It's a little bit of a moot argument when the federal government isn't really interested in enforcing the H1-B visa law no matter WHO you believe is actually breaking it.
Is it me or are do others here think the next 20 years in the US is going to be an extremely rough ride? In less than 10 years we will have to deal with kids who grew up with these textbooks in our college system. In another 10 years they will start to become our "leaders". in 40 years they will be in the Senate and House making even worse informed decisions than the morons currently there.
You have the direction wrong. Corporations control the government. That's why it seems like what you say is true. People that work for multinational corporations are up to their neck in corporate agendas. They take the philosophy of corporate life to heart even when they don't know it. The biggest problem we have in the US is that corporations control what we debate in the public square to a very large extent. They are the ones controlling the flow of information to the Joe Sixpack masses.
The average taxpayer pays over $2000 a year for different corporate welfare packages. This is compared to less that $20 for actual help to others. None of the corporate ass kissers even bats an eye.
I know this will enrage some of the Slashdot corporate toadies, but I don't think corporations should be allowed to own copyrights at all. They should be assigned to human beings and corporations should license them.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
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.
The first part of the copyright clause is about "progress of science and the useful arts," not making Houghton Mifflin or Steven King rich.
You notice the word "limited" has pretty much been ignored, too.
To answer your question, in the Framers of the Constitution's lifetimes.
"[t]he ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding."
Not in Soviet, I mean Corporate America. In Corporate America, copyright own you!
Yes, this is what the true goal of copyright is, and kudos for actually understanding the real purpose. Millions of teachers in millions of college classrooms today will be teaching that copyright is for making money and nothing more.
Is it your experience that people at the FCC even understand what Open Source is and that not all software is made by some huge entity like Microsoft and Adobe? It seems to be in my travels there are so many people making important decisions on the governmental level that either don't care about the greater Open Source community because of close ties to big corporations or don't have the background to understand why open software is important.
As much as I don't like "He who should not be mentioned," at least it is a contribution. There is some implicit agreement that the action is worth something or else it would never have been done.
"But my time is worthless, that's why I use open source."
Seriously, though... the world works on open source these days. I would say is another bogus calculation and the real harm would be incalculable.
Or take it another way... this is theoretical enough to be useless. Because the source is OPEN it's impossible to eradicate. You nuke one code repository and five more spring up in its place.
As always, since the very nature of these projects mean you don't have a marketing teaming going "rah rah" all the time in background like Microsoft does people don't KNOW the world runs on open source projects...
As I mentioned in another post on this thread... the people who really need to become cops in the U.S. are the ones that end up becoming social workers.
A certain psychological profile are drawn to law enforcement. I don't think that needs to be enumerated as its common sense. Unfortunately this is the exact group that should be weeded out during the hiring process.
Of course in the US we're seeing that the person that should have been weeded out are making it up to the top of departments, and are managing to bring in a lot of people just like them. Digital cameras aren't showing a rise in police brutality, they are simply making it clear what has been there for years and years.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a little bit of a moot argument when the federal government isn't really interested in enforcing the H1-B visa law no matter WHO you believe is actually breaking it.
That detail is not good enough to keep authoritarians from mouthing off.
In a time when leaders are getting more stupid the issues are getting super complex. And that scares the shit out of me.
This particular anti-encryption movement isn't putting a gun to our economy's foot, it's putting a gun to our economy's head.
It's simple when you have that privilege available to you.
You're yet another person who is selfish or who can't imagine anything outside of his/her own life.
Is it me or are do others here think the next 20 years in the US is going to be an extremely rough ride? In less than 10 years we will have to deal with kids who grew up with these textbooks in our college system. In another 10 years they will start to become our "leaders". in 40 years they will be in the Senate and House making even worse informed decisions than the morons currently there.
for god's sake fuck off.
Oh wow. What bullshit.
You have the direction wrong. Corporations control the government. That's why it seems like what you say is true. People that work for multinational corporations are up to their neck in corporate agendas. They take the philosophy of corporate life to heart even when they don't know it. The biggest problem we have in the US is that corporations control what we debate in the public square to a very large extent. They are the ones controlling the flow of information to the Joe Sixpack masses.
Says an Anonymous Coward.
Owning stock gives you MORE of a right to criticize a company, not less.
I am not sure how anyone currently on the right can accuse environmentalists of being "ideologues" with a straight face at the moment.
> The difference here is the way car manufacturers in North America lie about mileage is the fault of the EPA.
And shoplifting is obviously the fault of merchants that have their candy bars on display.
The average taxpayer pays over $2000 a year for different corporate welfare packages. This is compared to less that $20 for actual help to others. None of the corporate ass kissers even bats an eye.
I know this will enrage some of the Slashdot corporate toadies, but I don't think corporations should be allowed to own copyrights at all. They should be assigned to human beings and corporations should license them.
Like most of the ideas in the constitution, it has been expanded upon, "Useful arts" being any type of arts that would enrich the commons.
However the rest of the clause has been "expanded" all to hell.
No it wasn't. You need to read the story again.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
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.
The first part of the copyright clause is about "progress of science and the useful arts," not making Houghton Mifflin or Steven King rich.
You notice the word "limited" has pretty much been ignored, too.
To answer your question, in the Framers of the Constitution's lifetimes.
"[t]he ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding."
Not in Soviet, I mean Corporate America. In Corporate America, copyright own you!
Yes, this is what the true goal of copyright is, and kudos for actually understanding the real purpose. Millions of teachers in millions of college classrooms today will be teaching that copyright is for making money and nothing more.
Bruce,
Is it your experience that people at the FCC even understand what Open Source is and that not all software is made by some huge entity like Microsoft and Adobe? It seems to be in my travels there are so many people making important decisions on the governmental level that either don't care about the greater Open Source community because of close ties to big corporations or don't have the background to understand why open software is important.
As much as I don't like "He who should not be mentioned," at least it is a contribution. There is some implicit agreement that the action is worth something or else it would never have been done.
"But my time is worthless, that's why I use open source."
Seriously, though... the world works on open source these days. I would say is another bogus calculation and the real harm would be incalculable.
Or take it another way... this is theoretical enough to be useless. Because the source is OPEN it's impossible to eradicate. You nuke one code repository and five more spring up in its place.
As always, since the very nature of these projects mean you don't have a marketing teaming going "rah rah" all the time in background like Microsoft does people don't KNOW the world runs on open source projects...
The one that cuts off his supply of blow and girls.
If you can watch it on a screen you can rip it... even if it means you point a videocamera at the screen you can rip it.
Your comment is flawed for the same reason DRM is flawed. The only way to NEVER be able to copy digital content is to not allow anyone to see it.
...of course Slashdot picks THIS time to make sure I don't have mod points.
As I mentioned in another post on this thread... the people who really need to become cops in the U.S. are the ones that end up becoming social workers.
A certain psychological profile are drawn to law enforcement. I don't think that needs to be enumerated as its common sense. Unfortunately this is the exact group that should be weeded out during the hiring process.
Of course in the US we're seeing that the person that should have been weeded out are making it up to the top of departments, and are managing to bring in a lot of people just like them. Digital cameras aren't showing a rise in police brutality, they are simply making it clear what has been there for years and years.