It sounds like we need to hire proactive regulators, as opposed to wait to start an investigation after companies who have a vested interest in cease-fires to complain about each other.
just not with my money. We could end crime by embedding a chip into everyone so we could track everyone's movements and know exactly were everyone is at every second. I don't see anyone jumping at that idea.
There are very many good reasons not to put required ankle monitors on everyone in an effort to curb crime, even if it were effective. Privacy, the feeling of being trusted, fear of a distopian state. You are the first person I ever heard make the case that this was bad because it costs too much money.
Hell, I oppose it for all the very good reasons one should, and even I recognize it's a net win on the cost side.
Why do you have more faith in the government than a corporation?
A couple of reasons.
History. Private corporations have a worse track record with safety and universal accessibility.
Mirrorability. A US Government database that is accessible to people to run searches on is likely to be mirrored by many private companies, including Google.
Universability. All works before 197..6? that were copyrighted were registered with the government already. Most afterwards were as well. The US Government accessing a work it did not have for archivable purposes seems more likely than Google accessing it
Better competition. A private company could win because its search is better, or its database is better. If everyone has access to a great government database, then its actually possible to develop a search algorithm that could beat Google's (at the very least in a niche field). If it requires building the database as well, it raises the standard to compete.
Persistence. Google shuts down programs, and bye-bye data. (And Google does shut down programs.) The government at the very least transitions them away.
Accountability. Google ignores all kinds of outrage. The government bends more (only slightly more, but still).
With popular music, it's even worse. Like 8 people write all pop songs. At least Hollywood has more diversity than that, even if they follow minute-by-minute rules on what happens when.
Let's see how that works with over 7 billion people.
Also, would they be able to pull the 50 people out of a crowd of others of unknown scans?
Doesn't matter. If your brainscan matches criminal Y or terrorist Z, you must also be a criminal/terrorist. Time to get shipped to a hole. Welcome to the future.
Note, access to money may require a brainscan as well, but also other verification. After all, there can be no chances with money on the line.
the only other way to have an exclusive would be if there were literally only one copy in existence and the library that owned the copy refused to grant access to anyone else, and that is frankly, pretty unlikely.
Some older works had exactly that happen to them. I mean, maybe there's a couple of copies somewhere, but only one easily available copy. And Google paid to have exclusive access.
The reason that they may have an effective exclusive is simply that it's an expensive pain in the ass to scan all of this stuff in, and there's little money in it, so who else would want to bother. But the disinclination of third parties to compete with Google because it's hard, likely minimally profitable work, is hardly Google's fault.
It may not be Google's fault, but it's a way that natural monopolies occur. Which are then regulated because they are natural monopolies. See a lot of telecom, for instance.
Fair use is by definition not a violation of copyright.
Right, and we're arguing over whether it is. The SC hasn't weighed in, but until then in some areas it will be and in others it will nto.
they're under no obligation to give a copy to the Library of Congress if they don't want to.
And there's no reason the government couldn't require that they provide a copy. There's a lot of room for that kind of regulation/appropriation. Certainly, I can see that being a result of a negotiation as a consequence of some anti-trust action. (which is not on the horizon, but could be)
But that the government could do it and should do it doesn't preclude private entities from doing it too, as a general rule.
Fine. I just don't really care that Google took the time to do it. I think that the government should appropriate it.
Google books is no different than if someone made analog xeroxes of lots of books...
Which is the point where you've broken copyright law. Photocopying books is, well, copying them.
Google may in fact have an exclusive (various paintings at one point had exclusive rights to digital copies sold.) But that's not the point. The point is, they took on a project that violated copyright on a massive scale. They want to claim that it's fair use, I think it's only fair the LoC get a full copy of their book index.
Frankly, I think its good that such a thing exist in society. But it's not good that a private for-profit company can take it on themselves to do that for their own gain.
Honestly, it's strange that laws suddenly stopped applying because it was on a computer. Copyright law (I get that individuals cannot be traced, but Google is doing it in the open), Uber, etc. Maybe I'm wrong and all those patents on "doing X on a computer" patents are valid. Since apparently we live in a society that seems to not apply the laws on a computer.
The difference is Google is claiming that they can violate copyright, and its fair use for the author's benefit. This isn't about reviews of the book, etc. It's about making a full copy of the book.
The people whose copyright they violated by making another copy? Suppose an author hated a book they had written earlier. It would be impossible for them to buy and destroy every copy.
Competitors who would have to reproduce the electronic archiving, as opposed to having the LoC owning the electronic copies and people competing on search algorithms.
Funny. I always thought the government should fund and run things that were a tangible benefit for the public, not a private company that can "Ministry of Truth" whatever content they want out of existence now or in the future.
It's not the fallacy of composition. It's that when you have 100's of Millions/Billions at stake, the added risk for any artistic merit isn't worth it. Let's use an Oscar as shorthand for "artistic merit" (and leave aside if that's the correct measure. Imagine two pitches:
I want you to spend 350M on a picture that has a 95% chance of making 3+ Billion, and a 5% chance of making only 2-3 Billion
I want you to spend 350M on a picture that has a 50% chance of winning an Oscar, a 75% chance of making 3+ Billion, a 25% chance of making 2-3 Billion and a 25% chance of being a flop because of our artistry and making 0
Now, factor in that they are talking about a series of these movies, and you quickly get to the point where it must be a money machine.
Good/interesting/original movies have to be done for far less money and come to people's attention after the fact (maybe at a film festival, online, or something).
You left our Roddenberry (technology will cause a post-scarcity utopia) and Gibson. I mean, Gibson's worlds were kinda depressing, but because of corporations, not technology. Technology was the equalizing force.
5 U.S.C. 5303(f)Limits base compensation to Level 5 ($148,700). Additional compensatory payments (locale based adjustments, etc.) may raise total pay to Level 1, what cabinet members make ($203,700) which falls between the Majority Leader's pay and the Speaker's pay
FDIC is a strange organization. They receive no money from Congress, and are therefore exempt from the rules on max payments.
The issue is that anytime Joe Q Public hears of government employees making 6 figures he goes ballistic
Government employees can make 6 figures. The problem is the law that says that no one in the federal government (other than POTUS/VPOTUS/Justices) can be paid more than a Congressman. And they capped their salaries at the low 6 \figures.
to reshape our product in some concrete ways so that millennials go to movie theaters with the same degree of intensity as baby boomers went to movie theaters throughout their lives
Thanks to high screen TVs, good home sound systems, quick-to-home releases (to cut into piracy) that's never going to happen. (Hell, and homes having AC) Oh, and the unmitigated dreck being produced that's all nostalgia. But the solution is clearly to take something away from the theater experience, and make it less able to compete.
Oh, and Box Office records are still getting broken constantly, so, this seems like it's in search of a problem.
Unrelated to my point: I recently saw a fist-fight at a theater over someone using a phone. The guy using the phone deserved getting hit. He was an ass.
And something I can't blame FB for... Every other post is political
Of course you can and should blame FB for that. You have however many friends. You see maybe 10% of what they post (if that). FB chooses to show you a political thing (that they know people will react to) over a post about something your friend did (which is a giant question mark).
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like we need to hire proactive regulators, as opposed to wait to start an investigation after companies who have a vested interest in cease-fires to complain about each other.
One US company has, as its unoffical motto "The competition is [our] friend and the customer [our[ enemy"
There are very many good reasons not to put required ankle monitors on everyone in an effort to curb crime, even if it were effective. Privacy, the feeling of being trusted, fear of a distopian state. You are the first person I ever heard make the case that this was bad because it costs too much money.
Hell, I oppose it for all the very good reasons one should, and even I recognize it's a net win on the cost side.
A couple of reasons.
History. Private corporations have a worse track record with safety and universal accessibility.
Mirrorability. A US Government database that is accessible to people to run searches on is likely to be mirrored by many private companies, including Google.
Universability. All works before 197..6? that were copyrighted were registered with the government already. Most afterwards were as well. The US Government accessing a work it did not have for archivable purposes seems more likely than Google accessing it
Better competition. A private company could win because its search is better, or its database is better. If everyone has access to a great government database, then its actually possible to develop a search algorithm that could beat Google's (at the very least in a niche field). If it requires building the database as well, it raises the standard to compete.
Persistence. Google shuts down programs, and bye-bye data. (And Google does shut down programs.) The government at the very least transitions them away.
Accountability. Google ignores all kinds of outrage. The government bends more (only slightly more, but still).
Because I've been shouting about it forever already. I guess we gotta keep doing it!
With popular music, it's even worse. Like 8 people write all pop songs. At least Hollywood has more diversity than that, even if they follow minute-by-minute rules on what happens when.
Hey, US antitrust laws are quite strict as well. We just don't enforce them.
Doesn't matter. If your brainscan matches criminal Y or terrorist Z, you must also be a criminal/terrorist. Time to get shipped to a hole. Welcome to the future.
Note, access to money may require a brainscan as well, but also other verification. After all, there can be no chances with money on the line.
Some older works had exactly that happen to them. I mean, maybe there's a couple of copies somewhere, but only one easily available copy. And Google paid to have exclusive access.
It may not be Google's fault, but it's a way that natural monopolies occur. Which are then regulated because they are natural monopolies. See a lot of telecom, for instance.
Right, and we're arguing over whether it is. The SC hasn't weighed in, but until then in some areas it will be and in others it will nto.
And there's no reason the government couldn't require that they provide a copy. There's a lot of room for that kind of regulation/appropriation. Certainly, I can see that being a result of a negotiation as a consequence of some anti-trust action. (which is not on the horizon, but could be)
Fine. I just don't really care that Google took the time to do it. I think that the government should appropriate it.
Which is the point where you've broken copyright law. Photocopying books is, well, copying them.
Google may in fact have an exclusive (various paintings at one point had exclusive rights to digital copies sold.) But that's not the point. The point is, they took on a project that violated copyright on a massive scale. They want to claim that it's fair use, I think it's only fair the LoC get a full copy of their book index.
Frankly, I think its good that such a thing exist in society. But it's not good that a private for-profit company can take it on themselves to do that for their own gain.
Honestly, it's strange that laws suddenly stopped applying because it was on a computer. Copyright law (I get that individuals cannot be traced, but Google is doing it in the open), Uber, etc. Maybe I'm wrong and all those patents on "doing X on a computer" patents are valid. Since apparently we live in a society that seems to not apply the laws on a computer.
The difference is Google is claiming that they can violate copyright, and its fair use for the author's benefit. This isn't about reviews of the book, etc. It's about making a full copy of the book.
Well, a couple contradictory theories:
The people whose copyright they violated by making another copy? Suppose an author hated a book they had written earlier. It would be impossible for them to buy and destroy every copy.
Competitors who would have to reproduce the electronic archiving, as opposed to having the LoC owning the electronic copies and people competing on search algorithms.
Funny. I always thought the government should fund and run things that were a tangible benefit for the public, not a private company that can "Ministry of Truth" whatever content they want out of existence now or in the future.
That's not unreasonable. Although, frankly, I don't want to do that myself. I want the publisher to choose the market-tested snippets and index those.
It's not the fallacy of composition. It's that when you have 100's of Millions/Billions at stake, the added risk for any artistic merit isn't worth it. Let's use an Oscar as shorthand for "artistic merit" (and leave aside if that's the correct measure. Imagine two pitches:
Now, factor in that they are talking about a series of these movies, and you quickly get to the point where it must be a money machine.
Good/interesting/original movies have to be done for far less money and come to people's attention after the fact (maybe at a film festival, online, or something).
You left our Roddenberry (technology will cause a post-scarcity utopia) and Gibson. I mean, Gibson's worlds were kinda depressing, but because of corporations, not technology. Technology was the equalizing force.
Election is in 2016. The inauguration is in 2017.
Eating your own dogfood is important in software development. They have a "like" button. It would be a shame not to use it.
5 U.S.C. 5303(f)Limits base compensation to Level 5 ($148,700). Additional compensatory payments (locale based adjustments, etc.) may raise total pay to Level 1, what cabinet members make ($203,700) which falls between the Majority Leader's pay and the Speaker's pay
FDIC is a strange organization. They receive no money from Congress, and are therefore exempt from the rules on max payments.
Government employees can make 6 figures. The problem is the law that says that no one in the federal government (other than POTUS/VPOTUS/Justices) can be paid more than a Congressman. And they capped their salaries at the low 6 \figures.
They filled a zillion patents. Why did they think the secret sauce would be.. well, secret.
That's a different group of authorities (and a different standard of proof). They're stopping her from supplying services to the government.
I suppose the state authorities (or FBI or similar) could investigate her for fraud.
Thanks to high screen TVs, good home sound systems, quick-to-home releases (to cut into piracy) that's never going to happen. (Hell, and homes having AC) Oh, and the unmitigated dreck being produced that's all nostalgia. But the solution is clearly to take something away from the theater experience, and make it less able to compete.
Oh, and Box Office records are still getting broken constantly, so, this seems like it's in search of a problem.
Unrelated to my point: I recently saw a fist-fight at a theater over someone using a phone. The guy using the phone deserved getting hit. He was an ass.
Whiplash, whereever you are, I clicked on this article in spite of the title, not because of it. Please make it less clickbaity.
Of course you can and should blame FB for that. You have however many friends. You see maybe 10% of what they post (if that). FB chooses to show you a political thing (that they know people will react to) over a post about something your friend did (which is a giant question mark).