First, profit is only considered when determing damages. You can violate someone's copyright without earning a cent. Second, fair use only pertains to copyright law specifically, not patents. There really is no fair use of patents. If you violate a patent then you risk large sums of money in damages and there is really no excuse other than to try to invalidae the patent or prove you aren't violating it in the first place. You can't claim you violated it but only for research purposed.
"the encouragement of ideas to advance literature, music, science, and technology."
That's where you're wrong. It's the encouragement of the expression of ideas to advance literature, music, science, and technology (emphasis mine). Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the idea itself (only patents protect ideas and in very limited cases). Innovation comes from expressing a multitude of ideas in new and creative ways, not expressing the same idea the same way over and over and over ad nauseum.
Not only do you assume correctly, Microsoft is going to allow their widgets to work both online (live.com - gadgets, and start.com - startlets, more (microsoftgadgets.com gadgets here) but on the user's desktop as well once Vista is released. Perhaps these gadgets will even share the same code and can live on both the desktop and live.com simultaneously.
That was a real site. They skirted this problem by simply stating the names and personal information of doctors who perform abortions, ticking them off when they were killed, but they never explicitely incited anyone to violent action. Everyone knew what the site was really about, but there was no solid proof, beyond obvious speculation, that could tie the action itself to the site.
"I must have missed the "Contains explicit sexual acts" statement on the game - oh wait, it wasn't on the game."
Actually it was. The M rating on the back enumerates specific reasons why GTA: San Andreas got that rating. Specifically it was for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, and Use of Drugs (emphasis mine). The GTA set for the XBOX was rated similarly, though oddly enough the Use of Drugs was left off despite the cocaine dealing in GTA: Vice City. It's not like you ned to dig through online game reviews to figure this stuff out, it's on the frigging box for crying out loud.
First Amendment rights are not absolute. Libel and slander are two exceptions to the rule and could apply here. One of the greatest failings of the internet is that it allows people to write libelous comments with little fear of legal action. Technology isn't the Great Equalizer, it's the Great Enabler, nothing more. It allows people to avoid personal responsibility for their comments. If it were truly equalizing, the damage caused by libel could be just as easily reversed by rebutting the comments. Unfortunately people fit into this great technology equation somewhere and things aren't that simple anymore. The original libelous comments have already formed an opinion in people's minds and a simple rebuttal will not sway our opinions easily. Throw in information overload and people are far too willing (and I mean all people, not just technophobes) to believe comments in the internet without doing any research into the allegations and determining for themselves who's right and who's wrong.
Insightful? I think not. Just a quick perusal through a handful of my XBOX titles reveals reasonable descriptive explanations as to why a game got an M or T rating (I have GTA: San Andreas but I got it before it was re-released as an AO). For instance, The Chronicles of Riddick got an M rating for Blood, Intense Violence, and Strong Language. After playing the game I'd say they're spot on. Sid Meier's Pirates got a T for Violence, Alcohol Reference, and Mild Suggestive Themes. I'd expect nothing less from a game about Pirates. Once again the ESRB got their rating spot on. The level of violence was much less than the violence in Chronicles of Riddick. Pitfall: The Lost Expedition got an E for Mild Suggestive Themes and Violence. OK, you got me on this one. Violence? Perhaps they should have used a less loaded word or tempered it with n adjective like "Cartoon Violence". If the game really has Violence, then perhaps it should have been given a T rating instead. The point is, the ESRB ratings already give enough information for parents to make a reasonable decision.
No, my question was not rhetorical. I honestly expect him to back up his accusations with facts. Want a drawing or are you bright enough to understand?
"How many of the great, truly talented acts we all know and love were the product of "investment" by the music industry? And how many struggled in poverty for years because they loved making music, before finally being signed up by a label and exploited for all they were worth...?"
It's called an investment. If you don't like the way record labels are investing their money then why don't you start your own record label and show us all how it's done? Hell, why don't you answer your own question instead of simply leaving it as an assumed suggestion that your second option is the only possible answer?
The paper's argument is correct in its analysis. If P2P helps smaller artists by giving away their work then it's goingto be extremely difficult to jump from there to asking people to pay for music they traditionally got for free. The internet has proven that pay services don't work if the service was free initially. Even the New York Times' free subscription sends many slashbots into fits of rage.
The U.S. Constitution most certainly enumerates the right of intellectual property though it does not call it this specifically. Article I, section 8 states quite clearly, "To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Time to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (emphasis mine). While Congress is not compelled to grant this right, it is a right none the less granted to Authors and Inventors.
I don't typically respond to AC's but this one is so wrong, I'd hate to see people get the wrong impression. The U.S. Constitution most certainly enumerates teh rights to intellectual property though it does not call it this specifically. Article I, section 8 states quite clearly, "To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Time to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Also, the only mention of life and liberty in the U.S. Constitution is in the Fifth Amendment and it refers to criminal cases whereby no person shall not "...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness makes an appearance in the Declaration of Independence but this document does not bear any legal weight nor is it the foundation for our legal system though the U.S. Constitution does borrow from it in some places.
If you really want to better understand the U.S. Constitution, but don't want to become a lawyer to do so, I highly recommend reading America's Constitution - A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar.
Actually, Roddenberry's son, the guy who owns the rights to the Star Treck franchise, allows fan films to exist as long as they do not make ANY money from them. I don't think this is unreasonable at all, in fact I think it's pretty damn generous. There's an article in the recent issue of Wired that discusses another Star Trek fan project. Personally I find it sad that far too much attention is paid to fan films and music mixes instead of the the truly inspiring original works such as the shorts on AnimWatch, the stuff done by studios like , or the music from thousands of small bands too numerous to list here.
"Why not just let the artists be in control for a while."
I am so sick and fucking tired of hearing this. The musicians have that control now, and they have always had that power. Nothing forces them to sign a contract with the record labels. Oh, you're probably going to counter that the labels have distribution channels locked up. Well, duh. These distribution channels would much rather deal with a small handful of entities (the labels) than bother negotiating with each and every artist. I keep hearing about this technology, what's it called? The interweb or something. Anyway, it's supposed to empower artists to distribute their music to the widest audience possible or something, eliminating the middle man (the labels) and making music more accessible. One problem though. Everybody expects music on the web to be free and this doesn't make it easy to make a living as a musician now does it. T-shirts and concert tickets don't make up for lost album sales. Personally I blame all sides in this one. The labels need to reduce prices on older CD's, make their back catalogs more accessible, and stop the shenanigans with the foreign releases with bonus tracks. The rest of you should quit freeloading and whining when you get caught.
What about "From the Earth to the Moon"? This was to space movies what "Band of Brothers" was to WWII movies. It accurately chronicles the entire Apollo space program over 12 episodes (originally an HBO miniseries).
"Intelligent people aren't going to pay money for ads and bullshit stories. And it's intelligent people who tend to read newspapers."
Wow, another/. stereotype that's wrong, go figure. Either you have a different definition of intelligent or you simply don't know that newspapers are by and large written for a 5th-6th grade reading and comperhension level.
If you're making average wages it's a good bet you're only an averaqge worker. If you're goof, then you can get HR to pay you more money and if they won't then you can get a job elsewhere because you're good. See how that works?
You idiots need to really learn what you are talking about. Copyright does nto protetc ideas, it protects the EXPRESSION of those ideas. Sure, there may only be 12 basic plot lines (ideas) but there is a nearly infinite number of ways to express these plot lines in an original way. The fight over copyright on the internet is not about this, it has never been about this, and it never will be about this. It is simply about cheap bastards getting shit for free, period. If you can explain hoe P2P aids in the creative process in any substantial way then maybe you have an argument. Until then, you are just one of the flock who simply want shit for free and will make up any bullshit excuse to cover your ass.
I saw the original Mythbusters episode where they tested Archimedes death ray and they tried fairly hard to replicate the design components of a roman ship of the time. The conclusion of their tests was that it would be nearly impossible to focus enough mirrors in one spot for a long enough time to be able to generate enough heat to set wood and pitch on fire. Were they able to make Archimedes death ray? No, because no plans exist of the device, hence it being a myth. They did, however, make a fairly plausible case against the existence of such a device.
Another OSS jackass telling me how to work instead of trying to understand the problems I face everyday and working to build software that fits these needs. No thanks, Windows works just fine for me.
"What's insane is the pro proprietary companies charge prices in the four figures just for some of their software alone. Can't be justified when you have the same abilities free."
$1000 is a drop in the bucket for most professional studios whose bread and butter work utilizes these tools. Photoshop is expensive but with the amount I make using teh software, it's nothing. if you're looking to purchase this software to goof off and do some amature stuff, then I can see you having a problem with the price. If you're a professional, these licenses are nothing in the overall scheme of things.
"How can an organization like the RIAA justify wanting more than 99 cents per song when you can purchase 44 minutes of audio and video for two dollars?"
Easy, the market demand for music is going to be far higher and as long as we live in a capitalistic society the laws fo supply and demand are going to drive prices. Copyright infringement interrupts this flow and will ultimately have negative consequences for both the industry and the consumer.
"He has studied the chord structure in Britney Spears' "Oops I Did It Again," and reports that it is "actually fairly complex,"
I'm not all that surprised really. I don't care for her music but that's personal taste. While I can't speak for her songwriting ability, I do think she has a talented voice. Sadly, too many people think that simply because they do not like something it must suck and anyone who does like it must be stupid. This phenomenon pervades much more of our culture than just music - art and politics being two other big areas where this elitism is polarizing society at an alarming rate.
Slashdot Mirror
First, profit is only considered when determing damages. You can violate someone's copyright without earning a cent. Second, fair use only pertains to copyright law specifically, not patents. There really is no fair use of patents. If you violate a patent then you risk large sums of money in damages and there is really no excuse other than to try to invalidae the patent or prove you aren't violating it in the first place. You can't claim you violated it but only for research purposed.
"the encouragement of ideas to advance literature, music, science, and technology."
That's where you're wrong. It's the encouragement of the expression of ideas to advance literature, music, science, and technology (emphasis mine). Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the idea itself (only patents protect ideas and in very limited cases). Innovation comes from expressing a multitude of ideas in new and creative ways, not expressing the same idea the same way over and over and over ad nauseum.
"and (I assume) Microsoft."
Not only do you assume correctly, Microsoft is going to allow their widgets to work both online (live.com - gadgets, and start.com - startlets, more (microsoftgadgets.com gadgets here) but on the user's desktop as well once Vista is released. Perhaps these gadgets will even share the same code and can live on both the desktop and live.com simultaneously.
That was a real site. They skirted this problem by simply stating the names and personal information of doctors who perform abortions, ticking them off when they were killed, but they never explicitely incited anyone to violent action. Everyone knew what the site was really about, but there was no solid proof, beyond obvious speculation, that could tie the action itself to the site.
"I must have missed the "Contains explicit sexual acts" statement on the game - oh wait, it wasn't on the game."
Actually it was. The M rating on the back enumerates specific reasons why GTA: San Andreas got that rating. Specifically it was for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, and Use of Drugs (emphasis mine). The GTA set for the XBOX was rated similarly, though oddly enough the Use of Drugs was left off despite the cocaine dealing in GTA: Vice City. It's not like you ned to dig through online game reviews to figure this stuff out, it's on the frigging box for crying out loud.
"If I remember correctly, to enforce copyright you are required to pursue all known violations in order to maintain the copyright."
You need to have your memory checked then. You can enforce copyright anyway you see fit. You appear to be confusing this with trademark protection.
First Amendment rights are not absolute. Libel and slander are two exceptions to the rule and could apply here. One of the greatest failings of the internet is that it allows people to write libelous comments with little fear of legal action. Technology isn't the Great Equalizer, it's the Great Enabler, nothing more. It allows people to avoid personal responsibility for their comments. If it were truly equalizing, the damage caused by libel could be just as easily reversed by rebutting the comments. Unfortunately people fit into this great technology equation somewhere and things aren't that simple anymore. The original libelous comments have already formed an opinion in people's minds and a simple rebuttal will not sway our opinions easily. Throw in information overload and people are far too willing (and I mean all people, not just technophobes) to believe comments in the internet without doing any research into the allegations and determining for themselves who's right and who's wrong.
The nose bone's connected to the back bone. The back bone's connected to the...
Insightful? I think not. Just a quick perusal through a handful of my XBOX titles reveals reasonable descriptive explanations as to why a game got an M or T rating (I have GTA: San Andreas but I got it before it was re-released as an AO). For instance, The Chronicles of Riddick got an M rating for Blood, Intense Violence, and Strong Language. After playing the game I'd say they're spot on. Sid Meier's Pirates got a T for Violence, Alcohol Reference, and Mild Suggestive Themes. I'd expect nothing less from a game about Pirates. Once again the ESRB got their rating spot on. The level of violence was much less than the violence in Chronicles of Riddick. Pitfall: The Lost Expedition got an E for Mild Suggestive Themes and Violence. OK, you got me on this one. Violence? Perhaps they should have used a less loaded word or tempered it with n adjective like "Cartoon Violence". If the game really has Violence, then perhaps it should have been given a T rating instead. The point is, the ESRB ratings already give enough information for parents to make a reasonable decision.
No, my question was not rhetorical. I honestly expect him to back up his accusations with facts. Want a drawing or are you bright enough to understand?
"How many of the great, truly talented acts we all know and love were the product of "investment" by the music industry? And how many struggled in poverty for years because they loved making music, before finally being signed up by a label and exploited for all they were worth...?"
It's called an investment. If you don't like the way record labels are investing their money then why don't you start your own record label and show us all how it's done? Hell, why don't you answer your own question instead of simply leaving it as an assumed suggestion that your second option is the only possible answer?
The paper's argument is correct in its analysis. If P2P helps smaller artists by giving away their work then it's goingto be extremely difficult to jump from there to asking people to pay for music they traditionally got for free. The internet has proven that pay services don't work if the service was free initially. Even the New York Times' free subscription sends many slashbots into fits of rage.
The U.S. Constitution most certainly enumerates the right of intellectual property though it does not call it this specifically. Article I, section 8 states quite clearly, "To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Time to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (emphasis mine). While Congress is not compelled to grant this right, it is a right none the less granted to Authors and Inventors.
I don't typically respond to AC's but this one is so wrong, I'd hate to see people get the wrong impression. The U.S. Constitution most certainly enumerates teh rights to intellectual property though it does not call it this specifically. Article I, section 8 states quite clearly, "To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Time to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Also, the only mention of life and liberty in the U.S. Constitution is in the Fifth Amendment and it refers to criminal cases whereby no person shall not "...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness makes an appearance in the Declaration of Independence but this document does not bear any legal weight nor is it the foundation for our legal system though the U.S. Constitution does borrow from it in some places.
If you really want to better understand the U.S. Constitution, but don't want to become a lawyer to do so, I highly recommend reading America's Constitution - A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar.
Actually, Roddenberry's son, the guy who owns the rights to the Star Treck franchise, allows fan films to exist as long as they do not make ANY money from them. I don't think this is unreasonable at all, in fact I think it's pretty damn generous. There's an article in the recent issue of Wired that discusses another Star Trek fan project. Personally I find it sad that far too much attention is paid to fan films and music mixes instead of the the truly inspiring original works such as the shorts on AnimWatch, the stuff done by studios like , or the music from thousands of small bands too numerous to list here.
"Why not just let the artists be in control for a while."
I am so sick and fucking tired of hearing this. The musicians have that control now, and they have always had that power. Nothing forces them to sign a contract with the record labels. Oh, you're probably going to counter that the labels have distribution channels locked up. Well, duh. These distribution channels would much rather deal with a small handful of entities (the labels) than bother negotiating with each and every artist. I keep hearing about this technology, what's it called? The interweb or something. Anyway, it's supposed to empower artists to distribute their music to the widest audience possible or something, eliminating the middle man (the labels) and making music more accessible. One problem though. Everybody expects music on the web to be free and this doesn't make it easy to make a living as a musician now does it. T-shirts and concert tickets don't make up for lost album sales. Personally I blame all sides in this one. The labels need to reduce prices on older CD's, make their back catalogs more accessible, and stop the shenanigans with the foreign releases with bonus tracks. The rest of you should quit freeloading and whining when you get caught.
What about "From the Earth to the Moon"? This was to space movies what "Band of Brothers" was to WWII movies. It accurately chronicles the entire Apollo space program over 12 episodes (originally an HBO miniseries).
"Intelligent people aren't going to pay money for ads and bullshit stories. And it's intelligent people who tend to read newspapers."
/. stereotype that's wrong, go figure. Either you have a different definition of intelligent or you simply don't know that newspapers are by and large written for a 5th-6th grade reading and comperhension level.
Wow, another
"...average wages..."
If you're making average wages it's a good bet you're only an averaqge worker. If you're goof, then you can get HR to pay you more money and if they won't then you can get a job elsewhere because you're good. See how that works?
You idiots need to really learn what you are talking about. Copyright does nto protetc ideas, it protects the EXPRESSION of those ideas. Sure, there may only be 12 basic plot lines (ideas) but there is a nearly infinite number of ways to express these plot lines in an original way. The fight over copyright on the internet is not about this, it has never been about this, and it never will be about this. It is simply about cheap bastards getting shit for free, period. If you can explain hoe P2P aids in the creative process in any substantial way then maybe you have an argument. Until then, you are just one of the flock who simply want shit for free and will make up any bullshit excuse to cover your ass.
I saw the original Mythbusters episode where they tested Archimedes death ray and they tried fairly hard to replicate the design components of a roman ship of the time. The conclusion of their tests was that it would be nearly impossible to focus enough mirrors in one spot for a long enough time to be able to generate enough heat to set wood and pitch on fire. Were they able to make Archimedes death ray? No, because no plans exist of the device, hence it being a myth. They did, however, make a fairly plausible case against the existence of such a device.
"The problem with Microsoft is that everthing comes with an agenda."
Oh, yeah, OSS doesn't have one of those </sarcasm>.
Another OSS jackass telling me how to work instead of trying to understand the problems I face everyday and working to build software that fits these needs. No thanks, Windows works just fine for me.
"What's insane is the pro proprietary companies charge prices in the four figures just for some of their software alone. Can't be justified when you have the same abilities free."
$1000 is a drop in the bucket for most professional studios whose bread and butter work utilizes these tools. Photoshop is expensive but with the amount I make using teh software, it's nothing. if you're looking to purchase this software to goof off and do some amature stuff, then I can see you having a problem with the price. If you're a professional, these licenses are nothing in the overall scheme of things.
"How can an organization like the RIAA justify wanting more than 99 cents per song when you can purchase 44 minutes of audio and video for two dollars?"
Easy, the market demand for music is going to be far higher and as long as we live in a capitalistic society the laws fo supply and demand are going to drive prices. Copyright infringement interrupts this flow and will ultimately have negative consequences for both the industry and the consumer.
"He has studied the chord structure in Britney Spears' "Oops I Did It Again," and reports that it is "actually fairly complex,"
I'm not all that surprised really. I don't care for her music but that's personal taste. While I can't speak for her songwriting ability, I do think she has a talented voice. Sadly, too many people think that simply because they do not like something it must suck and anyone who does like it must be stupid. This phenomenon pervades much more of our culture than just music - art and politics being two other big areas where this elitism is polarizing society at an alarming rate.