No, copyright is a legally granted right. It says so right in the name. Society, of which you are apart, has made a contract with the owner of the copyright to a work. Society has agreed to allow only the copyright owner the right to create copies for a term set by law, so the copyright owner may make money off the work. The copyright owner may be the creator of the work or the person who paid the creator of the work to create the work.
You are complaining about YOUR politicians, who are the ones extending the length of copyright. If you think the system is broken, fix it. But, your belief that the system is broken does not give you the right to violate other people's right.
If I have to perform every time I need a dollar, so does everybody else. No more special treatment.
Ok, I want to see you live up to that statement. Here is what you are going to do. Toss out every single book, tape, DVD, CD, MP3, OGG, etc. that you own. All those things are under the old system where the copyright holders are paid even if they don't perform something new each time.
Now, when you want to hear music you will hire a composer to write it and musicians to perform it.
And, when you want to see a movie, you will hire writers, directors, composers, musicians, actors, electricians, set builders, and everyone else needed as well as pay for the cameras and all other equipment need to create the movie. You will also hire or build a movie theater to watch said movie in with free admission to any who want it.
And, when you want to see a play, you will rent the hall, get a script written, hire all the people needed, pay for all the sets and equipment and utilities.
When you need a book, you will hire someone to write the book for you.
And, of course, everything you do by this method you will then make freely available for merely the cost of duplication. You are not performing or creating anything, so you are not to profit on any of it. You can not spread the cost of paying for the work by charging anyone who wants a copy.
Remember, by what you have said, everyone must now perform every time they need a dollar, including yourself, so the reverse must be true. If one needs a dollar, one must perform a new creative act, so you are not allowed to make a profit off the ownership (which would be granted by copyright) of a work.
Go ahead and try it. Or, just simulate it. Let me know how that works out for you.
BTW, before you start whining, remember, I didn't even bring in to it other physical objects like computers and cell phones, both of which contain copyrighted code. If you wish to whine about the conditions placed above, simply toss out your computer and cell phone as well and make new ones from scratch.
No, she is both creating and distributing an unauthorized copy. While she could legally email it to herself, that is not what she is doing. She is creating an unauthorized copy for distribution and then distributing it to the other person. She said as much.
No, copyright isn't an inalienable right. It is a legally granted right. It is therefore, still a right and only the government granting said right can revoke it. You nor anyone else besides the owner of a copyright, has the power to revoke a copyright.
The rest of your post is now irrelevant because you are reasoning from a fallacy, namely that you somehow have the right to violate other people's legally granted rights.
If you get the work for free from someone else, how does the person who created the work get what he needs? Or, is it fuck the guy that actually did the work because you have a copy and your friend has his copy?
This guy makes his money selling copies of his work. He makes a copy and sells it to your friend. Your friend makes a copy and sells it to you. The person that actually did the work now makes no money off of the copy you have. The money he has made from the existent copies of his work is now half of what it was before your friend made you a copy. Then, you make a copy and give it to someone. Now, his profit is cut to a third.
Why do you deserve it if you can not pay for it? If you were to get a job and do work for someone, you would expect him to pay you right? What would you do if he refused to pay you saying he couldn't afford it?
Basically, that is what you are doing every time you make an unauthorized copy. You are telling the person that did the work that he does not deserve to get paid because you can't afford to pay him.
This website is not even technically illegal. Since the music is never actually uploaded onto the site and is sent via email from one user to another, I'm breaking no law by participating in it.
While the website is not breaking the law, Eleanor is breaking the law when she sends a copy of the sheet music via email. She is making an unauthorized copy, which is a violation of copyright law. There is no fair-use defense for what she is doing.
I set up the computers and provide technical support for a small publishing company... everyting [sic] runs on automatic pilot as far as I'm concerned
The real question is "Would it be quicker and more efficient to put out the paper if they used conventional, proprietary software?"
To be honest, you opinion that it runs on automatic pilot is irrelevant. What matters is what the users think of the software, especially ease of use, and if production would be quicker and easier if they used something else. Remember, they are most-likely using FLOSS because it is free (as in beer) and not because it is the best or easiest to use.
If the name bothered anyone all that much, they'd just use CinePaint instead.
Which is why so many people use Photoshop and CorelPaint as opposed to GIMP. FLOSSies, don't complain about low uptake of FLOSS solutions when FLOSSies will not pay attention to those FLOSSies wish to use FLOSS.
Why aren't newspaper come together and build or enhance an open source software, just for the need of the newspaper industry?
Because, newspapers print newspapers, they don't build or enhance software, open source or not. If they are going to spend money, they may as well go with what is considered the gold standard instead of rolling their own or paying someone to do it for them.
Talk about a crappy analogy. This is not about giving a warning of invasion. Not even close. This is not even about "I am too tired and my butt hurts."
A better analogy would be "You know, we could ride horses to pass the alarm, but we are going to run on foot because horses deserve to be free too."
By far, most people do not see the value in what you term "freedom" because they care more about usability than being able to look at the source code.
Until the FLOSSies get their heads out of their ass and understand that people want things that are easy to use, work well, and don't require a lot of effort to set up or need one to use the command line.
The results of a Google search for "work abroad in China" will return results for "work abroad" "work china" and "abroad china". The 3 million results mean exactly shit because you don't know how many are about working aboard in China.
Neither Verge nor Transitions Abroad seem to have any stories of Americans who have found jobs abroad. In fact, Transitions Abroad seems to be a general information site for working abroad that generates revenue from ads and affiliate programs. Verge seems to be a magazine.
Now, what percentage of people who try to get positions overseas succeed?
I know what you mean. It won't be China or India. What scares me is that we are looking more and more like them with a huge low-paid underclass and a small middle class and tiny rich upper class.
If executive level managers didn't take home half the payroll of their companies, said companies could afford to hire people. As someone else said, Grove took home $100,000,000 in pay one year and he is ONE PERSON. What exactly did he do to earn that much money?
How much money could be made available for paying for on-shore manufacturing if the upper management were paid a reasonable amount? If Grove had been paid $1 million, there would have been $99 million dollars to hire 990 people at $100,000 per year. That is almost 2,000 full time positions (5% of Intel's workforce) at $50,000 per year. You could give 19,800 people a $5,000.00 per year raise.
And, that is just for one person. Throw in the rest of the similarly over-paid executives and managers and think of how easy it would be for Intel to pay to have every one of its employees in the United States.
The problem isn't the government. The problem is literally executive greed.
If past experience with corporations are any indication, doing any and/or all of what you suggest will result in higher executive pay and no more jobs in the United States.
Sorry, but that will not work. First off, it is harder to immigrate to other countries than it is to immigrate to the United States, so Americans will not be going overseas to work.
Second, even if they did, most Americans are not willing to work for 16 hours a day for $2.00 per hour and live in a company sponsored dorm as happens in China, etc.
Third, those high-wage jobs require high cost schooling that is getting harder to get. Also, there will not be enough of those jobs to go around. Computer programming used to be an under-staffed, high-wage career. Now, it is quickly being moved off-shore. Manufacturing jobs used to be good wage earning jobs. Now, most manufacturing has been off-shored. Even telephone jobs, which were decent paying service sector jobs have been moved off-shore. What you end up with is a tiny group of very rich people, a small group of middle-upper and upper class people with those high-age jobs you talk about, and a whole host of people working as burger flippers, Walmart stockers, and various other low-wage service and retail sector jobs.
If you off-shore all the middle-wage jobs, you end up with huge numbers of low wage jobs, few high paying jobs, low tax income for the government, high tax outlays for all the social services need by those low wage families, and a huge deficit. This will lead to a bankrupt government and hyperinflation.
I don't know how you were voted interesting when the term "trade war" has been around a very long time and is a political and economics term.
It is not that "every american businessman inevitably refers to business process in terms of war." Rather, many businessmen of all countries use the same terminology and you are picking on American businessmen because you are most-likely anti-American.
Ah, so you are arguing that because a National ID, which already exists in two different forms, will lead to oppression simply because, given the right conditions, it might be used for that.
Using your own logic, I will now demonstrate that you should be put in prison. You are male and on the internet, you might make contact with a child, convince said child to meet you, then rape and murder the child so you should be put in prison to protect the children.
Suspending one's card? No, dumbass, it is an ID card, not a bank card. One can not suspend an ID card. Again, you are going from and ID card to something that controls access to one's money. Stop trying to make the ID card into something it is not. And, stop using fallacies to argue your point. Doing so just makes you look like an idiot.
You anecdote, while amusing, is just that, an anecdote. An anecdote is not scientific and you have not scientifically demonstrated anything.
You reference an Eugenicist, someone that believed in and supported eugenics, long discredited the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, including preventing "defective" people from breeding, not a true scientist.
The anecdote is based on a false assumption: people are stupid and don't know anything about farm animals.
As it is a county fair in the mid 1800s, it is not surprising that many of the guesses would be close and the average of those guesses would be quite close unless the animal in question was remarkably light or heavy for its size. That the average was closer to the true weight is simply coincidence, unless the result can repeatedly and reliably duplicated.
You are confusing statistics with wisdom.
The problem comes in when the crowd is allowed to decide something as though the crowd was a wise being instead of the what it really is: a crowd of selfish animals who will use their anonymity to do things they would never do on their own.
So, you went from having an ID number to the government running everyone's life by remote control. It is amazing how people like you can't defend your original statements so you change the subject to something completely outrageous.
Now please explain why having a national ID number is a bad thing or shut the fuck up.
Slashdot Mirror
No, copyright is a legally granted right. It says so right in the name. Society, of which you are apart, has made a contract with the owner of the copyright to a work. Society has agreed to allow only the copyright owner the right to create copies for a term set by law, so the copyright owner may make money off the work. The copyright owner may be the creator of the work or the person who paid the creator of the work to create the work.
You are complaining about YOUR politicians, who are the ones extending the length of copyright. If you think the system is broken, fix it. But, your belief that the system is broken does not give you the right to violate other people's right.
Ok, I want to see you live up to that statement. Here is what you are going to do. Toss out every single book, tape, DVD, CD, MP3, OGG, etc. that you own. All those things are under the old system where the copyright holders are paid even if they don't perform something new each time.
Now, when you want to hear music you will hire a composer to write it and musicians to perform it.
And, when you want to see a movie, you will hire writers, directors, composers, musicians, actors, electricians, set builders, and everyone else needed as well as pay for the cameras and all other equipment need to create the movie. You will also hire or build a movie theater to watch said movie in with free admission to any who want it.
And, when you want to see a play, you will rent the hall, get a script written, hire all the people needed, pay for all the sets and equipment and utilities.
When you need a book, you will hire someone to write the book for you.
And, of course, everything you do by this method you will then make freely available for merely the cost of duplication. You are not performing or creating anything, so you are not to profit on any of it. You can not spread the cost of paying for the work by charging anyone who wants a copy.
Remember, by what you have said, everyone must now perform every time they need a dollar, including yourself, so the reverse must be true. If one needs a dollar, one must perform a new creative act, so you are not allowed to make a profit off the ownership (which would be granted by copyright) of a work.
Go ahead and try it. Or, just simulate it. Let me know how that works out for you.
BTW, before you start whining, remember, I didn't even bring in to it other physical objects like computers and cell phones, both of which contain copyrighted code. If you wish to whine about the conditions placed above, simply toss out your computer and cell phone as well and make new ones from scratch.
No, she is both creating and distributing an unauthorized copy. While she could legally email it to herself, that is not what she is doing. She is creating an unauthorized copy for distribution and then distributing it to the other person. She said as much.
Sebastian,
No, copyright isn't an inalienable right. It is a legally granted right. It is therefore, still a right and only the government granting said right can revoke it. You nor anyone else besides the owner of a copyright, has the power to revoke a copyright.
The rest of your post is now irrelevant because you are reasoning from a fallacy, namely that you somehow have the right to violate other people's legally granted rights.
If you get the work for free from someone else, how does the person who created the work get what he needs? Or, is it fuck the guy that actually did the work because you have a copy and your friend has his copy?
This guy makes his money selling copies of his work. He makes a copy and sells it to your friend. Your friend makes a copy and sells it to you. The person that actually did the work now makes no money off of the copy you have. The money he has made from the existent copies of his work is now half of what it was before your friend made you a copy. Then, you make a copy and give it to someone. Now, his profit is cut to a third.
Get it now?
No, you are wrong, that is exactly what it means. That or you are just an evil, selfish, sadistic asshole.
You are like a person who says "Don't hate the player, hate the game". Well, skippy, the game doesn't exist without the players.
Why do you deserve it if you can not pay for it? If you were to get a job and do work for someone, you would expect him to pay you right? What would you do if he refused to pay you saying he couldn't afford it?
Basically, that is what you are doing every time you make an unauthorized copy. You are telling the person that did the work that he does not deserve to get paid because you can't afford to pay him.
While the website is not breaking the law, Eleanor is breaking the law when she sends a copy of the sheet music via email. She is making an unauthorized copy, which is a violation of copyright law. There is no fair-use defense for what she is doing.
The real question is "Would it be quicker and more efficient to put out the paper if they used conventional, proprietary software?"
To be honest, you opinion that it runs on automatic pilot is irrelevant. What matters is what the users think of the software, especially ease of use, and if production would be quicker and easier if they used something else. Remember, they are most-likely using FLOSS because it is free (as in beer) and not because it is the best or easiest to use.
Which is why so many people use Photoshop and CorelPaint as opposed to GIMP. FLOSSies, don't complain about low uptake of FLOSS solutions when FLOSSies will not pay attention to those FLOSSies wish to use FLOSS.
Because, newspapers print newspapers, they don't build or enhance software, open source or not. If they are going to spend money, they may as well go with what is considered the gold standard instead of rolling their own or paying someone to do it for them.
Talk about a crappy analogy. This is not about giving a warning of invasion. Not even close. This is not even about "I am too tired and my butt hurts."
A better analogy would be "You know, we could ride horses to pass the alarm, but we are going to run on foot because horses deserve to be free too."
By far, most people do not see the value in what you term "freedom" because they care more about usability than being able to look at the source code.
Until the FLOSSies get their heads out of their ass and understand that people want things that are easy to use, work well, and don't require a lot of effort to set up or need one to use the command line.
The results of a Google search for "work abroad in China" will return results for "work abroad" "work china" and "abroad china". The 3 million results mean exactly shit because you don't know how many are about working aboard in China.
Neither Verge nor Transitions Abroad seem to have any stories of Americans who have found jobs abroad. In fact, Transitions Abroad seems to be a general information site for working abroad that generates revenue from ads and affiliate programs. Verge seems to be a magazine.
Now, what percentage of people who try to get positions overseas succeed?
As applied and discussed here on slashdot, it is junk science.
I know what you mean. It won't be China or India. What scares me is that we are looking more and more like them with a huge low-paid underclass and a small middle class and tiny rich upper class.
And, there is where you show your bias and ignorance of most Americans.
The effect is the same, but it may be more politically palatable.
We agree on some thing. Personally, I see the bible and religion not as an "opiate for the masses" but rather as a leash and collar to control them.
If executive level managers didn't take home half the payroll of their companies, said companies could afford to hire people. As someone else said, Grove took home $100,000,000 in pay one year and he is ONE PERSON. What exactly did he do to earn that much money?
How much money could be made available for paying for on-shore manufacturing if the upper management were paid a reasonable amount? If Grove had been paid $1 million, there would have been $99 million dollars to hire 990 people at $100,000 per year. That is almost 2,000 full time positions (5% of Intel's workforce) at $50,000 per year. You could give 19,800 people a $5,000.00 per year raise.
And, that is just for one person. Throw in the rest of the similarly over-paid executives and managers and think of how easy it would be for Intel to pay to have every one of its employees in the United States.
The problem isn't the government. The problem is literally executive greed.
If past experience with corporations are any indication, doing any and/or all of what you suggest will result in higher executive pay and no more jobs in the United States.
Sorry, but that will not work.
First off, it is harder to immigrate to other countries than it is to immigrate to the United States, so Americans will not be going overseas to work.
Second, even if they did, most Americans are not willing to work for 16 hours a day for $2.00 per hour and live in a company sponsored dorm as happens in China, etc.
Third, those high-wage jobs require high cost schooling that is getting harder to get. Also, there will not be enough of those jobs to go around. Computer programming used to be an under-staffed, high-wage career. Now, it is quickly being moved off-shore. Manufacturing jobs used to be good wage earning jobs. Now, most manufacturing has been off-shored. Even telephone jobs, which were decent paying service sector jobs have been moved off-shore. What you end up with is a tiny group of very rich people, a small group of middle-upper and upper class people with those high-age jobs you talk about, and a whole host of people working as burger flippers, Walmart stockers, and various other low-wage service and retail sector jobs.
If you off-shore all the middle-wage jobs, you end up with huge numbers of low wage jobs, few high paying jobs, low tax income for the government, high tax outlays for all the social services need by those low wage families, and a huge deficit. This will lead to a bankrupt government and hyperinflation.
I don't know how you were voted interesting when the term "trade war" has been around a very long time and is a political and economics term.
It is not that "every american businessman inevitably refers to business process in terms of war." Rather, many businessmen of all countries use the same terminology and you are picking on American businessmen because you are most-likely anti-American.
Ah, so you are arguing that because a National ID, which already exists in two different forms, will lead to oppression simply because, given the right conditions, it might be used for that.
Using your own logic, I will now demonstrate that you should be put in prison. You are male and on the internet, you might make contact with a child, convince said child to meet you, then rape and murder the child so you should be put in prison to protect the children.
Suspending one's card? No, dumbass, it is an ID card, not a bank card. One can not suspend an ID card. Again, you are going from and ID card to something that controls access to one's money. Stop trying to make the ID card into something it is not. And, stop using fallacies to argue your point. Doing so just makes you look like an idiot.
You anecdote, while amusing, is just that, an anecdote. An anecdote is not scientific and you have not scientifically demonstrated anything.
You reference an Eugenicist, someone that believed in and supported eugenics, long discredited the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, including preventing "defective" people from breeding, not a true scientist.
The anecdote is based on a false assumption: people are stupid and don't know anything about farm animals.
As it is a county fair in the mid 1800s, it is not surprising that many of the guesses would be close and the average of those guesses would be quite close unless the animal in question was remarkably light or heavy for its size. That the average was closer to the true weight is simply coincidence, unless the result can repeatedly and reliably duplicated.
You are confusing statistics with wisdom.
The problem comes in when the crowd is allowed to decide something as though the crowd was a wise being instead of the what it really is: a crowd of selfish animals who will use their anonymity to do things they would never do on their own.
In other words, you are a bigot because of your false religious belief and wish to codify those believes into law to oppress others.
And, until marriage laws were passed stating that marriage was between a man and a woman, marriage was not defined that way, bigot.
You are anti-American and should be treated as such, you theocratic bigot.
So, you went from having an ID number to the government running everyone's life by remote control. It is amazing how people like you can't defend your original statements so you change the subject to something completely outrageous.
Now please explain why having a national ID number is a bad thing or shut the fuck up.
Hey, look, the christians are persecuting me. Fucking hypocrites.