If there's never a need to acquire copyright, then why does it expire? Copyright limits rapid progress in the arts in the exact same manner that patent inhibits rapid progress in the sciences. By definition of copyright, "access to inspiration" is limited. Copyright is by definition an infringement on real property and an infringement of free speech, given only because copyright allegedly promotes the advancement of the arts.
And patent holders don't have any "rights" whatsoever. They have limited privileges granted by society. Rights exist independent of government. Voting to abolish copyrights wouldn't take any rights away from any copyright holders. The existence of copyright takes away free speech rights and real property rights away from the rest of society.
And since those privileges have been massively abused, are wholly economically unnecessary to the promotion of arts, and are causing society to be net poorer than it otherwise would be in the absence of copyright, they should be eliminated completely at the earliest opportunity.
You by definition can't listen to and see everything which has been created if you can't afford it, if you can't remix it, if you can't sample it, if you can't find it for sale, if you can't independently create something similar to it. All these factors without doubt *inhibit* the advancement of the arts. And all art is copying and building upon the ideas of previous artists anyway. Slowing down the release into public domain is without question causing the retardation of art.
You are absolutely correct that the deal is off. But it's off because the deal was broken, the deal was unconstitutionally corrupted, by tyrants. You've proven that people like the RIAA who bribe politicians and spit on the freedom of people "can't be trusted and can't be reasoned with". You still cannot acknowledge that the people are absolutely without any doubt ENTITLED to "have free and unlimited access to the work of other", by definition of the explicitly Constitutionally stated monopoly distribution grant being given by the people for a LIMITED TIME. You completely and wholly stole that away now by extending the copyright term way beyond LIFE, when it was originally meant to be limited to a GENERATION. Now it's your turn to have NOTHING.
How many more billions in market value do you want to lose before the Supreme Court rules the copyright laws unconstitutional anyway? There's more tea being dumped into the public domain sea every minute than was dumped by the Boston Tea Party. And it's been going on for years now.
This country doesn't make anything, and the "value" of your "time" is zero if that work can't be exclusive. You've just proven the opposite by your use of language you yourself didn't create and your choice you preferring taking the time to make a post over the choice of not taking the time to make a post. And it's exactly so for all "artists" as well; they cannot even create nothing without copying the ideas of others.
Only a technological and artistic innovation Renaissance lays behind the elimination of copyright and patent. But it surely is hilarious that people like the RIAA believe pop music is more valuable to humanity as a whole than scientific advancement as evidenced by the the ten-fold greater term of exclusive monopoly length given to copyright over patents.
Good luck with those music industry stock option grants. I hear they're quite ripe for outsourcing from the boardroom to the bathroom, as toilet paper.
Which games are going to volunteer to limit their customer base first to 10% of the total market, 50% of the total market, 75% of the total market?
I can just imagine that hardware upgrade cycles are completely wild. Blu-Ray isn't being simultaneously mass adopted, Vista isn't being simultaneously mass adopted? So who's going to bet total expected revenue of a game which simultaneously requires serious hardware upgrades for the game to work?
Not only would you be adding significant 3-figure hardware costs to the price of the game, but you'd also be assuming *severe* limitations in the size of the purchasing customer base.
Somebody in EA would just be begging to be fired after the latest Madden Football saw a 50% revenue drop.
For this DRM to stick, to be slowly adopted, some industry players are going to have to undertake extremely significant serious revenue risks.
Advertising has always existed. Pseudo-Socrates complained about women wearing makeup. Why do women wear makeup? Do advertise themselves as more attractive mates. Tall tales, embellishment, etc. are all about advertising, increasing status. Advertising is inherent to every barter trade. And of course advertising is also part of communication, "there's new bountiful land over there", and signaling price changes, "wow, gold is up %500, maybe I should go dig some up".
Patent needs to be limited to, say, the top 5 submissions per year (and that's generous, it should be 1 per year at most). Trademark is legitimate. Not bad. Put them on the voting ballots. Two year protection for X number receiving the most votes every two year House election. Four year protection for Y number receiving the most votes every four year presidential election. Six year protection for Z number receiving the most votes every six year Senate election. And then for the cream of the crop, unlimited protection for nine patents, the oldest of which expire and a new one enters whenever there is a new Supreme Court Justice.
And besides, even if it couldn't be figured out again, the inventor's own company to bring the product to market will keep alive the invention as long as there is profit in it. Exactly. The alleged idea that ideas would be lost without detailed inventor blueprint disclosure is a complete strawman.
#1.) In order to profit from an invention or creative work, you have to trade the invention to others. Therefore, only things which would be intended to originally be traded away to others would by patented in the first place.
#2.) Patents are currently intentionally written with maximum broad obscurity, to minimize the number of people that can actually duplicate the technology at patent expiration, completely contrary to the alleged public domain disclosure contractual bargain.
Only competition serves as a check on monopoly price gouging. And innovation only occurs by expanding upon previously existing technology. Everything which is innovating is solely innovating because it is building upon the work of others.
Yes, you didn't buy the rights to the novel, for example, but you bought a book and you can do almost whatever you want with it. Resell it, lend it to your friend, read it to your kid at bedtime, etc And historical precedent also shows that teachers would read aloud one copy of one book to a classroom of school children? See George Bush with a book in his hand in front of a classroom of children as the 9/11 World Trade Center was attacked. Why can't we read aloud a copy to a bigger audience of school children on the internet?
All copying whatsoever is by definition spreading knowledge, spreading education, promoting the advancement of the useful arts and sciences.
But why do we not descend into a Hobbesian war of all against all? Because excess wealth is created from the division of labor and trade. This is the sole scientific, philosophical, epistemological, economic, biological reason society exists. Individuals in society are wealthier than hermits stranded on desert islands. Thus there are biological and economic incentives that temper "might makes right". Plato -- Aristotle -- Rousseau -- Hobbes -- Ludwig von Mises. The 20th century didn't realize that economics took over philosophy and the social sciences. In the 21st century economics will take over biology and physics.
People are *either* trading with one another (voluntary mutual free will), *or* they are not trading with one another. There is no in between "third way". Action is necessarily "either/or", and never simultaneously both. All knowledge whatsoever necessarily springs from empty set/full set comparisons, hypothesis/null hypothesis categorization and understanding. Everything is defined exactly by all that is not the thing being defined. "Bird" is understood by all that is "not bird". Trade only occurs because that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. The trade would not otherwise occur.
No single individual can create all the intellectual creative work which is created by his contemporaries. Assuming intellectual creative work has positive economic value, eliminating intellectual property by definition rewards creators with more creative production than they themselves can undertake. No artist or scientist would ever be "underpaid" in the absence of intellectual property by definition that the production of others can be easily copied and enjoyed. And that still doesn't prevent voluntary ongoing sponsorship of further creative work from occurring in a free market devoid of artificial scarcity intellectual property.
Awesome point! Fruit, grains, all agricultural products which exist naturally are being infringed upon by Monsanto's derivative genetic modification work. Monsanto didn't invent any new fruits or vegetables that didn't already exist. They are essentially writing new Harry Potter books using the trademarked and copyrighted characters of the b/witch that wrote them. If taking Harry Potter characters in adapted derivative works is illegal, then so too is taking public domain "oranges" and "corn" and making them, for instance, "seedless", an illegal public domain infringing derivative work.
Those farmers sure shouldn't be able to label their genetically modified harvests by their common public domain agricultural names. If genetically modified "oranges" are being sold in grocery stores under the label "oranges", they are engaging in fraud. So it's time they start properly naming their produce in the same manner car manufacturers label their models. Do you want to buy an "orange", or an "OXSeven", a seedless genetically modified non-orange that is likely an infringing derivative work of a real orange?
Prior art = the multiplication and growth of seeds. Monsanto has conscripted "air", and is now charging you a fee to breath air. Monsanto is infringing on nature, is infringing on the bounty nature hath provided, is stealing from you. You can see clearly th incentive for Monsanto is to create an internet virus that invades every field eliminating natural competition and then collect extortion fees.
Copying, the action, the method, the process, of copying, is "IP" just as much as any product is "IP". So how is it all "IP" copies the ideas of copying and limiting copying?
COPYING IS PUBLIC DOMAIN TECHNOLOGY, with billions of years of prior art. And all "IP" claims are infringing that public domain technology, and are therefore invalid.
Stupid clueless IP proponent idiots are deaf, dumb, and blind as to how they are copying the ideas of others whilst crying like infant children how people copy them while refusing to see how they copy others. It's no wonder IP proponents get their clocks cleaned in debates on philosophical, ethical, economic, and scientific grounds. They are in one word, demonstrably "*dumb*".
It is the right to determine who is allowed to make copies and when, that is regarded as 'property'. And this is exclusive. Thus, IP is a *trespass*, IP is a limitation on how people can shape and transform their real property. If I own the IP to "doors" and the IP to "windows" and the IP to "walls" and the IP to "roofs", you can't build a house on your land with your trees. This causes houses to become more expensive to build, reduces the supply of houses, and results in a net poorer society with an artificial shortage of housing.
IP isn't just an assault on free speech rights, it's also an assault on real property rights.
ONE MUST AT ALL TIMES HAVE IN ONE'S MIND A CETERIS PARIBUS COMPARISON TO THE ECONOMIC RESULTS WHICH WOULD EVOLVE IF REAL PHYSICAL TANGIBLE PROPERTY COULD BE COPIED AND EXPANDED AS EASYILY AS IDEAS CAN BE COPIED AND EXPANDED.
1.) Poverty would be eliminated.
2.) Inequality would be eliminated.
3.) Innovation and creative change would not be eliminated, as that is all anyone who was not lounging around in biblical garden of eden paradise would be doing, thinking of how they would want something better, even though it could be infinitely copied. Innovation and artistic creation would become the sole economic production activity, and remuneration would consist 100% in extremely valuable fame.
Except that your analysis is negligent and deficient on the point that it ignores all content whatsoever is copyrighted, not just content crated by the MAFIAA is copyrighted. Who gave Google explicit license permission for their spiders to link to my copyrighted posts contents? Google links are to 99% if not 99.9% copyrighted content. Are you saying this post is to be regarded as second class to a.mp3 song or a.tor movie? There is no such thing as a "substantially non-infringing" link or uses.
Me posting here on slashdot is no different than the playing of a song on the radio when it comes to "making available", consent, license, or "contributory" bullshit.
You post is inaccurate because it fails to mention "fame". Fame has real positive economic value. This is the whole reason the marketing industry exists. The more famous a work, the more valuable it is to the creators, the more valuable it is to the sponsors. The content creators chose to push the paid for by advertising business model. All content is now nothing more than commercials.
And if you download any file whatsoever into a shared folder and never actually look at the contents of those files you are blindly unknowingly distributing content. You don't know whether any files whatsoever is a copyright infringement until you first copy and secondly examine. This is exactly how the MAFIAA operate to: they first blindly copy, and secondly examine.
Not only that, but companies have used youtube contributions to promote their products without consent, and network television news broadcasts have featured youtube videos without consent.
It's *impossible* to not by definition stretch the bounds of copyright to the point of absurdity. Your posts, your home family vacation viedos, your commentary on music, is exactly as copyrighted as all other content, including MAFIAA productions.
Radio and televisions stations are "making available" and "contributing" to copyright infringement in exactly the same fashion as websites like The Pirate Bay. What's next? Suing "Television Guide" Comcast Channel, suing TV Guide publishers, for indexing and linking to television content? You are now responsible for third party security arrangements? You can link to a specific file which exists on iTunes and requires purchase, but you cannot link to that same file which exists on some other site and doesn't require purchase?
These lawsuits are ultimately about eliminating competing distribution systems which are rapidly evolving on the internet. But what do you expect of companies that trick kids into being unpaid employees for the promises of small scale "prizes" in exchange for the co-option of the content created by minor children?
These anti-indexing judgments are also an assault on discovery. There is no link whatsoever that doesn't link to copyrighted content. This post I'm writing right now is copyrighted. I've given implicit consent to slashdot to display this comment, but I haven't given any other third parties implicit or explicit consent to copy this post. So if Google links directly to this post, I could sue them for statutory copyright infringement damages. Or anyone else who links to this post from elsewhere. That is the literal absurdity which is at stake. This post is for all practical intents and purposes absolutely no different than any RIAA music.mp3 file or any MPAA.tor movie file.
This is the main reason copyright is already de facto dead on the internet. If the MAFIAA succeeds in establishing the legal procedure precedents for establishing infringement for links to content, it will merely open up an economic and legal meltdown copyright troll floodgate, where absolutely everybody is a priori guilty of copyright infringement. In such an environment, those with the most to lose will lose the most. That means the bankruptcy of individual citizens, the bankruptcy of the RIAA, the bankruptcy of the MPAA, and the bankruptcy of Google. Except that individuals will only declare bankruptcy after their losses advance into the 6 figures, while the RIAA, MPAAA, and Google will pay out damages until the damages first exceed 9 and 10 figures, which won't take for long given the exponentially increasing amount of daily increasing (by definition *copyrighted*) content on the internet. At $30,000 per linked post message, it won't take very many copyright trolls to literally shut down the system.
How do you think people like us are already causing the MAFIAA so much trouble? And we ultimately control the button to the legal minefield which is being laid by the incursion of copyright law onto the internet. We'll form a publicly traded law firm which takes the claims of every individual citizen against those with deep pockets, IPO it, and show the big content fools who's really the boss. These MAFIAA lawsuits are just paving the "free rider" legal precedent to making it a financial reality. The legal threats literally threaten Armageddon for the existence of the internet.
And "contributory copyright infringement" can easily be extended to hardware and software producers such as Cisco and Microsoft. So add in the bankruptcy of Cisco and Microsoft and Apple, and Comcast, and on and on. We are literally talking about so many trillions of dollars of legal liability that it is many fold greater than the total economic value of the entire world.
I'm saying complaining about the punishment is the wrong thing to do Wrong. Punishment is subject to constitutional limitation. Life imprisonment or a one million dollar fine for littering a candy wrapper on a public street is unconstitutional. So too are the 6 figure fines for copyright infringement unconstitutional. It's unconstitutional merely to set statutory fines for civil liability offenses which have no relation to actual damages.
Thus, every MAFIAA lawsuit claiming statutory damages for copyright infringement is unconstitutional violence. Every copyright lawsuit is itself *illegal*. It's illegal, and as *absurd* as me suing every person I don't like for statutory copyright infringement damage figures for looking at me, for copying my image into their eyes and minds, without permission or authorization.
These songs and movies are beamed through public domain airwaves just as images or persons are beamed through public domain airwaves whenever persons walk through the streets. Prohibiting taking pictures, prohibiting recording actions, in public domain, is a pure violation of the First Amendment. And every MAFIAA lawsuit is violating your rights, is weakening your freedom, is terrorizing citizens at that margins, is causing economic damage resulting in a net poorer society, and resulting is the inhibition of the progress of the arts and sciences.
There is no such thing as "non-copyrighted materials". All material whatsoever is copyrighted. Every web page, every link, every file transfer is without exception "linking to copyrighted materials".
That must be why message boards never evolved on the internet and sites with individual poster messages like/. DO exist.
Null Hypothesis: You didn't get pwned.
Your suggestion is basically that human time has no value. No, your suggestion is basically that human time has no value.
P.S. It takes time to consume, time to hear, time to see, time to think, time to feel, time to whatever the fuck whatever, time to post individual messages on the internet on sites like/., and are therefore, a priori *valued*, by definition of *valued*, by definition of either 'A' being preferred to 'B', or 'B' being preferred to 'A', but necessarily not simultaneously both. This post exists, or it does not exist. QED. 'Tis a mathematical certainty.
All of the uncontrollable laughter does that; you understand. Translates to ROF+LOL+LMAO in amateur sub par quality level speak!11!one1.
Ask not what your P2P can do for you... but what you can do for your P2P.
You'll forgive me if I miss the line forming for that job, I'm kind of distracted. Don't look now, but you just walked that plank.
You nailed it. It's gaming + hip hop music. Geek'd is a synonym of "pimped". Pimp your ride, geek your system.
Being dumb on the internet is looked down upon. MMORPG gaming (Dungeons and Dragons rules) became widespread. New internet speech slang became adopted. You can't literally smack somebody on the internet but you can "PWN" them with intellectual demonstration.
Also "geek tech" has been embraced by the likes of the Russian Mafia. Geeks can play powerful bad guys in Hollywood movies such as Boris Ivanovich Grishenko "I am invincible!" in Goldeneye and powerful good guys such as Neo in the Matrix. The Matrix ushered in the era of mainstream adoption of DVD technology in the late 90s. That's also when you had the first big multi-layer on-line games becoming popular, resulting in World of Warcraft dominating today, which is celebrated on the likes of South Park.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Geek
6. geek 1. You have a "My other car is a Millenium Falcon" bumper sticker on your car.
1. geek bone getting hot and bothered in a nerdy way over the latest technological marvel dude, i've got a total geek bone over those new Ipod minis..
1. geek cred Similar to street cred, but applicable to geeks. Geek cred is allocated by displaying knowledge of different aspects of geek culture such as Star Wars, anime, comic books, etc. Geek cred. Street cred. Geek card. Player card.
1. Geek Up To step up and do something as a geek. If you're asked to help a relative configure their home computer, or if you're asked to volunteer your geek skills for a worthy cause, you're being asked to "geek up."
1. geek'd up you're high off drugs "Man Im geek'd up off dat weed man."
1. geek-gasm The shudder of pleasure (physical for some of us) of watching or even contemplating geek TV/movies/games/comics/etc. "Can you imagine if Joss Whedon wrote and directed a Harry Potter movie?" "Oh my God, I just had a geek-gasm!"
1. geek bling Geek bling is a term referring to computer parts worn as jewelry. It is generally ostentatious such as a net card hanging from a necklace but can be subtle as well, often used is a memory stick placed on a keychain. The term was coined by a student of Oak Hill Academy when the members of a Microsoft class took to wearing various computer parts from old computers on their key chains or lanyards. Any previous origins are unknown. It is alternately referred to as 'geek bling-bling' or on occasion '111001110' (binary for 'ice'). There is also classic geek-bling such as bowties and pocket protectors, as everyone knows pocket protectors are the pinnacle of geekdom. The geek-*.* entries just go on and on. A lot of these are stupid and reaching merely for the sake of reaching, but "geek" certainly has been used creatively as an adjective to freshen up otherwise stale language. This too shall pass.
How can any Court determine there is ever any copyright infringement without compelling the copying distribution and evidence exhibition to individuals in the Courtroom of the disputed content to determine whether indeed something is copyright infringement? Do they use a magic eight ball or ouija board to analyze the "evidence"? Maybe flip a coin to decide guilt/liability or innocence/non-liability?
The problem lies in supply. Unless someone starts subsidizing the music industry (God help us) then a profit motive is necessary to keep music coming. That must be why message boards never evolved on the internet and sites with individual poster messages like/. don't exist.
Too bad you can't create any software without copying TONS and TONS of ideas created by others, whether it's specific programming code platforms, whether it's copying language, whether it's copying functions.
Why is it that every creator of content is willfully ignorant of the thousands and millions of ideas they copy from others? Perhaps that have to intentionally not pay attention and be dumb in school so as not to be accused of learning anything by the sole method of learning for 99.9% of the population -- COPYING THE IDEAS OF OTHERS! You do realize you go to school to learn by copying the ideas of others into your brain?
So if you are so opposed to copying, er "stealing" in your words, the ideas and "work" of others, stop writing code you damn thief!
So cut out this subterfuge. You think because it is easy to copy that you have a right to free stuff no matter what. You didn't invent a single word in that sentence. Stop expressing yourself by copying words you didn't invent.
Just because you are too lazy to seek voluntary payment in advance or even after the fact, is no excuse for using violence to hinder the building, spread, and innovation of culture and science.
All contracts are "bullshit". They exist solely because of government interference in the free market compelling continuing action in cases that it is not voluntarily forthcoming. And there are plenty of examples of illegitimate contracts. Contracts can be cancelled legally by bankruptcy for instance. Compelling a prostitute to perform promised sex acts after money was exchanged would be rape. Hence, past or present tense "agreement" does not even constitute the full necessary basis for contracts to be considered "legal".
Contracts are the cause of promises originating as unlimited fiat value, or fiat money, aka credit. Contracts were created to cause debt and servitude. Contracts are vehicles of theft and compulsion, evolved to compel military and feudal servitude. In the absence of contract, only present tense voluntary trade would account for all (or the near unanimous majority of) exchange. And no exchange ever occurs unless that which is received is by definition valued more than that which is given away in exchange. Government enforced contracts cause promises to be valued higher than they otherwise would be in the absence of government interference force, because those who "buy" or trade for contractual promises are really buying mafia (or government) thug (or police) enforcement. Contracts therefore create and initiate (controlled) violence. Such value of promises is still inherently massively unstable even in spite of the government interference.
Why are people paid bi-weekly or monthly rather than yearly or a decade in advance? Because contracts are inherently untrustworthy. Contracts cause excessive risk and carelessness, and therefore are inherently negligent. Contracts are also causing net society economic poverty whenever action is compelled upon past agreement terms and a party changes their subjective present tense valuation in the future.
Why does collateral exist? Why do credit ratings agencies exist? Because even the free market does not value contracts on par with the goods which are exchanged for promises.
But most importantly, contracts are wholly unnecessary to the division of labor and economic exchange. Government interference supplants and crowds out voluntary free market institutions which would exist and evolve to solve the "problems" of human cooperation. See credit not being extended after bankruptcy. See credit ratings agencies. See the creation of a welfare program for lawyers called "contract law".
Adblock Plus doesn't prevent ads being sent from ad servers (just prevents ads from being displayed), nor the wasted bandwidth. How much (as in percentage) traffic is generated by tracking users and sending individually tailored advertisements?
Slashdot Mirror
If there's never a need to acquire copyright, then why does it expire? Copyright limits rapid progress in the arts in the exact same manner that patent inhibits rapid progress in the sciences. By definition of copyright, "access to inspiration" is limited. Copyright is by definition an infringement on real property and an infringement of free speech, given only because copyright allegedly promotes the advancement of the arts.
And patent holders don't have any "rights" whatsoever. They have limited privileges granted by society. Rights exist independent of government. Voting to abolish copyrights wouldn't take any rights away from any copyright holders. The existence of copyright takes away free speech rights and real property rights away from the rest of society.
And since those privileges have been massively abused, are wholly economically unnecessary to the promotion of arts, and are causing society to be net poorer than it otherwise would be in the absence of copyright, they should be eliminated completely at the earliest opportunity.
You by definition can't listen to and see everything which has been created if you can't afford it, if you can't remix it, if you can't sample it, if you can't find it for sale, if you can't independently create something similar to it. All these factors without doubt *inhibit* the advancement of the arts. And all art is copying and building upon the ideas of previous artists anyway. Slowing down the release into public domain is without question causing the retardation of art.
How many more billions in market value do you want to lose before the Supreme Court rules the copyright laws unconstitutional anyway? There's more tea being dumped into the public domain sea every minute than was dumped by the Boston Tea Party. And it's been going on for years now. This country doesn't make anything, and the "value" of your "time" is zero if that work can't be exclusive. You've just proven the opposite by your use of language you yourself didn't create and your choice you preferring taking the time to make a post over the choice of not taking the time to make a post. And it's exactly so for all "artists" as well; they cannot even create nothing without copying the ideas of others.
Only a technological and artistic innovation Renaissance lays behind the elimination of copyright and patent. But it surely is hilarious that people like the RIAA believe pop music is more valuable to humanity as a whole than scientific advancement as evidenced by the the ten-fold greater term of exclusive monopoly length given to copyright over patents.
Good luck with those music industry stock option grants. I hear they're quite ripe for outsourcing from the boardroom to the bathroom, as toilet paper.
Which games are going to volunteer to limit their customer base first to 10% of the total market, 50% of the total market, 75% of the total market?
I can just imagine that hardware upgrade cycles are completely wild. Blu-Ray isn't being simultaneously mass adopted, Vista isn't being simultaneously mass adopted? So who's going to bet total expected revenue of a game which simultaneously requires serious hardware upgrades for the game to work?
Not only would you be adding significant 3-figure hardware costs to the price of the game, but you'd also be assuming *severe* limitations in the size of the purchasing customer base.
Somebody in EA would just be begging to be fired after the latest Madden Football saw a 50% revenue drop.
For this DRM to stick, to be slowly adopted, some industry players are going to have to undertake extremely significant serious revenue risks.
Advertising has always existed. Pseudo-Socrates complained about women wearing makeup. Why do women wear makeup? Do advertise themselves as more attractive mates. Tall tales, embellishment, etc. are all about advertising, increasing status. Advertising is inherent to every barter trade. And of course advertising is also part of communication, "there's new bountiful land over there", and signaling price changes, "wow, gold is up %500, maybe I should go dig some up".
#1.) In order to profit from an invention or creative work, you have to trade the invention to others. Therefore, only things which would be intended to originally be traded away to others would by patented in the first place.
#2.) Patents are currently intentionally written with maximum broad obscurity, to minimize the number of people that can actually duplicate the technology at patent expiration, completely contrary to the alleged public domain disclosure contractual bargain.
Only competition serves as a check on monopoly price gouging. And innovation only occurs by expanding upon previously existing technology. Everything which is innovating is solely innovating because it is building upon the work of others.
All copying whatsoever is by definition spreading knowledge, spreading education, promoting the advancement of the useful arts and sciences.
But why do we not descend into a Hobbesian war of all against all? Because excess wealth is created from the division of labor and trade. This is the sole scientific, philosophical, epistemological, economic, biological reason society exists. Individuals in society are wealthier than hermits stranded on desert islands. Thus there are biological and economic incentives that temper "might makes right". Plato -- Aristotle -- Rousseau -- Hobbes -- Ludwig von Mises. The 20th century didn't realize that economics took over philosophy and the social sciences. In the 21st century economics will take over biology and physics.
People are *either* trading with one another (voluntary mutual free will), *or* they are not trading with one another. There is no in between "third way". Action is necessarily "either/or", and never simultaneously both. All knowledge whatsoever necessarily springs from empty set/full set comparisons, hypothesis/null hypothesis categorization and understanding. Everything is defined exactly by all that is not the thing being defined. "Bird" is understood by all that is "not bird". Trade only occurs because that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. The trade would not otherwise occur.
No single individual can create all the intellectual creative work which is created by his contemporaries. Assuming intellectual creative work has positive economic value, eliminating intellectual property by definition rewards creators with more creative production than they themselves can undertake. No artist or scientist would ever be "underpaid" in the absence of intellectual property by definition that the production of others can be easily copied and enjoyed. And that still doesn't prevent voluntary ongoing sponsorship of further creative work from occurring in a free market devoid of artificial scarcity intellectual property.
Awesome point! Fruit, grains, all agricultural products which exist naturally are being infringed upon by Monsanto's derivative genetic modification work. Monsanto didn't invent any new fruits or vegetables that didn't already exist. They are essentially writing new Harry Potter books using the trademarked and copyrighted characters of the b/witch that wrote them. If taking Harry Potter characters in adapted derivative works is illegal, then so too is taking public domain "oranges" and "corn" and making them, for instance, "seedless", an illegal public domain infringing derivative work.
Those farmers sure shouldn't be able to label their genetically modified harvests by their common public domain agricultural names. If genetically modified "oranges" are being sold in grocery stores under the label "oranges", they are engaging in fraud. So it's time they start properly naming their produce in the same manner car manufacturers label their models. Do you want to buy an "orange", or an "OXSeven", a seedless genetically modified non-orange that is likely an infringing derivative work of a real orange?
Prior art = the multiplication and growth of seeds. Monsanto has conscripted "air", and is now charging you a fee to breath air. Monsanto is infringing on nature, is infringing on the bounty nature hath provided, is stealing from you. You can see clearly th incentive for Monsanto is to create an internet virus that invades every field eliminating natural competition and then collect extortion fees.
Copying, the action, the method, the process, of copying, is "IP" just as much as any product is "IP". So how is it all "IP" copies the ideas of copying and limiting copying?
COPYING IS PUBLIC DOMAIN TECHNOLOGY, with billions of years of prior art. And all "IP" claims are infringing that public domain technology, and are therefore invalid.
Stupid clueless IP proponent idiots are deaf, dumb, and blind as to how they are copying the ideas of others whilst crying like infant children how people copy them while refusing to see how they copy others. It's no wonder IP proponents get their clocks cleaned in debates on philosophical, ethical, economic, and scientific grounds. They are in one word, demonstrably "*dumb*".
IP isn't just an assault on free speech rights, it's also an assault on real property rights.
ONE MUST AT ALL TIMES HAVE IN ONE'S MIND A CETERIS PARIBUS COMPARISON TO THE ECONOMIC RESULTS WHICH WOULD EVOLVE IF REAL PHYSICAL TANGIBLE PROPERTY COULD BE COPIED AND EXPANDED AS EASYILY AS IDEAS CAN BE COPIED AND EXPANDED.
1.) Poverty would be eliminated.
2.) Inequality would be eliminated.
3.) Innovation and creative change would not be eliminated, as that is all anyone who was not lounging around in biblical garden of eden paradise would be doing, thinking of how they would want something better, even though it could be infinitely copied. Innovation and artistic creation would become the sole economic production activity, and remuneration would consist 100% in extremely valuable fame.
Except that your analysis is negligent and deficient on the point that it ignores all content whatsoever is copyrighted, not just content crated by the MAFIAA is copyrighted. Who gave Google explicit license permission for their spiders to link to my copyrighted posts contents? Google links are to 99% if not 99.9% copyrighted content. Are you saying this post is to be regarded as second class to a .mp3 song or a .tor movie? There is no such thing as a "substantially non-infringing" link or uses.
Me posting here on slashdot is no different than the playing of a song on the radio when it comes to "making available", consent, license, or "contributory" bullshit.
You post is inaccurate because it fails to mention "fame". Fame has real positive economic value. This is the whole reason the marketing industry exists. The more famous a work, the more valuable it is to the creators, the more valuable it is to the sponsors. The content creators chose to push the paid for by advertising business model. All content is now nothing more than commercials.
And if you download any file whatsoever into a shared folder and never actually look at the contents of those files you are blindly unknowingly distributing content. You don't know whether any files whatsoever is a copyright infringement until you first copy and secondly examine. This is exactly how the MAFIAA operate to: they first blindly copy, and secondly examine.
Not only that, but companies have used youtube contributions to promote their products without consent, and network television news broadcasts have featured youtube videos without consent.
It's *impossible* to not by definition stretch the bounds of copyright to the point of absurdity. Your posts, your home family vacation viedos, your commentary on music, is exactly as copyrighted as all other content, including MAFIAA productions.
Radio and televisions stations are "making available" and "contributing" to copyright infringement in exactly the same fashion as websites like The Pirate Bay. What's next? Suing "Television Guide" Comcast Channel, suing TV Guide publishers, for indexing and linking to television content? You are now responsible for third party security arrangements? You can link to a specific file which exists on iTunes and requires purchase, but you cannot link to that same file which exists on some other site and doesn't require purchase?
These lawsuits are ultimately about eliminating competing distribution systems which are rapidly evolving on the internet. But what do you expect of companies that trick kids into being unpaid employees for the promises of small scale "prizes" in exchange for the co-option of the content created by minor children?
These anti-indexing judgments are also an assault on discovery. There is no link whatsoever that doesn't link to copyrighted content. This post I'm writing right now is copyrighted. I've given implicit consent to slashdot to display this comment, but I haven't given any other third parties implicit or explicit consent to copy this post. So if Google links directly to this post, I could sue them for statutory copyright infringement damages. Or anyone else who links to this post from elsewhere. That is the literal absurdity which is at stake. This post is for all practical intents and purposes absolutely no different than any RIAA music .mp3 file or any MPAA .tor movie file.
This is the main reason copyright is already de facto dead on the internet. If the MAFIAA succeeds in establishing the legal procedure precedents for establishing infringement for links to content, it will merely open up an economic and legal meltdown copyright troll floodgate, where absolutely everybody is a priori guilty of copyright infringement. In such an environment, those with the most to lose will lose the most. That means the bankruptcy of individual citizens, the bankruptcy of the RIAA, the bankruptcy of the MPAA, and the bankruptcy of Google. Except that individuals will only declare bankruptcy after their losses advance into the 6 figures, while the RIAA, MPAAA, and Google will pay out damages until the damages first exceed 9 and 10 figures, which won't take for long given the exponentially increasing amount of daily increasing (by definition *copyrighted*) content on the internet. At $30,000 per linked post message, it won't take very many copyright trolls to literally shut down the system.
How do you think people like us are already causing the MAFIAA so much trouble? And we ultimately control the button to the legal minefield which is being laid by the incursion of copyright law onto the internet. We'll form a publicly traded law firm which takes the claims of every individual citizen against those with deep pockets, IPO it, and show the big content fools who's really the boss. These MAFIAA lawsuits are just paving the "free rider" legal precedent to making it a financial reality. The legal threats literally threaten Armageddon for the existence of the internet.
And "contributory copyright infringement" can easily be extended to hardware and software producers such as Cisco and Microsoft. So add in the bankruptcy of Cisco and Microsoft and Apple, and Comcast, and on and on. We are literally talking about so many trillions of dollars of legal liability that it is many fold greater than the total economic value of the entire world.
Thus, every MAFIAA lawsuit claiming statutory damages for copyright infringement is unconstitutional violence. Every copyright lawsuit is itself *illegal*. It's illegal, and as *absurd* as me suing every person I don't like for statutory copyright infringement damage figures for looking at me, for copying my image into their eyes and minds, without permission or authorization.
These songs and movies are beamed through public domain airwaves just as images or persons are beamed through public domain airwaves whenever persons walk through the streets. Prohibiting taking pictures, prohibiting recording actions, in public domain, is a pure violation of the First Amendment. And every MAFIAA lawsuit is violating your rights, is weakening your freedom, is terrorizing citizens at that margins, is causing economic damage resulting in a net poorer society, and resulting is the inhibition of the progress of the arts and sciences.
There is no such thing as "non-copyrighted materials". All material whatsoever is copyrighted. Every web page, every link, every file transfer is without exception "linking to copyrighted materials".
Null Hypothesis: You didn't get pwned. Your suggestion is basically that human time has no value. No, your suggestion is basically that human time has no value.
P.S. It takes time to consume, time to hear, time to see, time to think, time to feel, time to whatever the fuck whatever, time to post individual messages on the internet on sites like
Ask not what your P2P can do for you
Being dumb on the internet is looked down upon. MMORPG gaming (Dungeons and Dragons rules) became widespread. New internet speech slang became adopted. You can't literally smack somebody on the internet but you can "PWN" them with intellectual demonstration.
Also "geek tech" has been embraced by the likes of the Russian Mafia. Geeks can play powerful bad guys in Hollywood movies such as Boris Ivanovich Grishenko "I am invincible!" in Goldeneye and powerful good guys such as Neo in the Matrix. The Matrix ushered in the era of mainstream adoption of DVD technology in the late 90s. That's also when you had the first big multi-layer on-line games becoming popular, resulting in World of Warcraft dominating today, which is celebrated on the likes of South Park.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Geek 6. geek
1. You have a "My other car is a Millenium Falcon" bumper sticker on your car. 1. geek bone
getting hot and bothered in a nerdy way over the latest technological marvel
dude, i've got a total geek bone over those new Ipod minis.. 1. geek cred
Similar to street cred, but applicable to geeks. Geek cred is allocated by displaying knowledge of different aspects of geek culture such as Star Wars, anime, comic books, etc. Geek cred. Street cred. Geek card. Player card. 1. Geek Up
To step up and do something as a geek. If you're asked to help a relative configure their home computer, or if you're asked to volunteer your geek skills for a worthy cause, you're being asked to "geek up." 1. geek'd up
you're high off drugs
"Man Im geek'd up off dat weed man." 1. geek-gasm
The shudder of pleasure (physical for some of us) of watching or even contemplating geek TV/movies/games/comics/etc.
"Can you imagine if Joss Whedon wrote and directed a Harry Potter movie?"
"Oh my God, I just had a geek-gasm!" 1. geek bling
Geek bling is a term referring to computer parts worn as jewelry. It is generally ostentatious such as a net card hanging from a necklace but can be subtle as well, often used is a memory stick placed on a keychain. The term was coined by a student of Oak Hill Academy when the members of a Microsoft class took to wearing various computer parts from old computers on their key chains or lanyards. Any previous origins are unknown. It is alternately referred to as 'geek bling-bling' or on occasion '111001110' (binary for 'ice'). There is also classic geek-bling such as bowties and pocket protectors, as everyone knows pocket protectors are the pinnacle of geekdom. The geek-*.* entries just go on and on. A lot of these are stupid and reaching merely for the sake of reaching, but "geek" certainly has been used creatively as an adjective to freshen up otherwise stale language. This too shall pass.
How can any Court determine there is ever any copyright infringement without compelling the copying distribution and evidence exhibition to individuals in the Courtroom of the disputed content to determine whether indeed something is copyright infringement? Do they use a magic eight ball or ouija board to analyze the "evidence"? Maybe flip a coin to decide guilt/liability or innocence/non-liability?
Why is it that every creator of content is willfully ignorant of the thousands and millions of ideas they copy from others? Perhaps that have to intentionally not pay attention and be dumb in school so as not to be accused of learning anything by the sole method of learning for 99.9% of the population -- COPYING THE IDEAS OF OTHERS! You do realize you go to school to learn by copying the ideas of others into your brain?
So if you are so opposed to copying, er "stealing" in your words, the ideas and "work" of others, stop writing code you damn thief! So cut out this subterfuge. You think because it is easy to copy that you have a right to free stuff no matter what. You didn't invent a single word in that sentence. Stop expressing yourself by copying words you didn't invent.
Just because you are too lazy to seek voluntary payment in advance or even after the fact, is no excuse for using violence to hinder the building, spread, and innovation of culture and science.
All contracts are "bullshit". They exist solely because of government interference in the free market compelling continuing action in cases that it is not voluntarily forthcoming. And there are plenty of examples of illegitimate contracts. Contracts can be cancelled legally by bankruptcy for instance. Compelling a prostitute to perform promised sex acts after money was exchanged would be rape. Hence, past or present tense "agreement" does not even constitute the full necessary basis for contracts to be considered "legal".
Contracts are the cause of promises originating as unlimited fiat value, or fiat money, aka credit. Contracts were created to cause debt and servitude. Contracts are vehicles of theft and compulsion, evolved to compel military and feudal servitude. In the absence of contract, only present tense voluntary trade would account for all (or the near unanimous majority of) exchange. And no exchange ever occurs unless that which is received is by definition valued more than that which is given away in exchange. Government enforced contracts cause promises to be valued higher than they otherwise would be in the absence of government interference force, because those who "buy" or trade for contractual promises are really buying mafia (or government) thug (or police) enforcement. Contracts therefore create and initiate (controlled) violence. Such value of promises is still inherently massively unstable even in spite of the government interference.
Why are people paid bi-weekly or monthly rather than yearly or a decade in advance? Because contracts are inherently untrustworthy. Contracts cause excessive risk and carelessness, and therefore are inherently negligent. Contracts are also causing net society economic poverty whenever action is compelled upon past agreement terms and a party changes their subjective present tense valuation in the future.
Why does collateral exist? Why do credit ratings agencies exist? Because even the free market does not value contracts on par with the goods which are exchanged for promises.
But most importantly, contracts are wholly unnecessary to the division of labor and economic exchange. Government interference supplants and crowds out voluntary free market institutions which would exist and evolve to solve the "problems" of human cooperation. See credit not being extended after bankruptcy. See credit ratings agencies. See the creation of a welfare program for lawyers called "contract law".
Adblock Plus doesn't prevent ads being sent from ad servers (just prevents ads from being displayed), nor the wasted bandwidth. How much (as in percentage) traffic is generated by tracking users and sending individually tailored advertisements?