If technology were based on a square wheel then we might find ourselves working on bearings, and spokes, and the shape of the axle, in order to optimize the efficiency of a square wheel rolling over the ground. The fact will forever remain, though, that because of the force vectors involved, a square wheel will never be as optimal as a round wheel--no matter how well the bearings are designed, no matter how optimized the shape of the bearing case is, no matter how strong the materials which make up the spokes are, and no matter how well the shape of the axle is patterned to distribute the force of overcoming the defects of a square wheel.
The same can be said for the internal combustion engine. Too much energy is lost to friction and heat when the force vector for the piston and the piston arm have to change. It's the inherent flaw in converting an up and down motion to a round and round motion. We can engineer the valves to our hearts content. We can change the shape of the cam while figuring in every possible timing consideration. We can change the fuel mixing method a thousand times. It will never solve the problem of the drastic change in direction of the momentum.
While the project was probably a continuation of a 30-year old research program (which, similarly, cannot be turned on a dime without losing enormous amounts of support energy), the funds would have been better spent on improving designs like the rotary (Wankel) combustion engine or refining implementations of alternative fuel or electric engines.
Should the author or inventor not be able to sell or license his or her rights to another?
That is not the point. Congress was given the Constitutional power to secure rights to respective authors and inventors. Congress was not given the Constitutional power to subsidize a copyright supermarket. The difference is quite clear.
It's not like the law automatically takes away the rights from an author or inventor
But neither does the law do anything to secure rights to them--which is the only thing which the Constitution empowers Congress to do in that arena.
the author or inventor has to give the rights away. Everyone who is like "boo hoo, the poor artist, got a bad contract from the record company" or whatever, the fact is the artist willingly signed the contract
By making this argument you are ignoring every reason why the United States held a revolution against England to begin with. This is not about the artists, nor is it about the record companies, but this is about what Congress has the legal authority to involve itself in. This was precisely the root of all problems which the revolutionaries of 1776 had with the British Parliament and King.
apparently, at the time, the artist felt that the tradeoff -- getting money, recording time, publicity, whatever -- was worth giving up the rights to the work.
The crux of this argument being that something is worth more than nothing. The authors of the Constitution were quite familiar with this exploit with respect to intellectual and artistic works and they wrote the Constitution in the interest of preventing it.
Who are you, or I, to tell an artist that they can't profit from the actions in that way?
Again, this is not the point. The point is not what we, you or I, would wish for the author or inventor. The point is what Congress was empowered to do for them. The authors of the Constitution were well aware of the many different ways in which the House of Lords could falsely use the power of government to further their own business interests and they wrote the Constitution in the interest of preventing that from happening here. With respect to government's involvement with authors or inventors they decreed that Congress should work to secure their rights. The law, quite the opposite, has facilitated the removal of those rights. The difference is clear.
They were initially secured to the authors and inventors until the authors and inventors transferred them to the corporation.
I think the difference between "granted to" and "secured to" is quite clear, don't you?
The only time these things get transferred without explicit consent
The authors of the Constitution, being familiar with the tactics of the British Parliament and King, were well aware that government is not well suited to make judgements of consent. There's a clear conflict of interest, with respect to profit, when one is considering the consent of the governed. Most politicians, and businessmen, apply a different standard of consent to themselves than they do to the people they are stealing from.
is when you are an employee, and the work you do is a "work for hire" -- but even then, you are getting paid to create, why shouldn't the copyright belong to the person or company paying for it?
Because the Constitution charges Congress to secure those rights to the authors and inventors. That's why. You're clearly not getting it.
Each and every copyright owned by a member of the RIAA was voluntarily
Voluntarily is, as pointed out above, quite subjetive.
signed over by its creator.
It's not very secure if a simple signature can facilitate the removal from.
Maybe in hindsight a lot of those artists wished they hadn't agreed to those contracts -- but the fact is, each and every one of those artists willingly signed those con
It's an action taken against a bad law. The Constitution calls for Congress to have the ability to secure rights to authors and inventors for their respective inventions and writings. The law, on the other hand, facilitates the removal of rights from authors and inventors and the vesting of those rights in an artificial entity known as the copyright holder.
I think the difference between "secure to" and "facilitate the removal from" is pretty clear, don't you? Clearly the rights aren't secured to the authors and inventors if the copyright holders and assignees have them all.
The most damaging holes are the ones that only the bad guys know about I think this is where we see why this is a money laundering scheme--with big money. The "bad guys" know hundreds, maybe thousands of holes. There is no shortage of security vulnerabilities in nearly any code base in modern software. There are people who have entire libraries of text files describing vulnerabilities for whatever they want.
Remember the semi-cynical description of job descriptions? From a random job seeker's point of view all job descriptions are things that they're seeking to fit themselves to so that they can qualify for a job. In reality, though, job descriptions are the result of careful, diligent, and deliberate definition by HR departments who already have a candidate in mind. It is their goal, then, to write a job description which is sufficiently vague to put on a good show of interviewing candidates (and neutralizing any claims of discrimination, nepotism, or favoritism) while still being able to give the position to the (secretly) preordained favorite.
This is exactly what is happening with pay-for-vulnerability gigs. They already know who knows the vulns (usually someone in the pool of people who wrote the software or someone who, in years past, designed the hardware on which it runs) and they already have their preferred winner selected. The task is then on to construct the game show such that more money can be made off of parading the contestants around.
It's the same way insider trading is covered up. It's the same way that political elections are run.
We have two s who claim they're 17 Except that they're both lying--and only one of them is a law enforcement officer trying to score a promotion. The other is a Penthouse author exploring material for next month's column.
Banning with people who said something that could suggest they pretend to be a child or pretend their mate is a child You can't do that. That's how federal, state, and local special enforcement squads troll the internet. They strike up a suggestive or alluring chat and then, once they've accumulated enough bad words or phrases portraying s3xual activity, they'll drop the "I'm 17" bomb.
Imagine a chatroom where authors for , Penthouse Letters, and Cosmopolitan hang out together. Then imagine being an FBI agent finding such a chat room... GOLDMINE!
It's no different from an FBI prostitution sting busting their "John"... after swallowing.
Whether or not this is true hinges entirely on what the Constitution means by 'secure' Even you should see the plain difference between "secure to" and "facilitate the removal from".
That you continue to argue as if you're correct...
is utterly hilarious
Well, there's a huge amount of history supporting the initial vesting interpretation The only history which is important with respect to the Constitution is that which led to the Declaration of Independence. I think you've allowed yourself to get away from the point, as usual, just because it's what you do.
Here's the point, again: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
Current law does nothing to secure rights to authors and inventors. Current law facilitates the removal of rights from authors and inventors. Current law is unconstitutional.
But what is meant by that is to initially vest those rights to them, and from then to let the authors and inventors make their own choices That is not securing their rights to them. That is facilitating the transfer of rights from them. That is not what was meant, no matter how much you would wish for it to be so.
The authors of the Constitution had the English parliamentary m0del in mind. What they sought to prevent was the accumulation of the English cruft and the selective and preferential application along with the English overreaching expansion. If you were at all familiar with Revolutionary War era history or the Declaration of Independence then this would be obvious. You're either stupid beyond the level of anything I've ever seen or you're deliberately creating argument because you're an asshat.
it takes two to tango The classic excuse of a ripoff artist.
In fact I'd say that copyright licenses are far more common than assignments The important question being: how many of them are still secured to the author or inventor?
No matter how much verbage you write you cannot get around the very specific recognition of the author or inventor as the person to whom the rights should be secured. Keep going, though, if you really think you're getting anywhere.
When's the last time Castro sold 301 billion people into debt and authorized worldwide military strikes against nations based on a hunch supported by bad intelligence?
Seems to me you have your sights narrowed on the smallest fish possible.
Much easier to hide than Guatanamo and we wouldn't have to be paying rent to Cuba, either.
AFAIK Cuba tried to remove the lease on Gitmo when Castro found out what the USA was using it for but real estate brokers and lawyers enjoy the same type of power over the Cuban government as they do here.
Giving those rights to them is all that is required No. You're wrong. Federal politicians take an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution says to secure rights to authors and inventors. The law secures rights to copyright holders. The law facilitates the removal of rights from authors and inventors. The law is in opposition with the Constitution. The politicians who support current copyright law are in violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution.
In which case, why is it that the states, after becoming independent, passed copyright laws which all permit transferring copyrights Graft and profiteering are not exclusively a federal problem. Put down the crack pipe.
Plus, of course, England had the best...copyright laws in the world at the time The people who wrote the Constitution didn't think so.
They are allowed to do that if they want to O RLY? Have the profiteers ever offered the option? Show one example where an author or inventor has been offered an option between selling rights and licensing them and chosen to sell them.
you can quit without cause Corporations aren't very polite with an employee who dares to exercise their right to leave if the company has been screwing them blind. In the companies' eyes you'll still have been fired.
That little distinction makes a whole lot of difference to the next round of potential employers--and to the unemployment office.
The damage that such a recall would have in terms of liability, lost profit, and plain flat out admitting that they royally screwed the pooch is so enormous that, in the interest of promoting the free world, we simply can't allow it.
If you continue to press your treasonous assertions you can and will be sent to Gitmo for social reconditioning: do not mess with their profit margin.
The goal of the Constitutional clause regarding rights of authors and inventors was to allow those authors and inventors to advertise and promote their ideas without worrying that a larger profiteer would adopt those ideas, develop them, and release a finish product without properly compensating the author or inventor.
Current copyright law, by vesting legal rights in the copyright holder and nullifying the rights of the authors and inventors, facilitates the profiteering system that the founding fathers were trying to do away with. We have become Great Britain of 1776.
No one is forcing authors or inventors to sell their rights Nobody is doing their Constitutional duty to secure their rights, either.
What good is security which can be bought for a dollar (such as they do in the pharmaceutical industry)--under duress of losing employment? Would this kind of security be acceptable for operating systems or for banks? Would you expect to be able to pay the bouncer one dollar to look the other way while you whack someone with a pool cue?
Clearly copyright law does nothing to secure (note 3a of the verb form indicates "lasting possession or control") the rights of authors and inventors. It only facilitates their removal. That's the very reason why the founding fathers made it part of the original Constitution: this exact same problem was in the very government they fought a Revolutionary War to separate themselves from.
Maybe copyright law could allow original authors and inventors to license their ideas to employers or developers but they should still maintain final control.
The Constitution does indeed say that the rights have to be vested in the author or inventor.
And the law does just this. For that split second until the profiteers secure an economic upper hand.
But copyright law (and pretty certainly patent law, though I'd have to check) has never prohibited the first rightsholder from assigning his rights to someone else. Quite conveniently working in favor of the profiteer and at odds with the long-term rights of the original author or inventor. Plead coincidence. It can't possibly be a conspiracy because conspirators are psychotic and need psychological help.
Nor are the rightsholders arbitrarily defined; things like work made for hire have their origins in the common law More evidence that, as a general rule, the will of the rich and powerful prevails over any ideology.
and reflect a more nuanced understanding Yes, the difference between "author or inventor" and "profiteer" is certainly a nuance of the legal profession.
Put down your crack pipe. The law does nothing to secure the rights of authors or inventors. The law has been crafted, specifically, to make it possible to remove their rights. Under what crack-smoke deluged interpretation may a profiteer undo a secured right for the cost of one single dollar?
It does say that the rights should be secured to the authors and inventors.
Current copyright law doesn't come close to securing anything to the authors and inventors. Current copyright law secures the rights of an arbitrarily defined copyright holder and, in doing so, facilitates the removal of rights from authors and inventors.
Only if you're a private citizen who is adding names of people just because you don't like them.
If you're the government then, well, that's okay. The secretaries who maintain the list are allowed to add the names and information of people just because they don't like them. Who needs accountability?
Am I alone in actually paying the programmers, musicians, and directors for their work? If you're actually paying the programmers, musicians, and directors then, yes, you probably are pretty close to alone.
From the Constitution:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries Current copyright law does nothing to prevent original authors and inventors from profit seeking businessmen.
causing it to starve to death - because they aren't allowed to actually kill it, but CAN eat it if it "dies naturally"? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
OS/2 that flopped OS/2 didn't flop. It was set up to flop. Microsoft correctly gambled that the lawsuits for releasing a defective product in the computer industry would be easily nullified since there was no real physical damage (as opposed to producing cars with a faulty braking system). With the support of politicians and investment bankers Microsoft was able to turn the general public into a host of free beta testers while IBM stuck to proper engineering principles and attempted to produce a refined product before unleashing it on the public.
In short--the public got chumped, and thirteen years later, we're still being chumped because the idiots at the tops of politics, investment, and banking won't admit that they royally f*cked up.
The bump in the middle of the rug must be pretty f*cking large by now... but everyone's been so carefully trained to keep their eyes focused on the corners.
Slashdot Mirror
If technology were based on a square wheel then we might find ourselves working on bearings, and spokes, and the shape of the axle, in order to optimize the efficiency of a square wheel rolling over the ground. The fact will forever remain, though, that because of the force vectors involved, a square wheel will never be as optimal as a round wheel--no matter how well the bearings are designed, no matter how optimized the shape of the bearing case is, no matter how strong the materials which make up the spokes are, and no matter how well the shape of the axle is patterned to distribute the force of overcoming the defects of a square wheel.
The same can be said for the internal combustion engine. Too much energy is lost to friction and heat when the force vector for the piston and the piston arm have to change. It's the inherent flaw in converting an up and down motion to a round and round motion. We can engineer the valves to our hearts content. We can change the shape of the cam while figuring in every possible timing consideration. We can change the fuel mixing method a thousand times. It will never solve the problem of the drastic change in direction of the momentum.
While the project was probably a continuation of a 30-year old research program (which, similarly, cannot be turned on a dime without losing enormous amounts of support energy), the funds would have been better spent on improving designs like the rotary (Wankel) combustion engine or refining implementations of alternative fuel or electric engines.
Should the author or inventor not be able to sell or license his or her rights to another?
That is not the point. Congress was given the Constitutional power to secure rights to respective authors and inventors. Congress was not given the Constitutional power to subsidize a copyright supermarket. The difference is quite clear.
It's not like the law automatically takes away the rights from an author or inventor
But neither does the law do anything to secure rights to them--which is the only thing which the Constitution empowers Congress to do in that arena.
the author or inventor has to give the rights away. Everyone who is like "boo hoo, the poor artist, got a bad contract from the record company" or whatever, the fact is the artist willingly signed the contract
By making this argument you are ignoring every reason why the United States held a revolution against England to begin with. This is not about the artists, nor is it about the record companies, but this is about what Congress has the legal authority to involve itself in. This was precisely the root of all problems which the revolutionaries of 1776 had with the British Parliament and King.
apparently, at the time, the artist felt that the tradeoff -- getting money, recording time, publicity, whatever -- was worth giving up the rights to the work.
The crux of this argument being that something is worth more than nothing. The authors of the Constitution were quite familiar with this exploit with respect to intellectual and artistic works and they wrote the Constitution in the interest of preventing it.
Who are you, or I, to tell an artist that they can't profit from the actions in that way?
Again, this is not the point. The point is not what we, you or I, would wish for the author or inventor. The point is what Congress was empowered to do for them. The authors of the Constitution were well aware of the many different ways in which the House of Lords could falsely use the power of government to further their own business interests and they wrote the Constitution in the interest of preventing that from happening here. With respect to government's involvement with authors or inventors they decreed that Congress should work to secure their rights. The law, quite the opposite, has facilitated the removal of those rights. The difference is clear.
They were initially secured to the authors and inventors until the authors and inventors transferred them to the corporation.
I think the difference between "granted to" and "secured to" is quite clear, don't you?
The only time these things get transferred without explicit consent
The authors of the Constitution, being familiar with the tactics of the British Parliament and King, were well aware that government is not well suited to make judgements of consent. There's a clear conflict of interest, with respect to profit, when one is considering the consent of the governed. Most politicians, and businessmen, apply a different standard of consent to themselves than they do to the people they are stealing from.
is when you are an employee, and the work you do is a "work for hire" -- but even then, you are getting paid to create, why shouldn't the copyright belong to the person or company paying for it?
Because the Constitution charges Congress to secure those rights to the authors and inventors. That's why. You're clearly not getting it.
Each and every copyright owned by a member of the RIAA was voluntarily
Voluntarily is, as pointed out above, quite subjetive.
signed over by its creator.
It's not very secure if a simple signature can facilitate the removal from.
Maybe in hindsight a lot of those artists wished they hadn't agreed to those contracts -- but the fact is, each and every one of those artists willingly signed those con
It's an action taken against a bad law. The Constitution calls for Congress to have the ability to secure rights to authors and inventors for their respective inventions and writings. The law, on the other hand, facilitates the removal of rights from authors and inventors and the vesting of those rights in an artificial entity known as the copyright holder.
I think the difference between "secure to" and "facilitate the removal from" is pretty clear, don't you? Clearly the rights aren't secured to the authors and inventors if the copyright holders and assignees have them all.
Remember the semi-cynical description of job descriptions? From a random job seeker's point of view all job descriptions are things that they're seeking to fit themselves to so that they can qualify for a job. In reality, though, job descriptions are the result of careful, diligent, and deliberate definition by HR departments who already have a candidate in mind. It is their goal, then, to write a job description which is sufficiently vague to put on a good show of interviewing candidates (and neutralizing any claims of discrimination, nepotism, or favoritism) while still being able to give the position to the (secretly) preordained favorite.
This is exactly what is happening with pay-for-vulnerability gigs. They already know who knows the vulns (usually someone in the pool of people who wrote the software or someone who, in years past, designed the hardware on which it runs) and they already have their preferred winner selected. The task is then on to construct the game show such that more money can be made off of parading the contestants around.
It's the same way insider trading is covered up. It's the same way that political elections are run.
Imagine a chatroom where authors for , Penthouse Letters, and Cosmopolitan hang out together. Then imagine being an FBI agent finding such a chat room... GOLDMINE!
It's no different from an FBI prostitution sting busting their "John"... after swallowing.
That you continue to argue as if you're correct... is utterly hilarious
Here's the point, again: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
Current law does nothing to secure rights to authors and inventors. Current law facilitates the removal of rights from authors and inventors. Current law is unconstitutional.
The authors of the Constitution had the English parliamentary m0del in mind. What they sought to prevent was the accumulation of the English cruft and the selective and preferential application along with the English overreaching expansion. If you were at all familiar with Revolutionary War era history or the Declaration of Independence then this would be obvious. You're either stupid beyond the level of anything I've ever seen or you're deliberately creating argument because you're an asshat. it takes two to tango The classic excuse of a ripoff artist. In fact I'd say that copyright licenses are far more common than assignments The important question being: how many of them are still secured to the author or inventor?
No matter how much verbage you write you cannot get around the very specific recognition of the author or inventor as the person to whom the rights should be secured. Keep going, though, if you really think you're getting anywhere.
When's the last time Castro sold 301 billion people into debt and authorized worldwide military strikes against nations based on a hunch supported by bad intelligence?
Seems to me you have your sights narrowed on the smallest fish possible.
Much easier to hide than Guatanamo and we wouldn't have to be paying rent to Cuba, either.
AFAIK Cuba tried to remove the lease on Gitmo when Castro found out what the USA was using it for but real estate brokers and lawyers enjoy the same type of power over the Cuban government as they do here.
That little distinction makes a whole lot of difference to the next round of potential employers--and to the unemployment office.
The damage that such a recall would have in terms of liability, lost profit, and plain flat out admitting that they royally screwed the pooch is so enormous that, in the interest of promoting the free world, we simply can't allow it.
If you continue to press your treasonous assertions you can and will be sent to Gitmo for social reconditioning: do not mess with their profit margin.
Alleluia.
The goal of the Constitutional clause regarding rights of authors and inventors was to allow those authors and inventors to advertise and promote their ideas without worrying that a larger profiteer would adopt those ideas, develop them, and release a finish product without properly compensating the author or inventor.
Current copyright law, by vesting legal rights in the copyright holder and nullifying the rights of the authors and inventors, facilitates the profiteering system that the founding fathers were trying to do away with. We have become Great Britain of 1776.
What good is security which can be bought for a dollar (such as they do in the pharmaceutical industry)--under duress of losing employment? Would this kind of security be acceptable for operating systems or for banks? Would you expect to be able to pay the bouncer one dollar to look the other way while you whack someone with a pool cue?
Clearly copyright law does nothing to secure (note 3a of the verb form indicates "lasting possession or control") the rights of authors and inventors. It only facilitates their removal. That's the very reason why the founding fathers made it part of the original Constitution: this exact same problem was in the very government they fought a Revolutionary War to separate themselves from.
Maybe copyright law could allow original authors and inventors to license their ideas to employers or developers but they should still maintain final control.
Put down your crack pipe. The law does nothing to secure the rights of authors or inventors. The law has been crafted, specifically, to make it possible to remove their rights. Under what crack-smoke deluged interpretation may a profiteer undo a secured right for the cost of one single dollar?
Is that a joke?
It does say that the rights should be secured to the authors and inventors.
Current copyright law doesn't come close to securing anything to the authors and inventors. Current copyright law secures the rights of an arbitrarily defined copyright holder and, in doing so, facilitates the removal of rights from authors and inventors.
Put down the crack pipe, home-boy.
Only if you're a private citizen who is adding names of people just because you don't like them.
If you're the government then, well, that's okay. The secretaries who maintain the list are allowed to add the names and information of people just because they don't like them. Who needs accountability?
From the Constitution: To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries Current copyright law does nothing to prevent original authors and inventors from profit seeking businessmen.
You can, however, drown him.
In short--the public got chumped, and thirteen years later, we're still being chumped because the idiots at the tops of politics, investment, and banking won't admit that they royally f*cked up.
The bump in the middle of the rug must be pretty f*cking large by now... but everyone's been so carefully trained to keep their eyes focused on the corners.