This is exactly what I want to stop: only rich people deciding what will be seen by masses, and it's clear that copyright accomplishes totally opposite goal, since nowadays you need VC backing just to shield yourself from copyright lawsuits and establishing cross-licensing to reuse any sort of other people's art. And you can be sued even if you don't reuse anything(people will sue anyway if you created something close to other copyrighted work accidentally even if it doesn't exist) or if your reuse is compliant with fair use(youtube etc won't bother double-checking this if they get a takedown notice). And, no. Statutes of law don't make copyright's need clear. Far from it. Besides citing statutes when I'm in fact arguing for their repeal is circular reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , notionally it is patronage, but not in the way you mean it since it's not tied to wealthy patrons. Another way is government funding. And you failed to prove the need for copyright. Existence of Microsoft(which basically attempts to build own government around control of software that is not subject to democratic checks and balances going a lot farther than simply compensating developers) was never the objective of it, and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't exist without copyright. Like, Red Hat isn't hurting for cash either, at least enough to sustain development. Copyright is only needed to raise astronomic rent for silly world domination plans.
Proof? There are countless other ways to acquire funding that isn't patronage. Also, based on context you seem to incorrectly assume that copyright is realistic.
There's no reason to believe that buying rights even makes sense. Like it goes against the idea of authorship which is supposed to be central to copyright. If you sell rights you're still author but your "rights" are no longer "protected" because you don't "own" them. It's other guy's "rights" now and they set all rules which original authors may not agree with anymore for whatever reason but their opinion doesn't matter anymore.
If those people want exclusive rights just to create something then I'm fine with them not creating. Paying money for something that costs nothing to replicate goes against whole reason money exist. It's equivalent to operating a money printing machine. It cost nothing just to allow someone to copy something, which is totally distinct from the act of creation and not connected to it in any way as far as economic system is concerned.
I'm fine with that, most of that stuff is boring anyway. It can work based on voluntary donations too. In fact current system ("purchases" + "piracy") is de facto equivalent to voluntary donations. Like people publishing torrents recommend "purchasing" stuff you liked. Need only to make this explicit and enshrine this in law.
And what if I disagree to very concept on owning exclusive rights to any sort of media? Besides, they are NOT authors, they're middlemen who have their own interests first.
They want people to always buy cars new so they want to complicate resale as much as possible. If you're at risk of becoming a criminal just because you're not doing some obscure extra steps during resale then that's just perfect.
You can't call someone "intellectual" just for pursuing alien life issue. Humanity has nearly no information on this topic thus most things you can arrive to are either obvious or subtly wrong but not disprovable due to lack of experimental data. There's nearly no possibility to come up with testable hypotheses there and most of work done on the subject is intellectual circlejerk. Thus it's easy avenue for any dumbass who wants to pretend to be an "intellectual". There's simply no conclusion that could end up wrong and foil up their charade.
Those are old franchises that are "too big to fail". Thus devs there can get away with using non-standard engines that are harder to port. Vast majority of high profile Kickstarded games have linux ports, also many indie ones due to Unity engine being very widespread there. Only matter of time before linux titles will dominate high selling parts too, because today's "bleeding-edge" and "indie" are tomorrow's "mainstream".
Newer games tend to have native linux ports. Currently pretty much all mainstream game engines have linux support. I'd say games are no longer the most problematic part.
Race to the bottom? You say it like it's something bad. It's consequence of competitive market existing. Once computers stop being relative novelty we can expect them to become somewhat longer lasting. Any other outcome is more than unnatural. After all you don't need to replace your hammer or screwdriver every year because it became obsolete. It's just a tool and you keep it as long as it does its job, and computer is in grand scheme of things just a tool too.
What does that mean even? By some arbitrary quantity derived from some nonsensical macroeconomic model that doesn't have anything to do with actual real world?
Was there even a single hollywood film that WASN'T framing everything russian state related as hostile by definition? So why DDoS only this film festival of little relevance? This just doesn't make sense.
What running linux binaries on windows is good for anyway? Pretty much all staple linux software has native windows ports. So they could drop those ports and rely on WSL?
The problem is that Russian gov didn't in fact try to influence elections in US, it's obvious given that it has nothing to gain by doing so. Especially not against Clintons who have long history of cooperation with Russian oligarchs. DNC just got pwn'd by script kiddies, and they shared recovered info with wikileaks in order to achieve maximum lulz.
If wikipedia becomes a money sink it may compromise its mission. Overfunding is as bad as underfunding since it leads to inefficiency and waste. If they get more donations than their current organizational structure can make use of they should consider re-donating excess to other charities.
There isn't much difference between Bush and Obama in that respect. Nobody ever was ever pressuring US military and intelligence to go after Russia or Iraq. Instead they did it on their own to justify their existence and get more money from budget. POTUS has no choice but to go along.
The thing is tickets aren't really scarce. Only room at actual concert could be scarce. Another solution here would be sell unlimited number of tickets but only assign seats to them when people actually come, on first come first served basis. If there there's no seat for you, you get refund.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly what I want to stop: only rich people deciding what will be seen by masses, and it's clear that copyright accomplishes totally opposite goal, since nowadays you need VC backing just to shield yourself from copyright lawsuits and establishing cross-licensing to reuse any sort of other people's art. And you can be sued even if you don't reuse anything(people will sue anyway if you created something close to other copyrighted work accidentally even if it doesn't exist) or if your reuse is compliant with fair use(youtube etc won't bother double-checking this if they get a takedown notice). And, no. Statutes of law don't make copyright's need clear. Far from it. Besides citing statutes when I'm in fact arguing for their repeal is circular reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , notionally it is patronage, but not in the way you mean it since it's not tied to wealthy patrons. Another way is government funding. And you failed to prove the need for copyright. Existence of Microsoft(which basically attempts to build own government around control of software that is not subject to democratic checks and balances going a lot farther than simply compensating developers) was never the objective of it, and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't exist without copyright. Like, Red Hat isn't hurting for cash either, at least enough to sustain development. Copyright is only needed to raise astronomic rent for silly world domination plans.
Proof? There are countless other ways to acquire funding that isn't patronage. Also, based on context you seem to incorrectly assume that copyright is realistic.
There's no reason to believe that buying rights even makes sense. Like it goes against the idea of authorship which is supposed to be central to copyright. If you sell rights you're still author but your "rights" are no longer "protected" because you don't "own" them. It's other guy's "rights" now and they set all rules which original authors may not agree with anymore for whatever reason but their opinion doesn't matter anymore.
If those people want exclusive rights just to create something then I'm fine with them not creating. Paying money for something that costs nothing to replicate goes against whole reason money exist. It's equivalent to operating a money printing machine. It cost nothing just to allow someone to copy something, which is totally distinct from the act of creation and not connected to it in any way as far as economic system is concerned.
I'm fine with that, most of that stuff is boring anyway. It can work based on voluntary donations too. In fact current system ("purchases" + "piracy") is de facto equivalent to voluntary donations. Like people publishing torrents recommend "purchasing" stuff you liked. Need only to make this explicit and enshrine this in law.
And what if I disagree to very concept on owning exclusive rights to any sort of media? Besides, they are NOT authors, they're middlemen who have their own interests first.
Only reason is the desire to conform.
The article answers this question. Newly elected major is pro-microsoft ideologically.
They want people to always buy cars new so they want to complicate resale as much as possible. If you're at risk of becoming a criminal just because you're not doing some obscure extra steps during resale then that's just perfect.
You can't call someone "intellectual" just for pursuing alien life issue. Humanity has nearly no information on this topic thus most things you can arrive to are either obvious or subtly wrong but not disprovable due to lack of experimental data. There's nearly no possibility to come up with testable hypotheses there and most of work done on the subject is intellectual circlejerk. Thus it's easy avenue for any dumbass who wants to pretend to be an "intellectual". There's simply no conclusion that could end up wrong and foil up their charade.
Those are old franchises that are "too big to fail". Thus devs there can get away with using non-standard engines that are harder to port. Vast majority of high profile Kickstarded games have linux ports, also many indie ones due to Unity engine being very widespread there. Only matter of time before linux titles will dominate high selling parts too, because today's "bleeding-edge" and "indie" are tomorrow's "mainstream".
Newer games tend to have native linux ports. Currently pretty much all mainstream game engines have linux support. I'd say games are no longer the most problematic part.
Not every country. Just ones that have exploitable resources and where puppet governments can be installed.
Race to the bottom? You say it like it's something bad. It's consequence of competitive market existing. Once computers stop being relative novelty we can expect them to become somewhat longer lasting. Any other outcome is more than unnatural. After all you don't need to replace your hammer or screwdriver every year because it became obsolete. It's just a tool and you keep it as long as it does its job, and computer is in grand scheme of things just a tool too.
I'm not sure. Wasn't rationale for the wall an economic one rather than nationalist one?
Austrian, Bavarian, Brandenburgian, who cares what kind of German..
What does that mean even? By some arbitrary quantity derived from some nonsensical macroeconomic model that doesn't have anything to do with actual real world?
Was there even a single hollywood film that WASN'T framing everything russian state related as hostile by definition? So why DDoS only this film festival of little relevance? This just doesn't make sense.
What running linux binaries on windows is good for anyway? Pretty much all staple linux software has native windows ports. So they could drop those ports and rely on WSL?
The problem is that Russian gov didn't in fact try to influence elections in US, it's obvious given that it has nothing to gain by doing so. Especially not against Clintons who have long history of cooperation with Russian oligarchs. DNC just got pwn'd by script kiddies, and they shared recovered info with wikileaks in order to achieve maximum lulz.
Choosing your ruler based on results of some game is even worse than inheritance based succession in a monarchy.
If wikipedia becomes a money sink it may compromise its mission. Overfunding is as bad as underfunding since it leads to inefficiency and waste. If they get more donations than their current organizational structure can make use of they should consider re-donating excess to other charities.
There isn't much difference between Bush and Obama in that respect. Nobody ever was ever pressuring US military and intelligence to go after Russia or Iraq. Instead they did it on their own to justify their existence and get more money from budget. POTUS has no choice but to go along.
The thing is tickets aren't really scarce. Only room at actual concert could be scarce. Another solution here would be sell unlimited number of tickets but only assign seats to them when people actually come, on first come first served basis. If there there's no seat for you, you get refund.