I apoligize fo rsounding so mean before, this topic really gets my blood boiling, mostly because everyone seems to be so misinformed and/or blissfully ignorant. Article 1, Section 8, as others have pointed out, is the basis for Copyright Law in the US. it was a right specifically granted by our founding fathers for good reason. Note it was granted before the right of free speech.
Copyright law was established in the US Constitution. How again was the law bought and paid for? Oh, you're going to suggest extensions to the terms were bought and paid for. Fair enough, but how does this explain the fact that intellectual property which is still protected under original copyright terms is still the vast majority of content on the P2P networks? Quit being a pussy and hiding behind bullshit excuses; you just want shit for free, period, end of story.
I kow you're trying to be funny but MSN has had a personalized homepage for years now. You should try it some time, it's actually pretty damn good. MSNBC used to have a great personalized news page for the Outlook Today page in Outlook but they stopped supporting it and closed the site down; bummer.
...Copyright law is just fine the way it is, no need to shorten the terms. Even if we went back to 14 years plus 14 year extension this would still be a violation. This fight over copyright hasn't been about the terms of copyright, it's always been about the specific right of distribution granted to intellectual property owners. People want to be distributors without being granted a license and this is wrong under any reasonable copyright law.
Yeah, and how do you explain why the Cubans are coming in droves to the US seeking political asylum? These people aren't coming over in cruise ships either, many risk their lives floating on nothing more than what amouns to piles of trash held together by rope. Real stable country you got there buddy. Meanwhile, in reality...
The RIAA does not have a chokehold on all music distribution. Musicians have no less freedom to self distribute, assuming they are not contractually bound, all their music as they see fit. Napster proved only one thing; people just want shit for free. The ensuing battle over copyrighted material being distributed over P2P networks on the internet further proves this point as more and more apps are being developed with the sole purpose of allowing anonymous distribution. People just want shit for free and they want to remain anonymous while they do it so they remain free of responsibility for their actions.
...the ends now justify the means? Is this the kind of world we want to live in? Or do the ends only justify the means for things slashbots want it to and nothing else can follow this logic?
It's all in the use. Tigers are not typically associated with operating systems so Apple's use of the tem in trade is legitimate (as is TigerDirect's). Not to overuse the automobile comparison's but this is a great industry example. Companies used to name their cars after animals, amongst other common objects (comet anyone?) all the time and they were protected trademarks.
Bull fucking shit. I am so sick and fucking tired of reading this crap on/. Not only do copyrights expire, there is a wealth of public domain intellectual property I'm sure Larry Lessig would rather you sooner forget. Not only that but more intellectual property is placed into the public domain every day, despite what the EFF has brainwashed you to think. The only aberration that has occurred due to the Sonny Bono copyright act is the rate at which some new intellectual property is going to enter into the public domain. This, however, is not easily measured because it assumes that an equal amount of intellectual property is created every year. The Supreme Court of the US may have handed the RIAA and MPAA a victory but it will be short lived. Congress is going to have a very difficult time getting any further copyright extensions past the Supreme Court. Therefore life of author plus 75 is about all you're going to get if you're a creator of intellectual property, enjoy it while you can.
"The truth and the problem is that copyrights are not free market. If the government gave Ford a monopoly on making cars, because they don't have an "incentive" to make them unless they could lock out everyone else - most people would see this as interference in free markets and overbearing government regulation."
See, this is the problem slashbots have understanding copyright. It's not locking up an idea for ever, it's granting the sole right of copying, distribution, performance, public display, and/or making derivatives or an original expression of an idea. To correct your automobile analogy, well not really correct it, just point out where you are wring, Ford is not granted the sole right to make cars. However, they are granted the sole right to make Ford Mustangs. Chevy is still going to make, and well within their right, to make the Corvette and Ford can just go stuff themselves if they want to make their own Corvette. They compete in the sports car market, NOT the Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Corvette markets.
Let's apply this to television since analogies, especially car analogies, are often just plain wrong. fox is welcome to make The Simpson's (I know they don't make it, they have the rights to distribute it, work with me here a bit) and any other station that wants to air or create their own episodes of The Simpson's has to deal with Fox. NBC is welcome to start their own cartoon about a dysfunctional family, they just have to start from scratch and hope they can garner enough ratings to make it popular and compete against The Simpson's. Again, the market is not episodes of The Simpson's it's cartoons or sitcoms about dysfunctional families.
This, in my opinion, is an acceptable "monopoly". FOX and NBC cannot have a monopoly on television though if their shows are popular enough they may obtain more of the television audience than other stations. If you want to compete you have to make a better, more original show than the other studios. If a studio spends the time, money, and effort developing and producing a hot show why should they have to compete with other studios for the same show? If you want to distribute the show across the internet you have to obtain the same rights and if the studio say no you are more than welcome to develop and produce your own internet based cartoon or sitcom and share it however you like. If it's good you might even get a studio interested but don't count your chickens.
I can't use a trademark without permission from the trademark holder, period. I can't use Mickey Mouse in a film simply because that would imply some form of collusion with Disney that they may have authorized. You're thinking of someone using something that looks similar to Mickey Mouse but isn't quite Mickey Mouse to endorse a product which is a completely different thing altogether.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, copyright law in the US is fine the way it is. However, copyright reform for your typical slashbot is for one thing and one thing only; getting shit for free. They want to be able to freely distribute intellectual property across the internet without fear of prosecution.
Mickey Mouse will never be allowed to be used in anything other than parodies regardless of time frame. Mickey Mouse is protected by trademark law which means his likeness will NEVER expire. You can't even take clips of Fantasia and use them in anything because you will be violating a registered trademark. By the way, you can currently make parodies of Mickey Mouse without violating copyright law.
Define profit. Couldn't one argue that accepting audio files in return is a form of payment, and by inclusion profit? To put it another way, you have bartered away a copy of your music or video for the ability to download more music and videos and thus have profited in a barter system.
I did a quick check and found that you can register deisel vehicles in MA if they pass LEV II statndards though no newer diesel vehicles to my kowledge have. MA follows CA emmissions statdards, as do 13 other states apparently; Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont. Here's a link to the LEV II standards.
The problem is some states won't allow privately owned diesel vehicles. I want a 2005 CRD Jeep Liberty but MA won't allow them. Oddly enough Jeep unveiled this very same vehicle in Boston, go figure. CA doesn't allow privately owned deisel vehicles either. It's like nuclear technology, deisel just has a bad stigma attached to it despite improvements over the years in both technologies.
This is exactly what I'm getting at though. The church subverted pagan religions by consuming some of their rites and rituals (acceptance of their practicies). By accepting the theory of evolution with only a few minor caveats which allow for the inclusion of intellignet design they eventually combine the two enough in the minds of their faithful that it becomes more controlable.
I never said I believed the entire book. In fact, I've read the Secrets of the Code: The Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code. However, in context of my original post, there was no argument that Christianity consumed some rites and rituals of pagan religions to pull more followers into the flock. Thus, my suggestion that Christianity is perhaps doing the same with science is accurate to a fairly high degree.
No, it doesn't , it merely calls into question how much is historically accurate and how much is fiction. I could write a book about WWII which is completely accurate except we don't drop a bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. instead the Geremans and Japanese succeed with their plans to drop a nuke on us. Is my book now precluded "from having substantive historical basis"? No, I merely changed the ending.
...but after reading Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" I'm convinced the Catholic church and its ilk are attempting to subvert science by consuming it like they did pagan religions centuries ago. By using intelligent design as their trojan horse, they can introduce religion into science and public schools without referring to any particular religion.
...slashbots read what they want to read and interpret the article through their monochromatic lens. This is NOT underhanded shilling of the products, it's a way for Microsoft to distill comments from the community to learn how to better improve Longhorn, and I quote "All will need to sign NDAs cause there are things in Longhorn that we don't want to leak out, but they'll be your proxies. They'll tell us where we're screwing up, what we're doing well, and will be world's top authorities on Longhorn." The reason they want bloggers is becasue bloggers provide a two-way communication between the community of users and Microsoft. Bloggers will take the comments from their sites, distill them into meaningful suggestions for ways to improve Longhorn and Microsoft can then in turn provide these very same bloggers with access to updates on Longhorn to report back to the community of users. Simple enough but as usual slashbots prove they are dumber than your average bear and could do the world a favor by shutting up unless they themselves have something meaningful to add to the discussion.
Copyright has never protected ideas, only expressions of an idea in a fixed medium. So, yes, a phone book can be granted copyright protection but the phone numbers themselves cannot be copyrighted since they are not original ideas. Gene sequences may not be granted copyright protection (they can be patented in the US), but the database and the way it presents this information can be granted protection. The important thing to remember, and why reading any discussion about copyright on Slashdot is extremely frustrating, is that copyrights protect the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
The solution is for people to stop buying CDs and listening to music created by members of the RIAA. Until you stop doing this the "problem", as you put it, will continue.
Slashdot Mirror
640K should be plenty of room for their brains. You can carry your memories around on a 5.25" floppy disk.
I apoligize fo rsounding so mean before, this topic really gets my blood boiling, mostly because everyone seems to be so misinformed and/or blissfully ignorant. Article 1, Section 8, as others have pointed out, is the basis for Copyright Law in the US. it was a right specifically granted by our founding fathers for good reason. Note it was granted before the right of free speech.
Copyright law was established in the US Constitution. How again was the law bought and paid for? Oh, you're going to suggest extensions to the terms were bought and paid for. Fair enough, but how does this explain the fact that intellectual property which is still protected under original copyright terms is still the vast majority of content on the P2P networks? Quit being a pussy and hiding behind bullshit excuses; you just want shit for free, period, end of story.
I kow you're trying to be funny but MSN has had a personalized homepage for years now. You should try it some time, it's actually pretty damn good. MSNBC used to have a great personalized news page for the Outlook Today page in Outlook but they stopped supporting it and closed the site down; bummer.
...Copyright law is just fine the way it is, no need to shorten the terms. Even if we went back to 14 years plus 14 year extension this would still be a violation. This fight over copyright hasn't been about the terms of copyright, it's always been about the specific right of distribution granted to intellectual property owners. People want to be distributors without being granted a license and this is wrong under any reasonable copyright law.
Yeah, and how do you explain why the Cubans are coming in droves to the US seeking political asylum? These people aren't coming over in cruise ships either, many risk their lives floating on nothing more than what amouns to piles of trash held together by rope. Real stable country you got there buddy. Meanwhile, in reality...
The RIAA does not have a chokehold on all music distribution. Musicians have no less freedom to self distribute, assuming they are not contractually bound, all their music as they see fit. Napster proved only one thing; people just want shit for free. The ensuing battle over copyrighted material being distributed over P2P networks on the internet further proves this point as more and more apps are being developed with the sole purpose of allowing anonymous distribution. People just want shit for free and they want to remain anonymous while they do it so they remain free of responsibility for their actions.
...the ends now justify the means? Is this the kind of world we want to live in? Or do the ends only justify the means for things slashbots want it to and nothing else can follow this logic?
It's all in the use. Tigers are not typically associated with operating systems so Apple's use of the tem in trade is legitimate (as is TigerDirect's). Not to overuse the automobile comparison's but this is a great industry example. Companies used to name their cars after animals, amongst other common objects (comet anyone?) all the time and they were protected trademarks.
"copyrights do not expire."
/. Not only do copyrights expire, there is a wealth of public domain intellectual property I'm sure Larry Lessig would rather you sooner forget. Not only that but more intellectual property is placed into the public domain every day, despite what the EFF has brainwashed you to think. The only aberration that has occurred due to the Sonny Bono copyright act is the rate at which some new intellectual property is going to enter into the public domain. This, however, is not easily measured because it assumes that an equal amount of intellectual property is created every year. The Supreme Court of the US may have handed the RIAA and MPAA a victory but it will be short lived. Congress is going to have a very difficult time getting any further copyright extensions past the Supreme Court. Therefore life of author plus 75 is about all you're going to get if you're a creator of intellectual property, enjoy it while you can.
Bull fucking shit. I am so sick and fucking tired of reading this crap on
"The truth and the problem is that copyrights are not free market. If the government gave Ford a monopoly on making cars, because they don't have an "incentive" to make them unless they could lock out everyone else - most people would see this as interference in free markets and overbearing government regulation."
See, this is the problem slashbots have understanding copyright. It's not locking up an idea for ever, it's granting the sole right of copying, distribution, performance, public display, and/or making derivatives or an original expression of an idea. To correct your automobile analogy, well not really correct it, just point out where you are wring, Ford is not granted the sole right to make cars. However, they are granted the sole right to make Ford Mustangs. Chevy is still going to make, and well within their right, to make the Corvette and Ford can just go stuff themselves if they want to make their own Corvette. They compete in the sports car market, NOT the Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Corvette markets.
Let's apply this to television since analogies, especially car analogies, are often just plain wrong. fox is welcome to make The Simpson's (I know they don't make it, they have the rights to distribute it, work with me here a bit) and any other station that wants to air or create their own episodes of The Simpson's has to deal with Fox. NBC is welcome to start their own cartoon about a dysfunctional family, they just have to start from scratch and hope they can garner enough ratings to make it popular and compete against The Simpson's. Again, the market is not episodes of The Simpson's it's cartoons or sitcoms about dysfunctional families.
This, in my opinion, is an acceptable "monopoly". FOX and NBC cannot have a monopoly on television though if their shows are popular enough they may obtain more of the television audience than other stations. If you want to compete you have to make a better, more original show than the other studios. If a studio spends the time, money, and effort developing and producing a hot show why should they have to compete with other studios for the same show? If you want to distribute the show across the internet you have to obtain the same rights and if the studio say no you are more than welcome to develop and produce your own internet based cartoon or sitcom and share it however you like. If it's good you might even get a studio interested but don't count your chickens.
I can't use a trademark without permission from the trademark holder, period. I can't use Mickey Mouse in a film simply because that would imply some form of collusion with Disney that they may have authorized. You're thinking of someone using something that looks similar to Mickey Mouse but isn't quite Mickey Mouse to endorse a product which is a completely different thing altogether.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, copyright law in the US is fine the way it is. However, copyright reform for your typical slashbot is for one thing and one thing only; getting shit for free. They want to be able to freely distribute intellectual property across the internet without fear of prosecution.
Mickey Mouse will never be allowed to be used in anything other than parodies regardless of time frame. Mickey Mouse is protected by trademark law which means his likeness will NEVER expire. You can't even take clips of Fantasia and use them in anything because you will be violating a registered trademark. By the way, you can currently make parodies of Mickey Mouse without violating copyright law.
Define profit. Couldn't one argue that accepting audio files in return is a form of payment, and by inclusion profit? To put it another way, you have bartered away a copy of your music or video for the ability to download more music and videos and thus have profited in a barter system.
I did a quick check and found that you can register deisel vehicles in MA if they pass LEV II statndards though no newer diesel vehicles to my kowledge have. MA follows CA emmissions statdards, as do 13 other states apparently; Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont. Here's a link to the LEV II standards.
The problem is some states won't allow privately owned diesel vehicles. I want a 2005 CRD Jeep Liberty but MA won't allow them. Oddly enough Jeep unveiled this very same vehicle in Boston, go figure. CA doesn't allow privately owned deisel vehicles either. It's like nuclear technology, deisel just has a bad stigma attached to it despite improvements over the years in both technologies.
This is exactly what I'm getting at though. The church subverted pagan religions by consuming some of their rites and rituals (acceptance of their practicies). By accepting the theory of evolution with only a few minor caveats which allow for the inclusion of intellignet design they eventually combine the two enough in the minds of their faithful that it becomes more controlable.
I never said I believed the entire book. In fact, I've read the Secrets of the Code: The Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code. However, in context of my original post, there was no argument that Christianity consumed some rites and rituals of pagan religions to pull more followers into the flock. Thus, my suggestion that Christianity is perhaps doing the same with science is accurate to a fairly high degree.
No, it doesn't , it merely calls into question how much is historically accurate and how much is fiction. I could write a book about WWII which is completely accurate except we don't drop a bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. instead the Geremans and Japanese succeed with their plans to drop a nuke on us. Is my book now precluded "from having substantive historical basis"? No, I merely changed the ending.
...but after reading Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" I'm convinced the Catholic church and its ilk are attempting to subvert science by consuming it like they did pagan religions centuries ago. By using intelligent design as their trojan horse, they can introduce religion into science and public schools without referring to any particular religion.
No girls, but there were some rather girly looking men.
...slashbots read what they want to read and interpret the article through their monochromatic lens. This is NOT underhanded shilling of the products, it's a way for Microsoft to distill comments from the community to learn how to better improve Longhorn, and I quote "All will need to sign NDAs cause there are things in Longhorn that we don't want to leak out, but they'll be your proxies. They'll tell us where we're screwing up, what we're doing well, and will be world's top authorities on Longhorn." The reason they want bloggers is becasue bloggers provide a two-way communication between the community of users and Microsoft. Bloggers will take the comments from their sites, distill them into meaningful suggestions for ways to improve Longhorn and Microsoft can then in turn provide these very same bloggers with access to updates on Longhorn to report back to the community of users. Simple enough but as usual slashbots prove they are dumber than your average bear and could do the world a favor by shutting up unless they themselves have something meaningful to add to the discussion.
Copyright has never protected ideas, only expressions of an idea in a fixed medium. So, yes, a phone book can be granted copyright protection but the phone numbers themselves cannot be copyrighted since they are not original ideas. Gene sequences may not be granted copyright protection (they can be patented in the US), but the database and the way it presents this information can be granted protection. The important thing to remember, and why reading any discussion about copyright on Slashdot is extremely frustrating, is that copyrights protect the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
The solution is for people to stop buying CDs and listening to music created by members of the RIAA. Until you stop doing this the "problem", as you put it, will continue.