I'm all for it. (I had to cut my previous comment short as I was on my way out the door, so I'll continue a bit here.)
The problem is that copyright is a balancing act, and that balance has been steadily shifted towards the copy right holder at the expense of the public. Which I suppose isn't surprising given that, until very recently, the only parties interested in this area of the law where those who profitted from it.
What is interesting, however, is that the framers had the foresight to understand this important concept. Only now, with technology that can speed ideas around the globe in seconds, are the rest of us finally catching up. Unfortunately, all the years in between have left an awful lot of kruft in the legal code.
Speaking of technology, it seems strange that as the time required to dissemenate and profit from a work decreases, the length of copyright afforded to that work increases. That seems extremely counterintuitive. Back when books were bound by hand and distributed by horse, the duration of the copy right was 14 years. Now, when technology can speed this comment across the globe in a second, my right to it will last for another 125 years or so.
Context is very important here. He prefaces the excerpt you cited by stating that ideas, by their very nature, belong to all ("That ideas should freely spread..."). Jefferson is saying that once you publish your idea, it immediately becomes part of what we now call the public domain. Even the word 'publish' hints to this as it is derived from the latin publicare, "to make public". That is the important distinction here and, I believe, the answer to your question. Your property is yours, you own it, it belongs to you and you are free to do with it whatever you choose. Your published ideas however, do not belong to you, they belong to the public, who then issue you an exclusive right to profit from copies of those ideas for (what originally was) a limited time.
Well, for example, there is no concept of "fair use" of property. Portions of works that are under copyright can be reproduced for educational or critical purposes. There is no parallel in property law. (Imagine a college professor taking over a room of your house to teach a class.)
The framers understood that ideas are different than property and should be treated as such. Here's a relevant excerpt from one of Thomas Jefferson's letters on the subject:
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
Well, the most obvious difference being that the exclusive right is for limited times, whereas property ownership is normally assumed to be valid in perpetuity
A grandfather has said he was wrongly accused of illegally downloading music online at the start of a legal campaign by the US music industry.
Durwood Pickle, 71, of Texas, said his teenage grandchildren used his computer during visits to his home.
"I didn't do it, and I don't feel like I'm responsible," he said.
Mr Pickle was among 261 individuals accused of sharing music files on the internet without permission.
Microsoft last week said it would let government customers examine the source code of its Windows operating system, a move intended to overcome perceptions of the systems's security weaknesses.
Now, I am not a Fortune 500 CTO (IANAF5CTO?), but I would be pretty worried if I had a global deployment of Windows systems and Microsoft just started handing out the source code to foreign governments (or my own for that matter). If people consistently find exploits without access to the internal code, imagine what a motivated foreign intelligence service can do with access to it.
Is Microsoft, in reacting to the emerging "open source in government" movement, inadvertently making Windows less desirable to everyone else?
This whole new policy of Microsoft's makes me really wonder how much they value their source code. They're not so stupid in Redmond to think that there won't be leaks if they start offering the code for free to any government that asks.
If there are subverted hosts, then content will leak into the darknet. If the darknet is efficient, then content will be rapidly propagated to all interested peers.
All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
it's tragic that most americans seem to feel that it's us versus the government and that government is reserved solely for "politicians". in this country, we are the government. control has been gradually slipping away from us over time, but we have both the right and the power to take it back.
if you don't agree with a member of congress, don't vote for them. convince others not to vote for them. if they are not your representative, convince people in their district not to vote for them. if they're too far away or if you don't like talking to people, well, you can mail an awful lot of postcards for just a few hundred dollars.
do everything in your power to get people you agree with into office. if you can't find anyone, run for office yourself.
perhaps it's time we view service in government as less of a lifelong career choice and more as a form of civilian conscription, a duty that each of us must undertake at some time in our lives. it seems like a lot of our current problems would disappear if we didn't have representatives who were overwhelmingly concerned with being reelected.
Excerpt from Adbusters June/July 2000 FRIENDS FOR SALE: Now advertisers can turn sitcom plotlines into product promotions. The Pottery Barn bought an episode of Friends and the right to have Rachel, Ross and the gang spend their 22 minutes of airtime surrounded by Barn decor.
It has always been implicit in television that the programs are just delivery vehicles for the advertising. But that equation got a whole lot more explicit in February, when the production company Basic Entertainment - the money behind such shows as Politically Incorrect and critical darling The Sopranos - agreed to partner up with the world's second-largest advertising agency, J. Walter Thompson. The two promptly produced a love-child: the agency's new "content/entertainment" arm, called (c)JWT.
The rationale behind it all: When the ad is the show, it becomes impossible for viewers to mute it, ignore it, or actively miss it whilst getting snacks.
FRIENDS has already done this at least once. IIRC, Pottery Barn paid them a lot of money to do an episode that was essentially a 30 minute commercial for their stuff, especially that damned apothecary table...
How so? MP3 isn't all that bad. I suspect for many casual listeners, the difference between MP3 and Ogg isn't hugely noticeable for most files.
to me, mp3s are like listening to the radio: it's not the best quality, but it's free*. once you start charging money for them, the lossy quality becomes an issue.
in many ways buying mp3s is like taking a step back from cds to cassettes. with a cd, you have a 1st generation format which you can then make any number of different quality copies of (64k, 128k, 192k, ogg, mp3...). when you purchase an mp3, you're stuck with it in that format. what works well on your 100G home system is probably not the optimal solution for using on that 32M flash player you take to the gym.
*yes i realize the mp3 format is not free, what i mean by free is that most people's exposure to mp3s has been without payment, either through filesharing, cd ripping, or promo downloads
Slashdot Mirror
it looks like the same patent examiner also granted them a patent on web services yesterday.
patent 6,632,249
who is stephen s. hong?
I'm all for it. (I had to cut my previous comment short as I was on my way out the door, so I'll continue a bit here.)
The problem is that copyright is a balancing act, and that balance has been steadily shifted towards the copy right holder at the expense of the public. Which I suppose isn't surprising given that, until very recently, the only parties interested in this area of the law where those who profitted from it.
What is interesting, however, is that the framers had the foresight to understand this important concept. Only now, with technology that can speed ideas around the globe in seconds, are the rest of us finally catching up. Unfortunately, all the years in between have left an awful lot of kruft in the legal code.
Speaking of technology, it seems strange that as the time required to dissemenate and profit from a work decreases, the length of copyright afforded to that work increases. That seems extremely counterintuitive. Back when books were bound by hand and distributed by horse, the duration of the copy right was 14 years. Now, when technology can speed this comment across the globe in a second, my right to it will last for another 125 years or so.
Context is very important here. He prefaces the excerpt you cited by stating that ideas, by their very nature, belong to all ("That ideas should freely spread..."). Jefferson is saying that once you publish your idea, it immediately becomes part of what we now call the public domain. Even the word 'publish' hints to this as it is derived from the latin publicare, "to make public". That is the important distinction here and, I believe, the answer to your question. Your property is yours, you own it, it belongs to you and you are free to do with it whatever you choose. Your published ideas however, do not belong to you, they belong to the public, who then issue you an exclusive right to profit from copies of those ideas for (what originally was) a limited time.
Well, for example, there is no concept of "fair use" of property. Portions of works that are under copyright can be reproduced for educational or critical purposes. There is no parallel in property law. (Imagine a college professor taking over a room of your house to teach a class.)
The framers understood that ideas are different than property and should be treated as such. Here's a relevant excerpt from one of Thomas Jefferson's letters on the subject:
The RIAA Are Dicks. We Apologize.
Well, the most obvious difference being that the exclusive right is for limited times, whereas property ownership is normally assumed to be valid in perpetuity
It's not just the children, they're also apparently suing a 71 year old grandfather:
Now, I am not a Fortune 500 CTO (IANAF5CTO?), but I would be pretty worried if I had a global deployment of Windows systems and Microsoft just started handing out the source code to foreign governments (or my own for that matter). If people consistently find exploits without access to the internal code, imagine what a motivated foreign intelligence service can do with access to it.
Is Microsoft, in reacting to the emerging "open source in government" movement, inadvertently making Windows less desirable to everyone else?
Indeed, the recent DarkNet (Google .doc -> html) paper from their own reseach division predicts exactly this:
it's tragic that most americans seem to feel that it's us versus the government and that government is reserved solely for "politicians". in this country, we are the government. control has been gradually slipping away from us over time, but we have both the right and the power to take it back.
if you don't agree with a member of congress, don't vote for them. convince others not to vote for them. if they are not your representative, convince people in their district not to vote for them. if they're too far away or if you don't like talking to people, well, you can mail an awful lot of postcards for just a few hundred dollars. do everything in your power to get people you agree with into office. if you can't find anyone, run for office yourself.
perhaps it's time we view service in government as less of a lifelong career choice and more as a form of civilian conscription, a duty that each of us must undertake at some time in our lives. it seems like a lot of our current problems would disappear if we didn't have representatives who were overwhelmingly concerned with being reelected.
google saves... found @ plasticbag
FRIENDS has already done this at least once. IIRC, Pottery Barn paid them a lot of money to do an episode that was essentially a 30 minute commercial for their stuff, especially that damned apothecary table...
to me, mp3s are like listening to the radio: it's not the best quality, but it's free*. once you start charging money for them, the lossy quality becomes an issue.
in many ways buying mp3s is like taking a step back from cds to cassettes. with a cd, you have a 1st generation format which you can then make any number of different quality copies of (64k, 128k, 192k, ogg, mp3...). when you purchase an mp3, you're stuck with it in that format. what works well on your 100G home system is probably not the optimal solution for using on that 32M flash player you take to the gym.
*yes i realize the mp3 format is not free, what i mean by free is that most people's exposure to mp3s has been without payment, either through filesharing, cd ripping, or promo downloads
abcdefghijklm
1234567890
1234567890
1234567890
1234567890
abcdefghijklm
jdhflajksdhfahf asd f ajhafjksd faf ad fajksdfjs f afka kf a a as fak jlasdkjfkasd f;kasd ajkh jklasdh fjksdh flasjk hjklasdh klh asdjklfh jklasd fhlasdjk fhlasjfhal hflaj hasdjklhasdjkl la l ljh lj hjl l lhjasdhla jlasdh jklasdh klasdj asdjklasdjklfh asdkl sljfhsdl hasdljk fhasdklj dfhklj asdhkljf asdhklj asdhklj asdhl sdhlasfjkd faljk fhalksdjfhlasdj hf lasdkjh faljk hasdlj afhkl fhasdlj fh lasdjh flasdjkfh asjklh
jdhflajksdhfahf asd f ajhafjksd faf ad fajksdfjs f afka kf a a as fak jlasdkjfkasd f;kasd ajkh jklasdh fjksdh flasjk hjklasdh klh asdjklfh jklasd fhlasdjk fhlasjfhal hflaj hasdjklhasdjkl la l ljh lj hjl l lhjasdhla jlasdh jklasdh klasdj asdjklasdjklfh asdkl sljfhsdl hasdljk fhasdklj dfhklj asdhkljf asdhklj asdhklj asdhl sdhlasfjkd faljk fhalksdjfhlasdj hf lasdkjh faljk hasdlj afhkl fhasdlj fh lasdjh flasdjkfh asjklh
jdhflajksdhfahf asd f ajhafjksd faf ad fajksdfjs f afka kf a a as fak jlasdkjfkasd f;kasd ajkh jklasdh fjksdh flasjk hjklasdh klh asdjklfh jklasd fhlasdjk fhlasjfhal hflaj hasdjklhasdjkl la l ljh lj hjl l lhjasdhla jlasdh jklasdh klasdj asdjklasdjklfh asdkl sljfhsdl hasdljk fhasdklj dfhklj asdhkljf asdhklj asdhklj asdhl sdhlasfjkd faljk fhalksdjfhlasdj hf lasdkjh faljk hasdlj afhkl fhasdlj fh lasdjh flasdjkfh asjklh
jdhflajksdhfahf asd f ajhafjksd faf ad fajksdfjs f afka kf a a as fak jlasdkjfkasd f;kasd ajkh jklasdh fjksdh flasjk hjklasdh klh asdjklfh jklasd fhlasdjk fhlasjfhal hflaj hasdjklhasdjkl la l ljh lj hjl l lhjasdhla jlasdh jklasdh klasdj asdjklasdjklfh asdkl sljfhsdl hasdljk fhasdklj dfhklj asdhkljf asdhklj asdhklj asdhl sdhlasfjkd faljk fhalksdjfhlasdj hf lasdkjh faljk hasdlj afhkl fhasdlj fh lasdjh flasdjkfh asjklh
oops.. here's the link: PHPBuilder.com - Templates - why and how to use them in PHP3
md
Try FastTemplate, you can find the link in this aritcle:
md