Perhaps they don't have an account. Perhaps they like posting anonymously for some reason.
In any case, I don't believe that if an anonymous commenter is wrong just because they are anonymous. "1 + 1 =2." Obviously, that's wrong because they're anonymous.
It's a case that their publishers or commissioners might care about. And their readers. And certainly older authors
I don't care. Too bad for them. Anyone could die at any time. If they don't publish anything because of that, then they can just vanish. If older authors do not want to take risks then I don't think they should be doing much of anything.
Why is it relevant?
It is to me. I think essentially paying an employee's family years after the employee's death through the use of artificial scarcity is idiotic.
And unless either of us poll every creator in existence (and somehow determine if they're lying or not), whether it truly plays a large role in them creating anything will likely remain a mystery.
So if an author is paid a salary by an investor who makes his return later through copyright and then saves that salary he should not be allowed to bequeath it to his children?
If the children didn't make anything, then yes.
he shouldn't be allowed to pass his company on to his children
The company? Maybe. The copyright for the books? Unless they created the books, then I don't think so.
in the latter two cases older authors may not experience
The key word here is "may." We don't know that. I suspect most people just want to make some money like with every other job. Not only that, but old book authors writing books and planning to die soon afterwards is a very specific case that I don't care about.
And I'm fairly certain that most jobs don't give the employee's family money years after the employee's death. The author may not get paid writing the book, but the money the employee makes will dry up anyway and both of them will end up in the same situation.
At the very least, I don't think money should be given to those that didn't create anything or assist the author in any noticeable way.
It stops when the specified amount is paid out. In much the same way, copyright should end when the specified number of years has expired, without regard to when the person dies.
Well, I'm going to have to disagree.
Whether a work sells or not has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
I was demonstrating something that could be considered unfortunate. The work didn't sell, the creator died, etc. Too bad.
The question is how many people can honestly say they would bother to create something if it was 100% guaranteed that their loved ones would get nothing after they died?
Okay. So why not tell me how many? It doesn't matter to me. Poll every artist and creator in existence (or most) and get back to me instead of seemingly pretending that you speak for all of them.
Either way, you're still failing to come to grips with or in any way refute the core of my argument, which is that the author agrees to take payment later, and you're arguing that the author should lose that payment simply because he or she died. That just doesn't make sense in any sane universe.
I understand your argument. I simply don't agree with you. Do you believe that anyone who disagrees with you must be 100% wrong and you must be 100% right? I might be "wrong," and I accept that possibility, but I do not believe that I am. This is simply my opinion.
"Sane" is subjective.
Therefore, in practice, your scheme will have no effect on copyright duration whatsoever.
My scheme would also be to drastically shorten copyright terms. I cannot account for all possibilities or abuses, but who can? There are likely no perfect solutions.
Someone given a year to live will only write memoirs if that person is exceptionally vain or if his or her family will benefit.
That's a very special case. I don't care if my proposed solution doesn't work for every case (expected deaths). That is simply too bad.
I argued out of logic and fairness
Of course you would say that. I probably would, too. That's why we're having this argument. I personally hope that you're at least accounting for the possibility that you may be "wrong." Otherwise, I feel that this will get nowhere.
Your answer, by contrast, completely ignored my points, and merely repeated your opinion, providing no justification whatsoever for that opinion.
Not only do I not need a justification for my opinion (certainly it helps if you're trying to convince someone), but I believe I responded to all (or most) of your arguments in a suitable way.
Repeating an opinion over and over does not make it more right.
Where do they come from? The magical rights fairy? Can you prove that they even exist?
No, bad for them as they are stating that YOU are required to pay for everyone to have internet access.
I don't live there. But if a majority of people want it, then that is probably the end of that. If they don't, then they'd have better luck organizing against it than the minority would.
Really, before you go spouting off about things, maybe you should learn what the words you are using actually mean. Your personal definitions don't mean anything.
Yours don't mean anything to me, either. I've never seen evidence that rights are anything more than things granted by the government (perhaps multiple governments). They can be taken away, they can be infringed, and new rights can be added. Linking to a Wikipedia article likely doesn't prove that there are some sort of god-given rights inherent in every human being.
I understand it. I just don't believe in universal, inherent rights. I only believe in rights that the government grants you.
they don't they are being evil
By whose definition?
A human right is something you are do for simply being human.
Does the magical rights fairy grant these rights? It's fine if you believe in them, but I suggest not stating their existence as a fact.
According to the U.N., every single person on the face of the planet deserves internet access simply for existing and not providing it is a grave moral failure.
That's completely orthogonal. Most jobs pay the person while they are working.
And even so, the money they get paid while working eventually runs out.
It starts paying off after the work is finished, and spreads that payment out over a period of time.
Yes. And it's such a shame if it doesn't sell well. Too bad. I think it's worthless to pay people who created nothing (the family).
As someone who has done this, I can tell you that the copyright most certainly did encourage that creation, and continues to do so.
Which creation? How many people can honestly say that they wouldn't create anything if it wasn't 100% guaranteed that their loved ones would continue to get paid after they died?
When you toil for a year on a work of art or literature in the hopes that someday you'll be able to sell it and make money off of it, then we can talk.
We can talk right now. It isn't necessary for me to be in your situation for me to criticize it. Anyone could be biased. Especially the people in the situation themselves.
However, I still do not believe that the family of dead people need to be paid money. I do not believe it encouraging much, if any, creation at all.
Until then, your view of whether that copyright guarantee encourages creation or not is as utterly meaningless as an Ayn Rand novel.
Interesting way to ward off criticism. "You're not in my situation. Therefore, all of your criticisms are invalid!" It's about as effective on me as the, "Well, let's see you do better!" argument.
Even if you do create things, that does not mean that you can speak for all people that do.
Anyone who disagrees with copyright laws or even so much as questions them must just want free stuff. It's like how anyone that is pro-copyright must be a corporate shill...
As someone who makes a living off of creative works, I strongly disagree. Say that you have an author who writes an incredible book. He or she dies a week after its publication. Under your scheme, the author's family gets one week's revenue even though the author put in five years of his or her life to create the book in question. That's hardly reasonable.
The author's family didn't create anything. One week's revenue sounds good to me in that case.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create creative works.
And being able to receive money while they're alive (for a time) isn't enough for them? As far as I know, most jobs don't continue to pay the family years after the employee is already dead.
I don't think this is encouraging creation at all.
Even if it did stop some pirates, I still don't think it would be worth it. There are likely few implementations that can actually stop any pirates whilst not creating a hassle for actual customers.
Calling internet access a human right is like declaring access to Starbucks a human right and just as stupid.
Rights are just something that the government gives you (and things the people usually try to protect). They can declare pretty much anything they want a right if the majority demand it.
They do need it for work, though. You don't need much of anything. If you're willing to die, you don't even need food. The internet has become so useful and widespread that some people do believe that having it (or at least not having to worry about your access getting cut off because someone accused you of something) should more or less be a right.
Wouldn't they need to be part of the rest of society where it's a right and desire an internet connection in the first place?
One does not need internet access, at all, period.
Define "need." Some people "need" it for their jobs. It's a very useful tool to communicate with other people, as well. The fact that you don't think it should be a right does not mean that it should not be.
And I'm sure that some don't agree with the fact that you can have your internet access taken away because you're accused of copyright infringement.
It is frighteningly sad that there are any people that actually see logic in this train-wreck of an idea, let alone enough to mod this up and post in support.
Different people have different preferences. You may support copyright laws, but others may not. Just because you do, that doesn't mean that people who don't are somehow illogical. They're preferences.
The liar was someone who you had good reason to trust
"Good" is subjective. In any case, it doesn't matter whether you had a "good" reason to truth them or not. What matters is that if you hadn't believed them, no 'damages' would have occurred (even if there was no way for you to know otherwise).
If someone lies to you, and you have reason to trust them, or you make a reasonable effort to uncover the truth, you really can't be held accountable for believing the lie.
However, you are also responsible for the things you do (with freedom comes responsibility).
You can speak, write, or do anything that is possible for a human being to do. What good would free speech be if you were immediately punished (by the government) for saying something? We already know that we can speak. I think everyone is aware of that. In that case, if we didn't care that the government could punish us for saying something they disliked, stating that we have a right to free speech (as in, we have the ability to speak, but could be punished for it) would be absolutely redundant and useless.
That is what I meant by that statement. I wouldn't say you truly have "free speech" if the government then punishes you for the speech they claimed was free (because you need to take "responsibility" for your actions).
Same as you'd be unhappy if someone kept threatening (in a serious way) to kill you, and asking people around to rough you up.
Are you talking about me? I think I'd most likely ignore it. In such a situation, I believe they should only be punished when it's demonstrated that they truly are doing something (either they were about to kill them, or they already have). Just my opinion.
But if the government gets involved, I think it is a problem. I don't believe that you can just magically sign away your free speech rights (allowing the government to punish you if you say something the property owner doesn't like) just because you step on someone's property. They could ask you to leave, sure, but I think your right to free speech should remain.
It's true that it can emotionally harm someone. But that isn't an absolute certainty. Different people are offended by different things, and I believe there are ways to desensitize yourself so that insults will harm you rarely, if ever.
Yeah, but what if someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater? Clearly an intelligent person would instantly believe them and then trample over everyone else (it's not your fault for trampling over them, though) to save their own skin!
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps they don't have an account. Perhaps they like posting anonymously for some reason.
In any case, I don't believe that if an anonymous commenter is wrong just because they are anonymous. "1 + 1 =2." Obviously, that's wrong because they're anonymous.
It's a case that their publishers or commissioners might care about. And their readers. And certainly older authors
I don't care. Too bad for them. Anyone could die at any time. If they don't publish anything because of that, then they can just vanish. If older authors do not want to take risks then I don't think they should be doing much of anything.
Why is it relevant?
It is to me. I think essentially paying an employee's family years after the employee's death through the use of artificial scarcity is idiotic.
And unless either of us poll every creator in existence (and somehow determine if they're lying or not), whether it truly plays a large role in them creating anything will likely remain a mystery.
So if an author is paid a salary by an investor who makes his return later through copyright and then saves that salary he should not be allowed to bequeath it to his children?
If the children didn't make anything, then yes.
he shouldn't be allowed to pass his company on to his children
The company? Maybe. The copyright for the books? Unless they created the books, then I don't think so.
Wait... so if he said, "1 + 1 = 2," the fact that part of his comment is allegedly made up would make that untrue?
in the latter two cases older authors may not experience
The key word here is "may." We don't know that. I suspect most people just want to make some money like with every other job. Not only that, but old book authors writing books and planning to die soon afterwards is a very specific case that I don't care about.
And I'm fairly certain that most jobs don't give the employee's family money years after the employee's death. The author may not get paid writing the book, but the money the employee makes will dry up anyway and both of them will end up in the same situation.
At the very least, I don't think money should be given to those that didn't create anything or assist the author in any noticeable way.
It stops when the specified amount is paid out. In much the same way, copyright should end when the specified number of years has expired, without regard to when the person dies.
Well, I'm going to have to disagree.
Whether a work sells or not has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
I was demonstrating something that could be considered unfortunate. The work didn't sell, the creator died, etc. Too bad.
The question is how many people can honestly say they would bother to create something if it was 100% guaranteed that their loved ones would get nothing after they died?
Okay. So why not tell me how many? It doesn't matter to me. Poll every artist and creator in existence (or most) and get back to me instead of seemingly pretending that you speak for all of them.
Either way, you're still failing to come to grips with or in any way refute the core of my argument, which is that the author agrees to take payment later, and you're arguing that the author should lose that payment simply because he or she died. That just doesn't make sense in any sane universe.
I understand your argument. I simply don't agree with you. Do you believe that anyone who disagrees with you must be 100% wrong and you must be 100% right? I might be "wrong," and I accept that possibility, but I do not believe that I am. This is simply my opinion.
"Sane" is subjective.
Therefore, in practice, your scheme will have no effect on copyright duration whatsoever.
My scheme would also be to drastically shorten copyright terms. I cannot account for all possibilities or abuses, but who can? There are likely no perfect solutions.
Someone given a year to live will only write memoirs if that person is exceptionally vain or if his or her family will benefit.
That's a very special case. I don't care if my proposed solution doesn't work for every case (expected deaths). That is simply too bad.
I argued out of logic and fairness
Of course you would say that. I probably would, too. That's why we're having this argument. I personally hope that you're at least accounting for the possibility that you may be "wrong." Otherwise, I feel that this will get nowhere.
Your answer, by contrast, completely ignored my points, and merely repeated your opinion, providing no justification whatsoever for that opinion.
Not only do I not need a justification for my opinion (certainly it helps if you're trying to convince someone), but I believe I responded to all (or most) of your arguments in a suitable way.
Repeating an opinion over and over does not make it more right.
I didn't say that it did.
Human rights are " universal, inherent rights."
Where do they come from? The magical rights fairy? Can you prove that they even exist?
No, bad for them as they are stating that YOU are required to pay for everyone to have internet access.
I don't live there. But if a majority of people want it, then that is probably the end of that. If they don't, then they'd have better luck organizing against it than the minority would.
Really, before you go spouting off about things, maybe you should learn what the words you are using actually mean. Your personal definitions don't mean anything.
Yours don't mean anything to me, either. I've never seen evidence that rights are anything more than things granted by the government (perhaps multiple governments). They can be taken away, they can be infringed, and new rights can be added. Linking to a Wikipedia article likely doesn't prove that there are some sort of god-given rights inherent in every human being.
I understand it. I just don't believe in universal, inherent rights. I only believe in rights that the government grants you.
they don't they are being evil
By whose definition?
A human right is something you are do for simply being human.
Does the magical rights fairy grant these rights? It's fine if you believe in them, but I suggest not stating their existence as a fact.
According to the U.N., every single person on the face of the planet deserves internet access simply for existing and not providing it is a grave moral failure.
Good for them.
That's completely orthogonal. Most jobs pay the person while they are working.
And even so, the money they get paid while working eventually runs out.
It starts paying off after the work is finished, and spreads that payment out over a period of time.
Yes. And it's such a shame if it doesn't sell well. Too bad. I think it's worthless to pay people who created nothing (the family).
As someone who has done this, I can tell you that the copyright most certainly did encourage that creation, and continues to do so.
Which creation? How many people can honestly say that they wouldn't create anything if it wasn't 100% guaranteed that their loved ones would continue to get paid after they died?
When you toil for a year on a work of art or literature in the hopes that someday you'll be able to sell it and make money off of it, then we can talk.
We can talk right now. It isn't necessary for me to be in your situation for me to criticize it. Anyone could be biased. Especially the people in the situation themselves.
However, I still do not believe that the family of dead people need to be paid money. I do not believe it encouraging much, if any, creation at all.
Until then, your view of whether that copyright guarantee encourages creation or not is as utterly meaningless as an Ayn Rand novel.
Interesting way to ward off criticism. "You're not in my situation. Therefore, all of your criticisms are invalid!" It's about as effective on me as the, "Well, let's see you do better!" argument.
Even if you do create things, that does not mean that you can speak for all people that do.
Anyone who disagrees with copyright laws or even so much as questions them must just want free stuff. It's like how anyone that is pro-copyright must be a corporate shill...
As someone who makes a living off of creative works, I strongly disagree. Say that you have an author who writes an incredible book. He or she dies a week after its publication. Under your scheme, the author's family gets one week's revenue even though the author put in five years of his or her life to create the book in question. That's hardly reasonable.
The author's family didn't create anything. One week's revenue sounds good to me in that case.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create creative works.
And being able to receive money while they're alive (for a time) isn't enough for them? As far as I know, most jobs don't continue to pay the family years after the employee is already dead.
I don't think this is encouraging creation at all.
You obviously just want free stuff...
Even if it did stop some pirates, I still don't think it would be worth it. There are likely few implementations that can actually stop any pirates whilst not creating a hassle for actual customers.
Few people actually need internet access for work
I don't care about the number.
Calling internet access a human right is like declaring access to Starbucks a human right and just as stupid.
Rights are just something that the government gives you (and things the people usually try to protect). They can declare pretty much anything they want a right if the majority demand it.
They do need it for work, though. You don't need much of anything. If you're willing to die, you don't even need food. The internet has become so useful and widespread that some people do believe that having it (or at least not having to worry about your access getting cut off because someone accused you of something) should more or less be a right.
Wouldn't they need to be part of the rest of society where it's a right and desire an internet connection in the first place?
One does not need internet access, at all, period.
Define "need." Some people "need" it for their jobs. It's a very useful tool to communicate with other people, as well. The fact that you don't think it should be a right does not mean that it should not be.
And I'm sure that some don't agree with the fact that you can have your internet access taken away because you're accused of copyright infringement.
for taking
Copying.
It is frighteningly sad that there are any people that actually see logic in this train-wreck of an idea, let alone enough to mod this up and post in support.
Different people have different preferences. You may support copyright laws, but others may not. Just because you do, that doesn't mean that people who don't are somehow illogical. They're preferences.
this is often a straw argument to deflect the blame.
No, I'd say it's someone trying to 'correct' someone's use of the word "stolen."
you should be allowed to steal.
Infringe upon copyright. Not "steal."
then what is the point of being alive?
To do whatever you wish to do. I didn't say to shut off your "good" feelings, either.
To coldly calculate logic, in a machine-like manner, rather than be the warm, feeling creatures we generally naturally are?
Well, I'd say ignorant and idiotic most of the time.
The liar was someone who you had good reason to trust
"Good" is subjective. In any case, it doesn't matter whether you had a "good" reason to truth them or not. What matters is that if you hadn't believed them, no 'damages' would have occurred (even if there was no way for you to know otherwise).
If someone lies to you, and you have reason to trust them, or you make a reasonable effort to uncover the truth, you really can't be held accountable for believing the lie.
I think you can. You believed it.
However, you are also responsible for the things you do (with freedom comes responsibility).
You can speak, write, or do anything that is possible for a human being to do. What good would free speech be if you were immediately punished (by the government) for saying something? We already know that we can speak. I think everyone is aware of that. In that case, if we didn't care that the government could punish us for saying something they disliked, stating that we have a right to free speech (as in, we have the ability to speak, but could be punished for it) would be absolutely redundant and useless.
That is what I meant by that statement. I wouldn't say you truly have "free speech" if the government then punishes you for the speech they claimed was free (because you need to take "responsibility" for your actions).
Same as you'd be unhappy if someone kept threatening (in a serious way) to kill you, and asking people around to rough you up.
Are you talking about me? I think I'd most likely ignore it. In such a situation, I believe they should only be punished when it's demonstrated that they truly are doing something (either they were about to kill them, or they already have). Just my opinion.
But if the government gets involved, I think it is a problem. I don't believe that you can just magically sign away your free speech rights (allowing the government to punish you if you say something the property owner doesn't like) just because you step on someone's property. They could ask you to leave, sure, but I think your right to free speech should remain.
It's true that it can emotionally harm someone. But that isn't an absolute certainty. Different people are offended by different things, and I believe there are ways to desensitize yourself so that insults will harm you rarely, if ever.
Yeah, but what if someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater? Clearly an intelligent person would instantly believe them and then trample over everyone else (it's not your fault for trampling over them, though) to save their own skin!