John Doe is the indie author you just said this was a boon for. The only thing he's missing out on is the potential to make a million dollars on his book. This potential is for all practical purposes non-existent.
The publishers might make less money. Cry me a river. Carrying limitations of physical goods to the digital world is pure idiocy.
Also, your given standard assumes that nobody returns a book early. Most libraries I've used only allow you to check out a certain number of books at once, so an avid reader could return many of those books well before the due date. I have no idea how the breakdown of such readers is, but it seems like the kind of thing where something like the 80-20 rule applies (80% of checkouts are by 20% of patrons).
The only people the bad thing you mention would possibly dissuade are people that are already famous authors (and thus writing a book is still the most lucrative option available to them) or people who don't have a basic grasp of statistics and think they are going to be the next Stephen King or J.K. Rowling (and thus probably aren't competent writers anyway).
But Jesus was a pirate. He copied that fish and bread. When you ask yourself what Jesus would do, the answer is clearly 'pirate it and share with others.'
The amount of money one spends and the amount of money one has aren't inherently linked. I seem to remember reading once that Apple users were more likely to have their accounts overdrawn than others. I'm far too lazy to try and dig that up again, so please feel free to consider it unsourced speculation.
Has it been demonstrated as achievable in a country with a deeply ingrained gun culture like the US has? There's also the legal difficulty of attempting this 'goal' because of the second amendment, and there's no way in hell you're going to change that.
That's what I was asking. The only one that comes to mind is Limewire Pirate Edition, which was a fork that occurred because a court had stupidly order Limewire to stop distribution.
I'm not sure how 'sharing' could be a non-neutral term. Whether the files are legal or illegal to share, you are sharing them nonetheless on a p2p network.
Your argument is based on the premise that there are no guns. There is a substantial difference between 'there are no guns' and 'guns are banned.' Attempts at prohibition often forget this difference (and most of the remainder is just a desire to keep certain behaviors out of sight regardless of the social ills this causes).
The companies you mention are to blame. The USPTO, congress, and certain judges are to blame as well. Just because the law lets you be a complete asshole doesn't mean being a complete asshole is okay.
If you wish to keep it standardized, I'd say that you should just release it under public domain or WTFPL, and get a trademark. License the trademark to anyone that adheres to certain specs.
That's a rather moot point, given that nobody in the US is LEGALLY a slave anymore, and the 14th amendment changed that anyway. Also, it's probably worth remembering who was on each side of the 3/5 compromise. The slaveholders were the ones wanting slaves to count as whole persons, and abolitionists were the ones wishing for them to not be legally counted as people at all. Counting slaves as whole persons gave an advantage to the slave states.
Is the screwdriver marketed as having hammer functionality? You also chose a rather strange analogy, as a great number of non-hammer tools do a decent job of being a hammer. Using a hammer as a screwdriver is where you really run into trouble.
IIRC, replicators have limited success in replicating particularly advanced materials (even though those same materials can be transported and replicators were based upon transporter technology). Besides some little helper bots that accidentally gained sentience, nobody in the Star Trek Universe besides Soong has had the capabilities of creating an android like Data, including Data (although he came quite close, he just couldn't build one that would stay functional). Also, between Lore's bad behavior and Data being recognised as a sentient being, there were a lot of ethical hurdles to further creation of androids.
I think it's probably more that limitations of computers are a necessity of the plot.
Metaphors with the internet often fail, A more appropriate metaphor would be crowding around the entrance to a building to an extent that people can't get in. That's more of a gray area, and the primary reason against such behavior is typically the public safety issue (fire code and such), something that doesn't occur with the internet.
And you say it's not civil disobedience, but not all righteous disobedience is or should be 'civil.'
Slashdot Mirror
Because the no-lending license won't hold up due to the first sale doctrine.
John Doe is the indie author you just said this was a boon for. The only thing he's missing out on is the potential to make a million dollars on his book. This potential is for all practical purposes non-existent.
The publishers might make less money. Cry me a river. Carrying limitations of physical goods to the digital world is pure idiocy.
Also, your given standard assumes that nobody returns a book early. Most libraries I've used only allow you to check out a certain number of books at once, so an avid reader could return many of those books well before the due date. I have no idea how the breakdown of such readers is, but it seems like the kind of thing where something like the 80-20 rule applies (80% of checkouts are by 20% of patrons).
The only people the bad thing you mention would possibly dissuade are people that are already famous authors (and thus writing a book is still the most lucrative option available to them) or people who don't have a basic grasp of statistics and think they are going to be the next Stephen King or J.K. Rowling (and thus probably aren't competent writers anyway).
But Jesus was a pirate. He copied that fish and bread. When you ask yourself what Jesus would do, the answer is clearly 'pirate it and share with others.'
The amount of money one spends and the amount of money one has aren't inherently linked. I seem to remember reading once that Apple users were more likely to have their accounts overdrawn than others. I'm far too lazy to try and dig that up again, so please feel free to consider it unsourced speculation.
Has it been demonstrated as achievable in a country with a deeply ingrained gun culture like the US has? There's also the legal difficulty of attempting this 'goal' because of the second amendment, and there's no way in hell you're going to change that.
That's what I was asking. The only one that comes to mind is Limewire Pirate Edition, which was a fork that occurred because a court had stupidly order Limewire to stop distribution.
Most often, it's the bullets that you have to watch out for.
I'm not sure how 'sharing' could be a non-neutral term. Whether the files are legal or illegal to share, you are sharing them nonetheless on a p2p network.
Your argument is based on the premise that there are no guns. There is a substantial difference between 'there are no guns' and 'guns are banned.' Attempts at prohibition often forget this difference (and most of the remainder is just a desire to keep certain behaviors out of sight regardless of the social ills this causes).
The purpose of these services was to share material. Whether it is copyrighted or not is immaterial. Bits don't give a damn about copyright.
I can't really think of a p2p client or protocols that don't have neutral names.
It's an expensive hell, and they have money
The companies you mention are to blame. The USPTO, congress, and certain judges are to blame as well. Just because the law lets you be a complete asshole doesn't mean being a complete asshole is okay.
If you wish to keep it standardized, I'd say that you should just release it under public domain or WTFPL, and get a trademark. License the trademark to anyone that adheres to certain specs.
"recording of whale song" I hope the RIAA doesn't find out.
That's a rather moot point, given that nobody in the US is LEGALLY a slave anymore, and the 14th amendment changed that anyway. Also, it's probably worth remembering who was on each side of the 3/5 compromise. The slaveholders were the ones wanting slaves to count as whole persons, and abolitionists were the ones wishing for them to not be legally counted as people at all. Counting slaves as whole persons gave an advantage to the slave states.
Is the screwdriver marketed as having hammer functionality? You also chose a rather strange analogy, as a great number of non-hammer tools do a decent job of being a hammer. Using a hammer as a screwdriver is where you really run into trouble.
Maybe he felt that was the best tool for him.
Technically, Soong's wife was later turned into an android as well, but she wasn't aware of this fact.
I don't think there's an uncanny valley for spinning cubes. There probably is, however, for voice communications.
IIRC, replicators have limited success in replicating particularly advanced materials (even though those same materials can be transported and replicators were based upon transporter technology). Besides some little helper bots that accidentally gained sentience, nobody in the Star Trek Universe besides Soong has had the capabilities of creating an android like Data, including Data (although he came quite close, he just couldn't build one that would stay functional). Also, between Lore's bad behavior and Data being recognised as a sentient being, there were a lot of ethical hurdles to further creation of androids.
I think it's probably more that limitations of computers are a necessity of the plot.
No mention of Lwaxana Troi?
Metaphors with the internet often fail, A more appropriate metaphor would be crowding around the entrance to a building to an extent that people can't get in. That's more of a gray area, and the primary reason against such behavior is typically the public safety issue (fire code and such), something that doesn't occur with the internet.
And you say it's not civil disobedience, but not all righteous disobedience is or should be 'civil.'