To accomplish this purpose, copyright ownership encourages authors/creators in their efforts by granting them a temporary monopoly, or ownership of exclusive rights for a specified length of time.
And, they can sell those rights, in whole or in part, or just a license to use the work. The monopoly exists for the betterment of copyright holder, not you and not other people.
So, you think that copyright should not be used in the manner that it was orignally intended but rather in the manner you see fit.
Here is the text from the Constitution which provides for the creation of patents and copyrights:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
You will notices it does not say anything about promoting "the use and distribution" of works. It states that, for a limited time, authors and inventors have an exclusive right to their works to do with as they see fit. If they wish to make money on it, or even get rich on it, it is their right to do so. The authors and inventors have sole right and have the ability to sell that right to others. And, if those others who buy the copyrights (publishers, studios, RIAA, etc) want to make money from the work, it is their right.
The intent of the law is to benefit the copyright holder as the copyright holder sees fit. If they want to "promote the use of their works in a more restrictive manner", it is their right to do so. You may not agree with it, but you don't fucking matter because it is not your copyright. Don't like it, don't use their copyrighted work.
"FSF use copyright to achieve things I think are good because they benefit me. Music and Movie cartels use copyright to make a profit and I think that is a bad thing."
There fixed that for you.
By the way, copyright law exists for the benefit of the copyright holder. Its intent and purpose is for the betterment of copyright holder, not you and not other people.
You would ask mercy of them but would show them no mercy. You keep trying to justify you position by stating they should treat you better than you treat them.
You and your ilk continually violate their copyrights, then demand they show you mercy when you are caught. You taunt the giant, knowing its wrath, then cry for help and mercy when it turns it strength on you.
That is not what you have said. You have said that because one has more money or is stronger, one should not be able to defend one's copyright against someone who lass less money or is less powerful.
That is not what you are saying in this case. In this case, you are saying "We should be able to use the copyright laws to protect our copyright. But, people who don't believe as we do should not be able to protect their copyright in the same way". And, that is hypocrisy.
You want the law to only apply to when it benefits you and your position. If it would benefit people who hold a view different from yours, you do not want the law to apply and think it is unfair that they are allowed to use the same laws you are allowed to use.
So, you admit that you believe that the strong should not be able to defend themselves against the weak, simply because they are stronger than their attackers. Nice to know that.
It is hypocritical. It is a case of "Do as we say, not as we do". The law applies to all or none. Either everyone has a right to defend their copyrights or no one does. To say that "we" have the right to defend our copyrights but "they" don't is blatant hypocrisy.
You only think it is not hypocritical because you are a hypocrite.
This case is about whether Cisco violated the General Public License./.ers already have supported a company, Psystar, that violates the license, and thus the copyright, of another company, Apple.
Psystar violated the license and/.ers support them vociferously.
And, I would not doubt for a second that/.ers would support and defend someone who ripped off MS code.
A breathalyzer tests for a specific substance, alcohol, and determines an amount of the substance.
What, exactly, will the "computer breathalyzer" going to test for? File names may not be truly indicative of the content. Will it copy any and all images and movies? If so, then it is not being selective. Is there even a partially reliable algorithm that will allow for the detection of porn, let alone kiddie porn? Will it scan all manner of file for key words?
I don't see how this could work without basically copying everything in the computer and having a human technician sort through everything manually.
Three things: 1) Plain sight rule. If there is something incriminating on the screen, then the evidence is admissible. 2) A warrant can include a search of the computer. 3) If the person is suspected of using the computer to commit a crime, such as luring a child or sending threatening emails as harassment, then the police have probable cause.
I would say that it is a very few who fit your description and many who fit mine.
Is it your contention that the huge resource imbalance makes it OK for an individual to violate the copyright of corporations, or that the huge resource imbalance makes it wrong for corporations to defend their copyrights?
What about the hundreds of other stories about copyright infringement? Or, do you suggest that we should only consider the few stories that don't prove my contention?
Go back and read the stories on copyright. By far, the majority are filled with screeds against copyright and copyright enforcement. Most of comments are of the vein "Copyright is bad because we can't get something for nothing." Check out the stories on binary only drivers, which are binary only because of copyright issues.
No, it is hypocrisy because it is not just the *AA that slashdotters bitch about. The fact is that slashdotters are only against copyright when it is used against them or their pet causes. But, when one of their pet projects use the same laws, then the law is good.
People violate the copyright of corporations, corporations sue the violators, slashdotters bitch about the corporations and get firmly behinds the people and decry copyright and copyright litigation.
Corporation violates the copyright of the FSF, FSF sues corporation, slashdotters bitch about the corporations and get firmly behind the FSF and support copyright and copyright litigation.
If it is the case I think you are referring to, she was not charged with possession of child porn for having nude pictures of herself. She and her boyfriend took pictures of themselves and sent them to each other. Both were charged with possession of child porn for having pictures of the other and both were charged with transmitting child porn for send the images to each other.
But Justice Adams agreed with the magistrate, finding that while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were "markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being", the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.
If cartoons can be considered people, and the laws apply to all people, can cartoon makers be charged with murder for killing off a character? Can Warner Bros. be charged with assault and battery? What about Bugs Bunny or Wile E. Coyote? If one produces a cartoon depicting a rape, can one be charged with facilitation?
Tell you what, don't give your kids their vaccinations, let them get a disease that cripples or kills them, and then talk to us about how much you care.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest you try actually reading the comments. Yes, there are many slashdotters and many of them are hypocrites when it comes to this issue.
From your own post:
And, they can sell those rights, in whole or in part, or just a license to use the work. The monopoly exists for the betterment of copyright holder, not you and not other people.
So, you think that copyright should not be used in the manner that it was orignally intended but rather in the manner you see fit.
Here is the text from the Constitution which provides for the creation of patents and copyrights:
You will notices it does not say anything about promoting "the use and distribution" of works. It states that, for a limited time, authors and inventors have an exclusive right to their works to do with as they see fit. If they wish to make money on it, or even get rich on it, it is their right to do so. The authors and inventors have sole right and have the ability to sell that right to others. And, if those others who buy the copyrights (publishers, studios, RIAA, etc) want to make money from the work, it is their right.
The intent of the law is to benefit the copyright holder as the copyright holder sees fit. If they want to "promote the use of their works in a more restrictive manner", it is their right to do so. You may not agree with it, but you don't fucking matter because it is not your copyright. Don't like it, don't use their copyrighted work.
"FSF use copyright to achieve things I think are good because they benefit me. Music and Movie cartels use copyright to make a profit and I think that is a bad thing."
There fixed that for you.
By the way, copyright law exists for the benefit of the copyright holder. Its intent and purpose is for the betterment of copyright holder, not you and not other people.
You would ask mercy of them but would show them no mercy. You keep trying to justify you position by stating they should treat you better than you treat them.
You and your ilk continually violate their copyrights, then demand they show you mercy when you are caught. You taunt the giant, knowing its wrath, then cry for help and mercy when it turns it strength on you.
Your ilk has the mindset of children.
That is not what you have said. You have said that because one has more money or is stronger, one should not be able to defend one's copyright against someone who lass less money or is less powerful.
That is not what you are saying in this case. In this case, you are saying "We should be able to use the copyright laws to protect our copyright. But, people who don't believe as we do should not be able to protect their copyright in the same way". And, that is hypocrisy.
You want the law to only apply to when it benefits you and your position. If it would benefit people who hold a view different from yours, you do not want the law to apply and think it is unfair that they are allowed to use the same laws you are allowed to use.
No, I am not from Microsoft. I am an Evil Genius(tm). I have proof. I have business cards!
Ah, but by definition, evil people are evil and will create tools to turn off the evil bit.
So, you admit that you believe that the strong should not be able to defend themselves against the weak, simply because they are stronger than their attackers. Nice to know that.
It is hypocritical. It is a case of "Do as we say, not as we do". The law applies to all or none. Either everyone has a right to defend their copyrights or no one does. To say that "we" have the right to defend our copyrights but "they" don't is blatant hypocrisy.
You only think it is not hypocritical because you are a hypocrite.
This case is about whether Cisco violated the General Public License. /.ers already have supported a company, Psystar, that violates the license, and thus the copyright, of another company, Apple.
Psystar violated the license and /.ers support them vociferously.
And, I would not doubt for a second that /.ers would support and defend someone who ripped off MS code.
A breathalyzer tests for a specific substance, alcohol, and determines an amount of the substance.
What, exactly, will the "computer breathalyzer" going to test for? File names may not be truly indicative of the content. Will it copy any and all images and movies? If so, then it is not being selective. Is there even a partially reliable algorithm that will allow for the detection of porn, let alone kiddie porn? Will it scan all manner of file for key words?
I don't see how this could work without basically copying everything in the computer and having a human technician sort through everything manually.
Three things:
1) Plain sight rule. If there is something incriminating on the screen, then the evidence is admissible.
2) A warrant can include a search of the computer.
3) If the person is suspected of using the computer to commit a crime, such as luring a child or sending threatening emails as harassment, then the police have probable cause.
I would say that it is a very few who fit your description and many who fit mine.
Is it your contention that the huge resource imbalance makes it OK for an individual to violate the copyright of corporations, or that the huge resource imbalance makes it wrong for corporations to defend their copyrights?
What about the hundreds of other stories about copyright infringement? Or, do you suggest that we should only consider the few stories that don't prove my contention?
Go back and read the stories on copyright. By far, the majority are filled with screeds against copyright and copyright enforcement. Most of comments are of the vein "Copyright is bad because we can't get something for nothing." Check out the stories on binary only drivers, which are binary only because of copyright issues.
No, it is hypocrisy because it is not just the *AA that slashdotters bitch about. The fact is that slashdotters are only against copyright when it is used against them or their pet causes. But, when one of their pet projects use the same laws, then the law is good.
It is the classic definition of hypocrisy.
It is not a troll, it is the truth. You don't like it because you know it is true.
People violate the copyright of corporations, corporations sue the violators, slashdotters bitch about the corporations and get firmly behinds the people and decry copyright and copyright litigation.
Corporation violates the copyright of the FSF, FSF sues corporation, slashdotters bitch about the corporations and get firmly behind the FSF and support copyright and copyright litigation.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Slashdot.
If it is the case I think you are referring to, she was not charged with possession of child porn for having nude pictures of herself. She and her boyfriend took pictures of themselves and sent them to each other. Both were charged with possession of child porn for having pictures of the other and both were charged with transmitting child porn for send the images to each other.
If cartoons can be considered people, and the laws apply to all people, can cartoon makers be charged with murder for killing off a character? Can Warner Bros. be charged with assault and battery? What about Bugs Bunny or Wile E. Coyote? If one produces a cartoon depicting a rape, can one be charged with facilitation?
This is an incredibly stupid ruling.
Tell you what, don't give your kids their vaccinations, let them get a disease that cripples or kills them, and then talk to us about how much you care.
Your post is inaccurate and shows why middle class parents are to blame.
Oh? Then I guess the poster I was responding to is a real idiot. Now you can go fuck yourself, dipshit.
I just want to know where I can get my very own Scarlett clone. And, can they make me a Hayden Panettiere as well?