Property values went up because banks were willing to sell it to people with no money. As soon as it became obvious that no one actually had any money, the whole thing came tumbling down and every single one of us tax payers was suddenly on the hook to prop up these shit-headed banks that knew they were artificially inflating prices in order to sell more debt to the Public.
Perhaps that's why Apple only imposes a technological barrier, and not a legal one.
Apple wrote the software that is pre-loaded onto every single on of their devices. To claim they have no authority to exclude certain features is ludicrous.
Apple created, owns and operates the ITMS. To claim they have no authority over what is placed on their app store is ridiculous.
If you want to control the software of your Apple-badged device, put your own software on it.
No one can explain it to you because you are 100% correct. Current copyright law is based purely on greed. The desire or incentive to create new works has no bearing on the current law in any way, shape or form.
You are correct that 20 years is somewhat arbitrary (though that's the same or close to the same length as patents), but you missed a crucial point: 50 years now is AFTER the creator has died. It is completely impossible to claim that the current term length is to encourage the creation of new works. Unless there are a lot more zombies out there creating art than I would have believed.
And that is why current copyright law is immoral and it is only immoral people who follow such laws.
If you have no understanding of contracts, I'd say yes, you don't deserve to be paid at all. But that's because you are too stupid to live.
Is it really that hard to understand that you don't work anywhere, for someone else, without FIRST agreeing on compensation? That agreement is a contract, even if it's only verbal (mowing the lawn or similar).
Same for me, but I use ITMS. I only buy iTunes+ tracks (the non-DRM version). I'd buy from Amazon too, if they ever have something that ITMS does not, but since I own an iPod Touch, ITMS is a natural first choice.
Not only are you wrong, but you are stupid as well.
Let us assume that that your basic premise is correct; namely, that it is the same subset of slashdot posters who justify copyright infringement and who are pro-OSS.
There are two reasons to support copyright infringement. One, because you like getting stuff at the absolute lowest cost, even if it requires ignoring a law you don't agree with anyway, or two) because you feel that on principle information should not be restricted.
Let us look at OSS. The two reasons to like OSS are one) because you like getting stuff for free, and two) because you feel, on principle, that one's ability to obtain and use a piece of software should not be restricted in any way.
Given that the two* reasons to support copyright infringement and OSS are essentially the same, it is obvious that it is entirely possible to be supportive of both without being at all inconsistent.
That you do not see this demonstrates your inability to reason.
* There may be more than two reasons for each, but it is enough to show that both may share a common rational.
Go ahead and sneak into a theater and watch the movie. See if you get charged for copyright infringement. Wait, what was that? Oh right. That phrase won't be mentioned by anyone involved. Why is that? Because it has no fucking bearing on your actions or any of the laws involved, you utter moron.
Why is it that the idiots arguing for intellectual slavery cannot understand that there is a difference between real, physical property and that there is a difference when a contractual agreement is in place? If I build a theater, that building is mine. It is private property and I have both a legal and moral right to grant access as I see fit. If I choose to charge for access and you sneak in, you are trespassing. You are not violating copyright.
Similarly, if I form an agreement with someone to pay or be paid for a work he has produced or that I will produce for him, the obligation to pay is based on contract law and copyright has nothing to do with it. In fact, copyright law does not speak about compensation at all. If someone creates a product which I have not asked for and makes it publicly accessible (statue in the park for example), I am under no obligation to pay him to look at it or even to make a scale model replica for myself. On the other hand, whoever commissioned the statue would have been obligated to pay for it, should the agreement have included compensation.
Given the stated purpose of copyright in the US Constitution, it is quite clear that corporations which have lobbied for ever-increasing copyright terms have "stolen" from all of us who are citizens of the US.
I cannot possibly consider it immoral to steal back from them what they have actually stolen from us first.
By your reasoning, anything that is abundant and can be reproduced at zero cost can be taken from its producer without compensation.
If a reproduction is made and kept by the person making the reproduction, nothing has been taken from the holder of the original (which may itself be a copy). Therefore, the lack of compensation is completely irrelevant, for there is nothing to compensate for.
Economically speaking, the only value is in making the object available for reproduction. This may indeed be charged for, and it often is. There are many ways one can pay for the access needed to make a copy. Some sites charge for downloads. Bittorrent charges by requiring one to offer his copy up for copying by others. Many people choose not to charge for this service, and that's alright too.
You make it sound like a bad thing if no movies are produced. If your scenario comes to pass, who fucking cares? What kind of idiot makes an argument like that to begin with? In your world the automobile would have been banned solely to keep the buggy whip manufacturers in business.
That's because the line going to your house from the Telco is unique; it only goes to one place. It's the same reason you can add a jack for POTS and plug in any old phone and expect it to work.
At one time, the only way to get these works was through purchasing a legitimate copy because copying/recording equipment was too expensive for the listener to acquire or operate.
Then came cassettes and cassette recorders and suddenly people had a way to copy cheaply and easily. And they did it.
And then came CDs, and once again it was expensive to copy. And then came the CD/RW and cheap media, and suddenly people were copying.
Today we have digitally recorded music and the internet. It's once again easy to copy. In fact, it's getting to the point that for many people it's far far easier to copy than to purchase a physical copy.
It is a simply fact that the easier it is to produce and the easier it is to acquire, the less value people place on an object.
People are acquiring copies, not originals, when they download. These copies cost fractions of a cent to produce and nothing more than a few keyboard taps or mouse clicks to acquire. It is only common sense that the value placed on these copies is approaching zero.
This is a cycle that has existed through out history for all types of products. There is nothing special about art that places it outside these simple rules.
Please go starve yourself to death while waiting for your entitlement check. You are arguing with no one but yourself over a point no one disagrees with.
If you get paid for what you do, go ahead and fucking do it, if that's what you want. No one is arguing with you on that, you stupid shit.
You have implied in most of your posts that someone who does this is entitled to be paid, because in the past and present artists have made a living this way. Those arguing with you are arguing against this point. If in the future no one values a studio-camper who sings into a mic, then those people deserve to starve if they are unwilling to do other work to earn a living.
If an album you produce is sold by you, you should get the money. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. What is at issue is the sense of entitlement. The idea that just because you produce others should pay is simply wrong. The exchange of money is based on the idea that something of value is being exchanged. If society does not value your production, you should not expect to be paid for it.
So don't sign with a label. Oh gee that was so hard it took me a whole 3 microseconds to come up with!
If you feel entitled, you deserve to die for lack of food and shelter. There has never been, before copyright, the idea that someone should be paid for work already completed and paid for.
Slashdot Mirror
Property values went up because banks were willing to sell it to people with no money. As soon as it became obvious that no one actually had any money, the whole thing came tumbling down and every single one of us tax payers was suddenly on the hook to prop up these shit-headed banks that knew they were artificially inflating prices in order to sell more debt to the Public.
So go ahead and run what you want on the damn phone. No one is going to stop you, so stop feeling sorry for yourself and just go away.
I have an iPod Touch and I have no problem using Apple's tools to load apps without going through the App Store.
Perhaps that's why Apple only imposes a technological barrier, and not a legal one.
Apple wrote the software that is pre-loaded onto every single on of their devices. To claim they have no authority to exclude certain features is ludicrous.
Apple created, owns and operates the ITMS. To claim they have no authority over what is placed on their app store is ridiculous.
If you want to control the software of your Apple-badged device, put your own software on it.
Who defines benevolent? In most instances, a court case is deciding between two parties. Benevolence is relative.
No one can explain it to you because you are 100% correct. Current copyright law is based purely on greed. The desire or incentive to create new works has no bearing on the current law in any way, shape or form.
You are correct that 20 years is somewhat arbitrary (though that's the same or close to the same length as patents), but you missed a crucial point: 50 years now is AFTER the creator has died. It is completely impossible to claim that the current term length is to encourage the creation of new works. Unless there are a lot more zombies out there creating art than I would have believed.
And that is why current copyright law is immoral and it is only immoral people who follow such laws.
If you have no understanding of contracts, I'd say yes, you don't deserve to be paid at all. But that's because you are too stupid to live.
Is it really that hard to understand that you don't work anywhere, for someone else, without FIRST agreeing on compensation? That agreement is a contract, even if it's only verbal (mowing the lawn or similar).
Same for me, but I use ITMS. I only buy iTunes+ tracks (the non-DRM version). I'd buy from Amazon too, if they ever have something that ITMS does not, but since I own an iPod Touch, ITMS is a natural first choice.
Not only are you wrong, but you are stupid as well.
Let us assume that that your basic premise is correct; namely, that it is the same subset of slashdot posters who justify copyright infringement and who are pro-OSS.
There are two reasons to support copyright infringement. One, because you like getting stuff at the absolute lowest cost, even if it requires ignoring a law you don't agree with anyway, or two) because you feel that on principle information should not be restricted.
Let us look at OSS. The two reasons to like OSS are one) because you like getting stuff for free, and two) because you feel, on principle, that one's ability to obtain and use a piece of software should not be restricted in any way.
Given that the two* reasons to support copyright infringement and OSS are essentially the same, it is obvious that it is entirely possible to be supportive of both without being at all inconsistent.
That you do not see this demonstrates your inability to reason.
* There may be more than two reasons for each, but it is enough to show that both may share a common rational.
One day you will understand the difference between what people choose to do and what people feel they must do.
On that day you will die as your brain shuts down from the overload. I truly hope this day comes soon.
Go ahead and sneak into a theater and watch the movie. See if you get charged for copyright infringement. Wait, what was that? Oh right. That phrase won't be mentioned by anyone involved. Why is that? Because it has no fucking bearing on your actions or any of the laws involved, you utter moron.
Why is it that the idiots arguing for intellectual slavery cannot understand that there is a difference between real, physical property and that there is a difference when a contractual agreement is in place? If I build a theater, that building is mine. It is private property and I have both a legal and moral right to grant access as I see fit. If I choose to charge for access and you sneak in, you are trespassing. You are not violating copyright.
Similarly, if I form an agreement with someone to pay or be paid for a work he has produced or that I will produce for him, the obligation to pay is based on contract law and copyright has nothing to do with it. In fact, copyright law does not speak about compensation at all. If someone creates a product which I have not asked for and makes it publicly accessible (statue in the park for example), I am under no obligation to pay him to look at it or even to make a scale model replica for myself. On the other hand, whoever commissioned the statue would have been obligated to pay for it, should the agreement have included compensation.
Given the stated purpose of copyright in the US Constitution, it is quite clear that corporations which have lobbied for ever-increasing copyright terms have "stolen" from all of us who are citizens of the US.
I cannot possibly consider it immoral to steal back from them what they have actually stolen from us first.
By your reasoning, anything that is abundant and can be reproduced at zero cost can be taken from its producer without compensation.
If a reproduction is made and kept by the person making the reproduction, nothing has been taken from the holder of the original (which may itself be a copy). Therefore, the lack of compensation is completely irrelevant, for there is nothing to compensate for.
Economically speaking, the only value is in making the object available for reproduction. This may indeed be charged for, and it often is. There are many ways one can pay for the access needed to make a copy. Some sites charge for downloads. Bittorrent charges by requiring one to offer his copy up for copying by others. Many people choose not to charge for this service, and that's alright too.
You make it sound like a bad thing if no movies are produced. If your scenario comes to pass, who fucking cares? What kind of idiot makes an argument like that to begin with? In your world the automobile would have been banned solely to keep the buggy whip manufacturers in business.
Ford wasn't selling the factory.
Are you a complete and utter piece of shit moron in real life, or do you just play one on slashdot?
You are a complete idiot.
Please kill yourself. You're arguing about the how instead of the what just to be a fucking piece of shit asshole. We don't need people like you.
That's because the line going to your house from the Telco is unique; it only goes to one place. It's the same reason you can add a jack for POTS and plug in any old phone and expect it to work.
Why should anyone expect that people should continue to want to pay for albums in the future just because they did in the past?
if you feel entitled, please starve to death.
Why shouldn't it change?
At one time, the only way to get these works was through purchasing a legitimate copy because copying/recording equipment was too expensive for the listener to acquire or operate.
Then came cassettes and cassette recorders and suddenly people had a way to copy cheaply and easily. And they did it.
And then came CDs, and once again it was expensive to copy. And then came the CD/RW and cheap media, and suddenly people were copying.
Today we have digitally recorded music and the internet. It's once again easy to copy. In fact, it's getting to the point that for many people it's far far easier to copy than to purchase a physical copy.
It is a simply fact that the easier it is to produce and the easier it is to acquire, the less value people place on an object.
People are acquiring copies, not originals, when they download. These copies cost fractions of a cent to produce and nothing more than a few keyboard taps or mouse clicks to acquire. It is only common sense that the value placed on these copies is approaching zero.
This is a cycle that has existed through out history for all types of products. There is nothing special about art that places it outside these simple rules.
Please go starve yourself to death while waiting for your entitlement check. You are arguing with no one but yourself over a point no one disagrees with.
If you get paid for what you do, go ahead and fucking do it, if that's what you want. No one is arguing with you on that, you stupid shit.
You have implied in most of your posts that someone who does this is entitled to be paid, because in the past and present artists have made a living this way. Those arguing with you are arguing against this point. If in the future no one values a studio-camper who sings into a mic, then those people deserve to starve if they are unwilling to do other work to earn a living.
That's like saying that all the worth of an album is the manufacturing costs.
I have bad news for you. Worth is not determined by the producer. It is determined by the consumer.
If an album you produce is sold by you, you should get the money. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. What is at issue is the sense of entitlement. The idea that just because you produce others should pay is simply wrong. The exchange of money is based on the idea that something of value is being exchanged. If society does not value your production, you should not expect to be paid for it.
So don't sign with a label. Oh gee that was so hard it took me a whole 3 microseconds to come up with!
If you feel entitled, you deserve to die for lack of food and shelter. There has never been, before copyright, the idea that someone should be paid for work already completed and paid for.