You are implying that most artists A. Own the work they produce and B are able to make a living with copyright.
Most work for a company doing work that the company wants never owning the copyright to that work. Do you really think that without copyright ad agencies won't want artists to make their adds prettier?
The entertainment industry would still exist, people would still be willing to spend money but the derivative market would be far less.
Most artists are unable to live off their work now and there are some that do live in gutters. Given Poe's life he probably would have been in the gutter anyway artist or not.
Yes except some people learn in different ways and need the schooling that is provided with the expensive piece of paper.
Also the paper is a statement that the issuing organization believes you to be at a certain level of competence in the area that the paper specifies. The schooling is part of what helps them determine that as simple tests are inadequate in most cases.
Lets see things government does to create marketplaces without which capitalism cannot operate:
Enforce Contracts Produce Currency Enforce basic rules of the marketplace Prevent warlords from taking capital through simple force. Establish ownership rights in the first place beyond simple possession. Create and maintain public works such as roads, bridges canals, sewer systems, communications systems, schools, postal systems and cities (US founding fathers did all of the above, to name a few). Help to ensure a general education level among the populous enabling employers to be able to hire better employees at a lower cost.
Oh one explaination for the piracy not having to do with CIVIL copyright law.
Copyright infringement is a civil matter generally and does not involve direct physical violence or great direct loss of property, or life.
Where-as Piracy generally involves robbery, murder and other much more violent acts. It involves stealing, kidnapping and killing oftentimes.
Calling copyright violation by the name of piracy is about the same as calling speeding by the name of torture. It is inflammatory, incorrect, and comes across as disrespectful.
First. Please, stop calling anyone who is against the current state of copyright law a pirate. Please treat fellow posters with the same respect that you would like to be treated, and that means not making an implied accusation against a wide range of people(the accusation that many people reading this are so-called pirates).
Also piracy is a maritime crime, and has nothing to do with civil copyright law.
For the most part I agree that copyright as a legal concept is a good thing and is just and fair, but it does NOT affect everyone for the better, especially in its current state.
It's enforcement and letter is unjustly geared toward corporations and the other few who can afford strong legal defense.
Yes, I agree the idea of copyright can be a boon to Science and the Arts but if taken to extremes, as I think it currently is, it can also stifle and hinder by severely restricting the use and spread of information.
A sloppy and poor work of art has just as much weight in copyright law as a masterpiece that may outshine the works of Da Vinci.
There is no relation in the value of the work and the legal weight of copyright.
Copyright is meant to encourage creative works.
Its purpose as stated in the US Consitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
In other words copyright is meant to encourage scientists and artists to do their work by giving them special limited time rights over their works.
How exactly does copyright encourage a dead artist or scientist?
How does it promote the progress of Science and the Arts by limiting what Scientists and Artists can do with information they possess?
Extending copyright too far limits science and art by preventing things from evolving. Both science are art are built upon what has come before.
Without taxes the government wouldn't get far. Without government there would be no market.
Capitalism requires government intervention in order to function. Also it is only a small part of the ideals our government and society are built on and therefore does not dictate what the government can and cannot do. There are also little things like the idea of a republic, common law, and democracy just to name a few.
No. It isn't how the US founding fathers envisioned; nor should it be. They had many good ideas and a few bad ones as well. Also they did NOT envision the US as being a pure capitalist nation.
Copyright is supposed to encourage artists, but why would a child of a great artist learn art if they can just live off of their parent's works? Seems to be counter-productive.
Why is it that people who accuse other people of putting statements into yet other people's mouths often make similar gaffs by calling the 2nd people names like pirates without any evidence that the 2nd people are pirates or infringing on copyright?
It is quite possible to be against a law, or version of a law without breaking said law. In fact that is how our democratic system is supposed to work.
Yes but rights are not absolute and some rights are greater than others. In this case I agree with you that PG is probably overstepping, but you have to bear in mind that one right does not equal another and that in many cases a right is abridged simply because there is not other alternative.
In the end what we call "rights" really are just placeholders to try and figure out how we want society to work.
Oh BTW since when did Republicans get so weak on national security?
Seriously, no problem with warrentless wiretaps, starting 2 wars and all that the Bush administration did, but as soon as it's a Democrat then it's invasion of privacy.
Policies could have been changed due to the tremendous load of the biggest travel day of the year that was likely to overtax the new systems to the point that the old systems would be re-opened even without any sort of "protest."
Are you mad? Just ask their lawyers! Those corporate wrists got SUCH a slapping!
It was so unfair! You really should send Microsoft some more money just to make sure you're up-to-date on everything and help their aching wrists.
This is why government regulation is bad, and we should abolish the government except for an extremely powerful military with few oversights or regulations.
I'd say the simple switch or button located on the device, like you propose, would be the best option. Just add couple steps, "Find paperclip." "Find the little hole you wondered about in the plastic." "Stick paperclip into hole to press tiny button." The device is now flashable for x period and will revert back on its own after x or it is flashed."
That's only to start a small bussiness microtransaction system, a single one for a single SMALL business.
The idea is to use microtransactions with major banks and have the ability to do them between those banks and major credit institutions over the internet at large. That means you get into international law, heavy duty security and banking systems, and lawyers lawyers lawyers.
Small scale microtransactions have sorta been around for years, but they all are of the type where a customer has to buy a batch of transactions up front and then use them all for a single vendor, or group of vendors on a small network.
WHat I'm talking about is being able to do them from your bank, as in FDIC or equivilent for your country insured bank, and being able to do it for nearly any vendor across the internet.
Oh sure. Like most any man on the street he happens to have the time, income to support himself, money to start the project, PHDs in encryption, economics, programming and good expieriance at international diplomacy to implement this himself and not be a lazy ass.
Slashdot Mirror
You are implying that most artists A. Own the work they produce and B are able to make a living with copyright.
Most work for a company doing work that the company wants never owning the copyright to that work. Do you really think that without copyright ad agencies won't want artists to make their adds prettier?
The entertainment industry would still exist, people would still be willing to spend money but the derivative market would be far less.
Most artists are unable to live off their work now and there are some that do live in gutters. Given Poe's life he probably would have been in the gutter anyway artist or not.
Yes except some people learn in different ways and need the schooling that is provided with the expensive piece of paper.
Also the paper is a statement that the issuing organization believes you to be at a certain level of competence in the area that the paper specifies. The schooling is part of what helps them determine that as simple tests are inadequate in most cases.
It is very simple. To sell you the map-guide subscription.
Lets see things government does to create marketplaces without which capitalism cannot operate:
Enforce Contracts
Produce Currency
Enforce basic rules of the marketplace
Prevent warlords from taking capital through simple force.
Establish ownership rights in the first place beyond simple possession.
Create and maintain public works such as roads, bridges canals, sewer systems, communications systems, schools, postal systems and cities (US founding fathers did all of the above, to name a few).
Help to ensure a general education level among the populous enabling employers to be able to hire better employees at a lower cost.
If you think robust markets would exist without a stable government you are living in a fantasy world.
Oh one explaination for the piracy not having to do with CIVIL copyright law.
Copyright infringement is a civil matter generally and does not involve direct physical violence or great direct loss of property, or life.
Where-as Piracy generally involves robbery, murder and other much more violent acts. It involves stealing, kidnapping and killing oftentimes.
Calling copyright violation by the name of piracy is about the same as calling speeding by the name of torture. It is inflammatory, incorrect, and comes across as disrespectful.
Ok,
First. Please, stop calling anyone who is against the current state of copyright law a pirate. Please treat fellow posters with the same respect that you would like to be treated, and that means not making an implied accusation against a wide range of people(the accusation that many people reading this are so-called pirates).
Also piracy is a maritime crime, and has nothing to do with civil copyright law.
For the most part I agree that copyright as a legal concept is a good thing and is just and fair, but it does NOT affect everyone for the better, especially in its current state.
It's enforcement and letter is unjustly geared toward corporations and the other few who can afford strong legal defense.
Yes, I agree the idea of copyright can be a boon to Science and the Arts but if taken to extremes, as I think it currently is, it can also stifle and hinder by severely restricting the use and spread of information.
Copyright is not dependant on value of the work.
A sloppy and poor work of art has just as much weight in copyright law as a masterpiece that may outshine the works of Da Vinci.
There is no relation in the value of the work and the legal weight of copyright.
Copyright is meant to encourage creative works.
Its purpose as stated in the US Consitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
In other words copyright is meant to encourage scientists and artists to do their work by giving them special limited time rights over their works.
How exactly does copyright encourage a dead artist or scientist?
How does it promote the progress of Science and the Arts by limiting what Scientists and Artists can do with information they possess?
Extending copyright too far limits science and art by preventing things from evolving. Both science are art are built upon what has come before.
Without taxes the government wouldn't get far.
Without government there would be no market.
Capitalism requires government intervention in order to function. Also it is only a small part of the ideals our government and society are built on and therefore does not dictate what the government can and cannot do. There are also little things like the idea of a republic, common law, and democracy just to name a few.
No. It isn't how the US founding fathers envisioned; nor should it be. They had many good ideas and a few bad ones as well. Also they did NOT envision the US as being a pure capitalist nation.
Yes but a couple of poor people do not make up any "major corporation." I did put in that modifier for a reason.
Copyright is supposed to encourage artists, but why would a child of a great artist learn art if they can just live off of their parent's works? Seems to be counter-productive.
Why is it that people who accuse other people of putting statements into yet other people's mouths often make similar gaffs by calling the 2nd people names like pirates without any evidence that the 2nd people are pirates or infringing on copyright?
It is quite possible to be against a law, or version of a law without breaking said law. In fact that is how our democratic system is supposed to work.
No. You can have a fully functioning capitalist society w/o copyright. The two ideas are not directly connected in any way.
Didn't know that major corporations could be considered a "poor family"
Yes but rights are not absolute and some rights are greater than others. In this case I agree with you that PG is probably overstepping, but you have to bear in mind that one right does not equal another and that in many cases a right is abridged simply because there is not other alternative.
In the end what we call "rights" really are just placeholders to try and figure out how we want society to work.
Censor...
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
It does if we label it "terrorism"!
It's a magical word that will NEVER EVER EVER backfire on US!
He's not the only one. I remember a certain VP that leaked certain details for political gain. One is terrorism the other above the law.
Suspected rapist? I thought they dropped that charge? Jeeze this article seems a little biased.
Oh BTW since when did Republicans get so weak on national security?
Seriously, no problem with warrentless wiretaps, starting 2 wars and all that the Bush administration did, but as soon as it's a Democrat then it's invasion of privacy.
OR...
Policies could have been changed due to the tremendous load of the biggest travel day of the year that was likely to overtax the new systems to the point that the old systems would be re-opened even without any sort of "protest."
No penalty!?
Are you mad? Just ask their lawyers! Those corporate wrists got SUCH a slapping!
It was so unfair! You really should send Microsoft some more money just to make sure you're up-to-date on everything and help their aching wrists.
This is why government regulation is bad, and we should abolish the government except for an extremely powerful military with few oversights or regulations.
I'd say the simple switch or button located on the device, like you propose, would be the best option. Just add couple steps, "Find paperclip." "Find the little hole you wondered about in the plastic." "Stick paperclip into hole to press tiny button." The device is now flashable for x period and will revert back on its own after x or it is flashed."
Why is that hard?
Really?
That's only to start a small bussiness microtransaction system, a single one for a single SMALL business.
The idea is to use microtransactions with major banks and have the ability to do them between those banks and major credit institutions over the internet at large. That means you get into international law, heavy duty security and banking systems, and lawyers lawyers lawyers.
Small scale microtransactions have sorta been around for years, but they all are of the type where a customer has to buy a batch of transactions up front and then use them all for a single vendor, or group of vendors on a small network.
WHat I'm talking about is being able to do them from your bank, as in FDIC or equivilent for your country insured bank, and being able to do it for nearly any vendor across the internet.
Oh sure. Like most any man on the street he happens to have the time, income to support himself, money to start the project, PHDs in encryption, economics, programming and good expieriance at international diplomacy to implement this himself and not be a lazy ass.