Because, as you point out, you are only buying the physical disk, not the music. You have a choice, however. Buying the music would cost a lot more than the cost of the CD; since you are not willing to pay that, you don't get the music. however, you are willing to pay the asking price for paint, fittings, etc, and so the owner sells the entire object to you.
In this situation, we aren't talking about 'reproducing' the work, we are talking about 'performance' of the work. With music, I can't freely put the CD into my CD player and play it in my place of business.
Whereas I can purchase any of those other items and use them normally in the same place of business. This freedom even applies to items covered under design patents, trademarks and regular copyrights (eg. posters, etc).
(Re-)broadcasting is similar, however, there seem to be some industry 'guidelines' that change how broadcasters react to visual and aural usage of various branded and unbranded objects, words and/or performances.
How so? You can't produce copies of many objects; you can't use them in derivative works in some cases; you own the object only.
Reproduction != usage. There's another debate to be had in that arena, but for our current example, the farce is primarily due to the 'performance' aspect of the legislation getting in the way of something that is arguably not a 'performance'.
The difference arises because if I 'buy' the CD, I can't use it as freely as the paint and furniture that I buy.
This is the fundamental flaw in a system where I have no choice _not_ to rent the CD. Since the CD inherently comes with legally enforceable strings attached even when I do buy it.
The paint mixers, fitting designers and furniture joiners of the world would absolutely LOVE the same benefits as the artists and music makers.
Fortunately, there is some level of sanity in other industries when it comes to 'IP'.
Some do, it's called rent. The choice is to either buy everything outright, or pay a fee for it's use on an ongoing basis. You could buy the right sto a song; just as you can a building; or simply pay an ongoing fee for it's use (and the stuff inside) without every owning anything.
Actually you're quite right, it's very similar:
When renting a building, imagine that the landlord was then obligated to seek out every manufacturer of fittings, paints, carpets, lino, furniture, etc. And pay them ongoing royalties. That's too hard.
So lets just let the landlord collect and keep that 'rent'! Much simpler to administer.
With access to that information, it would be fairly straight forward for a 'shady' party to determine when you've 'gone offline', and insert a couple of extra pieces of 'online' incriminating evidence. Even if you leave your GPS tracker/logger on 24/7, that could be worked around by throwing in an inconvenient tweet the next morning like saying something like "damn, I left my phone at home...".
Without easy access to all your information, it would be much more difficult to do any of this.
The primary reason that English appears to be adapting faster than other 'stagnant' languages, is simply because it has and is being embraced by so many other cultures previously and at this time. If some other culture was the dominant 'trade' culture, then we would have seen the same thing happen with their language.
And the reason English seems like it is always changing, is that their is no central 'culture' powerful enough to slow down its change. French and Japanese are fairly tightly 'controlled' by comparison.
It may be a little more difficult for word or concept oriented written languages to behave in this way. But, being already dominant they would simply adapt as needed by including phonetic equivalents.
Our company is a contract electronics design house. We see all sorts of people come to us to implement their patents - most of which are usually about things that they barely understand. In most cases those patents aren't worth the paper that they're printed on.
It never ceases to amaze me when a client comes through the door with a 'valid' patent that contains a description of something that is standard practice within the industry. Then they get all upset when we show them another product from 10 years earlier that does what their 'invention' does, but better, cheaper and more reliably.
This is the scariest thing about the kind of software patents that are getting granted these days. The 'novelty' that they contain is hardly novel within the practicing industry. Fair enough that the truly clever inventions are granted, but the vast majority are just not novel, and in many cases are so close to prior art that they should never have been granted. And that's not even going down the 'obviousness' path.
And taking your observation one step further; the education 'system' should start to consider methods of teaching and improving the motivational skills necessary to succeed.
It all comes down to "don't eat the marshmallow". What I'd like to see is a system that makes sure our kids have, or learn, the ability to delay gratification and focus past the here and now. Having a schooling system that can nurture and advance that quality would go a long way to helping a huge majority of kids fulfil their potential.
Achievement and fulfilment are a large component of happiness. And happiness then leads to a much more emotionally and mentally healthy society.
My understanding is that any attempt to board a plane or cross a border, implies consent, which makes the searches consensual. If you don't want to be searched, don't try to get on the plane or enter or leave the country.
Under that reasoning nearly anything can be justified. It's the same kind of reasoning that an aggressor uses to justify a 'date rape'.
It's up to the prosecution to prove their case. I'm simply assuming that the tracking information is at best only mostly correct. It has been shown time and again that there are many ways to take over someone's machine and turn it into a proxy, I'll let you Google the methods. If it's less than mostly correct, then the prosecution's case is even further weakened.
As to your second question, they are in the process of showing exactly that, and the judge is deciding upon which evidence is acceptable and which is not.
If it turns out they are full of shit, then so be it. But, until then, we let the process run through its steps. I make no assumptions of guilt or innocence; I simply point out that their is no successful prosecution/suit without sufficient evidence.
Look at it this way: for every song 'downloaded' on Kazaa there is tracking information of where it came from/went to. Mostly that tracking information is correct, but not always. Chances are that people that are guilty and know it will just settle - it never goes to court and doesn't make Slashdot's front page.
However. For those that are not guilty, what are their options? Settle anyway?
There are numerous ways that the 'evidence' could be shown to be inaccurate or have been misinterpreted. If the case was as clear cut as you make it out to be, then the judge would hardly have to be involved.
As for your analogy, the same applies. If the evidence is examined and shows that the dude was involved with letting the baby fly out the window, then he goes down. That sort of crap shouldn't even be on the news until the courts have made a decision; for the precise reason that random people will just assume that the accused is guilty. 'Trial by media' is a supreme load of hypocrisy.
BTW, I'm in no way advocating that it isn't wrong to 'download' music or throw babies out car windows. What I do advocate is adherence to proper legal procedure. The lynch mob mentality is at the opposite end of the spectrum and not how I expect an intelligent person act.
What this judge is doing is making sure that all the evidence is consistent and legally usable for the purposes of coming to a valid conclusion. He's clearly not going off half-cocked and looking at dishing out cowboy justice.
Except, her defence is that she didn't violate the copyrights in the first place.
But, otherwise you are correct, it's her choice to go through all the court action. Just like it's the Gitmo prisoners' choice to keep getting tortured for not divulging whatever information their captors think they have.
When I was working for the Australian Telecom monopoly back in the late eighties. We had a problem with one of our coastal emergency radio transmitters (100kW iirc) that continuously broadcast a beacon and emergency information out to sea.
Someone living in the vicinity of the transmitter decided they could power their house lights off our transmitter. This deformed the beam pattern in that direction and created a radio blind spot that was over 50km wide at the horizon.
It wasn't hard to track the guy down. But, since this was a 'disruption of national communication infrastructure' issue, the federal police became involved and one of the offences for this was listed as 'treason'. I kid you not. These days it would probably come under some ludicrous 'terrorist' law.
In the end, the guy got a slap on the wrist and promised not to do it again. But, it goes to show, that syphoning power off a transmitter can indeed have non-trivial consequences.
Wavelength doesn't really count as a dimension for stroage, nor can one store an infinite amount of information by using an infinite number of frequencies.
Not true. A coordinate system is not required to be infinite in any or all of its dimensions. For something to be considered a dimension, it needs only be able to represent more than one state.
No, it's five dimensions. X, Y, Z, W and P. Where X, Y and Z are the 3 dimensional position, W is the wavelength, and P is the polarization.
If you only considered wavelength and polarization, that would be 2 dimensions.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, as you point out, you are only buying the physical disk, not the music. You have a choice, however. Buying the music would cost a lot more than the cost of the CD; since you are not willing to pay that, you don't get the music. however, you are willing to pay the asking price for paint, fittings, etc, and so the owner sells the entire object to you.
In this situation, we aren't talking about 'reproducing' the work, we are talking about 'performance' of the work. With music, I can't freely put the CD into my CD player and play it in my place of business.
Whereas I can purchase any of those other items and use them normally in the same place of business. This freedom even applies to items covered under design patents, trademarks and regular copyrights (eg. posters, etc).
(Re-)broadcasting is similar, however, there seem to be some industry 'guidelines' that change how broadcasters react to visual and aural usage of various branded and unbranded objects, words and/or performances.
How so? You can't produce copies of many objects; you can't use them in derivative works in some cases; you own the object only.
Reproduction != usage. There's another debate to be had in that arena, but for our current example, the farce is primarily due to the 'performance' aspect of the legislation getting in the way of something that is arguably not a 'performance'.
The difference arises because if I 'buy' the CD, I can't use it as freely as the paint and furniture that I buy.
This is the fundamental flaw in a system where I have no choice _not_ to rent the CD. Since the CD inherently comes with legally enforceable strings attached even when I do buy it.
The paint mixers, fitting designers and furniture joiners of the world would absolutely LOVE the same benefits as the artists and music makers.
Fortunately, there is some level of sanity in other industries when it comes to 'IP'.
Some do, it's called rent. The choice is to either buy everything outright, or pay a fee for it's use on an ongoing basis. You could buy the right sto a song; just as you can a building; or simply pay an ongoing fee for it's use (and the stuff inside) without every owning anything.
Actually you're quite right, it's very similar:
When renting a building, imagine that the landlord was then obligated to seek out every manufacturer of fittings, paints, carpets, lino, furniture, etc. And pay them ongoing royalties. That's too hard.
So lets just let the landlord collect and keep that 'rent'! Much simpler to administer.
No, he's using the same 80x25 computer monitor he had when he created his Slashdot account.
It's a good thing that companies in the middle east don't buy tickets for their employees. Oh wait..
With access to that information, it would be fairly straight forward for a 'shady' party to determine when you've 'gone offline', and insert a couple of extra pieces of 'online' incriminating evidence. Even if you leave your GPS tracker/logger on 24/7, that could be worked around by throwing in an inconvenient tweet the next morning like saying something like "damn, I left my phone at home...".
Without easy access to all your information, it would be much more difficult to do any of this.
The primary reason that English appears to be adapting faster than other 'stagnant' languages, is simply because it has and is being embraced by so many other cultures previously and at this time. If some other culture was the dominant 'trade' culture, then we would have seen the same thing happen with their language.
And the reason English seems like it is always changing, is that their is no central 'culture' powerful enough to slow down its change. French and Japanese are fairly tightly 'controlled' by comparison.
It may be a little more difficult for word or concept oriented written languages to behave in this way. But, being already dominant they would simply adapt as needed by including phonetic equivalents.
Mod parent up.
Our company is a contract electronics design house. We see all sorts of people come to us to implement their patents - most of which are usually about things that they barely understand. In most cases those patents aren't worth the paper that they're printed on.
It never ceases to amaze me when a client comes through the door with a 'valid' patent that contains a description of something that is standard practice within the industry. Then they get all upset when we show them another product from 10 years earlier that does what their 'invention' does, but better, cheaper and more reliably.
This is the scariest thing about the kind of software patents that are getting granted these days. The 'novelty' that they contain is hardly novel within the practicing industry. Fair enough that the truly clever inventions are granted, but the vast majority are just not novel, and in many cases are so close to prior art that they should never have been granted. And that's not even going down the 'obviousness' path.
And taking your observation one step further; the education 'system' should start to consider methods of teaching and improving the motivational skills necessary to succeed.
It all comes down to "don't eat the marshmallow". What I'd like to see is a system that makes sure our kids have, or learn, the ability to delay gratification and focus past the here and now. Having a schooling system that can nurture and advance that quality would go a long way to helping a huge majority of kids fulfil their potential.
Achievement and fulfilment are a large component of happiness. And happiness then leads to a much more emotionally and mentally healthy society.
That stopped being funny about three years ago.
But insulting strangers via a forum is in. Call me old school I guess.
Your sarcasm has been duly noted and as such you have subsequently been reinstated as our forum relations officer.
Sincerely,
the in crowd
And if that fails you could always resubmit your essay to your comp sci lecturer as a media example of infinite recursion.
Word.
My understanding is that any attempt to board a plane or cross a border, implies consent, which makes the searches consensual. If you don't want to be searched, don't try to get on the plane or enter or leave the country.
Under that reasoning nearly anything can be justified. It's the same kind of reasoning that an aggressor uses to justify a 'date rape'.
LOL. Go back and read what I wrote.
Whether it's the prosecution, or a plaintiff, they still need to prove their case.
Whereas with trial by DaveV1.0, it seems you just need to be accused.
It's up to the prosecution to prove their case. I'm simply assuming that the tracking information is at best only mostly correct. It has been shown time and again that there are many ways to take over someone's machine and turn it into a proxy, I'll let you Google the methods. If it's less than mostly correct, then the prosecution's case is even further weakened.
As to your second question, they are in the process of showing exactly that, and the judge is deciding upon which evidence is acceptable and which is not.
If it turns out they are full of shit, then so be it. But, until then, we let the process run through its steps. I make no assumptions of guilt or innocence; I simply point out that their is no successful prosecution/suit without sufficient evidence.
No I didn't miss it. I just couldn't think of anything funny to reply with, but hit submit anyway. ;-)
Look at it this way: for every song 'downloaded' on Kazaa there is tracking information of where it came from/went to. Mostly that tracking information is correct, but not always. Chances are that people that are guilty and know it will just settle - it never goes to court and doesn't make Slashdot's front page.
However. For those that are not guilty, what are their options? Settle anyway?
There are numerous ways that the 'evidence' could be shown to be inaccurate or have been misinterpreted. If the case was as clear cut as you make it out to be, then the judge would hardly have to be involved.
As for your analogy, the same applies. If the evidence is examined and shows that the dude was involved with letting the baby fly out the window, then he goes down. That sort of crap shouldn't even be on the news until the courts have made a decision; for the precise reason that random people will just assume that the accused is guilty. 'Trial by media' is a supreme load of hypocrisy.
BTW, I'm in no way advocating that it isn't wrong to 'download' music or throw babies out car windows. What I do advocate is adherence to proper legal procedure. The lynch mob mentality is at the opposite end of the spectrum and not how I expect an intelligent person act.
What this judge is doing is making sure that all the evidence is consistent and legally usable for the purposes of coming to a valid conclusion. He's clearly not going off half-cocked and looking at dishing out cowboy justice.
It'd be a bit scary if judges handed down random decisions from the golf course with no relevant baring to a given case.
Except, her defence is that she didn't violate the copyrights in the first place.
But, otherwise you are correct, it's her choice to go through all the court action. Just like it's the Gitmo prisoners' choice to keep getting tortured for not divulging whatever information their captors think they have.
Not entirely true.
When I was working for the Australian Telecom monopoly back in the late eighties. We had a problem with one of our coastal emergency radio transmitters (100kW iirc) that continuously broadcast a beacon and emergency information out to sea.
Someone living in the vicinity of the transmitter decided they could power their house lights off our transmitter. This deformed the beam pattern in that direction and created a radio blind spot that was over 50km wide at the horizon.
It wasn't hard to track the guy down. But, since this was a 'disruption of national communication infrastructure' issue, the federal police became involved and one of the offences for this was listed as 'treason'. I kid you not. These days it would probably come under some ludicrous 'terrorist' law.
In the end, the guy got a slap on the wrist and promised not to do it again. But, it goes to show, that syphoning power off a transmitter can indeed have non-trivial consequences.
Wavelength doesn't really count as a dimension for stroage, nor can one store an infinite amount of information by using an infinite number of frequencies.
Not true. A coordinate system is not required to be infinite in any or all of its dimensions. For something to be considered a dimension, it needs only be able to represent more than one state.
No, it's five dimensions. X, Y, Z, W and P. Where X, Y and Z are the 3 dimensional position, W is the wavelength, and P is the polarization. If you only considered wavelength and polarization, that would be 2 dimensions.
It's more likely that the extension is to the years prior to getting sick and entering the nursing home.
Mod the parent up.