They also have a nasty habit of breeding strains that can not reproduce on their own.
DRM isn't that good of an idea for digital entertainment. But DRM on the human food supply? That is jumping off a cliff into cartoonish insane evil mega-corporation territory.
There are IIRC only 3 of me on earth. Mostly because my ancestors changed the spelling of their name to sound less German when they immigrated, but they didn't know enough English for it to make any sense.
And no, my user name is not even remotely related to that name.
There is a problem with your perspective of what my mindset is.
I am saying that artists in real life hardly ever make a sustainable wage, so you better damn well be doing it for the love of art itself instead of some delusion that you are going to be that one in a million that gets rich or even the one in a couple thousand that earns enough to live above a basic subsistence level.
There are hundreds of millions of people who want to be artists. Of those, only a few hundred thousand have any talent at all. Of those, only a few hundreds are ever going to become wealthy and most of the rest will not be able to pay the rent from the proceeds of their art.
Its like buying a lottery ticket, except the cost of that ticket is not $5, but instead it is the sum of decades of work and hardship.
Writing code generally pays the bills and then some. Few of us are going to get extremely rich, but a fair share will make it well into upper middle class.
Now, there are the kids out there that dream of writing/playing video games all day and being the next John Carmack. The parallel with artists is pretty close, except that you can use the same basic skillset to make a decent and more predictable living writing business applications.
Anyone who becomes an artist for wealth is a fool. The purpose of being an artist is to create art because it is what you love. If you can manage to not starve while you do it, more power to you.
It doesn't matter if I believe it to be a natural right or not, it doesn't matter if the law supports or restricts that right or not, by its nature it is a natural right. And that is my point.
Rights are not "how it should be" etc. They are not opinions or beliefs. They are facts. They are universal, for every one, every where, every time.
Words have meaning. Words like right, grant, etc, all have very specific and well defined meaning when talking about rights in general and copyright specifically. Corrupting those meanings corrupts perception of both reality and the law. This extends to words like piracy and theft, neither of which is in any way related to copyright or the violation thereof.
My statements have neither been arguing in favor of copyright or against it. Only about the appropriate use of the language surrounding the issue. I do this because corruption of the language surrounding the issue is an intentional ploy to subvert the laws as written with fear, uncertainty and doubt. You have fallen for that ploy and continue to apply the wrong meaning to the language you are using.
It is also a natural right to be able to throw pointy sticks. It is also a natural right to not be stabbed by flying pointy sticks. The not-get-stabbed right does not override the throw-pointy-stick right. Where the two conflict, a just law will er on the side of least harm and will seek to restrict pointy-stick throwing where it causes stabbity-death. An unjust law may infringe on my right to throw pointy sticks by forbidding the act outright to prevent the rare occurance of stabbity-death. An even more unjust law might not restrict the throwing of pointy sticks in any way.
That is not as bad as Mississippi where it defaults to no, even on renewal, and they are not allowed to ever mention organ donation. A significant fraction of people think they are organ donors, but are not because they were insufficiently vigilant in ensuring that they stayed organ donors and they were never informed that their decision was being changed for them while renewing their license.
How? This is relevant to my interests. I was arrested for having a valid ID from the wrong state recently and the charges were dropped before I got to the judge.
Probably a bit late. I 100% agree with this as well.
I can see how in the heat of battle the first shooting could occur with no foul intent, merely a case of mistaken identity in a difficult situation.
But opening fire on the van and the people who were assisting the wounded (and clearly not collecting weapons or dead)? Damn strait that is undeniably a crime and its cover-up more-so.
I wasn't making a statement on the value of copyright in general. Only the that there was an error is the argument made concerning the issue of rights.
On copyright, I am a "radical moderate".
I wholeheartedly agree with the purpose of copyright: To enrich the sum of public knowledge and art.
I agree with the basic premise: that in order to secure new works for the public domain, it is appropriate to provide an artificial, temporary and limited monopoly on distribution of creative works to the author to encourage the creation and publishing of creative work.
I disagree with several of the specifics. Among them: the extreme current duration of the monopoly and the nearly arbitrary ability to extend that duration, failure to defend fair use (in the US this is caused partially by making it illegal to circumvent DRM even for otherwise legal fair use), and extortionate compensation payed to media organizations such as blank media taxes and statutory damages thousands to millions of times higher than the actual damages of infringement.
There are no granted rights. The word you are looking for is privilege. A privilege is a power granted to you by an external authority. When that privileged is enshrined in law and becomes expected it is called an entitlement.
No one that has any support for copyright at all will argue that the right to copy is "inalienable". In the context of the constitution, inalienable rights are those that would unquestionably harm society if they were to be alienated from the people. The government must not attempt to separate those rights or their free expression from you either by force or threat.
Exactly, a train can be far more massive than any airplane!
Imagine what would happen if terrorists took control of a train and flew it into a building!
It would be 911 times a hundred.
Afterall, if the pen is mightier than the sword and a picture is worth a thousand words, then a camera is a veritable weapon of mass destruction compared to a measly box cutter.
Rights of one individual can conflict with rights of another. That does not mean that they are not rights.
My right to shoot my gun conflicts with your right to live in some cases.
My right to have property conflicts with your right to have the same property.
A just society will have a set of laws that establishes the precedence of rights to deal with those conflicts.
By law the right to life trumps the right to kill in (almost) all circumstances.
By law prior possession trumps possession after theft in (almost) all circumstances.
Rights can not be granted and can only be taken away by physical force. The law effectively limits the free expression of rights by the threat of just punishment (when one right conflicts with the rights of another). Thugs can limit the free expression of rights by the threat of unjust punishment.
Copying is a right. Restriction of that right by the people is an entitlement for the author.
Rights are not enumerated. Rights are not granted. Rights exist independently from any law or more.
There is a reason the constitution used the term "inalienable rights". Because those are the rights that it was decided that government must not attempt to interfere with.
Copyright law does not grant any rights to the creator, and it does not remove the right to copy from anyone else. It only offers to punish expression of rights of everyone else. Only fear of or respect for the law prevents the expression.
I am not arguing that some form of copyright law is unjust, just with the way you have chosen to define it.
The ability to copy is the right to copy. The founders of the US decided, justly, that in order to promote useful arts and sciences that right may need to be temporarily restricted in order to enrich the public good.
My statement that copying is a right makes no inferences as to if it should be a protected right or not. In my case I believe that moderate restriction of that right has value as long as it is returned to the status of "temporary" instead of "arbitrarily long and extended as long as media companies care to bribe politicians".
That is a fairly recent phenomena, I have only seen those in the last year around here. But I have not looked into them to see if it would be practical (mostly because at this point in my life I already have plenty of regular credit cards).
Copying is a right. Just one that is restricted by law.
Copyright law is a misnomer, it would be more appropriate to call it copy restriction law.
A right is something you can do without the hindrance or the requirement of assistance from another. Copying information available to you is such an act.
Copyright restriction is not a right of the creator, but an entitlement bestowed temporarily in exchange for publishing creative work. Once information has been handed to another, only physical force can stop that person from making copies.
We did have a suggestion forum but it was deemed invalid because most of what people asked for was legalizing pot, proving that Obama isn't an american citizen and repeal of warrantless war powers by the secret agencies.
Slashdot Mirror
They also have a nasty habit of breeding strains that can not reproduce on their own.
DRM isn't that good of an idea for digital entertainment. But DRM on the human food supply? That is jumping off a cliff into cartoonish insane evil mega-corporation territory.
Bad news, one of the other suspected side effects of toxo in human women is also an increase in intelligence.
And women with this parasite are supposedly more promiscuous.
There are IIRC only 3 of me on earth. Mostly because my ancestors changed the spelling of their name to sound less German when they immigrated, but they didn't know enough English for it to make any sense.
And no, my user name is not even remotely related to that name.
At this point, I think I could pass that test at 100%.
There is a problem with your perspective of what my mindset is.
I am saying that artists in real life hardly ever make a sustainable wage, so you better damn well be doing it for the love of art itself instead of some delusion that you are going to be that one in a million that gets rich or even the one in a couple thousand that earns enough to live above a basic subsistence level.
This isn't really a problem that open source software would solve.
You would still have users out there that can fail for these old fashioned confidence scams.
Let me rephrase that:
There are hundreds of millions of people who want to be artists. Of those, only a few hundred thousand have any talent at all. Of those, only a few hundreds are ever going to become wealthy and most of the rest will not be able to pay the rent from the proceeds of their art.
Its like buying a lottery ticket, except the cost of that ticket is not $5, but instead it is the sum of decades of work and hardship.
Writing code generally pays the bills and then some. Few of us are going to get extremely rich, but a fair share will make it well into upper middle class.
Now, there are the kids out there that dream of writing/playing video games all day and being the next John Carmack. The parallel with artists is pretty close, except that you can use the same basic skillset to make a decent and more predictable living writing business applications.
Silly human, whales are from the moon, not from asteroids.
Anyone who becomes an artist for wealth is a fool. The purpose of being an artist is to create art because it is what you love. If you can manage to not starve while you do it, more power to you.
The KKK was founded as an organization to uphold traditional christian values as perceived by its members.
You can try to rewrite history if you want to, but minority and women's rights were and still are very much a religious issue.
It doesn't matter if I believe it to be a natural right or not, it doesn't matter if the law supports or restricts that right or not, by its nature it is a natural right. And that is my point.
Rights are not "how it should be" etc. They are not opinions or beliefs. They are facts. They are universal, for every one, every where, every time.
Words have meaning. Words like right, grant, etc, all have very specific and well defined meaning when talking about rights in general and copyright specifically. Corrupting those meanings corrupts perception of both reality and the law. This extends to words like piracy and theft, neither of which is in any way related to copyright or the violation thereof.
My statements have neither been arguing in favor of copyright or against it. Only about the appropriate use of the language surrounding the issue. I do this because corruption of the language surrounding the issue is an intentional ploy to subvert the laws as written with fear, uncertainty and doubt. You have fallen for that ploy and continue to apply the wrong meaning to the language you are using.
It is also a natural right to be able to throw pointy sticks. It is also a natural right to not be stabbed by flying pointy sticks. The not-get-stabbed right does not override the throw-pointy-stick right. Where the two conflict, a just law will er on the side of least harm and will seek to restrict pointy-stick throwing where it causes stabbity-death. An unjust law may infringe on my right to throw pointy sticks by forbidding the act outright to prevent the rare occurance of stabbity-death. An even more unjust law might not restrict the throwing of pointy sticks in any way.
That is not as bad as Mississippi where it defaults to no, even on renewal, and they are not allowed to ever mention organ donation. A significant fraction of people think they are organ donors, but are not because they were insufficiently vigilant in ensuring that they stayed organ donors and they were never informed that their decision was being changed for them while renewing their license.
How? This is relevant to my interests. I was arrested for having a valid ID from the wrong state recently and the charges were dropped before I got to the judge.
Probably a bit late. I 100% agree with this as well.
I can see how in the heat of battle the first shooting could occur with no foul intent, merely a case of mistaken identity in a difficult situation.
But opening fire on the van and the people who were assisting the wounded (and clearly not collecting weapons or dead)? Damn strait that is undeniably a crime and its cover-up more-so.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head.
I wasn't making a statement on the value of copyright in general. Only the that there was an error is the argument made concerning the issue of rights.
On copyright, I am a "radical moderate".
I wholeheartedly agree with the purpose of copyright: To enrich the sum of public knowledge and art.
I agree with the basic premise: that in order to secure new works for the public domain, it is appropriate to provide an artificial, temporary and limited monopoly on distribution of creative works to the author to encourage the creation and publishing of creative work.
I disagree with several of the specifics. Among them: the extreme current duration of the monopoly and the nearly arbitrary ability to extend that duration, failure to defend fair use (in the US this is caused partially by making it illegal to circumvent DRM even for otherwise legal fair use), and extortionate compensation payed to media organizations such as blank media taxes and statutory damages thousands to millions of times higher than the actual damages of infringement.
There are no granted rights. The word you are looking for is privilege. A privilege is a power granted to you by an external authority. When that privileged is enshrined in law and becomes expected it is called an entitlement.
No one that has any support for copyright at all will argue that the right to copy is "inalienable". In the context of the constitution, inalienable rights are those that would unquestionably harm society if they were to be alienated from the people. The government must not attempt to separate those rights or their free expression from you either by force or threat.
Exactly, a train can be far more massive than any airplane!
Imagine what would happen if terrorists took control of a train and flew it into a building!
It would be 911 times a hundred.
Afterall, if the pen is mightier than the sword and a picture is worth a thousand words, then a camera is a veritable weapon of mass destruction compared to a measly box cutter.
Yes.
This process is known as fire.
Diamonds burn at temperatures comparable to most carbon containing materials (such as wood).
Rights of one individual can conflict with rights of another. That does not mean that they are not rights.
My right to shoot my gun conflicts with your right to live in some cases.
My right to have property conflicts with your right to have the same property.
A just society will have a set of laws that establishes the precedence of rights to deal with those conflicts.
By law the right to life trumps the right to kill in (almost) all circumstances.
By law prior possession trumps possession after theft in (almost) all circumstances.
Rights can not be granted and can only be taken away by physical force. The law effectively limits the free expression of rights by the threat of just punishment (when one right conflicts with the rights of another). Thugs can limit the free expression of rights by the threat of unjust punishment.
Copying is a right. Restriction of that right by the people is an entitlement for the author.
Rights are not enumerated. Rights are not granted. Rights exist independently from any law or more.
There is a reason the constitution used the term "inalienable rights". Because those are the rights that it was decided that government must not attempt to interfere with.
Copyright law does not grant any rights to the creator, and it does not remove the right to copy from anyone else. It only offers to punish expression of rights of everyone else. Only fear of or respect for the law prevents the expression.
I am not arguing that some form of copyright law is unjust, just with the way you have chosen to define it.
The ability to copy is the right to copy. The founders of the US decided, justly, that in order to promote useful arts and sciences that right may need to be temporarily restricted in order to enrich the public good.
My statement that copying is a right makes no inferences as to if it should be a protected right or not. In my case I believe that moderate restriction of that right has value as long as it is returned to the status of "temporary" instead of "arbitrarily long and extended as long as media companies care to bribe politicians".
That is a fairly recent phenomena, I have only seen those in the last year around here. But I have not looked into them to see if it would be practical (mostly because at this point in my life I already have plenty of regular credit cards).
Copying is a right. Just one that is restricted by law.
Copyright law is a misnomer, it would be more appropriate to call it copy restriction law.
A right is something you can do without the hindrance or the requirement of assistance from another. Copying information available to you is such an act.
Copyright restriction is not a right of the creator, but an entitlement bestowed temporarily in exchange for publishing creative work. Once information has been handed to another, only physical force can stop that person from making copies.
We did have a suggestion forum but it was deemed invalid because most of what people asked for was legalizing pot, proving that Obama isn't an american citizen and repeal of warrantless war powers by the secret agencies.
unfortunately, the largest of the third party options are as bad, worse or more misguided than the democrats and republicans.