The goal is to spread information and culture, not to make sure a bunch of greedheads have money.
The goal is to promote the progress in the useful arts. You do that by encouraging the creation of said progress via novel works. If a bunch of greedheads think they are going to make an obscene profit on it they underwrite the creation of the progress and novel works. The Constitution doesn't say "To Promote the Disemination and Spread of Science and Useful Arts", that is something rather different.
The RIAA are demanding government protection from legitimate competitors and a defacto control of culture.
The presence or absence of copyright laws really has little to do with the strangehold the RIAA has on the music industry. That is all about marketing and controlling of the channels of distribution.
The previous legitimate purpose of publishers, to chose and promote excellence
That has NEVER been the purpose of publishers. They are commercial enterprises. All they care about is making money for their investors. If it is swill that sells, that's what they publish.
A lot depends on the production costs and risks involved. Making a large scale feature movie is very costly and quite risky. LOTR costs $300 million, and nobody had a clue as to whether it was going to work financially or not. Without copyrights it would not have happened.
Sorry - but your premise seems rather faulty to me. The fall in cost of reproduction and distribution seems to me to make copyright laws more relevant than less so. When it was expensive to reproduce original works, the incentive to do so is minimal and copyright laws didn't matter very much unless you happened to have the rather large capital investment sitting there in the form of a Linotype machine and a web-fed printing press. With modern technologies reducing such costs, the incentive to copy becomes much greater.
No, what we have now is a classic black market situation. With the price of the goods controlled at artificially high levels through taxation or regulation there will always be an underground trade in the goods in question, whether it be in alcohol, drugs or music. There is really no way to prevent it unless you find a strong technological countermeasure.
It's not possible to "enjoy Star Wars as it first appeared in 1977."
It certainly is. I do it in my memories. I will never forget the theatre audience cheering and applauding the movie. Or the fact that it was still playing in that same theater to good crowds a year after the original release.
I have a Tenba attache that I've used for several years. It has proven to be very versatile and durable. It has literally circumnavigated the planet with me on two occasions.
Now the company would have to have their lawyers review 2 sets of licences as opposed to one (Team A and Sun), and their support contact points climbs to 3.
I would think that there are many licenses to review - surely no development shop is dealing with just one tool. This is not a matter of 1 vs. two vendors, but rather N vs. N+1.
Java has to be patched / updated outside of their OS / application lifecycle.Net has similar version issues, and perhaps worse compatability across versions than does Java. So if anything this is an advantage for Java.
If Sun just allowed Team B to bundle the JRE with their application, this would go away.
Sun does allow this. What they don't allow is redistribution of the JDK.
| 2. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and conditions | of this Agreement, including, but not limited to Section 4 (Java | Technology Restrictions) of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a | non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without fees to | reproduce and distribute the Software, provided that | (i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified (unless | otherwise specified in the applicable README file)
I would agree with you except for one thing - the difficulty of buying certain kinds or brands of computers without getting stuck with the Windows Bundle (TM). I keep a machine with Windows legally installed on it for a variety of reasons - one being is that certain software like tax preparation stuff just isn't available for Linux. But for the other 3 machines I normally have going at any one time I see no need to have Windows running on them - but for the laptops at least I have Windows crammed down my throat.
Copy protect the heck out of it - and make it less usable. That is fine with me. But this business of getting Windows whether or not I want it, and with a non-portable license is despicable.
Or considering how pharmacuticals sued African nations to keep them from making generics and that led to countless AIDS deaths.
That is nonsense. Any nation has a sovereign right to ignore or disregard patents within its borders. African nations lose millions to AIDS because they cannot afford to produce or deliver even generic AIDs medications to their citizens.
United States law in effect says that the ideas of an individual can continue to make money for another party long after the creator dies.
This is not unique to the United States, and in fact most of the world offers at least 50 years past the death of the author.
The other question has to do with the ideas of an individual continuing to make money for a third party after the originator's death. The fact is that copyright of a work is generally transferred from an employee to an employer as part of an agreement to pay the employee a regular salary, a.k.a. 'work for hire'. The value of that copyright, amortized, is the incentive that the employer has to fund the copyrightable work. Decreasing that term directly reduces that incentive. Having the copyright term extend well past the creator's life span removes the issue of the employer having to calculate the employee's expected life span when trying to determine the value of a project and how it should be funded. Removing this extention would create the rather bizarre situation where older fertile creative talents would not be able to find funding for their works.
Now you can debate the ideal length of this term, but having it be 50 years or so is not outlandish.
If there were no way for us to record musical works or create movies, artists would still be able to make money through live performances, because those performances would be naturally scarce, without any government intervention. This is in contrast to the situation we have today, where music and movies are anything but scarce. They are all around us, distributed in a wide variety of forms. Yet the movie and music industry would have the government continue to enforce an arbitrary scarcity that bears no relationship to economic reality.
Movies have no direct live performance equivalents, and with live musical performance the scarcity reduces people's ability to enjoy the performance. One may note that today we have a great abundance of these recorded forms of art, in pretty high quality too. The problem is the question of cause and effect - if we remove copyright much of the economic incentive to produce this abundance would disappear, and we would likely to be facing a great decline in both abundance and quality.
One of the best examples of this is the decline of the Hong Kong film industry.
It seems to me that there are a few flaws yet - for example I have torn off the adhesive strip more than once along the wrong set of perforations. I am not sure why the outer flap has to be the full length of the envelope. Sometimes the little adhesive tab tears the envelope when I open the thing.
I know that at least the Intel 945M chipset supports 4GB of address space. While I haven't found data on what the AMD Turion X2 / S1 is going to support I would expect to see 4GB for that too.
Slashdot Mirror
The goal is to spread information and culture, not to make sure a bunch of greedheads have money.
The goal is to promote the progress in the useful arts. You do that by encouraging the creation of said progress via novel works. If a bunch of greedheads think they are going to make an obscene profit on it they underwrite the creation of the progress and novel works. The Constitution doesn't say "To Promote the Disemination and Spread of Science and Useful Arts", that is something rather different.
The RIAA are demanding government protection from legitimate competitors and a defacto control of culture.
The presence or absence of copyright laws really has little to do with the strangehold the RIAA has on the music industry. That is all about marketing and controlling of the channels of distribution.
The previous legitimate purpose of publishers, to chose and promote excellence
That has NEVER been the purpose of publishers. They are commercial enterprises. All they care about is making money for their investors. If it is swill that sells, that's what they publish.
A lot depends on the production costs and risks involved. Making a large scale feature movie is very costly and quite risky. LOTR costs $300 million, and nobody had a clue as to whether it was going to work financially or not. Without copyrights it would not have happened.
Sorry - but your premise seems rather faulty to me. The fall in cost of reproduction and distribution seems to me to make copyright laws more relevant than less so. When it was expensive to reproduce original works, the incentive to do so is minimal and copyright laws didn't matter very much unless you happened to have the rather large capital investment sitting there in the form of a Linotype machine and a web-fed printing press. With modern technologies reducing such costs, the incentive to copy becomes much greater.
No, what we have now is a classic black market situation. With the price of the goods controlled at artificially high levels through taxation or regulation there will always be an underground trade in the goods in question, whether it be in alcohol, drugs or music. There is really no way to prevent it unless you find a strong technological countermeasure.
strike again!
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/tooldocs/findi ngclasses.html
I know the model I have is discontinued. I'd say it is closest to the PM-17C of the current models.
It's not possible to "enjoy Star Wars as it first appeared in 1977."
It certainly is. I do it in my memories. I will never forget the theatre audience cheering and applauding the movie. Or the fact that it was still playing in that same theater to good crowds a year after the original release.
I have a Tenba attache that I've used for several years. It has proven to be very versatile and durable. It has literally circumnavigated the planet with me on two occasions.
Now the company would have to have their lawyers review 2 sets of licences as opposed to one (Team A and Sun), and their support contact points climbs to 3.
.Net has similar version issues, and perhaps worse compatability across versions than does Java. So if anything this is an advantage for Java.
I would think that there are many licenses to review - surely no development shop is dealing with just one tool. This is not a matter of 1 vs. two vendors, but rather N vs. N+1.
Java has to be patched / updated outside of their OS / application lifecycle
If Sun just allowed Team B to bundle the JRE with their application, this would go away.
Sun does allow this. What they don't allow is redistribution of the JDK.
| 2. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and conditions
| of this Agreement, including, but not limited to Section 4 (Java
| Technology Restrictions) of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a
| non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without fees to
| reproduce and distribute the Software, provided that
| (i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified (unless
| otherwise specified in the applicable README file)
s/M-5/M1/g
Maybe they really do have an M-5 multitronic controlled tank.
What's the next step. Setting up a phony bank branch and asking you to come into it?
Yup, and they probably fund R&D at that NEC clone too.
Fake ATM machines have been around for a while, maybe since before spam based phishing.
Just take the red pill.
True geeks have more than one PC and find dual-booting to be annoying.
True Geeks use virtualization.
IANAL but it seems to me this might be an actually legal idea.
1. Two Formats.
2. ???
3. No Profit.
I'm from the tinfoil hat crowd with a distinct paranoia regarding spewing that much personal information all over the internet.
So South Africa passes a law banning Pharmaceutical patents, and all these suits become moot. DONE.
I would agree with you except for one thing - the difficulty of buying certain kinds or brands of computers without getting stuck with the Windows Bundle (TM). I keep a machine with Windows legally installed on it for a variety of reasons - one being is that certain software like tax preparation stuff just isn't available for Linux. But for the other 3 machines I normally have going at any one time I see no need to have Windows running on them - but for the laptops at least I have Windows crammed down my throat.
Copy protect the heck out of it - and make it less usable. That is fine with me. But this business of getting Windows whether or not I want it, and with a non-portable license is despicable.
Or considering how pharmacuticals sued African nations to keep them from making generics and that led to countless AIDS deaths.
That is nonsense. Any nation has a sovereign right to ignore or disregard patents within its borders. African nations lose millions to AIDS because they cannot afford to produce or deliver even generic AIDs medications to their citizens.
United States law in effect says that the ideas of an individual can continue to make money for another party long after the creator dies.
This is not unique to the United States, and in fact most of the world offers at least 50 years past the death of the author.
The other question has to do with the ideas of an individual continuing to make money for a third party after the originator's death. The fact is that copyright of a work is generally transferred from an employee to an employer as part of an agreement to pay the employee a regular salary, a.k.a. 'work for hire'. The value of that copyright, amortized, is the incentive that the employer has to fund the copyrightable work. Decreasing that term directly reduces that incentive. Having the copyright term extend well past the creator's life span removes the issue of the employer having to calculate the employee's expected life span when trying to determine the value of a project and how it should be funded. Removing this extention would create the rather bizarre situation where older fertile creative talents would not be able to find funding for their works.
Now you can debate the ideal length of this term, but having it be 50 years or so is not outlandish.
If there were no way for us to record musical works or create movies, artists would still be able to make money through live performances, because those performances would be naturally scarce, without any government intervention. This is in contrast to the situation we have today, where music and movies are anything but scarce. They are all around us, distributed in a wide variety of forms. Yet the movie and music industry would have the government continue to enforce an arbitrary scarcity that bears no relationship to economic reality.
A k05.html
Movies have no direct live performance equivalents, and with live musical performance the scarcity reduces people's ability to enjoy the performance. One may note that today we have a great abundance of these recorded forms of art, in pretty high quality too. The problem is the question of cause and effect - if we remove copyright much of the economic incentive to produce this abundance would disappear, and we would likely to be facing a great decline in both abundance and quality.
One of the best examples of this is the decline of the Hong Kong film industry.
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Metro/GD28
I have a similar strategy - I built up a stock of spare envelopes by sending back two at a time until I had half a dozen spares.
It seems to me that there are a few flaws yet - for example I have torn off the adhesive strip more than once along the wrong set of perforations. I am not sure why the outer flap has to be the full length of the envelope. Sometimes the little adhesive tab tears the envelope when I open the thing.
I know that at least the Intel 945M chipset supports 4GB of address space. While I haven't found data on what the AMD Turion X2 / S1 is going to support I would expect to see 4GB for that too.
The time of 4GB laptops is coming.