No, you don't even want to mention the name of that particular dictator. Doing so just reinforces the connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, even if you are negating the connection....
Better still, if you had a GIRL robot, she could go into the girl's bathroom and catch up on all the gossip and report back to you. This robot has a CAMERA. In the girl's bathroom.
Here, let me draw you a picture of the pertinent bits:
(.)(.)
\/
I could probably care less about the gossip, but it would require a conscious effort, and I don't really care, so...
We've got code here that refers to 'insurrances', 'insurances', 'insurrences' and 'insurences', I'm not kidding. Obviously, you must ensure the correct spelling is used at all times, insuring yourself against the possibility of errors.
This is the same shirt I was wearing when I asked my law professor about this question. (...) (It was the one mandatory law class, three years ago.) Please take off your t-shirt and step away from it, right now. The sanitizers are on their way.
How would you best make use of this opportunity if you found yourself in my shoes? Well, if you're a pacifist, cake him. If not, a high-powered rifle, a nice scope and a good vantage point sounds about right.
Roms should bypass the IFPI and let any artists that wants their money collect it direct from Roms. I agree, but I'm not sure that's even legal in Russia. And how could they check which artist should get paid when the record companies hold all the copyrights?
When you're hiding behind a statutory license and can sell whatever you want whether the copyright holder likes it or not, of course you got perfect selection. You mean just like radio works in the US?
does anybody know of any reasonable estimates of what the loss actually is? Yes, all of the scientists who have researched the topic does. There's a nice summary with commentary here: http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/p2p_summary. html
You know, you really need to go back to analogy school. Cookies? Hell, if I need more cookies, I'll just reload Google's homepage or something.;-)
What you're describing is not a problem where we need more lawsuits against people "stealing" broadband, it's a problem where we need more people who know to either secure their APs or at least buy them from someone who has the skillset to ask if they want it secured or not and take 3 minutes to explain the difference. We are in a position to decide whether we want open or closed WiFi to be the norm and it looks to me like we're going down the wrong path in a big hurry with lawsuits like this.
Still, if I'm in your neck of the woods, I'll drop over:) You're welcome. Pity it wasn't today, one of the guys in the office had a birthday and there's still some cake left.
Tell me you wouldn't have any issue with some guy popping over, plugging his hose into your tap and using your water supply for a few days without asking? No problem at all. As I intimated, he's even free to use my hose as long as he puts it back.
Here, I'll give you a pointer: Free water. There are two taps; one on the front of the garage and one on the back patio. There are 10m hoses attached to both, with standard connectors so you can add your hose if you need an extension. In addition, the WiFi is open with a SSID of "Orrviken"; it's a full duplex 10mbps fiber. Also, there are standard 240V outlets on the greenhouse, back patio and, of course, the front of the garage. If you're in town, I have a FON access point at Prästgatan 51, it's the same house as the Pharmacy and it should reach at least a few hundred meters along the street. Let me know if you're around and I'll even make you a cup of coffee. Have fun!
If someone were nicking my internet allowance, I'd be miffed. Well, then you put a password on your wireless router, don't you? Like someone else higher up said - if you build a fountain, you'd better be prepared that both people and animals will drink from it. Or, you can sit and watch it with a shotgun, being the bitter old man the kids like to make fun of. Your choice.
You have a tap in your front yard, mind if I use it to water my plants next door? No, of course I don't mind. Just put the hose back when you're done, 'kay?
You do? Well, same principle here. What the hell is wrong with you people? Weren't you allowed to use any of the toys at kindergarten and this petty selfishness is your way to get back at the world? Do you hate your neighbours because they have nicer plants than you do?
Note also that the judge in effect said that they had tried to pay royalties, but IFPI has refused to receive the money. I bet they never told "their" artists about that.
As the BBC put it: "Mediaservices has always maintained it pays royalties to Roms, but many Western firms do not recognise this organisation and refuse to accept its offers of payments."
KeyUpdateTool is a small tool from Microsoft that will let you convert a VLK XP to a regular OEM Pro XP if you have the license key for the OEM. However, it can NOT convert it to a Home XP.
Oh, and you can freely lend out your Corp CD, just don't give anyone your legit CD key, generate a new one instead. It will install and receive security updates, but if they install WGA it'll turn into Nagware and Media Player 11 is a no-go. After they've had those hassles for a while, give them a Ubuntu LiveCD.
Sorry for the delay, it's due in part to me wanting to get you the reply you deserved, and partly due to me having a wee bit too much work to do.
You'll forgive my assumption about your own ethical practice?
Of course.
It really felt like I was forcing your hand over what should have been a simple yes or no answer.
Oh, they were simple enough questions, I just don't see them as relevant to this discussion. I have debated these issues for some time now and although I have often seen the "copyright equals ownership" from copyright huggers and industry shills, I have not yet encountered anyone who would truthfully answer those questions in a different way. You could just as well have asked me if I saw the sky as being blue.
If the creator's work has value to others, he can trade it on the market place, where we can determine exactly what is the value to others.
Exactly. And increasingly, the work itself - content for want of a better word, is less worth as it can be duplicated (in one form) with next to zero cost. Instead, the real value lies in the metadata and other intangibles surrounding the work, such as the feelgood factor you get from knowing that your hero the artist gets a fair cut of the proceeds. Since record companies are notoriously stingy with royalty payments from sold CDs or downloads, the value proposition for buying a CD becomes pretty dismal.
Again, we can talk about the person sitting outside the stadium where a large artist performs. Maybe the sitter couldn't afford a ticket, maybe the concert was sold out. Maybe he doesn't want to be in a crowd, but still he wants to hear his idol sing and play. The recording industry wants us to believe this behaviour is theft - stealing bread from the artist's starving children, since they count any and all unauthorized access to the work as stealing.
So, there's a pretty good reason for some sort of mechanism, and the mechanism that was developed was copyright.
There were a few others, but copyright won out. Quite rightly so, I might add. It was pretty fair (as opposed to a patron system), had reasonable duration and would probably still work in some way if not for Victor Hugo. One evening out, he overheard the restaurant's orchestra playing the theme song from one of his plays and was outraged that they would profit from his hard work without sharing the proceeds. He embarked on a crusade against these song thieves and managed more or less single-handedly push through what would become the Berne convention. Had the notion that this indicated that the play was popular and that as an effect, more people were likely to go see it entered his mind, we would be in a different world today.
taking credit for a work in the Public Domain, i.e., plagiarizing, is generally considered bad.
Indeed. However, Public Domain is special in that it's legal status is undetermined in a Berne signatory country as they have compulsory moral rights.
However, the unauthorized publisher need not take any substantial risk, publishing only those works that will make money. There is both a zero cost to the unauthorized publisher for the original work and very low risk for the subsequent investment.
In theory, yes. In practice, there is a very real risk of running afoul of concerted boycotts such as the one "J.R.R. Tolkien started against an unauthorized Ace edition of his Lord of the Rings. In effect, trademark law overlaps copyright here, taking up any percieved slack. Just consider the case of the generic pharmaceutical that mey be cheaper than it's identical Big Name competitor, but still the Big Name outsells it. Again, the actual content of the pill/work is less important than the metadata/packaging.
Sure, unauthorized copying can be a problem - but only if you are in the business of selling copies. The record industry is, but the music industry does not have to be. Instead, selling a service can be incr
Linux already has this on Windows, but Windows is still dominant. That's due to other factors. If all else was equal (which it rarely is), open would win. Especially in the business market, where a very large majority of all software is customized somehow. I grant you that in the home or even SoHo markets, convenience and price are kings and right now that means either OEM or pirated Windows.
in practice that only applies to people who disclose their source, which ain't everyone. There are ideas for modifying copyright to create incentives for disclosing source code, either by giving them longer duration or better protection when putting the code in escrow or releasing it outright. IMHO, the code is what should be copyrightable in the first place.
what difference does that make if they only hand out a compiled binary? Because their customers/users would not have many of the four freedoms left, software that included the source code would still have a natural advantage on the market. License-speaking, it's like all code - GPL and otherwise - would transform to BSD overnight. Would that really be so horrible?
Actually, what I would like to see is a much shortened span for copyright in the 5-10 year range, excluding all copying for personal and non-profit use. In this scenario, only GPL'ed code that was 5-10 years old would go BSD. If Bill Gates wanted to take that old code and 'innovate' using it, he'd be welcome to it IMHO.
Another option would be to make a few reasonable CC licenses into law and let the creator pick one, with Attribution-Share Alike as the default.
Your question still assumes that the value would be in selling a copy of the work, overlooking the real revenue streams:
Let's assume Sony (I use them as an example simply because I like to kick their balls since the rootkit scandal) sets up a torrent tracker, has their own seeders placed locally at ISPs (thanks to Robert X for this one) with guaranteed non-corrupted files, a nice search function, a referral service, forum community with participation by artists, correct metadata, no DRM, no viruses, no RIAA lawsuits, a playlist-generator, competitions with backstage passes as prizes, a webshop for buying CDs, t-shirts, posters, concert tickets, desktop pictures, jewelcase inlay kits (co-sponsored by a printer manufacturer and CD-R-importer) - the possibilities are endless. The traffic numbers would go through the roof, they'd put iTunes out of business in a heartbeat, they'd get loads of useful listening information and data to mine and the running costs would be minimal since the customers themselves would do most of the heavy lifting in distribution and marketing.
It's basically free money for the record companies, less load on ISP backbone links and free music for listeners. Added bonuses would be a more direct communications route artist - consumer, but I'd guess that the record execs would be slightly less enthusiastic about that aspect.
Next in line to use the portal are the MPAA and both national and local TV and radio stations and networks. Anyone that would benefit from using a "free" system of distribution in the interest of cutting costs in a major way by giving up their shaky monopoly revenues in exchange for a steady stream of "normal" levels of cash would want in on this.
So, who's first to register www.themediabay.com ?
And Sony, I'm GIVING you this idea. Run with it or not, as you like. Want me to sign something to that effect? Send it on, I'll sign - provided that you actually do it. But know that if you don't, we'll know that you're not in it for the money, you're in it for the control of the market and the supra-normal monopoly profits you've had in the past. Know that those days are over and this is a new ballgame.
you've come up with rationalizations for that behavior so as not to face your ethical dilemma As a content creator who gives his creations away for free and does not engage in illegal file-sharing, I was not aware that I even HAD an ethical dilemma.
Your failure to answer the question prevents us from moving on to the next step, which is about value and the marketplace. OK, I'll answer your questions, just to see if it gets us anywhere:
Should a person have the right to enjoy the fruits of his labor? Yes.
Do you have the right to deprive another of the fruits of their labor. No.
can I assume that you are trying to conceal that you don't believe in private property? No, you can not. But you CAN assume that I see a very clear distinction between private physical property and digital copies thereof.
Now, where did that get us?
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. I really wish the stuff Macx has in Accelerando comes along, and soon. We really need to upgrade our reptile brains.
No, you don't even want to mention the name of that particular dictator. Doing so just reinforces the connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, even if you are negating the connection. ...
*doh!*
Oh.
Damn.
Here, let me draw you a picture of the pertinent bits: I could probably care less about the gossip, but it would require a conscious effort, and I don't really care, so...
Anyway, back to surfing bad ASCII pr0n!
So, how much hout would a houtkooper koop if a houtkooper could koop hout?
What you're describing is not a problem where we need more lawsuits against people "stealing" broadband, it's a problem where we need more people who know to either secure their APs or at least buy them from someone who has the skillset to ask if they want it secured or not and take 3 minutes to explain the difference. We are in a position to decide whether we want open or closed WiFi to be the norm and it looks to me like we're going down the wrong path in a big hurry with lawsuits like this. Still, if I'm in your neck of the woods, I'll drop over
I was going to try playing buzzword bingo with that post, but my board spontaneously combusted. Well played, Sir!
Best (and shortest) summary of this case yet.
Note also that the judge in effect said that they had tried to pay royalties, but IFPI has refused to receive the money. I bet they never told "their" artists about that.
As the BBC put it: "Mediaservices has always maintained it pays royalties to Roms, but many Western firms do not recognise this organisation and refuse to accept its offers of payments."
KeyUpdateTool is a small tool from Microsoft that will let you convert a VLK XP to a regular OEM Pro XP if you have the license key for the OEM. However, it can NOT convert it to a Home XP.
Oh, and you can freely lend out your Corp CD, just don't give anyone your legit CD key, generate a new one instead. It will install and receive security updates, but if they install WGA it'll turn into Nagware and Media Player 11 is a no-go. After they've had those hassles for a while, give them a Ubuntu LiveCD.
You'll forgive my assumption about your own ethical practice?
Of course.
It really felt like I was forcing your hand over what should have been a simple yes or no answer.
Oh, they were simple enough questions, I just don't see them as relevant to this discussion. I have debated these issues for some time now and although I have often seen the "copyright equals ownership" from copyright huggers and industry shills, I have not yet encountered anyone who would truthfully answer those questions in a different way. You could just as well have asked me if I saw the sky as being blue.
If the creator's work has value to others, he can trade it on the market place, where we can determine exactly what is the value to others.
Exactly. And increasingly, the work itself - content for want of a better word, is less worth as it can be duplicated (in one form) with next to zero cost. Instead, the real value lies in the metadata and other intangibles surrounding the work, such as the feelgood factor you get from knowing that your hero the artist gets a fair cut of the proceeds. Since record companies are notoriously stingy with royalty payments from sold CDs or downloads, the value proposition for buying a CD becomes pretty dismal.
Again, we can talk about the person sitting outside the stadium where a large artist performs. Maybe the sitter couldn't afford a ticket, maybe the concert was sold out. Maybe he doesn't want to be in a crowd, but still he wants to hear his idol sing and play. The recording industry wants us to believe this behaviour is theft - stealing bread from the artist's starving children, since they count any and all unauthorized access to the work as stealing.
So, there's a pretty good reason for some sort of mechanism, and the mechanism that was developed was copyright.
There were a few others, but copyright won out. Quite rightly so, I might add. It was pretty fair (as opposed to a patron system), had reasonable duration and would probably still work in some way if not for Victor Hugo. One evening out, he overheard the restaurant's orchestra playing the theme song from one of his plays and was outraged that they would profit from his hard work without sharing the proceeds. He embarked on a crusade against these song thieves and managed more or less single-handedly push through what would become the Berne convention. Had the notion that this indicated that the play was popular and that as an effect, more people were likely to go see it entered his mind, we would be in a different world today.
taking credit for a work in the Public Domain, i.e., plagiarizing, is generally considered bad.
Indeed. However, Public Domain is special in that it's legal status is undetermined in a Berne signatory country as they have compulsory moral rights.
However, the unauthorized publisher need not take any substantial risk, publishing only those works that will make money. There is both a zero cost to the unauthorized publisher for the original work and very low risk for the subsequent investment.
In theory, yes. In practice, there is a very real risk of running afoul of concerted boycotts such as the one "J.R.R. Tolkien started against an unauthorized Ace edition of his Lord of the Rings. In effect, trademark law overlaps copyright here, taking up any percieved slack. Just consider the case of the generic pharmaceutical that mey be cheaper than it's identical Big Name competitor, but still the Big Name outsells it. Again, the actual content of the pill/work is less important than the metadata/packaging.
Sure, unauthorized copying can be a problem - but only if you are in the business of selling copies. The record industry is, but the music industry does not have to be. Instead, selling a service can be incr
Actually, what I would like to see is a much shortened span for copyright in the 5-10 year range, excluding all copying for personal and non-profit use. In this scenario, only GPL'ed code that was 5-10 years old would go BSD. If Bill Gates wanted to take that old code and 'innovate' using it, he'd be welcome to it IMHO.
Another option would be to make a few reasonable CC licenses into law and let the creator pick one, with Attribution-Share Alike as the default.
Your question still assumes that the value would be in selling a copy of the work, overlooking the real revenue streams:
Let's assume Sony (I use them as an example simply because I like to kick their balls since the rootkit scandal) sets up a torrent tracker, has their own seeders placed locally at ISPs (thanks to Robert X for this one) with guaranteed non-corrupted files, a nice search function, a referral service, forum community with participation by artists, correct metadata, no DRM, no viruses, no RIAA lawsuits, a playlist-generator, competitions with backstage passes as prizes, a webshop for buying CDs, t-shirts, posters, concert tickets, desktop pictures, jewelcase inlay kits (co-sponsored by a printer manufacturer and CD-R-importer) - the possibilities are endless. The traffic numbers would go through the roof, they'd put iTunes out of business in a heartbeat, they'd get loads of useful listening information and data to mine and the running costs would be minimal since the customers themselves would do most of the heavy lifting in distribution and marketing.
It's basically free money for the record companies, less load on ISP backbone links and free music for listeners. Added bonuses would be a more direct communications route artist - consumer, but I'd guess that the record execs would be slightly less enthusiastic about that aspect.
Next in line to use the portal are the MPAA and both national and local TV and radio stations and networks. Anyone that would benefit from using a "free" system of distribution in the interest of cutting costs in a major way by giving up their shaky monopoly revenues in exchange for a steady stream of "normal" levels of cash would want in on this.
So, who's first to register www.themediabay.com ?
And Sony, I'm GIVING you this idea. Run with it or not, as you like. Want me to sign something to that effect? Send it on, I'll sign - provided that you actually do it. But know that if you don't, we'll know that you're not in it for the money, you're in it for the control of the market and the supra-normal monopoly profits you've had in the past. Know that those days are over and this is a new ballgame.
Wanna play? Play. But don't hog the ball.