Should I no longer get salary from the first 2 of my jobs just because it's been 10 years since I worked there?
Should you get salary from the job you left last week? Writing books and creating art is inherently different from working a 9 to 5 job.
Why not? If the work you did is so hard and useful then you will make lots of money during the 5 years by selling lots of copies or by being able to charge a lot for a copy.
is all you can think of the holywood mainstream crap? lots of works don't do well for quite some time. I'd never heard of V for Vendetta until 15 years after the comic was released. I'd never heard of watchmen until 20 years after the comic was released.
A 5 year copyright term would just mean that studios can rip off everything an author has ever created within 5 years and wouldn't even have to attribute it.
Every major publishing house would just keep a stack of everything they were sent unless they spotted something truly exceptional in the cursory pass 5 years later you'd see anything half decent published with a different authors name on it.
Why not? If the work you did is so hard and useful then you will make lots of money during the 5 years by selling lots of copies or by being able to charge a lot for a copy. Otherwise you just wasted a lot of time, just like the guy who started his own business but it turned out that what he had almost no (potential) customers and went bust a few years later. You are not entitled to the money just because you spent 20 years doing something that nobody needed.
The last thing we need is even lower quality material because authors have to keep pumping out a constant stream of crap rather than spending time getting things right. Enough authors spend 5 years trying to even get semi decent attention for their books.
So your plan is that they do the work and then the corporations get to cash in on any publicity they managed to garner in that time.
If you cannot make profit during those years then it means that whatever you are doing is not profitable and will not be profitable in the coming years too.
wow. if you're not sucessful right away then you'll never be sucessful? what world do you live in?
But sure. lets go with your ideal where big media should be able to rip off everything an author does shortly after the author has done the work of creating and possibly publicizing it. And you shouldn't spend more than a trivial amount of time on creating anything because you don't think someone should get paid for 20 years for 20 years labor. got it.
since an author would have to make their money in a very short timescale they'd have to charge very high royalties driving the price sky high. since there would be no royalty costs at all 5 years later the books would be dirt cheap.
I am rarely in a hurry with books, I'll wait till a series is finished to read through in one go. I don't *need* to hear the stories right away, why in the world would I ever pay for the insanely expensive new books when I can get them dirt cheap 5 years down the road. this isn't medecine where people need the drugs *now* or patents where you competitor will pass you out if you don't get that tech *now* this is books where waiting a few years is no big deal.
the only winners in your world are the big companies and the occasional sensation like Rowling. Everyone else, the small time authors and the authors who put decent work into their books lose big time.
Personally I think a mixed system might work: Otherwise people would have to be insanely secretive about their work until they sent it off to be registered because if a rough cut of a new movie got leaked then there would be perfectly legal for me to sell copies of it.
How about
1: current automatic copyright system but only for a very limited time, say less than a year. 2: if you want longer protection you have to register it by giving a full clean, unencrypted copy to something like the british library- a legal deposit library, it receives copies of all books produced in the United Kingdom.
deciding X isn't exactly easy- if you spend 20 years writing an incredible authoritative book on some subject why should you only get paid for 5 years? should terry Pratchett no longer get royalties on the first 25 discworld books because they were published more than 10 years ago? Should not have control of the characters in his current books because they first appeared in his books more than 20 years ago?
That sounds all very convincing except for the fact that when the external board looked into it Dr Evans was able to produce actual evidence such as emails which contradicted her account of what happened solidly enough that they threw out everything except the fruitbat paper.
also your interpretation doesn't make much sense as was pointed out in the final letter:
"On the one hand she seems to be complaining that Dr Evans was "manipulating" her to establish himself in a good light with her husband. Yet on the other hand she accuses Dr Evans of sexual harassment. Such a combination is surely unlikely to say the least."
and this children is where the far right and far left meet at the far side of the circle.
Both the far right and the far left are quite happy to implement oppressive and authoritarian regimes. The far right does it because they believe god told them to. The far left does the exact same but because they think it's for your own good.
Last time I worked serving tables in ireland I regularly got my ass slapped by middle aged women who were part of hen parties. It's nothing to write home about. The important thing was that they tipped well.
I'd be as interested to know how Qatar ended up with women being paid twice what men are paid.
it's made even more complex because of the fact that it was a scientific paper. the university act in ireland has some rules about what academics cannot be punished for on that score.
And? I'm not sure who you're talking too now since you seem to have drifted away from this case a long way.
What has a dentist to do with any of this? as stated. there was someone else in the room when he showed the paper.
He did show it in public, they weren't even alone in the office if you'd bothered to read more than her initial complaint. MDs in Wall St firms don't generally have cause to even talk about sex. Professors in a medical department who specialize in behavioral psychology can't avoid the subject without being shit at their jobs.
1:He wasn't screwing the person. 2:This wasn't an undergraduate or student of any kind.
This was another academic at the university.
And the medical faculty at that.
If a professor in the School of Medicine can't walk into another academics office and show them a peer reviewed paper about fruitbats that pretty much rules out showing them more shocking papers about anal warts and STD's.
He also showed it to a few other people on the way over and the other person in the office at the time.
You can shit on academic freedom all you want but if doctors can't talk about peer reviewed scientific papers which might embarrass the fragile sensibilities of someone where they work then they're not going to be able to do their job for fear of being accused of destroying the mind of the office wallflower.
As you'd imagine he's not crazy about his career being fucked up by "sexually harassed co-worker" on his record with no warning or recourse.
simply saying that everyone was within their rights is true but at the same time it would also be true if she'd complained about an overly friendly handshake- she'd have every right to avail herself of a standard procedure to file a complaint and the president of the university would have every right to determine any course of action.
Sure but in this case this really has about has much to do with the church as it has to do with my old socks. unless you class every time someone gets offended at something to be related to the church.
Slashdot Mirror
Should I no longer get salary from the first 2 of my jobs just because it's been 10 years since I worked there?
Should you get salary from the job you left last week?
Writing books and creating art is inherently different from working a 9 to 5 job.
Why not? If the work you did is so hard and useful then you will make lots of money during the 5 years by selling lots of copies or by being able to charge a lot for a copy.
is all you can think of the holywood mainstream crap?
lots of works don't do well for quite some time.
I'd never heard of V for Vendetta until 15 years after the comic was released.
I'd never heard of watchmen until 20 years after the comic was released.
A 5 year copyright term would just mean that studios can rip off everything an author has ever created within 5 years and wouldn't even have to attribute it.
Every major publishing house would just keep a stack of everything they were sent unless they spotted something truly exceptional in the cursory pass 5 years later you'd see anything half decent published with a different authors name on it.
Why not? If the work you did is so hard and useful then you will make lots of money during the 5 years by selling lots of copies or by being able to charge a lot for a copy. Otherwise you just wasted a lot of time, just like the guy who started his own business but it turned out that what he had almost no (potential) customers and went bust a few years later. You are not entitled to the money just because you spent 20 years doing something that nobody needed.
The last thing we need is even lower quality material because authors have to keep pumping out a constant stream of crap rather than spending time getting things right.
Enough authors spend 5 years trying to even get semi decent attention for their books.
So your plan is that they do the work and then the corporations get to cash in on any publicity they managed to garner in that time.
If you cannot make profit during those years then it means that whatever you are doing is not profitable and will not be profitable in the coming years too.
wow.
if you're not sucessful right away then you'll never be sucessful?
what world do you live in?
But sure. lets go with your ideal where big media should be able to rip off everything an author does shortly after the author has done the work of creating and possibly publicizing it.
And you shouldn't spend more than a trivial amount of time on creating anything because you don't think someone should get paid for 20 years for 20 years labor.
got it.
since an author would have to make their money in a very short timescale they'd have to charge very high royalties driving the price sky high.
since there would be no royalty costs at all 5 years later the books would be dirt cheap.
I am rarely in a hurry with books, I'll wait till a series is finished to read through in one go.
I don't *need* to hear the stories right away, why in the world would I ever pay for the insanely expensive new books when I can get them dirt cheap 5 years down the road.
this isn't medecine where people need the drugs *now* or patents where you competitor will pass you out if you don't get that tech *now* this is books where waiting a few years is no big deal.
the only winners in your world are the big companies and the occasional sensation like Rowling.
Everyone else, the small time authors and the authors who put decent work into their books lose big time.
Personally I think a mixed system might work:
Otherwise people would have to be insanely secretive about their work until they sent it off to be registered because if a rough cut of a new movie got leaked then there would be perfectly legal for me to sell copies of it.
How about
1: current automatic copyright system but only for a very limited time, say less than a year.
2: if you want longer protection you have to register it by giving a full clean, unencrypted copy to something like the british library- a legal deposit library, it receives copies of all books produced in the United Kingdom.
deciding X isn't exactly easy- if you spend 20 years writing an incredible authoritative book on some subject why should you only get paid for 5 years?
should terry Pratchett no longer get royalties on the first 25 discworld books because they were published more than 10 years ago?
Should not have control of the characters in his current books because they first appeared in his books more than 20 years ago?
sounds a little like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
Oh I haven't seen this one before on slashdot.
Authors of malware copy-pasting arguments that their malware isn't really malware.
That's just so original.
a sarcasm detector? that's a real useful invention!
That sounds all very convincing except for the fact that when the external board looked into it Dr Evans was able to produce actual evidence such as emails which contradicted her account of what happened solidly enough that they threw out everything except the fruitbat paper.
also your interpretation doesn't make much sense as was pointed out in the final letter:
"On the one hand she seems to be complaining that Dr Evans was "manipulating"
her to establish himself in a good light with her husband. Yet on the other hand
she accuses Dr Evans of sexual harassment. Such a combination is surely
unlikely to say the least."
and this children is where the far right and far left meet at the far side of the circle.
Both the far right and the far left are quite happy to implement oppressive and authoritarian regimes. The far right does it because they believe god told them to. The far left does the exact same but because they think it's for your own good.
So 7% lower than the US by the same metric?
Last time I worked serving tables in ireland I regularly got my ass slapped by middle aged women who were part of hen parties.
It's nothing to write home about.
The important thing was that they tipped well.
I'd be as interested to know how Qatar ended up with women being paid twice what men are paid.
it's made even more complex because of the fact that it was a scientific paper. the university act in ireland has some rules about what academics cannot be punished for on that score.
and again
it. was. not. in. private.
Why?
You'll just label any example we give as not *truely* violence or not *truely* good.
might as well try to prove that toast is inherently good or evil.
And?
I'm not sure who you're talking too now since you seem to have drifted away from this case a long way.
What has a dentist to do with any of this? as stated. there was someone else in the room when he showed the paper.
He did show it in public, they weren't even alone in the office if you'd bothered to read more than her initial complaint.
MDs in Wall St firms don't generally have cause to even talk about sex.
Professors in a medical department who specialize in behavioral psychology can't avoid the subject without being shit at their jobs.
I've never heard of any official church position on animal husbandry.
This situation is the result of regular old bureaucracy, not church dogma.
just deal with it.
your preferred scapegoat isn't responsible for everything ill with the world.
no true scotsman.
that's not *true* violence!
The mental patient isn't necessarily going to hurt anyone, he may just not want to take his medication.
The damage you might want to prevent by restraining someone need not be violent itself. merely harmful.
Is there any way that you wouldn't blame any negative situation in existence on religion?
The church is irrelevant in this case.
If the church was in charge they'd have made sure the woman was utterly ignored in favor of the male.
Do the Amish get in a lot of fistfights or what?
1:He wasn't screwing the person.
2:This wasn't an undergraduate or student of any kind.
This was another academic at the university.
And the medical faculty at that.
If a professor in the School of Medicine can't walk into another academics office and show them a peer reviewed paper about fruitbats that pretty much rules out showing them more shocking papers about anal warts and STD's.
He also showed it to a few other people on the way over and the other person in the office at the time.
You can shit on academic freedom all you want but if doctors can't talk about peer reviewed scientific papers which might embarrass the fragile sensibilities of someone where they work then they're not going to be able to do their job for fear of being accused of destroying the mind of the office wallflower.
the article was about fellatio, not masturbation.
For the love of god put some effort in and read TFA.
And quit grinding that axe.
The church does not run UCC.
Is restraining someone against their will a violent act?
I'd say it is.
unless you can do that then
1: many mental patients couldn't really be helped.
2: enforcing punishment for laws against harmful but non-violent crimes becomes almost impossible.
As you'd imagine he's not crazy about his career being fucked up by "sexually harassed co-worker" on his record with no warning or recourse.
simply saying that everyone was within their rights is true but at the same time it would also be true if she'd complained about an overly friendly handshake- she'd have every right to avail herself of a standard procedure to file a complaint and the president of the university would have every right to determine any course of action.
read TFA.
He provided evidence such as emails which didn't match with her account so they went with his account.
Read the material.
There's links to the various letters back and forth in TFA.
Sure but in this case this really has about has much to do with the church as it has to do with my old socks.
unless you class every time someone gets offended at something to be related to the church.
Hitting my printer until it starts working again.
It's violent but achieves something good- being able to print my document.
this is about office politics, not government.