One condition of joining the World Trade Organization is joining the Berne Convention, which appears to ban countries from requiring a renewal or any other formality from a copyright owner.
Well, that's something we shall have to remedy, isn't it?
The Copyright Act of 1976 did away with the "x years, with an additional x years on renewal" clause of copyright law; nowadays you just have one option, which is the length of the copyright term. Allowing authors and artists to renew their copyrights if they so choose keeps commercially viable works protected (which is arguably good), as it will be worth it to pay the fee to renew the copyright, but it also lets works that aren't commercially viable (and in many cases, not even commercially available) fall into the public domain much sooner. Since copyright encompasses all works, not simply those that the entertainment industry promotes and sells and makes huge profits from, it needs a sort of balance and the return of copyright renewal could be a step along that path.
I mean, there are lots of creative works out there that are still under copyright, but because there's no central registry of copyright holders (which is another advantage that copyright renewal could bring, as it would require registration), it's difficult, expensive, or just plain impossible to find out who the rights holders are. These are works that are decades old and haven't brought in any profit in years and years- and yet it's still illegal to use them because of copyright law.
I'm pretty sure Debian does this. When I installed Lenny on both of my computers and got GNOME on there, I had to disable the 'spatial mode' option because it was ugly and inconvenient.
The video itself obviously infringes, though I don't see how it does any damage to Capitol's property.
Since when has that mattered with respect to copyright infringement suites? It doesn't make a bit of difference whether or not your actions cause any real harm, significant or no. The recording industry will still come after you for thousands of dollars in 'damages.'
Well, there are other arguments too, such as the principle of using open software on publicly owned computers versus closed software. Access to source code is simply the one that came to my mind the quickest.
Also, if a government really can buy access to source code, you could just file this as yet another expense saved by using open software. I can't imagine Microsoft charging a government a trivial amount for Windows source code.
Score one for the French. Proprietary software does not belong on the computer systems of any significant (ie, state or national) government. Access to source code is necessary in order to ensure that secrets remain secret and the software is up to any custom tasks the government might require.
This is a letter written by a representative of Peru's government to a representative of Microsoft in 2002, explaining to MS exactly why the government feels that free software is necessary on their computers. Not only does it provide some insightful reasons as to why they're using FOSS, but you get a chance to laugh at the Microsoft rep's arguments.;)
What's wrong with charging extra for DRM? DRM costs money to create and passing that cost on to consumers directly seems like a very good way of highlighting exactly what is wrong with DRM.
While I don't disagree with what you say, I don't think we should require multiple demonstrations of some bad thing before we realize it is bad. It's not as though we need more accidents before we discover that drunk driving is bad; utilizing common sense, we can determine that the very concept of drunk driving is a bad thing. The same goes for DRM.
Case in point, not dealing with the company in the first place is a better alternative to getting burned by the company and then deciding to stay away from them.
Making customers pay for DRM?
on
Lulu Introduces DRM
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Applying DRM (optional, eBooks only) adds $.99 to the base price to offset the fee charged by our DRM provider. To reiterate, authors never pay to publish, these fees are reflected in the list price and are only charged to the purchaser at purchase time.
There are people who don't listen to music? That's probably the saddest thing I've ever heard.
Okay, so I meant the RIAA's music. Or music that isn't included in this deal. I, personally, listen to independent music that probably wouldn't be found in their catalog.
As for the rest of it, that's the nature of Taxation. Everyone pays because everyone can benefit, and it's up to them if they choose to. The cost won't be covered by only some paying. Plus, there's the deficit to be made up from people unable to pay.
Tax isn't bad when it's done right; I.e., when the revenue raised is appropriated appropriately.
Except that taxes are normally set by governments... when corporations can tax the public, we're screwed.
...the people who don't listen to music, or don't want to financially support the RIAA, or have any other reason to not want to pay for this license?
Is there an opt-out option? A quick glance through TFA didn't say so either way.
My, all the antipirates on Slashdot are sure throwing a tantrum.
If it will be such a waste later then don't download or buy the album.
But how does he know if it'll be a waste unless he... tries it?
Anyway, it is clear that "try before you buy" is a myth.
Because of all the evidence you provided right after this sentence, right? I mean, the evidence that proves that every person who has bought something because they were able to download it is lying?
If people didn't pirate, there would be no need for DRM. I blame you in part for DRM.
You seriously misunderstand Big Content if you think that DRM would never had existed if nobody shared.
Until then, you're exploiting the developer's effort unjustly.
Please explain how private, noncommercial use is exploitation.
I don't think a 2009 Ford Mustang is worth $20,000, does that mean I should be able to go out and "download" (read: steal) one from a car dealer's lot?
You lost right here, when you compared digital files to physical objects. Try again.
Full disclosure: I'm a songwriter and a member of a PRS. The money I make a year on songwriting could maybe buy a nice dinner. Without someone looking out for my interests, I'd make nothing.
So you'll tolerate the existence of these bloodsucking organizations in exchange for a few (and I mean a few) bucks for yourself?
If you can't put your name with your comments, maybe your comments don't mean anything at all.
Tell that to the Iranian protesters. I bet they were just a little bit more concerned about people knowing what was going on than people knowing who was speaking.
This was a win-win for RL. Look at it this way: the publicity puts this picture out there with loads of exposure I'll bet they sell ridiculous numbers of that frumpy blouse. And that's even if they never bother to take the case to court.
CD is doing exactly what their PR twits want him to.
Right, because people will look at the post, see the obviously edited image, read the accompanying article explaining the epic fail, and proceed to buy the blouse and/or think well enough of RL that their sales will increase?
News flash. Bad press is generally, you know, bad.
Agreed. Copyright protects creative works. Unless you change your name to something totally original (like Humpledeimer Arsface), I don't think you can claim a copyright on it.
I think the concept of copyright is okay because I think that people should have the right to sell copies of what they make.
What I don't think is that people should have the right to dictate that certain copies are unauthorized and some are not. Under copyright law it is illegal for me to email a song to my friend so that we can listen to it together. This is, fundamentally, crap. Sharing is a completely natural part of our society and to restrict it in the name of Big Content's profits is an action that is based solely on corporate greed.
There are other painful aspects of copyright that need fixing, however. Such as its lifespan, for one. We really do not need 100-year or more copyrights. That is totally counterproductive to copyright's original purpose.
Copyright doesn't need to be abolished; it only needs to be changed. The DMCA may have been an attempt to adapt copyright to emerging technologies, but it was a damned poor attempt.
Also, shame on whoever modded the parent troll. Regardless of whether he acknowledges that his position is crazy, it is still a valid position with valid points.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's something we shall have to remedy, isn't it?
If a work is still making money after 28 years, it's been an enormous success already.
The Copyright Act of 1976 did away with the "x years, with an additional x years on renewal" clause of copyright law; nowadays you just have one option, which is the length of the copyright term. Allowing authors and artists to renew their copyrights if they so choose keeps commercially viable works protected (which is arguably good), as it will be worth it to pay the fee to renew the copyright, but it also lets works that aren't commercially viable (and in many cases, not even commercially available) fall into the public domain much sooner. Since copyright encompasses all works, not simply those that the entertainment industry promotes and sells and makes huge profits from, it needs a sort of balance and the return of copyright renewal could be a step along that path.
I mean, there are lots of creative works out there that are still under copyright, but because there's no central registry of copyright holders (which is another advantage that copyright renewal could bring, as it would require registration), it's difficult, expensive, or just plain impossible to find out who the rights holders are. These are works that are decades old and haven't brought in any profit in years and years- and yet it's still illegal to use them because of copyright law.
Thanks a lot, Mickey.
I'm pretty sure Debian does this. When I installed Lenny on both of my computers and got GNOME on there, I had to disable the 'spatial mode' option because it was ugly and inconvenient.
So? Doesn't make it wrong.
Since when has that mattered with respect to copyright infringement suites? It doesn't make a bit of difference whether or not your actions cause any real harm, significant or no. The recording industry will still come after you for thousands of dollars in 'damages.'
Well, there are other arguments too, such as the principle of using open software on publicly owned computers versus closed software. Access to source code is simply the one that came to my mind the quickest.
Also, if a government really can buy access to source code, you could just file this as yet another expense saved by using open software. I can't imagine Microsoft charging a government a trivial amount for Windows source code.
Score one for the French. Proprietary software does not belong on the computer systems of any significant (ie, state or national) government. Access to source code is necessary in order to ensure that secrets remain secret and the software is up to any custom tasks the government might require.
;)
This is a letter written by a representative of Peru's government to a representative of Microsoft in 2002, explaining to MS exactly why the government feels that free software is necessary on their computers. Not only does it provide some insightful reasons as to why they're using FOSS, but you get a chance to laugh at the Microsoft rep's arguments.
I understand your confusion. A government official talking sense about intellectual property would throw me off too.
Kill one head of the hydra and two more will just take its place.
While I don't disagree with what you say, I don't think we should require multiple demonstrations of some bad thing before we realize it is bad. It's not as though we need more accidents before we discover that drunk driving is bad; utilizing common sense, we can determine that the very concept of drunk driving is a bad thing. The same goes for DRM. Case in point, not dealing with the company in the first place is a better alternative to getting burned by the company and then deciding to stay away from them.
Note to self: Never use Lulu.
Okay, so I meant the RIAA's music. Or music that isn't included in this deal. I, personally, listen to independent music that probably wouldn't be found in their catalog.
Except that taxes are normally set by governments... when corporations can tax the public, we're screwed.
They'd better have a Linux version. Or are you going to have to run Windows or OS X if you buy into this license?
...the people who don't listen to music, or don't want to financially support the RIAA, or have any other reason to not want to pay for this license? Is there an opt-out option? A quick glance through TFA didn't say so either way.
Seeding is community service.
Good to know. File sharing, on the other hand, is fine. Period. End of discussion.
But how does he know if it'll be a waste unless he... tries it?
Because of all the evidence you provided right after this sentence, right? I mean, the evidence that proves that every person who has bought something because they were able to download it is lying?
You seriously misunderstand Big Content if you think that DRM would never had existed if nobody shared.
Please explain how private, noncommercial use is exploitation.
I don't think a 2009 Ford Mustang is worth $20,000, does that mean I should be able to go out and "download" (read: steal) one from a car dealer's lot?
You lost right here, when you compared digital files to physical objects. Try again.
Creative Commons music is a good thing.
Full disclosure: I'm a songwriter and a member of a PRS. The money I make a year on songwriting could maybe buy a nice dinner. Without someone looking out for my interests, I'd make nothing.
So you'll tolerate the existence of these bloodsucking organizations in exchange for a few (and I mean a few) bucks for yourself?
Tell that to the Iranian protesters. I bet they were just a little bit more concerned about people knowing what was going on than people knowing who was speaking.
Right, because people will look at the post, see the obviously edited image, read the accompanying article explaining the epic fail, and proceed to buy the blouse and/or think well enough of RL that their sales will increase?
News flash. Bad press is generally, you know, bad.
Agreed. Copyright protects creative works. Unless you change your name to something totally original (like Humpledeimer Arsface), I don't think you can claim a copyright on it.
I personally disagree (sort of).
I think the concept of copyright is okay because I think that people should have the right to sell copies of what they make.
What I don't think is that people should have the right to dictate that certain copies are unauthorized and some are not. Under copyright law it is illegal for me to email a song to my friend so that we can listen to it together. This is, fundamentally, crap. Sharing is a completely natural part of our society and to restrict it in the name of Big Content's profits is an action that is based solely on corporate greed.
There are other painful aspects of copyright that need fixing, however. Such as its lifespan, for one. We really do not need 100-year or more copyrights. That is totally counterproductive to copyright's original purpose.
Copyright doesn't need to be abolished; it only needs to be changed. The DMCA may have been an attempt to adapt copyright to emerging technologies, but it was a damned poor attempt.
Also, shame on whoever modded the parent troll. Regardless of whether he acknowledges that his position is crazy, it is still a valid position with valid points.