"Just like if I painted a painting, and you made a copy of it without my permission. And that painting IS a physical object."
Ok, I'll bite.
If I made a copy of that painting that you painted, that _physical_object_, do you still have the original?
If the original is hanging in a museum, and I make a copy of it without your permission, isn't the original still hanging in the exact same spot in the museum it was _before_ I copied it?
If you have the original painting, I make a copy of it (say I have a really good eye and by setting my easel up in front of it for a few minutes I can make a perfect copy) and take my copy home with me, what exactly have I stolen?
Picture this, As I am walking out the door to the museum, you notice my perfect copy of your painting under my arm. You call the cops. When they arrive you tell them;
You: "That man just _stole_ my painting!" Cop: "What does it look like?" You: (taking the cops over to where the original _still_ hangs)"It looks just like that." Cop: (puzzled)"Did you have another copy that he stole?" You: "No, that is the _only_ copy that I've made." Cop: "It looks like it's still there." (scratches head) "Who painted the copy that the alleged thief walked out with?" You: "He did I suppose." Cop: "And who bought the paint that he painted that copy with?" You: "I think he did." Cop: "Did you buy the canvas that he used?" You: "No, he brought that in with him too." Cop: (obviously exasperated by your seeming lack of the obvious) "So let me get this straight, A man walked into this museum with his own paint and his own canvas. He personally painted a painting with his own paint, on his own canvas. Is this correct?" You: "Yes, but he COPIED MY PAINTING!" Cop: "Um, I'm sorry you feel this way, but he hasn't _stolen_ anything. You still have your painting. You can't expect us to arrest a man for drawing on material that he has lawfully purchased just because you don't like what he's drawn." You: (pouting) Cop: "Perhaps you should get in touch with those RIAA/MPAA folks. I hear that they are always trying to have people arrested for doing things with stuff that they legally own." (exits stage left)
So, as I hope you can plainly see, copyright infringement IS NOT stealing. Stealing means you bought it and have it, I took (_stole_) it from you. Now you no longer have it, I do. Ideas don't work that way.
I can steal the book, but I can't steal the story.
I can steal the CD-ROM, but I can't steal the song.
I can steal your DVD player, but I can't steal the patented, fatally flawed, decryption algorithm.
Well for starters, I can't legally tell anyone just how bad a content protection scheme is (see Felton et al.) If I figure out how to play DVD's on my GNU/Linux box, I can't legally tell anyone else how to do it (see DeCSS).
It's actually rather ingenious, in a rather sick way. They couldn't outlaw "fair use" or "first sale" so they outlawed most of the means to actually gain any benefit from them.
It would be like the anti-gun lobby passing a law that said the ownership of guns was protected by the second amendment, that's ok. The New Millennium Safety Act (NMSA) makes the sale, purchase, importation, exportation, or discussion of how to make firearms or ammunition illegal. They haven't prohibited you from owning a firearm and if you are bright enough to build one yourself you are all set. But you can't tell your neighbor how to do it, or sell/give him one. It might not keep firearms out of the hands of everyone, but how many people do you know have the skill and the equipment to build their own firearms?
In the same way the DMCA doesn't prevent you from making fair use of your own copies of works you have (well since their isn't actually a "fair use" defense to circumventing a copy protection measure, I guess it does.) It does prevent you from telling anyone else about it.
Actually while the video-game industry doesn't gross more than the film industry, I remember somewhere that the telcom industry makes more in a day than the film industry makes in a year.
I'm not sure if that's true, but it sounds about right.
Well I for one have used a ATM about a dozen times in my entire life. What's the point of paying X + Y dollers for groceries, where Y may equal 25% - 50% of X for small purchases, when I can pay X + $0.02 for the same purchase.
The other thing of course, one that I believe makes it NOT a "win-win all around" is when's the last time you've heard of someone bouncing an ATM transaction? I can write a check for $1000.00 USD more than my checking account balance, but I can't pay for something with an ATM card that costs $1000.00 more than what is in my account. You would think that at the very least, merchants would be clamoring all over themselves to promote ATM usage.
I guess sticking those consumers who can't grasp simple math with profit padding charges more than makes up for all of the fraud that they have to eat.
Perhaps some consumers will pay, but myself, and most other people with a grasp of simple math and a desire not to be fleeced like so many sheep are sticking with our plain old fashioned paper checks, thank you very much.
Well, my financial institution doesn't charge me anything for a "Unlimited free checking account". So unless you know of a "free ATM" no monthly fee account, that automatically pays all of the fees that individual ATM machines want to charge, on top of what your bank does or doesn't charge it's still going to cost more than to use a check.
I think you are missing the point. The point is that ATM processing is an order of magnitude lower than paper check processing. Logically you might assume that banks would be trying to promote the use of ATM's by say not charging an ATM fee while slowly increasing the per check fee for paper checks. Instead, all they can see are huge profit potentials and a belief that if it is more convenient people obviously should be paying more for it.
If all of the banks had free ATM cards, most stores accepted them, and paper checks cost over $5.00 USD each to process, I bet with a year or two most paper checks would have gone the way of the eight-track.
That of course was an aside to illustrate the main issue, which was that banks, like record companies, insist on trying to charge more for something just because of its apparent convenience. Even to the detriment of their own efficiency.
Glad to hear that you think this is just as silly as I do.
You said: "Video tapes are kind of fuzzy all around. Just like music tapes there isn't as big of a concern about copying. If you had a digital copy of the show and your friend copied it then you may have a problem."
But according to current law I could record to CD-R just as legally as I can to VHS. Also, doesn't the fact that I stripped out the commercials make it less of a copy and more of a derivative work? I mean the reason television stations even bother to air shows is to get you to watch the commercials. What they are selling are commercials. Since I have edited out the most "valuable" portion of what was aired at that time, you would think that there would be less of a problem....;> Like buying a book, but only copying the abstract on the inside flap.
Oh, silly me, I think I understand the problem now. People have found out how to do something cheaper, more efficiently, and more conveniently WITHOUT paying more for it.
Taping shows onto VHS and physically mailing them around the planet is slow, inefficient, and expensive. A lot of people still mail physical bootleg tapes of concerts or club dance mixes this way and have for years. I used to have a friend in another state record a television show for my daughter before that channel was available in my neck of the woods and mail the tapes to me. Digitally recording a show onto a hard drive and sharing it across the internet is faster, more efficient, and relatively cheap.
ATM's transactions are more efficient than paper checks, more convenient, and (at least according to the banks/credit unions I've talked to) cost the bank 1/10th as much to process as paper checks. Yet, I can still buy paper checks for about $0.02 USD each and have unlimited free checking, but to use my ATM card it costs me $1.00 USD each time I use it + $ ?.?? USD from the bank who's ATM I'm using (some places as high as $5.00 USD) for each transaction I make with the silly thing.
Well repeaters and signal boosters are all perfectly legal.
If I let my friend borrow my tape, and he made a himself a copy and returned it that would be ok then?
So the issue, as you see it, isn't the action but the number of people?
So I guess the next thing we'll have to do is put a counter on everything in the library. Loaning out that video tape to 100 patrons is ok, but once we hit some magical number (100,000, 1,000,000) it becomes a crime?
Here's another hypothetical situation, can you please explain the difference to me;
UPN broadcasts "Enterprise" into lets say 2,000,000 homes each week. 1,500,000 of those homes has a VCR or a digital capture card and records this weeks episode. This is all perfectly legal right? How is that any different than if 10 people record that episode and "share" it with 1,499,990 "friends" over the internet.
The first is "fair use" the second is a horrible crime that must be stopped. There are still 1,500,000 copies of that episode in circulation.
If I run the TV signal though my Digital capture card and write it to CD-R that's legal too, right.
If I tape my daughters favorite show for her, because she has to work and give her the tape when she gets home, that's legal.
If I run the TV signal though my Digital capture card and write it to CD-R and give her the CD-R when she gets home that's legal too, right.
If I don't own a VCR only a video player is it legal to have my friend video tape it for me and give me the tape when he comes in to work? (I catch the show in question, but I have to work during this weeks show)
If instead of a VHS tape, since I don't have even a video tape player he gives it to me on a CD-R. (being a proper geek I do have a computer with a CD-Rom drive) Isn't that the same thing?
If my friend lives in the same apartment with me is that legal? On the next floor? The next building? The next state? The next continent?
Why is it legal for me to tape Enterprise or the Simpsons, but illegal to have my friend in France tape it for me?
Why can I tape a show on my VCR, but if I tape it to CD-R that's a problem?
If the music stations don't want you to record songs off the radio don't air them. If television stations don't want you to tape episodes, then don't air them.
Here's one final quandary.
If I live in a frat house with 200 other guys and we get cable television service for say $50.00 USD a month. It's perfectly legal to hook it up to a large screen television and let as many people as can fit in the room all watch it together. Take that one step further, since in the US the cable company can't charge you per television for service (they are trying to get back to that with digital cable and the required decoder box rentals, that's why they'll hate to see digital cable decoders as ubiquitous as cable ready TV and VCR's), I can legally hook up 100 or more televisions to that one cable line. All legally. The fraternity can tape every episode of a television show and keep them in the television room of the frat house, now potentially thousands of people can watch this show, and we are still legal. So why is trading episodes of a show through the internet suddenly a problem?
That's no different than today. If I steal your laptop with your "virtually finished literary masterpiece (or song or software)..." and publish it I'm in the same position.
I guess you didn't read the part of my post that you quoted; "Second, only the author, or his wife heir can copyright his/her own works."
If I can prove that I am in fact the author, then the person who improperly copyrighted my work would loose that copyright and suffer whatever penalty the law would allow for improper copyright registration. Depending on how widespread the distribution of that work was, you could either pull the improper copy out of circulation (if there is only 1 or two copies) or transfer the copyright to yourself in which case the copyright clock would start.
You always have a legitimate right to your work as the work's author regardless of copyright. All copyright does is give the author the right to say who can or can not publish a work for a limited time. Hence the term "copy right" (i.e. the right to make copies). Even if a work is copyrighted I can still make fair use of it. Just because I use a paragraph of your novel to illustrate some concept in my English Lit. class doesn't change the status of the Author.
Let us say that I build a nifty gadget in my basement and don't tell any about it, sometime later a crook breaks into my house and notices said gadget, he steals it and get a patent on it. Does that mean that I don't own it anymore? That I can't get his patent overturned? If I can prove that it is my gadget that I built then not only do I get it back, and overturn his improper patent, he goes to jail for theft. Just because I didn't patent it doesn't mean that I have "...no legitimate right to it anyway..."
I realize that patents are a different sort of animal than copyright, but I think in this case they are similar enough to illustrate the point I am trying to make.
I guess what I am saying is that only the author or his named heirs (direct heirs, not some third cousin twelve times removed) has the right to copyright/publish his work. If you choose to publish your work without getting a copyright on it, it goes into the public domain immediately upon publication. If a third party publishes a work without your knowledge or consent then;
a) they get penalized for stealing your work
b) any copyright they got on it is null and void.
c) if you want you can get that work copyrighted if you want
d) if it is technically possible, you have the opportunity to remove the copyrighted work from
circulation reverting it to its unpublished status.
All in all I think that would lead to a better situation than exists today. Just because anything you author is assumed to be copyrighted from the moment you write it until what your life plus 75 or so years doesn't stop someone else from stealing your unpublished manuscript and claiming that they wrote it. Both situations hinge on the fact that you have to be able to prove authorship.
Currently, if I find a lost novel from an author who's been dead for 50 years, technically his relatives can make a case that they don't want it to see the light of day and with Congresses approval will probably be able to keep it that way forever. Under my scheme, if the author is dead, and his wife and son, to whom he left all of his worldly possessions is dead, then it's in the public domain. I can't claim a copyright on it, and neither can anyone else. Since the rights to a work can only be passed on to one's heirs and not to their heirs ad infinium, and assuming you somehow legally obtained a copy of it (find it cleaning up an old house you bought) then the longest that it could legally remain unpublished is until the author's heirs death.
Thanks for the spelling lesson. Now for your other cases.
Case 3. & Case 5 are simple to deal with. You have to register a copyright to get something copyrighted. None of this I scribbled on that back of a napkin 5 years ago so it's copyrighted. You have to submit a sample of the work to be copyrighted to the copyright office. That way everything that benefits from copyright has a copy that will pass into the public domain when copyright expires. If in Case 3 you registered for a copyright on your 22 novels during those 20 years then it can't get "lost forever". There is always the copy you left with the copyright office that people could get a copy from. Second, only the author, or his wife heir can copyright his/her own works.
If you can't get your book published don't register it for a copyright. The clock starts ticking when you register it. If your grandson & heir discovers your lost novel, he can register it and the clock starts then. I break into your attic I can't register your novel for copyright.
As for Case 4, "thems the breaks". If I invent a cure for impotency in the 1930's (read viagra) it sells ok, but doesn't become enormously popular until the swinging 1960's, I don't get to go to the patent office and ask that my patent be extended because I'm loosing a ton of money. As someone else has written, write something else.
The problem is tying copyright lengths to authors lives. The solution, don't.
If copyright lasted 7 years with an option to extend it for another 7 years (once) like it was originally, then it wouldn't matter if the author died.
Case 1, author writes a novel and lives for 50 years after that. Author, wife, children get royalties for 14 years max.
Case 2, author writes a novel and dies on the way home from the publisher. Wife and children of said author get royalties for 14 years max.
In my opinion copyright should last 7 years, with an optional 7 year extension. Everything older than 14 years should immediately become public domain. Everything less than 14 years and older than 7 years gets a one time 7 year extension.
Copyright should be limited to "real people". The Author, his wife, survivors in the case of his death. None of this corporate copyright. If you are an artist, then the record company may publish your album, but it can NEVER hold the copyright. You can't sell a copyright, but you can license the production of your work to a third party.
Simple, direct, to the point. Corporations will absolutely hate it, Congress backed by the moneyed lobbies will never pass it. Hopefully the Supreme Court will have the good sense to do the "Right Thing" TM.
Copyright was established to promote the common good and to provide an incentive to create new works for the public domain. With most of Disney's works in the public domain, perhaps they will actually produce something original instead of yet another reissue of Snow White for the umpteenth time.
How can we build on the shoulders of those that have come before us if everything is perpetually copyrighted? I don't appreciate the lame response I've gotten from my congress critters of "We only extended copyright to make it the same as in Europe." Bah. Mien Komph (sp?) is illegal to read for most people in Germany, Nazi memorabilia is illegal in France, should we make them illegal here to?
Then of course there's the problem of patenting genes, algorithms, business plans... ugh... but I digress, one cooperate inspired abomination at a time.
Building roads like building other forms of infrastructure entails a lot of up front cost. This means that unless you are guaranteed a monopoly, or nearly so, most companies simply won't do it. So instead of company A (Road Co.) developing new technology to speed things up, you'll end up with company Road Co. spending it's time to prevent company B (Roads 'R Us) from building any other roads. What few roads that Roads 'R Us does manage to build won't connect to Road Co.'s roads, and at the places that it does they will charge Roads 'R Us huge fees to interconnect. Not only that, but Road Co. will probably give a discount to travelers that promise to do all of their driving on Road Co.'s roads.
Sounds like most infrastructure doesn't it? I mean how many phone lines (the actual wires) are their running to your house? How many electrical lines, water mains, sewer lines? Does ATT, MCI, MaBell, each run a separate pair of lines into your house? When a state deregulates electricity, do they deregulate delivery or just generation? If they deregulated delivery how many other electric companies are chomping at the bit to string up a completely new power transmission system? In the case of roads, once Road Co. owns the road that your driveway connects to, how exactly is Roads 'R Us going to connect you to its road network? It can't, you can't have more than one road that your driveway connects to. So since Road Co. got there first they have a monopoly. Pay up or stay home.
Competitive local exchanges are having that problem in the telco industry. Ma Bell owns the wires into your house. Every one else that wants to sell you phone service, or DSL, or anything else has to get MaBell's permission to use her wires. MaBell doesn't have to charge herself and if she over charges her competition, or simply drags her feet long enough, the competition dies. You don't want to pay MaBell for your land line? Don't use a phone.
So you see, infrastructure has to be owned by a non-profit entity like the government. In fact building things like roads is one of the primary reasons we have governments. Companies can only be trusted to try and maximize their profits. Sometimes, if market conditions and competition are allowed to flourish it works out well for consumers. Most of the time, if left to their own devices it sucks for consumers.
Companies don't want competition, they want monopolies. If that isn't possible, most will settle for a nice old fashioned cartel.
Infrastructure lends itself to a "natural monopoly". Letting any company own that is just asking for trouble.
People running computers pay electricity for every processor/harddrive/NIC they use. If I have a million computers (ASCII WHITE?) I better hope that I'm not in California.:)
If I drive a ultra efficient car that gets 200MPG as opposed to a bloated 1952 car that gets 10MPG and if I travel 1,000,000 miles on the SAME roads, do I pay the same amount of gas tax? No? Why not?
If I drive my 200MPG vehicle 2000 miles, I pay the same amount of gas tax as the guy who travels 100 mile in his 10MPG car. That can't be right can it? I mean here I am traveling all over the country while the other poor shmuch can only commute to and from work.
It doesn't cost me anymore to use the ROADS than the next guy but it will cost me a heck of allot more if I chose to drive a BMW as opposed to a KIA. If I choose to run a Cray instead of an Mac Classic, I should still pay the same amount for connecting to the network. The Cray costs and arm and a leg to buy, and a small fortune in electricity to run, but that should be independent of the network. Just like I don't get charged any more for driving my BMW down main street than I would if I was ridding a 75cc motercycle.
Actually, in this country at least the government could. It could declare the network infrastructure a public resource and seize the assets through the principle of eminent domain. Even simpler it could impose a 1,000,000% tax on anyone operating basic network infrastructure. There are plenty of ways to do it. They wouldn't even have to force allot of companies out of business, instead of being for-profit, they become heavily regulated non-profits. Their other option is to spin off the basic IP transport into a government controlled non-profit while everything above that stays a for-profit company. Some of the employees get transferred to government jobs, some to the remaining for-profit company.
The commerce department still has it's hand in the DNS system. They could just pull the authorization back from Network Solutions. I bet if the US of A invited the rest of the country level registrars in for a chat, seeing how well they are getting along with ICANN, they just might be up for it.
It's doable, at least in this country. It might be even easier in other countries. It will just take a commitment by the people in office to actually do something to help the people as opposed to the corporations. Actually, except for the dominant, near monopoly players this might actually stimulate growth and ecommerce. Companies won't have to worry about getting into the terribly unprofitable IP supply and provisioning business and instead can focus on value add. Just think of it, everyone will need at least email. How many people do you think can set up and run their own mail servers? Not many I would imagine. AOL can stop worrying about modem pools and busy signals, everyone will be on the bring your own ISP plan. Of course that reduces AOL to just another potential destination on the internet, but it means that the Geek Emporium, MSN, PenguinPower, and AOL (ok, I made a few of those up;) will have to compete on the merits of what they offer. They won't be able to be the only game in town by signing exclusive deals with the only ISP in town.
Perhaps Linux, xBSD, Atari, Amiga, Mac, and every other OS will finally be supported to the same degree as Windows. That would be a nice change.
I think you miss the point. What I said is that a Gov. non-profit should control the wires/airwaves, the infrastructure, NOT regulate the internet. Anything more than digital-dialtone and DNS is in the private sector.
As to your comment about the feds not being able to get their act together, perhaps you are new to this whole internet thing. If so, it's understandable.
DAPRANET was created/run by non profits. The last time I checked the National Science Foundation and the Defense department were Gov.. agencies. Just because the FBI can't secure a web server, or the Department of Agriculture doesn't know squat about setting up a network, doesn't mean that there aren't some pretty sharp cookies in the NSF, or in say MIT or UCal Berkley.
EMail servers could be run in the private sector, the USPS could even compete. Commercial web hosting, private web hosting(if you couldn't figure out how to do it you self) streaming media, news, IM, etc. all extras that you would pay an ISP or some other commercial entity for.
Of course there would be redundant private networks, just like there are private redundant electrical grids, or private roads for those that need the extra capacity/security of an independent solution. I'm sure that the private sector will make a pretty penny selling this capacity to businesses that need/want that.
Fiber/routers/NAP's especially that strung across public resources (public roads, public utility poles, etc) are controlled by the Network Utility Commission. DNS gets out of Network Solutions greedily little hands and back to a non-profit. IPV6 should allow every man woman and toaster to have it's own IP address. Allocate a huge block of them like the current country level codes. Give everyone one backed by the Non-Profit DNS. Pay for it by selling the other half to the commercial sector.
Everyone gets Xk bandwidth (symmetric) and an IP/DNS address for a nominal fee. Just like everyone gets to use the public road system, or gets some basic level of telephone service. Digital dialtone.
It's the for-profit mentality that makes such a mess of things. Why is their so much fiber dark? The same reason that electric companies are keeping power plants offline in California, it's more profitable to cause an artificial scarcity and drive up profits then to generate plenty and make a more modest per unit profit.
Why do Cable/DSL companies advertise "unlimited always on"? Because most people wouldn't pay 2x to 5x the cost of dialup for basically the same functionality.
I think, like many other posters here, that the problem isn't heavy users paying more, it's Cable Co.'s and other broadband ISP's creative use of the English language.
Calling people who actually use the bandwidth that the ISP sold them "bandwidth-hogs" is just as bad as calling people who watch DVD's on their linux box "pirates".
If ISP's can't afford to sell "unlimited" usage then don't advertise it. If someone sells me an unlimited, always-on connection, that's what I expect. In my state I pay for unlimited local calls, the PUC would have ma bell by the short hairs if she threatened to turn off my phone because my daughter spends all day talking to her girl-friends, and my son dials up to the university all night (I use DSL myself).
Eventually it'll have to get settled in the courts. (Sigh, more work for the lawyers) Companies shouldn't be allowed to change terms without notice, heck they shouldn't even be able to change terms with out at least 30 days notice.
They shouldn't be able to advertise unlimited access when what they mean is "very-fast downloads, once in a while, of very small files, assuming you don't want to do it when your neighbor does" connection.
In the end I think this silliness will continue until network access gets regulated like the Public Utility that it is. Internet dialtone, the moving around of raw bits, the assignment of IP addresses, landlines and wireless should be controlled by a non-profit gov. entity.
Can you imagine the mess if different companies were to build and were able to charge for the highway system? We'll charge you a flat rate with unlimited access to the road network whenever you want, except of course if you happen to drive anything bigger than a VW Beetle more than once a day. I mean the nerve of those roadway hogs, people actually using the road networks, building roads cost money, if you want to use the roads more often then you should have to pay more.
Of course using the highway to say go from your town to visit your aunt in another state, don't even get me started, there is the company that owns your local roads, then they have to lease access for you through the company(ies) that own the highways between your state and your aunts state, then of course there's the other company that owns the local roads in your aunts town. Access to the highway costs big money, since most people leave the state only a couple of times I year, why should they subsidise your visits to your girlfriend in the next state every weekend? I mean the nerve of these "road-hogs"!;)
Sounds kinda silly? Well it's where we are at with internet networks. Until network access get to be more like roadway access we can probably expect this silliness to continue.
I may be wrong here, but I don't think that Japanese children are any smarter or dumber than their American counterparts. In fact I would wager that most of the children (baring genetic disorders or malnutrition) are pretty much the same world over.
The biggest difference is the educational system and the goals that the educational system has. If what you say is true, then Japan has math skills and computer programming as goals for it's educational system. Germany, the last time I checked (which was about a decade ago) didn't teach history, art or music in their public education system. The US public schools were aimed at turning out factory workers. They did a very good job turning out factory workers, it's just that we don't need factory workers anymore and the system hasn't caught up. Does that mean that German students are artistically challenged? Perhaps.
At the moment, I would supplement the public education of my children in the US, especially if you have other goals than to be factory workers in mind for them.
Of course higher education is a completely different matter. In most of the rest of the world you have to pass all kinds of complicated tests to get into college (hence the high suicide rate of students in those countries) but once you get it, you basically get a free ride. In the US any idiot with enough money can get into college, but the better ones make you work your bottom off to graduate. Is it any wonder why most of the rest of the world wants to go to graduate school here in the states?
I guess what I am saying it that it isn't that the intelligence of Japanese children is any better or worse than American children, it's that they are a product of completely different educational systems.
No one is inherently better or worse than anyone else.
Did they compare the length of the installation instructions of the Linux solution to the Mac quick start guide, or the entire manual to the Mac quick start guide?
If they did the former, then someone needs to take a course on technical writing, otherwise it's a Penguin to Apple comparison....
I'm not sure about Outlook, but I am using Oulook Express 5.5 here. I just sent myself several emails with lines beginning with begin. Not once did it do anything to the text of the email. It arrived begin (then the rest of the email was just the plain text that I sent.
It's how you use them that makes them illegal. In fact I can buy a tool that allows me to open most car locks at the local dollar store. If they are in your possession when you are caught committing a crime you're in trouble, and if the cops suspect that you are committing a crime (or about to) and you have them on you might have a bit more explaining to do, but just having them isn't illegal.
I think that's the main problem with the DMCA. It makes just having or talking about things illegal. The reason given is that they MIGHT be used to infringe on copyright. If that were the case then why don't we make steak knives, or hammers, or baseball bats illegal? I mean forget about copyright violations, there is documented evidence that people are MURDERED with these things. Sounds kind of ridiculous now doesn't it.
Using any tool to commit a crime is illegal. Murder is murder whether you shoot someone, beat them to death with a baseball bat, or strangle them with dental floss (Oops, perhaps I shouldn't have said that, they might decide to strictly regulate the manufacture and distribution of dental floss) You prosecute the person who committed the crime. You don't make possessing material objects illegal.
Perhaps the problem is that corporations and the congressmen that back them have their priorities all messed up. Murder, starvation, rape, assault that's ok. Just don't do anything that MIGHT effect their profit margin.
I think that most people here are missing the larger picture. When you but a copy of something, that's what you have bought a copy. You OWN that copy. You didn't license it you bought it. Universal is trying to get people thinking that they can only license music. In this country (USA), there is this little thing called the "First Sale Doctrine". Basically, once a copyright holder sells you a copyrighted work, barring copyright violations, what you do with it is none of his concern.
There was a judge who recently ruled for a man who was unbundling the software that is shipped with hardware and selling it separately (was it on here?) The judge basically said, if it looks like a sale, smells like a sale, feels like a sale, then it's a sale, NOT a license ( I realize that I am paraphrasing badly.) Just because Universal throws a proprietary windows player to play their proprietary audio format doesn't turn buying audio CD's into licensing audio CD's.
An audio CD-ROM is like a photograph, or a book. You don't by a license to listen to it, you buy it. Try this mental exercise;
2. USE OF THE BOOK
* No Additional Charge. There is no additional charge to you for the Book.
* Privacy. No personal information about you is collected by or through the Book.
* Responsibilities. You are responsible for all use of the Book you have purchased. You may only use the Book pursuant to these terms and conditions.
* Book. The Book comprise intellectual property owned by us and our licensors, and they are protected under international law, including patent, copyright and trade secret laws. Your use of the Book is governed by the terms and conditions set forth herein. All title and ownership rights in the Book remains with us and our licensors, as applicable.
* License. We hereby grant to you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to use the Book on your personal computer solely for your own personal, non-commercial use. You understand and agree that you may not reproduce, modify, display, distribute or otherwise use the Book except as expressly provided herein, and you may not attempt to separate the pages from the BOOK on which you received them. You may not authorize, encourage or allow the Book or any pages to be reproduced, modified, displayed, distributed or otherwise used by any other party, and you agree that you will take all reasonable steps to prevent any unauthorized reproduction and/or use of them. Nothing herein is intended to prevent you from transferring the BOOK you purchased to another person who will be bound by these terms and conditions. Except as expressly provided herein, no other licenses or rights (including rights to maintenance or updates) are granted, expressly, or by implication or estoppel.
* No Reverse Engineering. You may not attempt (or authorize, encourage or support others' attempts) to circumvent, reverse engineer, decrypt, break or otherwise alter or interfere with the Book.
3. MAINTENANCE AND UPDATES
* We do not provide maintenance or updates for the Book.
....
7. REMEDIES
You understand and agree that any unauthorized use of the Book would result in irreparable injury to us and/or our affiliates or licensors for which money damages would be inadequate, and in such event we and/or licensors, as applicable, shall have the right, in addition to other remedies available at law and in equity, to immediate injunctive relief against you. Nothing contained in this paragraph or elsewhere in this document shall be construed to limit remedies or relief available pursuant to statutory or other claims that we, our affiliates and/or licensors may have under separate legal authority, including but not limited to, any claim for intellectual property infringement.
8. INDEMNITY
You agree to indemnify and hold harmless us and our agents, employees, representatives, licensors, affiliates, parents and subsidiaries from and against any and all claims, losses, demands, causes of action and judgments (including attorneys' fees and court costs) (collectively "Claims") arising from or concerning your use of the Book and to reimburse them on demand for any losses, costs or expenses they incur as a result of any Claims.
9. TERM AND TERMINATION
The term of this agreement shall be for so long as we and/or our licensors own any intellectual property rights in the Book. You may terminate this agreement at any time by returning to us the BOOK you purchased.
Did that make any sense to you? That's where Universal, Disney, Sony, and the rest of the entertainment cartel would LOVE to be.
I think any letters we should be writing to Universal (and to our congressmen) should be along the lines of;
"Dear Universal,
I currently purchase audio and video compilations produced by various artists and marketed by your corporation. Notice I said purchased. I resent the attempt your company is making to unilaterally redefine the nature of my purchase in a transparent attempt to circumvent the traditional limitations imposed on your conduct by copyright law, the first sale doctrine, and the first amendment.
Including a "player" on an audio CD-ROM does not change my purchase into a license. If you do not want to sell your player, then please feel free to remove it from the CD-ROM.
In the same manner that you can not legally enslave me with a one sided license, you can not deprive me of the protections of the above mentioned law and statues.
I will be properly ignoring your blatantly illegal ploy and strongly suggest that you rethink this entire matter."
Actually, as much as I like the GPL I think that a BSD style license should be applied to ALL work produced by our colleges and universities.
While some people bristle at the "restrictions" of BSD style licenses, primarily that credit be given to the author(s) of the work in the Source Code, I would argue that this "restriction" is one that is commonly found in all other areas of academia. When you write a paper based on someone else's research, it is customary to cite other papers, by author, that you based your research on. Why should writing code be any different.
Perhaps the easiest way to start would be for the NSF, as a requirement for grant money, stipulate that all work produced as a result of this grant be released under a BSD style license.
I would suggest that it shouldn't come as any surprise that University research be governed by a BSD style license, after all where did BSD originate? At the UNIVERSITY of California, Berkley.
Slashdot Mirror
Um... you said,
"Just like if I painted a painting, and you made a copy of it without my permission. And that painting IS a physical object."
Ok, I'll bite.
If I made a copy of that painting that you painted, that _physical_object_, do you still have the original?
If the original is hanging in a museum, and I make a copy of it without your permission, isn't the original still hanging in the exact same spot in the museum it was _before_ I copied it?
If you have the original painting, I make a copy of it (say I have a really good eye and by setting my easel up in front of it for a few minutes I can make a perfect copy) and take my copy home with me, what exactly have I stolen?
Picture this, As I am walking out the door to the museum, you notice my perfect copy of your painting under my arm. You call the cops. When they arrive you tell them;
You: "That man just _stole_ my painting!"
Cop: "What does it look like?"
You: (taking the cops over to where the original _still_ hangs)"It looks just like that."
Cop: (puzzled)"Did you have another copy that he stole?"
You: "No, that is the _only_ copy that I've made."
Cop: "It looks like it's still there." (scratches head) "Who painted the copy that the alleged thief walked out with?"
You: "He did I suppose."
Cop: "And who bought the paint that he painted that copy with?"
You: "I think he did."
Cop: "Did you buy the canvas that he used?"
You: "No, he brought that in with him too."
Cop: (obviously exasperated by your seeming lack of the obvious) "So let me get this straight, A man walked into this museum with his own paint and his own canvas. He personally painted a painting with his own paint, on his own canvas. Is this correct?"
You: "Yes, but he COPIED MY PAINTING!"
Cop: "Um, I'm sorry you feel this way, but he hasn't _stolen_ anything. You still have your painting. You can't expect us to arrest a man for drawing on material that he has lawfully purchased just because you don't like what he's drawn."
You: (pouting)
Cop: "Perhaps you should get in touch with those RIAA/MPAA folks. I hear that they are always trying to have people arrested for doing things with stuff that they legally own." (exits stage left)
So, as I hope you can plainly see, copyright infringement IS NOT stealing. Stealing means you bought it and have it, I took (_stole_) it from you. Now you no longer have it, I do. Ideas don't work that way.
I can steal the book, but I can't steal the story.
I can steal the CD-ROM, but I can't steal the song.
I can steal your DVD player, but I can't steal the patented, fatally flawed, decryption algorithm.
"Actually AMD is trying to establish a series of testing criteria that will allow us to rate cpu's by means other than performance..."
Did you mean to say that AMD wanted to rate CPU's by means other than _CLOCK_SPEED_?
Their point seems to be that clock speed alone isn't a true measure of prerformance.
"What speech is the DMCA stopping?"
Well for starters, I can't legally tell anyone just how bad a content protection scheme is (see Felton et al.) If I figure out how to play DVD's on my GNU/Linux box, I can't legally tell anyone else how to do it (see DeCSS).
It's actually rather ingenious, in a rather sick way. They couldn't outlaw "fair use" or "first sale" so they outlawed most of the means to actually gain any benefit from them.
It would be like the anti-gun lobby passing a law that said the ownership of guns was protected by the second amendment, that's ok. The New Millennium Safety Act (NMSA) makes the sale, purchase, importation, exportation, or discussion of how to make firearms or ammunition illegal. They haven't prohibited you from owning a firearm and if you are bright enough to build one yourself you are all set. But you can't tell your neighbor how to do it, or sell/give him one. It might not keep firearms out of the hands of everyone, but how many people do you know have the skill and the equipment to build their own firearms?
In the same way the DMCA doesn't prevent you from making fair use of your own copies of works you have (well since their isn't actually a "fair use" defense to circumventing a copy protection measure, I guess it does.) It does prevent you from telling anyone else about it.
So yes, it does stop speech.
Actually while the video-game industry doesn't gross more than the film industry, I remember somewhere that the telcom industry makes more in a day than the film industry makes in a year.
I'm not sure if that's true, but it sounds about right.
Well I for one have used a ATM about a dozen times in my entire life. What's the point of paying X + Y dollers for groceries, where Y may equal 25% - 50% of X for small purchases, when I can pay X + $0.02 for the same purchase.
The other thing of course, one that I believe makes it NOT a "win-win all around" is when's the last time you've heard of someone bouncing an ATM transaction? I can write a check for $1000.00 USD more than my checking account balance, but I can't pay for something with an ATM card that costs $1000.00 more than what is in my account. You would think that at the very least, merchants would be clamoring all over themselves to promote ATM usage.
I guess sticking those consumers who can't grasp simple math with profit padding charges more than makes up for all of the fraud that they have to eat.
Perhaps some consumers will pay, but myself, and most other people with a grasp of simple math and a desire not to be fleeced like so many sheep are sticking with our plain old fashioned paper checks, thank you very much.
Well, my financial institution doesn't charge me anything for a "Unlimited free checking account". So unless you know of a "free ATM" no monthly fee account, that automatically pays all of the fees that individual ATM machines want to charge, on top of what your bank does or doesn't charge it's still going to cost more than to use a check.
I think you are missing the point. The point is that ATM processing is an order of magnitude lower than paper check processing. Logically you might assume that banks would be trying to promote the use of ATM's by say not charging an ATM fee while slowly increasing the per check fee for paper checks. Instead, all they can see are huge profit potentials and a belief that if it is more convenient people obviously should be paying more for it.
If all of the banks had free ATM cards, most stores accepted them, and paper checks cost over $5.00 USD each to process, I bet with a year or two most paper checks would have gone the way of the eight-track.
That of course was an aside to illustrate the main issue, which was that banks, like record companies, insist on trying to charge more for something just because of its apparent convenience. Even to the detriment of their own efficiency.
.
Glad to hear that you think this is just as silly as I do.
;> Like buying a book, but only copying the abstract on the inside flap.
You said:
"Video tapes are kind of fuzzy all around. Just like music tapes there isn't as big of a concern about copying. If you had a digital copy of the show and your friend copied it then you may have a problem."
But according to current law I could record to CD-R just as legally as I can to VHS. Also, doesn't the fact that I stripped out the commercials make it less of a copy and more of a derivative work? I mean the reason television stations even bother to air shows is to get you to watch the commercials. What they are selling are commercials. Since I have edited out the most "valuable" portion of what was aired at that time, you would think that there would be less of a problem....
Oh, silly me, I think I understand the problem now. People have found out how to do something cheaper, more efficiently, and more conveniently WITHOUT paying more for it.
Taping shows onto VHS and physically mailing them around the planet is slow, inefficient, and expensive. A lot of people still mail physical bootleg tapes of concerts or club dance mixes this way and have for years. I used to have a friend in another state record a television show for my daughter before that channel was available in my neck of the woods and mail the tapes to me. Digitally recording a show onto a hard drive and sharing it across the internet is faster, more efficient, and relatively cheap.
ATM's transactions are more efficient than paper checks, more convenient, and (at least according to the banks/credit unions I've talked to) cost the bank 1/10th as much to process as paper checks. Yet, I can still buy paper checks for about $0.02 USD each and have unlimited free checking, but to use my ATM card it costs me $1.00 USD each time I use it + $ ?.?? USD from the bank who's ATM I'm using (some places as high as $5.00 USD) for each transaction I make with the silly thing.
.
Well repeaters and signal boosters are all perfectly legal.
If I let my friend borrow my tape, and he made a himself a copy and returned it that would be ok then?
So the issue, as you see it, isn't the action but the number of people?
So I guess the next thing we'll have to do is put a counter on everything in the library. Loaning out that video tape to 100 patrons is ok, but once we hit some magical number (100,000, 1,000,000) it becomes a crime?
Here's another hypothetical situation, can you please explain the difference to me;
UPN broadcasts "Enterprise" into lets say 2,000,000 homes each week. 1,500,000 of those homes has a VCR or a digital capture card and records this weeks episode. This is all perfectly legal right? How is that any different than if 10 people record that episode and "share" it with 1,499,990 "friends" over the internet.
The first is "fair use" the second is a horrible crime that must be stopped. There are still 1,500,000 copies of that episode in circulation.
That line of thinking seems to defy logic.
.
Um, maybe I'm just terminally dense, but...
If I tape a show with my VCR that's legal right.
If I run the TV signal though my Digital capture card and write it to CD-R that's legal too, right.
If I tape my daughters favorite show for her, because she has to work and give her the tape
when she gets home, that's legal.
If I run the TV signal though my Digital capture card and write it to CD-R and give her the CD-R when she gets home that's legal too, right.
If I don't own a VCR only a video player is it legal to have my friend video tape it for me and give me the tape when he comes in to work? (I catch the show in question, but I have to work during this weeks show)
If instead of a VHS tape, since I don't have even a video tape player he gives it to me on a CD-R. (being a proper geek I do have a computer with a CD-Rom drive) Isn't that the same thing?
If my friend lives in the same apartment with me is that legal? On the next floor? The next building? The next state? The next continent?
Why is it legal for me to tape Enterprise or the Simpsons, but illegal to have my friend in France tape it for me?
Why can I tape a show on my VCR, but if I tape it to CD-R that's a problem?
If the music stations don't want you to record songs off the radio don't air them. If television stations don't want you to tape episodes, then don't air them.
Here's one final quandary.
If I live in a frat house with 200 other guys and we get cable television service for say $50.00 USD a month. It's perfectly legal to hook it up to a large screen television and let as many people as can fit in the room all watch it together. Take that one step further, since in the US the cable company can't charge you per television for service (they are trying to get back to that with digital cable and the required decoder box rentals, that's why they'll hate to see digital cable decoders as ubiquitous as cable ready TV and VCR's), I can legally hook up 100 or more televisions to that one cable line. All legally. The fraternity can tape every episode of a television show and keep them in the television room of the frat house, now potentially thousands of people can watch this show, and we are still legal. So why is trading episodes of a show through the internet suddenly a problem?
.
That's no different than today. If I steal your laptop with your "virtually finished literary masterpiece (or song or software)..." and publish it I'm in the same position.
I guess you didn't read the part of my post that you quoted;
"Second, only the author, or his wife heir can copyright his/her own works."
If I can prove that I am in fact the author, then the person who improperly copyrighted my work would loose that copyright and suffer whatever penalty the law would allow for improper copyright registration. Depending on how widespread the distribution of that work was, you could either pull the improper copy out of circulation (if there is only 1 or two copies) or transfer the copyright to yourself in which case the copyright clock would start.
You always have a legitimate right to your work as the work's author regardless of copyright. All copyright does is give the author the right to say who can or can not publish a work for a limited time. Hence the term "copy right" (i.e. the right to make copies). Even if a work is copyrighted I can still make fair use of it. Just because I use a paragraph of your novel to illustrate some concept in my English Lit. class doesn't change the status of the Author.
Let us say that I build a nifty gadget in my basement and don't tell any about it, sometime later a crook breaks into my house and notices said gadget, he steals it and get a patent on it. Does that mean that I don't own it anymore? That I can't get his patent overturned? If I can prove that it is my gadget that I built then not only do I get it back, and overturn his improper patent, he goes to jail for theft. Just because I didn't patent it doesn't mean that I have "...no legitimate right to it anyway..."
I realize that patents are a different sort of animal than copyright, but I think in this case they are similar enough to illustrate the point I am trying to make.
I guess what I am saying is that only the author or his named heirs (direct heirs, not some third cousin twelve times removed) has the right to copyright/publish his work. If you choose to publish your work without getting a copyright on it, it goes into the public domain immediately upon publication. If a third party publishes a work without your knowledge or consent then;
a) they get penalized for stealing your work
b) any copyright they got on it is null and void.
c) if you want you can get that work copyrighted if you want
d) if it is technically possible, you have the opportunity to remove the copyrighted work from
circulation reverting it to its unpublished status.
All in all I think that would lead to a better situation than exists today. Just because anything you author is assumed to be copyrighted from the moment you write it until what your life plus 75 or so years doesn't stop someone else from stealing your unpublished manuscript and claiming that they wrote it. Both situations hinge on the fact that you have to be able to prove authorship.
Currently, if I find a lost novel from an author who's been dead for 50 years, technically his relatives can make a case that they don't want it to see the light of day and with Congresses approval will probably be able to keep it that way forever. Under my scheme, if the author is dead, and his wife and son, to whom he left all of his worldly possessions is dead, then it's in the public domain. I can't claim a copyright on it, and neither can anyone else. Since the rights to a work can only be passed on to one's heirs and not to their heirs ad infinium, and assuming you somehow legally obtained a copy of it (find it cleaning up an old house you bought) then the longest that it could legally remain unpublished is until the author's heirs death.
.
Thanks for the spelling lesson. Now for your other cases.
Case 3. & Case 5 are simple to deal with. You have to register a copyright to get something copyrighted. None of this I scribbled on that back of a napkin 5 years ago so it's copyrighted. You have to submit a sample of the work to be copyrighted to the copyright office. That way everything that benefits from copyright has a copy that will pass into the public domain when copyright expires. If in Case 3 you registered for a copyright on your 22 novels during those 20 years then it can't get "lost forever". There is always the copy you left with the copyright office that people could get a copy from. Second, only the author, or his wife heir can copyright his/her own works.
If you can't get your book published don't register it for a copyright. The clock starts ticking when you register it. If your grandson & heir discovers your lost novel, he can register it and the clock starts then. I break into your attic I can't register your novel for copyright.
As for Case 4, "thems the breaks". If I invent a cure for impotency in the 1930's (read viagra) it sells ok, but doesn't become enormously popular until the swinging 1960's, I don't get to go to the patent office and ask that my patent be extended because I'm loosing a ton of money. As someone else has written, write something else.
.
The problem is tying copyright lengths to authors lives. The solution, don't.
If copyright lasted 7 years with an option to extend it for another 7 years (once) like it was originally, then it wouldn't matter if the author died.
Case 1, author writes a novel and lives for 50 years after that. Author, wife, children get royalties for 14 years max.
Case 2, author writes a novel and dies on the way home from the publisher. Wife and children of said author get royalties for 14 years max.
In my opinion copyright should last 7 years, with an optional 7 year extension. Everything older than 14 years should immediately become public domain. Everything less than 14 years and older than 7 years gets a one time 7 year extension.
Copyright should be limited to "real people". The Author, his wife, survivors in the case of his death. None of this corporate copyright. If you are an artist, then the record company may publish your album, but it can NEVER hold the copyright. You can't sell a copyright, but you can license the production of your work to a third party.
Simple, direct, to the point. Corporations will absolutely hate it, Congress backed by the moneyed lobbies will never pass it. Hopefully the Supreme Court will have the good sense to do the "Right Thing" TM.
Copyright was established to promote the common good and to provide an incentive to create new works for the public domain. With most of Disney's works in the public domain, perhaps they will actually produce something original instead of yet another reissue of Snow White for the umpteenth time.
How can we build on the shoulders of those that have come before us if everything is perpetually copyrighted? I don't appreciate the lame response I've gotten from my congress critters of "We only extended copyright to make it the same as in Europe." Bah. Mien Komph (sp?) is illegal to read for most people in Germany, Nazi memorabilia is illegal in France, should we make them illegal here to?
Then of course there's the problem of patenting genes, algorithms, business plans... ugh...
but I digress, one cooperate inspired abomination at a time.
.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Building roads like building other forms of infrastructure entails a lot of up front cost. This means that unless you are guaranteed a monopoly, or nearly so, most companies simply won't do it. So instead of company A (Road Co.) developing new technology to speed things up, you'll end up with company Road Co. spending it's time to prevent company B (Roads 'R Us) from building any other roads. What few roads that Roads 'R Us does manage to build won't connect to Road Co.'s roads, and at the places that it does they will charge Roads 'R Us huge fees to interconnect. Not only that, but Road Co. will probably give a discount to travelers that promise to do all of their driving on Road Co.'s roads.
Sounds like most infrastructure doesn't it? I mean how many phone lines (the actual wires) are their running to your house? How many electrical lines, water mains, sewer lines? Does ATT, MCI, MaBell, each run a separate pair of lines into your house? When a state deregulates electricity, do they deregulate delivery or just generation? If they deregulated delivery how many other electric companies are chomping at the bit to string up a completely new power transmission system? In the case of roads, once Road Co. owns the road that your driveway connects to, how exactly is Roads 'R Us going to connect you to its road network? It can't, you can't have more than one road that your driveway connects to. So since Road Co. got there first they have a monopoly. Pay up or stay home.
Competitive local exchanges are having that problem in the telco industry. Ma Bell owns the wires into your house. Every one else that wants to sell you phone service, or DSL, or anything else has to get MaBell's permission to use her wires. MaBell doesn't have to charge herself and if she over charges her competition, or simply drags her feet long enough, the competition dies. You don't want to pay MaBell for your land line? Don't use a phone.
So you see, infrastructure has to be owned by a non-profit entity like the government. In fact building things like roads is one of the primary reasons we have governments. Companies can only be trusted to try and maximize their profits. Sometimes, if market conditions and competition are allowed to flourish it works out well for consumers. Most of the time, if left to their own devices it sucks for consumers.
Companies don't want competition, they want monopolies. If that isn't possible, most will settle for a nice old fashioned cartel.
Infrastructure lends itself to a "natural monopoly". Letting any company own that is just asking for trouble.
(Sorry, but I couldn't resist)
:)
Hey anon,
People running computers pay electricity for every processor/harddrive/NIC they use. If I have a million computers (ASCII WHITE?) I better hope that I'm not in California.
If I drive a ultra efficient car that gets 200MPG as opposed to a bloated 1952 car that gets 10MPG and if I travel 1,000,000 miles on the SAME roads, do I pay the same amount of gas tax? No? Why not?
If I drive my 200MPG vehicle 2000 miles, I pay the same amount of gas tax as the guy who travels 100 mile in his 10MPG car. That can't be right can it? I mean here I am traveling all over the country while the other poor shmuch can only commute to and from work.
It doesn't cost me anymore to use the ROADS than the next guy but it will cost me a heck of allot more if I chose to drive a BMW as opposed to a KIA. If I choose to run a Cray instead of an Mac Classic, I should still pay the same amount for connecting to the network. The Cray costs and arm and a leg to buy, and a small fortune in electricity to run, but that should be independent of the network. Just like I don't get charged any more for driving my BMW down main street than I would if I was ridding a 75cc motercycle.
To paraphrase you, "Your gas analogy blows!"
Actually, in this country at least the government could. It could declare the network infrastructure a public resource and seize the assets through the principle of eminent domain. Even simpler it could impose a 1,000,000% tax on anyone operating basic network infrastructure. There are plenty of ways to do it. They wouldn't even have to force allot of companies out of business, instead of being for-profit, they become heavily regulated non-profits. Their other option is to spin off the basic IP transport into a government controlled non-profit while everything above that stays a for-profit company. Some of the employees get transferred to government jobs, some to the remaining for-profit company.
;) will have to compete on the merits of what they offer. They won't be able to be the only game in town by signing exclusive deals with the only ISP in town.
The commerce department still has it's hand in the DNS system. They could just pull the authorization back from Network Solutions. I bet if the US of A invited the rest of the country level registrars in for a chat, seeing how well they are getting along with ICANN, they just might be up for it.
It's doable, at least in this country. It might be even easier in other countries. It will just take a commitment by the people in office to actually do something to help the people as opposed to the corporations. Actually, except for the dominant, near monopoly players this might actually stimulate growth and ecommerce. Companies won't have to worry about getting into the terribly unprofitable IP supply and provisioning business and instead can focus on value add. Just think of it, everyone will need at least email. How many people do you think can set up and run their own mail servers? Not many I would imagine. AOL can stop worrying about modem pools and busy signals, everyone will be on the bring your own ISP plan. Of course that reduces AOL to just another potential destination on the internet, but it means that the Geek Emporium, MSN, PenguinPower, and AOL (ok, I made a few of those up
Perhaps Linux, xBSD, Atari, Amiga, Mac, and every other OS will finally be supported to the same degree as Windows. That would be a nice change.
.
I think you miss the point. What I said is that a Gov. non-profit should control the wires/airwaves, the infrastructure, NOT regulate the internet. Anything more than digital-dialtone and DNS is in the private sector.
As to your comment about the feds not being able to get their act together, perhaps you are new to this whole internet thing. If so, it's understandable.
DAPRANET was created/run by non profits. The last time I checked the National Science Foundation and the Defense department were Gov.. agencies. Just because the FBI can't secure a web server, or the Department of Agriculture doesn't know squat about setting up a network, doesn't mean that there aren't some pretty sharp cookies in the NSF, or in say MIT or UCal Berkley.
EMail servers could be run in the private sector, the USPS could even compete. Commercial web hosting, private web hosting(if you couldn't figure out how to do it you self) streaming media, news, IM, etc. all extras that you would pay an ISP or some other commercial entity for.
Of course there would be redundant private networks, just like there are private redundant electrical grids, or private roads for those that need the extra capacity/security of an independent solution. I'm sure that the private sector will make a pretty penny selling this capacity to businesses that need/want that.
Fiber/routers/NAP's especially that strung across public resources (public roads, public utility poles, etc) are controlled by the Network Utility Commission. DNS gets out of Network Solutions greedily little hands and back to a non-profit. IPV6 should allow every man woman and toaster to have it's own IP address. Allocate a huge block of them like the current country level codes. Give everyone one backed by the Non-Profit DNS. Pay for it by selling the other half to the commercial sector.
Everyone gets Xk bandwidth (symmetric) and an IP/DNS address for a nominal fee. Just like everyone gets to use the public road system, or gets some basic level of telephone service. Digital dialtone.
It's the for-profit mentality that makes such a mess of things. Why is their so much fiber dark? The same reason that electric companies are keeping power plants offline in California, it's more profitable to cause an artificial scarcity and drive up profits then to generate plenty and make a more modest per unit profit.
Why do Cable/DSL companies advertise "unlimited always on"? Because most people wouldn't pay 2x to 5x the cost of dialup for basically the same functionality.
So yes I HAVE thought about it.
.
I think, like many other posters here, that the problem isn't heavy users paying more, it's Cable Co.'s and other broadband ISP's creative use of the English language.
;)
Calling people who actually use the bandwidth that the ISP sold them "bandwidth-hogs" is just as bad as calling people who watch DVD's on their linux box "pirates".
If ISP's can't afford to sell "unlimited" usage then don't advertise it. If someone sells me an unlimited, always-on connection, that's what I expect. In my state I pay for unlimited local calls, the PUC would have ma bell by the short hairs if she threatened to turn off my phone because my daughter spends all day talking to her girl-friends, and my son dials up to the university all night (I use DSL myself).
Eventually it'll have to get settled in the courts. (Sigh, more work for the lawyers) Companies shouldn't be allowed to change terms without notice, heck they shouldn't even be able to change terms with out at least 30 days notice.
They shouldn't be able to advertise unlimited access when what they mean is "very-fast downloads, once in a while, of very small files, assuming you don't want to do it when your neighbor does" connection.
In the end I think this silliness will continue until network access gets regulated like the Public Utility that it is. Internet dialtone, the moving around of raw bits, the assignment of IP addresses, landlines and wireless should be controlled by a non-profit gov. entity.
Can you imagine the mess if different companies were to build and were able to charge for the highway system? We'll charge you a flat rate with unlimited access to the road network whenever you want, except of course if you happen to drive anything bigger than a VW Beetle more than once a day. I mean the nerve of those roadway hogs, people actually using the road networks, building roads cost money, if you want to use the roads more often then you should have to pay more.
Of course using the highway to say go from your town to visit your aunt in another state, don't even get me started, there is the company that owns your local roads, then they have to lease access for you through the company(ies) that own the highways between your state and your aunts state, then of course there's the other company that owns the local roads in your aunts town. Access to the highway costs big money, since most people leave the state only a couple of times I year, why should they subsidise your visits to your girlfriend in the next state every weekend? I mean the nerve of these "road-hogs"!
Sounds kinda silly? Well it's where we are at with internet networks. Until network access get to be more like roadway access we can probably expect this silliness to continue.
.
I may be wrong here, but I don't think that Japanese children are any smarter or dumber than their American counterparts. In fact I would wager that most of the children (baring genetic disorders or malnutrition) are pretty much the same world over.
The biggest difference is the educational system and the goals that the educational system has. If what you say is true, then Japan has math skills and computer programming as goals for it's educational system. Germany, the last time I checked (which was about a decade ago) didn't teach history, art or music in their public education system. The US public schools were aimed at turning out factory workers. They did a very good job turning out factory workers, it's just that we don't need factory workers anymore and the system hasn't caught up. Does that mean that German students are artistically challenged? Perhaps.
At the moment, I would supplement the public education of my children in the US, especially if you have other goals than to be factory workers in mind for them.
Of course higher education is a completely different matter. In most of the rest of the world you have to pass all kinds of complicated tests to get into college (hence the high suicide rate of students in those countries) but once you get it, you basically get a free ride. In the US any idiot with enough money can get into college, but the better ones make you work your bottom off to graduate. Is it any wonder why most of the rest of the world wants to go to graduate school here in the states?
I guess what I am saying it that it isn't that the intelligence of Japanese children is any better or worse than American children, it's that they are a product of completely different educational systems.
No one is inherently better or worse than anyone else.
Did they compare the length of the installation instructions of the Linux solution to the Mac quick start guide, or the entire manual to the Mac quick start guide?
If they did the former, then someone needs to take a course on technical writing, otherwise it's a Penguin to Apple comparison....
.
My guess would be that if the press makes a convincing argument, she will allow the press to have transcripts of the depositions.
I'm not sure about Outlook, but I am using Oulook Express 5.5 here. I just sent myself several emails with lines beginning with begin. Not once did it do anything to the text of the email. It arrived begin (then the rest of the email was just the plain text that I sent.
I guess MS must have fixed it.
Um...
Isn't the current NON-BETA version of Netsape 6.2.1??
Actually lockpicks are legal.
It's how you use them that makes them illegal. In fact I can buy a tool that allows me to open most car locks at the local dollar store. If they are in your possession when you are caught committing a crime you're in trouble, and if the cops suspect that you are committing a crime (or about to) and you have them on you might have a bit more explaining to do, but just having them isn't illegal.
I think that's the main problem with the DMCA. It makes just having or talking about things illegal. The reason given is that they MIGHT be used to infringe on copyright. If that were the case then why don't we make steak knives, or hammers, or baseball bats illegal? I mean forget about copyright violations, there is documented evidence that people are MURDERED with these things. Sounds kind of ridiculous now doesn't it.
Using any tool to commit a crime is illegal. Murder is murder whether you shoot someone, beat them to death with a baseball bat, or strangle them with dental floss (Oops, perhaps I shouldn't have said that, they might decide to strictly regulate the manufacture and distribution of dental floss) You prosecute the person who committed the crime. You don't make possessing material objects illegal.
Perhaps the problem is that corporations and the congressmen that back them have their priorities all messed up. Murder, starvation, rape, assault that's ok. Just don't do anything that MIGHT effect their profit margin.
Heaven no. Not that.
Uggggg.....
I think that most people here are missing the larger picture. When you but a copy of something, that's what you have bought a copy. You OWN that copy. You didn't license it you bought it. Universal is trying to get people thinking that they can only license music. In this country (USA), there is this little thing called the "First Sale Doctrine". Basically, once a copyright holder sells you a copyrighted work, barring copyright violations, what you do with it is none of his concern.
There was a judge who recently ruled for a man who was unbundling the software that is shipped with hardware and selling it separately (was it on here?) The judge basically said, if it looks like a sale, smells like a sale, feels like a sale, then it's a sale, NOT a license ( I realize that I am paraphrasing badly.) Just because Universal throws a proprietary windows player to play their proprietary audio format doesn't turn buying audio CD's into licensing audio CD's.
An audio CD-ROM is like a photograph, or a book. You don't by a license to listen to it, you buy it. Try this mental exercise;
2. USE OF THE BOOK
* No Additional Charge. There is no additional charge to you for the Book.
* Privacy. No personal information about you is collected by or through the Book.
* Responsibilities. You are responsible for all use of the Book you have purchased. You may only use the Book pursuant to these terms and conditions.
* Book. The Book comprise intellectual property owned by us and our licensors, and they are protected under international law, including patent, copyright and trade secret laws. Your use of the Book is governed by the terms and conditions set forth herein. All title and ownership rights in the Book remains with us and our licensors, as applicable.
* License. We hereby grant to you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to use the Book on your personal computer solely for your own personal, non-commercial use. You understand and agree that you may not reproduce, modify, display, distribute or otherwise use the Book except as expressly provided herein, and you may not attempt to separate the pages from the BOOK on which you received them. You may not authorize, encourage or allow the Book or any pages to be reproduced, modified, displayed, distributed or otherwise used by any other party, and you agree that you will take all reasonable steps to prevent any unauthorized reproduction and/or use of them. Nothing herein is intended to prevent you from transferring the BOOK you purchased to another person who will be bound by these terms and conditions. Except as expressly provided herein, no other licenses or rights (including rights to maintenance or updates) are granted, expressly, or by implication or estoppel.
* No Reverse Engineering. You may not attempt (or authorize, encourage or support others' attempts) to circumvent, reverse engineer, decrypt, break or otherwise alter or interfere with the Book.
3. MAINTENANCE AND UPDATES
* We do not provide maintenance or updates for the Book.
....
7. REMEDIES
You understand and agree that any unauthorized use of the Book would result in irreparable injury to us and/or our affiliates or licensors for which money damages would be inadequate, and in such event we and/or licensors, as applicable, shall have the right, in addition to other remedies available at law and in equity, to immediate injunctive relief against you. Nothing contained in this paragraph or elsewhere in this document shall be construed to limit remedies or relief available pursuant to statutory or other claims that we, our affiliates and/or licensors may have under separate legal authority, including but not limited to, any claim for intellectual property infringement.
8. INDEMNITY
You agree to indemnify and hold harmless us and our agents, employees, representatives, licensors, affiliates, parents and subsidiaries from and against any and all claims, losses, demands, causes of action and judgments (including attorneys' fees and court costs) (collectively "Claims") arising from or concerning your use of the Book and to reimburse them on demand for any losses, costs or expenses they incur as a result of any Claims.
9. TERM AND TERMINATION
The term of this agreement shall be for so long as we and/or our licensors own any intellectual property rights in the Book. You may terminate this agreement at any time by returning to us the BOOK you purchased.
Did that make any sense to you? That's where Universal, Disney, Sony, and the rest of the entertainment cartel would LOVE to be.
I think any letters we should be writing to Universal (and to our congressmen) should be along the lines of;
"Dear Universal,
I currently purchase audio and video compilations produced by various artists and marketed by your corporation. Notice I said purchased. I resent the attempt your company is making to unilaterally redefine the nature of my purchase in a transparent attempt to circumvent the traditional limitations imposed on your conduct by copyright law, the first sale doctrine, and the first amendment.
Including a "player" on an audio CD-ROM does not change my purchase into a license. If you do not want to sell your player, then please feel free to remove it from the CD-ROM.
In the same manner that you can not legally enslave me with a one sided license, you can not deprive me of the protections of the above mentioned law and statues.
I will be properly ignoring your blatantly illegal ploy and strongly suggest that you rethink this entire matter."
Actually, as much as I like the GPL I think that a BSD style license should be applied to ALL work produced by our colleges and universities.
While some people bristle at the "restrictions" of BSD style licenses, primarily that credit be given to the author(s) of the work in the Source Code, I would argue that this "restriction" is one that is commonly found in all other areas of academia. When you write a paper based on someone else's research, it is customary to cite other papers, by author, that you based your research on. Why should writing code be any different.
Perhaps the easiest way to start would be for the NSF, as a requirement for grant money, stipulate that all work produced as a result of this grant be released under a BSD style license.
I would suggest that it shouldn't come as any surprise that University research be governed by a BSD style license, after all where did BSD originate? At the UNIVERSITY of California, Berkley.