Actually, there is nothing in the article that says Google is bound to any word other than, "crook". The words, "litigious assholes", in French I assume, are not covered under the court order.
A new lawsuit would need to be filed, and I had Google's money, I would make them go all the way through the court system again.
I guess I must be really weird, no real surprise, but I use seat belts *because* they make me feel comfortable. I don't like the feeling without it.
It might be because I had a fairly good understanding of physics before I even started driving. Either that, or the fact that I got put in the back of huge ass track as a teenager when the cab was full.
At this point a nice comfortable bucket seat with a seat belt is luxurious when you have grown up holding on to the sides of a truck for dear life with a crazy fucker behind the wheel aiming for pot holes:) It was not that bad of course.... I had the dog with me for company.
In any case most people I found uncomfortable with a seat belt just did not figure out how to adjust the damn thing.
This refresh supposedly preserves not just documents, but installed metro apps.
The purpose of re-installing the OS (after wiping the drive) is usually to get rid of malware, not as a solution to performance problems.
Crapware is the least of my worries. How is Microsoft going to convince me that the refresh itself cannot be compromised? More specifically, how long will it take before somebody demonstrates an exploit that preserves the malware (rootkit) regardless of how many times the user clicks the "button"?
The only way to ever be sure is to "nuke it from orbit". Rootkits that can survive in equipment firmware are pretty damn rare, so I am fairly confident that wiping the drive completely is a sure way to get a clean install.
Data is just data. The most worrisome to me is of course PDF, but generally, data and documents can be cleaned pretty well. Programs always have to be re-installed.
I question the entire methodology of this "refresh" idea and whether or not it can even accomplish its purpose.
Your idea just flat does not work and is partly the reason why are we not having this discussion on a colony in another star system.
What, were you under the impression music, books, etc didn't exist before the advent of copyright law?
Not nearly as much. You don't know your history do you?
It was called arts patronage. Wealthy people sponsored artists and commissioned the works. In simpler terms for you, they paid for that shit. All of the great philosophers, artists, sculptors, inventors, sought out and were supported by wealthy patrons. Leonardo Davinci ring a bell for you? Want to go back further? Socrates? How about further than that? The Pyramids.
While I share your sentiment about the middlemen wanting their cut for nothing, you don't need to use that anger to destroy the copyright system entirely. Reform it, absolutely, destroy it? No.
They don't do it for the money, they do it for the GLORY
Great. So what do they do for the FOOD?
Your idea only works in the world of Star Trek where there is a seemingly endless supply of energy and replicators. Clean water, healthy food, adequate shelter and clothing, practically non-existent violent crime.
Sure...... in that world what the hell else would you do with your day except be an artisan, a scientist, a cook, a philosopher, etc.
We don't get there over night.
In the mean time you need to figure out how to live. The life of a starving artist does not sound that appealing to me. Neither does being a starving artist and having some big fat cat with money rip off your music, make a ton of cash with his own performers, and leave you still starving.... with all the glory of being the person that did it first.
Copyrights were originally designed to foster works by allowing the artist to be protected from big and small alike. You don't need a patron if you can create the work, find somebody with equipment to duplicate it, and legally pursue remedies against anybody that would attempt to profit from your work.
Believe it or not, it is a much better system than arts patronage.
As everything else though, it gets corrupted over time. We just need to realign copyrights with their original intent. That's all.
We all copy information freely in our personal lives. There isn't a single thought in your head that is entirely yours; it's all based on information copied for free from the outside world. This is humanity works, learns, and grows as a species. What if we had to pay every single time we listened to a song, or heard a speech, or watched a television show, or experienced anything other than complete silence? What a hellacious world that would be.
No fucking shit. That's why I said I cherish the Public Domain above all else. However, there is nothing wrong with allowing an artist the opportunity to profit for their works for a short period of time, like say, 10 years. Disney should have no copyrights for anything past 1980 at most in my opinion, and furthermore, I don't respect copyrights older than 30 years.
It's truly hilarious to me that so many people jumped on me like I was fucking Hitler resurrected for simply informing them that they have rights beyond the physical medium. It's so much better and flexible if you think for one little second about its implications.
You only compensate the artist once, and you have the rights to the copyrighted work to peacefully enjoy it, forever, or more specifically the life of the copyright.
Meantime, I'm happy that musicians are again oriented more on live performance, it ought to be their primary job but the incredible sales of vinyl, cassettes and cd's (in that chronology) also allowed artists to earn money without even singing in public.
Not unless the artist owned the label. Part of the problem is Big Content crying like a little bitch about the poor little artists and stealing billions from them with questionable accounting practices. Look how much they still owe artists in Canada.
Those sales give a pittance to the artist.
Same problem with health care. The middlemen, bureaucracy, and insurance costs inflate a 5c Band Aid to $50. If an artist made 25 million sales at 50c a piece that is a hugely comfortable lifestyle when you consider they might have 2 or 3 really popular tracks on an album.
The artists are being fucked, and piracy is the least of their problems.
Some of them are getting it though and bypassing the labels. Every "experiment" I have heard about has been pretty damn profitable.
HOW is that a problem, even if it does make it harder for some artists to become millionaires, when humanity as a whole benefits enormously?
This really depends on your philosophy on how to construct an advanced society. I would love to live in a Utopia like Star Trek where technology has reached the point that all famine and disease has been cured and there is no need for war. A meritocracy where people don't expend effort for any material rewards, but to contribute back to all of society.
However, the world we live in sucks a whole lot more.
I can't go into a grocery store and just walk out with whatever I want and need at the moment just because I can say I am a doctor and I heal people. It takes money to convince the store to let me leave with the materials.
People have to eat and support their families. Open source can work as long as it supported in some way financially. That is quite often a job separate from the work, corporations that are funding the project, or companies like RedHat that are selling support. It's also quite possible to build up such a reputation with an open source project that consulting contracts, book deals, lectures, etc. could provide a comfortable lifestyle.
That won't work for music, books, and movies. There needs to be some form of compensation to the copyright holder.
To that end, I support reasonable copyrights. Not what we have now, but I do support the idea of letting them control the work temporarily and then returning it back the Public Domain.
You were kind of dismissive about the artist, but how does humanity continue to benefit when the artists have no incentive? They are going to have to find a day job, because you are certainly not going to pay them right?
Again, copyrights have shifted towards the extreme end, and have largely been perverted. That does not make the premise invalid.
If you have another idea on how to protect and foster innovation and creative works, I am all ears. Let me know.
In a way, Big Content fucked itself. It had the the last 50-60 years (ever since vinyl records were sold) to educate the public and put forth the perception that you were not buying the record as much as you were buying the right to listen to the record. Important distinction, which would have lead to a real understanding of just what copyright is, and what intellectual property is.
So if it was damaged in any way they'd give me a new copy? And if it was remastered? And I'd have the right to listen to it on any device?
YES. ABSOLUTELY. FUCK YES.
That's the WHOLE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE!!!!!!!!!!
You purchased the legal entitlement to enjoy the work. That DOES mean you can make as many backup copies as you want on any medium you choose to do it with. You gave them money right? That was consideration, and what has always been the case, is that they delivered the right to you to enjoy that work.
So yes. You always should have been able to prove ownership of those legal entitlements and just paid a reasonable fee for the replacement cost, or just made a copy yourself from anywhere else.
If you purchased a music album and then lost the data, you are 100% entitled to go get it again by whatever means necessary. Including so-called piracy.
Why should you have to keep buying physical copy after physical copy just because the medium was damaged?
It's just like the bullshit with Microsoft. Why do you keep paying for that fucking OS license when you get a new computer when the old one is perfectly good and transferable to the new machine?
People throw away millions of dollars each year in software licenses for XP, Vista, Windows 7, etc. because they don't understand that either. I scrape those certificates off the machine, laminate them, and then stick them right back inside the machine when I do rebuilds. I'll be damned if MS is going to double, triple, and quadruple bill me just because I upgraded the machine a couple of times or bought a new one.
Value is a perception. I would not pay 1c for Britney Spears, while some people would pay retail.
Why are you under the impression that I am setting the value? I was not consulted when determining the MSRP for the music being sold.
My only point, was at the value set by others, nobody could possibly afford the libraries they have built.
You can disagree with it all you want. If you walked into a grocery store and took $500 worth of groceries and left a $20, you argument before the judge about "real value" won't go too far.
My whole point that people want to fight so hard is that you bought the rights to that copyrighted work. It just came delivered on the physical medium.
Who gives a shit about the medium. Once you obtained those legal rights, you can do whatever the hell you want with the copyrighted work in your own home, and in your own property, as long as you don't infringe upon the other rights. Namely, distribution, duplication, sale, etc.
It's not as bad as you think. Not at all. In fact, it is so much better.
Getting rid of the notion that you bought the physical medium only, is a major step forward.
I almost find it curiously strange that so many people are fighting this correct interpretation of Title 17 so hard, and it amazingly proves my point better than I ever could.
If you considered that you purchased a legal entitlement to the work, you could also consider that it is permanent and transferable. First Sale Doctrine? It's something that you own because you gave consideration for it.
Who cares about the physical medium. It was just the delivery mechanism. Since you bought that CD and the legal entitlements, it means you have the right to make as many backup copies as you want. You can "medium shift" all you want to your hearts desire. Transcode it from WAV, to MP3, to g729 (I dunno why...), to some form of Morse code if you want.
Sky is the limit. As long as you don't sell or distribute the copyrighted work, you are free to do whatever you want with it in your own private home as long as you want. Also known as peaceful enjoyment, another legal concept.
Why would you fight that? Why would you even want to fight that?
The way I look at it, once I paid the Beatles once for the full Album, I can download new copies as many times as I want. Burn as many copies as I want. Put it on flash drives, MP3 players, etc.
The legal entitlement sets you free. Physical mediums lock you down.
What gives?:)
P.S - I have a few dozen video games that are still in shrink wrap. I only purchased them for the legal entitlements. Once I had them, I downloaded the pirate version so I did not have to keep the CD in the drive all the damn time and kept the ISOs backed up on NAS protected with RAID 5. I see those physical mediums as just proof of purchase for the legal entitlements.
You people prove my point more than anything, which is the average person understands zilch about Title 17 and copyright.
I am not defending the RIAA, MAFIAA, or promulgating any kind of propaganda whatsoever. In fact, my greater understanding of copyright law is what allows me to fight more effectively.
People CAN own ideas. It's called a patent. People can also own expressions of ideas, also known as art.
Your opinion is not one that I share. It is a GREAT idea to allow people to own ideas, and expressions, TEMPORARILY. It encourages them to make more and allows them to feed their families. I can understand you sentiment to an extent since copyright has been pushed towards the extreme while harming the consumer.
That does not mean the very idea of compensating the artist and allowing them to control distribution, performance, and displays of their work for a small period of time is a fundamentally bad idea.
In this case "ownership" is really just semantic, because what is really happening is that copyright law (Title 17) says that they can treat their copyrights as real property (ownership) and enumerates a number of rights they have to control many different aspects of the copyrighted work.
When you think you own the data on the CD, you are wrong. What you own is a legal entitlement to said data. It is an important distinction.
I think it is hilarious you are all fighting this so hard without even seeing the benefit of the correct interpretation.
Dude, your Messiah Complex is showing. Didn't I see you on a street corner screaming at passersby, handing out your little pamphlets that inform people that you, and only you, know the proper interpretation of the Bible... excuse me, the law? You are DELUDED. Title 17 says sweet fuck-all about anyone granting anyone the right to view or hear anything. Lay of the drugs. You are a fanatic.
You people are hilarious. That part in Title 17 about display and performances has nothing to do with you performing acts amazingly similar to display and performance huh?
I know 2nd responses are faux pas here, but also consider this:
Why does the NFL go after small groups of private citizens trying to display Sunday football games on large screens in church gatherings?
That would seem to be pretty damn private to me. However, there have been court cases regarding it. We are not talking about sports bars either, but groups of private citizens where there are no business interests or products being sold.
The arguments the NFL makes in court are precisely about the legal entitlements you deny exist.
Not saying it is right or wrong, but it is awfully hard to win in court if copyright law did not allow for the control of the "display" in private settings.
No. There is no legal entitlement granted by the copyright holder when they sell you a "phonorecord" (the legal term for an artifact embodying an audio recording), aside from title to that particular phonorecord. There are legal effects of holding title to that phonorecord.
Did you read what you just wrote?
You said 1 !=1 in the first sentence and then proceeded to contradict yourself in the 2nd sentence with 1 == 1.
How did those legal effects originate? Leprechauns? Were Skittles and rainbows involved?
Those legal effects you are referring to originated from the sale of a copyrighted work wherein the copyright holder granted certain legal entitlements to you as part of the sale.
The physical phonorecord was 1 part of the sale, the legal entitlements were another.
You can, however, privately enjoy any copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder
No. You Can't.
That's the whole idea of copyright in the first place. It is *not* just the control of making copies of the work, the distribution of copies, but also the performances and displays of the work.
Reading the book in your own home, looking at the art being "displayed", and listening to the phonograph being "played" are all acts that are covered under the copyright and are available to be controlled.
Permission from the owner? Of what?
The physical medium?
No you are talking about the First Sale Doctrine and transfer of legal entitlements. When I "lend" you my book, I am also "lending" you my legal entitlements. This is not a problem in the case of a physical medium because it was a transfer in every sense of the word. I cannot read the book while you have it.
However, when it comes to an electronic copy of the book three acts of infringement have occurred:
1) Duplication - I, along with you, created a copy of that book. People want to make it extremely complicated, but the end result is that the 1's and 0's that made up the copyrighted book were copied from me to you. It would depend greatly on the technology employed, but it the responsibility could be shared between us for that act. 2) Distribution - Technically, because I allowed a copy to made, or may have encouraged it by making it available, it could be argued that I was committing the act of distribution. Debatable, to be sure. In the past distribution without profit was not considered criminal infringement, but at a large scale it is now. 3) Display - Now that you have a copy you are displaying it (people have really tried to make the whole thing complicated with memory, registers, sound cards, buffers, etc) without authorization from the copyright holder.
I love you guys. You prove my point better than I ever could because of your complete lack of understanding how Title 17 actually works.
There was no reason to fully understand it when only industries and those with expensive equipment could make copies. I am not surprised that you don't understand and are still limited, or blocked, by the physical medium.
Now that we are in the digital age, it really is important for you to understand, along with everyone else, just what copyright is.
Before you try coming back to me, READ TITLE 17. There is the original, and then the changes made in 1976. Read the whole thing, which is about 30-40 PDF documents on a government website and then we can have some legal arguments as to their interpretations.
You are talking about value. I am merely pointing out, that at retail prices (which is what they are selling for), people walking around with multi-TB libraries with nearly a million MP3's might actually have nearly a million dollars of value.
We can disagree with the copyright holder as to what the value is, I am only pointing out that for the average file sharer, they possess far more than they ever could have afforded at retail prices set by those copyright holders.
Wow. I have no idea how you got modded informative at all.
You are buying both the record and a legal entitlement granted by the copyright holder. Copyrights don't regulate publishers as an entity specifically, and solely in that scope. Those are just the middlemen. What a copyright allows is the copyright holder to control distribution, hence, they can control the publishing. Publishing is the act of creating copies......
From Wikipedia so you don't have to try and read the entire Title 17 from the US gov website:
to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies) to import or export the work to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work) to perform or display the work publicly to sell or assign these rights to others to transmit or display by radio or video[13]
First line allows the copyright holder to control the publishing of the work. 2nd line does as well.
3rd line controls derivative works, not to be confused with Fair Use. A parody is a special form of derivative use.
4th and 5th lines is what is being granted as a legal entitlement to the consumer when they compensate, aka provide consideration in a contract to the copyright holder.
It's highly humorous that you complain that Slashdot should know better when you don't even understand how copyright works.
As far as your references to online subscription services like Netflix, iTunes, and Zune what you have bought was a subscription governed by their Terms of Use. The copyright holders grant these corporations, through their proxies (aka Big Content), the right to sell or assign rights to others on their behalf. They allow by contract temporary rights to "display and perform" the works with your computer.
I'm simply amazed that you thought you were only buying a physical object, and a not also a representation (display or performance) of a copyrighted work. Your actions are controlled by law through copyrights, also known as legal entitlements. Unless the copyright holder grants you permission to do so, which they do by granting you legal entitlements they are in turn allowed to grant under copyright law, you are not allowed to enjoy the work.
Thank You.
You are the absolute best example of the confusion and misunderstanding of copyright that exists in the public.
You both make the real point, and why it leads to the perception that sharing is okay.
Copyrighted content used to be delivered by physical medium. It had separate value from that content. Those blank tapes cost money, blank CDs cost money too.
Digital came around and copies did not degrade, which meant that sharing was no longer limited to one or two "hops" before the quality was so low it was more preferable to buy a new copy.
In a way, Big Content fucked itself. It had the the last 50-60 years (ever since vinyl records were sold) to educate the public and put forth the perception that you were not buying the record as much as you were buying the right to listen to the record. Important distinction, which would have lead to a real understanding of just what copyright is, and what intellectual property is.
They did not want do to that, as that would have been logical, truthful, and fair. Anybody with a proof of purchase should have been able to walk into a store, or send a request, for a replacement copy and only paid for the cost of the medium, "printing", and shipping. Basically, a discount to get another copy back.
Maybe it was not that simple, but either way, public understanding of copyright was never very sophisticated.
Now that the content has been divested from the medium, in every sense, it's not a real surprise that the majority of people find sharing to be easy and "victim-less".
It was never possible to steal content, but now that you don't even need the physical medium, how do you retrain society to understand why it is important to pay for the works regardless of how cheap and easy it is to obtain a copy from an increasingly connected society where distribution channels are popping up as fast as new content?
At this point you don't even need blank CDs. An MP3 player and some external hard drives and all of the sudden your the fucking Library of Congress walking around with tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes nearly a million, in copyrighted content. Never mind that you could have only really afforded 1% of your library or less.
It's a serious problem. Society determines morality, not the other way around. I believe it is also referred to as the Elastic Clause in the US. Society has changed, but that does not seem to even slow down the push to destroy all of our freedoms to erect an impenetrable bulkhead to stop the erosion of profits for Big Content.
I support the idea to compensate artists, but quite frankly, it is becoming as hard to convince people of that as it is to educate them about copyrights in the first place.
I tried to post an ascii art penis picture here but Slashdot told me to user fewer junk characters.
How's that for irony. Go figure.
Anyways, you are rather insensitive. It's estimated that 8% of all people on their computers can't touch a keyboard without making ascii art penises for some reason. I dunno. Was making you a real big, veiny, triumphant bastard too.
Which brings up a good point, or question that is.
Does art imitate life, or does life imitate art?
How much Japanese Mange and Anime out there have the premise, much like Johnny Mnemonic, that there can be AI viruses out there designed to travel from system to system carrying out search and destroy orders.
I think the new Japanese politicians are Ghost in the Shell fans.....
Learn to read your own posts. You supported the restrictions on free speech and expression by another party and justified it through your references to proper etiquette.
Those are your own personal values, that quite possibly are shared by a majority of Americans. Including myself.
However, I support free speech and expression, even when I disagree with it and it deeply offends me.
While I may cherish the flag, only because of the values it represents, not the government it represents, I don't force that value upon others in the name of the very freedom I am trying to protect.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there is nothing in the article that says Google is bound to any word other than, "crook". The words, "litigious assholes", in French I assume, are not covered under the court order.
A new lawsuit would need to be filed, and I had Google's money, I would make them go all the way through the court system again.
I guess I must be really weird, no real surprise, but I use seat belts *because* they make me feel comfortable. I don't like the feeling without it.
It might be because I had a fairly good understanding of physics before I even started driving. Either that, or the fact that I got put in the back of huge ass track as a teenager when the cab was full.
At this point a nice comfortable bucket seat with a seat belt is luxurious when you have grown up holding on to the sides of a truck for dear life with a crazy fucker behind the wheel aiming for pot holes :) It was not that bad of course.... I had the dog with me for company.
In any case most people I found uncomfortable with a seat belt just did not figure out how to adjust the damn thing.
I figured the movie The Island of Doctor Moreau would be far more appropriate to the article.
Although I doubt any researcher is going to be as creepy and perverted as Val Kilmer in that movie.
Good one. Sorry I don't have mod points. +5 funny.
This refresh supposedly preserves not just documents, but installed metro apps.
The purpose of re-installing the OS (after wiping the drive) is usually to get rid of malware, not as a solution to performance problems.
Crapware is the least of my worries. How is Microsoft going to convince me that the refresh itself cannot be compromised? More specifically, how long will it take before somebody demonstrates an exploit that preserves the malware (rootkit) regardless of how many times the user clicks the "button"?
The only way to ever be sure is to "nuke it from orbit". Rootkits that can survive in equipment firmware are pretty damn rare, so I am fairly confident that wiping the drive completely is a sure way to get a clean install.
Data is just data. The most worrisome to me is of course PDF, but generally, data and documents can be cleaned pretty well. Programs always have to be re-installed.
I question the entire methodology of this "refresh" idea and whether or not it can even accomplish its purpose.
Your idea just flat does not work and is partly the reason why are we not having this discussion on a colony in another star system.
What, were you under the impression music, books, etc didn't exist before the advent of copyright law?
Not nearly as much. You don't know your history do you?
It was called arts patronage. Wealthy people sponsored artists and commissioned the works. In simpler terms for you, they paid for that shit. All of the great philosophers, artists, sculptors, inventors, sought out and were supported by wealthy patrons. Leonardo Davinci ring a bell for you? Want to go back further? Socrates? How about further than that? The Pyramids.
While I share your sentiment about the middlemen wanting their cut for nothing, you don't need to use that anger to destroy the copyright system entirely. Reform it, absolutely, destroy it? No.
They don't do it for the money, they do it for the GLORY
Great. So what do they do for the FOOD?
Your idea only works in the world of Star Trek where there is a seemingly endless supply of energy and replicators. Clean water, healthy food, adequate shelter and clothing, practically non-existent violent crime.
Sure...... in that world what the hell else would you do with your day except be an artisan, a scientist, a cook, a philosopher, etc.
We don't get there over night.
In the mean time you need to figure out how to live. The life of a starving artist does not sound that appealing to me. Neither does being a starving artist and having some big fat cat with money rip off your music, make a ton of cash with his own performers, and leave you still starving.... with all the glory of being the person that did it first.
Copyrights were originally designed to foster works by allowing the artist to be protected from big and small alike. You don't need a patron if you can create the work, find somebody with equipment to duplicate it, and legally pursue remedies against anybody that would attempt to profit from your work.
Believe it or not, it is a much better system than arts patronage.
As everything else though, it gets corrupted over time. We just need to realign copyrights with their original intent. That's all.
We all copy information freely in our personal lives. There isn't a single thought in your head that is entirely yours; it's all based on information copied for free from the outside world. This is humanity works, learns, and grows as a species. What if we had to pay every single time we listened to a song, or heard a speech, or watched a television show, or experienced anything other than complete silence? What a hellacious world that would be.
No fucking shit. That's why I said I cherish the Public Domain above all else. However, there is nothing wrong with allowing an artist the opportunity to profit for their works for a short period of time, like say, 10 years. Disney should have no copyrights for anything past 1980 at most in my opinion, and furthermore, I don't respect copyrights older than 30 years.
It's truly hilarious to me that so many people jumped on me like I was fucking Hitler resurrected for simply informing them that they have rights beyond the physical medium. It's so much better and flexible if you think for one little second about its implications.
You only compensate the artist once, and you have the rights to the copyrighted work to peacefully enjoy it, forever, or more specifically the life of the copyright.
Meantime, I'm happy that musicians are again oriented more on live performance, it ought to be their primary job but the incredible sales of vinyl, cassettes and cd's (in that chronology) also allowed artists to earn money without even singing in public.
Not unless the artist owned the label. Part of the problem is Big Content crying like a little bitch about the poor little artists and stealing billions from them with questionable accounting practices. Look how much they still owe artists in Canada.
Those sales give a pittance to the artist.
Same problem with health care. The middlemen, bureaucracy, and insurance costs inflate a 5c Band Aid to $50. If an artist made 25 million sales at 50c a piece that is a hugely comfortable lifestyle when you consider they might have 2 or 3 really popular tracks on an album.
The artists are being fucked, and piracy is the least of their problems.
Some of them are getting it though and bypassing the labels. Every "experiment" I have heard about has been pretty damn profitable.
HOW is that a problem, even if it does make it harder for some artists to become millionaires, when humanity as a whole benefits enormously?
This really depends on your philosophy on how to construct an advanced society. I would love to live in a Utopia like Star Trek where technology has reached the point that all famine and disease has been cured and there is no need for war. A meritocracy where people don't expend effort for any material rewards, but to contribute back to all of society.
However, the world we live in sucks a whole lot more.
I can't go into a grocery store and just walk out with whatever I want and need at the moment just because I can say I am a doctor and I heal people. It takes money to convince the store to let me leave with the materials.
People have to eat and support their families. Open source can work as long as it supported in some way financially. That is quite often a job separate from the work, corporations that are funding the project, or companies like RedHat that are selling support. It's also quite possible to build up such a reputation with an open source project that consulting contracts, book deals, lectures, etc. could provide a comfortable lifestyle.
That won't work for music, books, and movies. There needs to be some form of compensation to the copyright holder.
To that end, I support reasonable copyrights. Not what we have now, but I do support the idea of letting them control the work temporarily and then returning it back the Public Domain.
You were kind of dismissive about the artist, but how does humanity continue to benefit when the artists have no incentive? They are going to have to find a day job, because you are certainly not going to pay them right?
Again, copyrights have shifted towards the extreme end, and have largely been perverted. That does not make the premise invalid.
If you have another idea on how to protect and foster innovation and creative works, I am all ears. Let me know.
In a way, Big Content fucked itself. It had the the last 50-60 years (ever since vinyl records were sold) to educate the public and put forth the perception that you were not buying the record as much as you were buying the right to listen to the record. Important distinction, which would have lead to a real understanding of just what copyright is, and what intellectual property is.
So if it was damaged in any way they'd give me a new copy? And if it was remastered? And I'd have the right to listen to it on any device?
YES. ABSOLUTELY. FUCK YES.
That's the WHOLE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE!!!!!!!!!!
You purchased the legal entitlement to enjoy the work. That DOES mean you can make as many backup copies as you want on any medium you choose to do it with. You gave them money right? That was consideration, and what has always been the case, is that they delivered the right to you to enjoy that work.
So yes. You always should have been able to prove ownership of those legal entitlements and just paid a reasonable fee for the replacement cost, or just made a copy yourself from anywhere else.
If you purchased a music album and then lost the data, you are 100% entitled to go get it again by whatever means necessary. Including so-called piracy.
Why should you have to keep buying physical copy after physical copy just because the medium was damaged?
It's just like the bullshit with Microsoft. Why do you keep paying for that fucking OS license when you get a new computer when the old one is perfectly good and transferable to the new machine?
People throw away millions of dollars each year in software licenses for XP, Vista, Windows 7, etc. because they don't understand that either. I scrape those certificates off the machine, laminate them, and then stick them right back inside the machine when I do rebuilds. I'll be damned if MS is going to double, triple, and quadruple bill me just because I upgraded the machine a couple of times or bought a new one.
Same concept with a music CD.
Value is a perception. I would not pay 1c for Britney Spears, while some people would pay retail.
Why are you under the impression that I am setting the value? I was not consulted when determining the MSRP for the music being sold.
My only point, was at the value set by others, nobody could possibly afford the libraries they have built.
You can disagree with it all you want. If you walked into a grocery store and took $500 worth of groceries and left a $20, you argument before the judge about "real value" won't go too far.
My whole point that people want to fight so hard is that you bought the rights to that copyrighted work. It just came delivered on the physical medium.
Who gives a shit about the medium. Once you obtained those legal rights, you can do whatever the hell you want with the copyrighted work in your own home, and in your own property, as long as you don't infringe upon the other rights. Namely, distribution, duplication, sale, etc.
It's not as bad as you think. Not at all. In fact, it is so much better.
Getting rid of the notion that you bought the physical medium only, is a major step forward.
I almost find it curiously strange that so many people are fighting this correct interpretation of Title 17 so hard, and it amazingly proves my point better than I ever could.
If you considered that you purchased a legal entitlement to the work, you could also consider that it is permanent and transferable. First Sale Doctrine? It's something that you own because you gave consideration for it.
Who cares about the physical medium. It was just the delivery mechanism. Since you bought that CD and the legal entitlements, it means you have the right to make as many backup copies as you want. You can "medium shift" all you want to your hearts desire. Transcode it from WAV, to MP3, to g729 (I dunno why...), to some form of Morse code if you want.
Sky is the limit. As long as you don't sell or distribute the copyrighted work, you are free to do whatever you want with it in your own private home as long as you want. Also known as peaceful enjoyment, another legal concept.
Why would you fight that? Why would you even want to fight that?
The way I look at it, once I paid the Beatles once for the full Album, I can download new copies as many times as I want. Burn as many copies as I want. Put it on flash drives, MP3 players, etc.
The legal entitlement sets you free. Physical mediums lock you down.
What gives? :)
P.S - I have a few dozen video games that are still in shrink wrap. I only purchased them for the legal entitlements. Once I had them, I downloaded the pirate version so I did not have to keep the CD in the drive all the damn time and kept the ISOs backed up on NAS protected with RAID 5. I see those physical mediums as just proof of purchase for the legal entitlements.
You people prove my point more than anything, which is the average person understands zilch about Title 17 and copyright.
I am not defending the RIAA, MAFIAA, or promulgating any kind of propaganda whatsoever. In fact, my greater understanding of copyright law is what allows me to fight more effectively.
People CAN own ideas. It's called a patent. People can also own expressions of ideas, also known as art.
Your opinion is not one that I share. It is a GREAT idea to allow people to own ideas, and expressions, TEMPORARILY. It encourages them to make more and allows them to feed their families. I can understand you sentiment to an extent since copyright has been pushed towards the extreme while harming the consumer.
That does not mean the very idea of compensating the artist and allowing them to control distribution, performance, and displays of their work for a small period of time is a fundamentally bad idea.
In this case "ownership" is really just semantic, because what is really happening is that copyright law (Title 17) says that they can treat their copyrights as real property (ownership) and enumerates a number of rights they have to control many different aspects of the copyrighted work.
When you think you own the data on the CD, you are wrong. What you own is a legal entitlement to said data. It is an important distinction.
I think it is hilarious you are all fighting this so hard without even seeing the benefit of the correct interpretation.
Dude, your Messiah Complex is showing. Didn't I see you on a street corner screaming at passersby, handing out your little pamphlets that inform people that you, and only you, know the proper interpretation of the Bible ... excuse me, the law? You are DELUDED. Title 17 says sweet fuck-all about anyone granting anyone the right to view or hear anything. Lay of the drugs. You are a fanatic.
You people are hilarious. That part in Title 17 about display and performances has nothing to do with you performing acts amazingly similar to display and performance huh?
LOL.
When I buy a CD or a DVD, I do not enter into any contract. Next.
Copyright law covers your actions whether you agreed to it or not.
That's like saying since you never agreed to a speed limit, you can do 100 mph on the road without consequence. Next.
That's funny, I just turned on a radio and listened to a song. I didn't pay anything, nor did I enter into a contract.
You did not have to pay anything. The radio station did. You are still in a contract whether you like it or not.
Copyright law creates legal entitlements with or without your approval, involvement, participation, etc.
I know 2nd responses are faux pas here, but also consider this:
Why does the NFL go after small groups of private citizens trying to display Sunday football games on large screens in church gatherings?
That would seem to be pretty damn private to me. However, there have been court cases regarding it. We are not talking about sports bars either, but groups of private citizens where there are no business interests or products being sold.
The arguments the NFL makes in court are precisely about the legal entitlements you deny exist.
Not saying it is right or wrong, but it is awfully hard to win in court if copyright law did not allow for the control of the "display" in private settings.
You're both wrong.
Sheesh. Try reading Title 17.
No. There is no legal entitlement granted by the copyright holder when they sell you a "phonorecord" (the legal term for an artifact embodying an audio recording), aside from title to that particular phonorecord. There are legal effects of holding title to that phonorecord.
Did you read what you just wrote?
You said 1 !=1 in the first sentence and then proceeded to contradict yourself in the 2nd sentence with 1 == 1.
How did those legal effects originate? Leprechauns? Were Skittles and rainbows involved?
Those legal effects you are referring to originated from the sale of a copyrighted work wherein the copyright holder granted certain legal entitlements to you as part of the sale.
The physical phonorecord was 1 part of the sale, the legal entitlements were another.
You can, however, privately enjoy any copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder
No. You Can't.
That's the whole idea of copyright in the first place. It is *not* just the control of making copies of the work, the distribution of copies, but also the performances and displays of the work.
Reading the book in your own home, looking at the art being "displayed", and listening to the phonograph being "played" are all acts that are covered under the copyright and are available to be controlled.
Permission from the owner? Of what?
The physical medium?
No you are talking about the First Sale Doctrine and transfer of legal entitlements. When I "lend" you my book, I am also "lending" you my legal entitlements. This is not a problem in the case of a physical medium because it was a transfer in every sense of the word. I cannot read the book while you have it.
However, when it comes to an electronic copy of the book three acts of infringement have occurred:
1) Duplication - I, along with you, created a copy of that book. People want to make it extremely complicated, but the end result is that the 1's and 0's that made up the copyrighted book were copied from me to you. It would depend greatly on the technology employed, but it the responsibility could be shared between us for that act.
2) Distribution - Technically, because I allowed a copy to made, or may have encouraged it by making it available, it could be argued that I was committing the act of distribution. Debatable, to be sure. In the past distribution without profit was not considered criminal infringement, but at a large scale it is now.
3) Display - Now that you have a copy you are displaying it (people have really tried to make the whole thing complicated with memory, registers, sound cards, buffers, etc) without authorization from the copyright holder.
I love you guys. You prove my point better than I ever could because of your complete lack of understanding how Title 17 actually works.
There was no reason to fully understand it when only industries and those with expensive equipment could make copies. I am not surprised that you don't understand and are still limited, or blocked, by the physical medium.
Now that we are in the digital age, it really is important for you to understand, along with everyone else, just what copyright is.
Before you try coming back to me, READ TITLE 17. There is the original, and then the changes made in 1976. Read the whole thing, which is about 30-40 PDF documents on a government website and then we can have some legal arguments as to their interpretations.
You are talking about value. I am merely pointing out, that at retail prices (which is what they are selling for), people walking around with multi-TB libraries with nearly a million MP3's might actually have nearly a million dollars of value.
We can disagree with the copyright holder as to what the value is, I am only pointing out that for the average file sharer, they possess far more than they ever could have afforded at retail prices set by those copyright holders.
Wow. I have no idea how you got modded informative at all.
You are buying both the record and a legal entitlement granted by the copyright holder. Copyrights don't regulate publishers as an entity specifically, and solely in that scope. Those are just the middlemen. What a copyright allows is the copyright holder to control distribution, hence, they can control the publishing. Publishing is the act of creating copies......
From Wikipedia so you don't have to try and read the entire Title 17 from the US gov website:
to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies)
to import or export the work
to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work)
to perform or display the work publicly
to sell or assign these rights to others
to transmit or display by radio or video[13]
First line allows the copyright holder to control the publishing of the work. 2nd line does as well.
3rd line controls derivative works, not to be confused with Fair Use. A parody is a special form of derivative use.
4th and 5th lines is what is being granted as a legal entitlement to the consumer when they compensate, aka provide consideration in a contract to the copyright holder.
It's highly humorous that you complain that Slashdot should know better when you don't even understand how copyright works.
As far as your references to online subscription services like Netflix, iTunes, and Zune what you have bought was a subscription governed by their Terms of Use. The copyright holders grant these corporations, through their proxies (aka Big Content), the right to sell or assign rights to others on their behalf. They allow by contract temporary rights to "display and perform" the works with your computer.
I'm simply amazed that you thought you were only buying a physical object, and a not also a representation (display or performance) of a copyrighted work. Your actions are controlled by law through copyrights, also known as legal entitlements. Unless the copyright holder grants you permission to do so, which they do by granting you legal entitlements they are in turn allowed to grant under copyright law, you are not allowed to enjoy the work.
Thank You.
You are the absolute best example of the confusion and misunderstanding of copyright that exists in the public.
You both make the real point, and why it leads to the perception that sharing is okay.
Copyrighted content used to be delivered by physical medium. It had separate value from that content. Those blank tapes cost money, blank CDs cost money too.
Digital came around and copies did not degrade, which meant that sharing was no longer limited to one or two "hops" before the quality was so low it was more preferable to buy a new copy.
In a way, Big Content fucked itself. It had the the last 50-60 years (ever since vinyl records were sold) to educate the public and put forth the perception that you were not buying the record as much as you were buying the right to listen to the record. Important distinction, which would have lead to a real understanding of just what copyright is, and what intellectual property is.
They did not want do to that, as that would have been logical, truthful, and fair. Anybody with a proof of purchase should have been able to walk into a store, or send a request, for a replacement copy and only paid for the cost of the medium, "printing", and shipping. Basically, a discount to get another copy back.
Maybe it was not that simple, but either way, public understanding of copyright was never very sophisticated.
Now that the content has been divested from the medium, in every sense, it's not a real surprise that the majority of people find sharing to be easy and "victim-less".
It was never possible to steal content, but now that you don't even need the physical medium, how do you retrain society to understand why it is important to pay for the works regardless of how cheap and easy it is to obtain a copy from an increasingly connected society where distribution channels are popping up as fast as new content?
At this point you don't even need blank CDs. An MP3 player and some external hard drives and all of the sudden your the fucking Library of Congress walking around with tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes nearly a million, in copyrighted content. Never mind that you could have only really afforded 1% of your library or less.
It's a serious problem. Society determines morality, not the other way around. I believe it is also referred to as the Elastic Clause in the US. Society has changed, but that does not seem to even slow down the push to destroy all of our freedoms to erect an impenetrable bulkhead to stop the erosion of profits for Big Content.
I support the idea to compensate artists, but quite frankly, it is becoming as hard to convince people of that as it is to educate them about copyrights in the first place.
I tried to post an ascii art penis picture here but Slashdot told me to user fewer junk characters.
How's that for irony. Go figure.
Anyways, you are rather insensitive. It's estimated that 8% of all people on their computers can't touch a keyboard without making ascii art penises for some reason. I dunno. Was making you a real big, veiny, triumphant bastard too.
Fucking Slashdot filters.
Does anyone know the people from SNL?
Oh sure. I go to temple all the time with Adam Sandler. I'll ask him this weekend.
Not someone. A government.
Take a guess if all the participating members of the UN Security Council could agree to use their missiles to shoot down those hacker satellites?
Hmmmm...... It's as if they think space somehow makes their communication equipment untouchable by governments.
Which brings up a good point, or question that is.
Does art imitate life, or does life imitate art?
How much Japanese Mange and Anime out there have the premise, much like Johnny Mnemonic, that there can be AI viruses out there designed to travel from system to system carrying out search and destroy orders.
I think the new Japanese politicians are Ghost in the Shell fans.....
I have found my new sig.
Oh, and thanks butthead. I have to go get some windex and paper towels to get the coffee off my monitors :)
P.S - I think we should create a crowd funded website to pay that actor to make a commercial for Linux with your script.
Learn to read your own posts. You supported the restrictions on free speech and expression by another party and justified it through your references to proper etiquette.
Those are your own personal values, that quite possibly are shared by a majority of Americans. Including myself.
However, I support free speech and expression, even when I disagree with it and it deeply offends me.
While I may cherish the flag, only because of the values it represents, not the government it represents, I don't force that value upon others in the name of the very freedom I am trying to protect.
Does not make much sense.
Kind of like killing for Jesus.