The individuals that comprise those organisations have rights. Corporations, unions, lobby groups, organisations etc etc don't and shouldn't have rights.
Alas, that clause is already optional in the constitution. Congress has the power to scale down or revoke that privilege, if they think it no longer serves its intended purpose. If Congress really cared about the welfare of the people rather than filling their pockets with lobbyist money, they'd be phasing copyright out instead of extending it.
The warriors are hungry for blood, and they are making up a fake threat of a "cyber war" to keep themselves occupied. Replace them with geeks, and the world will suddenly be safe again.
I want a significant percentage of the population to lose their internet connections, I want them to be pissed off and I want to see the digital economy realise what a totally useless abomination Hadopi is. I want them all to point their fingers at that loser Sarkozy and the "entertainment" industry who pushed this through despite all the warnings, and I want them both to be thrown out of power and out of France.
Ok, the US example isn't really putting anything into perspective. Here's a better way to do that.
France has a population of 60 million. If 150k letters are sent every day, then we get: 60,000,000 / 150,000 = 400. The entire population of France can be canvassed with Hadopi notices in a little more than a year.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité and all that bullshit are far behind them now.
The very reason ebook prices are so high is because publishers won't let Amazon drop them further, as that would cannibalise their book sales in which they get much larger margins.
But, I doubt ebooks will ever replace books completely (at least in the foreseeable future). Books will be around a lot longer than CDs, DVDs, BDs, and many other such media.
Making a profit by selling a product is one thing. Using patents to cut everyone else out of the market, giving yourself a monopoly and thus pricing as high as you like is another.
I wouldn't care if they were doing this just with toothbrushes, but when they are doing it with things like medicines it becomes serious.
corporations can afford to build their own stages, and we shouldn't be able to stop them from doing so.
And that's where we seem to disagree. We have a problem when corporations can use their vast resources to drown the voices of individuals.
For example, if I were a corporation, I could hire 200 people ("lobbyists"? "shills"? whatever) to come here on Slashdot and post pro-software patent comments, thus giving the impression to anyone who visits the site for the first time that the IT people around here support software patents.
Now, replace "Slashdot" with "Parliament" or "Congress"... Add to that generous campaign donations to various politicians...
I never said "that some people's opinions should get legal primacy over other people's opinions". I'm arguing that the well-being of corporations should always take second place to the well-being of the public at large.
Someone wrote a blog post to point out some security issues that need fixing in the pre-Alpha version of Diaspora, and here you are using his words for pointless sensationalism that undermines the work of the Diaspora team and propagates the "Diaspora is shite" gossip that will most certainly haunt the project even after the code has hit Beta. Shameful.
If you want to do something useful, then instead of repeating how doomed the project is, ask for people to join them (I think we have some capable individuals around here) and help out.
And no, I'm not affiliated with Diaspora, I'm just annoyed by what this sort of news reporting.
I completely disagree with that philosophy. Adversity for corporations (i.e., lack of monopolies, fierce competition etc) is good for the public, but potentially bad for their shareholders. Cozy monopolies and lack of competition is good for corporations (who get to set their own price-points and don't need to invest and innovate), but obviously bad for the public.
The vast majority of people aren't shareholders, so by making life easy for corporations you are taking money away from the many and giving it to the few. Essentially, you are creating an aristocracy.
How much time, effort and money does it take to design the iPod, and set up the facilities to manufacture it in large quanities? How much time, effort and money does it take to replicate the design and set up the facilities to manufacture it in large quantities?
Not surprisingly, the answers to both questions are very similar -- it takes a lot of time, effort and money even if you are simply copying somebody else's product. By the time a second company can produce "iPots", Apple would have had ample time to recoup its investment and make a profit. Once the iPot comes out, Apple will be forced to innovate again in order to remain competitive -- all patents do is prevent this competition, which is bad for the consumer.
Notice that this system avoids the "obvious patent" problem. Things that are obvious will take no time for others to replicate, but significant contributions take longer, so competition remains healthy. Should a patent be granted on something obvious (pretty much most software patents today), then competition is severely stifled for 20 years!
Are you seriously arguing that African countries are the way they are because they have no IP laws?? As for China, I think they are innovating just fine, and in a few years they might give us a run for our money.
Is a patent advocate advocating patents as a member of the public (i.e., thinking about the common good), or in a different capacity (e.g., patent lawyer, businessman, or someone else with vested interests who would benefit personally from patents)? In this instance, I believe patent advocates are only looking out for themselves, and are working against the interests of the public -- so it's fair and prudent to set them apart. As for the FSF (and EFF etc), I don't see them trying to profit from their activism at the expense of the greater good.
There's a difference. Patent advocates are in the business of conspiring against the public to line their own pockets. The FSF represents public interests and has nothing to hide. Crashing the patent troll party makes a much more powerful statement, imo.
...will be in another 80 years when our children are looking back and thinking "Man, back in 2010 did those savages really try to block parts of the internet?? How ridiculous!"
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't have any impact on B's bandwidth, but it might well have a huge impact on latency!
All people can be fanbois.
Journalists are people.
=>
Journalists can be fanbois.
The individuals that comprise those organisations have rights. Corporations, unions, lobby groups, organisations etc etc don't and shouldn't have rights.
Alas, that clause is already optional in the constitution. Congress has the power to scale down or revoke that privilege, if they think it no longer serves its intended purpose. If Congress really cared about the welfare of the people rather than filling their pockets with lobbyist money, they'd be phasing copyright out instead of extending it.
make install, not war!
The warriors are hungry for blood, and they are making up a fake threat of a "cyber war" to keep themselves occupied. Replace them with geeks, and the world will suddenly be safe again.
I want a significant percentage of the population to lose their internet connections, I want them to be pissed off and I want to see the digital economy realise what a totally useless abomination Hadopi is. I want them all to point their fingers at that loser Sarkozy and the "entertainment" industry who pushed this through despite all the warnings, and I want them both to be thrown out of power and out of France.
Here's to wishing..
Ok, the US example isn't really putting anything into perspective. Here's a better way to do that.
France has a population of 60 million. If 150k letters are sent every day, then we get: 60,000,000 / 150,000 = 400. The entire population of France can be canvassed with Hadopi notices in a little more than a year.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité and all that bullshit are far behind them now.
a $10 ebook nets them about as much profit as a $26 hardcover
That doesn't come as a surprise. The paperback version of a book is often cheaper than the ebook!
The very reason ebook prices are so high is because publishers won't let Amazon drop them further, as that would cannibalise their book sales in which they get much larger margins.
But, I doubt ebooks will ever replace books completely (at least in the foreseeable future). Books will be around a lot longer than CDs, DVDs, BDs, and many other such media.
Their goal is probably to get an excuse to somehow restructure the internet.. Who knows what "partitioning" may entail?
http://twitter.com/m_ahmadinejad/status/24007026734
(j/k of course)
Yes, that's exactly my position, except you forgot the bit about the orgies.
Making a profit by selling a product is one thing. Using patents to cut everyone else out of the market, giving yourself a monopoly and thus pricing as high as you like is another.
I wouldn't care if they were doing this just with toothbrushes, but when they are doing it with things like medicines it becomes serious.
corporations can afford to build their own stages, and we shouldn't be able to stop them from doing so.
And that's where we seem to disagree. We have a problem when corporations can use their vast resources to drown the voices of individuals.
For example, if I were a corporation, I could hire 200 people ("lobbyists"? "shills"? whatever) to come here on Slashdot and post pro-software patent comments, thus giving the impression to anyone who visits the site for the first time that the IT people around here support software patents.
Now, replace "Slashdot" with "Parliament" or "Congress"... Add to that generous campaign donations to various politicians...
I never said "that some people's opinions should get legal primacy over other people's opinions". I'm arguing that the well-being of corporations should always take second place to the well-being of the public at large.
Someone wrote a blog post to point out some security issues that need fixing in the pre-Alpha version of Diaspora, and here you are using his words for pointless sensationalism that undermines the work of the Diaspora team and propagates the "Diaspora is shite" gossip that will most certainly haunt the project even after the code has hit Beta. Shameful.
If you want to do something useful, then instead of repeating how doomed the project is, ask for people to join them (I think we have some capable individuals around here) and help out.
And no, I'm not affiliated with Diaspora, I'm just annoyed by what this sort of news reporting.
I completely disagree with that philosophy. Adversity for corporations (i.e., lack of monopolies, fierce competition etc) is good for the public, but potentially bad for their shareholders. Cozy monopolies and lack of competition is good for corporations (who get to set their own price-points and don't need to invest and innovate), but obviously bad for the public.
The vast majority of people aren't shareholders, so by making life easy for corporations you are taking money away from the many and giving it to the few. Essentially, you are creating an aristocracy.
How much time, effort and money does it take to design the iPod, and set up the facilities to manufacture it in large quanities? How much time, effort and money does it take to replicate the design and set up the facilities to manufacture it in large quantities?
Not surprisingly, the answers to both questions are very similar -- it takes a lot of time, effort and money even if you are simply copying somebody else's product. By the time a second company can produce "iPots", Apple would have had ample time to recoup its investment and make a profit. Once the iPot comes out, Apple will be forced to innovate again in order to remain competitive -- all patents do is prevent this competition, which is bad for the consumer.
Notice that this system avoids the "obvious patent" problem. Things that are obvious will take no time for others to replicate, but significant contributions take longer, so competition remains healthy. Should a patent be granted on something obvious (pretty much most software patents today), then competition is severely stifled for 20 years!
Are you seriously arguing that African countries are the way they are because they have no IP laws?? As for China, I think they are innovating just fine, and in a few years they might give us a run for our money.
Is a patent advocate advocating patents as a member of the public (i.e., thinking about the common good), or in a different capacity (e.g., patent lawyer, businessman, or someone else with vested interests who would benefit personally from patents)? In this instance, I believe patent advocates are only looking out for themselves, and are working against the interests of the public -- so it's fair and prudent to set them apart. As for the FSF (and EFF etc), I don't see them trying to profit from their activism at the expense of the greater good.
There's a difference. Patent advocates are in the business of conspiring against the public to line their own pockets. The FSF represents public interests and has nothing to hide. Crashing the patent troll party makes a much more powerful statement, imo.
Bonkers are the people who see what's going on around them, and say and do nothing.
Actually, I think a "-1 What The Fuck Is Wrong With A Bit Of Profanity" moderation would be more appropriate.
...will be in another 80 years when our children are looking back and thinking "Man, back in 2010 did those savages really try to block parts of the internet?? How ridiculous!"