"They can throw up dialogs like "If you save in this format your document may look like crap later" (sort of what they do now)"
This is one of the biggest problem I have with open standards. Basically anything anyone wants to add to their word processor will now have to either have to be part of the standard, degrade in some way, or simply not be added. We're stuck with the lowest common denominator syndrome and no one wins here. If Microsoft adds a feature that's not part of the standard they'll be accused of trying to embrace and extend to dominate the world. If they fail to add a feature then the people who use Word, and its myriad of features, will be screwed by not being able to do things they want to do until the elder ones in their ivory tower of standards compliance deem the feature worthy of inclusion in the standards. Word processors are doomed thanks to the state of MA using open standards as a political chip but what's next, is Adobe going to have to open up their.PSD format so everyone can create compatible image editors? Where does open standards end and innovation begin?
I never said you were in the wrong about DRM. Think about this for a minute though, would we have DRM if people learned how to control themselves and not illegally distribute content for which they have no permission? I doubt it. DRM, dongles, activation, and their ilk are a response to illegal activity, they are not a preemptive strike against phantom worries. I think blame for this situation we are faced with is highly misplaced and I think it's time people started pushing for respect of copyright law. Until then there will be no real change in the way intellectual property is distributed on the internet and we'll be stuck in this copyright cold war for a very very long time.
You can get the content free as in freedom but you wouldn't like the price tag. You have to pay for the right to distribute and make derivative works. When you purchase a CD you aren't buying the content to do with as you please, you are purchasing a disc with music on it to listen to, perhaps copy to a different format to listen in your car or portable mp3 player,
The product is mucis, not a particular song. You are free to make all the music you want as long as you do not copy or make a derivative or another person's song. Where's the monopoly exactly?
Copyright does not protect ideas you fucking moron!!!!!!!! JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, when are you dumbass slashbots going top get this through your fucking heads?!?!?!?! Copyrights protect the EXPRSSION of an idea, not the idea itself, got it?!?!?
"Once copyright gets back down to a sane and short period, you might find out that people will have a bit more respect for it."
No, they won't. Do you see people trading more music and movies online that are current or 28 years or more old? How about software? Most of what's being illegally distributed is current stuff that would fall under the protection of original copyright terms. This is why I don't believe copyright reform is necessary. People are going to illegally distribute intellectual property online because they think they have a right to it, not because it's in the public domain.
I really wish I had bookmarked the comment but someone dug up a quote with the term piracy used to describe copyright infringement. The quote was from a couple hundred years ago or so. If the term was used that way back then then it's certainly just as relevant today. The point is the word was not recently "hijacked", it had been in use long before the current copyright battle.
bzzzzttt...wrong. ASCAP and BMI are colleciton agencies. These are the guys who around to venues and make sure artists are bgine rightfully compensated for the use of their music. If a bar, restaurant, or other establishment has a stereo system larger than a boombox then they have likely been visited by ASCAP and.or BMI. The RIAA also collects royalties but this is on msuic sales. Artists can be compensated by both organizations.
...little pathetic, hate filled lives you people lead. A man gives away a vast fortune and all you people can do is complain about how that's not really all that much. $37,000,000,000 is going to help a lot of people in third world countries. Oh, I'm sorry, you're bitter that he didn't donate the money to the EFF or the FSF to fund your little pet projects.
Why is the government sending out documents which can be easily edited? Word and its ilk (word processing documents) are the absolute worst file types to distribute things like this in. PDF and Microsoft's new XPS are perfect for this sort of thing and it's what they were designed for. Not only would PDF be great for reading, you can extend its functionality with forms. Governments could do away with paper forms cutting down on processing time and errors.
Well excuse the fuck out of me for not knowing who all the Firefox developers are. Next time I'll be sure to reference my Firefox developer trading cars from Fleer before posting a comment about Firefox.
Firefox 1.5.0.4 on MacOS X does not pass the acid test. Why don't you add a screen capture with the actual URL you went to so people can independently verify your claims?
Already taken care of with download and burn to DVD movies. I believe CinemaNow.com is doing this or plans to (it's being tested with an online porn site too). Users can download the movie and watch it on their computer or burn a copy to DVD and have full menu capabilities, etc. of the regular DVD. Not sure what they're doing about DVD title covers or DVD labels (presumably you can download and print those yourself through the service). However, like anything els, some jackass will come along and crack the DRM of these, post them to bit-torrent and we start the whole cycle of bullshit arguments about things being too expensive, DRM sucks, it's too restrictive, blah, blah, blah, blah.
What's the difference between a cop driving down the street (or using a helicopter) and observing a crime in progress and a cop sitting being the controls of a UAV and observing a crime in progress? One also has to ask what's the difference between obtaining a subpoena to discover the contents of an ATM camera and obtaining the warrante to surveil an area with a UAV? The courts would be involved in the process in some fashion.
This isn't capitalism, this is "the Wal-Mart Effect". Apple has established itself as the gatekeeper of sorts for digital music. The Apple/iPod/iTunes brands are as synonymous with portable music players and online music stores as Wal-Mart is with consumer goods super stores. As with Wal-Mart, Apple is in the position of making market decisions for others, limiting choices for the consumer, by keeping their player from recognizing other file formats and selling only fairplay encoded AAC files through iTunes (a format that no other digital music player can recognize unlike WMA which Microsoft licenses to numerous companies). Without this lock-in, Apple would not have the commanding lead in portable music players they have today and this is why they won't open the file format or license it to others.
I'll respond to you since I don't reply to AC's. There is no muddling of concepts here. When you translate the book you're not changing the expression, you're changing the language in which it's expressed. Once again, a very fine distinction lost on most. In this case you're making a derivative work, not a new work. Look at it another way. The theme of a book is its idea. The expression is the plot, the characters, the setting, etc. When you translate a book you do not change the plot, characters or setting therefore you have not created a new work. However, you could take the theme and write your own book, in any language you choose, and as long as you do not express the characters, plot, or setting in any significant way you're creating a new work. Now, this is not to say that one necessarily copyrights the setting unless it's unique. I can't write a book in the Star Wars or Forgotten Realms worlds without violating copyright (these are ideas - worlds - expressed in unique ways) but I can write a book that takes place in New York or Rome for instance.
"Just as a man could light his taper from an existing candle without diminishing the original flame, so, too, could he acquire an idea without diminishing the original source."
Thomas Jefferson is right but you, and pretty much everybody else misunderstands copyright when they quote him as you did here. His analogy basically gets it wrong, regardless of how poetic and insightful it may initially seem. Ideas are free to use and take as you like. Copyright doesn't stop this, never has, never will. What copyright protects is the expression of an idea in a tangible medium. What does this mean? Let's use the Da Vinci Code fiasco as an example (because it was mentioned in the summary). Three authors jointly wrote a book called Holy Blood Holy Grail where they established the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene sired a child and his bloodline is potentially still in existence today. That's the idea. These three authors expressed their idea in the form of a non-fictional historical account of the facts behind this theory. Dan Brown took the idea and wrote a fictional story around the premise. the subsequent court case against Dan Brown failed simply because his expression of the theory (idea) was vastly different from the HBHG historical account. It doesn't matter how unique an idea is, and the theory presented by HBHG is rather unique, the only protection one will receive is for the uniqueness of the expression once it's fixed in a tangible medium (book, music, play, sculpture, painting, etc.).
...but does anyone have a good scientific reason as to why? I've heard all sorts of pet theories but the most popular tend to blame large SUV's and then go on to ways to have them banned, disregarding the fact that there would still be fossil fuel burning vehicles on the road (global warming would still occur but it might take a little longer - great, we just bought a couple years). Sorry, but I highly doubt SUV's are the sole reason why the climate is warming up. I trust these people about as much as I trust this article. How much do we really know about terrestrial science to determine cause? Isn't that where the debate should be headed?
"Bolder yet, one large studio is allowing fans who buy movies online to burn them from their computers onto DVDs, with some protections included, of course."...for someone to crack the protections on a blockbuster DVD and redistribiute that file on teh internet? The whole online copyright debate has always been about getting shit for free and forcing content creators to look elsewhere for money because consumers are no longer a good source. All it takes is one person to whine that the donloadable version of Rocky XVII is too expensive and how they would pay for it if it were half that price (half seems to be the magical price point people are willing to pay for anything - "cd's $10", "I'd pay half that", "OK, cd's $5", "I'd pay half that", etc.) and in the meantime they are going to pirate the movie. It's a never-ending, viscious cycle that is only going to be broken when content simply becomes too expensive to create or becomes too crappy due to all the product placement that people are no longer willing to pay to see Rocky "Pepsi-Cola" Balboa in Rocky XXVII. I like Jeep (I own a Liberyty, really want a Commander) and I like Tomb Raider but I thought the blatant product placement of the Jeep Commanders in Tomb Raider: Legend was really tasteless. Jeep also made a huge deal about the modified Jeep Wrangler in Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life (big coup since the vehicle Lara Croft used in the first Tomb Raider movie was a Land Rover).
First of all it's speech, not speach. Second, no you cannot. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. This very important distinction is lost on your typical slashbot frothing at the mouth with the mere mention of the word copyright. As long as I do not actually use substantial sections of your work and claim it as my own or distribute it without your permission I'm OK when I write a scathing article about a politician that you also wrote a scathing article about.
Slashdot Mirror
"They can throw up dialogs like "If you save in this format your document may look like crap later" (sort of what they do now)"
.PSD format so everyone can create compatible image editors? Where does open standards end and innovation begin?
This is one of the biggest problem I have with open standards. Basically anything anyone wants to add to their word processor will now have to either have to be part of the standard, degrade in some way, or simply not be added. We're stuck with the lowest common denominator syndrome and no one wins here. If Microsoft adds a feature that's not part of the standard they'll be accused of trying to embrace and extend to dominate the world. If they fail to add a feature then the people who use Word, and its myriad of features, will be screwed by not being able to do things they want to do until the elder ones in their ivory tower of standards compliance deem the feature worthy of inclusion in the standards. Word processors are doomed thanks to the state of MA using open standards as a political chip but what's next, is Adobe going to have to open up their
I never said you were in the wrong about DRM. Think about this for a minute though, would we have DRM if people learned how to control themselves and not illegally distribute content for which they have no permission? I doubt it. DRM, dongles, activation, and their ilk are a response to illegal activity, they are not a preemptive strike against phantom worries. I think blame for this situation we are faced with is highly misplaced and I think it's time people started pushing for respect of copyright law. Until then there will be no real change in the way intellectual property is distributed on the internet and we'll be stuck in this copyright cold war for a very very long time.
You can get the content free as in freedom but you wouldn't like the price tag. You have to pay for the right to distribute and make derivative works. When you purchase a CD you aren't buying the content to do with as you please, you are purchasing a disc with music on it to listen to, perhaps copy to a different format to listen in your car or portable mp3 player,
That should be "music" not "mucis" though some bands make more of the latter than the former.
The product is mucis, not a particular song. You are free to make all the music you want as long as you do not copy or make a derivative or another person's song. Where's the monopoly exactly?
Copyright does not protect ideas you fucking moron!!!!!!!! JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, when are you dumbass slashbots going top get this through your fucking heads?!?!?!?! Copyrights protect the EXPRSSION of an idea, not the idea itself, got it?!?!?
"Once copyright gets back down to a sane and short period, you might find out that people will have a bit more respect for it."
No, they won't. Do you see people trading more music and movies online that are current or 28 years or more old? How about software? Most of what's being illegally distributed is current stuff that would fall under the protection of original copyright terms. This is why I don't believe copyright reform is necessary. People are going to illegally distribute intellectual property online because they think they have a right to it, not because it's in the public domain.
I really wish I had bookmarked the comment but someone dug up a quote with the term piracy used to describe copyright infringement. The quote was from a couple hundred years ago or so. If the term was used that way back then then it's certainly just as relevant today. The point is the word was not recently "hijacked", it had been in use long before the current copyright battle.
that should read, "The Supreme Court does not...".
The Supreme Court does to rule on narrow issues. If a case makes it to our Supreme Court, prepare for a shift in our legal system.
bzzzzttt...wrong. ASCAP and BMI are colleciton agencies. These are the guys who around to venues and make sure artists are bgine rightfully compensated for the use of their music. If a bar, restaurant, or other establishment has a stereo system larger than a boombox then they have likely been visited by ASCAP and.or BMI. The RIAA also collects royalties but this is on msuic sales. Artists can be compensated by both organizations.
...little pathetic, hate filled lives you people lead. A man gives away a vast fortune and all you people can do is complain about how that's not really all that much. $37,000,000,000 is going to help a lot of people in third world countries. Oh, I'm sorry, you're bitter that he didn't donate the money to the EFF or the FSF to fund your little pet projects.
Why is the government sending out documents which can be easily edited? Word and its ilk (word processing documents) are the absolute worst file types to distribute things like this in. PDF and Microsoft's new XPS are perfect for this sort of thing and it's what they were designed for. Not only would PDF be great for reading, you can extend its functionality with forms. Governments could do away with paper forms cutting down on processing time and errors.
Chicken meet egg indeed. Without jackasses distributing music illegally through P2P and other means we would not have DRM. Think about that for a bit.
It's called loitering and most businesses have a "No Loitering" policy for people such as this, no need to quantify anything.
Well excuse the fuck out of me for not knowing who all the Firefox developers are. Next time I'll be sure to reference my Firefox developer trading cars from Fleer before posting a comment about Firefox.
Firefox 1.5.0.4 on MacOS X does not pass the acid test. Why don't you add a screen capture with the actual URL you went to so people can independently verify your claims?
Already taken care of with download and burn to DVD movies. I believe CinemaNow.com is doing this or plans to (it's being tested with an online porn site too). Users can download the movie and watch it on their computer or burn a copy to DVD and have full menu capabilities, etc. of the regular DVD. Not sure what they're doing about DVD title covers or DVD labels (presumably you can download and print those yourself through the service). However, like anything els, some jackass will come along and crack the DRM of these, post them to bit-torrent and we start the whole cycle of bullshit arguments about things being too expensive, DRM sucks, it's too restrictive, blah, blah, blah, blah.
What's the difference between a cop driving down the street (or using a helicopter) and observing a crime in progress and a cop sitting being the controls of a UAV and observing a crime in progress? One also has to ask what's the difference between obtaining a subpoena to discover the contents of an ATM camera and obtaining the warrante to surveil an area with a UAV? The courts would be involved in the process in some fashion.
This isn't capitalism, this is "the Wal-Mart Effect". Apple has established itself as the gatekeeper of sorts for digital music. The Apple/iPod/iTunes brands are as synonymous with portable music players and online music stores as Wal-Mart is with consumer goods super stores. As with Wal-Mart, Apple is in the position of making market decisions for others, limiting choices for the consumer, by keeping their player from recognizing other file formats and selling only fairplay encoded AAC files through iTunes (a format that no other digital music player can recognize unlike WMA which Microsoft licenses to numerous companies). Without this lock-in, Apple would not have the commanding lead in portable music players they have today and this is why they won't open the file format or license it to others.
I'll respond to you since I don't reply to AC's. There is no muddling of concepts here. When you translate the book you're not changing the expression, you're changing the language in which it's expressed. Once again, a very fine distinction lost on most. In this case you're making a derivative work, not a new work. Look at it another way. The theme of a book is its idea. The expression is the plot, the characters, the setting, etc. When you translate a book you do not change the plot, characters or setting therefore you have not created a new work. However, you could take the theme and write your own book, in any language you choose, and as long as you do not express the characters, plot, or setting in any significant way you're creating a new work. Now, this is not to say that one necessarily copyrights the setting unless it's unique. I can't write a book in the Star Wars or Forgotten Realms worlds without violating copyright (these are ideas - worlds - expressed in unique ways) but I can write a book that takes place in New York or Rome for instance.
"Just as a man could light his taper from an existing candle without diminishing the original flame, so, too, could he acquire an idea without diminishing the original source."
Thomas Jefferson is right but you, and pretty much everybody else misunderstands copyright when they quote him as you did here. His analogy basically gets it wrong, regardless of how poetic and insightful it may initially seem. Ideas are free to use and take as you like. Copyright doesn't stop this, never has, never will. What copyright protects is the expression of an idea in a tangible medium. What does this mean? Let's use the Da Vinci Code fiasco as an example (because it was mentioned in the summary). Three authors jointly wrote a book called Holy Blood Holy Grail where they established the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene sired a child and his bloodline is potentially still in existence today. That's the idea. These three authors expressed their idea in the form of a non-fictional historical account of the facts behind this theory. Dan Brown took the idea and wrote a fictional story around the premise. the subsequent court case against Dan Brown failed simply because his expression of the theory (idea) was vastly different from the HBHG historical account. It doesn't matter how unique an idea is, and the theory presented by HBHG is rather unique, the only protection one will receive is for the uniqueness of the expression once it's fixed in a tangible medium (book, music, play, sculpture, painting, etc.).
...but does anyone have a good scientific reason as to why? I've heard all sorts of pet theories but the most popular tend to blame large SUV's and then go on to ways to have them banned, disregarding the fact that there would still be fossil fuel burning vehicles on the road (global warming would still occur but it might take a little longer - great, we just bought a couple years). Sorry, but I highly doubt SUV's are the sole reason why the climate is warming up. I trust these people about as much as I trust this article. How much do we really know about terrestrial science to determine cause? Isn't that where the debate should be headed?
"Bolder yet, one large studio is allowing fans who buy movies online to burn them from their computers onto DVDs, with some protections included, of course." ...for someone to crack the protections on a blockbuster DVD and redistribiute that file on teh internet? The whole online copyright debate has always been about getting shit for free and forcing content creators to look elsewhere for money because consumers are no longer a good source. All it takes is one person to whine that the donloadable version of Rocky XVII is too expensive and how they would pay for it if it were half that price (half seems to be the magical price point people are willing to pay for anything - "cd's $10", "I'd pay half that", "OK, cd's $5", "I'd pay half that", etc.) and in the meantime they are going to pirate the movie. It's a never-ending, viscious cycle that is only going to be broken when content simply becomes too expensive to create or becomes too crappy due to all the product placement that people are no longer willing to pay to see Rocky "Pepsi-Cola" Balboa in Rocky XXVII. I like Jeep (I own a Liberyty, really want a Commander) and I like Tomb Raider but I thought the blatant product placement of the Jeep Commanders in Tomb Raider: Legend was really tasteless. Jeep also made a huge deal about the modified Jeep Wrangler in Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life (big coup since the vehicle Lara Croft used in the first Tomb Raider movie was a Land Rover).
First of all it's speech, not speach. Second, no you cannot. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. This very important distinction is lost on your typical slashbot frothing at the mouth with the mere mention of the word copyright. As long as I do not actually use substantial sections of your work and claim it as my own or distribute it without your permission I'm OK when I write a scathing article about a politician that you also wrote a scathing article about.