sing the 'redbaiter!' defense is really, really, old and really, really tired at this point.
So are phrases like this: If you are not doing anything illegal - you have nothing to worry about! I'll stop when the silly phrases stop, deal?
No, it's not at all like a 'protection' extortion ring.
Actually it very much is. If you'd read the article, you'd know that the 5 blokes sending out these "bills" had no affiliation with the copyright holders. If they had such affiliation things might be different, but alas, they didn't. (If think they did have such affiliation, say so, I'm not playing bugs bunny here)
Heck, throw the copyright infringers into court for all I care, just as long as these Antipiratgruppen wind up in the same place...
Think things through a bit longer before you make your next comment of this breadth. Right now you look like a damned teenager from what you've written.
Hmm... I should make that my sig or something. Probably have to take out the part about breadth, being the narrow kind of guy I am.
Actually, it's even writing this response that makes me look like a moron. I'll live with it somehow.
why is it that everybody else here seems to agree that one of the issues is theft?
Maybe because those who take the time to think about what they say have less time left over to hit the "submit" button?
So if copyright infringement in this case is not stealing, why is it not?
Because data is not the same thing as material goods. There are numerous dialogues on this topic. Here is one easy list to remember on a related topic. The gist is that having copied a peice of data, I have not in any way diminshed the original data. It is quite plain that copying a file off of your hard-drive is very different than taking a beer out of your fridge and drinking it. In drinking a beer I've lowered your beer count by one. In copying a file I diminish your data count by none.
Okay, so data is different than physical objects. But what does stealing mean?
----From dictionary.com---- v. stole, (stl) stolen, (stln) stealing, steals v. tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent.
3. To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.
4. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.
5. Baseball. To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch. ---------------------
Clearly sense 1 applies here, but in the case of copyright infringement what is owned by the copyright holder (exclusive right to authorize copies) is only partially subsumed. The infringer does not put their name on the registered copyright document and begin sueing others for infringement (that would be plaguerism, which is much closer to stealing), they merely disregard the exclusive granted right.
What *is* stealing? 1) Breaking, entering and leaving with physical goodies. 2) Credit card fraud. 3) Pretending to work on company time. (like posting to slashdot for instance) 4) Lieing on income tax returns.
What *isn't* stealing? 1) Trespassing. Land, has many characteristics in common with other physical property. And yet, occupying that land without permission is not considered stealing. It is trespassing. Stealing the land would require taking full ownership, not just partial unauthorized use.
Looking over this list, it's plain that copying data without permission (copyright infringement) is very different than other activity associated with "stealing". If anything it has more in common with trespassing, another activity that only affects part of a property right. But even trespassing deals in limited physical goods whereas copyright deals with unlimited logical goods.
Because of this and similar issues, copyright and property laws have very seperate paths of evolution. Even today, you would not go into court being unsure whether you were charged with stealing a physical good or infringing on another's right to copy.
This isn't to say copyright infringement is "okay" or that it is not a crime. Merely that it is not the same thing as stealing. It also doesn't imply that wielding teams of lawyers and a weighty judicial system against "joe sixpack" to squeeze more cash out of him is a morally agreeable or ethically defensible activity.
This is to say copyright infringement is not the same as stealing. It also implies the motivations of anyone pushing the infringement=stealing notion are suspect.
This bill is an option. They are being nice to you. They are saying; OK, look, you're busted and, deep inside, you know you are busted.
Yeah. It's just as nice as when I offer (for a small fee of course) to protect small shopping centers in my neighborhood from being vandalized because I have "connections". It's also just as nice as sending a "bill" to someone I witnessed breaking into an apartment and stealing the TV saying if they pay up and put the TV back, I won't tell the apartment owner or the police. Extortion? That's just a dirty word. We're being "nice".
The fact is these guy had no connection with the copyright holders. If these letters came from authorized copyright holders things might be a little different, but they didn't.
If you are not doing anything illegal - you have nothing to worry about!
That sounds like a phrase any inquisition could get behind. If this were a case to stand on, you wouldn't be listening to me list holes in it.
People - listen. This is not a troll or flamebait.
What could I possibly add to that?
How could you possibly complain?
Because how you enforce is just as important as whether you enforce. "Well captain, he was jaywalking, so I shot him. There was no question he was jaywalking. How could anyone complain?"
Except the Danes really were "stealing" by any commonly accepted definition.
Why do people think they can get away with such foolish and lazy definitions? Copyright infringement is not "stealing". Anyone taking the time to properly understand the issues will agree that copyright infringement and stealing are different crimes. Perhaps for simpletons that don't understand law very well I should begin pushing a new word "criming" that applies to all illegal activity from jaywalking to murdering in laws (This would of course include.
Either way, I don't see how it's okay to do the following: 1) Observe a theft of someone else's property. 2) Ask the thief for money to avoid trouble. 3) Tell the owner of the property only if the thief doesn't pay.
The precedent for punishing thieves was set a few millenia ago... you are a little late to the party on that one.
Oh, right! My bad. Whose right hands should be chopped off in this case?
Certainly, go after the abusers. But don't expect to tread on law and common sense while you're at it!
4 of my friends and I getting together and doing this in the USA would get us all thrown in jail for fraud. Why? Because I don't have any affiliation with the owners of the material that is being infringed. Sure, I could go out and gather information on everyone who is downloading or offering for download copyrighted information, but to actually use that information requires the support of the coypright holder. Basically, I can't sue you for infringing Eminem's copyright, only Eminem's label can bring that suit because they are the copyright holder.
So, when these "university students" gathered all this infringement data, the first thing they should have done is contact the copyright holders to see what the copyright holders wanted done about it... Another alternative would have been contacting the proper authorities to have them bring criminal charges if any are warranted. Threatening the infringers before taking either of those actions is not "policing copyright". It's something else entirely called "extortion". Basically these guys are saying "We've got the goods on you, pay up or we'll tell." Last I checked, extortion carried a worse criminal penalty than copyright infringement.
This isn't to say money couldn't be made by policing copyright. This very group could have done something much closer to legal by contacting copyright holders worried about infringement and getting them to bankroll just such an evidence gathering service. The data they've already gathered could even have ethically been offered free as a sample...
You're being silly. I'm having a serious discussion here, and you're being silly. Cut it out.
I'm simply pointing out the silliness of thinking that "money to the government" can ever in any way "offset harm". It's a preposterous idea, and very nasty in practice. Should fit right in with modern politics in the USA.
in order to bring suit against someone in defense of that copyright, you have to have a registration on file first.
Yes, but this "registration" can be as simple as sending a copy through the mail. Also, it can be done after the infringement occurs making the whole "registration" as it currently stands needless and pointless.
but that that harm could be offset by the additional revenue to the government.
By extension, does this mean that if I fork over some cash to the government I should also be able to get away with murder?
Sorry, your ideas are interesting, but now you see how difficult any compromise is. IMHO, The founders had it right. 14 years and 14 more on extension. Also, for copyright to hold, it must be registered. This or something less is all the protection that should be afforded to the exclusive right of copy.
Wasn't the whole point of hyperlinking that we wouldn't have to know the underlying mechanism to retrieve the document?
Well, ya, as long as no one forgets that not "having" to know is far different than not "being able" to know. Not that you need to know what "http://www." means to paste it into a text-bar.
to present yourself, very firmly, as someone that has probably never created any intellectual work of significant value.
Hmm... Guess that means glib, emacs, and oh, say Linux are not of significant value?
I think you couldn't be more wrong; copyright in no way impedes the "free exchange of ideas."
Ahh, but it most certainly *does* impede the free exchange of information, and what are ideas built on if not information? We plainly see the disruption when copyright is taken to such extreme's as Bono, or the DMCA, but the undercurrent is there all along. This is because copyright is a compromise.
This is why, whenever a corporate content executive comes along and scares hardware vendors by saying "We'll bid to control all copies, even those in RAM." We need extremists on the opposite side ready to say, "Hold it right there! We don't *need* copyright at all. If you want to keep any rights over distribution, you better get back in line and start compromising!"
This whole dialog should be enough to jar the all important consumer. Why? Because while the hardware vendor sees litigation on the horizon, and must retreat in fear. The consumer can simply say, "What exactly was my $29.95 supposed to buy again? Oh yeah, and what are my tax dollars supporting here exactly?" Faced with questions like these, it should be the content providers who beat a hasty retreat.
So, in a sense, I agree. The original system of copyright in this country was a great compromise. In another sense, I disagree. Without compromise, both alternatives are repugnant. If I had to choose one extreme or the other, no copyright still seems the only choice in a free society.
I'm tired of people looking at me like I'm crosseyed when I tell them that IE is full of holes that alow others to look at your files and erase them.
Amen brother. Add Outlook, Office, IIS and friends to that list as well!
At this point it isn't Microsoft who should be held liable for the damage their products cause. It's the companies using MS products that need a spanking... Oh wait, they *use* MS products, punishment enough for anyone!
You a programmer? If so, I don't really see how your productivity could go up working 16 hour days.
Personally I need "think time" to whip out really schnazzy solutions. The obvious ones quite often suck. As for code written on a very tight schedule. I've seldom seen anything harder to maintain or keep working...
Productivity, efficiency. It's whole enchilada or no dinner.
is like closing the barn door after the horses have eaten your children
Ya, you should have shot those man-eating horses to begin with. Seriously though, don't you think we should have laws against this type of mail fraud (forging headers and the like) instead of simply trying to "block" the fraud at the ISP level? I suppose blocking as well can't hurt, but freedom requires punishing the guilty and only the guilty.
The last thing I want is Microsoft deciding which emails destined to me are "spams". (subscription email from FSF? Must be spam!)
Actually, more likely they'll create spams that cannot be tokenized and are hence passed through the filter unscathed...
In fact, that's already starting to look like an interesting challenge. Hackers do love a challenge.
Bayesian filter: "Duh, gee never seen *that* 20k token before." It might seem like a simple solution in some instances: "Oh, I'll just disallow any token over 100 bytes long..." But in a net prolific with binary objects that a mail program wouldn't normally need to parse, it's only a matter of time before spammers start embedding their messages in messages in copies of "normal mail". Worse yet, they may embed their messages the normal emails themselves!
Perhaps I should be patenting this idea instead of posting it?
Dedicated musicians are always hard to come by and having more of them test out alternative distribution channels is a very good thing.
Looks like you're already doing that, kudos. I'll give your stuff a whirl as soon as I can figure out how to get mp3.com working properly... links seem down at the moment.
If it is the only way music is being sold, it is the only way music is being purchased.
But *it* isn't the only way. You think the next few nifty punk/techno bands are going to sit back and give all their revenues to some big name label? You've got another think coming. Kids are a lot more savvy than you think, and they're also the ones who buy most of the music...
The GPL only controls the distribution of the GPL code. You can license your copyrighted derivative code any way you want, but if that way isnt compatible with the GPL license you cannot distribute the GPL portions of the code. You can still do whatever you want with the code you hold copyright to.
I doubt RMS would agree with you on that point, he seems to considering "linking to" and "distributing with" to be one and the same...
If what you say were true, than the guy writing the original article would have nothing to worry about while creating "derivitive" works as long as they were never distributed with the GPL code they were derived from. Since this doesn't seem to be a viable option I have to assume the true legal issues are a bit thornier...
Parodies and fair use are quite different beasts.
Well ya, they aren't even in the same category, but that doesn't mean they are unrelated. Paradies are one form of free expression that is possible precisely because of fair use.
My main point about licensing is that "needing to pay for copies" and "needing permission to make use" are quite different. The constitution attempted to set up a mechanism for creators to get some compensation for their work as an incentive to create. This is a far cry from locking up created speech and allowing only the creator to control when, where and how that speech is used.
Slashdot Mirror
sing the 'redbaiter!' defense is really, really, old and really, really tired at this point.
So are phrases like this: If you are not doing anything illegal - you have nothing to worry about! I'll stop when the silly phrases stop, deal?
No, it's not at all like a 'protection' extortion ring.
Actually it very much is. If you'd read the article, you'd know that the 5 blokes sending out these "bills" had no affiliation with the copyright holders. If they had such affiliation things might be different, but alas, they didn't. (If think they did have such affiliation, say so, I'm not playing bugs bunny here)
Heck, throw the copyright infringers into court for all I care, just as long as these Antipiratgruppen wind up in the same place...
Think things through a bit longer before you make your next comment of this breadth. Right now you look like a damned teenager from what you've written.
Hmm... I should make that my sig or something. Probably have to take out the part about breadth, being the narrow kind of guy I am.
Actually, it's even writing this response that makes me look like a moron. I'll live with it somehow.
Gee nice flame
Thanx, guess that's better than a "shabby" flame.
why is it that everybody else here seems to agree that one of the issues is theft?
Maybe because those who take the time to think about what they say have less time left over to hit the "submit" button?
So if copyright infringement in this case is not stealing, why is it not?
Because data is not the same thing as material goods. There are numerous dialogues on this topic. Here is one easy list to remember on a related topic. The gist is that having copied a peice of data, I have not in any way diminshed the original data. It is quite plain that copying a file off of your hard-drive is very different than taking a beer out of your fridge and drinking it. In drinking a beer I've lowered your beer count by one. In copying a file I diminish your data count by none.
Okay, so data is different than physical objects. But what does stealing mean?
----From dictionary.com----
v. stole, (stl) stolen, (stln) stealing, steals
v. tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent.
3. To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.
4. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.
5. Baseball. To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.
---------------------
Clearly sense 1 applies here, but in the case of copyright infringement what is owned by the copyright holder (exclusive right to authorize copies) is only partially subsumed. The infringer does not put their name on the registered copyright document and begin sueing others for infringement (that would be plaguerism, which is much closer to stealing), they merely disregard the exclusive granted right.
What *is* stealing?
1) Breaking, entering and leaving with physical goodies.
2) Credit card fraud.
3) Pretending to work on company time. (like posting to slashdot for instance)
4) Lieing on income tax returns.
What *isn't* stealing?
1) Trespassing. Land, has many characteristics in common with other physical property. And yet, occupying that land without permission is not considered stealing. It is trespassing. Stealing the land would require taking full ownership, not just partial unauthorized use.
Looking over this list, it's plain that copying data without permission (copyright infringement) is very different than other activity associated with "stealing". If anything it has more in common with trespassing, another activity that only affects part of a property right. But even trespassing deals in limited physical goods whereas copyright deals with unlimited logical goods.
Because of this and similar issues, copyright and property laws have very seperate paths of evolution. Even today, you would not go into court being unsure whether you were charged with stealing a physical good or infringing on another's right to copy.
This isn't to say copyright infringement is "okay" or that it is not a crime. Merely that it is not the same thing as stealing. It also doesn't imply that wielding teams of lawyers and a weighty judicial system against "joe sixpack" to squeeze more cash out of him is a morally agreeable or ethically defensible activity.
This is to say copyright infringement is not the same as stealing. It also implies the motivations of anyone pushing the infringement=stealing notion are suspect.
Be specific please.
You asked for it!
This bill is an option. They are being nice to you. They are saying; OK, look, you're busted and, deep inside, you know you are busted.
Yeah. It's just as nice as when I offer (for a small fee of course) to protect small shopping centers in my neighborhood from being vandalized because I have "connections". It's also just as nice as sending a "bill" to someone I witnessed breaking into an apartment and stealing the TV saying if they pay up and put the TV back, I won't tell the apartment owner or the police. Extortion? That's just a dirty word. We're being "nice".
The fact is these guy had no connection with the copyright holders. If these letters came from authorized copyright holders things might be a little different, but they didn't.
If you are not doing anything illegal - you have nothing to worry about!
That sounds like a phrase any inquisition could get behind. If this were a case to stand on, you wouldn't be listening to me list holes in it.
People - listen. This is not a troll or flamebait.
What could I possibly add to that?
How could you possibly complain?
Because how you enforce is just as important as whether you enforce. "Well captain, he was jaywalking, so I shot him. There was no question he was jaywalking. How could anyone complain?"
Except the Danes really were "stealing" by any commonly accepted definition.
.
Why do people think they can get away with such foolish and lazy definitions? Copyright infringement is not "stealing". Anyone taking the time to properly understand the issues will agree that copyright infringement and stealing are different crimes. Perhaps for simpletons that don't understand law very well I should begin pushing a new word "criming" that applies to all illegal activity from jaywalking to murdering in laws (This would of course include
Either way, I don't see how it's okay to do the following:
1) Observe a theft of someone else's property.
2) Ask the thief for money to avoid trouble.
3) Tell the owner of the property only if the thief doesn't pay.
The precedent for punishing thieves was set a few millenia ago... you are a little late to the party on that one.
Oh, right! My bad. Whose right hands should be chopped off in this case?
Certainly, go after the abusers. But don't expect to tread on law and common sense while you're at it!
4 of my friends and I getting together and doing this in the USA would get us all thrown in jail for fraud. Why? Because I don't have any affiliation with the owners of the material that is being infringed. Sure, I could go out and gather information on everyone who is downloading or offering for download copyrighted information, but to actually use that information requires the support of the coypright holder. Basically, I can't sue you for infringing Eminem's copyright, only Eminem's label can bring that suit because they are the copyright holder.
So, when these "university students" gathered all this infringement data, the first thing they should have done is contact the copyright holders to see what the copyright holders wanted done about it... Another alternative would have been contacting the proper authorities to have them bring criminal charges if any are warranted. Threatening the infringers before taking either of those actions is not "policing copyright". It's something else entirely called "extortion". Basically these guys are saying "We've got the goods on you, pay up or we'll tell." Last I checked, extortion carried a worse criminal penalty than copyright infringement.
This isn't to say money couldn't be made by policing copyright. This very group could have done something much closer to legal by contacting copyright holders worried about infringement and getting them to bankroll just such an evidence gathering service. The data they've already gathered could even have ethically been offered free as a sample...
You're being silly. I'm having a serious discussion here, and you're being silly. Cut it out.
I'm simply pointing out the silliness of thinking that "money to the government" can ever in any way "offset harm". It's a preposterous idea, and very nasty in practice. Should fit right in with modern politics in the USA.
in order to bring suit against someone in defense of that copyright, you have to have a registration on file first.
Yes, but this "registration" can be as simple as sending a copy through the mail. Also, it can be done after the infringement occurs making the whole "registration" as it currently stands needless and pointless.
this is a very important issue to a number of young adult professionals
Speaking as one of those, I have to figure this is because we *are* the future of copyright... Or at least, we'd like to think that.
If Disney wants to hang onto "Steamboat Willy" for perpetuity, I say let them
That's funny, I'd just change this sentence by adding three words: "burn in #@$%&!"
but that that harm could be offset by the additional revenue to the government.
By extension, does this mean that if I fork over some cash to the government I should also be able to get away with murder?
Sorry, your ideas are interesting, but now you see how difficult any compromise is. IMHO, The founders had it right. 14 years and 14 more on extension. Also, for copyright to hold, it must be registered. This or something less is all the protection that should be afforded to the exclusive right of copy.
Wasn't the whole point of hyperlinking that we wouldn't have to know the underlying mechanism to retrieve the document?
Well, ya, as long as no one forgets that not "having" to know is far different than not "being able" to know. Not that you need to know what "http://www." means to paste it into a text-bar.
to present yourself, very firmly, as someone that has probably never created any intellectual work of significant value.
Hmm... Guess that means glib, emacs, and oh, say Linux are not of significant value?
I think you couldn't be more wrong; copyright in no way impedes the "free exchange of ideas."
Ahh, but it most certainly *does* impede the free exchange of information, and what are ideas built on if not information? We plainly see the disruption when copyright is taken to such extreme's as Bono, or the DMCA, but the undercurrent is there all along. This is because copyright is a compromise.
This is why, whenever a corporate content executive comes along and scares hardware vendors by saying "We'll bid to control all copies, even those in RAM." We need extremists on the opposite side ready to say, "Hold it right there! We don't *need* copyright at all. If you want to keep any rights over distribution, you better get back in line and start compromising!"
This whole dialog should be enough to jar the all important consumer. Why? Because while the hardware vendor sees litigation on the horizon, and must retreat in fear. The consumer can simply say, "What exactly was my $29.95 supposed to buy again? Oh yeah, and what are my tax dollars supporting here exactly?" Faced with questions like these, it should be the content providers who beat a hasty retreat.
So, in a sense, I agree. The original system of copyright in this country was a great compromise. In another sense, I disagree. Without compromise, both alternatives are repugnant. If I had to choose one extreme or the other, no copyright still seems the only choice in a free society.
I'm tired of people looking at me like I'm crosseyed when I tell them that IE is full of holes that alow others to look at your files and erase them.
Amen brother. Add Outlook, Office, IIS and friends to that list as well!
At this point it isn't Microsoft who should be held liable for the damage their products cause. It's the companies using MS products that need a spanking... Oh wait, they *use* MS products, punishment enough for anyone!
You a programmer? If so, I don't really see how your productivity could go up working 16 hour days.
Personally I need "think time" to whip out really schnazzy solutions. The obvious ones quite often suck. As for code written on a very tight schedule. I've seldom seen anything harder to maintain or keep working...
Productivity, efficiency. It's whole enchilada or no dinner.
is like closing the barn door after the horses have eaten your children
Ya, you should have shot those man-eating horses to begin with. Seriously though, don't you think we should have laws against this type of mail fraud (forging headers and the like) instead of simply trying to "block" the fraud at the ISP level? I suppose blocking as well can't hurt, but freedom requires punishing the guilty and only the guilty.
The last thing I want is Microsoft deciding which emails destined to me are "spams". (subscription email from FSF? Must be spam!)
Actually, more likely they'll create spams that cannot be tokenized and are hence passed through the filter unscathed...
In fact, that's already starting to look like an interesting challenge. Hackers do love a challenge.
Bayesian filter: "Duh, gee never seen *that* 20k token before." It might seem like a simple solution in some instances: "Oh, I'll just disallow any token over 100 bytes long..." But in a net prolific with binary objects that a mail program wouldn't normally need to parse, it's only a matter of time before spammers start embedding their messages in messages in copies of "normal mail". Worse yet, they may embed their messages the normal emails themselves!
Perhaps I should be patenting this idea instead of posting it?
No, it was meant in particular...
Dedicated musicians are always hard to come by and having more of them test out alternative distribution channels is a very good thing.
Looks like you're already doing that, kudos. I'll give your stuff a whirl as soon as I can figure out how to get mp3.com working properly... links seem down at the moment.
If it is the only way music is being sold, it is the only way music is being purchased.
But *it* isn't the only way. You think the next few nifty punk/techno bands are going to sit back and give all their revenues to some big name label? You've got another think coming. Kids are a lot more savvy than you think, and they're also the ones who buy most of the music...
(paraphrase:) If current trends continue the music business will surely cease to exist.
Yeah, trends like putting copy protection on CD's, which lowers value on an already endangered distribution scheme.
If you want people to listen to your music use a truly effective distribution channel, the internet:
cafe
mp3.com
someplace
Or heck, just put up your own website...
Not if the frame rate in both cases is so high you can't tell the difference.
Either you need your eyes checked or you haven't turned up your resolution and graphics settings enough...
Course, I was thinking Quake 3, Quake was just easier to type...
His point is to slap some real useable software on top of any OS and live there
So why doesn't he write something useful instead of the drivel he's pushing on that website?
Mozilla, Apache, cygwin, cvs, vnc, vmware. *those* are useful windows apps...
Unless you're running quake of course...
The GPL only controls the distribution of the GPL code. You can license your copyrighted derivative code any way you want, but if that way isnt compatible with the GPL license you cannot distribute the GPL portions of the code. You can still do whatever you want with the code you hold copyright to.
I doubt RMS would agree with you on that point, he seems to considering "linking to" and "distributing with" to be one and the same...
If what you say were true, than the guy writing the original article would have nothing to worry about while creating "derivitive" works as long as they were never distributed with the GPL code they were derived from. Since this doesn't seem to be a viable option I have to assume the true legal issues are a bit thornier...
Parodies and fair use are quite different beasts.
Well ya, they aren't even in the same category, but that doesn't mean they are unrelated. Paradies are one form of free expression that is possible precisely because of fair use.
My main point about licensing is that "needing to pay for copies" and "needing permission to make use" are quite different. The constitution attempted to set up a mechanism for creators to get some compensation for their work as an incentive to create. This is a far cry from locking up created speech and allowing only the creator to control when, where and how that speech is used.
Well, I probably sounded more shrill than I meant it.
My point was merely that XML being so *simple* it's funny how difficult it can be to actually use for things at times...
so this must be impossible?
<xml>
<
</xml>