You couldn't be more right but one thing lost by many in this copyright debate is the law does not protect ideas, it protects the expression of ideas. You can write a book about the south during the time of the civil war but the minute you begin to use characters like Scarlett O'Hara living in a mansion called Tara you begin to infringe on the expression of an idea. Now copyright allows for certain exemptions, commonly referred to as "fair use", which allow for a work to parody another such as the novel The Wind Done Gone. This took characters like Scarlet O'Hara and reused them but the derivative parodied the original, it didn't simply reuse the original characters, by telling the same story from the perspective of the slaves on the plantation.
You've apparently never toured before. How does the musician make a living other than toting around their gear and schlumping it from gig to gig in a rental truck? Production companies charge real money to setup light rigs, sound systems and stages. Recording is still an art requiring skilled audio engineers to pull it off properly regardless of how sheap home systems have become. Just because home PCs are inexpensive doesn't mean everyone can become a programmer when they install Visual Studio. Please do explain more about the fantasy world you envision. Who benefits the most, you or the artist? Either way the artist is getting screwed but at least with the current system they earn a few bucks in the process.
You eliminate copyright and you destroy the information age. Copyrights do not merely protect overpaid musicians. The sooner this simple fact sinks into your fucking head, the sooner society canfigure out how to balance copyrights with the digital medium of the internet.
"All the RIAA needs to do is note the date/time and IP and we can trace that back to a specific student and disciplinary procedures WILL happen. Problem is, the RIAA doesn't get personal satisfaction."
Universities are not court systems. If the RIAA wants to prosecute a student for violating federal law, they can and will. FERPA cannot protect a student from being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and it also cannot keep law enforcement agencies from obtaining the information from the University given they have the proper warrants.
"The mission objective will be to learn more about dangerous near earth objects so that we can plan how best to respond when under threat."...can a near earth object really do harm to us? I mean really? Shouldn't it be quite obvious that they're going to smash into earth, boiling seas, causing tremendous tsunamis, earthquakes the likes of which have never been seen and never again will be seen by humans? Let me guess, the French proposed this "diplomatic" solution to try to talk the asteroids out of smashing into Earth. I'd rather see that $150 million invested into ways to destroy an asteroid before it becomes a serious threat.
"Information contained on this server is copyrighted and may not be distributed, modified, reused, re-posted, or otherwise used outside the scope of a WWW client without the express written permission of B. On The Net, owner of the EuroTV site."
If someone wants to write a program to push this data through another application or website they need to take the time to establish a way to build the database on their own. No one can copyright the data itself but they can keep you from using their data as the source.
Re:Expect fianl report in 6 months
on
Latest Columbia News
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
Actually this was asked and answered on Feb. 1. A news anchor person asked if a black box was onboard the shuttle and if so had it been recovered. The NASA spokesperon answered by saying that Mission Control is the black box. Right after the shuttle broke up on renetry mission control specialists were busy dumping their systems to back-ups and printing out reams of data to be boxed up and analysed later. The shuttle is unique enough and there is only one up at a time that keepig a constantly running stream of data to mission control is not only possible, it is the best method for doing so and can record a lot more data than a black box could. Not only that but systems are monitored by both Mission Control and the astronauts every second until the mission is over and they are in constant communication with each other.
...but the decision to publish music on the web must be made by the copyright holder, not the public. Many cry that fair use rights are being taken away but by the same token, p2p services are taking away the rights of ALL artists, whether they are backed by large corporations and organizations or are struggling to make it on their own.
"Don't the people who run the RIAA/MPAA own the copyrights to the stuff "
No they don't. The RIAA and MPAA do not own anything, they are simply member organizations. It is the members themselves who own the copyrights. The RIAA is a non-profit organization so they don't even turn a profit or make a dime off the artists.
"I think the artists (and no I don't mean britney) should take a stand... and forget their old stuff and the souls they sold... and move on and make some great new music they own the rights to... I think the music industry needs to follow the book industry and be publishers, ONLY."
I don't know where to begin here. You clearly do not understand how these industries work. Th emusicians are members of the publishing industry in much the same way musicians and singer/songwriters are members of the music industry.
You also suggest that artists breach their contracts with the record labels. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the record labels are providing a service these artists want? No one forces the artists to sign these contracts and nothing forces the consumer to purchase the products this collaboration creates. Artists are free to go out on their own but they will find that many services the members of the RIAA provide are expensive and/or impossible to achieve.
"Now technology has come full circle, and it's back to singing for their supper--and those pampered, bloated, overpaid Holyweird types are scared stiff they might have to work for a living!"
Because you iognorant fucktard, not every writer, artist or musician is a pampered, bloated, overpaid holyweird type. In fact, the majority of writers, artists and musicians who rely on their craft to earn a living are paid just enough to get by and then there are those who have been forced to concede their craft and find work elsewhere because people like you think the have a moral right to freely distribute intellectual property if they want.
...hire an industrial designer. Two good firms that specialize in industrial design are Frog Design and Ideo. Industrial designers specialize in designing human interfaces for mechanically controlled devices.
We have a Democratic Republic. This means that we elect people to hold office that we feel will act in the best interest of the American people. Also keep in mind that Switzerland is.0043 times the size of the US and its population is.0262 that of the US. It's a lot easier to have a smaller population have a more active role in government like this.
"e reason the requirements for Windows keep increasing and increasing, every release requiring the most modern hardware is because the developers all have modern hardware and don't see it as a problem to make full use of it."
I disagree. I'm running Windows XP Professional and IIS 5.1 (development webserver and it runs my own website, small few hits) on a dual Pentium II Xeon 450 with 768MB RAM and it's quite responsive. This isn't exactly new hardware and I have no compliants. Well, except that I would like to have faster hardware to run InDesign and Illustrator and rendering from AfterEffects. Other than that...
I'll help you out here. For all those "this war is about the U.S. getting oil" conspiracy theorists, read this article. I wish the internet had turned out different. People should be using it to read and learn. Instead they are using it to shout at the top of their lungs things which are false and need correcting. The internet has not improved the individual, it has acutely focused "group think" and our world is quickly becoming poorer for it. Jingoism and hatred for others is wrong, especially if it is unfounded and based on lies and propaganda.
They elect leaders who appoint ambassadors who speak to the US concerning these issues, they do not get a direct line to our policy makers. Yes, this is over simplistic but it is the job of these countries leaders and policy makers to work these issues out.
You forgot a rather large flaw in this system, accountability. It appears that just about anyone from anywhere can submit a comment. Quite frankly, non-US citizens should not be allowed to post comments. Along these lines, there appears to be little in the way of methods to avoid abuse of the system by people submitting multiple comments under different pseudonyms. I have to identify myself when I vote, I see no reason why we shoudl not be required to identify ourselves when we comment on laws and regulations.
Another shortcoming woudl be the ability to simply voice your opinion as to whether or not you think some of these regulations are good or bad. It would be nice to see some sort of polling system to determine the initial efficacy of the act. If 98% of 5000 people think the act is a bad idea, perhaps the act should be reviewed, even if nothing is ultimately changed.
"New Hampshire-based Segway hired lobbying firms but has made no contributions to any public officials or candidates, said Matt Dailida, the company's director of state government affairs."
The problem apprarently was that Segway, LLC. failed to sufficiently bribe California city officials. Now they're going to have to dig deeper into those pockets to make up for the hurt feelings of city officials and overcome the entrenched pedestrian rights groups.
...the DMCA is quite harmless. As the DMCA has never been tested in court, it can't be said it's a bad law because we, including the EFF, truly don't know the extent of its abilities to stifle free speech and innovation. Now, one might be able to say that the threat of using the DMCA has stifled innovation and censored feee speech , but this is far different from actually being the root of the problem.
Not to mention that both sides have waged an antagonistioc war against each other from day one with Napster firing the "shot heard around the internet", so to speak. One of these days the geeks are going to realize that laws apply to the internet as much as they do in reality and that information doesn't want to be free, it simply wants to be information, nothing more, nothing less.
Actually I have taken a copyright law class (at MTSU), a class on the fourth estate and the first amendment with a bit of copyright law tossed in for good measure (at BU) and a couple other classes on the recording industry and law (at MTSU). My undergraduate degree is in Recording Industry: Production and Technology emphasis (from MTSU) and my Masters degree is in Graphic Design (from Boston U.). As a graphic designer I deal with copyright issues every day. I fully undertsand the nature of copyright and the way it is woven into nearly every industry in the US, mych less the entire world.
I undertsand that ny eliminating copyright, there are whole industries which will vanish completely, leaving the world a much poorer place. It is you who should open your eyes a bit and learn a bit more about copyright and the world around you. There is absolutely no evidence to back up your claim that the world will benefit from the elimination of intellectual property, so until you can prove it, it is you who should keep your opinions silent.
...correlation does not equal causation. Theories like these are always applied to more popular intellectual property when they should be applied to the most mundane of intellectual property. Just because some more popular things benefit from this blind consent does not mean that everything will magically benefit from this consent. In the end, it should be left up to the owner of the intellectual property to make this decision.
See, this is exactly the problem geeks have with copyright. They simply don't undertsand it. It is perfectly legal to reprint or reproduce intelelctual property for the purpose of commentary. While there are limits as to how much of the material you can reprint, I would find it likely that you could reprint a one or two page privacy policy for the purpose of picking it apart section by section.
The difference here is the consuer (read: geeks who think they know better) are losing their rights if copyright goes away. Should we rise up in some bloody insurrection, killing geeks and nerds by the thousands? I'll go for that:)
But it's not up to the government to tax the consumer for big-business. In fact that is very, very wrong.
You're assuming "big business" is the only entity that benefits from copyright. You're wrong there. Inividuals can, and do, own copyrights to their work. The fight against copyright is the fight against ALL artists and creators, not just "big business".
Should I go around sueing people just because their product or other's use of said product conflicts with my business model?
The consumer (read: geeks who think they know better) launched the first shot in this war. They came down hard on the businesses who rely on copyright to control distribution. The RIAA merely responded to the attack from Napster and its ilk. The internet doesn't really change the fact that one can own the rights to intellectual property. Geeks may tend to think so, but it simply is not true. The internet makes it easier to violate copyrighs but it does not mean the record and film industries business models are out of date. The consumer (once again read geeks who think they know better) does not have the right to break the law to affect change in teh way a company legally does business.
Slashdot Mirror
"Ideas are not property."
You couldn't be more right but one thing lost by many in this copyright debate is the law does not protect ideas, it protects the expression of ideas. You can write a book about the south during the time of the civil war but the minute you begin to use characters like Scarlett O'Hara living in a mansion called Tara you begin to infringe on the expression of an idea. Now copyright allows for certain exemptions, commonly referred to as "fair use", which allow for a work to parody another such as the novel The Wind Done Gone. This took characters like Scarlet O'Hara and reused them but the derivative parodied the original, it didn't simply reuse the original characters, by telling the same story from the perspective of the slaves on the plantation.
You've apparently never toured before. How does the musician make a living other than toting around their gear and schlumping it from gig to gig in a rental truck? Production companies charge real money to setup light rigs, sound systems and stages. Recording is still an art requiring skilled audio engineers to pull it off properly regardless of how sheap home systems have become. Just because home PCs are inexpensive doesn't mean everyone can become a programmer when they install Visual Studio. Please do explain more about the fantasy world you envision. Who benefits the most, you or the artist? Either way the artist is getting screwed but at least with the current system they earn a few bucks in the process.
You eliminate copyright and you destroy the information age. Copyrights do not merely protect overpaid musicians. The sooner this simple fact sinks into your fucking head, the sooner society canfigure out how to balance copyrights with the digital medium of the internet.
"All the RIAA needs to do is note the date/time and IP and we can trace that back to a specific student and disciplinary procedures WILL happen. Problem is, the RIAA doesn't get personal satisfaction."
Universities are not court systems. If the RIAA wants to prosecute a student for violating federal law, they can and will. FERPA cannot protect a student from being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and it also cannot keep law enforcement agencies from obtaining the information from the University given they have the proper warrants.
"The mission objective will be to learn more about dangerous near earth objects so that we can plan how best to respond when under threat." ...can a near earth object really do harm to us? I mean really? Shouldn't it be quite obvious that they're going to smash into earth, boiling seas, causing tremendous tsunamis, earthquakes the likes of which have never been seen and never again will be seen by humans? Let me guess, the French proposed this "diplomatic" solution to try to talk the asteroids out of smashing into Earth. I'd rather see that $150 million invested into ways to destroy an asteroid before it becomes a serious threat.
"Information contained on this server is copyrighted and may not be distributed, modified, reused, re-posted, or otherwise used outside the scope of a WWW client without the express written permission of B. On The Net, owner of the EuroTV site."
If someone wants to write a program to push this data through another application or website they need to take the time to establish a way to build the database on their own. No one can copyright the data itself but they can keep you from using their data as the source.
Actually this was asked and answered on Feb. 1. A news anchor person asked if a black box was onboard the shuttle and if so had it been recovered. The NASA spokesperon answered by saying that Mission Control is the black box. Right after the shuttle broke up on renetry mission control specialists were busy dumping their systems to back-ups and printing out reams of data to be boxed up and analysed later. The shuttle is unique enough and there is only one up at a time that keepig a constantly running stream of data to mission control is not only possible, it is the best method for doing so and can record a lot more data than a black box could. Not only that but systems are monitored by both Mission Control and the astronauts every second until the mission is over and they are in constant communication with each other.
...but the decision to publish music on the web must be made by the copyright holder, not the public. Many cry that fair use rights are being taken away but by the same token, p2p services are taking away the rights of ALL artists, whether they are backed by large corporations and organizations or are struggling to make it on their own.
"Don't the people who run the RIAA/MPAA own the copyrights to the stuff "
... and forget their old stuff and the souls they sold ... and move on and make some great new music they own the rights to ... I think the music industry needs to follow the book industry and be publishers, ONLY."
No they don't. The RIAA and MPAA do not own anything, they are simply member organizations. It is the members themselves who own the copyrights. The RIAA is a non-profit organization so they don't even turn a profit or make a dime off the artists.
"I think the artists (and no I don't mean britney) should take a stand
I don't know where to begin here. You clearly do not understand how these industries work. Th emusicians are members of the publishing industry in much the same way musicians and singer/songwriters are members of the music industry.
You also suggest that artists breach their contracts with the record labels. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the record labels are providing a service these artists want? No one forces the artists to sign these contracts and nothing forces the consumer to purchase the products this collaboration creates. Artists are free to go out on their own but they will find that many services the members of the RIAA provide are expensive and/or impossible to achieve.
"Now technology has come full circle, and it's back to singing for their supper--and those pampered, bloated, overpaid Holyweird types are scared stiff they might have to work for a living!"
Because you iognorant fucktard, not every writer, artist or musician is a pampered, bloated, overpaid holyweird type. In fact, the majority of writers, artists and musicians who rely on their craft to earn a living are paid just enough to get by and then there are those who have been forced to concede their craft and find work elsewhere because people like you think the have a moral right to freely distribute intellectual property if they want.
Apparently I forgot to add a link to Ideao.
...hire an industrial designer. Two good firms that specialize in industrial design are Frog Design and Ideo. Industrial designers specialize in designing human interfaces for mechanically controlled devices.
We have a Democratic Republic. This means that we elect people to hold office that we feel will act in the best interest of the American people. Also keep in mind that Switzerland is .0043 times the size of the US and its population is .0262 that of the US. It's a lot easier to have a smaller population have a more active role in government like this.
"e reason the requirements for Windows keep increasing and increasing, every release requiring the most modern hardware is because the developers all have modern hardware and don't see it as a problem to make full use of it."
I disagree. I'm running Windows XP Professional and IIS 5.1 (development webserver and it runs my own website, small few hits) on a dual Pentium II Xeon 450 with 768MB RAM and it's quite responsive. This isn't exactly new hardware and I have no compliants. Well, except that I would like to have faster hardware to run InDesign and Illustrator and rendering from AfterEffects. Other than that...
I'll help you out here. For all those "this war is about the U.S. getting oil" conspiracy theorists, read this article. I wish the internet had turned out different. People should be using it to read and learn. Instead they are using it to shout at the top of their lungs things which are false and need correcting. The internet has not improved the individual, it has acutely focused "group think" and our world is quickly becoming poorer for it. Jingoism and hatred for others is wrong, especially if it is unfounded and based on lies and propaganda.
They elect leaders who appoint ambassadors who speak to the US concerning these issues, they do not get a direct line to our policy makers. Yes, this is over simplistic but it is the job of these countries leaders and policy makers to work these issues out.
I realize this is a misinformed troll, but I couldn't resist posting the link to this article.
You forgot a rather large flaw in this system, accountability. It appears that just about anyone from anywhere can submit a comment. Quite frankly, non-US citizens should not be allowed to post comments. Along these lines, there appears to be little in the way of methods to avoid abuse of the system by people submitting multiple comments under different pseudonyms. I have to identify myself when I vote, I see no reason why we shoudl not be required to identify ourselves when we comment on laws and regulations.
Another shortcoming woudl be the ability to simply voice your opinion as to whether or not you think some of these regulations are good or bad. It would be nice to see some sort of polling system to determine the initial efficacy of the act. If 98% of 5000 people think the act is a bad idea, perhaps the act should be reviewed, even if nothing is ultimately changed.
"New Hampshire-based Segway hired lobbying firms but has made no contributions to any public officials or candidates, said Matt Dailida, the company's director of state government affairs."
The problem apprarently was that Segway, LLC. failed to sufficiently bribe California city officials. Now they're going to have to dig deeper into those pockets to make up for the hurt feelings of city officials and overcome the entrenched pedestrian rights groups.
...the DMCA is quite harmless. As the DMCA has never been tested in court, it can't be said it's a bad law because we, including the EFF, truly don't know the extent of its abilities to stifle free speech and innovation. Now, one might be able to say that the threat of using the DMCA has stifled innovation and censored feee speech , but this is far different from actually being the root of the problem.
Not to mention that both sides have waged an antagonistioc war against each other from day one with Napster firing the "shot heard around the internet", so to speak. One of these days the geeks are going to realize that laws apply to the internet as much as they do in reality and that information doesn't want to be free, it simply wants to be information, nothing more, nothing less.
Actually I have taken a copyright law class (at MTSU), a class on the fourth estate and the first amendment with a bit of copyright law tossed in for good measure (at BU) and a couple other classes on the recording industry and law (at MTSU). My undergraduate degree is in Recording Industry: Production and Technology emphasis (from MTSU) and my Masters degree is in Graphic Design (from Boston U.). As a graphic designer I deal with copyright issues every day. I fully undertsand the nature of copyright and the way it is woven into nearly every industry in the US, mych less the entire world.
I undertsand that ny eliminating copyright, there are whole industries which will vanish completely, leaving the world a much poorer place. It is you who should open your eyes a bit and learn a bit more about copyright and the world around you. There is absolutely no evidence to back up your claim that the world will benefit from the elimination of intellectual property, so until you can prove it, it is you who should keep your opinions silent.
...correlation does not equal causation. Theories like these are always applied to more popular intellectual property when they should be applied to the most mundane of intellectual property. Just because some more popular things benefit from this blind consent does not mean that everything will magically benefit from this consent. In the end, it should be left up to the owner of the intellectual property to make this decision.
"...or reprinting it (copyright violation)."
See, this is exactly the problem geeks have with copyright. They simply don't undertsand it. It is perfectly legal to reprint or reproduce intelelctual property for the purpose of commentary. While there are limits as to how much of the material you can reprint, I would find it likely that you could reprint a one or two page privacy policy for the purpose of picking it apart section by section.
The difference here is the consuer (read: geeks who think they know better) are losing their rights if copyright goes away. Should we rise up in some bloody insurrection, killing geeks and nerds by the thousands? I'll go for that :)
But it's not up to the government to tax the consumer for big-business. In fact that is very, very wrong.
You're assuming "big business" is the only entity that benefits from copyright. You're wrong there. Inividuals can, and do, own copyrights to their work. The fight against copyright is the fight against ALL artists and creators, not just "big business".
Should I go around sueing people just because their product or other's use of said product conflicts with my business model?
The consumer (read: geeks who think they know better) launched the first shot in this war. They came down hard on the businesses who rely on copyright to control distribution. The RIAA merely responded to the attack from Napster and its ilk. The internet doesn't really change the fact that one can own the rights to intellectual property. Geeks may tend to think so, but it simply is not true. The internet makes it easier to violate copyrighs but it does not mean the record and film industries business models are out of date. The consumer (once again read geeks who think they know better) does not have the right to break the law to affect change in teh way a company legally does business.