I personally defend that all people should be left alone to think and live their lives as they want, and to them should be given equal rights under the law (as it is already the case in all modern countries). That includes being homosexual, being religious, being atheist, being homophobic, racist, sexist or whatever one chooses to be. As long as a person obeys the law and does not try to force others to do their bindings it is their problem and their problem alone.
He is wrong sometimes, and when proven wrong I am still to see an occasion he have not accepted it and adapted. The fact is he is right far more times than he is wrong.
And nobody should believe in any argument without a sensible logic behind it. The person making the statement is irrelevant to anyone sensible enough not to fall in ad hominem fallacies.
If you are hiring a security related service or any service that depends on security of information, cancel it and go somewhere else. They are obviously not worried about security and have proved that they are pretty much unreachable in case of any problem.
Either way, even if the service you are hiring it is unimportant enough to allow you to live with this kind of practices, I advise you, regardless of how right you may be about their problems, to stop wasting your time trying to help those that are not interested in being helped.
If you are in a corporation with such worries about security it is reasonable to presume that it will have the necessary equipment to allow for secure and efficient exchange of information. If you need to draw that often and pass the information to others, it is in the company best interest to provide you at least a cheap digitizer which would make sketching in any computer program (even MSPaint) about as fast as doing it with a pen.
Wireless systems can be made somewhat secure, never perfectly secure, and car companies are not exactly doing everything they can to make these systems even adequately secure. As it is most are very insecure and easily hacked.
But that is covered by the contract itself. If you don`t fulfill the conditions you pay a fine. There is no logic argument to allow carriers to lock the equipment they sold you. In my country, Brazil, for example it is forbidden to sell locked devices.
Movies are not an essential commodity, but the restrictions the corporations want to impose upon people through their lobbies in order to be able to control their distributions are in blatant violation of human rights.
What matters is not if piracy is right or wrong, but if we should allow our rights to evaporate because big corporations want ridiculous powers in order to police their anachronistic rights.
And I am telling you that you are delusional. Corporations will always try and create more laws to increase their power and control any time they can get away with it. Taking down laws that empower them do nothing to increase this. It only weakens them. And neither the public nor other corporations with conflicting interests will happily swallow anything. It is a silly exaggeration and if that was true we would be much worse shape than we are today.
Your whole theory makes no sense at all. You argue that by taking down laws that give big corporations power we will give them more power. The idea is so absurd it makes me doubt of your sanity.
Corporations are fighting right now for " even more restrictive laws than the DMCA will be drafted to govern so-called "authorized decryption"" , with the legal support copyright gives them. Copyright does nothing to prevent it. Taking copyright from the picture will only weaken their position, not strengthen it, and their resources to buy laws and politicians.
Big media is not the only corporate interest that exists, and sharks tend to devour each other when one shows signs of weakness. Once they start to lose their grip they will just collapse as happened to every other anachronistic cartel that tried to sustain business models that could not be sustained.
There is no limit for what corporate interests will try with copyright on their side. Without it at least absurdities like outlawing measures to work around DRM won't exist anymore, and the law would be again at the customer side. Those laws you talk about only exists because there is copyright to protect. Copyright is the legal concept corporations use as the root of their legislation efforts and propaganda, and the results of those efforts would simply collapse without it.
Copyright does absolute nothing to restrain corporations hunger for power and control. On the contrary, it only helps them to achieve that.
And I don't know what you are drinking, but quality self-published works would have a much easier time getting noticed, and the authors would have a much easier time without being sued because they "copied" parts of something owned by a big corporation in their work.
I assert based on History. You assert based on nothing but wishful thinking. You desperately want to believe copyright is a positive force, which it is obviously not.
Greed is a strong incentive to produce anything but it is far from being the only incentive to create art and it is not and never was the most significant one. The truth is, the perspective to hold copyrights over anything created mostly moves big publishers and the minority of canned blockbusters they artificially create today, because they are the only ones who have huge returns and can actually live from copyright. What is published by them is a very small part of what is produced at large.
That said greed, in the sense of the need for monetary compensation will always be in place. Musicians and actors, for example, need money to live, as everybody else, and they earn their money by performing, as they all did throughout human History before copyright came to be, and as most still do today as their primary source of income today.
Neither art or greed would disappear with copyright. Actually I argue that the positive effects of banishing copyright on both would be by far greater than the negative ones.
This assertion is an interesting one, and one I had already considered, but it is not substantiated by reality. If it were the case, there'd be considerably more people who just explicitly state that they are putting their project is put into public domain, instead of bothering with a lengthy copyright license.
GPL licenses and other types of similar licenses exist because the people who make these works available do not want big corporations using their work as part of their proprietary projects and profiting from them, sometimes even taking over the idea and copyrighting it through legal absurdities. That is the only true distinction between copyleft and public domain: copyleft forces copyleft. Copyleft is used to battle copyright and big copyright holders. If there was no copyright all works would fit GPL licenses terms, for example and there would be no need to make a license forcing what would already be the only possible way to publish anything.
Most NON-mainstream art that is self-published is utter rubbish and suffocates much better self-published works too. For crying out loud, how many cat videos do people need to watch?
As many as they please. This is a non argument. Mainstream art suffocates because it is backed up with millions of dollars in propaganda and paid space. This money is used to alienate competition and to make harder for small people to publish on their own. If there was no big publishers what is good would automatically come to evidence and it would be much easier for capable artists trying to live from their own work.
That is utter bullshit again. Copyleft exists exclusively because copyright exists, basically to defend against it. There would be no reason for copyleft to exist if there was no copyright. Actually most who defend copyleft would much rather prefer a world where neither copyright than copyleft existed.
And no copyright does not maintain publication. Most musicians, for example, earn from performance, by actually working daily, as everybody else. Publication is more of an advertisement for them than a true income source, Only the extremely popular can live from song sells and even them earn a very small fraction of these sells, most of the money goes to the parasites that "publish" their work.
It is past time for this idea that work once earn forever to go away. There are several means for artists to earn money with their work. There is no motive for society to artificially provide another that causes far more problems than it tries to solve.
Now, to answer your question. When you take copyright from the picture, you make massification of art more difficult and allow space for small publishers. We would actually be far better without mainstream art, because most of it is utter trash that suffocates much better works because of the weight and power of corporations behind it.
Nope, when someone composed a song and sang it, it was immediately in public domain before copyright and copied to people's heart content. When someone made a theater play, it could and was copied by many. Only books had any exclusivity because of the difficulty to copy and the low number of people who could actually read them, but even those were hand copied by libraries, monasteries and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you weren't as right as you seem to believe you were...
I personally defend that all people should be left alone to think and live their lives as they want, and to them should be given equal rights under the law (as it is already the case in all modern countries). That includes being homosexual, being religious, being atheist, being homophobic, racist, sexist or whatever one chooses to be. As long as a person obeys the law and does not try to force others to do their bindings it is their problem and their problem alone.
No. But a single family has far fewer interests for which to exert bias.
He is wrong sometimes, and when proven wrong I am still to see an occasion he have not accepted it and adapted. The fact is he is right far more times than he is wrong.
And nobody should believe in any argument without a sensible logic behind it. The person making the statement is irrelevant to anyone sensible enough not to fall in ad hominem fallacies.
Again, that is not correct, Being an asshole has nothing to do with being nice.
Being nice or not has nothing to do with being an asshole. One can be quite a nice asshole if one so wishes.
He is right and has little patience for stupidity. Furthermore he doesn't need to be nice. So he isn't.
And in which way that makes his observation less true?
If you are hiring a security related service or any service that depends on security of information, cancel it and go somewhere else. They are obviously not worried about security and have proved that they are pretty much unreachable in case of any problem.
Either way, even if the service you are hiring it is unimportant enough to allow you to live with this kind of practices, I advise you, regardless of how right you may be about their problems, to stop wasting your time trying to help those that are not interested in being helped.
If you are in a corporation with such worries about security it is reasonable to presume that it will have the necessary equipment to allow for secure and efficient exchange of information. If you need to draw that often and pass the information to others, it is in the company best interest to provide you at least a cheap digitizer which would make sketching in any computer program (even MSPaint) about as fast as doing it with a pen.
I am interrupted far more often when I am working at the company than when I am working at home.
Wireless systems can be made somewhat secure, never perfectly secure, and car companies are not exactly doing everything they can to make these systems even adequately secure. As it is most are very insecure and easily hacked.
But that is covered by the contract itself. If you don`t fulfill the conditions you pay a fine. There is no logic argument to allow carriers to lock the equipment they sold you. In my country, Brazil, for example it is forbidden to sell locked devices.
You are right. They are the Bogeyman, and if you don't behave they will come for you when you are sleeping.
I don't know where you took that from, my good sir, but you are in dire need to see a doctor.
Movies are not an essential commodity, but the restrictions the corporations want to impose upon people through their lobbies in order to be able to control their distributions are in blatant violation of human rights.
What matters is not if piracy is right or wrong, but if we should allow our rights to evaporate because big corporations want ridiculous powers in order to police their anachronistic rights.
A lot of speculation you certainly mean, but officially it was err... Shakespeare, at least until someone can prove it was someone else.
And I am telling you that you are delusional. Corporations will always try and create more laws to increase their power and control any time they can get away with it. Taking down laws that empower them do nothing to increase this. It only weakens them. And neither the public nor other corporations with conflicting interests will happily swallow anything. It is a silly exaggeration and if that was true we would be much worse shape than we are today.
Your whole theory makes no sense at all. You argue that by taking down laws that give big corporations power we will give them more power. The idea is so absurd it makes me doubt of your sanity.
Corporations are fighting right now for " even more restrictive laws than the DMCA will be drafted to govern so-called "authorized decryption"" , with the legal support copyright gives them. Copyright does nothing to prevent it. Taking copyright from the picture will only weaken their position, not strengthen it, and their resources to buy laws and politicians.
Big media is not the only corporate interest that exists, and sharks tend to devour each other when one shows signs of weakness. Once they start to lose their grip they will just collapse as happened to every other anachronistic cartel that tried to sustain business models that could not be sustained.
There is no limit for what corporate interests will try with copyright on their side. Without it at least absurdities like outlawing measures to work around DRM won't exist anymore, and the law would be again at the customer side. Those laws you talk about only exists because there is copyright to protect. Copyright is the legal concept corporations use as the root of their legislation efforts and propaganda, and the results of those efforts would simply collapse without it.
Copyright does absolute nothing to restrain corporations hunger for power and control. On the contrary, it only helps them to achieve that.
And I don't know what you are drinking, but quality self-published works would have a much easier time getting noticed, and the authors would have a much easier time without being sued because they "copied" parts of something owned by a big corporation in their work.
I assert based on History. You assert based on nothing but wishful thinking. You desperately want to believe copyright is a positive force, which it is obviously not.
Greed is a strong incentive to produce anything but it is far from being the only incentive to create art and it is not and never was the most significant one. The truth is, the perspective to hold copyrights over anything created mostly moves big publishers and the minority of canned blockbusters they artificially create today, because they are the only ones who have huge returns and can actually live from copyright. What is published by them is a very small part of what is produced at large.
That said greed, in the sense of the need for monetary compensation will always be in place. Musicians and actors, for example, need money to live, as everybody else, and they earn their money by performing, as they all did throughout human History before copyright came to be, and as most still do today as their primary source of income today.
Neither art or greed would disappear with copyright. Actually I argue that the positive effects of banishing copyright on both would be by far greater than the negative ones.
This assertion is an interesting one, and one I had already considered, but it is not substantiated by reality. If it were the case, there'd be considerably more people who just explicitly state that they are putting their project is put into public domain, instead of bothering with a lengthy copyright license.
GPL licenses and other types of similar licenses exist because the people who make these works available do not want big corporations using their work as part of their proprietary projects and profiting from them, sometimes even taking over the idea and copyrighting it through legal absurdities. That is the only true distinction between copyleft and public domain: copyleft forces copyleft. Copyleft is used to battle copyright and big copyright holders. If there was no copyright all works would fit GPL licenses terms, for example and there would be no need to make a license forcing what would already be the only possible way to publish anything.
Most NON-mainstream art that is self-published is utter rubbish and suffocates much better self-published works too. For crying out loud, how many cat videos do people need to watch?
As many as they please. This is a non argument. Mainstream art suffocates because it is backed up with millions of dollars in propaganda and paid space. This money is used to alienate competition and to make harder for small people to publish on their own. If there was no big publishers what is good would automatically come to evidence and it would be much easier for capable artists trying to live from their own work.
That is utter bullshit again. Copyleft exists exclusively because copyright exists, basically to defend against it. There would be no reason for copyleft to exist if there was no copyright. Actually most who defend copyleft would much rather prefer a world where neither copyright than copyleft existed.
And no copyright does not maintain publication. Most musicians, for example, earn from performance, by actually working daily, as everybody else. Publication is more of an advertisement for them than a true income source, Only the extremely popular can live from song sells and even them earn a very small fraction of these sells, most of the money goes to the parasites that "publish" their work.
It is past time for this idea that work once earn forever to go away. There are several means for artists to earn money with their work. There is no motive for society to artificially provide another that causes far more problems than it tries to solve.
Now, to answer your question. When you take copyright from the picture, you make massification of art more difficult and allow space for small publishers. We would actually be far better without mainstream art, because most of it is utter trash that suffocates much better works because of the weight and power of corporations behind it.
In many countries there are laws against plagiarism that are independent from copyright, and in those they do not exist they could be easily created.
Nope, when someone composed a song and sang it, it was immediately in public domain before copyright and copied to people's heart content. When someone made a theater play, it could and was copied by many. Only books had any exclusivity because of the difficulty to copy and the low number of people who could actually read them, but even those were hand copied by libraries, monasteries and the like.