. Others say they can't be corrupted because they are the word of God, but they have been misinterpred by Christians and Jews, at least I think that's the argument. It's a little complex.
A few links: A, B, C
This is simply an example of trying to solve a problem by creating a bigger one, then trying to solve it by creating yet a bigger one, etc., etc., ad infinitum (or however you say). At first, copyright law gave people a temporary monopoly in order that they will RELEASE their works for the public to use, eventually to become public domain such that it can be used to further human progress. But the copyright term was extended, then extended again, and again... and now, any work created in our lifetimes won't likely go out of copyright when our children would otherwise benefit from them. This causes piracy as a backlash because the laws are flawed and unfair. Copyright terms should be reduced back to the original length for all works. And tell those fuckers at the RIAA, MPAA and other control-freaks to stop being so militant about copyright. An electrician does not live forever off wiring a single light switch. A carpenter does not live forever off making a single cabinet. Neither should a musician live forever off writing a single song and pulling 9 more out of his asshole in order to fill an album. Or a writer, off a single book. Or a programmer, off a single program. To continue earning a living, these people should have to continue doing their job, just like the rest of humanity.
Explain to me how in a world without copyrights, the makers of X-Men 2 would make money
Good question. The best answer that I can give is that they wouldn't. (If, by 'make money', you mean profit) that is not the problem. I don't think that the world is any better for the existence of entertainment that is motivated by money. The problem is how they recoup their costs. It is a big problem.
unless they owned a chain of movie theaters
The movie theatre owners would need content, so perhaps they would fund new movies. Movie production costs would have to come down.
Luckily, lower production costs would mean higher quality. The focus will be on the script rather than the special effects and paying movie actors a fair wage would get rid of some of the dead wood.
Explain to me how a legally enforceable copyright has ever hindered an artist.
By making it illegal to build on the work of others. Under modern British/American copyright, some of Shakespeare's plays would have been illegal to release.
"Every copyright holder is a partial owner of my CD burner, my Xerox machine, my hard drive, my VCR, my CD-Rs, etc because they dictate what I can and cannot do with my own property. "
No they don't. They dictate what you can do with their property. You are free to make as many copies of your home movie, term paper, original songs, etc., as you'd like.
When I copy a CD with 'my' CD writer, I am not interfering with anyone else's property. Copyright is not property. It is a deal struck between the people and the content industry and if I violate it, they are not deprived of anything tangible.
Anyway, if I could control their property, then it would be partly mine, and if they could control my property, then it would be partly theirs. The owner is the person/organisation who controls it. Ownership is simply control. Property rights are the right to control things.
If Iraqis start downloading their own music, will Ms. Rosen send inspectors to look for all the Iraqi computers?
I was attacking the logic of "incentive" so commonly spewed in our face about copyrights, not making an analogy between the physical and unphysical world.
yes, please do.
I guess it just goes to show, copying is the nicest form of flattery.
thanks
Which, depending on the way it goes, could blow the bible out of the water.
Jeez, a stupid spelling mistake in a modded-up post...d'oh!
It is not me that has made this an "all or nothing" game. Like the plantation masters of the 1850's who believed that the entire purpose of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the cotton gin to expand their plantations for unlimited controll and profit. Many in holywood believe that the entire purpose of the information age is to use the internet to leverage their copyright holdings to the corners of the earth. With logic like this, easing off on the defiance will not pacify them, nor help society.
I'm sorry, but there can't be a middle ground. Information is so easy to copy and manipulate that you either half to controll all of it or none of it. The people in hollywood know this very well, and it is at the core of why they have made such a desperate push to impose copy controlls even on technologies that have so many other uses. They are the ones that have made it an all or nothing game, and the truth is that is a good thing. After all, anyone who looses X copyrights is likely to gain thousands of times that information when copyrights go away. Copyrights simply restrict and hinder alot more than they help.
Also, I am not ignoring copyrights. I think we all know very well they are there, and had better take wise precautions to protect ourselves from the wich hunt. But I refuse to pay token homage to their worthless arguments, and cheezy guilt trips that those who copy are "pirates" who are hurting "poor artists". The blazing hypocracy is amazing.
PS: Don't forget those in the 1850's who thought that the slave states could peacefully coexist with the free states. They were being dishonest with themselves, they didn't get it.
Although I didn't make it up, I also can't find any trace of it. It might have been a link off of drudgereport.com, or a NYTimes editorial. Sorry!
: (
Once again we find ourselves reacting in surprise. Rosen has proposed copyright legislation for Iraq. What is "our" position, then, the position of computer users? Where's our model copyright legislation?
As long as we have no coherent positive idea, but only criticisms, we're bound to lose. Lots of you will blame the campaign contributions of the ??AA, and the "corruption" of elected officials. But imagine that you get to meet with General Garner and Hilary Rosen to discuss Iraq's copyright law. Hilary has a model piece of legislation, and the ability to relate it to international treaties and the laws of various countries, and to discuss how legislative choices will impact Iraq's economy and trading ability. You have a reflexive dislike for all intellectual property and not much more. Garner will hear from one side a detailed, thoroughly researched proposal that's in harmony with the trend of prosperous nations. From the other, he'll hear idealistic complaining, but nothing concrete or useful. Who will win? Who will persuade Garner to adopt his vision of copyright?
This is our challenge. On every front, our adversaries are defining the future they want, buttressing it with legal, moral and economic arguments and presenting it to decision-makers. We simply complain online and at most write reactive letters to the decision-makers when the ball is already rolling. Can we rise to the challenge and start defining a credible vision of the future that can be embraced by the non-geeks?
That's the stupidest thing I have ever read.
No, thank you!
The US government already took away all the rights of iraqi people when they started the bombing.
By the way, will making a mp3 of koran be illegal.
So now we know, it's really about WMD. Weaponds of Mass Distribution
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Be it resolved: The sum of 1 dinar shall be paid to the RIAA, for distribution to its members, every time any musical or vocal sound of any kind whatsoever is heard by any human being within the borders of Iraq. Sound consumption will be metered and transmitted to the RIAA by audio sensors implanted at birth. Removal of or tampering with RIAA sensors will be punishable by stoning or beheading.
Go Hilary!
I don't know if you guys knew this, but the old Uruklink.net Iraq website included a link to Warez.com. No joke.
You mean Hilary bin Ladin, right?
-----
"Cogito Eggo Sum: I think, therefore, waffle."
Luckily, lower production costs would mean higher quality. The focus will be on the script rather than the special effects and paying movie actors a fair wage would get rid of some of the dead wood.
Do you know how much film costs *alone*?
$60 per minute. Approximately. That's before processing.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Excuse me, but Iraq has attacked the US exactly how?
Its easy to call someone a dunce when posting under the coward account isn't it?
Newsflash , theres no such thing as "natural rights" so why don't you take your hippy philosophy and go back to your commune. Your "Rights"
are what are enshrined in law in whatever given country you're in whether you like it or not. You don't like that?
Tough shit pal. Deal.
Do you know how much film costs *alone*?
No, I didn't. I do know that technological progress provides cheaper alternatives. Thanks to recent advances, I have seen high quality (as far as I could tell, the movie was Randall's Flat) pictures shot on video. Digital formats will make reproduction and distribution (and capture) cheaper.
I'm sure that movie purists would be horrified if tape or DV replaced film. I wouldn't. Anyway, why can't a movie theatre or film society pay for the film. Before you say "because the cost is too high", consider that film enthusiasts and movie theatres are where the studios get their revenue, so it is already done.
True enough. And before the Shah of Iran, there was the nationalist Mossadegh government, popular at the time, and also overthrown by the CIA to make way for the brutal Shah.
...look who they're putting in charge of agriculture:
Copyright is supposed to benefit the whole of society by making sure that creative people get some recompense for being creative.
Not quite it's more that copyright can give the creator "first bite of the cherry". But it dosn't guarentee how big and juicy that "cherry" might be or even that it will exist at all.
Furthermore, the copyright laws of the US include a provision for fair use (like burning a disc for your friend); however, we currently have a copyright system that exists soley for the profit of CEO's.
Also these people tend to be "middlemen" rather than those who actually produce anything at all. The only other notable group who appear to have something to gain from very long term copyright are those who have a talented ancestor. Regardless of how much this ancestor might be spinning in his or her grave hoping for their children/grandchildren to make something of their own abilities.
If copyright really were a temporary thing, lasting, at most, 28 years, like it is supposed to, we would be able to freely trade almost everything ever recorded by The Beatles, The Doors, Buddy Holly, Elvis, etc. A great many novels would enter the public domain. Many films would be free to distribute. There would be a plentiful, rich, and significant public domain.
Which would also help stimulate new works and new versions of classic works.
As it is, books written by men long dead at the beginning of last century are still under copyright, a short cartoon of a rat is still locked up, and Michael Jackson owns the rights to Jahn Lennon's music.
There is a very real issue of the copyright on outlasting any actual copy of a work. Even that in the future "pirates" may be considered heroic for saving something which would otherwise be lost.
Luckily, lower production costs would mean higher quality. The focus will be on the script rather than the special effects and paying movie actors a fair wage would get rid of some of the dead wood.
The "big names" arn't just actors anyway. Most likely you'd see fewer "names" with those which did exist being only the genuinly highly talented, but not irreplacable.
If existing copyrights were really for a fixed, non-negotiable time period, ANY fixed time period, the result would be that the money spent on extending copyrights on existing works would instead be spent on creating new works, to replace those that are falling into the public domain.
Also extending the copyright on an already existing work cannot possibly have anything to do with the motivation for its original creation. What ever motivation might have been needed existed whenever it was created.
Explain to me how copyright extensions are preventing the creation of new works...
I would agree they might stem the creation of derivative works, but not new works
Just about every "new" work is likely to be (or can be seen to be) built upon pre existing works.
Quotes from Hilary Rosen's press conferences:
On her ultimate objective:
"Be assured. Baghdad's music will be safe, protected"
On musicians who offer free music:
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!"
On the American Consumer speaking out against the RIAA:
"We are not afraid of the Americans. Congress has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid" (dramatic pause) "and they are condemned."
On the legal frontlines:
"We have destroyed 2 PC's, 4 burners, 2 iPods and their shovels - We have driven them back."
On Lenny Kravitz:
"I triple guarantee you, there are no American musicians in Baghdad."
On experts claiming that the industry's woes stem from within their own practices:
"This is unbased"
On ISP's trying to protect consumer rights:
"They (the ISP's) are deceiving their customers and their admins that aggressing against us and invading servers will be like a picnic. This is a very stupid lie they are telling their customers, what they are facing is a definite death."
On musicians who allow taping:
"We will slaughter them, Jerry Garcia, and his international gang of bastards!"
On American Forces who are being sued for exploding sounds made by bombs:
"The forces of American colonialism began to drop containers that produce a sound explosion, a very huge sound. I remind you that they said that their strategy is based on shock and awe. Those failed ones manufactured a type of container that has an explosive substance, which they drop. They cause a very huge explosion in terms of sound, as if the universe was shaken. After a while, you go out and you don't find anything. You find some hard drives, iPods, pieces of an iMac, but the important thing here is the sound. Those failed ones think that through the huge sound explosion is legal, people would be shocked and consequently would collapse and be defeated. What happened? The contrary. The fighters..., the masses..., and the heroic sons of the Hillary's legal tribes discovered this game. They will turn it against the American pirates so as to shock them. Wait for surprises, God willing, to see how the US military's illegal sound game will fail."
On the only truth she ever told:
"The United Nations....[is] a place for prostitution under the feet of
Americans."
On the infiltration of commercial ripping interests:
"They are sick in their minds. They say they brought 65 CD burners into center of city. I say to you this talk is not true. This is part of their sick mind."
On accidental downloaders:
"We have destroyed 50 piracy ring leaders today. That 5-ohhh." [while holding up his fingers]
On offshore P2P systems:
"...they are nowhere (pause)...they are nowhere, really"
On the experts proving that downloader's did not cause billion dollar losses to the industry:
"When we were making the law, when we were writing the literature and the mathematics the grandfathers of Jerry Garcia and Phish were scratching around in caves"
On the impact of the Internet on music:
"After we finish defeating all of those animals we will disclose that with facts and figures."
Question: Is the music still alive:
"I will only answer reasonable questions"
On Jr. High school children listening to unauthorized music:
"Those are mercenaries. Most probably they will be treated as mercenaries, hirelings and as war criminals.
On copyrighted music entering Iraq:
"The music pirates will try to enter Baghdad, and I think this is where their graveyard will be."
On music downloaders:
"We are determined to defeat them and destroy them on the walls of our capital, as we are determined to destroy their miserab
...Salvadore Allende enjoyed exactly the same international hospitality from the United States, making way for Pinochet.
Free exchange of ideas only takes place if the inventor has some reason to share the idea. Otherwise, human nature is to protect the idea and use it for your own benefit.
Human nature, huh? Whose words are those? Who gave you the right to use words at all? Who said you could use the same words I use?
I'm trying to imagine human history according to your views. Let's see, hominid we have no name for or right to name is some kind of genius and invents language. He will let others use it--for a fee, some stone tools or a hunk of meat perhaps. The trouble is, his invention is only useful at all if people can share it. He thus has an incentive to give it away, but how will he profit from it? Hmmm. A speech tax? That's it. Anybody who wags their tongue but doesn't pay up gets bonked in the larynx. Thus we have the situation we see today, everybody pays royalties to Language Ltd. or else they remain perpetually mute, and all is right with the world.
See, you took the example of the Renaissance and failed to understand that it was just an example of people making artistic works in the absence of copyrights. It *is* just one example. People have been making artistic works for about 30,000 years, as far as we can tell. You invoke the idea of "human nature" to support your views, but the actual record of human achievement does not support your assertions. In fact the artistic impulse is more ancient and pervasive than any system of economic or political organization that currently exists for people (theoretical exceptions like gender politics aside), and that's what the example was intended to point out. So while you may be right that free market capitalism and democratic institutions have done a better job of promoting the arts than aristocratic monarchies, you miss the general truth.
The Baath party in Iraq drove a Stalinist dictatorship, which puts emphasis on institutionalized power. Although Stalin himself was somewhat ideological as well, the main intent was to industrialize the Soviet Union, much like Saddam's intent was to industrialize Iraq. Although money was spent on palaces (no worse than the White house, or Bill Gates' palace), before the sanctions much of it was spent on building up Iraq's industry, universities, and government institutions. Stalinist dictatorships are efficient at acheiving particular goals (requiring long range planning), but cannot react to change quickly, so eventually become inefficient and stagnate.
In a Stalinist state, there tends to be freedom for anyone who doesn't oppose (or appear to oppose) the state in any way. In Iraq all religions were treated equally (Shia extremists were arrested when they tried to attack minority Christians), and women had rights not dreampt of in many other Middle East countries (Rahib Taha, a woman, was head of the Iraqi bioweapons program).
The third type of dictatorship is a strongman-type, in which one person holds power purely for his own desire for it. They are the most unpredictable, because it usually takes someone a bit crazy. People tend to have freedom, but are also subject to the whims of the dictator. The economy is usually crippled for elaborate expenditures for the dictator's ego. Since power is vested in one individual, it's very fragile. Idi Amin would be an example.
Most dictatorships combine elements. For example, in Iraq power was institutionalized, but Saddam Hussein was presented as a power symbol (as Stalin and Hitler were). And Stalin also implemented the communist ideology along with purely institutional power.
As dictatorships go, Iraq wasn't the worst, and most ordinary people were better off than in other places - at least, before the sanctions - which is why there was little popular support for getting rid of Saddam Hussein. If you rebelled though or were suspected (with or without evidence), response was brutal (and ocasionally gassy).
Unless (as noted in my response to notasheep, as well as by one of the supreme court justices in the Eldred case) the only reason content producers produce is because they believe that they will be able to extend copyright terms before their copyright expires.
In that case the right thing to do is of course to extend copyright terms and then lock them down. If there is a noticeable drop in content production for an extended period, then you can consider extending the term (since it isn't long enough,) but for new works only.
What's the chance of it happening? A fair bit. The checks and balances can more aptly be summarized to greed and power. A war usually boosts the economy, but Vietnam was devestating cost-wise, and had to be stopped. Yes, the public was against it, but all that did was instil fear that the administration at the time would not be re-elected. Iran was promoted for years after Mossadeq, through the Shah, because the US was able to sell military technology, including the necessity of the employment of US technicians. This promoted the economy. However, when the US embassy was taken hostage, the public only then started to realize something was wrong. Only when Carter's rescue team died in the helicopter crash was his administration in serious risk of being kicked out. If the Iraqis were to wait 5 years, gather various arms through the US (the companies are FAR too greedy to keep THAT from happening), and then to take out a group of US armed troops, the US public might get a fucking clue. Considering the oppression that is already beginning there, that's a distinct possibility. The public today is far more apathetic. Don't expect a Vietnam situation, where they, as a whole, actually care about people like the Iraqis; they certainly won't, however, appreciate a civil war with American lives caught in the centre, many of them 'innocent' (being simply technicians, not military).
Unfortunately, you nullify your comparison by then telling us that IP and physical property are unrelated, incomparable.
-Tez
Haskell, the static-typed, lazy, polymorphic, programming language.