I think both sides of the copyright debate have a similar goal: Allow the creation of good ideas, or works of art with perceived value, to provide income for their creators.
Nope...one side of the copyright debate believes that all good ideas should be made available to all people freely while the other believes that good ideas should be made available only to those who can afford them.
Exceptions to this "law" such as Prohibition and Civil Rights immediately came to mind and the article itself confirmed my doubts. Duverger "himself did not regard his principle as absolute: instead he suggested that SMDP would act to delay the emergence of a new political force, and would accelerate the elimination of a weakening force -- PR would have the opposite effect." So it appears that with the two party system it may take longer to upset the apple cart but when the upsetting occurs the apples can fall like an avalanche while the plurality system actually provides buffers for those in power.
What a bunch of crap. Google has no 'right' to distribute whatever the hell . If I have a copyrighted material I don't want distributed by Google and their users want it, too bad. I own the friggin' right to decide distribution, not you, not Google. They are definitely not on the right side.
It is exactly this sort of response that is bringing things to a head. Just remember that in the US at least, copyright law is optional as far as the Constitution is concerned. If Congress votes tomorrow that your work isn't protected then your work isn't protected.
Quick, someone get EzInKy an infinite amount of monkeys!
Great response! The sticky key was especially funny at the end. I was of course thinking more along the lines of an infinite amount of threads on a large number of processors.
Considering the number of people who fled speakeasies when they were raided in the '20s, I'm not sure how you can call that civil disobedience either.
But I would submit that the vast number of people who fled speakeasies had a far greater influence on the eventual repeal of prohibition than those who willingly allowed themselves to be arrested.
While we are a ways off from being able to systematically arrange bits that would violate all works I think it would be possible to write a program that could shuffle enough dictionary words around to infringe somebody's copyright in a reasonable amount of time. I wonder how long it would take to output "it was a dark and stormy night"?
I say "anti-war" for while the majority of people there were against the war there were also significant amounts of gay-rights and other causes protesting.
Are you saying that gay-rights and other causes activists aren't good enough to protest the war with you?
But what is your point? Anything I keep completely to myself never enters the public domain in any meaningful way, regardless of copyright because it does not become available to anyone. That someone else might create something similar at some point in time is not going to change that at all.
As things stand now, you would be able to sue the independent creator despite your work not have being distributed.
And those authors are quite correct in believing that. As long as I create something and never ever show or give it to anyone else, it is also not part of the public domain, at least not in any meaningfull way.
It's not important whether you never show it or give it to anyone else, because nothing you create will be so unique that some other individual won't eventually create something very similar to it. By granting you a monopoly on a creation, copyright law prohibits others from expressing the idea behind your creation in same manner as you thus removing that expression from the public domain.
The problem of the Berne convention is not automatic copyright. Automatic copyright protects small and individual producers and allows them to concentrate on creating content instead of being bogged down with formalities.
Nope, I have to strenuously disagree. Copyright being automatic fosters the belief that it is some sort of natural right while the formalities of registration makes it clear that the protection is a contract with society.
The real problem is that copyright lasts virtually forever, preventing works from entering the public domain.
Term lengths are definitely a problem, but not nearly as large as the problem as authors believing that their works are not part of the public domain the moment they are created.
"The United States refused initially to become a party to the Convention, since it would have required major changes in its copyright law (particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of general requirement for registration of copyright works as well as elimination of mandatory copyright notice). However, on March 1, 1989, the US "Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988" came into force and the United States became a party to the Berne Convention."
As everyone can now see, signing the Berne Convention has brought nothing but trouble to the US. Before that the default was for works to be in the public domain and creators had to register for protection. And what really gets me is we did it at a time when creating an electronically searchable database of copyrighted works was becoming a real possibility. I have a great respect for the modern liberal ideals of Europe and would like to see the US incorporate many of them, but Berne is simply unforgivable.
The Constitution is the highest law in the US, above even federal. It can only be changed by a 67% majority vote in congress, and then a vote from 75% of the states.
Actually the States can amend the Constitution without Congressional interference by holding another Constitutional Convention.
TiVo's need to counter theft of service does not excuse them from going against the author's intentions to allow users to modify and execute his software to suit their needs.
Did you even watch the video? It is obviously a critical review. Think of the ramifications if all a corporation has to do to stop negative reviews of their products is file a DMCA takedown notice. There is no way in the world that protecting somebody's imaginary "property" is more important than protecting the first amendment.
"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. I'm not sure where I sit on this law, but this seems like an odd reason to strike it down, since children aren't given the same rights as adults in our society. The most obvious example of this is the right to vote. This comment seems to be out of line with the rest of the opinion.
If you take away the rights of adults today there will be none for minors to inherit tomorrow. .
Slashdot Mirror
I think both sides of the copyright debate have a similar goal:
Allow the creation of good ideas, or works of art with perceived value, to provide income for their creators.
Nope...one side of the copyright debate believes that all good ideas should be made available to all people freely while the other believes that good ideas should be made available only to those who can afford them.
Exceptions to this "law" such as Prohibition and Civil Rights immediately came to mind and the article itself confirmed my doubts. Duverger "himself did not regard his principle as absolute: instead he suggested that SMDP would act to delay the emergence of a new political force, and would accelerate the elimination of a weakening force -- PR would have the opposite effect." So it appears that with the two party system it may take longer to upset the apple cart but when the upsetting occurs the apples can fall like an avalanche while the plurality system actually provides buffers for those in power.
What a bunch of crap. Google has no 'right' to distribute whatever the hell . If I have a copyrighted material I don't want distributed by Google and their users want it, too bad. I own the friggin' right to decide distribution, not you, not Google. They are definitely not on the right side.
It is exactly this sort of response that is bringing things to a head. Just remember that in the US at least, copyright law is optional as far as the Constitution is concerned. If Congress votes tomorrow that your work isn't protected then your work isn't protected.
Nobody disputes that the key is a circumvention device and trafficking in it is illegal.
Didn't the A HREF=http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04
Quick, someone get EzInKy an infinite amount of monkeys!
Great response! The sticky key was especially funny at the end. I was of course thinking more along the lines of an infinite amount of threads on a large number of processors.
Considering the number of people who fled speakeasies when they were raided in the '20s, I'm not sure how you can call that civil disobedience either.
But I would submit that the vast number of people who fled speakeasies had a far greater influence on the eventual repeal of prohibition than those who willingly allowed themselves to be arrested.
Did the 1's and 0's arrange themselves?
While we are a ways off from being able to systematically arrange bits that would violate all works I think it would be possible to write a program that could shuffle enough dictionary words around to infringe somebody's copyright in a reasonable amount of time. I wonder how long it would take to output "it was a dark and stormy night"?
I say "anti-war" for while the majority of people there were against the war there were also significant amounts of gay-rights and other causes protesting.
Are you saying that gay-rights and other causes activists aren't good enough to protest the war with you?
Downloading a copyrighted work is against the law.
The catch being that there is no certain way to determine if a work is copyrighted until it is downloaded.
How do I tell for certain that someone own's a car in the parking lot?
By ensuring that the car is within a close enough range to be examined.
STOP VIOLATING COPYRIGHT by downloading the tracks.
How is it possible to tell for certain that a track is copyrighted before you download it?
Its about freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
If it were about freedom of religion it would be "In ______ We Trust" and "Under ______", so people could plug in their diety(s) of choice.
Having "In God We Trust" on our currency and "Under God" in our Pledge is not perfect freedom of religion.
But what is your point? Anything I keep completely to myself never enters the public domain in any meaningful way, regardless of copyright because it does not become available to anyone. That someone else might create something similar at some point in time is not going to change that at all.
As things stand now, you would be able to sue the independent creator despite your work not have being distributed.
And those authors are quite correct in believing that. As long as I create something and never ever show or give it to anyone else, it is also not part of the public domain, at least not in any meaningfull way.
It's not important whether you never show it or give it to anyone else, because nothing you create will be so unique that some other individual won't eventually create something very similar to it. By granting you a monopoly on a creation, copyright law prohibits others from expressing the idea behind your creation in same manner as you thus removing that expression from the public domain.
The problem of the Berne convention is not automatic copyright. Automatic copyright protects small and individual producers and allows them to concentrate on creating content instead of being bogged down with formalities.
Nope, I have to strenuously disagree. Copyright being automatic fosters the belief that it is some sort of natural right while the formalities of registration makes it clear that the protection is a contract with society.
The real problem is that copyright lasts virtually forever, preventing works from entering the public domain.
Term lengths are definitely a problem, but not nearly as large as the problem as authors believing that their works are not part of the public domain the moment they are created.
"The United States refused initially to become a party to the Convention, since it would have required major changes in its copyright law (particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of general requirement for registration of copyright works as well as elimination of mandatory copyright notice). However, on March 1, 1989, the US "Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988" came into force and the United States became a party to the Berne Convention."
As everyone can now see, signing the Berne Convention has brought nothing but trouble to the US. Before that the default was for works to be in the public domain and creators had to register for protection. And what really gets me is we did it at a time when creating an electronically searchable database of copyrighted works was becoming a real possibility. I have a great respect for the modern liberal ideals of Europe and would like to see the US incorporate many of them, but Berne is simply unforgivable.
The Constitution is the highest law in the US, above even federal. It can only be changed by a 67% majority vote in congress, and then a vote from 75% of the states.
Actually the States can amend the Constitution without Congressional interference by holding another Constitutional Convention.
They even have many DVDs you cannot even buy in the respective country due to not being released or even banned, films banned or censored...
Since censorship and withholding information are bad making these DVDs available has to be a good thing.
I dunno, maybe for the deterrent effect?
That worked well with Prohibition, didn't it? When enough people want to do something no law is going to stop them.
TiVo's need to counter theft of service does not excuse them from going against the author's intentions to allow users to modify and execute his software to suit their needs.
Did you even watch the video? It is obviously a critical review. Think of the ramifications if all a corporation has to do to stop negative reviews of their products is file a DMCA takedown notice. There is no way in the world that protecting somebody's imaginary "property" is more important than protecting the first amendment.
If copyright were merely a privilege, it could be stripped away. It can't: it lasts for at the least the duration of the creator's life.
If Congress passes a law that makes copyright duration 1 day, then copyright duration is one day.
Why the hell should the consumers get any right to content I create? How are copyright laws currently unfair to consumers?
"Congress shall make no law
Copyright laws abridge freedom of speech by restricting how ideas may be expressed.
"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. I'm not sure where I sit on this law, but this seems like an odd reason to strike it down, since children aren't given the same rights as adults in our society. The most obvious example of this is the right to vote. This comment seems to be out of line with the rest of the opinion.
If you take away the rights of adults today there will be none for minors to inherit tomorrow.
.