In reality, no it is not correct. But, just because they do something wrong, you are not granted a license to do something wrong to them. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Because it is still immoral and illegal. Two wrongs do not make a right, remember?
My best guess is you have no morals or ethics and live a bit like Lindsay Lohan "If I don't get caught or punished, then it isn't wrong".You are no better than the weasels in Hollywood.
It is not about patents or copyrights. It is about the trademark on the term "lightsaber", and that is what the C&D says: Call it something else or stop making it.
You act like people are getting rich writing apps for the iPhone and Android, but everything I have read says people are lucky to break even writing for either one or both.
but for sheer market penetration & visibility, iPhone/Android & apps are way beyond what people do with Desktops now
And, the ROI for iPhone and Android is incredibly small because people don't want to pay anything for the apps. In fact most, if not all, of the apps in both stores are less than $10.00.
This article takes MS failing with the Kin and extrapolates it to "Microsoft is going down the shitter because no one wants to develop for it."
I don't see how they got from one to the other. I have a very strong gut feeling that this is story has been spun so far that it doesn't represent reality.
Come back and talk to me when you have a more definitive study. Something statistically significant that doesn't focus on one species in one location. Oh, and let's see the methodology used to make sure it is actually a sound experiment because an American amateur scientist is did this one and I really don't trust most of my fellow Americans to do amateur science correctly.
The safety zone has been put in place to protect members of the response effort, the installation and maintenance of oil containment boom, the operation of response equipment and protection of the environment by limiting access to and through deployed protective boom.
FTFA at NewsBusters.org:
I have put out a written directive -- and I can provide it for the record -- that says the media will have uninhibited access anywhere we're doing operations, except for two things, if it's a security or a safety problem.... Well, it's not unusual at all for the Coast Guard to establish either safety or security zones around any number of facilities or activities for public safety or for the safety of the equipment itself. We would do this for marine events, fireworks demonstrations, cruise ships going in and out of port.
This is not about reporters and photographers. This about preventing accidents. It sounds to me like Cooper and company are pissed that they are not getting special treatment and are required seek permission and access like everyone else.
I notice that there was no mention of CNN or any other news organization applying for access to an area, let alone being denied access. Did they bother to apply, or did they just start whining that they had to follow some rules to help ensure the safety and security of everyone involved?
Sounds to me like Cooper et al. are whining because some safety rules have been set up that inconvenience them instead of inconveniencing or endangering those who are actually doing the clean up and the equipment being used.
It isn't immoral because it is illegal. It is illegal because it is immoral. It is immoral because you are getting something of value without compensating the person who created said thing.
You want to go by the "morals" of 2500 years ago?
2500 years ago it was considered not only legal, moral, and socially acceptable but also expected that a man would have sex with young boys. The boys didn't really have a choice in the matter because it was expected of them as well.
2500 years ago, it was moral to treat women like chattel, kill homosexuals*, engage in slavery, torture one's enemies, rape the women of one's enemies, and to engage in genocide.
You may want to rethink the time period you choose for your moral exemplar.
Libraries buy a copy of the sheet music at a higher price to get the right to lend out the sheet music. The library does not make and give out copies of the sheet music not expecting said copies to be returned.
What happens on the internet, especially in the example given by Eleanor, is one person buys a copy of the sheet music for private use at the private use rate and then creates and distributes copies which are not expected to return.
Now if I write a song because I just want to express my creativity, I'm not going to expect payment up front. I'm writing it for myself.
That is you, but you are not making your living writing songs.
If the intent is for me to monetize it, the best I can hope for is that people appreciate the song enough to think it is worth paying for. I'm not going to have the state (or anyone else) strong-arm people into paying for it.
A)That is you and what you would do. However, the government has already granted a legal right to control the copying and distribution of a work. If you do not wish to, as you put it, strong-arm people into paying for it, you can put your song into the public domain. However, why should someone who makes their living writing songs be forced to do what you would do as someone who does not?
Copyright exists to encourage existence of professional artists, musicians, and authors by allowing them to make a living at their work.
You make the argument that the creative act is its own reward and no other reward is due as though creators have no need of food or shelter.
Or, do you believe that creating art should be relegated to avocation?
That is not what you stated. You stated that the legally granted right is not inherent nor inalienable. That is irrelevant because the legally granted right is still a right and is still granted.
As to your question of whether the legally granted right should be legally granted, please explain in detail why it should not be a legally granted right including references and examples.
As to your statement
If the law were changed, then the problem is fixed.
Speeding is a problem. If the law were changed, then the problem would be fixed. Theft is a problem. If the law were changed, then the problem is fixed. Murder is a problem. If the law were changed, then the problem is fixed. Child rape is a problem. If the law were changed so that raping a child were not illegal, then the problem is fixed.
You are not fixing the problem, you are just making the problem legal.
And the arguments were not about the legality, but the morality, which means your argument is the one that's irrelevant, not mine.
If you wish to go that route, very well. Please explain how copyright is immoral including references and examples.
Composers generally created works for hire under the patronage system. Few people could read, let alone play the music of the works. And, making copies of works at that time was difficult and expensive and thus not practical.
In essence, in J.S. Bach's time, creating a copy of sheet music was akin to photocopying an entire 1000 page novel. As it had to be done and double checked by hand, it might actually be easier to photocopy said novel than to create 50 copies of a symphony in Bach's time.
But, ITFA she states that she is making the copy for distribution AND is distributing it. Specifically, she is sending the copy as an email attachment to another person. As soon as she hits send, she is violating the law. That is point I am working from.
You are committing a false dichotomy. It is not a choice solely between supporting the system and violating the rules of the system. There is a third choice: fix the system.
The fact that "the system" is broken is not justification for violating rules of "the system".
As members of a democratic republic, it is our responsibility to fix the system because it is our system and we put it in place. We elect the those that ultimately control the system.
If one feels that "the system" is broken, it is one's responsibility and duty to work to fix the system, not to violate the rules of the system and then whine when "the system" stomps on one.
Oh, you think he is using a red herring? Because, this is not about whether copyright is an inalienable right. Rather, the right is already legally given. Unless the law that grants said legal right is repealed, it exists.
What you have said in your post is a non-argument. It has nothing to do with the discussion at had, namely whether one has a right to violate the legally granted rights of another.
Whether copyright as a legally granted right is inherent or inalienable or not is irrelevant because it is still a right.
Remember, voting is a legally granted right, and to stop another from voting is a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. One is not under any obligation to prove someone else's claim.
Remember that the next time someone breaks the law and hurts you or someone you care about, assuming you care about anyone.
Almost, but you left out the part where you provide a link to a reputable source showing evidence of your claim.
In reality, no it is not correct. But, just because they do something wrong, you are not granted a license to do something wrong to them. Two wrongs do not make a right.
No, unless you have no ethics or morals.
In other words, it is still wrong and if you do it you are exactly like those weasels you claim to hate and whom you steal from.
Because it is still immoral and illegal. Two wrongs do not make a right, remember?
My best guess is you have no morals or ethics and live a bit like Lindsay Lohan "If I don't get caught or punished, then it isn't wrong".You are no better than the weasels in Hollywood.
It is not about patents or copyrights. It is about the trademark on the term "lightsaber", and that is what the C&D says: Call it something else or stop making it.
This is a trademark issue with the name "lightsaber". It is not a copyright issue at all.
You act like people are getting rich writing apps for the iPhone and Android, but everything I have read says people are lucky to break even writing for either one or both.
And, the ROI for iPhone and Android is incredibly small because people don't want to pay anything for the apps. In fact most, if not all, of the apps in both stores are less than $10.00.
This article takes MS failing with the Kin and extrapolates it to "Microsoft is going down the shitter because no one wants to develop for it."
I don't see how they got from one to the other. I have a very strong gut feeling that this is story has been spun so far that it doesn't represent reality.
Come back and talk to me when you have a more definitive study. Something statistically significant that doesn't focus on one species in one location. Oh, and let's see the methodology used to make sure it is actually a sound experiment because an American amateur scientist is did this one and I really don't trust most of my fellow Americans to do amateur science correctly.
They aren't and if you had read the fucking press release from the Coast Guard you would know that.
. How about the privacy of the workers? How about because the reporters would be in the way?
From the actual release:
FTFA at NewsBusters.org:
This is not about reporters and photographers. This about preventing accidents. It sounds to me like Cooper and company are pissed that they are not getting special treatment and are required seek permission and access like everyone else.
I notice that there was no mention of CNN or any other news organization applying for access to an area, let alone being denied access. Did they bother to apply, or did they just start whining that they had to follow some rules to help ensure the safety and security of everyone involved?
Sounds to me like Cooper et al. are whining because some safety rules have been set up that inconvenience them instead of inconveniencing or endangering those who are actually doing the clean up and the equipment being used.
It isn't immoral because it is illegal. It is illegal because it is immoral.
It is immoral because you are getting something of value without compensating the person who created said thing.
You want to go by the "morals" of 2500 years ago?
2500 years ago it was considered not only legal, moral, and socially acceptable but also expected that a man would have sex with young boys. The boys didn't really have a choice in the matter because it was expected of them as well.
2500 years ago, it was moral to treat women like chattel, kill homosexuals*, engage in slavery, torture one's enemies, rape the women of one's enemies, and to engage in genocide.
You may want to rethink the time period you choose for your moral exemplar.
So, I take it that you have gone to your boss and told him "I only need to make X dollars to make working here worth my time, so only pay me that."
Libraries buy a copy of the sheet music at a higher price to get the right to lend out the sheet music. The library does not make and give out copies of the sheet music not expecting said copies to be returned.
What happens on the internet, especially in the example given by Eleanor, is one person buys a copy of the sheet music for private use at the private use rate and then creates and distributes copies which are not expected to return.
You are comparing apples to bananas.
That is you, but you are not making your living writing songs.
A)That is you and what you would do. However, the government has already granted a legal right to control the copying and distribution of a work. If you do not wish to, as you put it, strong-arm people into paying for it, you can put your song into the public domain. However, why should someone who makes their living writing songs be forced to do what you would do as someone who does not?
Copyright exists to encourage existence of professional artists, musicians, and authors by allowing them to make a living at their work.
You make the argument that the creative act is its own reward and no other reward is due as though creators have no need of food or shelter.
Or, do you believe that creating art should be relegated to avocation?
That is not what you stated. You stated that the legally granted right is not inherent nor inalienable. That is irrelevant because the legally granted right is still a right and is still granted.
As to your question of whether the legally granted right should be legally granted, please explain in detail why it should not be a legally granted right including references and examples.
As to your statement
Speeding is a problem. If the law were changed, then the problem would be fixed.
Theft is a problem. If the law were changed, then the problem is fixed.
Murder is a problem. If the law were changed, then the problem is fixed.
Child rape is a problem. If the law were changed so that raping a child were not illegal, then the problem is fixed.
You are not fixing the problem, you are just making the problem legal.
If you wish to go that route, very well. Please explain how copyright is immoral including references and examples.
Composers generally created works for hire under the patronage system. Few people could read, let alone play the music of the works. And, making copies of works at that time was difficult and expensive and thus not practical.
In essence, in J.S. Bach's time, creating a copy of sheet music was akin to photocopying an entire 1000 page novel. As it had to be done and double checked by hand, it might actually be easier to photocopy said novel than to create 50 copies of a symphony in Bach's time.
But, ITFA she states that she is making the copy for distribution AND is distributing it. Specifically, she is sending the copy as an email attachment to another person. As soon as she hits send, she is violating the law. That is point I am working from.
You are committing a false dichotomy. It is not a choice solely between supporting the system and violating the rules of the system. There is a third choice: fix the system.
The fact that "the system" is broken is not justification for violating rules of "the system".
As members of a democratic republic, it is our responsibility to fix the system because it is our system and we put it in place. We elect the those that ultimately control the system.
If one feels that "the system" is broken, it is one's responsibility and duty to work to fix the system, not to violate the rules of the system and then whine when "the system" stomps on one.
Explain in detail how copyright is immoral, including references and examples.
Otherwise, your post is irrelevant.
Oh, you think he is using a red herring? Because, this is not about whether copyright is an inalienable right. Rather, the right is already legally given. Unless the law that grants said legal right is repealed, it exists.
What you have said in your post is a non-argument. It has nothing to do with the discussion at had, namely whether one has a right to violate the legally granted rights of another.
Whether copyright as a legally granted right is inherent or inalienable or not is irrelevant because it is still a right.
Remember, voting is a legally granted right, and to stop another from voting is a crime.