No matter how many lasw you pass, it will always be easier for individuals to copy, than to control. Control must always be organized and maintained from a central, master point - copying can be done in any context.
This reminds me of an argument made back in the 1850's. If you don't like slavery, you don't half to own slaves. But the issue is much deeper than that, as long as anyone has the right to impose on someone's liberties, that is in effect the right for someone to impose on anyone's liberties. Acting the way they do is unnactable, and is a threat to us and our liberties wether we choose to deal with them or not.
Back in the old days, the solution wasn't to wait arround for government to get off their ass, and petittion congress to end slavery - it was to fight slavery at any chance no matter how the system felt about it. People like Harriet Tubman (spelling) did more to end slavery than entire armies of politicians, it came to a point that since nobody in the north would honor slavery anyhow, they made it illegal up there. Today, we must take it upon ourselves to ignore, fight,bypass and challenge copyrights and patents at any cost. While there are some people out there trying to figure out if IP is right or wrong, we need to have the attitude that we already made up our minds and are doing somthing about it no matter what the others think. Contrary to what others would have you believe, there are some very easy ways to fight these things, eg. for every one company that they catch for using unauthorized copies of software - there are millions that they can never catch. No matter what type of legal structure is in place, it is a lot easier to clone that it is to capture - this gives those of us against copyrights a very big tatical advantage.
If everybody has 'your' IP, then it matters very much because you now have quite a reputation. Next thing you know, Linus will be a bum on the streets because everybody can copy his kernel - by your logic. Besides, what makes you think that somthings a property right just because the government defines it that way Did your ancestors own slaves???
This is just the slavery issue all over again. Some people believe that copyrights are a basic right, and are trying to secure that as a right, by imposing it on everyone else. Yes perhaps they upheld Slavery because they thought of it as an incentive, perhaps they upheld it because they put effort into getting and training slaves, perhaps they believed it was right because it seemed to be so integrated with Americas success, or perhaps they did it because lots of prestigious people did it too - and only a thief would free slaves. Of course they had to force it because they bet vast amounts of wealth on the assumption that slavery was a basic right, it wasn't and it was only a matter of time before it blew up in their face. And it was only a matter of time before those who believed that the slave owners could peacfully get along with the anti-slavery people were prooven to be naieve and foolish.
that definition has become popularized because of people lying about the words true meaning. That doesn't make them any less the liars for calling it that.
Yes there were those who thought that pro-slavery and the anti-slavery sides could peacfully get along. But the pro-slavery guys just kept pushing it, and pushing it, and being harsher on slaves, families, runnaways, until they just pushed it too far (they succeded from the union). I guess they just believed that slavery was a basic right. That without it there was no INCENTIVE bring forth America's glorious textile industry. And since they PUT EFFORT INTO IT, that is acquiring and training slaves, they only naturally assumed that ownership was their right. Of course slavery started out as indentrued servitude that had an EXPIRATION, but the slave owners quickly changed that. Only prestigious and respectable busisness men had slaves, and only thiefs would free them. Of course in hindsight, if only they realized that slavery wasn't a PROPERTY RIGHT they might have been able to avoid the harsh consequences that brought about it's end.
"We love the idea of using technology to build artist communities, but that's not what Napster is all about. Napster is about facilitating piracy and trying to build a business on the backs of artists and copyright owners," said Cary Sherman, senior executive vice president and general counsel of the RIAA.
For the 1000th time. COPYING is not PIRACY. No matter how many times I say it, it seems that some people just don't get it. Piracy is where you brord a ship, beat the hell out of people or kill them, and then loot their stuff. This isn't even close to copying a CD. For christs sake. Give it UP!!
I'm supprised he didn't mention the copyright wars, perhaps it's because he's in denial considering that he just wrote a copyrighted work. Mp3, DVD are only going to escalate. They've spent over a trillion dollars betting that copyrights are a basic right, and noone's going to take it lying down when it turns out that they're not. Of course no one thought they would be willing to suffer and make so much violence over slavery as a false property right a century or so before that. Poor souls, I guess they didn't realise that people were willing to be violent in the name of protecting copyrights.
unfortunately most people don't realise that people are just bringing patents to their logical conclusion. it reminds me of the early america where slavery started out as a short term indentured servitude that could not be inherited, but as time went by and technology inceased it became harder and harder to secure wealth doing things the same ole way, so likewise the restrictions realting to slaves got harsher and harsher as they tried to squeese more juice out of a dying way of life. It even seemed to be pretty effective, that is, until the bitter end.
This is because most companies don't ENFORCE them
on
What Can Be Patented?
·
· Score: 1
As you have implied, software patents for the most part have not gone to hell because people are refusing to enforce them in all cases. Of course this presses the issue. There is no need for such harsh patents if reasonable people won't enforce them anyhow. Having them out there like that is just a time-bomb waiting to explode.
all patenets are bad. while software patents and busisness model petents are by far the worst - they are just taking patents to their logical conclusion. At a fundamental level, patents are just another controll on copying peoples behavior. They have no natural limit, only a government imposed limit. TO assume that the government creates property rights - is a big mistake, we did it with slavery and now were doing it again with patents and copyrights. (don't flame me, slavery and patents have nothing to do with each other in terms of human treatment, but it is definitely a valid argument showing the difference between philosophies where one side believes that property rights exist without government, and government is created to secure those rights, or the other side that suggests that governments define property rights and anything they define is fair gain) while it can be debated wether patents produce an incentive that leads to creation that may not have happened otherwise, patents definitely restrict people from using creations already out there to the best of their abilities, which in some cases like medical equiptment or auto safety can lead to uneeded deaths.
If the patent is a bad one in the first place, then the problem is in the patent having been granted in the first place, not with its sale to your company. On the other hand, if the patent is a valid one, why shouldn't the originating company sell the rights for what it thinks is a fair price?
my point is that patnets are rewarding busisness men for choking off innovation to controll markets. Hardly the incentive to innovate that justifys their existence.
Hmm, perhaps we should have some sort of "Food and Drug Administration" which would evaluate the safety of new drugs before allowing "dangerous concoctions" on the market.
parhaps so, perhaps buyer beware would be best. but a common argument that favors patents is that pharmacuticals have no incentive to do R and D without them. My point challenges this benefit.
That's (freon patent issue) a very good argument that the people who decide whether a chemical should be illegal are corrupt, but it's hardly an indictment of the patent system.
but you can't deny that this problem would have been avioded from the start without patents at all.
america is successfull, because of individual liberties being upheld, not because of patents. your argument reminds me of the 1850's argument that americas greatness was founded on slavery. but it wasn't. did it ever occur to you that before democracy, the government owned all inventions so things like patents were a moot point. But now that there is an acknowledgemnet of liberty our society has to learn what is property rights and what is not, what is a basic right and what is not. we learn't the hard way with slavery and today it looks like were going to learn the hard way again with patents. there just not a basic right, or a property, they are a government granted monopoly designed to be an incentive - but doubtfully are as innovation has been increasing at a steady rate with and with out patents.
one example is that I work for an extremely large technology/consumer products company. but contrary to popular belief they are not a technology company. they buy up smaller companies, suck off the patents, and put the screws to all the other consumer products companies and all the other innovators in the valley. in addition, you arrogantly overlook the dark side of patents - eg. someone comes up a safety device and not only locks out the next guy who would have discovered it independently next month, but also locks out his competitors (perhaps auto makers) so that people who use their products for the next 20 years have a higher chance of dying than people who don't. Also consider a pharmacutical company that considersing researching a simple safe cure that it can't patent or a dangerous concoction with lots of side effects that it can. Finally, any idiot who looks into it would realize that people were inventing stuff at a steady pace of inprovement long before patents came along. inventions are derived to meet needs, not to secure monopolies. PS did you know that freon became environmentally illegal to use on the same month that DOWs patent exipred, and the only close replacement of which there is no reason believe is safer is also patented by DOW and hasn't exipred yet??
Before we judge them. I think it's only fair to point out that they are just taking the philosophy of copyrights to it's logical conclusion. After all, if you have a right it's only natural and decent to want to secure that right. It's true that these people are being unethical, but they are using an unethical philosophy that millions of people are upholding.
think of it like the slavery issue in the mid 1800's. The problem wasn't just the plantation masters, but also the millions of people who believed that slavery could peacfully and morally exist in a free society.
The slave argument is a valid one, not because slavery had anything to do with copyrights, but because the logical arguments they use are the same. : I have no incentive without it..., america grew because of it..., I put my money into it..., without it society would fall apart..., if you don't like it don't own it..., those who believe and those who don't can find an even middle ground..., it's the law - deal with it... ad nasuim
Another thing you ought to consider - people have invested over a trillion dollars on the assumption that copyrights (and patnets for that matter) are a basic right. If you don't think people will resort to violence when (and not if) it becomes unsustainable. think again.
the moral and historical foundation of property derives from physical realities, not from reward to the end artist, or from control over distributions
yes it's true. the most profitable years of the slave industry were the years just before the civil war. All this did was reassure them that slavery was a basic right, and galvinize them into fighting and getting massacared for it later on. Now today they assume that copyrights are a basic right. With over a trillion dollars bet on copyrights being a basic right in the US economeny alone, don't be suprised if violent consequences break out when our society refuses to sustain it anymore.
Now look. If I board a ship, kill and mame people, deprive them of their stuff then you may call it piracy. Otherwise call it what it is. Copying!!!! OK Get it. PS. what makes you so sure that copyrights are a basic right anyhow??
make it a little more jelly like, combine it with lots of intricate technology amd some AI - and tada you got a changeling! Actually this could have some cool implications for morphing technology.
Seems vulnerable to spoof atack
on
SSH v. SRP
·
· Score: 1
I could block serverxyz from the network, rename my server to serverxyz and be able to do a spoof because there are no pre-defined keys that could be authenticated otherwise to show that I'm not.
I'm with you. the best way to loby is with actions, not with words. talk is cheap - and we have no power compaired to the large copy-license industries and their armies of glossed over idiots. It's like saying Harriet Tubman (spelling) should have spent her time petitioning congress instead of helping slaves escape from the south. What a load of crap. I say if people are looking for information, and I can provide that service cheaper than someone else, then lets go for it. Of course I must honestly say I would much rather gain money from Linux work than from distributing coppied MS cdroms, but I certainly couldn't condemn someone else for doing so. (how ironic, the rebel OS has probably done more to hackers into law abiding citizens than anything MS could ever dream of)
He and the readers/. need to rent the movie - Gone With the Wind - A sotry about how an entire society that was based off the false foundation of slavery, and the consequences that followed. Today, we are just as foolish. A trillion dollar industry is built on the false assumption that copyrights are a basic right, but they're not - and when new technologies force the issue - the consequences will be harsh.
contrary to popular belief, they are not (nor ever intended to be) a property right - but rather a short term incentice to bring works of knowledge and art into the open. Frankly, with the internet - we don't need such an incentive, and time has proven that copyrights have contributed more to Time/Warner, MS, and MPAA horading monopolies that to bringing artistic works out into the open. Basically what's happening here is that the upholding of copyrights is conflicting with honoring the bill-of-rights. Since the former was never intended to be a right, the latter must prevail.
Please. Piracy is where you board a ship, beat the shit out of people, kill them, and take their stuff. This has nothing to do with copying. Please - repeat after me: it's called COPYING! OK. BTW, now that that's out of the air, this has nothing to do with what people can copy - it has to do with who controls the mainstream distribution channels.
Slashdot Mirror
No matter how many lasw you pass, it will always be easier for individuals to copy, than to control. Control must always be organized and maintained from a central, master point - copying can be done in any context.
This reminds me of an argument made back in the 1850's. If you don't like slavery, you don't half to own slaves. But the issue is much deeper than that, as long as anyone has the right to impose on someone's liberties, that is in effect the right for someone to impose on anyone's liberties. Acting the way they do is unnactable, and is a threat to us and our liberties wether we choose to deal with them or not.
Back in the old days, the solution wasn't to wait arround for government to get off their ass, and petittion congress to end slavery - it was to fight slavery at any chance no matter how the system felt about it. People like Harriet Tubman (spelling) did more to end slavery than entire armies of politicians, it came to a point that since nobody in the north would honor slavery anyhow, they made it illegal up there. Today, we must take it upon ourselves to ignore, fight,bypass and challenge copyrights and patents at any cost. While there are some people out there trying to figure out if IP is right or wrong, we need to have the attitude that we already made up our minds and are doing somthing about it no matter what the others think.
Contrary to what others would have you believe, there are some very easy ways to fight these things, eg. for every one company that they catch for using unauthorized copies of software - there are millions that they can never catch. No matter what type of legal structure is in place, it is a lot easier to clone that it is to capture - this gives those of us against copyrights a very big tatical advantage.
David
If everybody has 'your' IP, then it matters very much because you now have quite a reputation. Next thing you know, Linus will be a bum on the streets because everybody can copy his kernel - by your logic. Besides, what makes you think that somthings a property right just because the government defines it that way Did your ancestors own slaves???
This is just the slavery issue all over again. Some people believe that copyrights are a basic right, and are trying to secure that as a right, by imposing it on everyone else. Yes perhaps they upheld Slavery because they thought of it as an incentive, perhaps they upheld it because they put effort into getting and training slaves, perhaps they believed it was right because it seemed to be so integrated with Americas success, or perhaps they did it because lots of prestigious people did it too - and only a thief would free slaves. Of course they had to force it because they bet vast amounts of wealth on the assumption that slavery was a basic right, it wasn't and it was only a matter of time before it blew up in their face. And it was only a matter of time before those who believed that the slave owners could peacfully get along with the anti-slavery people were prooven to be naieve and foolish.
that definition has become popularized because of people lying about the words true meaning. That doesn't make them any less the liars for calling it that.
Yes there were those who thought that pro-slavery and the anti-slavery sides could peacfully get along. But the pro-slavery guys just kept pushing it, and pushing it, and being harsher on slaves, families, runnaways, until they just pushed it too far (they succeded from the union). I guess they just believed that slavery was a basic right. That without it there was no INCENTIVE bring forth America's glorious textile industry. And since they PUT EFFORT INTO IT, that is acquiring and training slaves, they only naturally assumed that ownership was their right. Of course slavery started out as indentrued servitude that had an EXPIRATION, but the slave owners quickly changed that. Only prestigious and respectable busisness men had slaves, and only thiefs would free them. Of course in hindsight, if only they realized that slavery wasn't a PROPERTY RIGHT they might have been able to avoid the harsh consequences that brought about it's end.
David
- "We love the idea of using technology to build artist communities, but that's not what Napster is all about. Napster is about facilitating piracy and trying to build a business on the backs of artists and copyright owners," said Cary Sherman, senior executive vice president and general counsel of the RIAA.
For the 1000th time. COPYING is not PIRACY. No matter how many times I say it, it seems that some people just don't get it. Piracy is where you brord a ship, beat the hell out of people or kill them, and then loot their stuff. This isn't even close to copying a CD. For christs sake. Give it UP!!I'm supprised he didn't mention the copyright wars, perhaps it's because he's in denial considering that he just wrote a copyrighted work. Mp3, DVD are only going to escalate. They've spent over a trillion dollars betting that copyrights are a basic right, and noone's going to take it lying down when it turns out that they're not. Of course no one thought they would be willing to suffer and make so much violence over slavery as a false property right a century or so before that. Poor souls, I guess they didn't realise that people were willing to be violent in the name of protecting copyrights.
unfortunately most people don't realise that people are just bringing patents to their logical conclusion. it reminds me of the early america where slavery started out as a short term indentured servitude that could not be inherited, but as time went by and technology inceased it became harder and harder to secure wealth doing things the same ole way, so likewise the restrictions realting to slaves got harsher and harsher as they tried to squeese more juice out of a dying way of life. It even seemed to be pretty effective, that is, until the bitter end.
As you have implied, software patents for the most part have not gone to hell because people are refusing to enforce them in all cases. Of course this presses the issue. There is no need for such harsh patents if reasonable people won't enforce them anyhow. Having them out there like that is just a time-bomb waiting to explode.
all patenets are bad. while software patents and busisness model petents are by far the worst - they are just taking patents to their logical conclusion. At a fundamental level, patents are just another controll on copying peoples behavior. They have no natural limit, only a government imposed limit. TO assume that the government creates property rights - is a big mistake, we did it with slavery and now were doing it again with patents and copyrights. (don't flame me, slavery and patents have nothing to do with each other in terms of human treatment, but it is definitely a valid argument showing the difference between philosophies where one side believes that property rights exist without government, and government is created to secure those rights, or the other side that suggests that governments define property rights and anything they define is fair gain)
while it can be debated wether patents produce an incentive that leads to creation that may not have happened otherwise, patents definitely restrict people from using creations already out there to the best of their abilities, which in some cases like medical equiptment or auto safety can lead to uneeded deaths.
my point is that patnets are rewarding busisness men for choking off innovation to controll markets. Hardly the incentive to innovate that justifys their existence.
parhaps so, perhaps buyer beware would be best. but a common argument that favors patents is that pharmacuticals have no incentive to do R and D without them. My point challenges this benefit.
but you can't deny that this problem would have been avioded from the start without patents at all.
america is successfull, because of individual liberties being upheld, not because of patents. your argument reminds me of the 1850's argument that americas greatness was founded on slavery. but it wasn't.
did it ever occur to you that before democracy, the government owned all inventions so things like patents were a moot point. But now that there is an acknowledgemnet of liberty our society has to learn what is property rights and what is not, what is a basic right and what is not. we learn't the hard way with slavery and today it looks like were going to learn the hard way again with patents. there just not a basic right, or a property, they are a government granted monopoly designed to be an incentive - but doubtfully are as innovation has been increasing at a steady rate with and with out patents.
one example is that I work for an extremely large technology/consumer products company. but contrary to popular belief they are not a technology company. they buy up smaller companies, suck off the patents, and put the screws to all the other consumer products companies and all the other innovators in the valley. in addition, you arrogantly overlook the dark side of patents - eg. someone comes up a safety device and not only locks out the next guy who would have discovered it independently next month, but also locks out his competitors (perhaps auto makers) so that people who use their products for the next 20 years have a higher chance of dying than people who don't. Also consider a pharmacutical company that considersing researching a simple safe cure that it can't patent or a dangerous concoction with lots of side effects that it can. Finally, any idiot who looks into it would realize that people were inventing stuff at a steady pace of inprovement long before patents came along. inventions are derived to meet needs, not to secure monopolies. PS did you know that freon became environmentally illegal to use on the same month that DOWs patent exipred, and the only close replacement of which there is no reason believe is safer is also patented by DOW and hasn't exipred yet??
Before we judge them. I think it's only fair to point out that they are just taking the philosophy of copyrights to it's logical conclusion. After all, if you have a right it's only natural and decent to want to secure that right. It's true that these people are being unethical, but they are using an unethical philosophy that millions of people are upholding.
think of it like the slavery issue in the mid 1800's. The problem wasn't just the plantation masters, but also the millions of people who believed that slavery could peacfully and morally exist in a free society.
The slave argument is a valid one, not because slavery had anything to do with copyrights, but because the logical arguments they use are the same. : ..., without it society would fall apart..., if you don't like it don't own it ..., those who believe and those who don't can find an even middle ground ..., it's the law - deal with it ... ad nasuim
I have no incentive without it..., america grew because of it..., I put my money into it
Another thing you ought to consider - people have invested over a trillion dollars on the assumption that copyrights (and patnets for that matter) are a basic right. If you don't think people will resort to violence when (and not if) it becomes unsustainable. think again.
the moral and historical foundation of property derives from physical realities, not from reward to the end artist, or from control over distributions
yes it's true. the most profitable years of the slave industry were the years just before the civil war. All this did was reassure them that slavery was a basic right, and galvinize them into fighting and getting massacared for it later on. Now today they assume that copyrights are a basic right. With over a trillion dollars bet on copyrights being a basic right in the US economeny alone, don't be suprised if violent consequences break out when our society refuses to sustain it anymore.
Now look. If I board a ship, kill and mame people, deprive them of their stuff then you may call it piracy. Otherwise call it what it is. Copying!!!! OK Get it. PS. what makes you so sure that copyrights are a basic right anyhow??
make it a little more jelly like, combine it with lots of intricate technology amd some AI - and tada you got a changeling!
Actually this could have some cool implications for morphing technology.
I could block serverxyz from the network, rename my server to serverxyz and be able to do a spoof because there are no pre-defined keys that could be authenticated otherwise to show that I'm not.
I'm with you. the best way to loby is with actions, not with words. talk is cheap - and we have no power compaired to the large copy-license industries and their armies of glossed over idiots. It's like saying Harriet Tubman (spelling) should have spent her time petitioning congress instead of helping slaves escape from the south. What a load of crap. I say if people are looking for information, and I can provide that service cheaper than someone else, then lets go for it. Of course I must honestly say I would much rather gain money from Linux work than from distributing coppied MS cdroms, but I certainly couldn't condemn someone else for doing so.
(how ironic, the rebel OS has probably done more to hackers into law abiding citizens than anything MS could ever dream of)
He and the readers /. need to rent the movie - Gone With the Wind - A sotry about how an entire society that was based off the false foundation of slavery, and the consequences that followed. Today, we are just as foolish. A trillion dollar industry is built on the false assumption that copyrights are a basic right, but they're not - and when new technologies force the issue - the consequences will be harsh.
contrary to popular belief, they are not (nor ever intended to be) a property right - but rather a short term incentice to bring works of knowledge and art into the open. Frankly, with the internet - we don't need such an incentive, and time has proven that copyrights have contributed more to Time/Warner, MS, and MPAA horading monopolies that to bringing artistic works out into the open. Basically what's happening here is that the upholding of copyrights is conflicting with honoring the bill-of-rights. Since the former was never intended to be a right, the latter must prevail.
Please. Piracy is where you board a ship, beat the shit out of people, kill them, and take their stuff. This has nothing to do with copying. Please - repeat after me: it's called COPYING! OK. BTW, now that that's out of the air, this has nothing to do with what people can copy - it has to do with who controls the mainstream distribution channels.