Wait. You can't skip the commercial? I can understand the FBI warning, its not even that intrusive, but the freekin' commercial? There shouldn't even be a commercial on a DVD or VHS that you buy. You pay for a DVD so that you can watch it commercial free and on demand..../grumble
last I checked it was pretty tough to find a single in an American record store.
I agree with your second paragraph though. I only support the "Full-Album-Only" sales in the event that they really did produce a concept album or something of that sort.
I'm referring specifically to albums that were constructed by the artist to be heard as a singular unit, not as a series of singles.
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by the Beatles was one example of this. The artist wants you to see ( or hear, rather) the full painting (or album, rather) instead of just that one corner (track or song) of it.
There are definitely some artists (or there used to be) that produce the album as a whole, rather than as a collection of songs. For example, the Beatle's Sgt. Pepper's as well as Pink Floyd made a point of that.
If the complaining artists are producing albums rather than collections of singles, then I would whole-heartedly have to support them.
I have a domain with NameZero.com that forwards email sent to various addresses to my real mailbox. Whenever I sign up for stuff online, I use the addres "Spam@BrianEwart.com", Emails recieved to this address are then filtered straight into the junk. The sites that I have given it to usually only send one email that I want to see, a confirmation, so I can just pick that one out of the trash when I know it will be there.
What is the intended market of these babies? I mean, it can't be midgets, we all know from the commercial that Verne Troyer (minime) uses a 17" powerbook.......oh, and imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things!
FreeCraft is a free cross-platform real-time strategy gaming engine. It is possible to play against human opponents over LAN, Internet, or against the computer. The engine can be used to build C&C, WC2, SC and AOE-like real-time strategy (RTS) games. It successfully runs under Linux, BSD, BeOS, MacOS/X, MacOS/Darwin and MS Windows.
This would come under the concept of trademark dilution.
IANAL, so I don't know exactly how all this works, look it up if you want further clarification. This is covered very well in West's Business Law, if you can get your hands on a copy.
FreeCraft was a threat, a threat to their trademark. If you don't defend your trademarks, then you stand to lose them. Thats why you can't open a small coffee shop and call it Starbucks, or a courier service called FedEx.
Its called "dilution" when the infringing title is similar. There was a famous case where FedEx sued a NY State coffee shop called FederalExpresso for trademark dilution. I think they won, (That was a far-fetched case, obviously).
IANAL, but I think the law requires them to do this. I doubt they can stop FreeCraft from changing their name and continuing development though.
Did you read his posts at all? I am sorry, I believe he used facts and logic once, maybe twice...
"I'm in college" was a response to the original troll's claim that I was on the RIAA payroll.
I told him he was the king of all trolls, because he honestly appears to be so. He spent more time on ad hominem attacks and nitpicking me than on actually critisizing my argument.
I have cited Copyright laws in my attempts to explain myself to you folks more than anyone else who replied to me. In no way am I failing to use "thought and intelligence." In fact, I believe that my "shifts in view" only serve to prove that fact - I was willing to concede on the point of fair use, alizard got me there.
I never misrepresented any facts. My original post didn't mention fair use because I didn't feel it was relevant to what I was saying - alizard dissagreed.
I often play devils advocate just for fun, I did that to a certain extent here. So in order to clear things up, and hopefully put this flamewar to bed...
My position on Copyright:
I like copyrights and intellectual property protection, but I am aware of the problems with the current system. There are abuses of this system that can hurt people who otherwise have done nothing "wrong." - One of the fun things about the law is that it can be changed, this is why it is important to take an active role in politics, to ensure that your voice is heard.
That said, I think that it is rediculous to compare copyright infringement to the civil disobedience of MLK and others. Come on now, you are infringing upon the rights of another person; musicians, authors, artists work hard to produce their works, and as much as you might want those works to be freely transferable, it hurts those people's ability to earn a living.
Yes, some people enjoy making music for the fun of it - or writing for the fun of it. Some people do want to make money from it though, and in a capitalist society, they have a right to, in fact, a constitutional right to it.
I am a capitalist. I believe in the free market, and I believe that we need to protect the rights of our nation's creative minds to participate in that marketplace.
Thats it. I'm done, for real this time. You can call me a motherf*cking, c*cksucking, lame dumbass, and I will not reply, this flamewar is getting out of hand.
So you should never question the law, never disobey it. If your kind of mentality prevailed, we would still have segregation. Don't like sitting at the back of the bus? Just leave the country, darky!
I didn't say that you shouldn't question the law. I said you should abide by it. There are ways of getting things changed without breaking the law. Copyright laws are hardly on par with segregation, which, when challenged, was eventually overturned. See Brown v. Board of Ed. and related cases, turns out that the "separate but equal" doctrine wasn't constitutional. The law itself was illegal -- Intellectual Property is actually in the constitution.
How does the copyright term stifle innovation? Easy, it allows a company and individuals to sit and make money on a copyright forever, without creating something new and it breaks the oldest artistic convention, which is derivative work
A company has to increase its profits over time, there is no incentive to just sit back and collect. You have to create new reasons for people to buy.
Besides, the constitution says that IP laws have to have a limited period of viability.
From Constitution: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
You don't want to provide for your kids after you die? It might not encourage Elvis anymore, but it would encourage living artists who want their children to benefit from their work. One of the benefits of Capitalism is that you can give your kids a head start.
Slashdot Mirror
what the hel! I just paid > $2000 for a 12" Powerbook! I want a free G5 powerbook!!!!
(Think Steve will go for that one?)
$89... thats around how much I'm going to pay for it after my academic discount.
I love being a student.
Final version of Safari is very exciting, maybe now it won't crash regularly. Does anyone else get that?> the "unexpected quit" error?
Wait. You can't skip the commercial? I can understand the FBI warning, its not even that intrusive, but the freekin' commercial? There shouldn't even be a commercial on a DVD or VHS that you buy. You pay for a DVD so that you can watch it commercial free and on demand.... /grumble
last I checked it was pretty tough to find a single in an American record store.
I agree with your second paragraph though. I only support the "Full-Album-Only" sales in the event that they really did produce a concept album or something of that sort.
I'm referring specifically to albums that were constructed by the artist to be heard as a singular unit, not as a series of singles.
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by the Beatles was one example of this. The artist wants you to see ( or hear, rather) the full painting (or album, rather) instead of just that one corner (track or song) of it.
thats like saying, "What if I only want to buy the lower right corner of the Mona Lisa"... do you think an artist should sell their art piecemeal?
There are definitely some artists (or there used to be) that produce the album as a whole, rather than as a collection of songs. For example, the Beatle's Sgt. Pepper's as well as Pink Floyd made a point of that.
If the complaining artists are producing albums rather than collections of singles, then I would whole-heartedly have to support them.
I already do, sort of...
I have a domain with NameZero.com that forwards email sent to various addresses to my real mailbox. Whenever I sign up for stuff online, I use the addres "Spam@BrianEwart.com", Emails recieved to this address are then filtered straight into the junk. The sites that I have given it to usually only send one email that I want to see, a confirmation, so I can just pick that one out of the trash when I know it will be there.
What is the intended market of these babies? I mean, it can't be midgets, we all know from the commercial that Verne Troyer (minime) uses a 17" powerbook.... ...oh, and imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things!
Seems there were Windows and Mac versions of Freecraft.
From here:
FreeCraft is a free cross-platform real-time strategy gaming engine. It is possible to play against human opponents over LAN, Internet, or against the computer. The engine can be used to build C&C, WC2, SC and AOE-like real-time strategy (RTS) games. It successfully runs under Linux, BSD, BeOS, MacOS/X, MacOS/Darwin and MS Windows.
This would come under the concept of trademark dilution.
IANAL, so I don't know exactly how all this works, look it up if you want further clarification. This is covered very well in West's Business Law, if you can get your hands on a copy.
Oh man. and silly me, I went out and bought a two button mouse, this feature sounds like its much much more convenient...
I should stop encouraging trolls, shouldn't I?
Redhat made a profit!
You can't make a profit selling open source, not really. The money is in the other products/services that you can provide.
pr0n testing phase, huh?
I want in on that Beta!
I don't want Safari to become like IE on windows. IMHO, that was one of the worst things that ever happened to windows.
That sounds like a scary problem... then again, my drive doesn't run out of space too often.
Technically since it costs 50 bucks to get in, you can't really get ANY "free" vendor-wear.
*Uart gets his Apple T-Shirts by begging at the Apple store.
FreeCraft was a threat, a threat to their trademark. If you don't defend your trademarks, then you stand to lose them. Thats why you can't open a small coffee shop and call it Starbucks, or a courier service called FedEx.
Its called "dilution" when the infringing title is similar. There was a famous case where FedEx sued a NY State coffee shop called FederalExpresso for trademark dilution. I think they won, (That was a far-fetched case, obviously).
IANAL, but I think the law requires them to do this. I doubt they can stop FreeCraft from changing their name and continuing development though.
Did you read his posts at all? I am sorry, I believe he used facts and logic once, maybe twice...
"I'm in college" was a response to the original troll's claim that I was on the RIAA payroll.
I told him he was the king of all trolls, because he honestly appears to be so. He spent more time on ad hominem attacks and nitpicking me than on actually critisizing my argument.
I have cited Copyright laws in my attempts to explain myself to you folks more than anyone else who replied to me. In no way am I failing to use "thought and intelligence." In fact, I believe that my "shifts in view" only serve to prove that fact - I was willing to concede on the point of fair use, alizard got me there.
I never misrepresented any facts. My original post didn't mention fair use because I didn't feel it was relevant to what I was saying - alizard dissagreed.
I often play devils advocate just for fun, I did that to a certain extent here. So in order to clear things up, and hopefully put this flamewar to bed...
My position on Copyright:
I like copyrights and intellectual property protection, but I am aware of the problems with the current system. There are abuses of this system that can hurt people who otherwise have done nothing "wrong." - One of the fun things about the law is that it can be changed, this is why it is important to take an active role in politics, to ensure that your voice is heard.
That said, I think that it is rediculous to compare copyright infringement to the civil disobedience of MLK and others. Come on now, you are infringing upon the rights of another person; musicians, authors, artists work hard to produce their works, and as much as you might want those works to be freely transferable, it hurts those people's ability to earn a living.
Yes, some people enjoy making music for the fun of it - or writing for the fun of it. Some people do want to make money from it though, and in a capitalist society, they have a right to, in fact, a constitutional right to it.
I am a capitalist. I believe in the free market, and I believe that we need to protect the rights of our nation's creative minds to participate in that marketplace.
Thats it. I'm done, for real this time. You can call me a motherf*cking, c*cksucking, lame dumbass, and I will not reply, this flamewar is getting out of hand.
So you should never question the law, never disobey it. If your kind of mentality prevailed, we would still have segregation. Don't like sitting at the back of the bus? Just leave the country, darky!
I didn't say that you shouldn't question the law. I said you should abide by it. There are ways of getting things changed without breaking the law. Copyright laws are hardly on par with segregation, which, when challenged, was eventually overturned. See Brown v. Board of Ed. and related cases, turns out that the "separate but equal" doctrine wasn't constitutional. The law itself was illegal -- Intellectual Property is actually in the constitution.
How does the copyright term stifle innovation? Easy, it allows a company and individuals to sit and make money on a copyright forever, without creating something new and it breaks the oldest artistic convention, which is derivative work
A company has to increase its profits over time, there is no incentive to just sit back and collect. You have to create new reasons for people to buy.
Besides, the constitution says that IP laws have to have a limited period of viability.
From Constitution: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Nobody can, therefore collect forever.
He fired me, and I don't even work there!
Miss Cleo told me so...
I guess it seems that all the speculation was right on the money.
/college
And I still can't afford it...
You don't want to provide for your kids after you die? It might not encourage Elvis anymore, but it would encourage living artists who want their children to benefit from their work. One of the benefits of Capitalism is that you can give your kids a head start.