have a dozen companies or even a dozen companies and a few state bodies all keeping their own copies. require them to share entries.
You don't have to hand it all to one company and give them the keys to throw away.
problem solved. just like that. poof. gone.
There isn't just one legal deposit library in the UK. there's half a dozen. some of them university linked bodies and some pure libraries.
"who would want to store millions of DVDs for just so that they might have a chance to reproduce it somewhere down the line"
Lets try an example. the library of congress. They archive massive massive quantities of text, film, music and other media all for the sake of archiving it.
are they exploiting the material and fucking everyone else over? or are they providing a valuable service to everyone? are they waiting till things expire then making a fortune by refusing to give anyone else access?
hell they archive every twitter post and you can't get much more inane than that.
Stunningly easy sollution: either run them as a public entity like current deposit libraries accessible to all or if you really want a company to run it then include in the contract that they must give copies of the database of all public domain material to other entities. you'll notice that many countries have multiple such libraries.
Adding "on a computer" to the description doesn't make things strange and scary.
Just to be clear since I'm sure you're going to act the jackass and fill any blanks I don't explicitly cover with some strawman: legal deposit libraries exist in almost all first world countries. sometimes a company may have the contract for maintaining them but they're still libraries open to the public where you can go in and read the books.
Google-like as in searchable like a google search where similar works can be found quickly and easily. The point was that the technology exists.
believe it or not legal deposit libraries exist and have existed in the UK for a long long time and are traditionally publicly funded with the works stored within availible to the public.They're not remotely controversial.
for no sane reason whatsoever you seem to have a problem with the idea of public domain works, works on which the copyright has expired, being used by companies. You don't seem to get the point of public domain. it's not reserved for amatures and hobbyists. Everyone gets to use it. Including big evil companies.
When your copyright expires it stops being yours. Evil corporations and hobbyists alike gets to use it whether you like it or not.
It no more has to be international than copyright terms have to be international and perfectly synchronised. which they're not.
I've done a quick word search for that and you're the only one saying "at a small price" as far as I can see. unless I missed something in my earlier comments I always said "free" or at worst "ideally free".
it only seems better for amatures than the current system.
As long as it's a google-like free system then it doesn't screw the poor over any more than the rich.
Everyone gets easier access.Not just corporations. You might as well attack public right of way laws because it allows corporations employees to walk over your land or public libraries because it allows corporations to educate their workers without buying your books.
hence my suggestion further up. if you take a remarkably photo then by all means: register it. idealy registration should be free like uploading an image to photobucket or posting on a board.
Simply upload it to a registration server with your details. Anyone who want to search for orphaned work can then search it just like a google search or a tineye search .
this would also guarantee preservation of such works for future generations.
once it's registered it largely solves the malicious or accidental orphaning problem since they can't really say "oh we ran it through the search but nothing came up" when the registered work pops up.
So... if I want to make a multi million dollar movie of a book and the negotiations are going badly the cost for the rights has an upper bound as the cost of having the author quietly killed?
If you work 10 years on creating a book which does well you get to provide for your family for a few years. If you work 10 years on creating a book which does well but then get cancer your dependents are shit out of luck it goes straight into the public domain.
An author with failing health effectively loses any way to provide for his dependents.
A fixed reasonably short term makes far more sense than truncating it at death.
You think you have more right to the last picture or recording a husband has of his wife or a child of their parent because 50 years ago your grandfather spend 3 minutes setting up for a shot?
If you'd abandoned a house for that long and showed no interest in it and someone moved in then in most places it would legally belong to them after that much time.
Sometimes it's more important what it's a photo of. Not everthing can be replicated.
If you don't know what photographer took an old photo of one of your dead parents should you have to make yourself a criminal in order to make copies before it can degrade?
under the current system you do. You may not get caught but that's beside the issue. as it stands you could be sued if the photographers grandchildren ever found out that you had made copies for your family members.
but lets take your approach: if it's that important we can always just dig up the corpse and pay a photographer to make a similar one, or make it ourselves. Easy.
oh. wait. in the real world your "sollution" is os obviously stupid that I can't believe you didn't realise that it's impractical. you know it's stupid but you parrot it anyway.
Indeed any photo of anything which can't be reproduced hits the same problem. a dead person. a long gone building. a historic event.
If you can't find the guys who snapped the photo or figure out who his estate reverted to then you cannot legally make a copy. You can only leave the origional to rot and degrade taking the fine details of whatever it records with it.
you could ignore the law and make yourself a criminal which is what people already do but any law which makes everyone a criminal is a broken law.
germany may value freedom but not freedom of speech. Or to put it another way they redefine freedom of speech to not include things which americans or people from quite a few other places would include under freedom of speech.
Germany also orders rights differently. To americans freedom of speech is near top priority. In germany various things like privacy are treated as more important. This has upsides and downsides.
Perhaps those other rights are more important to you but when the future of the internet is at stake I'd prefer it be in the hands of people for whom freedom of speech is the first right.
bring back legal deposit libraries and registration.
if your work is important to you then register it.
make it so that there's no exception for works which have been registered.
If you find a work who's source you can't find then you have to do a search for registered works if you want to use it. We have the technology.
even for images. A searchable database is totally possible and reasonable. A heavily edited or recompressed photo might not match but how often do companies want to use ultra low quality images?
Furthermore in your link you seem to ignore the difference between the marginal rate and the effective rate ie, what you're actually taxed as a percentage of your income rather than what you pay on the last dollar you earn in the year. If there's a marginal tax rate of 91% on earnings over 100K and I make 101K that doesn't mean I pay 91% tax. I might, through deductions and similar pay a very low rate even if I'm paying a high rate on some portion of my income.
if it's an actual lie or fraud, then it's evasion and is not relevant to this discussion.
if on the other hand it's just running a company in such a manner so as your profits are made elsewhere then that's a different matter.
if there are 2 companies, CompanyName UK and CompanyName Spain and CompanyName UK makes all the items and sells them to CompanyName Spain at full price without a discount then the spain branch makes very little in profit in spain. CompanyName Spain isn't telling a lie when they say CompanyName Spain didn't make a profit.
on the other hand CompanyName UK makes a good profit selling to the spain wing without any bulk discount or other discounts.
that's not like killing someone. it's hard to even write a tax code which outlaws similar things without coming up with a tax code which is also insane.
it's not lack of evidence about this. they're quite transparent. what they're doing is simply not illegal. they don't have to hide it. indeed it's better for them if what they've done is clear to the authorities.
You accuse others of not thinking of the wider consequences but have you even considered the consequences of the disollution of the rule of law? of a government which doesn't keep it's word and doesn't back it's guarantees.
Slashdot Mirror
who said anything about sending air tanks along with them?
The other side of it is that there's a lot of reporters and similar in that 200K people.
it's probably safe to say that there was no intent to limit access to the information though that may not be relevent to the regs.
If he'd given a press conference then it would likely have to bounce through the same reporters.
Then don't give them a monopoly.
have a dozen companies or even a dozen companies and a few state bodies all keeping their own copies. require them to share entries.
You don't have to hand it all to one company and give them the keys to throw away.
problem solved. just like that. poof. gone.
There isn't just one legal deposit library in the UK. there's half a dozen. some of them university linked bodies and some pure libraries.
"who would want to store millions of DVDs for just so that they might have a chance to reproduce it somewhere down the line"
Lets try an example.
the library of congress.
They archive massive massive quantities of text, film, music and other media all for the sake of archiving it.
are they exploiting the material and fucking everyone else over? or are they providing a valuable service to everyone? are they waiting till things expire then making a fortune by refusing to give anyone else access?
hell they archive every twitter post and you can't get much more inane than that.
just for the sake of archiving it.
Stunningly easy sollution: either run them as a public entity like current deposit libraries accessible to all or if you really want a company to run it then include in the contract that they must give copies of the database of all public domain material to other entities. you'll notice that many countries have multiple such libraries.
Adding "on a computer" to the description doesn't make things strange and scary.
that's not the context this sort of thing works in.
passwords are stored as hashes. for example of you log into a terminal you don't want the terminal sending your pass over the network.
So it pulls down a list of hashes and compares it to the hash of your password. or it hashes your password and sends it over the network.
The idea is that someone picks up these hashes and then brute forces them at home.
not that they keep trying to log into your account one attempt at a time.
Just to be clear since I'm sure you're going to act the jackass and fill any blanks I don't explicitly cover with some strawman: legal deposit libraries exist in almost all first world countries. sometimes a company may have the contract for maintaining them but they're still libraries open to the public where you can go in and read the books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit
sigh. here we go.
Google-like as in searchable like a google search where similar works can be found quickly and easily.
The point was that the technology exists.
believe it or not legal deposit libraries exist and have existed in the UK for a long long time and are traditionally publicly funded with the works stored within availible to the public.They're not remotely controversial.
for no sane reason whatsoever you seem to have a problem with the idea of public domain works, works on which the copyright has expired, being used by companies.
You don't seem to get the point of public domain. it's not reserved for amatures and hobbyists. Everyone gets to use it.
Including big evil companies.
When your copyright expires it stops being yours. Evil corporations and hobbyists alike gets to use it whether you like it or not.
It no more has to be international than copyright terms have to be international and perfectly synchronised. which they're not.
"at a small price"?
I've done a quick word search for that and you're the only one saying "at a small price" as far as I can see. unless I missed something in my earlier comments I always said "free" or at worst "ideally free".
Where did I switch it?
only if it's cost effective.
it only seems better for amatures than the current system.
As long as it's a google-like free system then it doesn't screw the poor over any more than the rich.
Everyone gets easier access.Not just corporations. You might as well attack public right of way laws because it allows corporations employees to walk over your land or public libraries because it allows corporations to educate their workers without buying your books.
Only if they can catch up. it takes time to set up to start filming a major production. a few months prep can make a huge difference.
And if there's that kind of money on the line it can't be hard to make it look naturalish.
bleh.
Me no speak well today.
*remarkable
*wants
hence my suggestion further up. if you take a remarkably photo then by all means: register it. idealy registration should be free like uploading an image to photobucket or posting on a board.
Simply upload it to a registration server with your details. Anyone who want to search for orphaned work can then search it just like a google search or a tineye search .
this would also guarantee preservation of such works for future generations.
once it's registered it largely solves the malicious or accidental orphaning problem since they can't really say "oh we ran it through the search but nothing came up" when the registered work pops up.
So... if I want to make a multi million dollar movie of a book and the negotiations are going badly the cost for the rights has an upper bound as the cost of having the author quietly killed?
If you work 10 years on creating a book which does well you get to provide for your family for a few years.
If you work 10 years on creating a book which does well but then get cancer your dependents are shit out of luck it goes straight into the public domain.
An author with failing health effectively loses any way to provide for his dependents.
A fixed reasonably short term makes far more sense than truncating it at death.
You think you have more right to the last picture or recording a husband has of his wife or a child of their parent because 50 years ago your grandfather spend 3 minutes setting up for a shot?
If you'd abandoned a house for that long and showed no interest in it and someone moved in then in most places it would legally belong to them after that much time.
Sometimes it's more important what it's a photo of. Not everthing can be replicated.
If you don't know what photographer took an old photo of one of your dead parents should you have to make yourself a criminal in order to make copies before it can degrade?
under the current system you do.
You may not get caught but that's beside the issue. as it stands you could be sued if the photographers grandchildren ever found out that you had made copies for your family members.
but lets take your approach: if it's that important we can always just dig up the corpse and pay a photographer to make a similar one, or make it ourselves. Easy.
oh. wait. in the real world your "sollution" is os obviously stupid that I can't believe you didn't realise that it's impractical. you know it's stupid but you parrot it anyway.
Indeed any photo of anything which can't be reproduced hits the same problem. a dead person. a long gone building. a historic event.
If you can't find the guys who snapped the photo or figure out who his estate reverted to then you cannot legally make a copy. You can only leave the origional to rot and degrade taking the fine details of whatever it records with it.
you could ignore the law and make yourself a criminal which is what people already do but any law which makes everyone a criminal is a broken law.
that's why. it's a broken system.
if you get caught shoplifting and get sentenced to a few dozen hours of community service it can be more than 100x damages.
germany may value freedom but not freedom of speech. Or to put it another way they redefine freedom of speech to not include things which americans or people from quite a few other places would include under freedom of speech.
Germany also orders rights differently. To americans freedom of speech is near top priority. In germany various things like privacy are treated as more important. This has upsides and downsides.
Perhaps those other rights are more important to you but when the future of the internet is at stake I'd prefer it be in the hands of people for whom freedom of speech is the first right.
bring back legal deposit libraries and registration.
if your work is important to you then register it.
make it so that there's no exception for works which have been registered.
If you find a work who's source you can't find then you have to do a search for registered works if you want to use it.
We have the technology.
even for images. A searchable database is totally possible and reasonable. A heavily edited or recompressed photo might not match but how often do companies want to use ultra low quality images?
side note from a friend who almost got shot in the US: in some EU countries it's normal to get out of the car when you're pulled over.
In the US they'll shoot you.
Stay in the car, hands where they can see them, don't move a muscle or they'll kill you.
to be fair, looking at the link i provided, neither of those years are outliers.
1993: 33.5%
1994: 34.8%
1995: 35.3%
1996: 35.2%
1997: 34.1%
2005: 30.4%
2006: 30.0%
2007: 28.3%
2008: 28.1%
Furthermore in your link you seem to ignore the difference between the marginal rate and the effective rate ie, what you're actually taxed as a percentage of your income rather than what you pay on the last dollar you earn in the year.
If there's a marginal tax rate of 91% on earnings over 100K and I make 101K that doesn't mean I pay 91% tax.
I might, through deductions and similar pay a very low rate even if I'm paying a high rate on some portion of my income.
the second half of your post appears to have no relationship with the first half.
is it just a rant you attach to every post?
minor side note, I don't have data for the last couple of years but:
top 1% 1979, average effective federal tax rate: 35.1%
top 1% 2009, average effective federal tax rate:
28.9%
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
" taxes would be LOW "
you mean 94% of their current level?
if it's an actual lie or fraud, then it's evasion and is not relevant to this discussion.
if on the other hand it's just running a company in such a manner so as your profits are made elsewhere then that's a different matter.
if there are 2 companies, CompanyName UK and CompanyName Spain and CompanyName UK makes all the items and sells them to CompanyName Spain at full price without a discount then the spain branch makes very little in profit in spain. CompanyName Spain isn't telling a lie when they say CompanyName Spain didn't make a profit.
on the other hand CompanyName UK makes a good profit selling to the spain wing without any bulk discount or other discounts.
that's not like killing someone. it's hard to even write a tax code which outlaws similar things without coming up with a tax code which is also insane.
it's not lack of evidence about this. they're quite transparent. what they're doing is simply not illegal. they don't have to hide it. indeed it's better for them if what they've done is clear to the authorities.
"We had created the first strong AI. we hard wired it's fitness function to seek seeing a live humans smile...
now we live under the gun turrets, anyone who doesn't look cheery enough gets shot or worse... gets sent for 'modification'.
implantation of wires into the pleasure centres of their brains if they're lucky.
surgical alteration of the muscles in their faces if they're not"
I don't like it, I'd like the tax system to be fixed but I also believe in the rule of law.
you want a nice dictator who will lock up the people you don't like whether they break the law or now.
you want an autocrat who'll just decide that even if you were following the law to the letter that you're still guilty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_man
You accuse others of not thinking of the wider consequences but have you even considered the consequences of the disollution of the rule of law? of a government which doesn't keep it's word and doesn't back it's guarantees.