that isn't even a good strawman, are you even trying?
The point you ignore is that I can do the exact same right back. Your way, as seen in TFA if I accuse government employees of things I'll get charged with criminal libel, not just civil. In a hypothetical scenario where the police had accused him of even worse things, say raping kids and cannibalism how much chance would there be of any of them being charged with criminal libel?
I'll take the somewhat vaguely, hopefully but of course not always equal playing field of individual vs individual over that kind of system.
Since when are any governments uniform and consistent?
Given the choice I'll take the individuals since I can sue them and make their life hard right back and they probably don't have a large number of armed men at their beck and call.
Are there any exclusions for factualness? Or in Canada can I not say that all members of the westboro baptist church are evil scumbags since I'd be promoting hate of a religious group?
I think part of my point is that there's been a great deal of drift in the scope of copyright over the decades. Not just in it's term.
Copyright makes quite a lot of sense for books, but over the years it's gradually been pushed to cover almost everything in baby steps. It makes less sense for music and less again for brief commentary. (ridiculous as it is I own copyright on this brief paragraph and it would be illegal for you to reproduce it without my permission off this website.)
As shown in a story posted on slashdot a few weeks ago it even covers political speech so if you quote a politicians crazy rant exactly(to avoid claims of picking and choosing) you can be done for infringing their copyright.
Alternatively, I dig a hole in some waste ground without anyone asking me to. I work very hard. I bitch and moan about how I worked real hard and demand to be paid. Nobody pays me.
Later someone else comes along and puts water in the disused hole and starts using it for a swimming pool. I bitch and moan that I worked very hard and since they're using it it obviously has value. Yet still nobody pays me.
The moral of the story is, just because you work hard, even if what you do has value to someone that does not automatically entitle you to payment.
I'll make sure to re-write it to remove the spelling errors and mistakes. To anyone else who's read down this far feel free to copy,rewrite, reproduce, create derivative works or any of that stuff . a citation of "user HungryHobo,Slashdot" would be appreciated but not required in any way.
That however would be more trademark law than copyright. If it's illegal to copy a recipe(not counting exactly copying a section from a recipe book which would be protected as a written work) I'd be interested in a citation.
I was more comparing it to a muscician ripping off another musician and performing their own version. You're trying to assume everything would be the same, including MP3 sales. In such a world MP3's would likely be little more valuable than individual skittles/penny sweets but live performances as common as cooks. The question is of course if that would be a worse world for it. Because of course it would be different. Give it a few years/decades and it's quite likely that someone will come up with machines which can prepare meals according to a recipe so we might see the situation getting closer to MP3's.
You know I sometimes wonder if the world would be a richer or poorer place without copyright, pleanty of things would be different certainly and those who make their money from the current system will of course tell you the world would be a poorer worse off world for it.
It's almost taken as a given that the world would have less creativity without copyright but I do wonder.
If the chef at your local restaurant had to pay royalties whenever he used a recipe published by a celebrity chef would you have a tastier and more enjoyable meal? What if he risked being sued into the ground if he created a derivative work by altering the recipe slightly without a liscence? or would you just have a more bland, unoriginal, uninspired and ultimately vastly more expensive meal.
If your hairdresser had to pay royalties whenever some kid comes in with a magazine picture and says they want their hair to "look like that". Would everyone have far more interesting hairstyles or would it just cost far more and see people getting sued for doing their own hair at home in a copyrighted style?
Both these things are creative and also involve a skill much like storytelling or playing a musical instrument and in both cases I've heard of people trying to get copyright protections extended to cover them.
Imagine a world where in the 17th century someone had decided that recipes and cooking should fall under copyright along with books. You can be sure that were someone to call for it's repeal 300 years later there'd be no lack of "professional recipe composers" who would talk about how much work they put into working out new recipes and the time and effort it takes and how we're bad people for implying that they haven't worked hard and that they somehow don't deserve a cut whenever someone follows their recipies.
of course in a world where we're all free to take someone elses recipe, use it, copy it, publish it or even claim it as our own we know very well that fuck all harm has been done to the industry for the lack of legal protection on such creativity. We live in a world where everyone has family recipes but hardly anyone has family music.
In a world where such legal protections existed and nobody ever knew such an open and unprotected situation as we have in this world it would be very easy to claim that there would be no creativity, no well paid chefs and that setting up a kitchen would be pointless since someone else would just copy the chefs recipes.
Similarly it's taken almost as a given that the world would have less good books, less good stories and less without copyright but try questioning that even for a moment.
Of course no someone is going to complain that composing and cooking a good meal can't be compared to composing and playing a good piece of music because..... well just because!
you'd need to be able to write at about 120 MB per second, what kind of write speed do modern disks get? You'd probably have to use a raid to deal with that but disk space wouldn't be an issue.
Then lobby/vote to stop the big publishers pissing in the public well. if there's significant public backlash at any point you can be damned sure disney won't be the ones to suffer, it'll be small publishers.
they do so love to advertise that they're selling something and that you should "buy" stuff from them but later on strangely is seems that you haven't bought anything at all and in fact they've only granted you a license. Anyone taken them to court for years of blatant false advertising yet? Or for infecting their customers PC's with malware?
a terabyte drive can take years to fill up. I've had mine almost 3 years and it's still filling. every family photo album(we can take whole backups of the cousins wedding pictures nowdays) lots of home videos, disk backups, random crap,far more pornography than is healthy and as with the GP- images of my DVD collection, why slot the disk in when it can be a few mouse clicks away.
it just means the malware authors have grown up and want a paycheck. It used to be that half the viruses were showy things written by amatures who wanted to fuck around. most of the rest were trying to cash in on ad revenue from popups.
Now there's less money in popups(most of the big ad providers don't like being associated with malware) so the malware just sits quietly trying to steal your credit card number. The more stealthy the more successful.
Sometimes non-violent things can kill far more people.
If a politician cuts off food shipments to somewhere and hundreds of people a week are starving to death or cuts off shipments of antibiotics etc etc and someone uses violence to try to get international attention to make it stop then the killing of a handful of people becomes far more justifiable. At least from the point of view of the people who are starving or watching family members die for lack of medical supplies.
It's rarely as simple as you make out. People can hurt you or kill you by non-violent means and violence can be quite justifiable to protect yourself and people you care about from being hurt of killed.
or you could just buy the american line and assume they're doing it for fun and because they hate your freedom.
On a related note most of it is bullshit. I have enough knowledge of physics and chemistry to spot really bad errors and in years past downloaded a pile of those kinds of guides for shits and giggles. From a brief read I came to the conclusion that most of them will leave you with a face full of acid, on fire or at best with a beaker full of useless crap. The only interesting one I found was that explosive paste from braniac. Gotta make that some day.
If you really want to make explosives there's pleanty of solid chemistry books out there without the words "anarchist" or "bomb" in the title which will give you vastly better information.
Thing is even non-violent crimes can cause real pain, suffering and deaths. Steal a million from a charity and a few villages don't get a well.People die.
Do something really massive like maddof did and disrupt the economy of entire countries and you'll almost certainly cause budget cuts for healthcare, social work and various other areas which leads to more people dying long term than otherwise.
If you steal someones life savings and they can't pay for a family members healthcare as a result someone can still end up just as dead as if you beat them with a steel bar.
"Halo: The Fall of Reach" was a fantastic book, it would have stood perfectly well on it's own as a sci fi book without any games. Similarly First Strike Was a great read. Eric Nylund brought those two books to life. Ghosts of Onyx was pretty good but not quite as memorable.
Halo: Contact Harvest while it didn't have quite the same flair and consistency of the above was a solid book and I enjoyed it. For me Joseph Staten focuses a bit much on the feelings of the characters but it's still a good read.
The Flood is more of a walk-through of the Halo game. I couldn't even finish it. a book has to be pretty bad for me to put it down in disgust. If I wanted a game walkthrough I'll go to gamefaqs. It put me off ever again buying any book by William C. Dietz Skip it and you lose nothing.
if they make a movie they better hire Nylund for the script.
To anyone who's not familiar with the books I have to say, the halo series of books actually stand pretty well on their own. (except "The flood") They're not just crap shoveled out the door to cash in on a franchise like some game/movie book adaptions out there.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought unsolicited advertising over mobiles was illegal?
In the states don't you guys have to pay for receiving texts as well?
that isn't even a good strawman, are you even trying?
The point you ignore is that I can do the exact same right back.
Your way, as seen in TFA if I accuse government employees of things I'll get charged with criminal libel, not just civil.
In a hypothetical scenario where the police had accused him of even worse things, say raping kids and cannibalism how much chance would there be of any of them being charged with criminal libel?
I'll take the somewhat vaguely, hopefully but of course not always equal playing field of individual vs individual over that kind of system.
Since when are any governments uniform and consistent?
Given the choice I'll take the individuals since I can sue them and make their life hard right back and they probably don't have a large number of armed men at their beck and call.
Which has fuck all to do with free speech.
You can let the hate groups fester where nobody can see or you can leave them out in the open to be ridiculed by all.
Are there any exclusions for factualness?
Or in Canada can I not say that all members of the westboro baptist church are evil scumbags since I'd be promoting hate of a religious group?
Don't worry, no matter how fake or factual his claims will be found officially to be baseless.
I think part of my point is that there's been a great deal of drift in the scope of copyright over the decades.
Not just in it's term.
Copyright makes quite a lot of sense for books, but over the years it's gradually been pushed to cover almost everything in baby steps.
It makes less sense for music and less again for brief commentary.
(ridiculous as it is I own copyright on this brief paragraph and it would be illegal for you to reproduce it without my permission off this website.)
As shown in a story posted on slashdot a few weeks ago it even covers political speech so if you quote a politicians crazy rant exactly(to avoid claims of picking and choosing) you can be done for infringing their copyright.
Alternatively, I dig a hole in some waste ground without anyone asking me to.
I work very hard.
I bitch and moan about how I worked real hard and demand to be paid.
Nobody pays me.
Later someone else comes along and puts water in the disused hole and starts using it for a swimming pool.
I bitch and moan that I worked very hard and since they're using it it obviously has value.
Yet still nobody pays me.
The moral of the story is, just because you work hard, even if what you do has value to someone that does not automatically entitle you to payment.
I'll make sure to re-write it to remove the spelling errors and mistakes.
To anyone else who's read down this far feel free to copy,rewrite, reproduce, create derivative works or any of that stuff .
a citation of "user HungryHobo,Slashdot" would be appreciated but not required in any way.
That however would be more trademark law than copyright.
If it's illegal to copy a recipe(not counting exactly copying a section from a recipe book which would be protected as a written work) I'd be interested in a citation.
It's a fair challenge.
If anything I'm happy I've got people considering it.
I was more comparing it to a muscician ripping off another musician and performing their own version.
You're trying to assume everything would be the same, including MP3 sales.
In such a world MP3's would likely be little more valuable than individual skittles/penny sweets but live performances as common as cooks.
The question is of course if that would be a worse world for it.
Because of course it would be different.
Give it a few years/decades and it's quite likely that someone will come up with machines which can prepare meals according to a recipe so we might see the situation getting closer to MP3's.
Or to move your query into the little alternate world- How would the big recipe composers and food chains generate revenue?
You know I sometimes wonder if the world would be a richer or poorer place without copyright, pleanty of things would be different certainly and those who make their money from the current system will of course tell you the world would be a poorer worse off world for it.
It's almost taken as a given that the world would have less creativity without copyright but I do wonder.
If the chef at your local restaurant had to pay royalties whenever he used a recipe published by a celebrity chef would you have a tastier and more enjoyable meal?
What if he risked being sued into the ground if he created a derivative work by altering the recipe slightly without a liscence?
or would you just have a more bland, unoriginal, uninspired and ultimately vastly more expensive meal.
If your hairdresser had to pay royalties whenever some kid comes in with a magazine picture and says they want their hair to "look like that".
Would everyone have far more interesting hairstyles or would it just cost far more and see people getting sued for doing their own hair at home in a copyrighted style?
Both these things are creative and also involve a skill much like storytelling or playing a musical instrument and in both cases I've heard of people trying to get copyright protections extended to cover them.
Imagine a world where in the 17th century someone had decided that recipes and cooking should fall under copyright along with books.
You can be sure that were someone to call for it's repeal 300 years later there'd be no lack of "professional recipe composers" who would talk about how much work they put into working out new recipes and the time and effort it takes and how we're bad people for implying that they haven't worked hard and that they somehow don't deserve a cut whenever someone follows their recipies.
of course in a world where we're all free to take someone elses recipe, use it, copy it, publish it or even claim it as our own we know very well that fuck all harm has been done to the industry for the lack of legal protection on such creativity.
We live in a world where everyone has family recipes but hardly anyone has family music.
In a world where such legal protections existed and nobody ever knew such an open and unprotected situation as we have in this world it would be very easy to claim that there would be no creativity, no well paid chefs and that setting up a kitchen would be pointless since someone else would just copy the chefs recipes.
Similarly it's taken almost as a given that the world would have less good books, less good stories and less without copyright but try questioning that even for a moment.
Of course no someone is going to complain that composing and cooking a good meal can't be compared to composing and playing a good piece of music because..... well just because!
so nothing really special in terms of storage.
you'd need to be able to write at about 120 MB per second, what kind of write speed do modern disks get?
You'd probably have to use a raid to deal with that but disk space wouldn't be an issue.
Then lobby/vote to stop the big publishers pissing in the public well.
if there's significant public backlash at any point you can be damned sure disney won't be the ones to suffer, it'll be small publishers.
they do so love to advertise that they're selling something and that you should "buy" stuff from them but later on strangely is seems that you haven't bought anything at all and in fact they've only granted you a license.
Anyone taken them to court for years of blatant false advertising yet?
Or for infecting their customers PC's with malware?
a terabyte drive can take years to fill up.
I've had mine almost 3 years and it's still filling.
every family photo album(we can take whole backups of the cousins wedding pictures nowdays) lots of home videos, disk backups, random crap,far more pornography than is healthy and as with the GP- images of my DVD collection, why slot the disk in when it can be a few mouse clicks away.
does this bit from TFA strike anyone else as a bit odd?
"The computation took 23 days on 1,000 of Yahoo's computers, racking up the equivalent of more than 500 years of a single computer's efforts."
So.... 1000 machines, 23 days, assuming embarrassingly parallel that's 23000 days of computation on 1 machine.
23000/365 = 63.0136986 years
now each of those could have 8 cores and they meant 500 years on a single core processor of course.
but still odd phrasing.
gotta be a 1 in a million chance that, of all the numbers it could be... that it'd be zero!
it just means the malware authors have grown up and want a paycheck.
It used to be that half the viruses were showy things written by amatures who wanted to fuck around.
most of the rest were trying to cash in on ad revenue from popups.
Now there's less money in popups(most of the big ad providers don't like being associated with malware) so the malware just sits quietly trying to steal your credit card number.
The more stealthy the more successful.
Sometimes non-violent things can kill far more people.
If a politician cuts off food shipments to somewhere and hundreds of people a week are starving to death or cuts off shipments of antibiotics etc etc and someone uses violence to try to get international attention to make it stop then the killing of a handful of people becomes far more justifiable.
At least from the point of view of the people who are starving or watching family members die for lack of medical supplies.
It's rarely as simple as you make out.
People can hurt you or kill you by non-violent means and violence can be quite justifiable to protect yourself and people you care about from being hurt of killed.
or you could just buy the american line and assume they're doing it for fun and because they hate your freedom.
On a related note most of it is bullshit.
I have enough knowledge of physics and chemistry to spot really bad errors and in years past downloaded a pile of those kinds of guides for shits and giggles.
From a brief read I came to the conclusion that most of them will leave you with a face full of acid, on fire or at best with a beaker full of useless crap.
The only interesting one I found was that explosive paste from braniac.
Gotta make that some day.
If you really want to make explosives there's pleanty of solid chemistry books out there without the words "anarchist" or "bomb" in the title which will give you vastly better information.
Thing is even non-violent crimes can cause real pain, suffering and deaths.
Steal a million from a charity and a few villages don't get a well.People die.
Do something really massive like maddof did and disrupt the economy of entire countries and you'll almost certainly cause budget cuts for healthcare, social work and various other areas which leads to more people dying long term than otherwise.
If you steal someones life savings and they can't pay for a family members healthcare as a result someone can still end up just as dead as if you beat them with a steel bar.
"Halo: The Fall of Reach" was a fantastic book, it would have stood perfectly well on it's own as a sci fi book without any games.
Similarly First Strike Was a great read.
Eric Nylund brought those two books to life.
Ghosts of Onyx was pretty good but not quite as memorable.
Halo: Contact Harvest while it didn't have quite the same flair and consistency of the above was a solid book and I enjoyed it.
For me Joseph Staten focuses a bit much on the feelings of the characters but it's still a good read.
The Flood is more of a walk-through of the Halo game.
I couldn't even finish it.
a book has to be pretty bad for me to put it down in disgust.
If I wanted a game walkthrough I'll go to gamefaqs.
It put me off ever again buying any book by William C. Dietz
Skip it and you lose nothing.
if they make a movie they better hire Nylund for the script.
To anyone who's not familiar with the books I have to say, the halo series of books actually stand pretty well on their own. (except "The flood")
They're not just crap shoveled out the door to cash in on a franchise like some game/movie book adaptions out there.