Netbook is a crossover between the standard laptop and PDA.
With 7's 3-app limit netbooks certainly would be glorified PDAs, and honestly it probably won't get in the way very often. But...
It is a computer. With all the flexibility inherent in computers not found in most PDAs or phones.
Running Linux, it can be a (mobile) Internet Appliance, a router, a firewall, a wireless access point, a web server, a front-end or a node in a beowulf cluster or render farm, a systems monitor, an email server, a cheap NAS, a multimedia player, a VoIP phone, a pet, a...
...but the majority of bands have decided they'd rather get paid if they can.
The majority of albums aren't still popular 40 years later like Elvis is. Most will be dead (as a cash cow) before a 7-14 year copyright expires.
Microprose isn't making much money off of Civilization 2 anymore.
So if the majority of bands have already made a decision not to release to the public domain, what makes you so sure they'll continue making music if you force them to release to the public domain?
They have decided to release to the public domain, because they didn't lock the recording in a vault for the rest of eternity. All works (theoretically) enter the public domain eventually. It is only a question of when. StarCraft, in it's current form, will be very long in the tooth when it's source code becomes available to my great-great-grandchildren in 2073 (!), but an opensource-like project could keep it alive in one form or another through porting, new/improved graphics, and AI enhancement...
Why don't we outlaw the wheel, then? I'm sure that will force the market to come up with all sorts of creative alternatives.
And don't forget to outlaw everything that is directly based on wheel technology! Like gears, turbines, gyroscopes, (round) dimmer switches...
Our unwillingness to find alternatives that are not based on wheel technology in any way is degrading the very fabric of society!
The "boogey man" of large corporations was mentioned in my earlier post because they are precisely the ones who would benefit in tangible financial terms.
Not really. The fact that it is all public domain means the RIAA would be competing with free and legal torrents, and they are already losing to illegal torrents.
For instance, people are likely to still buy physical books and other media, so even if they only cost a few bucks the companies with the means to manufacture and distribute those things will still make money.
The publisher is providing a service. The customer would be able get the book for free online, but they may not wish to use so much toner, paper, and time to put it all in a loose-leaf binder when a professionally bound book is so much cleaner, faster, and simpler. (think "White Fang" or "Gone with the Wind") Same with the music stores: They won't be providing music, they will be providing better access to the music (professionally pressed discs, lossless formats, etc.)
Since when do bands, or anyone else, have to work for "society"? If they have made something amazing enough that they never have to work again, good for them.
If they make $BIG_NUMBER before the copyright expires, and it is enough for them to retire for the rest of their lives, I have no problem with that.
If it isn't big enough, then they didn't "make something amazing enough that they never have to work again"
But what about, say, an author. He writes a novel today which is published in limited circulation and does moderately well. In 2015 he publishes another novel, which through a combination of quality, good timing and strong support from his publisher turns into a big hit and gets rave reviews. Suddenly some of the reviewers start reading his first novel, and realise that it's actually even better than the second one.
How often does this sort of thing actually happen?
No matter what the policy is, someone is going to get the short end of the stick. Right now that someone is almost exclusively the consumer (and Elvis' great-great-grandkids). The more we adjust copyright law, the more artists that will get caught by extenuating circumstances. But should we oppress the public for the sake of a handful of artists, rare enough that we need to resort to theoretical scenarios on their behalf, that are in the wrong place at the wrong time?
I don't think an individual should be able to get a patent; if they aren't planning to make money on it...
Patent owned by individual != Does not plan on profiting from it.
Given the current lifespan of patents, if I have a good idea that can be profitable I would be tempted to patent it now and then work towards being able to start a business 2-5 years down the road that can make money from it. Or, if I am lazy, I could license it out.
I was illustrating that a policy could be based on lifespan and still avoid conflicting with the "inventor dies next week" scenario. (Without appending a number after the death date)
I agree a set span would be a better policy.
Just imagine if Wal-Mart could print and sell and book they wanted without permission from the author or the publisher. What if they could take your program or product, have it made in China for a tenth of your cost and sell it for their own profit.
Yay for them, I guess.
People here constantly complain about the music the RIAA offers us. If WalMart can sell CDs without paying the artist (good luck to them in offering a better perceived value than.torrent), the professional music industry will die, taking all the half-bakes with it. Only the artists for whom making music is its' own reward will continue to do so.
It originally was...what? 14 years?
The copyright on Windows 95 would be expiring in a few months. Oh how on Earth would MS survive if Windows 95 was no longer protected by copyright law?~
This vile proposal threatens to sacrifice shareholder value on the altar of the progress of science and the useful arts! The founding fathers would never stand for it.
There, fixed your partial quote of the Copyright Clause.
If Microsoft did that (package management system for "certified" 3rd party software), there'll be lots of people screaming "monopoly".
Why must it only provide certified 3rd party software? Windows EXEs could be shell scripts that append the repository URL to the equivalent of/etc/apt/sources.list, run apt-get update, and apt-get install $foo -y
Actually, Add/Remove recently disappeared from the menu in the Alpha. Now I find myself wishing I had looked up what the package name for that program was, since searching Google isn't turning up much.
Slashdot Mirror
I buried my deceased pet goldfish 10 years ago. Just 59,999,990 to go...
Netbook is a crossover between the standard laptop and PDA.
With 7's 3-app limit netbooks certainly would be glorified PDAs, and honestly it probably won't get in the way very often. But...
It is a computer. With all the flexibility inherent in computers not found in most PDAs or phones.
Running Linux, it can be a (mobile) Internet Appliance, a router, a firewall, a wireless access point, a web server, a front-end or a node in a beowulf cluster or render farm, a systems monitor, an email server, a cheap NAS, a multimedia player, a VoIP phone, a pet, a...
...but the majority of bands have decided they'd rather get paid if they can.
The majority of albums aren't still popular 40 years later like Elvis is. Most will be dead (as a cash cow) before a 7-14 year copyright expires. Microprose isn't making much money off of Civilization 2 anymore.
So if the majority of bands have already made a decision not to release to the public domain, what makes you so sure they'll continue making music if you force them to release to the public domain?
They have decided to release to the public domain, because they didn't lock the recording in a vault for the rest of eternity. All works (theoretically) enter the public domain eventually. It is only a question of when. StarCraft, in it's current form, will be very long in the tooth when it's source code becomes available to my great-great-grandchildren in 2073 (!), but an opensource-like project could keep it alive in one form or another through porting, new/improved graphics, and AI enhancement...
Why don't we outlaw the wheel, then? I'm sure that will force the market to come up with all sorts of creative alternatives.
And don't forget to outlaw everything that is directly based on wheel technology! Like gears, turbines, gyroscopes, (round) dimmer switches...
Our unwillingness to find alternatives that are not based on wheel technology in any way is degrading the very fabric of society!
Maybe he intends to force individuals to form trust funds, sole proprietorships, and other indirect methods of ownership.
Actually, if he took a picture, any picture, he is a copyright holder according to the Berne Convention that every WIPO country has signed on to.
Riiight
A lot of old 8 bit software we grew up with won't even run on most modern platform, but they're still "protected."
This whole issue would be fixed pretty quickly if:
The "boogey man" of large corporations was mentioned in my earlier post because they are precisely the ones who would benefit in tangible financial terms.
Not really. The fact that it is all public domain means the RIAA would be competing with free and legal torrents, and they are already losing to illegal torrents.
For instance, people are likely to still buy physical books and other media, so even if they only cost a few bucks the companies with the means to manufacture and distribute those things will still make money.
The publisher is providing a service. The customer would be able get the book for free online, but they may not wish to use so much toner, paper, and time to put it all in a loose-leaf binder when a professionally bound book is so much cleaner, faster, and simpler. (think "White Fang" or "Gone with the Wind")
Same with the music stores: They won't be providing music, they will be providing better access to the music (professionally pressed discs, lossless formats, etc.)
Since when do bands, or anyone else, have to work for "society"? If they have made something amazing enough that they never have to work again, good for them.
If they make $BIG_NUMBER before the copyright expires, and it is enough for them to retire for the rest of their lives, I have no problem with that.
If it isn't big enough, then they didn't "make something amazing enough that they never have to work again"
Wouldn't society be better served by having them suck gin by the pool for the rest of their life?
just sayin...
There, fixed that for you.~
But what about, say, an author. He writes a novel today which is published in limited circulation and does moderately well. In 2015 he publishes another novel, which through a combination of quality, good timing and strong support from his publisher turns into a big hit and gets rave reviews. Suddenly some of the reviewers start reading his first novel, and realise that it's actually even better than the second one.
How often does this sort of thing actually happen?
No matter what the policy is, someone is going to get the short end of the stick. Right now that someone is almost exclusively the consumer (and Elvis' great-great-grandkids). The more we adjust copyright law, the more artists that will get caught by extenuating circumstances. But should we oppress the public for the sake of a handful of artists, rare enough that we need to resort to theoretical scenarios on their behalf, that are in the wrong place at the wrong time?
What do you call the design of your Intel Core 2 processor before it gets fabbed into silicon and metal?
Probably "Trade Secret"
I don't think an individual should be able to get a patent; if they aren't planning to make money on it...
Patent owned by individual != Does not plan on profiting from it.
Given the current lifespan of patents, if I have a good idea that can be profitable I would be tempted to patent it now and then work towards being able to start a business 2-5 years down the road that can make money from it. Or, if I am lazy, I could license it out.
I was illustrating that a policy could be based on lifespan and still avoid conflicting with the "inventor dies next week" scenario. (Without appending a number after the death date)
I agree a set span would be a better policy.
Just imagine if Wal-Mart could print and sell and book they wanted without permission from the author or the publisher. What if they could take your program or product, have it made in China for a tenth of your cost and sell it for their own profit.
Yay for them, I guess. .torrent), the professional music industry will die, taking all the half-bakes with it. Only the artists for whom making music is its' own reward will continue to do so.
People here constantly complain about the music the RIAA offers us. If WalMart can sell CDs without paying the artist (good luck to them in offering a better perceived value than
What about "Life of author or x years, whichever is longer"?
Meh, that's what Wikipedia calls it.
It originally was...what? 14 years?
The copyright on Windows 95 would be expiring in a few months. Oh how on Earth would MS survive if Windows 95 was no longer protected by copyright law?~
This vile proposal threatens to sacrifice shareholder value on the altar of the progress of science and the useful arts! The founding fathers would never stand for it.
There, fixed your partial quote of the Copyright Clause.
If Microsoft did that (package management system for "certified" 3rd party software), there'll be lots of people screaming "monopoly".
Why must it only provide certified 3rd party software? Windows EXEs could be shell scripts that append the repository URL to the equivalent of /etc/apt/sources.list, run apt-get update, and apt-get install $foo -y
Actually, Add/Remove recently disappeared from the menu in the Alpha. Now I find myself wishing I had looked up what the package name for that program was, since searching Google isn't turning up much.
Of course step 3 isn't Profit. Step three is the '...'
Not so, a number of ISPs identify customer by MAC address.
Do you have any idea how many devices' MAC addresses are some variant of DE:AD:BE:EF?
VLC can play video in ASCII...
Filesharing through email? Sure, it's doable...
But those attachment limits force you to split your larger files before sending them.