He wasn't writing this to claim that the Constitution itself violated any of these points, just that it didn't stop the congress from in the future violating them.
Quite the contrary. He was specifically arguing that the creation of monoplies by government fiat did violate these points. He was quite vociferously against them.
. ..he wouldn't phrase it . ..
He not only would, he did, and it was understood as such. Here is part of Madison's reply:
"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. But is it clear that as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely less danger of this abuse in our governments than in most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many to the few. Where the power is in the few it is natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger can not be very great that the few will be thus favored."
Note the phrase "literary works and ingenious discoveries."
You may not understand the formal written language of the 18th century, but they did; and they were clearly discussing the monopoply powers to be granted by copyrights and patents; Jefferson was arguing that a Bill of Rights was necessary to oppose the excesses of government and business monopolies which should not be allowed to exist; and Madison, as he would continue to do in his writings that came to be part of the Federalist Papers, as well as those arguments by Hamilton, argues that the Constitution already protects against such excesses including those of business monopolies granted by government fiat without the need of a Bill of Rights.
I'm just pulling out snippets from piles of written documents. Go to the library and read the piles. You will see.
I haven't a clue how your post is responsive to mine, but:
It wasn't like we had a copyright office etc. working and then the first amendment came along and we shut it down . ..
No, what we had was a copyright office etc. working under British rule, shut it down and then opened a new one after the First Amendment came along.
The copyright office was set up almost immediately after the first ammendment was written into law and none of the people who voted in the law nor the people who drafted the amendment saw any contradiction.
Absurd. It was a matter of great debate and commentary at the time.
"I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land..." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison on reading just drafted Constitution; Decemeber 20, 1787
Please note the phrase "restriction against monopolies." He is refering to copyrights and patents.
"The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Madison; July 31, 1778
In point of fact one of the stimuli for the First Amendment was the idea of copyright included in the Constitution. It was included to make it clear that the power of speech and the press was innate and reserved to the people and that copyright was overtly an incursion upon this right.
. ..and then later big business brought it back.
Nobody has even suggested anything of the kind, however, big IP business was created by the monopoly powers granted by Congress and then big IP business used their money to succeed in expanding those monopoly powers from very limited copyrights of only 14 years duration to almost all inclusive monopoly rights that last for generations.
As an example of how copyright law has been expanded and manipulated by the interested parties go and try to find free Bach sheet music. It is possible, but it is not easy.
four paragraphs explaining the joke and you forgot to explain the joke.
Because I was not explaining the joke. I was answering a question.
The orginal quote which the FOTD paraphrased:
"C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre." ("It is magnificent, but it is not war.") - Marshall Pierre Bosquet on observing the charge of the light brigade at the Battle of Balaclava.
You're like the guy who goes around mentioning that he doesn't watch TV . ..
I can't remember the last time I turned on my television, but it's not something I'd go around mentioning. It's not an "issue" for me. I've been more interested in other things. Games, music, engineering,literature, they're all just more interesting at most given moments.
. ..if you don't enjoy the actual game you're not likely to find something like Battle Chess much more than a novelty.
No, my point is that it is because I enjoy the game that I find something like Battle Chess nothing more than a novelty.
I guess there's a certain truth if one were to argue that any gameplay element that exists today can be replicated in text mode . ..
Nonsense. I like sims. They are highly dependant on grapics. They are not, however, dependant on photorealism. There's this stuff called "art." You can do a lot with it with comparitively little.
And the founding fathers, particularly Jefferson, had a fair bit to say about the matter, making it explicit that copyright was an incursion against the rights of the people (as partially enumerated in the First Amendment) and to be tolerated only so far as that incursion actually contributed to the public good.
The fly in the oinment is that the above required the power to grant copyright be included in the Constitution itself, using what are, perhaps, the most vauge terms in the entire document.
Thus the court was recently given to the opinion that while it held certain sympathies with those who feel the term of copyright is now far in excess of what the founders would have found tolerable, nontheless the Constitution effectively gives Congress the right to set such term at anything less than forever, since it simply says "limited time."
Welcome to the Brave New World of "limited" meaning "forever and all encompassing minus one."
I would think the meaning of the French bit would be easily decipherable even by those who do not speak French, at least so long as they are familiar with a language that contains Romance influence.
My interest is whether people "get" where it comes from; and thus why I find it ironically apropos to the current subject.
By reading this you agree to stand on your head, cluck like a chicken and send me a Godzillion dollars.
EULAs are like newspapers. Just because you read something in one doesn't make it so. You cannot be legally bound to that which is not legally binding, no matter how many times you click "I Agree." EULAs are wet dreams, not contracts.
How do you find out if you are legally bound?
Well, you file a lawsuit to put the matter before a judge, that's how.
It turns out that the difference between "didn't" and "doesn't" is important.
I'll leave the correct argument to those who are already doing well with it, as I'm obviously not even fit to read at the moment, let alone debate in writing.
There will be no need for VoIP services, whose only raison d'etre is being able to tap into the POTS system.
Juat about any half baked geek can write a computer to computer VoIP program, and I think about half of them have already. A fair number of those know how to imbed the program into a dedicated computing device. It's a software issue.
This is what the panties of the telcos are all tied up in knots over. On the internet a bit is a bit is a bit is a bit is a. . .
You only need a telco if the bits leave the Internet.
Although I have the annoying habit of actually signing all of my posts I do not do legible clothing, bumper stickers or sigs.
It always makes me feel a little weird when I see myself quoted in a sig, but I have never actually objected to it. If you like it enough to use it yourself feel free.
Slashdot Mirror
He wasn't writing this to claim that the Constitution itself violated any of these points, just that it didn't stop the congress from in the future violating them.
.he wouldn't phrase it . . .
Quite the contrary. He was specifically arguing that the creation of monoplies by government fiat did violate these points. He was quite vociferously against them.
. .
He not only would, he did, and it was understood as such. Here is part of Madison's reply:
"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. But is it clear that as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely less danger of this abuse in our governments than in most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many to the few. Where the power is in the few it is natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger can not be very great that the few will be thus favored."
Note the phrase "literary works and ingenious discoveries."
You may not understand the formal written language of the 18th century, but they did; and they were clearly discussing the monopoply powers to be granted by copyrights and patents; Jefferson was arguing that a Bill of Rights was necessary to oppose the excesses of government and business monopolies which should not be allowed to exist; and Madison, as he would continue to do in his writings that came to be part of the Federalist Papers, as well as those arguments by Hamilton, argues that the Constitution already protects against such excesses including those of business monopolies granted by government fiat without the need of a Bill of Rights.
I'm just pulling out snippets from piles of written documents. Go to the library and read the piles. You will see.
KFG
I haven't a clue how your post is responsive to mine, but:
.
.and then later big business brought it back.
It wasn't like we had a copyright office etc. working and then the first amendment came along and we shut it down . .
No, what we had was a copyright office etc. working under British rule, shut it down and then opened a new one after the First Amendment came along.
The copyright office was set up almost immediately after the first ammendment was written into law and none of the people who voted in the law nor the people who drafted the amendment saw any contradiction.
Absurd. It was a matter of great debate and commentary at the time.
"I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land..." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison on reading just drafted Constitution; Decemeber 20, 1787
Please note the phrase "restriction against monopolies." He is refering to copyrights and patents.
"The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Madison; July 31, 1778
In point of fact one of the stimuli for the First Amendment was the idea of copyright included in the Constitution. It was included to make it clear that the power of speech and the press was innate and reserved to the people and that copyright was overtly an incursion upon this right.
. .
Nobody has even suggested anything of the kind, however, big IP business was created by the monopoly powers granted by Congress and then big IP business used their money to succeed in expanding those monopoly powers from very limited copyrights of only 14 years duration to almost all inclusive monopoly rights that last for generations.
As an example of how copyright law has been expanded and manipulated by the interested parties go and try to find free Bach sheet music. It is possible, but it is not easy.
KFG
. . .detailed virtual environments become a very powerful tool.
How about virtual environments that are highly suggestive of detail?
The brain's ablility to fool itself is the most powerful tool of virtual reality.
KFG
four paragraphs explaining the joke and you forgot to explain the joke.
B rigade
Because I was not explaining the joke. I was answering a question.
The orginal quote which the FOTD paraphrased:
"C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre." ("It is magnificent, but it is not war.") - Marshall Pierre Bosquet on observing the charge of the light brigade at the Battle of Balaclava.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Light_
These days best remembered as an ill advised (literally) and pointless exercise for the sake of "patriotic duty."
KFG
You're like the guy who goes around mentioning that he doesn't watch TV . . .
.if you don't enjoy the actual game you're not likely to find something like Battle Chess much more than a novelty.
.
I can't remember the last time I turned on my television, but it's not something I'd go around mentioning. It's not an "issue" for me. I've been more interested in other things. Games, music, engineering,literature, they're all just more interesting at most given moments.
. .
No, my point is that it is because I enjoy the game that I find something like Battle Chess nothing more than a novelty.
I guess there's a certain truth if one were to argue that any gameplay element that exists today can be replicated in text mode . .
Nonsense. I like sims. They are highly dependant on grapics. They are not, however, dependant on photorealism. There's this stuff called "art." You can do a lot with it with comparitively little.
If you're an "artist."
KFG
The real question is: why not spend a couple hundred dollars every 1-4 years on a new card instead of spend a metric assload every time?
Shhhhhhhhhhh! I frickin' love early adopters.
KFG
. . .assuming you bought a good card last year. . .
I bought a good card last century.
KFG
The classics are classics because they were good, not just because they're old and don't have the same graphical quality as modern games.
I believe that was exactly his point.
The newest game I play is about 5 years old now. The one I play most often 7.
I can't really remember the last time I bought a game, because I don't need to for gameplay. And I haven't bought a new video card for 5 years.
Because I don't need to for gameplay.
KFG
. . .and i'm only being partially facetious, here.
You're a better than man than I am. I went for it all the way.
KFG
I wonder where our current creative interpretation that copyright trumps the 1st amendment came from?
Follow the money.
KFG
And the founding fathers, particularly Jefferson, had a fair bit to say about the matter, making it explicit that copyright was an incursion against the rights of the people (as partially enumerated in the First Amendment) and to be tolerated only so far as that incursion actually contributed to the public good.
The fly in the oinment is that the above required the power to grant copyright be included in the Constitution itself, using what are, perhaps, the most vauge terms in the entire document.
Thus the court was recently given to the opinion that while it held certain sympathies with those who feel the term of copyright is now far in excess of what the founders would have found tolerable, nontheless the Constitution effectively gives Congress the right to set such term at anything less than forever, since it simply says "limited time."
Welcome to the Brave New World of "limited" meaning "forever and all encompassing minus one."
KFG
. . .I don't get what an FOTD is.
Fortune Of The Day.
The "sig" you'll find at the bottom of the page.
I would think the meaning of the French bit would be easily decipherable even by those who do not speak French, at least so long as they are familiar with a language that contains Romance influence.
My interest is whether people "get" where it comes from; and thus why I find it ironically apropos to the current subject.
KFG
I would, but I'm too busy having the shakes and a cold sweat.
In line with current FOTD:
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas une bonne idée.
(And I can't help but wonder how many people here on Slashdot "get" that particular FOTD)
KFG
Ever read the EULA?
By reading this you agree to stand on your head, cluck like a chicken and send me a Godzillion dollars.
EULAs are like newspapers. Just because you read something in one doesn't make it so. You cannot be legally bound to that which is not legally binding, no matter how many times you click "I Agree." EULAs are wet dreams, not contracts.
How do you find out if you are legally bound?
Well, you file a lawsuit to put the matter before a judge, that's how.
KFG
I think I'll wait until they get LeibnizOS running on one of these things.
Not me. They're both just obsolescent classical OSs and I don't see the point.
I'm looking to the future, it's Bohring.
KFG
No, I see no reason why emulating an OS under Linux on a PDA would bring that platform a future.
Ah, but what if you could get NewtonOS to run Linux in a VM? I hear this Linux stuff is the wave of the future.
I see systems, inside of systems, inside of systems, inside of . . .
You don't think maybe they were right about that brown acid, do you?
KFG
It turns out that the difference between "didn't" and "doesn't" is important.
I'll leave the correct argument to those who are already doing well with it, as I'm obviously not even fit to read at the moment, let alone debate in writing.
KFG
Property was not the issue. The cost of security was the issue.
KFG
2. make damn sure he didn't do anything more serious and insidious?
If I burglerize your house, the more expensive lock you buy for your front door afterwards is not part of my crime.
Especially since I didn't break it down. I used a key. Which you gave me.
KFG
. . .when every Joe and his Mom are using it,
There will be no need for VoIP services, whose only raison d'etre is being able to tap into the POTS system.
Juat about any half baked geek can write a computer to computer VoIP program, and I think about half of them have already. A fair number of those know how to imbed the program into a dedicated computing device. It's a software issue.
This is what the panties of the telcos are all tied up in knots over. On the internet a bit is a bit is a bit is a bit is a. . .
You only need a telco if the bits leave the Internet.
KFG
Well, not quite two weeks into the year and he's got one wrong already.
KFG
Anyway, if you look at 0-to-60 numbers, it may be misleading.
I would prefer a lap of Suzuka.
KFG
Although I have the annoying habit of actually signing all of my posts I do not do legible clothing, bumper stickers or sigs.
It always makes me feel a little weird when I see myself quoted in a sig, but I have never actually objected to it. If you like it enough to use it yourself feel free.
KFG
No. Nobody.
KFG
... it was alredy on digg.com
That's old news.
KFG