indeed one cannot properly claim to be an educated westerner and NOT have read a Bible (given that it was one of the biggest influences in Western Civilization and without understanding it you cannot understand many of the characters and events of the past 2K years in the western hemisphere in their full context.)
You can't claim to be educated unless you know how to scuba dive.
You might as well have posted this in an article about SOPA. Does it not matter how they try to enforce copyright law? Does it not matter how many innocents get caught in the crossfire?
It is not right and there is no excuse to justify it if you earn a wage.
So yes, faith in universal physical laws, and faith in a divine creator, I think are on par with one another.
I think the difference is that one of them is completely worthless and the other one brings progress. I'm not sure people would last very long if they stood around questioning their own existence and such. But if people didn't randomly decide to believe in fairies because there are a few gaps in their knowledge they want to fill? I think we could live without that.
Any form of private property is a government enforced monopoly
Copyright is not like any private property I've ever seen. In fact, it even has its own cute little name. The fact that someone can store something on a hard drive that is entirely theirs and somehow some random person can claim those specific bits belong to them seems rather insane and unjust to me. The fact that the government is enforcing a monopoly that hinders real property rights (as in, physical property, which is what people usually refer to) does not speak "free market" to me.
You might be able to get by on technicalities, but I don't consider that a free market.
Downloading a copy of Microsoft Office (illegal) is no more lost income to Microsoft than downloading a copy of LibreOffice (legal).
But that's still a loss of potential profit if you had money to give them.
However, buying an illegal copy of Microsoft Office, does mean that Microsoft doesn't earn the money that you paid.
They don't earn any money either way. This distinction is meaningless to me as the money was never Microsoft's to begin with. The fact that they could have had it had different things happened is true in both cases.
Note that this is not necessarily the amount that they wanted for the product, but still a loss.
At most, it is a loss of money that they could have had if the 'pirate' had chosen another path.
In other words, you can try to make some sophistic argument why receiving an illegal copy may not be copyright infringement, but that doesn't help you at all with ebooks.
So, a "willing party" is sufficient to override any express wishes of the copyright holder regarding distribution of his intellectual property for any period of time, even a reasonable seven years like copyright used to be?
I think so, yes.
That's one opinion.
Indeed it is.
Can the "willing party" sell you the copy?
I don't see why not. I've seen a fair number of people who say that 'normal' copyright infringement causes no harm, but then say that selling someone else's copyrighted material does cause harm. That confuses me somewhat.
Even if he doesn't want to distribute it anymore?
Yes?
Copyright means that the author has the right to determine the distribution of his work, which includes the right to say it will contain DRM when he does.
As much as I disagree with copyright, I don't think it's all about the authors anyway. I think it's more about encouraging innovation. In exchange for copyright, the work must go into the public domain someday. Kind of hard for it to go into the public domain if the DRM causes future copies to stop functioning, and it's not exactly good for customers to begin with. So again, it's not all about the author, and copyright is in some ways more of a privilege than a right (or else it wouldn't expire), I think. I don't see anything wrong with simply saying, "DRM or copyright. Take your pick." In that case, all you're doing is saying that they don't get a monopoly over the distribution of an idea. I don't see the problem here.
But he's doing it in a way you don't like, so he doesn't get to have the copyright anymore.
You can disagree with any law you like, but generally, if the majority decide that they don't like a certain behavior, it will be regulated in some way. If most people decide that forcing people to choose between DRM and copyright is a good thing, then there's a chance it could happen. I for one don't view copyright as a fundamental right in the first place.
Ignoring the third option makes it look like you think you have a basic right to have whatever it is you want even if the author doesn't want to distribute it the way you want it.
Were you referring to me or the one you originally replied to? Whatever the case, there are indeed more than two options.
Or rather, having a copy sent to you by a willing party. If we're talking about downloading it, that is. It kind of defeats the purpose of copyright (putting aside any disagreements with that for a moment) if the product isn't even made available. It's about as silly as allowing someone to both have copyright and DRM.
What about graphic pedophilia ? What about graphic torture/snuff ?
Correct. It applies in this situations too. Or were you expecting someone to answer differently? You know, mentioning an extreme example is a good way to see whether or not someone really cares about free speech.
would your like a book published
I don't believe you should be able to restrict others' rights simply because you're offended by what they say.
and you will ALWAYS find some section of the community who disagrees for what ever reason.
Exactly. When you're on the chopping block, that won't be so fun, now will it?
Mid-range hardware is insanely cheap these days and will play all but the most high end games.
It'll probably even play high end games if you play with the settings. Of course, to people who need to crank up the AA to the highest it'll go and have max settings, this probably isn't acceptable...
Gaming in the cloud is good if you don't like owning property.
This is what I've generally found to be the case. I've lived in four states and have been around many public schools, went through public school myself, and have heard the same complaints from many other people who realize that understanding is not the same as rote memorization. Hell, just look at the standardized tests they hand out. Generally multiple choice garbage. Not to mention the No Child Left Behind act. Hard data? Perhaps not. Anecdotal? Maybe so. But I still believe that this is a huge problem.
Maybe I could've been more careful with my wording and said that not all teachers/schools are like that, but my general point remains. I myself have a hard time believing that anyone who cares could look at the state of public education in the US and think, "This is how I want it to be." Yes, even without being directed to any studies. If they don't live in the US, though, then that's somewhat understandable.
In Washington, a student is required to pass a certain number of standardized tests in order to obtain a HS diploma.
You don't really need a high school diploma, though, do you? Maybe that also depends on the state, but I'm not sure. In my state at least, I have seen home schooled kids who simply never bothered getting a diploma or a GED, and they were still able to get jobs and/or get into college.
Schools provide opportunities to develop and hone social skills, to forge friendships and to discover new interests.
Right. The only way to make friends is to be locked inside a building with others your own age. No adults have friends that they met outside of work/school. Not to mention that for some people, this isn't even necessary or wanted.
But you know what else most schools seem to provide? An awful education.
I don't quite understand the problem of standardized tests.
Then chances are you don't understand the problem with the public school system. That is, it doesn't teach understanding. All it does is have kids memorize material without understanding any of it just so they can perhaps do better on a standardized test. However, again, these tests don't measure understanding, only rote memorization. You can memorize all the math equations and procedures that you want, but that doesn't mean you understand any of them.
But all this (having to get your phones from a carrier instead of buying a phone outright and then buying service) isn't just their fault. It's also the fault of users
But, beyond that, it's the fault of the government
Paranoid? It happens in broad daylight. Or did you forget about the TSA, Patriot Act, and warrantless wiretapping? Oh, but that's all to catch the big, evil terrorists, so according to them, it's all okay.
Slashdot Mirror
indeed one cannot properly claim to be an educated westerner and NOT have read a Bible (given that it was one of the biggest influences in Western Civilization and without understanding it you cannot understand many of the characters and events of the past 2K years in the western hemisphere in their full context.)
You can't claim to be educated unless you know how to scuba dive.
I've noted that atheists much prefer debating what they decide to say we say, rather than what we actually say, though, so carry on.
Sounds like a hasty generalization to me.
Lets turn the tables.
You might as well have posted this in an article about SOPA. Does it not matter how they try to enforce copyright law? Does it not matter how many innocents get caught in the crossfire?
It is not right and there is no excuse to justify it if you earn a wage.
That's subjective.
So yes, faith in universal physical laws, and faith in a divine creator, I think are on par with one another.
I think the difference is that one of them is completely worthless and the other one brings progress. I'm not sure people would last very long if they stood around questioning their own existence and such. But if people didn't randomly decide to believe in fairies because there are a few gaps in their knowledge they want to fill? I think we could live without that.
"X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad" isn't a very good argument, in my opinion.
Any form of private property is a government enforced monopoly
Copyright is not like any private property I've ever seen. In fact, it even has its own cute little name. The fact that someone can store something on a hard drive that is entirely theirs and somehow some random person can claim those specific bits belong to them seems rather insane and unjust to me. The fact that the government is enforcing a monopoly that hinders real property rights (as in, physical property, which is what people usually refer to) does not speak "free market" to me.
You might be able to get by on technicalities, but I don't consider that a free market.
If I would pay a disinterested third party for a counterfeit copy, why would I not just buy an authentic version?
The third party most likely sells it for a cheaper price.
Downloading a copy of Microsoft Office (illegal) is no more lost income to Microsoft than downloading a copy of LibreOffice (legal).
But that's still a loss of potential profit if you had money to give them.
However, buying an illegal copy of Microsoft Office, does mean that Microsoft doesn't earn the money that you paid.
They don't earn any money either way. This distinction is meaningless to me as the money was never Microsoft's to begin with. The fact that they could have had it had different things happened is true in both cases.
Note that this is not necessarily the amount that they wanted for the product, but still a loss.
At most, it is a loss of money that they could have had if the 'pirate' had chosen another path.
In other words, you can try to make some sophistic argument why receiving an illegal copy may not be copyright infringement, but that doesn't help you at all with ebooks.
How does this apply to my comment?
So, a "willing party" is sufficient to override any express wishes of the copyright holder regarding distribution of his intellectual property for any period of time, even a reasonable seven years like copyright used to be?
I think so, yes.
That's one opinion.
Indeed it is.
Can the "willing party" sell you the copy?
I don't see why not. I've seen a fair number of people who say that 'normal' copyright infringement causes no harm, but then say that selling someone else's copyrighted material does cause harm. That confuses me somewhat.
Even if he doesn't want to distribute it anymore?
Yes?
Copyright means that the author has the right to determine the distribution of his work, which includes the right to say it will contain DRM when he does.
As much as I disagree with copyright, I don't think it's all about the authors anyway. I think it's more about encouraging innovation. In exchange for copyright, the work must go into the public domain someday. Kind of hard for it to go into the public domain if the DRM causes future copies to stop functioning, and it's not exactly good for customers to begin with. So again, it's not all about the author, and copyright is in some ways more of a privilege than a right (or else it wouldn't expire), I think. I don't see anything wrong with simply saying, "DRM or copyright. Take your pick." In that case, all you're doing is saying that they don't get a monopoly over the distribution of an idea. I don't see the problem here.
But he's doing it in a way you don't like, so he doesn't get to have the copyright anymore.
You can disagree with any law you like, but generally, if the majority decide that they don't like a certain behavior, it will be regulated in some way. If most people decide that forcing people to choose between DRM and copyright is a good thing, then there's a chance it could happen. I for one don't view copyright as a fundamental right in the first place.
Ignoring the third option makes it look like you think you have a basic right to have whatever it is you want even if the author doesn't want to distribute it the way you want it.
Were you referring to me or the one you originally replied to? Whatever the case, there are indeed more than two options.
Or rather, having a copy sent to you by a willing party. If we're talking about downloading it, that is. It kind of defeats the purpose of copyright (putting aside any disagreements with that for a moment) if the product isn't even made available. It's about as silly as allowing someone to both have copyright and DRM.
That is a legitimate option, but...
Which God died and said that you have a moral right to take whatever you want if someone doesn't want to sell it to you?
Good thing you don't need to take anything.
What about graphic pedophilia ?
What about graphic torture/snuff ?
Correct. It applies in this situations too. Or were you expecting someone to answer differently? You know, mentioning an extreme example is a good way to see whether or not someone really cares about free speech.
would your like a book published
I don't believe you should be able to restrict others' rights simply because you're offended by what they say.
and you will ALWAYS find some section of the community who disagrees for what ever reason.
Exactly. When you're on the chopping block, that won't be so fun, now will it?
Mid-range hardware is insanely cheap these days and will play all but the most high end games.
It'll probably even play high end games if you play with the settings. Of course, to people who need to crank up the AA to the highest it'll go and have max settings, this probably isn't acceptable...
Gaming in the cloud is good if you don't like owning property.
This is what I've generally found to be the case. I've lived in four states and have been around many public schools, went through public school myself, and have heard the same complaints from many other people who realize that understanding is not the same as rote memorization. Hell, just look at the standardized tests they hand out. Generally multiple choice garbage. Not to mention the No Child Left Behind act. Hard data? Perhaps not. Anecdotal? Maybe so. But I still believe that this is a huge problem.
Maybe I could've been more careful with my wording and said that not all teachers/schools are like that, but my general point remains. I myself have a hard time believing that anyone who cares could look at the state of public education in the US and think, "This is how I want it to be." Yes, even without being directed to any studies. If they don't live in the US, though, then that's somewhat understandable.
What's the disadvantage?
The tests are awful to begin with and it might interfere with the parents' plans.
In Washington, a student is required to pass a certain number of standardized tests in order to obtain a HS diploma.
You don't really need a high school diploma, though, do you? Maybe that also depends on the state, but I'm not sure. In my state at least, I have seen home schooled kids who simply never bothered getting a diploma or a GED, and they were still able to get jobs and/or get into college.
THAT is the real problem with education today:
There is more than one problem. Parents contribute to the problem, but so do the schools.
Actually, on what grounds do they own ideas? Oh... copyright. Right. It plagues even education.
Schools provide opportunities to develop and hone social skills, to forge friendships and to discover new interests.
Right. The only way to make friends is to be locked inside a building with others your own age. No adults have friends that they met outside of work/school. Not to mention that for some people, this isn't even necessary or wanted.
But you know what else most schools seem to provide? An awful education.
I don't quite understand the problem of standardized tests.
Then chances are you don't understand the problem with the public school system. That is, it doesn't teach understanding. All it does is have kids memorize material without understanding any of it just so they can perhaps do better on a standardized test. However, again, these tests don't measure understanding, only rote memorization. You can memorize all the math equations and procedures that you want, but that doesn't mean you understand any of them.
But all this (having to get your phones from a carrier instead of buying a phone outright and then buying service) isn't just their fault. It's also the fault of users
But, beyond that, it's the fault of the government
That makes me think all three were blamed.
The companies bear no responsibility
He didn't say that. He placed blame on companies, consumers, and the government.
Reading this article confirms that some people are poor by their own choosing (or poor choosing).
I would still consider that poor, actually. We may not be entitled to live like kings, but living standards could certainly improve.
Dumber? Wow, if that's true, that sounds pretty bad. After all, it didn't seem like most kids 20 years ago were exactly intelligent.
Paranoid? It happens in broad daylight. Or did you forget about the TSA, Patriot Act, and warrantless wiretapping? Oh, but that's all to catch the big, evil terrorists, so according to them, it's all okay.