and with the development of digitial communication, I see no reason why shouldn't simply repeal all of Title 17 and do away with all copyrights. They just aren't needed
What does digital communication have to do with the need for copyright?
No, ripping off artists. When you buy music, maybe most of the profit goes to the label, but some does go to the artist. Or are you one of those people who thinks its OK to rip off artists as long as you are ripping more off from corporations at the same time?
Jury nullification is best used for its traditional purposes, such as letting white people off for killing blacks that looked at white women wrong, or tried to drink out of the white drinking fountain, or tried to register blacks to vote, and things like that. It shouldn't be used for trivialities like letting people rip off artists.
Is this a trick question? It's something that is interesting that we didn't know a couple days ago and now we know--that's almost the definition of news.
The intersection of {reads slashdot} and {potential jurors} is not null. Is it big enough to be substantial? That's subjective. Most lawyers STFU when it comes to talking about cases they are involved in, because they want to stay far away from even the appearance of en ethical violation.
It's been a few years since law school, so I may not be remembering my legal ethics class fully--but it seems at the very least highly questionable for a lawyer involved in a case to be submitting articles about that case to Slashdot.
14 years is excessive, as improved distribution methods mean more people can access the work soon after publication than was possible when copyright was originally designed
Lower barriers to entry, improved print technology, second printings, and other improvements since the 19th century mean there is a lot more competition, meaning it takes longer to make a profit on a work. This suggests longer terms, not shorter terms.
Five years is especially ridiculous if we take into account adaptations of the work in other media. Do you really think that five years after an author publishes a novel, people should be free to turn it into movies without the author's permission and without compensating the author?
If you were accused of a crime but your DNA record could clear you, would you want it on record?
Why would I need it on record? If I'm accused of a crime and wish to have my DNA used to clear me, I can provide a sample then, for use for that one test.
In my country it is voluntary or forced for certain crimes such as rape. Voluntary DNA for petty crimes has helped solve open rape cases
What about when the DNA of an innocent person matches the DNA at the crime scene, and that innocent person is in your system, but the guilty person is not? How does your country prevent convicting the innocent person?
DNA tests for criminal identification only compare a subset of bases, not sufficient to actually uniquely identify a person. There are two correct ways to use these tests. First, if the DNA does not match, you can rule out a suspect. Second, if you have identified a small number of suspects through traditional police methods, and THEN you do a DNA test, and one of them matches, you can conclude to a high degree of certainty that is the criminal, by using bayesian reasoning.
If, however, you start out by getting DNA from the crime scene, run it through your non-comprehensive database, and find a single match, and then you make that match your main suspect, and make the DNA the centerpiece of your case--you are not practicing science. You are practicing witchcraft, and that has no place in the criminal justice system.
It has a weak form, about as strong as that in standard Linux kernels. Windows is currently quite a bit better than Mac and Linux in this. Snow Leopard should bring OS X up to Windows level. I'd guess that Linux will catch up too.
This was discussed a few weeks ago, in an interview with one of the big winners of the Pwn to Own contest. He said that Windows browser holes are harder to exploit than OS X browser holes because of this--and said the he considers Windows more secure than Mac, but Mac safer because far less are targeting it. He didn't talk about Linux, other than to note its ASLR is about the same as OS X's.
The name is cute but the site doesn't favor pirated content over legal content
That's like saying a beer and cigarette store across the street from an elementary school, that sells to anyone regardless of age, is not favoring selling beer and cigarettes to kids--they are open to anyone--and so should be OK.
TPB's reason for existence is to promote pirated content. Their business model depends on it (their ad revenue would plummet if all they linked to was legal content).
It doesn't help them that they are scum, either, as the Arboga autopsy photos showed.
We can ban major commercial movies and music. Neither buy, nor go the theatre nor download. Completely switch to books, free/small films and free music
I can't tell if you are being ironic or stupid. Please clarify.
So your idea of civil disobedience is to rip off artists and support a site that makes millions from porn ads? Ghandi and King are spinning in their graves around now...
This is a bad move in my opinion and will only encourage piracy. If you do the math, you'll realize that for someone to legally acquire say, 20GB worth of music (3MB avg.) at $1.00 per song, it would cost nearly $7,000. The thing is that as time goes on, hard drives are only going to be getting bigger and cheaper. Additionally as fast broadband becomes even more widespread it will mean that illegal downloading will become easier and the price factor with eventually decrease to nothing.
So the more hard drive space I have, the less I should reasonably expect to pay for a song?
Does that logic apply elsewhere? I bought four new bookshelves a while back--so I should now expect to pay less for books? My house has a two car garage, which is twice as much parking as I had at my previous residence--so does that mean I should expect to spend half as much on my next car?
It's faintly conceivable that he may be attempting to assert that p2p distribution provides a positive benefit to the copyright holder in the form of increased exposure.
Last time I checked, though, there wasn't an exception in copyright law that said its OK for people to violate my exclusive rights if will be good for me.
This is a major blow to an industry with an outdated business model. Scientific publication is starting to move beyond the need for the middleman, and I am extremely glad to see it happen.
Eliminate the middleman, and you have usenet. Go read sci.physics and you'll gain a new appreciation of middlemen.
Slashdot Mirror
What does digital communication have to do with the need for copyright?
No, ripping off artists. When you buy music, maybe most of the profit goes to the label, but some does go to the artist. Or are you one of those people who thinks its OK to rip off artists as long as you are ripping more off from corporations at the same time?
How does asking a question that is trivially answered by clicking either link in the submission get "5, Insightful"?
Jury nullification is best used for its traditional purposes, such as letting white people off for killing blacks that looked at white women wrong, or tried to drink out of the white drinking fountain, or tried to register blacks to vote, and things like that. It shouldn't be used for trivialities like letting people rip off artists.
How? Stop overselling bandwidth? That would raise prices considerably. It's overselling that allowed cheap home broadband to exist.
Is this a trick question? It's something that is interesting that we didn't know a couple days ago and now we know--that's almost the definition of news.
Xbox became profitable a long time ago. Are you perhaps thinking of Sony?
The intersection of {reads slashdot} and {potential jurors} is not null. Is it big enough to be substantial? That's subjective. Most lawyers STFU when it comes to talking about cases they are involved in, because they want to stay far away from even the appearance of en ethical violation.
How about rule 3.6 of the ABA model rules of professional conduct?.
It's been a few years since law school, so I may not be remembering my legal ethics class fully--but it seems at the very least highly questionable for a lawyer involved in a case to be submitting articles about that case to Slashdot.
Lower barriers to entry, improved print technology, second printings, and other improvements since the 19th century mean there is a lot more competition, meaning it takes longer to make a profit on a work. This suggests longer terms, not shorter terms.
Five years is especially ridiculous if we take into account adaptations of the work in other media. Do you really think that five years after an author publishes a novel, people should be free to turn it into movies without the author's permission and without compensating the author?
Why would I need it on record? If I'm accused of a crime and wish to have my DNA used to clear me, I can provide a sample then, for use for that one test.
What about when the DNA of an innocent person matches the DNA at the crime scene, and that innocent person is in your system, but the guilty person is not? How does your country prevent convicting the innocent person?
DNA tests for criminal identification only compare a subset of bases, not sufficient to actually uniquely identify a person. There are two correct ways to use these tests. First, if the DNA does not match, you can rule out a suspect. Second, if you have identified a small number of suspects through traditional police methods, and THEN you do a DNA test, and one of them matches, you can conclude to a high degree of certainty that is the criminal, by using bayesian reasoning.
If, however, you start out by getting DNA from the crime scene, run it through your non-comprehensive database, and find a single match, and then you make that match your main suspect, and make the DNA the centerpiece of your case--you are not practicing science. You are practicing witchcraft, and that has no place in the criminal justice system.
It has a weak form, about as strong as that in standard Linux kernels. Windows is currently quite a bit better than Mac and Linux in this. Snow Leopard should bring OS X up to Windows level. I'd guess that Linux will catch up too.
This was discussed a few weeks ago, in an interview with one of the big winners of the Pwn to Own contest. He said that Windows browser holes are harder to exploit than OS X browser holes because of this--and said the he considers Windows more secure than Mac, but Mac safer because far less are targeting it. He didn't talk about Linux, other than to note its ASLR is about the same as OS X's.
Every one of us here who has read early UNIX source code is rolling on the floor laughing right now.
That's like saying a beer and cigarette store across the street from an elementary school, that sells to anyone regardless of age, is not favoring selling beer and cigarettes to kids--they are open to anyone--and so should be OK.
TPB's reason for existence is to promote pirated content. Their business model depends on it (their ad revenue would plummet if all they linked to was legal content).
It doesn't help them that they are scum, either, as the Arboga autopsy photos showed.
I can't tell if you are being ironic or stupid. Please clarify.
No. Google does not purposefully promote ripping off artists, authors, and programmers. The Pirate Bay does. That makes a huge difference.
So your idea of civil disobedience is to rip off artists and support a site that makes millions from porn ads? Ghandi and King are spinning in their graves around now...
So the more hard drive space I have, the less I should reasonably expect to pay for a song?
Does that logic apply elsewhere? I bought four new bookshelves a while back--so I should now expect to pay less for books? My house has a two car garage, which is twice as much parking as I had at my previous residence--so does that mean I should expect to spend half as much on my next car?
Last time I checked, though, there wasn't an exception in copyright law that said its OK for people to violate my exclusive rights if will be good for me.
It's not de jure, not de facto, for air.
A huge number of comments are of the form "GOO is not acceptable because X", where the article clearly and specifically states GOO does not X.
Eliminate the middleman, and you have usenet. Go read sci.physics and you'll gain a new appreciation of middlemen.
Why don't you RTFA?