and I don't use KaZaa et. al.. It's not that I wouldn't download and fileshare, but I'm too busy protecting my free speech rights to even keep up with Frost postings.
I've written thousands of lines of code and I've never seen one cent in royalty payments. I've always been paid for the code I could write, not for the code I've written. I don't see any value in the notion of intellectual property at all. It's a dumb idea.
From press release: "I support strong protections of intellectual property, and I will stand on my record in support of property rights against any challenge..."
Mostly, he was a hundred fifty years closer to the evils of the Crown Copy Rights. Copyright law dates back to the Statute of Anne in 1666; which was written in order to take away the right of the King to grant perpetual Copy Rights to favored businessmen -- specifically the Stationeers, if I remember correctly.
When the U.S. Constitution was drawn up everyone understood the purpose of the copyright clause, and there was little debate about it on the record. The Copyright Act of 1791 (1790?) made it even more clear that everyone understood what the clause was all about, as it emulated the 14 years plus 14 years of British law.
We seem to have forgotten the purpose of Copyright. This despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that copyright is not intended to ensure the copyright holder any renumeration.
"Personally, as someone who's seriously been studying this stuff for years now, the best thing to do is not even use the term IP."
I only use the term IP in order to tell them to take their IP out of my face and give me back my freedom to speak. In that context it is a perfectly reasonable term.
Actually, the term IP does have some slight usefulness within commerce. The problem is that this notion has extended its reach far beyond where the idea belongs. It has no place in the public consciousness.
(if you dont know, go to amazon an view cards books)"
Bhahahahah! Good.
Card has his head screwed on straight, although I've oonly read a bit of his writing on writing -- and since I don't really like fantasy I haven't read all of his works.
I think he realizes that what the corporations have done to copyright endangers his livelihood. How can he be safe when the copyright law has become so screwed up that the public will not stand for it anymore? His justifiable rights will be swept away along with the bullshit the RIAA has created.
Collective ownership. Each of the writers has full potency. Copyright is not by nature exclusionary.
Things can get a bit more complicated when the architect writes to basic structure; which is then filled in by others, but even then there is no excuse for turning to the notion of corporate ownership.
A corporation cannot write anything. Only people write things, and these people are generally not the same people as the people who own the corporation.
"I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
"Free speech protects YOUR speech, not media files you copied of OTHER people's speech. Is it really that hard to make the distinction between protecting the right to speak your thoughts as opposed to wholesale copying of other people's works?"
You are looking at the matter from completely the wrong viewpoint despite the fact that I told you I was not interested my my rights as a listener. Forget about the filesharer's rights. Concentrate upon the competing rights of the file's creator. The filesharer is merely a hapless bystander who has been caught-up in a legal quagmire.
Now, try again...
There is music out there which the artist wants downloaded. There is music out there which the artist does not care whether it is downloaded or not. There is music out there which the artist wants protected by copyright. The problem is that there is no way to tell which music is which.
What's a poor filesharer to do? If it is assumed that the file is protected by copyright then the free speech rights of the artist who wants it downloaded are infringed. If it is assumed that the file is free speech then the RIAA is going to harrass you.
I say that free speech is fundamental. The copyright interests just have to come up with a solution which doe not infringe fundamental free speech rights -- or not, and get swept away. It's not even my responsibility to care whether copyright survives or not, and it certainly ought not be my responsibility to figure out whether a file represents free speech or copyright.
"This has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Illegally copied music, porn, warez are protected speech? Jeezus christ."
There is a fundamental right acknowledged by the First Amendemnt to speek and be heard by willing listeners. This is the only fundamental right involved here at all. All the other rights are at best a limited commercial right.
Now, please tell me how to distingush a file which is someone's free speech from a file which is someone's copyright protected work.
Mind you, I'm not interested in my right as a listener here. If I as a listener am put out and have to go hunting for something I'm not going to do it, and it is the speaker's right which is infringed.
"I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
Sure, most of the stuff there now is there despite the copyright owner, but as copyright crumbles P2P will be the way to become known. Indie bands jumped onto P2P as soon as they realized it was a way to get their stuff out there where people might find it.
You don't seem to understand how big this win is.
on
Ford To Move To Linux
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Every Ford supplier will now be switching to Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
What's "MS Media Player"?
and I don't use KaZaa et. al.. It's not that I wouldn't download and fileshare, but I'm too busy protecting my free speech rights to even keep up with Frost postings.
Culpable? Me? Come here kitty, kitty.
I've written thousands of lines of code and I've never seen one cent in royalty payments. I've always been paid for the code I could write, not for the code I've written. I don't see any value in the notion of intellectual property at all. It's a dumb idea.
From press release: "I support strong protections of intellectual property, and I will stand on my record in support of property rights against any challenge..."
Oh well. Lost my vote.
"Second, if you couldn't "commandeer" plots, I doubt anybody would be writing any books these days."
I remember reading somewhere that there were only 26 plots, but I have a feeling the person who counted them up didn't read SciFi.
It will hasten the death of IP.
"I can see the "suits" now. "Hmm, maybe geeky bob in IT was right, there is something to this Linux thing.""
No, but that point is so obvious as to have become boring.
Mostly, he was a hundred fifty years closer to the evils of the Crown Copy Rights. Copyright law dates back to the Statute of Anne in 1666; which was written in order to take away the right of the King to grant perpetual Copy Rights to favored businessmen -- specifically the Stationeers, if I remember correctly.
When the U.S. Constitution was drawn up everyone understood the purpose of the copyright clause, and there was little debate about it on the record. The Copyright Act of 1791 (1790?) made it even more clear that everyone understood what the clause was all about, as it emulated the 14 years plus 14 years of British law.
We seem to have forgotten the purpose of Copyright. This despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that copyright is not intended to ensure the copyright holder any renumeration.
"Personally, as someone who's seriously been studying this stuff for years now, the best thing to do is not even use the term IP."
I only use the term IP in order to tell them to take their IP out of my face and give me back my freedom to speak. In that context it is a perfectly reasonable term.
Actually, the term IP does have some slight usefulness within commerce. The problem is that this notion has extended its reach far beyond where the idea belongs. It has no place in the public consciousness.
"dead....
(if you dont know, go to amazon an view cards books)"
Bhahahahah! Good.
Card has his head screwed on straight, although I've oonly read a bit of his writing on writing -- and since I don't really like fantasy I haven't read all of his works.
I think he realizes that what the corporations have done to copyright endangers his livelihood. How can he be safe when the copyright law has become so screwed up that the public will not stand for it anymore? His justifiable rights will be swept away along with the bullshit the RIAA has created.
Collective ownership. Each of the writers has full potency. Copyright is not by nature exclusionary.
Things can get a bit more complicated when the architect writes to basic structure; which is then filled in by others, but even then there is no excuse for turning to the notion of corporate ownership.
A corporation cannot write anything. Only people write things, and these people are generally not the same people as the people who own the corporation.
A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE 5TH OF FEBRUARY 1841
"I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
Another copy of Ender's Game.
Sure, I've already read it three times. My sone's already read it over a dozen times. But you can't really have enough copies of Ender's Game.
"Free speech protects YOUR speech, not media files you copied of OTHER people's speech. Is it really that hard to make the distinction between protecting the right to speak your thoughts as opposed to wholesale copying of other people's works?"
You are looking at the matter from completely the wrong viewpoint despite the fact that I told you I was not interested my my rights as a listener. Forget about the filesharer's rights. Concentrate upon the competing rights of the file's creator. The filesharer is merely a hapless bystander who has been caught-up in a legal quagmire.
Now, try again...
There is music out there which the artist wants downloaded. There is music out there which the artist does not care whether it is downloaded or not. There is music out there which the artist wants protected by copyright. The problem is that there is no way to tell which music is which.
What's a poor filesharer to do? If it is assumed that the file is protected by copyright then the free speech rights of the artist who wants it downloaded are infringed. If it is assumed that the file is free speech then the RIAA is going to harrass you.
I say that free speech is fundamental. The copyright interests just have to come up with a solution which doe not infringe fundamental free speech rights -- or not, and get swept away. It's not even my responsibility to care whether copyright survives or not, and it certainly ought not be my responsibility to figure out whether a file represents free speech or copyright.
"This has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Illegally copied music, porn, warez are protected speech? Jeezus christ."
There is a fundamental right acknowledged by the First Amendemnt to speek and be heard by willing listeners. This is the only fundamental right involved here at all. All the other rights are at best a limited commercial right.
Now, please tell me how to distingush a file which is someone's free speech from a file which is someone's copyright protected work.
Mind you, I'm not interested in my right as a listener here. If I as a listener am put out and have to go hunting for something I'm not going to do it, and it is the speaker's right which is infringed.
And the harder 'the' work to prosecute/legislate/etc., the more obvious it becomes that they are attempting to destroy free speech.
Not if everyone is a proxy, like in Freenet.
" Why would copyright be abolished?"
See: A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE 5TH OF FEBRUARY 1841 by Thomas Babington Macaulay
"I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
Oh well. I guess they'll have to find a different business model.
Chinese have taken Freenet and translated it into Chinese. Gee, I wonder why.
Sure, most of the stuff there now is there despite the copyright owner, but as copyright crumbles P2P will be the way to become known. Indie bands jumped onto P2P as soon as they realized it was a way to get their stuff out there where people might find it.
Every Ford supplier will now be switching to Linux.
Say bye-bye. Can you say bye-bye, Bill?
Their The Great Depression page has an interesting notion called The Grimes Labor equalization Surcharge.
I don't know what T.O.R.A.W. is yet, but I think it's time to start learning.