Maybe you meant to imply this, but what about "media-shift." If you buy something on paper you shouldn't have to pay for electronic version (not vice-versa as that involves payment for the atoms its printed on), if you have an electronic version it's not illegal to put that into ANOTHER electronic format that suits your situation better. In other words you're paying for a license to content, not for some physical form.
This reminds me of something that came up when I was doing some research in a university course years ago.
"Freedom of the press" means freedom of the *owner* of the press to print what him/her sees fit. Nobody purely has the right to have something they wrote printed anywhere. You have the right to go buy your own press or you have the right to rent someone else's press (which makes you a "temporary" owner), but no one has the right to go to their local newspaper, for instance, and insist that they print their letter to the editor. If you want something printed you play by their rules and that determination is made by the owner of the press, not the government.
Here's how I think this applies here: the owner of the web site has the right to allow anonymity or to not allow anonymity. You don't have the right to have something printed on a web site you don't own unless you play by their rules. It's the owner of the web site's call, and allowing anonymous postings is the call of the owner of the web site, not the government. I think that's the right that should not be infringed.
Material you create on an electronic device is *yours* and if that is encrypted or "protected" by some third party technology you always have the right to break that technology to get to the content you rightly own.
Yes.. this is directly in contrast with the DMCA... and it's outrageous.
One of my big concerns (and BEFORE you read this, let me preface this saying I am 37 now and I still feel this way) is that we actually give "teenagers" (in quotes) too few freedoms while giving them huge responsibilities at the same time. It's a combination that just asks for an explosion of some kind.
Basically the way the US system works now is that we incarnate them at a school (sometimes the school is even dangerous to life and limb) then our legislatures keeps working on taking away civil right after civil right while at the same time heaping responsibilities on top of them. Think of how many teenagers get tried as adults these days. Well, when so many personal rights have been taken away there is no way they should ever be considered adults. You can't have it both ways.
If you looked how our "teenaged" population is treated and didn't know what age range you were talking about you wouldn't be surprised that it's a powder keg ready to explode. For societies across the world giving a populace huge amounts of responsibility without corresponding rights can indicate that that particular society is rife for a revolution. Why do we think it's different with "teenagers" who almost have the mind of an adult?
I put teenagers in quotes above because I believe it is mostly a made period of life that westerners have come up with in the last 100 years. In most societies on Earth now and throughout history 14 would usually be considered grown up, and I reject the argument that "they're not fully formed" people. Most of their personalities are definitely formed by 14, however don't get me wrong I am not saying guidance isn't necessary as they certainly don't have the experience of someone older and that is definitely important.
Anywho... I am kind of sad to yet something else that tends to put "teenagers" into a captive-like state. I don't think they deserve that and I can see why there is a natural urge to rebel.
I can back this up. My Mother isn't a savvy computer user but she's getting to the point she isn't bad, either. However she gets rogue anti-virus programs on one of her machines once a year. Why? Perhaps windows is TOO dumbed down and it's too easy to throw up a legitimate-looking window that says your computer as 2 kabillion viruses.
We always look in the direction of making it "easier" but there are advantages to actually LEARNING how it works. Wanting everything so full-retard easy isn't always a good way to go through life and definitely isn't great for every computing solution you will ever need. Having too-few choices available just makes a user easier to exploit.
But if you included Schools and Universities as "public" or "governmental" wouldn't it even be questionable in 2005?
I don't know... this is not a rhetorical question. I don't know if in Europe schools would be considered almost Governmental entities as they are in the U.S. and it seems to me we were starting to see Linux labs in colleges way before 2005 in the U.S. and I thought that trend was mirrored around the world.
Well.. we have a huge majority of "designers" out there who design to Microsoft dogma and can't even be bothered to even check their web page using Firefox on their own machine right now. They could care less about any type of good practice let alone trying to conform (or even reading in the first place) the ideas that W3C has put out.
None of this is surprising to me in the least... just sad.
You are talking about the proper, Constitutional incarnation of Copyright however, not the current version of Copyright that we see in our laws.
Current law pretty much make Copyright a body of laws that favor the rights of corporations over individuals (like most of our laws right now) and it has little to do with the idea our Constitutional framers had in mind.
Problem is, most people don't do enough reading to realize that fact.
There was always a distinction made between those that just passed stuff around and those that tried to profit from it financially.
Well... until the RIAA and MPAA knowingly tried to distort the distinction.
I still don't get why they fight file sharers when they are REALLY losing money when it comes to true piracy, especially the on-the-street selling that goes on in most of the countries in the East. I think you can get almost total agreement that sort of unlicensed, first-sale piracy is wrong without moral ambiguity and you can tell it truly costs real money without a pseudo-economist trying to pull numbers out of the air...
This is true. The crazier bible-belt folks (like the kind that create recordings for us plebeians to listen to after the rapture because they ARE SO RIGHTEOUS that they are sure to be taken) often do believe Catholicism to be a cult or worse. There are even stories of certain book stores in the south shelving books written by a Pope under the "occult" section.
The more sane Protestants don't teach that. As a matter of fact, IIRC from Methodist confirmation classes long ago the Pastor taught me that all the branches of Christianity had more in common than they had differences and that they were getting closer in their beliefs all the time.
Like the difference between Republicans and Democrats a certain number of blowhards like to put wedges in the differences and push as hard as they can.
You know... part of this idea is just bullshit. When you release a work out into the world part of it is NO LONGER yours. Creative works are supposed to have a life of their own and you your designates shouldn't be allowed to have total control of it in perpetuity.
No, sorry, you shouldn't have control of it forever. Sorry. For a little while so you can benefit, sure, but your message implies forever and I don't think that's what the idea of copyright is about at all.
They shouldn't abolish copyright... they should simply read a little bit of history and understand that it wasn't an idea created to create a corporate cash cow.
It was meant to give creative ARTISTS an incentive to WRITE MORE. Set the copyright expiry at a reasonable level. Let them release a new edition of a work and get a new copyright as new derivative work. Doing something like that is closer to what the framers of Constitution really had in mind.
Another thing that is lost on LeGuin as well as most people is that copyright is not being used to protect individual authors... it's being used to protect corporate interests, period. Current copyright practice has nothing to do with making sure that the author doesn't get screwed over and everything to do with whether a corporate entity can make money on it. People that think that copyright is protecting artists are simply deluding themselves.
I think people realize without thinking that these type of "it makes sure the artist gets paid" arguments are bogus. If copyright actually protected authors, musicians, etc. I think people would be more likely to care about it, but as we have seen with the RIAA, MPAA, etc. in the end its all about whether that corporate middle-man is getting their pounds of flesh and nothing about encouraging the creative to work which is what the entire idea is supposed to be about.
I don't know if it's a religion, but it a concept that has been skewed on an international level. It's a great example of how a few rich entities and take a concept that is supposed to be for the good of all (i.e. to give an *individual* a limited monopoly to encourage them to more work) and through their power and influence turn it into something that they think will let them print money... and then throw huge fits when nature comes along with something to restore the balance.
We live in a culture where the real religion right now is corporate worship. So many people are getting all their facts from the corporate talking head on the tube. They think why bother to learn about history. If they learned just a little bit they'd start to understand how so many ideas (copyright just being one of them) have gone off their rails since they were written down in in the U.S. Constitution.
Yeah.. it's quite amazing how we all get bent out of shape based on the opinions of "experts" that have less than a 50% accuracy record. We're continuously doing this, and not just in computer technology either. The phrase "leading economists say" comes to mind....
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you meant to imply this, but what about "media-shift." If you buy something on paper you shouldn't have to pay for electronic version (not vice-versa as that involves payment for the atoms its printed on), if you have an electronic version it's not illegal to put that into ANOTHER electronic format that suits your situation better. In other words you're paying for a license to content, not for some physical form.
This reminds me of something that came up when I was doing some research in a university course years ago.
"Freedom of the press" means freedom of the *owner* of the press to print what him/her sees fit. Nobody purely has the right to have something they wrote printed anywhere. You have the right to go buy your own press or you have the right to rent someone else's press (which makes you a "temporary" owner), but no one has the right to go to their local newspaper, for instance, and insist that they print their letter to the editor. If you want something printed you play by their rules and that determination is made by the owner of the press, not the government.
Here's how I think this applies here: the owner of the web site has the right to allow anonymity or to not allow anonymity. You don't have the right to have something printed on a web site you don't own unless you play by their rules. It's the owner of the web site's call, and allowing anonymous postings is the call of the owner of the web site, not the government. I think that's the right that should not be infringed.
Material you create on an electronic device is *yours* and if that is encrypted or "protected" by some third party technology you always have the right to break that technology to get to the content you rightly own.
Yes.. this is directly in contrast with the DMCA... and it's outrageous.
One of my big concerns (and BEFORE you read this, let me preface this saying I am 37 now and I still feel this way) is that we actually give "teenagers" (in quotes) too few freedoms while giving them huge responsibilities at the same time. It's a combination that just asks for an explosion of some kind.
Basically the way the US system works now is that we incarnate them at a school (sometimes the school is even dangerous to life and limb) then our legislatures keeps working on taking away civil right after civil right while at the same time heaping responsibilities on top of them. Think of how many teenagers get tried as adults these days. Well, when so many personal rights have been taken away there is no way they should ever be considered adults. You can't have it both ways.
If you looked how our "teenaged" population is treated and didn't know what age range you were talking about you wouldn't be surprised that it's a powder keg ready to explode. For societies across the world giving a populace huge amounts of responsibility without corresponding rights can indicate that that particular society is rife for a revolution. Why do we think it's different with "teenagers" who almost have the mind of an adult?
I put teenagers in quotes above because I believe it is mostly a made period of life that westerners have come up with in the last 100 years. In most societies on Earth now and throughout history 14 would usually be considered grown up, and I reject the argument that "they're not fully formed" people. Most of their personalities are definitely formed by 14, however don't get me wrong I am not saying guidance isn't necessary as they certainly don't have the experience of someone older and that is definitely important.
Anywho... I am kind of sad to yet something else that tends to put "teenagers" into a captive-like state. I don't think they deserve that and I can see why there is a natural urge to rebel.
and the drivers for it will be included in every Windows 7 install along with another Control Panel gadget, no doubt.
"one or more sensor from a collection of sensors" is not equal to the word "sensors."
In mathematical terms, the former means >= 1 and the latter means > 1
unless I'm missing something, and that's always possible.
Get out your robe and wizard hat. That'll impress Britney.
Come on people, get with the program!
#include lets_patent_patents.h
I can back this up. My Mother isn't a savvy computer user but she's getting to the point she isn't bad, either. However she gets rogue anti-virus programs on one of her machines once a year. Why? Perhaps windows is TOO dumbed down and it's too easy to throw up a legitimate-looking window that says your computer as 2 kabillion viruses.
We always look in the direction of making it "easier" but there are advantages to actually LEARNING how it works. Wanting everything so full-retard easy isn't always a good way to go through life and definitely isn't great for every computing solution you will ever need. Having too-few choices available just makes a user easier to exploit.
But if you included Schools and Universities as "public" or "governmental" wouldn't it even be questionable in 2005?
I don't know... this is not a rhetorical question. I don't know if in Europe schools would be considered almost Governmental entities as they are in the U.S. and it seems to me we were starting to see Linux labs in colleges way before 2005 in the U.S. and I thought that trend was mirrored around the world.
Well.. we have a huge majority of "designers" out there who design to Microsoft dogma and can't even be bothered to even check their web page using Firefox on their own machine right now. They could care less about any type of good practice let alone trying to conform (or even reading in the first place) the ideas that W3C has put out.
None of this is surprising to me in the least... just sad.
I noticed that when I did an images.google.com search for "hot anime chicks" it showed me a picture of Cowboy Neal.
So yeah, it did cause issues on all of Google's services. It also soiled the inside of my trash can with puke.
You are talking about the proper, Constitutional incarnation of Copyright however, not the current version of Copyright that we see in our laws.
Current law pretty much make Copyright a body of laws that favor the rights of corporations over individuals (like most of our laws right now) and it has little to do with the idea our Constitutional framers had in mind.
Problem is, most people don't do enough reading to realize that fact.
There was always a distinction made between those that just passed stuff
around and those that tried to profit from it financially.
Well... until the RIAA and MPAA knowingly tried to distort the distinction.
I still don't get why they fight file sharers when they are REALLY losing money when it comes to true piracy, especially the on-the-street selling that goes on in most of the countries in the East. I think you can get almost total agreement that sort of unlicensed, first-sale piracy is wrong without moral ambiguity and you can tell it truly costs real money without a pseudo-economist trying to pull numbers out of the air...
wow. I doubt if I will ever see a post from Bruce Perens like that again in my life.
So all the pornography on the Internet has migrated from Craigslist? Damn... some of their offices must be REALLY sticky.
how dare you try to infuse this hotheaded emotional debate with LOGIC.
Think of the children. And you know what... logic is so 20th century. Blindly acting on all your gut feelings is the new black.
This is true. The crazier bible-belt folks (like the kind that create recordings for us plebeians to listen to after the rapture because they ARE SO RIGHTEOUS that they are sure to be taken) often do believe Catholicism to be a cult or worse. There are even stories of certain book stores in the south shelving books written by a Pope under the "occult" section.
The more sane Protestants don't teach that. As a matter of fact, IIRC from Methodist confirmation classes long ago the Pastor taught me that all the branches of Christianity had more in common than they had differences and that they were getting closer in their beliefs all the time.
Like the difference between Republicans and Democrats a certain number of blowhards like to put wedges in the differences and push as hard as they can.
You know... part of this idea is just bullshit. When you release a work out into the world part of it is NO LONGER yours. Creative works are supposed to have a life of their own and you your designates shouldn't be allowed to have total control of it in perpetuity.
No, sorry, you shouldn't have control of it forever. Sorry. For a little while so you can benefit, sure, but your message implies forever and I don't think that's what the idea of copyright is about at all.
They shouldn't abolish copyright... they should simply read a little bit of history and understand that it wasn't an idea created to create a corporate cash cow.
It was meant to give creative ARTISTS an incentive to WRITE MORE. Set the copyright expiry at a reasonable level. Let them release a new edition of a work and get a new copyright as new derivative work. Doing something like that is closer to what the framers of Constitution really had in mind.
Another thing that is lost on LeGuin as well as most people is that copyright is not being used to protect individual authors... it's being used to protect corporate interests, period. Current copyright practice has nothing to do with making sure that the author doesn't get screwed over and everything to do with whether a corporate entity can make money on it. People that think that copyright is protecting artists are simply deluding themselves.
I think people realize without thinking that these type of "it makes sure the artist gets paid" arguments are bogus. If copyright actually protected authors, musicians, etc. I think people would be more likely to care about it, but as we have seen with the RIAA, MPAA, etc. in the end its all about whether that corporate middle-man is getting their pounds of flesh and nothing about encouraging the creative to work which is what the entire idea is supposed to be about.
I don't know if it's a religion, but it a concept that has been skewed on an international level. It's a great example of how a few rich entities and take a concept that is supposed to be for the good of all (i.e. to give an *individual* a limited monopoly to encourage them to more work) and through their power and influence turn it into something that they think will let them print money... and then throw huge fits when nature comes along with something to restore the balance.
We live in a culture where the real religion right now is corporate worship. So many people are getting all their facts from the corporate talking head on the tube. They think why bother to learn about history. If they learned just a little bit they'd start to understand how so many ideas (copyright just being one of them) have gone off their rails since they were written down in in the U.S. Constitution.
They're just going to BUY the US congress outright...
Yeah.. it's quite amazing how we all get bent out of shape based on the opinions of "experts" that have less than a 50% accuracy record. We're continuously doing this, and not just in computer technology either. The phrase "leading economists say" comes to mind....