If there is any certain way to get Congress to forget about the moneyed interests and actually listen to the people they are supposed to represent having a bunch of pissed off students, and the parents of those students, pressuring them is it. Some things to remember for the protest signs and letters:
1) Congress does not have to grant copyright protection.
2) If they do grant protection, it has to be for a limited time.
3) One hour is a limited time.
4) Sharing knowledge and culture is an inalienable right.
Yes, of course -- we would trade books, tapes, or CDs. Humans weren't able to create digitally-perfect copies of anything until fairly recently -- less than a generation ago, yet you make it sound, like some "dawn-of-man" law of nature is being violated by these greedy *AA bastards.
So your mother didn't teach you songs as a child, possibly ones her mother taught her? Your father didn't show you how to use a hammer, as his father showed him? People have been doing such things since the first ape climbed down from the trees and they will never stop no matter how much they scream that they can "own" knowledge and culture.
Too bad, they are going to prison for 4-8 years each over their little "civil disobedience".
And well they should as they were attempting to sell, not share.
And if the right to do so is infringed, the important works of the entertainers will be completely lost on the next generations. Fortunately, hundreds of millions of CDs produced by the entertainers will make sure, anyone, who wants to, can preserve the cherished memories.
Many out of print books and old films have already been lost due to lack of profit and degrading media. CDs too, are perishable.
They just have to pay for each one.
Just as your family and friends freely passed their knowledge and culture to you, others will pass along theirs also. That has been the way information has been shared since the dawn of man and no law is going to change it.
Yes, because the right to share somebody else's creations with friends and strangers is unalienable.
Sharing information is as natural a human trait as walking and talking. It enables people to pass knowledge and culture from one generation to the next. Being that inalienable rights are pretty much defined as being those that are natural, sharing others creations could indeed be considered an inalienable right.
As a long time Civ player I've always wondered just why do we have so much interest in the Middle East? After all, shouldn't the American tribe concentrate on conquering their own island first before going about trying to take over the rest of the world? Sure I understand about aiming for a cultural win and never have been shy about bribing foreign powers to do my bidding but you would almost think that the American Chiefs have some deep down loathing of Aztec descendents or something.
Re:What about piracy psycology though?
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 1
I do get that we shouldn't have draconian laws or overly long protection, but I don't understand the crowd that basically says that there should never be copyright at all. I don't assign anthropomorphic properties to information because I think it's an absurd phrase.
I'm not assigning anthropomorphic properties to information, just people. They will share knowledge and culture freely because it is as natural for them to do so as is walking and talking.
Re:What about piracy psycology though?
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Even if he could think up some business model where he did something tangential and gave away the sounds, isn't that a waste? Shouldn't he be spending his time doing what he's best at? Shouldn't people be paying for the bit of what he does that they want (the sounds!)? It just seems so inefficient.
I never said he shouldn't be paid for making sounds. I get paid for the work I do, he should get paid too if his services are valuable. The problem he is having is getting paid over and over again for work that he did yesterday and I'm suggesting that he develop a business model that allows him to be compensated for his work upfront. He can hope all he wants that more stringent laws will make people quit stop sharing, but they won't. You would have to undo thousands of years of human evolution to do that.
Re:What about piracy psycology though?
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 1
I'm not so sure, people have a way do pay him for the stuff already - we're not talking big bucks either - and there are plenty of demos on his site if people just want to spread the news!
You're still thinking inside the copyright box model which, as your friend has learned, just isn't going to work well anymore. People are going to share no matter how many strict laws are put into place, it is just natural thing for them to do. It is, after all, how knowledge and culture have been passed along since the dawn of man. Since your friend runs such a small operation and his stuff is already out there this actually could be a great opportunity for him to look at other compensation models such as offering to create custom tracks.
Re:What about piracy psycology though?
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 1
And before people start with the 'information wants to be free' and 'find a new business model' - why should he?
It's not that "information wants to be free" so much as it's just natural for people to share knowledge and culture. If your friends stuff is good and people really do want it they will pay him to produce more if he gives them a way to do so.
There is no need to rationalize sharing knowledge and culture because it is normal human behavior. What needs to be rationalized are laws restricting what people do naturally. Encouraging creators to increase the amount of works that can be shared by offering them a limited monopoly is one such rationalization, but it falls flat on its face when the law prohibits people from ever sharing the work.
The human power of rationalization is quite strong indeed; no one is stupid enough to think that piracy is legal, and obviously people feel bad about it, so they try and make up stories saying how they're actually helping people by doing it. Yes, there are definitely valid points that need to be examined, as I said before, but still, it's illegal, and everyone knows it, so stop trying to justify it.
I find it harder to rationalize copyrights. Sharing information is a natural trait that enables people to pass knowledge and culture from one generation to the next so it is really quite stupid to think that laws are going to make them quit doing so. If you really want people to respect the law then you have to make the law allow for human behavior. Most people can accept some restrictions on things that come naturally to them, but the way copyright works today the restrictions are total. It would be one thing if people were not to pass knowledge and culture to others for a year or two and provide them with a list of works to which these restrictions apply, it is quite another when you tell them they have to assume that the sharing of anything is strictly prohibited for the remainder of their lives.
Yes, Linux runs just about every game written for it extremely well and has emulators that will run some popular titles written for foreign systems decently.
Because it's so easy to install drivers for ATI and Nvidia video cards?
Actually this one really surprised me. I've been using Linux since '99 so am accustomed to configuring things by the command line but a friend of mine installed Kubuntu last month and was astonished how simple it was to switch to the nVidia drivers...all point and click. I will admit I was a bit disappointed when I was told a reboot was "required" though.
Because it's easy to play HD-DVD?
I may have heard wrong but I could have sworn I saw somewhere that at least one of the HD-DVD players used Linux as its OS. I'd search for it but I don't think playing HD-DVDs will be much of an issue for at least a couple more years.
Music, movies, computer programs, and books are being copied all the time. Not enough is being done to stop it.
Have you really sat down and thought about just what it is they are trying to stop though? Sharing information is a natural human survival trait that allows people to pass knowledge and culture from one generation to the next.
1000 years ago, you couldn't restrict someone from telling their neighbor or son how to do any of those. Today, we have patents, copyrights, patent-copyrights (for software), process patents, plot patents, etc, etc.
The strangest part of of all this is they have to know that no matter how many laws they pass they will never stop people from sharing simply because it is a natural survival trait that enables humans to pass knowledge and culture from one generation to next.
so, are you ready to pay for content? cause its either adds that pay, or you pay for content. Someone has to.
Personally, I have no problems with ads as long as they are static and stay at the top of the page. If it's for a product I'm interested I'll even open the referenced link in another browser tab to get more information, and perhaps even buy it. But any ads that blinks, moves, or pops up gets immediately blocked if it somehow gets around NoScript and Adblock. Content providers know that those types of ads are not only irritating but waste users resources and time as well so should not be surprised when they are treated in kind.
I stopped reading after this point. I hope the conclusion was something on the lines of "it works if you have a live-in geek". That's a cop out - saying you've got a problem but it was resolved by the fact that your partner is a technical expert.
While copyright infringement is not theft, your average media consumer has as much excuse for knowingly downloading a song or movie in violation of copyright law as he or she does for taking a candybar from the supermarket without paying for it: none at all.
Actually they have the best of all possible "excuses". Acquiring and sharing knowledge and culture is as natural for humans to do as walking and talking.
Wrong again. This citizen wants strong copyright punishments - because he believes in copyright law and intellectual property. Many Slashdoters don't want such protection because they (mistakenly) assume their percieved (I.E. self assumed and created out of thin air) rights trump everyone elses rights.
Acquiring and sharing information is an inherit human ability that is as natural as walking upright. It is how people pass knowledge and culture from one generation to the next.
Feed nothing but numbers into some digital music decoder and you will not be pleased with the results.
I've done that...and sometimes the results can be quite pleasant.
Great works of art viewed under a proper magnification similarly become nothing but molecules, but their value is in their existence, not in the details of their representation.
You are right, molecules should not be copyrighted either.
Yes, a computer program is just a series of 1's and 0's in the end; but his point is that the AACS key is a number that doesn't do anything on its own.
I'm really not arguing against you or the OP and clearly understand his point. My point is that since everything digital can be boiled down to a single number those who wish copyright to survive are going to have to accept restrictions on the use of numbers.
We're not talking about code (eg. DeCSS) which actually does something, this is just a string of numbers.
Code also is just a string of numbers. Music, movies, and electronic books are strings of numbers as well. An interesting thing about strings of numbers is that when combined they become one number. You often hear people say that a number can not be copyrighted but obviously that is not the case because every thing digital can be represented by one single number.
Slashdot Mirror
If there is any certain way to get Congress to forget about the moneyed interests and actually listen to the people they are supposed to represent having a bunch of pissed off students, and the parents of those students, pressuring them is it. Some things to remember for the protest signs and letters:
1) Congress does not have to grant copyright protection.
2) If they do grant protection, it has to be for a limited time.
3) One hour is a limited time.
4) Sharing knowledge and culture is an inalienable right.
Yes, of course -- we would trade books, tapes, or CDs. Humans weren't able to create digitally-perfect copies of anything until fairly recently -- less than a generation ago, yet you make it sound, like some "dawn-of-man" law of nature is being violated by these greedy *AA bastards.
So your mother didn't teach you songs as a child, possibly ones her mother taught her? Your father didn't show you how to use a hammer, as his father showed him? People have been doing such things since the first ape climbed down from the trees and they will never stop no matter how much they scream that they can "own" knowledge and culture.
Too bad, they are going to prison for 4-8 years each over their little "civil disobedience".
And well they should as they were attempting to sell, not share.
And if the right to do so is infringed, the important works of the entertainers will be completely lost on the next generations. Fortunately, hundreds of millions of CDs produced by the entertainers will make sure, anyone, who wants to, can preserve the cherished memories.
Many out of print books and old films have already been lost due to lack of profit and degrading media. CDs too, are perishable.
They just have to pay for each one.
Just as your family and friends freely passed their knowledge and culture to you, others will pass along theirs also. That has been the way information has been shared since the dawn of man and no law is going to change it.
Yes, because the right to share somebody else's creations with friends and strangers is unalienable.
Sharing information is as natural a human trait as walking and talking. It enables people to pass knowledge and culture from one generation to the next. Being that inalienable rights are pretty much defined as being those that are natural, sharing others creations could indeed be considered an inalienable right.
As a long time Civ player I've always wondered just why do we have so much interest in the Middle East? After all, shouldn't the American tribe concentrate on conquering their own island first before going about trying to take over the rest of the world? Sure I understand about aiming for a cultural win and never have been shy about bribing foreign powers to do my bidding but you would almost think that the American Chiefs have some deep down loathing of Aztec descendents or something.
I do get that we shouldn't have draconian laws or overly long protection, but I don't understand the crowd that basically says that there should never be copyright at all. I don't assign anthropomorphic properties to information because I think it's an absurd phrase.
I'm not assigning anthropomorphic properties to information, just people. They will share knowledge and culture freely because it is as natural for them to do so as is walking and talking.
Even if he could think up some business model where he did something tangential and gave away the sounds, isn't that a waste? Shouldn't he be spending his time doing what he's best at? Shouldn't people be paying for the bit of what he does that they want (the sounds!)? It just seems so inefficient.
I never said he shouldn't be paid for making sounds. I get paid for the work I do, he should get paid too if his services are valuable. The problem he is having is getting paid over and over again for work that he did yesterday and I'm suggesting that he develop a business model that allows him to be compensated for his work upfront. He can hope all he wants that more stringent laws will make people quit stop sharing, but they won't. You would have to undo thousands of years of human evolution to do that.
I'm not so sure, people have a way do pay him for the stuff already - we're not talking big bucks either - and there are plenty of demos on his site if people just want to spread the news!
You're still thinking inside the copyright box model which, as your friend has learned, just isn't going to work well anymore. People are going to share no matter how many strict laws are put into place, it is just natural thing for them to do. It is, after all, how knowledge and culture have been passed along since the dawn of man. Since your friend runs such a small operation and his stuff is already out there this actually could be a great opportunity for him to look at other compensation models such as offering to create custom tracks.
And before people start with the 'information wants to be free' and 'find a new business model' - why should he?
It's not that "information wants to be free" so much as it's just natural for people to share knowledge and culture. If your friends stuff is good and people really do want it they will pay him to produce more if he gives them a way to do so.
There is no need to rationalize sharing knowledge and culture because it is normal human behavior. What needs to be rationalized are laws restricting what people do naturally. Encouraging creators to increase the amount of works that can be shared by offering them a limited monopoly is one such rationalization, but it falls flat on its face when the law prohibits people from ever sharing the work.
The human power of rationalization is quite strong indeed; no one is stupid enough to think that piracy is legal, and obviously people feel bad about it, so they try and make up stories saying how they're actually helping people by doing it. Yes, there are definitely valid points that need to be examined, as I said before, but still, it's illegal, and everyone knows it, so stop trying to justify it.
I find it harder to rationalize copyrights. Sharing information is a natural trait that enables people to pass knowledge and culture from one generation to the next so it is really quite stupid to think that laws are going to make them quit doing so. If you really want people to respect the law then you have to make the law allow for human behavior. Most people can accept some restrictions on things that come naturally to them, but the way copyright works today the restrictions are total. It would be one thing if people were not to pass knowledge and culture to others for a year or two and provide them with a list of works to which these restrictions apply, it is quite another when you tell them they have to assume that the sharing of anything is strictly prohibited for the remainder of their lives.
It is? Because games run on it so well?
Yes, Linux runs just about every game written for it extremely well and has emulators that will run some popular titles written for foreign systems decently.
Because it's so easy to install drivers for ATI and Nvidia video cards?
Actually this one really surprised me. I've been using Linux since '99 so am accustomed to configuring things by the command line but a friend of mine installed Kubuntu last month and was astonished how simple it was to switch to the nVidia drivers...all point and click. I will admit I was a bit disappointed when I was told a reboot was "required" though.
Because it's easy to play HD-DVD?
I may have heard wrong but I could have sworn I saw somewhere that at least one of the HD-DVD players used Linux as its OS. I'd search for it but I don't think playing HD-DVDs will be much of an issue for at least a couple more years.
Music, movies, computer programs, and books are being copied all the time. Not enough is being done to stop it.
Have you really sat down and thought about just what it is they are trying to stop though? Sharing information is a natural human survival trait that allows people to pass knowledge and culture from one generation to the next.
1000 years ago, you couldn't restrict someone from telling their neighbor or son how to do any of those. Today, we have patents, copyrights, patent-copyrights (for software), process patents, plot patents, etc, etc.
The strangest part of of all this is they have to know that no matter how many laws they pass they will never stop people from sharing simply because it is a natural survival trait that enables humans to pass knowledge and culture from one generation to next.
so, are you ready to pay for content? cause its either adds that pay, or you pay for content. Someone has to.
Personally, I have no problems with ads as long as they are static and stay at the top of the page. If it's for a product I'm interested I'll even open the referenced link in another browser tab to get more information, and perhaps even buy it. But any ads that blinks, moves, or pops up gets immediately blocked if it somehow gets around NoScript and Adblock. Content providers know that those types of ads are not only irritating but waste users resources and time as well so should not be surprised when they are treated in kind.
There's nothing wrong with copy protection.
Yes there is. It makes it difficult to copy things.
I stopped reading after this point. I hope the conclusion was something on the lines of "it works if you have a live-in geek". That's a cop out - saying you've got a problem but it was resolved by the fact that your partner is a technical expert.
Actually with just a little more research she would have found out that allows 64bit Firefox to use 32bit plugins.
While copyright infringement is not theft, your average media consumer has as much excuse for knowingly downloading a song or movie in violation of copyright law as he or she does for taking a candybar from the supermarket without paying for it: none at all.
Actually they have the best of all possible "excuses". Acquiring and sharing knowledge and culture is as natural for humans to do as walking and talking.
Wrong again. This citizen wants strong copyright punishments - because he believes in copyright law and intellectual property. Many Slashdoters don't want such protection because they (mistakenly) assume their percieved (I.E. self assumed and created out of thin air) rights trump everyone elses rights.
Acquiring and sharing information is an inherit human ability that is as natural as walking upright. It is how people pass knowledge and culture from one generation to the next.
Feed nothing but numbers into some digital music decoder and you will not be pleased with the results.
I've done that...and sometimes the results can be quite pleasant.
Great works of art viewed under a proper magnification similarly become nothing but molecules, but their value is in their existence, not in the details of their representation.
You are right, molecules should not be copyrighted either.
The notion that the representation is 'just' the number is an aggressive simplification.
Open any binary file in a hex editor and you see nothing but numbers.
Personally I only want to abolish the copyrighting of digits.
Yes, a computer program is just a series of 1's and 0's in the end; but his point is that the AACS key is a number that doesn't do anything on its own.
I'm really not arguing against you or the OP and clearly understand his point. My point is that since everything digital can be boiled down to a single number those who wish copyright to survive are going to have to accept restrictions on the use of numbers.
A computer program that utilizes the number to allow you to copy your HD-DVD is a tool.
No, a computer program is nothing more than a number. It only becomes a tool when run on a machine that uses it as such.
We're not talking about code (eg. DeCSS) which actually does something, this is just a string of numbers.
Code also is just a string of numbers. Music, movies, and electronic books are strings of numbers as well. An interesting thing about strings of numbers is that when combined they become one number. You often hear people say that a number can not be copyrighted but obviously that is not the case because every thing digital can be represented by one single number.