Theoretically, a longer copyright would be worth more to a publisher, and therefore they would pay the creator more for it. Of course it doesn't really work that way, and I'd love to see someone attempt to prove that these extended copyrights are actually helping more than they're harming the creative world.
Why should it be different for something like bread? If you don't like their prices, then grow your own wheat and make your own bread right? The fact is that we decided we were going to have a capitalist economy in this country. Why should one set of companies play by a different set of rules than the rest?
No, collusion among the major labels allows them to set prices artificially high. The basic theory of capitalism is that competition leads to lower prices. They are avoiding competition altogether by using price-fixing. This is illegal and they were sued for it. They ended up having to pay out some measely sum and are most likely still doing it since I haven't seen CD prices budge at all. If the punishment isn't enough to deter the crime, then they will keep committing the crime. Pretty sad that our government is so willing to drop the hammer on people using P2P networks, but won't do a damn thing when big corporations are breaking the law.
They don't have to. They can keep selling them at their currently inflated rate, but the law will treat them as if they are worth 100 times more so that it will automatically justify whatever inflated penalties they want to throw at you. It's kind of handy to have politicians in your pocket.
Would the fact that you have access to the P2P network, and are able to download all the music you want for free, be considered financial gain? After all, you get all that music for essentially no cost.
Do think of non-intellectual property in the same way? You would find it absurd if, 20 years after you had built a house, you were required to let the general public come and go through your home as they pleased.
Do I have any good reason to treat so-called "intellectual property" the same as real property? They are completely different and I don't see any reason why we should try to equate one with the other.
I would bet you that a vast majority of files being transferred on P2P would be covered by copyright law even if the durating of copyright protection were only TEN years.
I agree, but as I said before, I think this is because people simply don't believe that copyright is fair or just, so they simply disregard it. Now, if the law was reformed so that it was fair again, then I think a lot of people would see it as being worthy of respect and public opinion would be strongly against the sort of filesharing we see now. It would also open up a lot of avenues for creative people to create new things from what has come before. All-in-all it would most likely be better for everyone. The current copyright laws are draconian and short-sighted. They are largely responsible for creating the situation we have today.
Even enforcing existing laws is wrong. The laws themselves are wrong because they don't serve the public anymore. Copyright isn't a natural right, and one could easily make the case that it is very counter-intuitive and that nature itself seems to be against it judging by how easily information spreads. Until copyright law is reformed to the point that the general public benefits from it, there is probably nothing that anyone can say that will pesuade people that copyright is actually right
As for how cut-and-dried the situation is, I'll just quote my earlier post:
Well, the courts have allowed that copying for the purposes of time-shifting or space-shifting are legal. Personal backup copies are also legal. Then there are exceptions for schools and libraries in some cases too. There's even some dispute about things that we think should be clear-cut, such as making a mix-CD for a friend. They just haven't been put to the test in court yet. Mainly because neither side is sure that they want a clear answer at this point.
Well, the courts have allowed that copying for the purposes of time-shifting or space-shifting are legal. Personal backup copies are also legal. Then there are exceptions for schools and libraries in some cases too. There's even some dispute about things that we think should be clear-cut, such as making a mix-CD for a friend. They just haven't been put to the test in court yet. Mainly because neither side is sure that they want a clear answer at this point.
What, pray tell, is wrong with current copyright law? It is illegal to copy something without permission. Period.
Actually you're wrong. There are plenty of exceptions out there and the law has been interpreted differently by different courts in different cases. It's nowhere nearly as cut-and-dried as you seem to think.
That said, I think that one of the main reasons we are seeing so much disregard for copyright law by the average citizen is because the government has disregarding those same citizens in its desire to give corporate interests whatever they want in terms of copyright extensions and restrictions. The average person sees absolutely no benefit from copyright law anymore. That's not the way it was supposed to be. Copyright was supposed to be a bargain between creators and the public. We agree to give them exclusive rights for a limited period of time, and then we get unfettered access to that work once the period has expired. This seemed like a good deal for everyone. Then Congress cut the public out of the deal. Nothing becomes public domain anymore, and won't for as long as they keep extending copyright terms. I see P2P as a backlash (albeit an unconscious one on the part of most people) against overly restrictive copyright laws that people understand to be inherently unfair. If balance was brought back to the system, I think people would have more respect for it.
Will I waste my money on KOTR? Bet your ass! It simply CAN'T be worse than Galaxies!!! If that makes me a 5ukkor, so be it.
Yep, you're a "5ukkor", and the primary reason that these bastards get away with releasing such crap to the public. Thanks to people like you that buy whatever they toss to you, they will continue to release crap.
"Yeah, well we're counter-suing you for infringing upon our copyright of suing!"
You have almost no knowledge of copyright law, do you? It's ok, you can admit it. Judging by the posts here, there are a lot of people in the same boat as you.
I know that I always research better insterstellar drives long before I worry about planetary shields. Expansion is the key to galactic conquest, even complete n00bs figure this out pretty quick. Of course we are talking about Congress here, so I guess they might take a bit longer.
Everyone doesn't get it, because it doesn't really make sense. Copyright law is very screwed up now, thanks to corporations like Disney throwing huge wads of cash at our government. Copyright is a completely artificial "right". It was created as a bargain between the people of this country and anyone who wishes to create something that we might like. We give them a period of time in which they have exclusive rights to profit from their creation, and once that time is up it becomes available to everyone to do with as they like. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. The problem is that the people don't see any benefit from the deal anymore because Congress has extended the term so that it is now longer than an average human life. So if we're never going to get access to these works, what reason do we have to honor the bargain anymore? Just like many other laws in our history, it's not about what's legal, it's about what's right.
We run Netscape mail servers and almost everyone uses Netscape 4.7 as their mail client and browser. Although recently we started supporting Outlook as well. I am one of the few that uses Mozilla, but the company hasn't decided to switch to the new Netscape yet.
Here's a question for someone who knows their LDAP stuff though: Why is it that when I use Netscape 4.7 and double-click someone in our online address book, I can see all kinds of info about them, in particular their UID and Mailhost, but when I use Mozilla, I just get their basic address card info?
Coulda been worse... I could've already known the Klingon word for spam:)
Tastes great... Less filling...
on
Microbe Processors
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I want microbes that combine to taste like a twinkie or Oreo cookie, but after I swallow them, they dutifully form themselves into some form of dietary fiber that will not give me the runs (I'm thinking of things like Olean(TM) or olestra) nor will it constipate me. If they can do that, the world will be a wonderful place indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Theoretically, a longer copyright would be worth more to a publisher, and therefore they would pay the creator more for it. Of course it doesn't really work that way, and I'd love to see someone attempt to prove that these extended copyrights are actually helping more than they're harming the creative world.
Why should it be different for something like bread? If you don't like their prices, then grow your own wheat and make your own bread right? The fact is that we decided we were going to have a capitalist economy in this country. Why should one set of companies play by a different set of rules than the rest?
No, collusion among the major labels allows them to set prices artificially high. The basic theory of capitalism is that competition leads to lower prices. They are avoiding competition altogether by using price-fixing. This is illegal and they were sued for it. They ended up having to pay out some measely sum and are most likely still doing it since I haven't seen CD prices budge at all. If the punishment isn't enough to deter the crime, then they will keep committing the crime. Pretty sad that our government is so willing to drop the hammer on people using P2P networks, but won't do a damn thing when big corporations are breaking the law.
They don't have to. They can keep selling them at their currently inflated rate, but the law will treat them as if they are worth 100 times more so that it will automatically justify whatever inflated penalties they want to throw at you. It's kind of handy to have politicians in your pocket.
Would the fact that you have access to the P2P network, and are able to download all the music you want for free, be considered financial gain? After all, you get all that music for essentially no cost.
Do think of non-intellectual property in the same way? You would find it absurd if, 20 years after you had built a house, you were required to let the general public come and go through your home as they pleased.
Do I have any good reason to treat so-called "intellectual property" the same as real property? They are completely different and I don't see any reason why we should try to equate one with the other.
I would bet you that a vast majority of files being transferred on P2P would be covered by copyright law even if the durating of copyright protection were only TEN years.
I agree, but as I said before, I think this is because people simply don't believe that copyright is fair or just, so they simply disregard it. Now, if the law was reformed so that it was fair again, then I think a lot of people would see it as being worthy of respect and public opinion would be strongly against the sort of filesharing we see now. It would also open up a lot of avenues for creative people to create new things from what has come before. All-in-all it would most likely be better for everyone. The current copyright laws are draconian and short-sighted. They are largely responsible for creating the situation we have today.
Even enforcing existing laws is wrong. The laws themselves are wrong because they don't serve the public anymore. Copyright isn't a natural right, and one could easily make the case that it is very counter-intuitive and that nature itself seems to be against it judging by how easily information spreads. Until copyright law is reformed to the point that the general public benefits from it, there is probably nothing that anyone can say that will pesuade people that copyright is actually right
As for how cut-and-dried the situation is, I'll just quote my earlier post:
Well, the courts have allowed that copying for the purposes of time-shifting or space-shifting are legal. Personal backup copies are also legal. Then there are exceptions for schools and libraries in some cases too. There's even some dispute about things that we think should be clear-cut, such as making a mix-CD for a friend. They just haven't been put to the test in court yet. Mainly because neither side is sure that they want a clear answer at this point.
What, pray tell, is wrong with current copyright law? It is illegal to copy something without permission. Period.
Actually you're wrong. There are plenty of exceptions out there and the law has been interpreted differently by different courts in different cases. It's nowhere nearly as cut-and-dried as you seem to think.
That said, I think that one of the main reasons we are seeing so much disregard for copyright law by the average citizen is because the government has disregarding those same citizens in its desire to give corporate interests whatever they want in terms of copyright extensions and restrictions. The average person sees absolutely no benefit from copyright law anymore. That's not the way it was supposed to be. Copyright was supposed to be a bargain between creators and the public. We agree to give them exclusive rights for a limited period of time, and then we get unfettered access to that work once the period has expired. This seemed like a good deal for everyone. Then Congress cut the public out of the deal. Nothing becomes public domain anymore, and won't for as long as they keep extending copyright terms. I see P2P as a backlash (albeit an unconscious one on the part of most people) against overly restrictive copyright laws that people understand to be inherently unfair. If balance was brought back to the system, I think people would have more respect for it.
Not for me then. I've been a gamer for far too long to not be cynical.
Will I waste my money on KOTR? Bet your ass! It simply CAN'T be worse than Galaxies!!! If that makes me a 5ukkor, so be it.
Yep, you're a "5ukkor", and the primary reason that these bastards get away with releasing such crap to the public. Thanks to people like you that buy whatever they toss to you, they will continue to release crap.
Ugh. That "review" sounds like something that Crest's marketing department dreamed up. Hell, it read like a full-page magazine ad.
"Yeah, well we're counter-suing you for infringing upon our copyright of suing!"
You have almost no knowledge of copyright law, do you? It's ok, you can admit it. Judging by the posts here, there are a lot of people in the same boat as you.
A breaking into the games industry article? Is it Friday already? Oh crap, I'm goin home then!
Yeah, but Republican crows were probably in power at the time, so the crow healthcare system sucked.
I know that I always research better insterstellar drives long before I worry about planetary shields. Expansion is the key to galactic conquest, even complete n00bs figure this out pretty quick. Of course we are talking about Congress here, so I guess they might take a bit longer.
If the chain was considered to be a copy-protection device, then it would be illegal to remove it.
Oh yeah.. that would be sweet... give me a flak cannon and let me run wild through the Gungan army scene :)
Right, so they'll do it the same way they do now, which has absolutely nothing to do with watermarks.
Everyone doesn't get it, because it doesn't really make sense. Copyright law is very screwed up now, thanks to corporations like Disney throwing huge wads of cash at our government. Copyright is a completely artificial "right". It was created as a bargain between the people of this country and anyone who wishes to create something that we might like. We give them a period of time in which they have exclusive rights to profit from their creation, and once that time is up it becomes available to everyone to do with as they like. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. The problem is that the people don't see any benefit from the deal anymore because Congress has extended the term so that it is now longer than an average human life. So if we're never going to get access to these works, what reason do we have to honor the bargain anymore? Just like many other laws in our history, it's not about what's legal, it's about what's right.
We run Netscape mail servers and almost everyone uses Netscape 4.7 as their mail client and browser. Although recently we started supporting Outlook as well. I am one of the few that uses Mozilla, but the company hasn't decided to switch to the new Netscape yet.
Here's a question for someone who knows their LDAP stuff though: Why is it that when I use Netscape 4.7 and double-click someone in our online address book, I can see all kinds of info about them, in particular their UID and Mailhost, but when I use Mozilla, I just get their basic address card info?
Coulda been worse... I could've already known the Klingon word for spam :)
I want microbes that combine to taste like a twinkie or Oreo cookie, but after I swallow them, they dutifully form themselves into some form of dietary fiber that will not give me the runs (I'm thinking of things like Olean(TM) or olestra) nor will it constipate me. If they can do that, the world will be a wonderful place indeed.
Pansy.
Yeah, what's the Klingon word for spam??