Pretty much. There were parts that it made sense to change (leaving out the side trip to the Old Forest, for example), but then there were parts which got changed for no real reason at all, and indeed destroyed key themes from the books. I liked the movies well enough in spite of this, but it was pretty egregious.
You want choice, but less providers will accomplish that? Your scenario isn't getting choice, it is having less choice but still coming out OK. Nobody is getting MORE choices out of this.
Warn them of what, exactly? They are already getting more money from AT&T than they figure they will get in some period of time from their customer base (or else they wouldn't do it, they'd just keep their customers which would be more profitable). So you're going to call and tell them you're going to disconnect your service, which won't help in any case, and you're going to do it once the change-over occurs, when they've already made their money and don't care what you think.
I simply don't see how this can help in any way. If you called AT&T and told them the same thing... maybe. But other than that, it's pointless.
I see it differently. It was wrong to censor the Mark Fiore app, it is wrong to deny porn apps... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage Apple to do the right thing and not censor this. I don't imagine that will happen, because it would make them look like giant hypocrites. But I still hope they exercise some respect for free speech, and let this be.
The two issues under discussion are different. TFA says that DirectX is holding back PC gaming, while Carmack says DirectX is better than OpenGL. Those two are not mutually exclusive.
I see what you're saying, however, I don't know that this is a problem with the idea of copyright so much as the modern (piss-poor) implementation of it. I think that copyright law (in the US, which is all I have any familiarity with) is a joke the way it is now. I think it needs serious reform, and I would never defend that status quo. What I'm defending is the concept, which I think can be implemented in a far more reasonable way than we have at the moment.
Bullshit. Everyone has the right to choose how to do business. That includes both parties. You absolutely have the right to only pay with money the MPAA can only spend in your store, just as they have the right to refuse to accept that as payment. What part of this is so hard for you to grasp? You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding about the basic liberties that individuals have.
If you don't like the fact that some musician is only selling copies of their CD on the condition that you don't copy them, then don't buy it! That is your right. Nobody guarantees that people will do business with an individual in the way he/she chooses, but doing business in that fashion is their right if they so choose.
If there's no facilitation of creation, then the government has no right to grant the monopoly.
That's where you're wrong. In the specific case of the US government, you may be correct due to the way the constitution is worded. In general, they have every right, because they aren't granting a monopoly that the copyright owners couldn't already grant themselves with contracts drawn up between them and every buyer (and any creator who wishes to not exercise that option can still opt out of copyright). Nothing different is happening, this is simply a more efficient way to reach the same point.
It's not offensive. If you knowingly buy a copy of a CD (for example), aware that it is being sold to you on the condition that you make no copies for anyone... that's your own fault for accepting a deal which you don't like the terms of. What is offensive is when the musician would be unwilling to sell you a copy without that restriction, you buy it, and then break the terms of the deal. You have, in effect, forced the musician to engage in a deal which he was not willing to engage in. We need a mechanism to prevent this.
One possible mechanism is making everyone who buys a CD sign a contract (so many contracts would be a nightmare to maintain, so not very practical). Another possible mechanism is copyright. By implementing copyright, we ensure that the musician who wishes to sell his work only on the "no copy" condition can make this deal without it being violated, while those who do not wish to enact this condition can declare that they are willing to allow their work to be freely copied. Either way, the creator is given the ability to sell his goods on the terms he/she chooses, and have those terms upheld.
Copyright isn't the only mechanism to protect this right (the right to choose how to do business), but it is one possible one, and works pretty well. It is not morally offensive to implement copyright for this reason. In fact, it would be morally offensive to not have a mechanism to protect this right, whether that mechanism is copyright or something else.
No, actually, you're describing those things (because a legal right is the guarantee that you will be able to secure your right to something, and is obtained by threat of force... exactly what you have been describing). You're failing to grasp that a natural right, as an abstract concept, is still present even if it is being ignored. That is why it is universal and inalienable, even though it may not be recognized in practice.
It's an abstract concept that is all the things you mentioned. Universal and inalienable, meaning that everyone has this right and cannot be stripped of it. Natural, meaning it does not come from any man-made law, but that it is inherent to existence.
You're making the assumption that having a right means you can apply it. That's not true, rights get ignored all the time (what else do you think the phrase "human rights violation" comes from?). The words you're using do not always mean what you're using them to mean.
You really don't get this concept. At all. There is absolutely such a thing as a natural right, and many governments are founded upon them. Having the right to X does not guarantee you will get X. It's a moral concept, it means that whenever you are deprived of X by someone, that person is in the wrong and deserves to be punished. Read some of the political thought that led to the creation of the United States, there's a lot of natural rights floating around there. I really hope you aren't from the US, because I'd hate to think that anyone here is completely ignorant of the concept which is the foundation of our entire government.
It's not a license. In my example, I can't come and take away your copy of the work (let's say a CD). Once it's yours, the sale is complete and you get it forever, there is just a restriction on how you can use it. That doesn't make it a license.
You really don't understand the concept of natural rights if you think it means that a "natural right" is automatically respected. The idea of natural rights says nothing about that, it simply means that a right is universal and inalienable. You have the right for me to not walk up to you and punch you in the face, even society is unwilling to punish me for that act. If your natural rights are not being respected, that doesn't mean they don't exist... it means that society is out of whack.
I'm all for limited copyright (having it extend past the life of the author is ludicrous), but the original post which I responded to said we shouldn't enforce copyright at all, since people are still creating even though copyright violations are going on. My point is that it doesn't matter how much work gets created, we still should enforce copyright because it's the right thing to do.
You're confusing "we should enforce copyright" with "current copyright law is reasonable". Copyright should end, at the latest, when the author dies, and it's ludicrous that current law exceeds that.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, it's still funny today. I laughed.
I would assume they make money via advertising.
Yeah, except digital data is ridiculously easy to transfer, sort through, etc. Physical objects don't have those advantages.
Pretty much. There were parts that it made sense to change (leaving out the side trip to the Old Forest, for example), but then there were parts which got changed for no real reason at all, and indeed destroyed key themes from the books. I liked the movies well enough in spite of this, but it was pretty egregious.
He's always been about authenticity to the story and portraying that correctly in film.
Shit, he was? Then what were the random "we rewrote entire characters because we know better" parts about?
They'd damn well better.
You want choice, but less providers will accomplish that? Your scenario isn't getting choice, it is having less choice but still coming out OK. Nobody is getting MORE choices out of this.
Warn them of what, exactly? They are already getting more money from AT&T than they figure they will get in some period of time from their customer base (or else they wouldn't do it, they'd just keep their customers which would be more profitable). So you're going to call and tell them you're going to disconnect your service, which won't help in any case, and you're going to do it once the change-over occurs, when they've already made their money and don't care what you think.
I simply don't see how this can help in any way. If you called AT&T and told them the same thing... maybe. But other than that, it's pointless.
Here I was hoping the reason would be "Because it's fucking retarded, and the executives of UK banks have brains." Oh well.
I see it differently. It was wrong to censor the Mark Fiore app, it is wrong to deny porn apps... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage Apple to do the right thing and not censor this. I don't imagine that will happen, because it would make them look like giant hypocrites. But I still hope they exercise some respect for free speech, and let this be.
The two issues under discussion are different. TFA says that DirectX is holding back PC gaming, while Carmack says DirectX is better than OpenGL. Those two are not mutually exclusive.
I'm guessing (*)(*)
Or the far superior version: ( . Y . )
I see what you're saying, however, I don't know that this is a problem with the idea of copyright so much as the modern (piss-poor) implementation of it. I think that copyright law (in the US, which is all I have any familiarity with) is a joke the way it is now. I think it needs serious reform, and I would never defend that status quo. What I'm defending is the concept, which I think can be implemented in a far more reasonable way than we have at the moment.
Bullshit. Everyone has the right to choose how to do business. That includes both parties. You absolutely have the right to only pay with money the MPAA can only spend in your store, just as they have the right to refuse to accept that as payment. What part of this is so hard for you to grasp? You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding about the basic liberties that individuals have.
If you don't like the fact that some musician is only selling copies of their CD on the condition that you don't copy them, then don't buy it! That is your right. Nobody guarantees that people will do business with an individual in the way he/she chooses, but doing business in that fashion is their right if they so choose.
If there's no facilitation of creation, then the government has no right to grant the monopoly.
That's where you're wrong. In the specific case of the US government, you may be correct due to the way the constitution is worded. In general, they have every right, because they aren't granting a monopoly that the copyright owners couldn't already grant themselves with contracts drawn up between them and every buyer (and any creator who wishes to not exercise that option can still opt out of copyright). Nothing different is happening, this is simply a more efficient way to reach the same point.
It's not offensive. If you knowingly buy a copy of a CD (for example), aware that it is being sold to you on the condition that you make no copies for anyone... that's your own fault for accepting a deal which you don't like the terms of. What is offensive is when the musician would be unwilling to sell you a copy without that restriction, you buy it, and then break the terms of the deal. You have, in effect, forced the musician to engage in a deal which he was not willing to engage in. We need a mechanism to prevent this.
One possible mechanism is making everyone who buys a CD sign a contract (so many contracts would be a nightmare to maintain, so not very practical). Another possible mechanism is copyright. By implementing copyright, we ensure that the musician who wishes to sell his work only on the "no copy" condition can make this deal without it being violated, while those who do not wish to enact this condition can declare that they are willing to allow their work to be freely copied. Either way, the creator is given the ability to sell his goods on the terms he/she chooses, and have those terms upheld.
Copyright isn't the only mechanism to protect this right (the right to choose how to do business), but it is one possible one, and works pretty well. It is not morally offensive to implement copyright for this reason. In fact, it would be morally offensive to not have a mechanism to protect this right, whether that mechanism is copyright or something else.
Copyright in itself is not a right. Copyright is a way to secure a right, however.
No, actually, you're describing those things (because a legal right is the guarantee that you will be able to secure your right to something, and is obtained by threat of force... exactly what you have been describing). You're failing to grasp that a natural right, as an abstract concept, is still present even if it is being ignored. That is why it is universal and inalienable, even though it may not be recognized in practice.
It's an abstract concept that is all the things you mentioned. Universal and inalienable, meaning that everyone has this right and cannot be stripped of it. Natural, meaning it does not come from any man-made law, but that it is inherent to existence.
You're making the assumption that having a right means you can apply it. That's not true, rights get ignored all the time (what else do you think the phrase "human rights violation" comes from?). The words you're using do not always mean what you're using them to mean.
You really don't get this concept. At all. There is absolutely such a thing as a natural right, and many governments are founded upon them. Having the right to X does not guarantee you will get X. It's a moral concept, it means that whenever you are deprived of X by someone, that person is in the wrong and deserves to be punished. Read some of the political thought that led to the creation of the United States, there's a lot of natural rights floating around there. I really hope you aren't from the US, because I'd hate to think that anyone here is completely ignorant of the concept which is the foundation of our entire government.
It's not a license. In my example, I can't come and take away your copy of the work (let's say a CD). Once it's yours, the sale is complete and you get it forever, there is just a restriction on how you can use it. That doesn't make it a license.
You really don't understand the concept of natural rights if you think it means that a "natural right" is automatically respected. The idea of natural rights says nothing about that, it simply means that a right is universal and inalienable. You have the right for me to not walk up to you and punch you in the face, even society is unwilling to punish me for that act. If your natural rights are not being respected, that doesn't mean they don't exist... it means that society is out of whack.
No. That's not how it works. If I sell you something, predicated on certain conditions, you are obligated to accept them if you accepted the sale.
I'm all for limited copyright (having it extend past the life of the author is ludicrous), but the original post which I responded to said we shouldn't enforce copyright at all, since people are still creating even though copyright violations are going on. My point is that it doesn't matter how much work gets created, we still should enforce copyright because it's the right thing to do.
You're confusing "we should enforce copyright" with "current copyright law is reasonable". Copyright should end, at the latest, when the author dies, and it's ludicrous that current law exceeds that.