The right itself is the right to exclude others. There is no need for a positive right to make copies in a modern society. We are allowed to do everything except what we are prohibited from doing. We can make copies for everything except what we can't make copies of. That's why we don't need a copyright to reprint Shakespeare. Copyright is an exception to our freedom to copy, make derivative works, and otherwise utilize free speech.
Not in reality. In the US, the copyright on Dracula expired before the copyright on Nosferatu did. Dracula was published in 1897, so the copyright expired in 1953 (copyright at the time being 56 years after publication). At that point, the few remaining copies of Nosferatu became legal. Are you saying that the rightsholders didn't have a copyright until 1953?
Again, copyright has not been a "right to copy" for centuries. To support the fiction that it does requires very convoluted thinking. As you said before, copyright is an exclusive right to control who makes copies. Exclusive right meaning that it is a right to exclude others.m it doesn't convey any positive rights, and it doesn't need to. We have the right to copy by default in the modern world, and copyright is a limited exception to that right.
No, they held the copyright to the work, but there were other copyrights that interfered with it. Nosferatu is currently copyright in most of Europe, but not the US. They owned the copyright, but because the work was derivative, they couldn't make copies. The original version of WKRP in Cincinatti was in a legal limbo as well, since they no longer had a license to use the music in the show. There are a lot of complications with copyright and the James Bond series, with perhaps the most tangled web being attempts to make a successor or remake of Goldeneye. It involved a bit of trademark and likeness rights as well, though.
Copyright conveys no positive rights to make copies, only the right to stop others from making copies. Another example would be obscenity laws and other remnants of censorship. Max Hardcore owns the copyright on his pornographic films, but a number of them can no longer be legally distributed because they were deemed obscene.
No, it infringes their rights. They still retain their right, it has just been infringed upon it. If someone steals my car, I can no longer prevent other people from using my car unless my car is recovered. If someone infringes my copyright, it in no way interferes with my ability to stop others from infringing my copyright. A much better analogy is trespassing (although, to be clear, it is not trespassing either. Trespassing is a horrible fit, but it's a thousand times better than theft). Someone trespassing on my land is a violation of my rights, but they didn't steal my land or my rights. They simply violated them. I still have those rights, which is why I'm able to do something if someone else trespasses on that same land.
Also, I do advocate abolishing copyright. Privately held for-profit legal monopolies didn't belong in the last century, let alone this one.
And one last note, copyright is not a right to copy. You can hold the copyright to something and not be able to legally make copies. The copyright holders of the film Nosferatu are a good example. "God's Own Drunk" by Jimmy Buffett is another example. Neither of them is able to make copies of works they authored. Now, copyright was indeed a right to copy at one point. There was a point in time in which nobody but those sanctioned by the king had the positive right to make copies, truly a right to copy. However, in modern usage, copyright is merely a right to exclude, but conveys no positive rights. It is more accurately called notcopyright, because it is a right to ensure that copies are not made.
In all fairness, the people behind the first wave of the propoganda that used 'piracy' in that way were undeniably evil cunts. This was the old iteration of copyright that was implemented as a form of state censorship rooted in the Stationer's Company.
It's not deprivation of the right, it's infringement. If you want an example of someone stealing a copyright, a possible example would be Bridgeport music in their dealings with George Clinton. Even then, fraud is probably more accurate.
And no, saying that infringement is not theft doesn't in any way imply that it is just, just that it is not theft. Murder is not the theft. Jaywalking is not theft. Adultery is not theft. Slander is not theft. Believe it or not, something can be bad and not be theft.
Sure, there are decent ways of measuring infringement and the underlying cause, but when has a major copyright holding corporation ever done such a thing. It's far easier to make your point when you just fabricate numbers.
IT's not quite that simple. It may be the case that the lectures alone are enough to know the subject. It may also be that you can't take a harder class, or that there is no purpose for you to take a harder class. If the degree you are seeking requires a certain level biology credit, and you know biology to that level, the path of least resistance is to sleep through class and ace the tests. Is it as efficient as if you could simply test out of the bio credit? No, but I don't believe that's possible with a large number of institutions.
It's a military laser, and it's being reported as a weapon. Given that the Spyder III was widely reported as a 'lightsaber', I wouldn't worry too much about the power of this thing being grossly underestimated. Gross overestimation is far more likely.
There was also the earlier "Crush the Castle", which was almost the exact same thing in the original permutations of both games. It involved killings knights and such, which would be a bit more controversial. However, I think the real issue was just timing. Angry Birds came out at just the right time for a critical mass of morons who would pay a dollar for a dime a dozen flash game, and because they had one of the most popular games, they got the most notice, and became more popular.
Don't get me wrong, it's a fun waste of time, but they have gone too fucking far with the merchandising and the hype.
The fact is that we are safer now, and we have far more violent video games. Whether or not video games have made us safer is a bit harder to prove, but there's decent evidence on that side. The only known link between aggressive and violent behavior and violent video games is that aggressive and violent people often play violent video games. There is at least a decent argument, however, for a cathartic effect of video games, although I can't remember if studies have gone much into that. That leaves the effect of video games one's psychology in the neutral to positive range. Then there's the logistics of it, as has already been mentioned. If you are busy playing video games, you aren't busy committing violent crimes.
Theoretically, they could just provide a decryption key to a LEO, and that wouldn't be legally considered an accusation. However, repeated instances of breaking strong encryption would draw suspicion.
That's not really a positive in regards to privacy. 'Your messages may or may not be secure' is not reassuring when it's trivial to get secure communications.
It depends on what the meanings of 'enormous breakthrough' and 'unfathomably complex encryption systems' are in this context. I'm sure they can crack encryption much faster with a supercomputer than we can with a nice desktop, but that's not really going to make a difference.
I understand that iMessage uses encryption, so cops can't just eavesdrop on messages, even with a warrant. While iMessage may be the most popular, the principle would apply to any messenger that uses similar levels of encryption. There's almost certainly nothing unique about iMessage and considerably better options probably exist for those wishing to keep their messages secret. Even if the DEA specifically mentions iMessage, there's no reason to not mention that anything that uses encryption follows the same principle.
The problem lies in the bullshit umbrella term 'intellectual property.' Yes, there were copyrighted elements of reddit, but the bulk of the value would likely fall under trade secrets and trademark. These are all very different animals serving very different purposes, so if you conflate them, you are a fucking moron. The value of reddit was the name and the domain name, both of which serve the purpose of easily identifying a website or official affiliation with a website. Most of the remainder would be in the private backend code that was used by reddit to run the website. For starters, it probably isn't all that remarkable, and by lines of source code, it's probably overwhelming available to the public already. Reddit was not making that code accessible at all, which is quite different from charging for access but restricting what one can do downstream with that access.
Control of information is probably the cornerstone of tyranny, with overly broad laws and means of perverting justice being other key elements. And you are taking it further than even the asshats behind the prosecution, who only used the threat of 35 years as a means of scaring the defendant into a plea bargain. They weren't seeking that term because you would have to be a total fucking moron to think that's appropriate.
Even if you think what he did was a bad action, it's not something deserving any prison time, and certainly not prison time in the range of decades.
He was accused of multiple felonies, but he didn't commit a single act that was deserving of felony punishment. Fuckheads like you that hide behind the letter of the law without exercising the critical thinking of what the purpose of the law and what would be just are the lifeblood of tyranny.
And what he did was not anything that reasonably should be considered a crime. A stern talking to was about all he deserved, and it's basically what state prosecutors were seeking before federal prosecutors went batshit crazy on this case.
Ah, but that's not nearly as bad as some 14 year old calling their daughter, asking her to bare her breasts, and saying that over 9000 dicks will be going in her pooper.
I don't remember any such charges holding up. If they did, they probably weren't in the US. The suicide isn't what they should be held responsible for. They should be responsible for the overreach that contributed to Swartz's suicide.
Not being criminally responsible for Swartz's suicide doesn't mean that there weren't inappropriate actions taken that, at the very least, are of public interest.
Actually, having more kids doesn't automatically correlate with greater evolutionary success. This is especially true if the goal is to be in a dominant role.
Slashdot Mirror
The right itself is the right to exclude others. There is no need for a positive right to make copies in a modern society. We are allowed to do everything except what we are prohibited from doing. We can make copies for everything except what we can't make copies of. That's why we don't need a copyright to reprint Shakespeare. Copyright is an exception to our freedom to copy, make derivative works, and otherwise utilize free speech.
Not in reality. In the US, the copyright on Dracula expired before the copyright on Nosferatu did. Dracula was published in 1897, so the copyright expired in 1953 (copyright at the time being 56 years after publication). At that point, the few remaining copies of Nosferatu became legal. Are you saying that the rightsholders didn't have a copyright until 1953?
Again, copyright has not been a "right to copy" for centuries. To support the fiction that it does requires very convoluted thinking. As you said before, copyright is an exclusive right to control who makes copies. Exclusive right meaning that it is a right to exclude others.m it doesn't convey any positive rights, and it doesn't need to. We have the right to copy by default in the modern world, and copyright is a limited exception to that right.
No, they held the copyright to the work, but there were other copyrights that interfered with it. Nosferatu is currently copyright in most of Europe, but not the US. They owned the copyright, but because the work was derivative, they couldn't make copies. The original version of WKRP in Cincinatti was in a legal limbo as well, since they no longer had a license to use the music in the show. There are a lot of complications with copyright and the James Bond series, with perhaps the most tangled web being attempts to make a successor or remake of Goldeneye. It involved a bit of trademark and likeness rights as well, though.
Copyright conveys no positive rights to make copies, only the right to stop others from making copies. Another example would be obscenity laws and other remnants of censorship. Max Hardcore owns the copyright on his pornographic films, but a number of them can no longer be legally distributed because they were deemed obscene.
No, it infringes their rights. They still retain their right, it has just been infringed upon it. If someone steals my car, I can no longer prevent other people from using my car unless my car is recovered. If someone infringes my copyright, it in no way interferes with my ability to stop others from infringing my copyright. A much better analogy is trespassing (although, to be clear, it is not trespassing either. Trespassing is a horrible fit, but it's a thousand times better than theft). Someone trespassing on my land is a violation of my rights, but they didn't steal my land or my rights. They simply violated them. I still have those rights, which is why I'm able to do something if someone else trespasses on that same land.
Also, I do advocate abolishing copyright. Privately held for-profit legal monopolies didn't belong in the last century, let alone this one.
And one last note, copyright is not a right to copy. You can hold the copyright to something and not be able to legally make copies. The copyright holders of the film Nosferatu are a good example. "God's Own Drunk" by Jimmy Buffett is another example. Neither of them is able to make copies of works they authored. Now, copyright was indeed a right to copy at one point. There was a point in time in which nobody but those sanctioned by the king had the positive right to make copies, truly a right to copy. However, in modern usage, copyright is merely a right to exclude, but conveys no positive rights. It is more accurately called notcopyright, because it is a right to ensure that copies are not made.
In all fairness, the people behind the first wave of the propoganda that used 'piracy' in that way were undeniably evil cunts. This was the old iteration of copyright that was implemented as a form of state censorship rooted in the Stationer's Company.
It's not deprivation of the right, it's infringement. If you want an example of someone stealing a copyright, a possible example would be Bridgeport music in their dealings with George Clinton. Even then, fraud is probably more accurate.
And no, saying that infringement is not theft doesn't in any way imply that it is just, just that it is not theft. Murder is not the theft. Jaywalking is not theft. Adultery is not theft. Slander is not theft. Believe it or not, something can be bad and not be theft.
Sure, there are decent ways of measuring infringement and the underlying cause, but when has a major copyright holding corporation ever done such a thing. It's far easier to make your point when you just fabricate numbers.
IT's not quite that simple. It may be the case that the lectures alone are enough to know the subject. It may also be that you can't take a harder class, or that there is no purpose for you to take a harder class. If the degree you are seeking requires a certain level biology credit, and you know biology to that level, the path of least resistance is to sleep through class and ace the tests. Is it as efficient as if you could simply test out of the bio credit? No, but I don't believe that's possible with a large number of institutions.
It's a military laser, and it's being reported as a weapon. Given that the Spyder III was widely reported as a 'lightsaber', I wouldn't worry too much about the power of this thing being grossly underestimated. Gross overestimation is far more likely.
There was also the earlier "Crush the Castle", which was almost the exact same thing in the original permutations of both games. It involved killings knights and such, which would be a bit more controversial. However, I think the real issue was just timing. Angry Birds came out at just the right time for a critical mass of morons who would pay a dollar for a dime a dozen flash game, and because they had one of the most popular games, they got the most notice, and became more popular.
Don't get me wrong, it's a fun waste of time, but they have gone too fucking far with the merchandising and the hype.
The fact is that we are safer now, and we have far more violent video games. Whether or not video games have made us safer is a bit harder to prove, but there's decent evidence on that side. The only known link between aggressive and violent behavior and violent video games is that aggressive and violent people often play violent video games. There is at least a decent argument, however, for a cathartic effect of video games, although I can't remember if studies have gone much into that. That leaves the effect of video games one's psychology in the neutral to positive range. Then there's the logistics of it, as has already been mentioned. If you are busy playing video games, you aren't busy committing violent crimes.
Theoretically, they could just provide a decryption key to a LEO, and that wouldn't be legally considered an accusation. However, repeated instances of breaking strong encryption would draw suspicion.
That's not really a positive in regards to privacy. 'Your messages may or may not be secure' is not reassuring when it's trivial to get secure communications.
It depends on what the meanings of 'enormous breakthrough' and 'unfathomably complex encryption systems' are in this context. I'm sure they can crack encryption much faster with a supercomputer than we can with a nice desktop, but that's not really going to make a difference.
I understand that iMessage uses encryption, so cops can't just eavesdrop on messages, even with a warrant. While iMessage may be the most popular, the principle would apply to any messenger that uses similar levels of encryption. There's almost certainly nothing unique about iMessage and considerably better options probably exist for those wishing to keep their messages secret. Even if the DEA specifically mentions iMessage, there's no reason to not mention that anything that uses encryption follows the same principle.
Sounds painful
The problem lies in the bullshit umbrella term 'intellectual property.' Yes, there were copyrighted elements of reddit, but the bulk of the value would likely fall under trade secrets and trademark. These are all very different animals serving very different purposes, so if you conflate them, you are a fucking moron. The value of reddit was the name and the domain name, both of which serve the purpose of easily identifying a website or official affiliation with a website. Most of the remainder would be in the private backend code that was used by reddit to run the website. For starters, it probably isn't all that remarkable, and by lines of source code, it's probably overwhelming available to the public already. Reddit was not making that code accessible at all, which is quite different from charging for access but restricting what one can do downstream with that access.
Control of information is probably the cornerstone of tyranny, with overly broad laws and means of perverting justice being other key elements. And you are taking it further than even the asshats behind the prosecution, who only used the threat of 35 years as a means of scaring the defendant into a plea bargain. They weren't seeking that term because you would have to be a total fucking moron to think that's appropriate.
Even if you think what he did was a bad action, it's not something deserving any prison time, and certainly not prison time in the range of decades.
And those charges did not hold up. A jury handed out a guilty verdict, but a district judged overturned that verdict.
He was accused of multiple felonies, but he didn't commit a single act that was deserving of felony punishment. Fuckheads like you that hide behind the letter of the law without exercising the critical thinking of what the purpose of the law and what would be just are the lifeblood of tyranny.
And what he did was not anything that reasonably should be considered a crime. A stern talking to was about all he deserved, and it's basically what state prosecutors were seeking before federal prosecutors went batshit crazy on this case.
Ah, but that's not nearly as bad as some 14 year old calling their daughter, asking her to bare her breasts, and saying that over 9000 dicks will be going in her pooper.
I don't remember any such charges holding up. If they did, they probably weren't in the US. The suicide isn't what they should be held responsible for. They should be responsible for the overreach that contributed to Swartz's suicide.
Not being criminally responsible for Swartz's suicide doesn't mean that there weren't inappropriate actions taken that, at the very least, are of public interest.
Actually, having more kids doesn't automatically correlate with greater evolutionary success. This is especially true if the goal is to be in a dominant role.