IANA Lawyer but I don't see why Google couldn't break this up into waves, wherein all of us who've opted in can get our checks now and start earning any "royalties" available through search, and leave the disputed rights and claimants for another day.
At this point you're a chess piece, and Google intends to use your piece as a pawn...
the AUTHORS make money from prominence they don't currently have in current a system which buries their works in obscurity
Not necessarily. Authors might have early works that they hate now, and they're glad only 2500 copies were printed, only 400 sold and the rest were pulped by the publisher.
There is, to put it crudely, no fucking way anybody else should be able to come along and republish it. Not until after they're long dead, anyway.
Copyright laws which rely on creating artificial scarcity need to die.
Can you explain why, without it being an ideological diatribe?
What's wrong with the creator controlling the dissemination of his/her work? Is he/she society's slave? Is the fact that he/she is gifted proof that society is owed the right to his/her creative output?
Nope. If they want twenty signed and numbered copies of their poem to be the sole copies ever produced, it's their right to make that the limit.
We should give credit to the authors of knowledge, but at the same time they shouldn't be able to horde and monopolize knowledge.
First off, "knowledge" isn't held captive in any creative writer's depiction. It exists independent of any particular depiction, and can be re-expressed by somebody else without any form of copyright violation.
So trumpet your diatribe about the 'horrible plight of knowledge held captive to the evil creator' somewhere that people don't think as clearly as we do here.
Write a book, sell it = sales Write another book, put it online for free = exposure Write another book after the increased exposure, sell it = more sales than your first book.
Fine, that can be your business plan.
But it's your choice to make that your business plan. Not Random Redistributor X who comes along and republishes your work without permission.
But what if somebody makes an unauthorized recording of you on a particularly bad night and you sound horrible? Or you made a 'demo' album six years ago and sold a handful of cassette copies in the local record shop. It gets around and awhile later becomes viral and everybody starts sending it around to all their friends. "listen to the tard playing the shitty guitar" they would all caption it. And the name of your band is all over it.
So a bunch of people are downloading it and your band's rep is ruined.
No, you have the right to decide how it is further disseminated. There might be 40 crappy cassettes out there, but nobody can digitize it and spread copies around the net.
I'm just curious why people want to shut it down instead of shaping it to work to their advantage.
'Working to their advantage' could include totally barring further distribution of a work. You might be a famous author, but you wrote some terrible drivel when you were younger. You might want there only to be 240 copies of that early work on acidic pulp paper and crumbling to dust. And it's your right to limit your work's distribution to 240 copies. The individual rights of the creator trump these purported 'collective rights' to the creators work. Nobody is a slave to society.
On the one hand, Google could end up stealing a few pennies from someone that can't be bothered to keep their work available. On the other hand, Google is ensuring that the relevant work is kept around.
It isn't a monetary issue. If the copyright holder wants their work to languish in obscurity, it's within their rights to require that of potential distributors. Until the copyright expires, they have the full right to control how it's disseminated. And it defaults to 'hands off.'
Businesses are probably going to start 'expecting' their employees to be adept in the new Microsoft Office version, though, so we'll all be forced that way. Or, those who work for that kind of business will, anyway. The question becomes: will those be the road-kill companies in the new economy? One would hope so. Chained as they are to Microsoft, who almost certainly is headed to the bottom.
I got an OEM Office 97 CD, which was tucked inside the User Manual, which has the offical 'seal of approval' and an OEM CD key, at Goodwill a few weeks ago. Goodwill treated it as a paperback book, so it cost me 69 cents.
even embedded systems pack tons of memory now so I don't see that being an issue.
Talk to Microchip, STMicro, and Freescale about that. They sell billions of micros per year with less than 1K of general purpose read/write memory. I've written apps for chips with 24 bytes of RAM.
Also, inodes? They're talking about DOS... sheesh!
We're impressed that you figured that out by the third frame, seeing as there was blatant mention of DOS in the first frame and DOS references were in all three frames.
So you're willing to narrow the scope and say wind power should only be used to generate electricity? You've adopted a losing argument, now. What's wrong with wind power being used wherever appropriate, and for whatever kind of power generation it is suitable for?
Wind farms could be viable, in a low-energy-usage future.
Didn't you know? The larger scope of the plan that incorporates wind mills includes such humans pounding a lot of sand in the future. All the charts and figures presuppose a drastic population reduction. Needless to say, the whole scope of the plan is sweeping. You know, all that 'dustbins of history' stuff....
Well, since you're a bird lover, we'll just wave our hands and concede that you're probably right on every point. It won't continue to be most viable to locate wind farms at flyway points, even though the best places to put the blades does happen to coincide with where the birds are most likely to have their travel paths. That magically is no longer the case. For some reason that nobody needs to explore. Because we have experts like you.
Also, we'll concede to your aesthetic judgment of what is beautiful and what is not.
A windmill is practically free when it's build. So, your comparison needs some work.
And yours needs work as well. A windmill produces such a small amount of power that many designs/implementations can never pay off the initial investment cost to produce and install them.
So there are big swiss cheese holes in both your arguments.
I would refer to it as an empowering influence. Those peoples have been unstable and squabbling for centuries. We just give them bigger sticks to fight with.
So, I think we've established that the people whose full-time occupation has been actively interfering with the Nuclear plants ever being built have been successful. Perhaps it's obvious now who the losses should be billable to.
Unfortunately, they don't have many assets to seize. A folding table and a thick stack of leaflets doesn't amount to much. However, it could serve as a valuable educational lesson to make sure the history of their obstruction is known, so that they can be reviled through history. Let the schoolchildren be taught what those people were really about.
It's an irony thing. That account holder has been on the site for years and years, and had a consistent presence and set of opinions. Some would write him off as a nerd-crank type, others revere his opinion.
Your comment about his 'handle' isn't a very strong argument against his credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
IANA Lawyer but I don't see why Google couldn't break this up into waves, wherein all of us who've opted in can get our checks now and start earning any "royalties" available through search, and leave the disputed rights and claimants for another day.
At this point you're a chess piece, and Google intends to use your piece as a pawn...
the AUTHORS make money from prominence they don't currently have in current a system which buries their works in obscurity
Not necessarily. Authors might have early works that they hate now, and they're glad only 2500 copies were printed, only 400 sold and the rest were pulped by the publisher.
There is, to put it crudely, no fucking way anybody else should be able to come along and republish it. Not until after they're long dead, anyway.
That's how it works.
It's irrelevant what some particular body of librarians is in favor of. They operate under the first sale doctrine.
Copyright laws which rely on creating artificial scarcity need to die.
Can you explain why, without it being an ideological diatribe?
What's wrong with the creator controlling the dissemination of his/her work? Is he/she society's slave? Is the fact that he/she is gifted proof that society is owed the right to his/her creative output?
Nope. If they want twenty signed and numbered copies of their poem to be the sole copies ever produced, it's their right to make that the limit.
We should give credit to the authors of knowledge, but at the same time they shouldn't be able to horde and monopolize knowledge.
First off, "knowledge" isn't held captive in any creative writer's depiction. It exists independent of any particular depiction, and can be re-expressed by somebody else without any form of copyright violation.
So trumpet your diatribe about the 'horrible plight of knowledge held captive to the evil creator' somewhere that people don't think as clearly as we do here.
Fine, that can be your business plan.
But it's your choice to make that your business plan. Not Random Redistributor X who comes along and republishes your work without permission.
But what if somebody makes an unauthorized recording of you on a particularly bad night and you sound horrible? Or you made a 'demo' album six years ago and sold a handful of cassette copies in the local record shop. It gets around and awhile later becomes viral and everybody starts sending it around to all their friends. "listen to the tard playing the shitty guitar" they would all caption it. And the name of your band is all over it.
So a bunch of people are downloading it and your band's rep is ruined.
No, you have the right to decide how it is further disseminated. There might be 40 crappy cassettes out there, but nobody can digitize it and spread copies around the net.
I'm just curious why people want to shut it down instead of shaping it to work to their advantage.
'Working to their advantage' could include totally barring further distribution of a work. You might be a famous author, but you wrote some terrible drivel when you were younger. You might want there only to be 240 copies of that early work on acidic pulp paper and crumbling to dust. And it's your right to limit your work's distribution to 240 copies. The individual rights of the creator trump these purported 'collective rights' to the creators work. Nobody is a slave to society.
On the one hand, Google could end up stealing a few pennies from someone that
can't be bothered to keep their work available. On the other hand, Google is
ensuring that the relevant work is kept around.
It isn't a monetary issue. If the copyright holder wants their work to languish in obscurity, it's within their rights to require that of potential distributors. Until the copyright expires, they have the full right to control how it's disseminated. And it defaults to 'hands off.'
Their new 'real world' is the one they seek to promote. One where there is no second sale, because there's nothing physical to sell.
Book publishers really dislike second sales of their work. They'd rather consumers threw them away.
The e-book market is tailor made for their strategy.
To really appreciate Blade Runner, you need to read K.W. Jeter.
Businesses are probably going to start 'expecting' their employees to be adept in the new Microsoft Office version, though, so we'll all be forced that way. Or, those who work for that kind of business will, anyway. The question becomes: will those be the road-kill companies in the new economy? One would hope so. Chained as they are to Microsoft, who almost certainly is headed to the bottom.
I got an OEM Office 97 CD, which was tucked inside the User Manual, which has the offical 'seal of approval' and an OEM CD key, at Goodwill a few weeks ago. Goodwill treated it as a paperback book, so it cost me 69 cents.
I have always been of the impression that Xing was a chat site for adolescent girls.
Sounds to me like the servers need to be armored against botnets. Not that so much finger pointing at regular users is needed.
If the open 'consensus' model of the Internet is broken, so be it. Don't blame the participants.
even embedded systems pack tons of memory now so I don't see that being an issue.
Talk to Microchip, STMicro, and Freescale about that. They sell billions of micros per year with less than 1K of general purpose read/write memory. I've written apps for chips with 24 bytes of RAM.
Also, inodes? They're talking about DOS... sheesh!
We're impressed that you figured that out by the third frame, seeing as there was blatant mention of DOS in the first frame and DOS references were in all three frames.
You're hitting the firewall. That's the decoy page you're seeing.
Telnet is blocked in inetd.conf, you'll have to ssh.
MSVC runs dirt slow on my sparc hardware running NetBSD, however. When you target a single arch. it's pretty easy to optimize for it.
So you're willing to narrow the scope and say wind power should only be used to generate electricity? You've adopted a losing argument, now. What's wrong with wind power being used wherever appropriate, and for whatever kind of power generation it is suitable for?
Wind farms could be viable, in a low-energy-usage future.
Didn't you know? The larger scope of the plan that incorporates wind mills includes such humans pounding a lot of sand in the future. All the charts and figures presuppose a drastic population reduction. Needless to say, the whole scope of the plan is sweeping. You know, all that 'dustbins of history' stuff....
and as a bird lover,
Well, since you're a bird lover, we'll just wave our hands and concede that you're probably right on every point. It won't continue to be most viable to locate wind farms at flyway points, even though the best places to put the blades does happen to coincide with where the birds are most likely to have their travel paths. That magically is no longer the case. For some reason that nobody needs to explore. Because we have experts like you.
Also, we'll concede to your aesthetic judgment of what is beautiful and what is not.
A windmill is practically free when it's build. So, your comparison needs some work.
And yours needs work as well. A windmill produces such a small amount of power that many designs/implementations can never pay off the initial investment cost to produce and install them.
So there are big swiss cheese holes in both your arguments.
I would refer to it as an empowering influence. Those peoples have been unstable and squabbling for centuries. We just give them bigger sticks to fight with.
So, I think we've established that the people whose full-time occupation has been actively interfering with the Nuclear plants ever being built have been successful. Perhaps it's obvious now who the losses should be billable to.
Unfortunately, they don't have many assets to seize. A folding table and a thick stack of leaflets doesn't amount to much. However, it could serve as a valuable educational lesson to make sure the history of their obstruction is known, so that they can be reviled through history. Let the schoolchildren be taught what those people were really about.
It's an irony thing. That account holder has been on the site for years and years, and had a consistent presence and set of opinions. Some would write him off as a nerd-crank type, others revere his opinion.
Your comment about his 'handle' isn't a very strong argument against his credibility.