Not to mention what this will do for the trade deficit. People have been complaining about the huge trade deficit for a long tine when the dollar was strong. I never understood how people could really complain: "Oh, those poor Americans and their dollar is so strong that they can buy ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING in the world". Can I just say HUH?!? So what is going to and is happening now? Dollar is weak and foreigners are going to start buying us out? Investing? no, but vacationing and such at least.
At least for immediate crisis.
I DO think we are going to get killed in the world market because we have such an INSANE tax system. It is virtually impossible to start a competitive business without a team of lawyers. And we blame lawyers?? We NEED FairTax and I was dumbfounded that it is a partisan issue. Somehow it must be unfair if only rich conservatives can see its value? I have really lost a lot of faith in the democratic party (which may not say much) to say that simple and transparent government would help the rich and burn the poor. Is the lower class really so hopeless that such a proposal isn't even worth discussing or negotiating? Even I can't be THAT cynical.
They don't get shoved down my throat, they get shoved in my mailbox. I seriously get several loan offers EVERY DAY, and I shove them on the fireplace. If they are going to pay people for being stupid, then they owe me a lot of money.
Well, I had it explained to me in a way that made a lot of sense, and I have (little) sympathy. I have seen predatory lending practices, but I don't personally see that as what happened in this case either, particularly when interest rates have continued to go down. So it seems to have gone like this:
1) Local banks make conservative loans based on good data to protect their own investors 2) Recession kicks in and more people are saving, putting more money into conservative investments with big banks 3) Big banks are more desperate to loan out money and rather than make direct loans they buy up mortgages from small banks. 4) Small banks looking to make a quick turn around investment start taking on very risky loans (lending money to people that SHOULD NOT be borrowing money) offsetting the risk with the knowledge that a big bank will buy out the loan anyway. Meanwhile the big banks assume they are buying out loans from banks that were risking their own money. 5) People that couldn't afford their mortgages to begin with didn't pay them, but their bank already made the money off the loan. 6) Greedy suckers that naively bought up every loan without considering the risk are stuck.
There are problems that can occur that are beyond people's control that deserve sympathy, but saving people that took loans they could not afford, and big banks that likely drastically reduced their overhead cost in the short term;) to make some money? The small banks were just playing the market; they did their homework, and came out on top. Further, they extended home ownership opportunities that wouldn't have otherwise been available in a more conservative market. So what is the big deal? That is the cost of freedom. I want to own a home, but not in this market. I could even get a home loan, but only because I know some banks that are more shady than others. There are all kinds of risks at every level people can take at any time. There is no law that says "You must own a house" or "Only lend to the rich", and this is the kind of situation we end up with sometimes.
If we want to safely extend opportunities to underprivileged, why not extend opportunities to poor people (or anyone for that matter) BEFORE they sign their lives away a loan they SHOULD have understood the terms of. Spend the money on educating people about mortgages and credit cards. Set aside money for first time home buyers to subsidize interest (People should save for their down payment because if you can't save for a down payment, why should you be trusted with making a house payment when you have already proven you can't even make a payment into a savings account). This would reward making payments and being responsible.
When giving money to people for taking on a risk that they should have not made, what kind of message does that send to people that knew better than to buy more than they could afford.
btw, I know there is a lot of societal pressure to own a home, and have difficulties with managing their money well, and want to do the best for their families even at a high risk. The above is just what I have considered when making choices for my own family.
I've been married for some time, and I know I have taken on certain kinds of risks for the sake of doing better for my family I would not have made when single. But I got the same notices and offers for credit as everyone else. It was VERY tempting, but I knew it was selfish and thought either "This bank doesn't know me very well", or "These banks are trying to pull some kind of scam". The reality was I knew I could afford the mortgage, kinda, but I am not so stable or financially secure enough to know I could afford the entire term of the loan. I did not know I could make every payment, even if I was pretty sure about the first 12. I just told myself I simply couldn't risk my family on too many unknown factors. I was (and am) much better off renting for now. Preferably, I need to be in a situation where my income is 3x the mortgage.
The only counterpoints I could think of would only apply in an open development environment which both don't apply, and are well beyond the scope of the issues mentioned so far, so you are right. I think that is a great argument on how the principles set in the Statute of Anne were appropriate beyond whatever technology brought to the future with respect to the distribution. Thank you, and I look forward to quoting you on some of those pieces, if you don't mind;)
Then allow it to be renewable by the rights holder (when the rights are transfered). Rights are transfered at death whether or not there was a will, because a copyright is property (Remember, the copyright is the property, not the work itself). The only disadvantage for older artists would be the pressure to sell out so that they can get a larger fraction of the copyright value sooner, but this is little different than an older person paying extra for a car with greater longevity because it is less likely they will claim the benefits.
Thinking about it though, think this is why we have age discrimination laws. I can't think of any industry where there isn't going to necessarily be a disadvantage to start older, except teaching. Not to be insulting in any way, just don't see the disparity between the copyright and other industries.
That I don't understand, and would appreciate some clarity. How does longevity side with the copyrights of the original artist versus the public? What come to mind for me is the infrastructure for media distribution in the time of the Statute of Anne. 14 years at that time was considered plenty of time for a long time after to make a profit. Today, the avenues for product distribution are much greater in terms of both speed and control. This tells me that it would be both reasonable and necessary to make the term shorter.
Something I haven't even heard Lessig address is value to public domain. Public domain was never about collecting works that are worthless to be protected by the government to be thrown into a historical archive so they are not lost, it is about the culture that we recognize is shared between all of us. Arguing over copyright to make sure that every little penny of net worth can possibly be sucked dry by the artist was not the purpose of copyright law. There needs to be a balance between respecting artists, and respecting that all progress is built on the past, and the new past does not get to control the future... at least it shouldn't.
While I don't have an idea what a simple solution could be, I would really like to know where those rights divide, between artist and progress, in a way that is not, necessarily, judged on the commercial value of the work alone.
The only empirical evidence where data was used to calculate maximum profitability for a creative work was in The Long Tail, and to the authors surprise, he concluded that the most reasonable copyright term would be 4 years, 3 years renewable for a max term of 7 years. Anything longer was pointless and hindered progress.
I have no desire to see copyright widdled away towards something reasonable. It was extended past 14 years through a corrupted process people are recognizing, and it is time for it to be fixed!
1) Truth in history is better.
2) Who do you trust with picking which histories get erased
3)While honesty can be disturbing, such as Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). The first was SHOCKING, the second book ruined his career for merely publishing the honest survey responses of people. Fortunately this honesty brought about a certain honesty in discussing such issues openly that has helped lead to the sexual revolution in the US.
Most of the sexual revolution was not a matter of enlightening anyone, but a new culture and atmosphere people were born into. People bork into this era will be born into a more honest one, and people will take with the same grain or salt "Disturbing the Peas" as did the last generation took "got a warning". This (short) video discusses exactly the same issue with respect to at least one presidential hopeful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpBzQI_7ez8
copyright was originally invented to control usage of the printing press. There were major copyright implications as a result of the printing press, though it may have been the first time that it became an international issue. Before the Statute of Anne, any public performance or copying of works required the permission of the King. Writing in Latin and public performances were the biggest copyright issues before the printing press by many hundreds of years.
Also, big media has argued over every new technology, and how it was going to be the death of creativity. Some adapted, many perished, and every time artists and consumers won overall. There is at this point I feel a drawl, but my hope is that big media can't beat progress or nature, and a government that tries to defy nature will ultimately perish as well.
Further, boxed media with respect to music has been short lived compared to the profitability of live concerts. I don't see a world where touring is required for making money in music as a terrible one. Wasn't a bad place 30 years ago.
I am not sure I understand. I was arguing for a reasonable, fix period of time without respect to the life of the author. When an employee is making content for a company, that content gets a fixed 95 years from time of publication, or 120 years max. However, profit wise, I am sure the content industry is aware of "The Long Tail", even if it is an issue they like to avoid. In this respect the content industry is interested in control, not profit, when making purchases, as copyright value for an individual work is limited to 4 years for most works, and 7 in the rarest of circumstances.
The only other part about lifetime I was arguing was that the in Eldred the supreme court said that the constitutions "limited period" means congress can set any period of time such that it is not "forever". I was arguing existentially that a term greater than my lifetime IS forever.
A 20 minute video done by Lawrence Lessig on why he supports Obama. Would it be too much to consider that the endorsement of the Electronic Freedom Foundation?
That does give me some comfort over some of the things that REALLY concern me over Obama as mentioned above.
... will likely make its way to the supreme court. The complexity of the case, and the controversy over YOUR Intellectual Property versus MY culture. Lawrence Lessig is on staff for RDR Books defending, the same lawyer that fought (ok, and lost) in Eldred v. Ashcroft. I know this is too much to ask, but I see no reason not to revert back to the Statute of Anne. Give copyright holders a FIRM grip over their IP to allow them to reap its rewards and present it the way they desire, BUT, after a "Limited Period of Time", give it to the people to let it grow and thrive.
Unless we are going to argue reincarnation, this lifetime is the only one I have. 'Forever' is my entire lifetime, or anyone elses. Nothing that is part of my culture can be remixed or reused by myself or virtually any generation I will ever see when there is a term limit of life + 70 years / 120 years.
Anyway, Lessig and others learned some HARD lessons, such as the power of money among other things, not to mention the series of some good small wins for EFF over the past year, for GPL and such, showing the value free and freedom to the public.
In light of the entire history of supreme court they can seem small, they have ruled on the side of reason defying long standing law, and majority opinion: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946). United States v. Miller, 317 U. S. 369. While Miller had to do with government taking, why can not the same PROPERTY law apply as they keep arguing. "It is the owner's loss, not the taker's gain, which is the measure of the value of the property taken." was ruled.
As for Rowling v. RDR Books, IMO, an idea only becomes culture AFTER it is given to the public. And you CAN'T copyright an IDEA. Making cultural references to an idea aren't piracy, and not even plagiarism, it is literature in its absolute meaning.
So I hope that this case shows that the supreme court is ready to rule on the side of reason that Congress CAN NOT hide away like it did after LaMacchia with the NET Act. Eldred v. Ashcroft 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ruled the way it did because the argument made could not beat the argument of big money, so YES, I think this case COULD have major implications in the near future over copyright.
The only circumstances under which I could be persuaded otherwise would be if they tax this PROPERTY progressively with respect to the amount of time on copyright, gross value earned from copyright, and number of copyrights held by a person. This would make it EQUAL with real property. At present, any vaguely original though or artistry I express in a tangible way has GREATER protection than the home for my family. And before I am accused of making a straw man, consider the ways you can loose and reclaim an IP versus the way you can loose and reclaim your house.
Hope that wasn't too off topic for anyone, just my thoughts on the supreme court and reason.
Well, If I was duped (no pun intended), so be it. Doesn't mean I disagree. I will admit I poorly remember which posts are from who or what their political alignment / agendas are from the past based on meme.
Ok, I'll agree that the entire thread is off topic to the point of the article, but the article itself was completely lacking in substance. The arguments in this thread, albeit extreme from both ends was attempting to bring up the most important part that upsets people about this type of article: It is easy to agree with if you DON'T know the issues involved, and in this case the matter in which twitter was responding was how the media giant/ISP will be tracking down customers / downloaders. Not to mention the fact that these articles are trying to convince people of something that is simply NOT true. Maybe the law should change, but for now downloading copyrighted material from a site without permission isn't even copyright infringement except by the person that made it available to you, but at the same time "making available" isn't illegal. BitTorrent has the special circumstances of necessitating uploading when you download, not to mention that based on the article the only type of tracking they could have been talking about was that type of P2P. Using limewire may be wrong morally, but has no legal implications I know of Iin the US) for the downloader that does not share their downloaded music. Does that make it right? no. What these guys are going to do is download a mass of torrents, join the swarms, and send notices to the account holder of every IP address in the swarm without further evidence.
There is good content, legal content that is only distributed via bit torrent. People try to argue the quality, but that is the major issue; content industry must do its best to shut it down in any way before it becomes better. I think it is apparent that while there has been a growing range of video and music content on the web, there is good stuff out there. Want a specific political example? How about Steal this Film I & II? These movies only method of distribution is P2P.
This is the most revealing and damning statement in the article:
If you use peer-to-peer applications to copy or distribute copyrighted material such as music, films and software, and do so without paying royalties, you are almost certainly infringing the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This is an absurd statement, and only one that could be made by a monopoly that has found a venue for media distribution it does not control. The media organizations (at least in the US) also control most all the news. In that way they are only trying to further their monopoly and censor political opposition. And just to reinforce the point, Steal this movie is far superior than what can be expressed in a blog.
I think this is more an education flaw (not teaching students how to research, check resources etc) than a failing on Wikipedia's behalf EXACTLY!
Teachers need to spend more time teaching students exactly how to write good papers. Possibly walk them through writing a good paper rather than just telling them what not to do. Also, since Wikipedia is such an important tool for so many, academic and otherwise, teachers should educate students on how to use it appropriately, not just censor it.
Also, the whole system and the bots that now work Wikipedia are very advanced. It could happen, but if someone were to come up with a system better than Wikipedia, it could take over, though unlikely. I think it would be more likely for Wikipedia to fork, which it already has done in some ways for certain subjects. Like F/OSS, someone could come up with another Kernel with exactly the same governmental system as Linux, but it wouldn't take, even if it was better for a variety of reasons. HURD had some great advantages over Linux, but that didn't make it good enough.
And that is why there no argument over EB. People already know better than to trust it. It is also expensive and unavailable to many people. Further, lazy kids trying to rush through a paper are a bit less likely to be caught in a library.
Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for information due to the fact that anyone can edit the information on there. Plenty of books have wrong information in them too. Wikipedia is the only place where corrections can be made AFTER publication. This makes Wikipedia MORE credible. Wikipedia is unacceptable as a source because it is an encyclopedia / summary of information and not a primary source. Many teachers won't grade you down for using secondary sources, like they should, because teachers NEVER check sources. Wikipedia is just the most common secondary source used by students that will be easily identifiable by teachers.
I believe Wikipedia even has as part of its guideline / policy, do not publish primary source data on Wikipedia because that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. There was some controversy over this for a short while, but people agreed it is much easier to get published elsewhere on the web, then cross reference it in wiki. By the same note, follow the source links on the bottom of the page and check the source for yourself. Britannica has no such credibility in that sense. Britannica does not give you the tools to check the accuracy of the information in the book the way wiki does, if not at least because Britannica uses more references from out of print, in copyright references that lack web publication.
If that is the direction they are going, then they will fail for the same reason many academic journal publishers are loosing subscriptions and scientists. I can't remember who I heard it from first, but a key to being successful in the open source world is you can't alienate contributors, or there won't be any.
Wikipedia did this too. There are DVD, finalized versions of Wikipedia in several languages now. Wikipedia suffers from nothing more than the average bleeding-edge project, with respect to its size.
Britanica is not a primary source either. A good paper should NOT quote any encyclopedia or dictionary for EXACTLY THE SAME REASON! Teachers that "ban" wikipedia are just lazy, just as students that try to call Wikipedia a primary source lazy. A newspaper or magazine is rarely a primary source, while a academic journals ARE primary sources. Teachers need to stop telling students what NOT to do, and start telling them what TO do.
There is no reason for an explicit ban on what has already been banned by default, and teachers that can't explain to students the purpose of using primary sources to justify their grading policy should not be teachers.
If you trust your teachers, you will question everything, especially things you disagree with. Also, the wikipedia ban is news hype and FAR from any kind of majority opinion among teachers. Not to mention the answer you get from teachers regarding their opinion of many subjects varies greatly with the person asking the question, and how they ask it:)
While I read the articles to avoid being moderated RTFA, I generally see headlines on Slashdot much more as "topic of discussion for the day". In that respect, there is no site quite like Slashdot, IMHO. It is a very unique threaded debate archive unlike any other.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention what this will do for the trade deficit. People have been complaining about the huge trade deficit for a long tine when the dollar was strong. I never understood how people could really complain: "Oh, those poor Americans and their dollar is so strong that they can buy ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING in the world". Can I just say HUH?!? So what is going to and is happening now? Dollar is weak and foreigners are going to start buying us out? Investing? no, but vacationing and such at least.
At least for immediate crisis.
I DO think we are going to get killed in the world market because we have such an INSANE tax system. It is virtually impossible to start a competitive business without a team of lawyers. And we blame lawyers?? We NEED FairTax and I was dumbfounded that it is a partisan issue. Somehow it must be unfair if only rich conservatives can see its value? I have really lost a lot of faith in the democratic party (which may not say much) to say that simple and transparent government would help the rich and burn the poor. Is the lower class really so hopeless that such a proposal isn't even worth discussing or negotiating? Even I can't be THAT cynical.
There is a middle class white guy running for president?
Oh yeah, Obama! Almost forgot.
They don't get shoved down my throat, they get shoved in my mailbox. I seriously get several loan offers EVERY DAY, and I shove them on the fireplace. If they are going to pay people for being stupid, then they owe me a lot of money.
Well, I had it explained to me in a way that made a lot of sense, and I have (little) sympathy. I have seen predatory lending practices, but I don't personally see that as what happened in this case either, particularly when interest rates have continued to go down. So it seems to have gone like this:
;) to make some money? The small banks were just playing the market; they did their homework, and came out on top. Further, they extended home ownership opportunities that wouldn't have otherwise been available in a more conservative market. So what is the big deal? That is the cost of freedom. I want to own a home, but not in this market. I could even get a home loan, but only because I know some banks that are more shady than others. There are all kinds of risks at every level people can take at any time. There is no law that says "You must own a house" or "Only lend to the rich", and this is the kind of situation we end up with sometimes.
1) Local banks make conservative loans based on good data to protect their own investors
2) Recession kicks in and more people are saving, putting more money into conservative investments with big banks
3) Big banks are more desperate to loan out money and rather than make direct loans they buy up mortgages from small banks.
4) Small banks looking to make a quick turn around investment start taking on very risky loans (lending money to people that SHOULD NOT be borrowing money) offsetting the risk with the knowledge that a big bank will buy out the loan anyway. Meanwhile the big banks assume they are buying out loans from banks that were risking their own money.
5) People that couldn't afford their mortgages to begin with didn't pay them, but their bank already made the money off the loan.
6) Greedy suckers that naively bought up every loan without considering the risk are stuck.
There are problems that can occur that are beyond people's control that deserve sympathy, but saving people that took loans they could not afford, and big banks that likely drastically reduced their overhead cost in the short term
If we want to safely extend opportunities to underprivileged, why not extend opportunities to poor people (or anyone for that matter) BEFORE they sign their lives away a loan they SHOULD have understood the terms of. Spend the money on educating people about mortgages and credit cards. Set aside money for first time home buyers to subsidize interest (People should save for their down payment because if you can't save for a down payment, why should you be trusted with making a house payment when you have already proven you can't even make a payment into a savings account). This would reward making payments and being responsible.
When giving money to people for taking on a risk that they should have not made, what kind of message does that send to people that knew better than to buy more than they could afford.
btw, I know there is a lot of societal pressure to own a home, and have difficulties with managing their money well, and want to do the best for their families even at a high risk. The above is just what I have considered when making choices for my own family.
I've been married for some time, and I know I have taken on certain kinds of risks for the sake of doing better for my family I would not have made when single. But I got the same notices and offers for credit as everyone else. It was VERY tempting, but I knew it was selfish and thought either "This bank doesn't know me very well", or "These banks are trying to pull some kind of scam". The reality was I knew I could afford the mortgage, kinda, but I am not so stable or financially secure enough to know I could afford the entire term of the loan. I did not know I could make every payment, even if I was pretty sure about the first 12. I just told myself I simply couldn't risk my family on too many unknown factors. I was (and am) much better off renting for now. Preferably, I need to be in a situation where my income is 3x the mortgage.
The only counterpoints I could think of would only apply in an open development environment which both don't apply, and are well beyond the scope of the issues mentioned so far, so you are right. I think that is a great argument on how the principles set in the Statute of Anne were appropriate beyond whatever technology brought to the future with respect to the distribution. Thank you, and I look forward to quoting you on some of those pieces, if you don't mind ;)
Then allow it to be renewable by the rights holder (when the rights are transfered). Rights are transfered at death whether or not there was a will, because a copyright is property (Remember, the copyright is the property, not the work itself). The only disadvantage for older artists would be the pressure to sell out so that they can get a larger fraction of the copyright value sooner, but this is little different than an older person paying extra for a car with greater longevity because it is less likely they will claim the benefits.
Thinking about it though, think this is why we have age discrimination laws. I can't think of any industry where there isn't going to necessarily be a disadvantage to start older, except teaching. Not to be insulting in any way, just don't see the disparity between the copyright and other industries.
That I don't understand, and would appreciate some clarity. How does longevity side with the copyrights of the original artist versus the public? What come to mind for me is the infrastructure for media distribution in the time of the Statute of Anne. 14 years at that time was considered plenty of time for a long time after to make a profit. Today, the avenues for product distribution are much greater in terms of both speed and control. This tells me that it would be both reasonable and necessary to make the term shorter.
Something I haven't even heard Lessig address is value to public domain. Public domain was never about collecting works that are worthless to be protected by the government to be thrown into a historical archive so they are not lost, it is about the culture that we recognize is shared between all of us. Arguing over copyright to make sure that every little penny of net worth can possibly be sucked dry by the artist was not the purpose of copyright law. There needs to be a balance between respecting artists, and respecting that all progress is built on the past, and the new past does not get to control the future... at least it shouldn't.
While I don't have an idea what a simple solution could be, I would really like to know where those rights divide, between artist and progress, in a way that is not, necessarily, judged on the commercial value of the work alone.
The only empirical evidence where data was used to calculate maximum profitability for a creative work was in The Long Tail, and to the authors surprise, he concluded that the most reasonable copyright term would be 4 years, 3 years renewable for a max term of 7 years. Anything longer was pointless and hindered progress.
I have no desire to see copyright widdled away towards something reasonable. It was extended past 14 years through a corrupted process people are recognizing, and it is time for it to be fixed!
1) Truth in history is better. 2) Who do you trust with picking which histories get erased 3)While honesty can be disturbing, such as Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). The first was SHOCKING, the second book ruined his career for merely publishing the honest survey responses of people. Fortunately this honesty brought about a certain honesty in discussing such issues openly that has helped lead to the sexual revolution in the US.
Most of the sexual revolution was not a matter of enlightening anyone, but a new culture and atmosphere people were born into. People bork into this era will be born into a more honest one, and people will take with the same grain or salt "Disturbing the Peas" as did the last generation took "got a warning". This (short) video discusses exactly the same issue with respect to at least one presidential hopeful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpBzQI_7ez8
Also, big media has argued over every new technology, and how it was going to be the death of creativity. Some adapted, many perished, and every time artists and consumers won overall. There is at this point I feel a drawl, but my hope is that big media can't beat progress or nature, and a government that tries to defy nature will ultimately perish as well.
Further, boxed media with respect to music has been short lived compared to the profitability of live concerts. I don't see a world where touring is required for making money in music as a terrible one. Wasn't a bad place 30 years ago.
I am not sure I understand. I was arguing for a reasonable, fix period of time without respect to the life of the author. When an employee is making content for a company, that content gets a fixed 95 years from time of publication, or 120 years max. However, profit wise, I am sure the content industry is aware of "The Long Tail", even if it is an issue they like to avoid. In this respect the content industry is interested in control, not profit, when making purchases, as copyright value for an individual work is limited to 4 years for most works, and 7 in the rarest of circumstances.
The only other part about lifetime I was arguing was that the in Eldred the supreme court said that the constitutions "limited period" means congress can set any period of time such that it is not "forever". I was arguing existentially that a term greater than my lifetime IS forever.
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html
A 20 minute video done by Lawrence Lessig on why he supports Obama. Would it be too much to consider that the endorsement of the Electronic Freedom Foundation?
That does give me some comfort over some of the things that REALLY concern me over Obama as mentioned above.
... will likely make its way to the supreme court. The complexity of the case, and the controversy over YOUR Intellectual Property versus MY culture. Lawrence Lessig is on staff for RDR Books defending, the same lawyer that fought (ok, and lost) in Eldred v. Ashcroft. I know this is too much to ask, but I see no reason not to revert back to the Statute of Anne. Give copyright holders a FIRM grip over their IP to allow them to reap its rewards and present it the way they desire, BUT, after a "Limited Period of Time", give it to the people to let it grow and thrive.
Unless we are going to argue reincarnation, this lifetime is the only one I have. 'Forever' is my entire lifetime, or anyone elses. Nothing that is part of my culture can be remixed or reused by myself or virtually any generation I will ever see when there is a term limit of life + 70 years / 120 years.
Anyway, Lessig and others learned some HARD lessons, such as the power of money among other things, not to mention the series of some good small wins for EFF over the past year, for GPL and such, showing the value free and freedom to the public.
In light of the entire history of supreme court they can seem small, they have ruled on the side of reason defying long standing law, and majority opinion: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946). United States v. Miller, 317 U. S. 369. While Miller had to do with government taking, why can not the same PROPERTY law apply as they keep arguing. "It is the owner's loss, not the taker's gain, which is the measure of the value of the property taken." was ruled. As for Rowling v. RDR Books, IMO, an idea only becomes culture AFTER it is given to the public. And you CAN'T copyright an IDEA. Making cultural references to an idea aren't piracy, and not even plagiarism, it is literature in its absolute meaning.
So I hope that this case shows that the supreme court is ready to rule on the side of reason that Congress CAN NOT hide away like it did after LaMacchia with the NET Act. Eldred v. Ashcroft 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ruled the way it did because the argument made could not beat the argument of big money, so YES, I think this case COULD have major implications in the near future over copyright.
The only circumstances under which I could be persuaded otherwise would be if they tax this PROPERTY progressively with respect to the amount of time on copyright, gross value earned from copyright, and number of copyrights held by a person. This would make it EQUAL with real property. At present, any vaguely original though or artistry I express in a tangible way has GREATER protection than the home for my family. And before I am accused of making a straw man, consider the ways you can loose and reclaim an IP versus the way you can loose and reclaim your house.
Hope that wasn't too off topic for anyone, just my thoughts on the supreme court and reason.
Well, If I was duped (no pun intended), so be it. Doesn't mean I disagree. I will admit I poorly remember which posts are from who or what their political alignment / agendas are from the past based on meme.
There is good content, legal content that is only distributed via bit torrent. People try to argue the quality, but that is the major issue; content industry must do its best to shut it down in any way before it becomes better. I think it is apparent that while there has been a growing range of video and music content on the web, there is good stuff out there. Want a specific political example? How about Steal this Film I & II? These movies only method of distribution is P2P.
This is the most revealing and damning statement in the article: If you use peer-to-peer applications to copy or distribute copyrighted material such as music, films and software, and do so without paying royalties, you are almost certainly infringing the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This is an absurd statement, and only one that could be made by a monopoly that has found a venue for media distribution it does not control. The media organizations (at least in the US) also control most all the news. In that way they are only trying to further their monopoly and censor political opposition. And just to reinforce the point, Steal this movie is far superior than what can be expressed in a blog.
Teachers need to spend more time teaching students exactly how to write good papers. Possibly walk them through writing a good paper rather than just telling them what not to do. Also, since Wikipedia is such an important tool for so many, academic and otherwise, teachers should educate students on how to use it appropriately, not just censor it.
Also, the whole system and the bots that now work Wikipedia are very advanced. It could happen, but if someone were to come up with a system better than Wikipedia, it could take over, though unlikely. I think it would be more likely for Wikipedia to fork, which it already has done in some ways for certain subjects. Like F/OSS, someone could come up with another Kernel with exactly the same governmental system as Linux, but it wouldn't take, even if it was better for a variety of reasons. HURD had some great advantages over Linux, but that didn't make it good enough.
And that is why there no argument over EB. People already know better than to trust it. It is also expensive and unavailable to many people. Further, lazy kids trying to rush through a paper are a bit less likely to be caught in a library.
I believe Wikipedia even has as part of its guideline / policy, do not publish primary source data on Wikipedia because that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. There was some controversy over this for a short while, but people agreed it is much easier to get published elsewhere on the web, then cross reference it in wiki. By the same note, follow the source links on the bottom of the page and check the source for yourself. Britannica has no such credibility in that sense. Britannica does not give you the tools to check the accuracy of the information in the book the way wiki does, if not at least because Britannica uses more references from out of print, in copyright references that lack web publication.
If that is the direction they are going, then they will fail for the same reason many academic journal publishers are loosing subscriptions and scientists. I can't remember who I heard it from first, but a key to being successful in the open source world is you can't alienate contributors, or there won't be any.
Wikipedia did this too. There are DVD, finalized versions of Wikipedia in several languages now. Wikipedia suffers from nothing more than the average bleeding-edge project, with respect to its size.
I think he was also straw-maning a teachers opinion to be your teachers opinion.
Britanica is not a primary source either. A good paper should NOT quote any encyclopedia or dictionary for EXACTLY THE SAME REASON! Teachers that "ban" wikipedia are just lazy, just as students that try to call Wikipedia a primary source lazy. A newspaper or magazine is rarely a primary source, while a academic journals ARE primary sources. Teachers need to stop telling students what NOT to do, and start telling them what TO do.
:)
There is no reason for an explicit ban on what has already been banned by default, and teachers that can't explain to students the purpose of using primary sources to justify their grading policy should not be teachers.
If you trust your teachers, you will question everything, especially things you disagree with. Also, the wikipedia ban is news hype and FAR from any kind of majority opinion among teachers. Not to mention the answer you get from teachers regarding their opinion of many subjects varies greatly with the person asking the question, and how they ask it
While I read the articles to avoid being moderated RTFA, I generally see headlines on Slashdot much more as "topic of discussion for the day". In that respect, there is no site quite like Slashdot, IMHO. It is a very unique threaded debate archive unlike any other.
Sigh, I miss those days when stupid people would forget things, then that was it. Damn internet.