To be perfectly honest, I don't give a damn about the creation of works. I support copyright because it is the best way to enforce the right of a creator to sell their work under the "don't copy" condition. It's that or an endless sea of contracts, which would be horrendously inefficient. We need to enforce this right somehow, and copyright is the best way. If more works get created, that's simply a bonus.
Bullshit. If I sell you a copy of my album, on the condition that you don't copy it to anyone, I have every right to expect you to follow that. If you aren't willing to abide by that condition, then you should negotiate a different deal or not take the deal. If you take the deal, and then ignore the terms of the deal, you should be held accountable... and copyright law enables society to do that without making everyone sign a contract any time they purchase something from an artist.
I'm not confusing the two at all. Lots of natural rights get trampled by other governments, that doesn't mean people don't have those rights. You may be confusing what I'm saying is a natural right, however. Copyright is not, but it is the best way to enforce the creator's natural right to set the condition of "don't copy this" as part of a transaction.
No, there are natural rights. You have the right to, in general, go about your business unmolested (for example). The creator has the natural right to only enter into a transaction under the conditions he agrees to, and if one of the conditions is "don't copy this", it should be enforceable.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm not saying copyright should be made stronger (it should definitely be made weaker, in fact), or that it should be made a felony, or that wiretaps should be allowed. That's all bullshit, I agree. I'm merely giving an answer to the question of why we should have copyright law.
Wow, way to set up a strawman there. The water seller doesn't have the right to have anyone do anything about water that it isn't providing. That is nothing like copyright, which is a mechanism for enabling the creator to say what people can do with his or her own work.
Because it's fucking wrong. That's why. A creator has the right to, as part of the terms of selling his work, require that the receiver not make copies for anyone else. Copyright is the best way to legally enforce this (unless you want to make everyone have to sign a contract when they buy stuff), so a violation of copyright is a violation of the creator's natural rights (that is, the right to only engage in a transaction under the conditions he agrees to).
You can't avert risk ever. Every action in life carries risk. The only question is "what is the risk?" Defensive driving techniques do not avert the risk of getting in a fatal collision. The risks are reduced, but they are always still there vs the alternative of not going out of your house. Are you really suggesting people should not leave their houses?
Theft is not commonly defined to mean "taking such that the owner is left with nothing". It simply means taking what is not yours. In the past, this necessarily meant that leaving nothing behind was a corollary, however, now that you can take by making a copy, theft still can refer to making a copy. You're taking what isn't yours. Period.
I find that difficult to believe, given the draconian control Apple asserts over the app store. It's their way or the highway, so on what basis would they have had to accept DRM against their wishes?
Re:Is it Twelvember yet?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
For fuck's sake, can we all please stop insisting that a particular arbitrary way to represent dates is better? It's pretty asinine how this gets brought up so much.
I disagree. The level of difficulty is high enough: you have to make a specific effort to click reply-all instead of reply. If people are too lazy or stupid to put a few seconds' thought into it, that is their fault, not the UI's fault. There's no reason to penalize the people who will want to legitimately use reply-all (by making them expend extra effort) just for the failures of a few.
And if publishers lose, we all lose, because quite honestly ebooks are a far inferior experience to real, dead tree books. I dread the day when real books become considered "obsolete" and are no longer published. That's the day I stop reading books.
"Democracy", with no modifiers, means pure democracy. We are not a pure democracy, we are a republic in which the representatives are elected by the people. They are quite right to teach that the country is a republic, not a democracy. The fact that we have a democratic form of government does not mean we are a democracy.
Other than that I'd agree that combat in DAO was pretty easy, even on the hardest difficulty.
I can't agree with this. The game was fucking hard even on normal, primarily because mages were overpowered (including enemy mages). You could only survive against a mage by stunlocking them. God forbid there were two or three, because you were fucked when that happened.
Only if you let it. If you are so impressionable that you're going to allow the (no doubt) inferior sequel to influence your view of the original, that is your problem, not Hollywood's. The rest of us will just ignore it, and enjoy the original as much as we ever did.
Another goddamn idiot who doesn't understand the distinction. "Windows" is not inherently generic within the context of talking about an operating system. It is a generic name for an element of said operating system. Trademarking something after the generic name of one of its components does not make the trademark itself generic. On the other hand, a trademark on the generic name for the thing itself is generic.
Slashdot Mirror
To be perfectly honest, I don't give a damn about the creation of works. I support copyright because it is the best way to enforce the right of a creator to sell their work under the "don't copy" condition. It's that or an endless sea of contracts, which would be horrendously inefficient. We need to enforce this right somehow, and copyright is the best way. If more works get created, that's simply a bonus.
Bullshit. If I sell you a copy of my album, on the condition that you don't copy it to anyone, I have every right to expect you to follow that. If you aren't willing to abide by that condition, then you should negotiate a different deal or not take the deal. If you take the deal, and then ignore the terms of the deal, you should be held accountable... and copyright law enables society to do that without making everyone sign a contract any time they purchase something from an artist.
I'm not confusing the two at all. Lots of natural rights get trampled by other governments, that doesn't mean people don't have those rights. You may be confusing what I'm saying is a natural right, however. Copyright is not, but it is the best way to enforce the creator's natural right to set the condition of "don't copy this" as part of a transaction.
No, there are natural rights. You have the right to, in general, go about your business unmolested (for example). The creator has the natural right to only enter into a transaction under the conditions he agrees to, and if one of the conditions is "don't copy this", it should be enforceable.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm not saying copyright should be made stronger (it should definitely be made weaker, in fact), or that it should be made a felony, or that wiretaps should be allowed. That's all bullshit, I agree. I'm merely giving an answer to the question of why we should have copyright law.
Wow, way to set up a strawman there. The water seller doesn't have the right to have anyone do anything about water that it isn't providing. That is nothing like copyright, which is a mechanism for enabling the creator to say what people can do with his or her own work.
Because it's fucking wrong. That's why. A creator has the right to, as part of the terms of selling his work, require that the receiver not make copies for anyone else. Copyright is the best way to legally enforce this (unless you want to make everyone have to sign a contract when they buy stuff), so a violation of copyright is a violation of the creator's natural rights (that is, the right to only engage in a transaction under the conditions he agrees to).
It is.
You can't avert risk ever. Every action in life carries risk. The only question is "what is the risk?" Defensive driving techniques do not avert the risk of getting in a fatal collision. The risks are reduced, but they are always still there vs the alternative of not going out of your house. Are you really suggesting people should not leave their houses?
Theft is not commonly defined to mean "taking such that the owner is left with nothing". It simply means taking what is not yours. In the past, this necessarily meant that leaving nothing behind was a corollary, however, now that you can take by making a copy, theft still can refer to making a copy. You're taking what isn't yours. Period.
If you really believe that, you've lost all touch with reality.
I find that difficult to believe, given the draconian control Apple asserts over the app store. It's their way or the highway, so on what basis would they have had to accept DRM against their wishes?
Erm... Plants vs Zombies is a PC game. It was ported to mobile platforms after the initial PC release.
Problem is, he's almost never right.
For fuck's sake, can we all please stop insisting that a particular arbitrary way to represent dates is better? It's pretty asinine how this gets brought up so much.
Just because people say it doesn't mean it's correct. Lots of people say "I could care less", but they're still speaking the language wrong.
I disagree. The level of difficulty is high enough: you have to make a specific effort to click reply-all instead of reply. If people are too lazy or stupid to put a few seconds' thought into it, that is their fault, not the UI's fault. There's no reason to penalize the people who will want to legitimately use reply-all (by making them expend extra effort) just for the failures of a few.
And if publishers lose, we all lose, because quite honestly ebooks are a far inferior experience to real, dead tree books. I dread the day when real books become considered "obsolete" and are no longer published. That's the day I stop reading books.
"Democracy", with no modifiers, means pure democracy. We are not a pure democracy, we are a republic in which the representatives are elected by the people. They are quite right to teach that the country is a republic, not a democracy. The fact that we have a democratic form of government does not mean we are a democracy.
DD MM YYYY makes more sense than MM DD YYYY.
Arbitrary representational system is arbitrary.
Other than that I'd agree that combat in DAO was pretty easy, even on the hardest difficulty.
I can't agree with this. The game was fucking hard even on normal, primarily because mages were overpowered (including enemy mages). You could only survive against a mage by stunlocking them. God forbid there were two or three, because you were fucked when that happened.
It will tarnish the original.
Only if you let it. If you are so impressionable that you're going to allow the (no doubt) inferior sequel to influence your view of the original, that is your problem, not Hollywood's. The rest of us will just ignore it, and enjoy the original as much as we ever did.
*sigh*
Another goddamn idiot who doesn't understand the distinction. "Windows" is not inherently generic within the context of talking about an operating system. It is a generic name for an element of said operating system. Trademarking something after the generic name of one of its components does not make the trademark itself generic. On the other hand, a trademark on the generic name for the thing itself is generic.
But that wouldn't allow you to write self-righteous rants about how reimaging is for hacks!
Pretty much. The premise was good, but after the third or fourth episode, I got tired of almost all the characters being dickheads and quit watching.