These advances might lead to cheaper X-ray machines (and terahertz radiation machines, whatever you use that for) which just require a disposable/replaceable tape cartridges.
The machines might become cheaper, but the carts will be the big money maker, if say, Lexmark is making them.
On legitimate business yes. This prohibition has corrupted the authorities all the way to the very top. And there's still the issue of race. Read up on Anslinger, from the 30's. "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.", and then there's our great yellow "journalist" William Randolf Hearst. These feelings still carry over to this day, but are well hidden in the "code". Alcohol prohibition netted too many good ol' boys. And the infrastructure needed to produce mass quantities remains quite large. So it supports big business. Weed requires none of that, and it presents a danger to many other industries, like paper, and chemical.
Now you're doing it. You're saying I don't want to pay the artist. It's the gatekeepers I'm out to crush. If the artist is going to put a weaselly rep between me and him, then screw 'em both. Obviously you have no grasp of what I'm saying. Read up again on the stated (as opposed to its real) intent of copyright. It is a privilege that the state grants to purportedly encourage more creation. It's actual effect is let people sit on their duffs and collect the rent. That's what all the extensions are about.
Like I said, the benefits of copyright are huge, and the transgressions are small, or if big, then relatively few and far between.
Berne and WIPO have proven you dead wrong. They have contaminated the entire ocean. And the fish are dyin'.. getting eaten by sharks. It's a lot like putting the goats on the Galapagos and destroying all the native lifeforms... or was it Cats?
They don't "give" me their work, they sell it. I'm perfectly happy to buy it, on my terms. You have tried to completely reverse what I'm saying.
Viva La RevoluciÃn!
It's "Viva La Revolución!" Try to make an effort.. if you would..please...It's not that hard
Sorry man, too many people peeing in the pool. Gotta drain it and scrub it down. Actually it should be filled in with concrete. It is now nuclear waste. Copyright did more to put crap into our culture than anything. Creating huge industries around it does not make it any better. Copyright encourages the monetization, not the creation.
Society gave you the inch, and now you're taking the mile. All I can say is screw that. I'm taking my inch back. You'll get respect when you show some.
Reading your post leads me to believe that you work in somebody's public relations department (or maybe you should). So much marketspeak.
Get it straight, copyright should deal with plagiarism, nothing else. Attribution is forever.
Present day copyright law is theft. It steals from the public. The ??AAs exploit this. They are selling stolen property for profit. Damn near the very definition of piracy, high seas romanticism aside. At the very least it's racketeering.
This guy constantly trolls about people not wanting to pay the authors of creative works, which of course is bullshit and has been proven over and over. But it accomplishes its mission of drawing lots of hits for its own purpose. The definition applies.
Ok, the GPL exploits copyright. Feel better? However both are unnecessary.
Otherwise, you should be asking "why should I be forced to provide the source code if it's my copy?" It's a fair question, assuming you don't accept copyright.
Personally, I could not care less. But nobody has a right to tell me what I can do with my copy. Including disassembly, distribution, etc.
This is a farce, worthy of nothing but contempt. The law foments disrespect. Just like prohibition and all its associated corruption. It serves the interests of a small group, and it provides a means of censorship, as our friends at Scientology have so exquisitely demonstrated to the owners of Slashdot.
...we reject the idea that you should be able to drive your car forever.
There have been attempts to pass "junker" laws to take old cars off the road for various reasons like pollution and safety standards. Well, that's their pretext anyway. If we apply this analogy to disco "music", then I'm all for it. That stuff should definitely self destruct.
Slashdot Mirror
...to be taken seriously...
Is way overrated. Who cares if we're "taken seriously"?
These advances might lead to cheaper X-ray machines (and terahertz radiation machines, whatever you use that for) which just require a disposable/replaceable tape cartridges.
The machines might become cheaper, but the carts will be the big money maker, if say, Lexmark is making them.
Hey now, don't leave out anti-hippie backlash and anti-Mexican racism...
You beat me to it :-)
On legitimate business yes. This prohibition has corrupted the authorities all the way to the very top. And there's still the issue of race. Read up on Anslinger, from the 30's. "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.", and then there's our great yellow "journalist" William Randolf Hearst. These feelings still carry over to this day, but are well hidden in the "code". Alcohol prohibition netted too many good ol' boys. And the infrastructure needed to produce mass quantities remains quite large. So it supports big business. Weed requires none of that, and it presents a danger to many other industries, like paper, and chemical.
HA! Reason with a redneck? Only if you can outgun 'im. And the only thing to tell him is to drop those panties.
Honestly, I don't think there is a clear reasoning at this point why marijuana is illegal.
Money. Prohibition is big business.
I vote for the Crapper.
Hmmm, a flush activated light switch. Crap on.. crap off...
It's not Firefox, It's Slashdot. It doesn't display that stuff, so you have to fake it.
I'm tired. You win.
You're not serious
It could make the car disappear. Parking problem, solved
Now you're doing it. You're saying I don't want to pay the artist. It's the gatekeepers I'm out to crush. If the artist is going to put a weaselly rep between me and him, then screw 'em both. Obviously you have no grasp of what I'm saying. Read up again on the stated (as opposed to its real) intent of copyright. It is a privilege that the state grants to purportedly encourage more creation. It's actual effect is let people sit on their duffs and collect the rent. That's what all the extensions are about.
Like I said, the benefits of copyright are huge, and the transgressions are small, or if big, then relatively few and far between.
Berne and WIPO have proven you dead wrong. They have contaminated the entire ocean. And the fish are dyin'.. getting eaten by sharks. It's a lot like putting the goats on the Galapagos and destroying all the native lifeforms... or was it Cats?
They don't "give" me their work, they sell it. I'm perfectly happy to buy it, on my terms. You have tried to completely reverse what I'm saying.
Viva La RevoluciÃn!
It's "Viva La Revolución!" Try to make an effort.. if you would..please...It's not that hard
The rumors of our death are highly exaggerated
There are viable alternatives, temporary as they may be...
Shaggy shags shorn sheep on the soggy soil?
The hills are alive...
"Streisand Effect Keywords"
Banned
Censored
Secret
Unauthroized
Leak
Gay
Tits
Fart
Sorry man, too many people peeing in the pool. Gotta drain it and scrub it down. Actually it should be filled in with concrete. It is now nuclear waste. Copyright did more to put crap into our culture than anything. Creating huge industries around it does not make it any better. Copyright encourages the monetization, not the creation.
Society gave you the inch, and now you're taking the mile. All I can say is screw that. I'm taking my inch back. You'll get respect when you show some.
Reading your post leads me to believe that you work in somebody's public relations department (or maybe you should). So much marketspeak.
Get it straight, copyright should deal with plagiarism, nothing else. Attribution is forever.
...stupid people would have to resort to violence.
Yeah, really
I wonder how come nobody has built and sold these for civilian use?
Termites
Present day copyright law is theft. It steals from the public. The ??AAs exploit this. They are selling stolen property for profit. Damn near the very definition of piracy, high seas romanticism aside. At the very least it's racketeering.
This guy constantly trolls about people not wanting to pay the authors of creative works, which of course is bullshit and has been proven over and over. But it accomplishes its mission of drawing lots of hits for its own purpose. The definition applies.
Ok, the GPL exploits copyright. Feel better? However both are unnecessary.
Otherwise, you should be asking "why should I be forced to provide the source code if it's my copy?" It's a fair question, assuming you don't accept copyright.
Personally, I could not care less. But nobody has a right to tell me what I can do with my copy. Including disassembly, distribution, etc.
This is a farce, worthy of nothing but contempt. The law foments disrespect. Just like prohibition and all its associated corruption. It serves the interests of a small group, and it provides a means of censorship, as our friends at Scientology have so exquisitely demonstrated to the owners of Slashdot.
...then I'll just piss on him!
Nah, just piss on his briefcase.
Not a good idea
If somebody ever invents the perfect mosquito repellent.
I hope he never dies. I don't want to see copyright carried over into the afterlife. If he does die, we would have to kill NYCL to chase him down.
Copyright is not about the artist. Never has been. It exists to protect the publisher/distributor.
...we reject the idea that you should be able to drive your car forever.
There have been attempts to pass "junker" laws to take old cars off the road for various reasons like pollution and safety standards. Well, that's their pretext anyway. If we apply this analogy to disco "music", then I'm all for it. That stuff should definitely self destruct.