Is that Clear Channel has lots of expensive lawyers, too. Also, even if this does work, it would be like taking a sawed off shotgun to their one remaining foot. When are these guys going to figure out that their business model just doesn't work anymore and will likely never work again?
History? Logic? Common sense? The words of the founding fathers? My own experiences as what I would call in my more bold moments an "artist?"
Yes, it does need protection. If I write a play, produce a song, paint a painting, or invent a better mouse trap, and any jackass can come along and profit from my work without needing to give me a bloody dime, than my ability to continue to write/invent/whatever is compromised. Don't you want folks who can write brilliant novels writing brilliant novels? Or would you rather they stuck to their day jobs writing obituaries?
You clearly have some reading comprehension issues. I said 20 years at most, not "only after 20 years. Sarcasm requires intelligence, and by demonstrating a second grade reading level, you're only making yourself sound stupid.
So half the Muslim world would want to kill me, how's that any different from half the Muslim world wanting to kill me for being an American?
No, I agree, there is a huge double standard, but I think it's not a good thing. Christianity itself is of course the dominant religion in the west, and I think it's fair to say that rejections of the signs of Christianity tend to be more equated with a rejection of the values of the old establishment (i.e. one's parents) than of the values of Christianity itself. Christianity is not the problem, the way that Christianity was practiced, and thus the way in which it came to be perceived, is the problem.
That doesn't make it right that Islamic fanatics suddenly feel they have the right to kill me, but here again is the issue behind the issue: what proportion of American Muslims do you think would be signing up for a fatwa against an artist? I think you'll find that the number would be inversely proportionate to the same percentage of, say, Iranian, or Saudi Muslims willing to do the same. It's not a matter of the religion itself being the inspiration for the anti social behavior, but rather the religion provides a catalyst.
The Scientologists, on the other hand, have to justify themselves as a religion. They've convinced a few people, but they behave a lot more like a well organized cult running a good con game based on a badly written science fiction role playing game than they do a religion. I think that people would understand the true motivations of the "church" of Scientology a lot better if they changed their name to an acronym ending in AA.
I'm a far cry from the richest.001%, but I still feel that copyright and patent laws are a good thing. I think the term of copyright is egregiously long, and I hope that Sonny Bono is rotting in Hell and sucking the cock of a demon that looks like Mickey Mouse for all eternity for his part in the most recent copyright extension.
So called intellectual property does need protection in order to encourage invention and innovation, but after a point (20 years at most), that protection starts having a stifling effect.
I never said that art trumped the Constitution. Art is the child of freedom of expression, and thus no art is possible without the First Amendment. I'm saying this a lot today, but I was being hyperbolic when I said that. Still, a Koran in a toilet or a post on Slashdot can ultimately do nothing to undermine the freedom of individuals to practice the religion they so choose. They right to choose whether or not to practice a particular religion, and the right to choose whether or not to criticize a particular religion are part and parcel of the same thing. Some people express this in a way that can be deemed "artistic," and some do not.
This is not to say I would ever dignify Scientology by referring to it either as science or religion. It strikes me as being a few notches below LARP in the grand scheme of things. Then again, there are many who would disagree with my assessment. Now if I take my sentiments and produce a play using them as a central theme, perhaps I have created an artistic expression. Either way, I'm sure Scientologists would take offense, and either way I'm quite sure I have the right to express my opinions, and I'm also 100% positive that Scientology won't be going anywhere, and the freedom of Scientologists to practice, will not be impinged upon as a direct result of me stating my opinions. I think the law would agree.
I don't find it strange at all. I myself was raised Roman Catholic, and I have found that Catholic priests tend to be very well educated and well read, and are generally open to discussions of ecumenical philosophy. As far as the symbology goes, remember that the signs and artifacts of an idea are what people rally behind. I doubt most Americans have read or understand the Constitution, let alone thought about the implications of it in both an historical and contemporary context, but they'll pledge allegiance to the flag just about every time. And when they don't they tend to be actively rejecting the symbol, which means that they are perforce recognizing its power as such.
Symbols have power. In the case of religion, they give us a concrete and visceral connection with what is in the Abrahamic religions and ephemeral divinity. I can remember studying Hinduism and being completely impressed with the unity of physicality and spirituality and wondering why we didn't have that in the Western traditions. It took me about two minutes to figure out I was just criticizing the religion of God made flesh for lacking that physical connection. We've tended to ignore that aspect over the past couple of thousand years in favor of the more eschatological ones, which has a great deal to due with the roots of early Christianity, but the symbols of the faith have become the gateway to unity with the divine.
Not being a Jew or a Muslm, I can't comment as well on their particular philosophies, but I suspect the signs of the faith remain the same.
I'm not saying it wouldn't cause riots, I'm saying (and saying tongue in cheek, mind you) that it would be art. Don't go puting words into my mouth. Some might argue that only the best art that causes riots.
Well yes, I agree. Actually, I was being hyperbolic in the last post. In fact, in principle, since religion is the primary weapon being used against us, I wholly support, from a strategic point of view, working to turn that weapon into a weakness wherever possible.
Because the crucifix in the jar of urine was art, and the Koran in the toilet was torture. If you put a Koran in a toilet in the middle of a museum, it would be art, and therefore okay.
I want to start an off topic discussion with you (seriously, I'm not trolling). Have you played Bible Fight at adultswim.com, and if so, what do you think? Grievous insult to the Christian faith? Over the top satire? Humorous satire? Not especially playable? I'm just curious.
I do both, and being a Stagehand is about as far away as you can get from IT. Like lifting heavy things? Are you good at following precise directions? Like working out? Able to stand around and "look busy" while the artsy folks figure out what they want you to do? Stagehanding might be the life for you. And yes, it can pay fairly well. Check out your local IATSE and let them know you'd like to be placed on their over hire list if you think you might be interested. It takes a while before you join the union, but you make union wage and schedule when you're working a union gig, even if you are just an over hire. I find it's a nice compliment to a 9-5.
It disturbs me that I get that reference. I didn't even think it was a very good book, more like a celebration of everything that was wrong with the dot bomb era. Also the the story fell apart in the last 100 pages or so, kind of like Stephenson just stopped caring and wanted to get the thing done.
Anyhow, I'm sure someone will mod this down for not toeing the line.
Actually, I was referring to the implications of the Republicans having direct access to the IP traffic in the state that flipped the last election. I guess you were a little bit too thick to pick up on that as the implication of the article.
Well, mostly I was taking a swipe at all those "If $X gets elected, I'm moving to Canada" pundits who, unfortunately for those of us in the political center, never actually do.
But yes, the stupidity of the Green party boggles my mind. This is coming from someone who was a member for a brief time. I'm very much about libertarianism and social justice, but I knew that it wasn't for me when I heard their candidate for governor (in VT) speaking about how he thought that Vermont should secede from the Union. Any party willing to run anyone for any office who didn't seem to pick up on the fact that states have no right to secede, as established a hundred and fifty years ago by our Civil War, is not a party I even want to remember. Kind of like waking up next to one of those people you would NEVER sleep with sober and just praying to God there's a condom in the trash.
In all honesty, I'm a little disappointed I got moded down. Then again, thinking I must have hit a few left wing nutcases pretty close to the mark makes me feel good about myself. I think I'll go have a cookie to celebrate.
As long as virtual vixens can more realistically shake what their rendering engines give them, the teenage/20-something boy demographic that is the core of game sales will continue to pony up cash. Guys like prettier girls, not smarter ones, remember?:)
I'm sick and tired of seeing cops disobey whatever law they choose. They blow through red lights and zip along at 15 or 20 MPH over the speed limit all the time, and as an honest citizen, there's really nothing I can do about it. I've been against these red light camera things, but maybe if they're going to force the people enforcing the law to actually obey the law I need to rethink that stance.
Your country doesn't exist anymore. The brazen stupidity and utter spinelessness on both sides of the aisle has succeeded in selling it to China. Democrats who were too stupid and spineless to NOT fight tooth and nail and keep the fight in the public ear, and Republicans who were too stupid and spineless to do anything but toe the party line. Now we've got a lose/lose situation in Iraq, and impending lose/lose situation with Iran, and the next great superpower can very clearly see that we, as a country, are neither united enough in purpose nor brutal enough in tactic to stand in their way when things start heating up.
If we ever want the America we all knew and loved from history books and our grandparents' stories, we're just going to have to make it all over again ourselves.
Since the executive branch has carelessly demonstrated that they're ready, willing, and able to casually abuse power and lie so often, I'm sure we can trust them with even more power this time.
I'm sure we can trust them.
*GAZE INTO THE HYPNOTIC POWER OF MY EVIL EYE* You are getting sleepy. Sleeeeeeeepyyyyyyyyyy.
I'm sure we can trust them. This isn't the next step toward Fortress America you're looking for. Move along.
Clearly the students have crossed the line, even they admit that, but whereas in days gone by rumors and advertisements might be spread within the school, any internet presence making such claims can be classified as slander and defamation of character. The principal is, IMO, well within his rights to file suite, and in a world where no one gets hired without an employer doing a google search on them, I can completely understand why he feels it necessary to exercise those rights. These kids might think they were playing a harmless prank, but it's had real world consequences, and the sooner they learn to appreciate those consequences, the better we'll all be.
Patents are a government granted monopoly (on an idea, in this case) to encourage a certain behavior (inventing). This sort of monopoly has lots of hidden costs for the economy and an unknown benefit for the patent holder. Why not keep everything clear and open? Don't allow the patent. If they idea is really great, it should be easy for the company that that discovered it to dominate the market in the future. Their competitors should take some time to get "me too" products to market, and that time can get them some real dough. If the idea isn't that innovative, it'll be copied easily and won't mean much. This system -- the one without patents -- still rewards people with good ideas.
No, no, no. This is completely stupid. This is saying that $randomGenius who cobbles something together in their basement automatically has the same resources available as $megaManufacturing corporation. Patents exist to protect the inventor, copyrights the artist, and so forth. The law needs to protect innovation or science and culture will stagnate. Your understanding of manufacturing is sophomoric at best. The only people who get rewarded in your system are the ones with massive amounts of capital and production facilities already in place. In other words, the same great big companies that are profiting right now, only you completely screw the little guy in the process.
Locking up ideas in patetents is, to me, morally reprehensible too. It inhibits the free flow of ideas by regulating techniques, knowledge, and even the conclusions one can draw from data. I believe that the cost to society of the patent is too high. People invented things before they were granted monopolies, and they will continue to do so after those monopolies are removed. As the pace of innovation accelerates, more people encounter roadblocks caused by this unwise funding. And its exactly that they are paying for the discoveries of a past era through royalties now.
Funny; making it impossible to lock up patents seems to me the morally reprehensible thing. You're preventing artists and inventors from profiting from their work. Or don't you believe in the principle that you're entitled to profit from your labor? And yes, exclusivity is part of that profit. Perhaps the terms are too long, but doing away with the entire system is akin to thievery.
Intellectual property of all sorts is absurd.
Bzzt. Wrong. Expecting people to work for free is absurd.
The idea could sink our culture.
Funny, we seem to have got along for the past two hundred years with a system of protecting intellectual property in place, and our culture seems mighty intact after all that time.
Asking why study Assembler is a little like asking "why study Latin." It's important to have an understanding of the low level programming because it will help you understand what's going on when using something higher level like malloc(), which will in turn help you write better programs.
This is one of those things that I'm split on. On the one hand, I think MS is in the right to be pursuing cybersquatters, especially when you consider that most of these folk tend to be trying to peddle spam. On the other, I still don't like the precedent that was set fairly early on of folks who had registered domains in good faith having them stripped away because an individual or company had deemed it "cybersquatting." There is the potential for abuse here, and Microsoft's pockets (and legal resources) are deep enough that even the thought of taking them on will make most people want to settle.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that Clear Channel has lots of expensive lawyers, too. Also, even if this does work, it would be like taking a sawed off shotgun to their one remaining foot. When are these guys going to figure out that their business model just doesn't work anymore and will likely never work again?
And that assertion is based on...what, exactly?
History? Logic? Common sense? The words of the founding fathers? My own experiences as what I would call in my more bold moments an "artist?"
Yes, it does need protection. If I write a play, produce a song, paint a painting, or invent a better mouse trap, and any jackass can come along and profit from my work without needing to give me a bloody dime, than my ability to continue to write/invent/whatever is compromised. Don't you want folks who can write brilliant novels writing brilliant novels? Or would you rather they stuck to their day jobs writing obituaries?
You clearly have some reading comprehension issues. I said 20 years at most, not "only after 20 years. Sarcasm requires intelligence, and by demonstrating a second grade reading level, you're only making yourself sound stupid.
So half the Muslim world would want to kill me, how's that any different from half the Muslim world wanting to kill me for being an American?
No, I agree, there is a huge double standard, but I think it's not a good thing. Christianity itself is of course the dominant religion in the west, and I think it's fair to say that rejections of the signs of Christianity tend to be more equated with a rejection of the values of the old establishment (i.e. one's parents) than of the values of Christianity itself. Christianity is not the problem, the way that Christianity was practiced, and thus the way in which it came to be perceived, is the problem.
That doesn't make it right that Islamic fanatics suddenly feel they have the right to kill me, but here again is the issue behind the issue: what proportion of American Muslims do you think would be signing up for a fatwa against an artist? I think you'll find that the number would be inversely proportionate to the same percentage of, say, Iranian, or Saudi Muslims willing to do the same. It's not a matter of the religion itself being the inspiration for the anti social behavior, but rather the religion provides a catalyst.
The Scientologists, on the other hand, have to justify themselves as a religion. They've convinced a few people, but they behave a lot more like a well organized cult running a good con game based on a badly written science fiction role playing game than they do a religion. I think that people would understand the true motivations of the "church" of Scientology a lot better if they changed their name to an acronym ending in AA.
False.
.001%, but I still feel that copyright and patent laws are a good thing. I think the term of copyright is egregiously long, and I hope that Sonny Bono is rotting in Hell and sucking the cock of a demon that looks like Mickey Mouse for all eternity for his part in the most recent copyright extension.
I'm a far cry from the richest
So called intellectual property does need protection in order to encourage invention and innovation, but after a point (20 years at most), that protection starts having a stifling effect.
I never said that art trumped the Constitution. Art is the child of freedom of expression, and thus no art is possible without the First Amendment. I'm saying this a lot today, but I was being hyperbolic when I said that. Still, a Koran in a toilet or a post on Slashdot can ultimately do nothing to undermine the freedom of individuals to practice the religion they so choose. They right to choose whether or not to practice a particular religion, and the right to choose whether or not to criticize a particular religion are part and parcel of the same thing. Some people express this in a way that can be deemed "artistic," and some do not.
This is not to say I would ever dignify Scientology by referring to it either as science or religion. It strikes me as being a few notches below LARP in the grand scheme of things. Then again, there are many who would disagree with my assessment. Now if I take my sentiments and produce a play using them as a central theme, perhaps I have created an artistic expression. Either way, I'm sure Scientologists would take offense, and either way I'm quite sure I have the right to express my opinions, and I'm also 100% positive that Scientology won't be going anywhere, and the freedom of Scientologists to practice, will not be impinged upon as a direct result of me stating my opinions. I think the law would agree.
Why does that make it not okay? Why are you afraid of jihadists?
I don't find it strange at all. I myself was raised Roman Catholic, and I have found that Catholic priests tend to be very well educated and well read, and are generally open to discussions of ecumenical philosophy. As far as the symbology goes, remember that the signs and artifacts of an idea are what people rally behind. I doubt most Americans have read or understand the Constitution, let alone thought about the implications of it in both an historical and contemporary context, but they'll pledge allegiance to the flag just about every time. And when they don't they tend to be actively rejecting the symbol, which means that they are perforce recognizing its power as such.
Symbols have power. In the case of religion, they give us a concrete and visceral connection with what is in the Abrahamic religions and ephemeral divinity. I can remember studying Hinduism and being completely impressed with the unity of physicality and spirituality and wondering why we didn't have that in the Western traditions. It took me about two minutes to figure out I was just criticizing the religion of God made flesh for lacking that physical connection. We've tended to ignore that aspect over the past couple of thousand years in favor of the more eschatological ones, which has a great deal to due with the roots of early Christianity, but the symbols of the faith have become the gateway to unity with the divine.
Not being a Jew or a Muslm, I can't comment as well on their particular philosophies, but I suspect the signs of the faith remain the same.
Touche. Next time I'm going to print the words THIS IS HYPERBOLE somewhere in the post.
I'm not saying it wouldn't cause riots, I'm saying (and saying tongue in cheek, mind you) that it would be art. Don't go puting words into my mouth. Some might argue that only the best art that causes riots.
Well yes, I agree. Actually, I was being hyperbolic in the last post. In fact, in principle, since religion is the primary weapon being used against us, I wholly support, from a strategic point of view, working to turn that weapon into a weakness wherever possible.
Because the crucifix in the jar of urine was art, and the Koran in the toilet was torture. If you put a Koran in a toilet in the middle of a museum, it would be art, and therefore okay.
I want to start an off topic discussion with you (seriously, I'm not trolling). Have you played Bible Fight at adultswim.com, and if so, what do you think? Grievous insult to the Christian faith? Over the top satire? Humorous satire? Not especially playable? I'm just curious.
I do both, and being a Stagehand is about as far away as you can get from IT. Like lifting heavy things? Are you good at following precise directions? Like working out? Able to stand around and "look busy" while the artsy folks figure out what they want you to do? Stagehanding might be the life for you. And yes, it can pay fairly well. Check out your local IATSE and let them know you'd like to be placed on their over hire list if you think you might be interested. It takes a while before you join the union, but you make union wage and schedule when you're working a union gig, even if you are just an over hire. I find it's a nice compliment to a 9-5.
It disturbs me that I get that reference. I didn't even think it was a very good book, more like a celebration of everything that was wrong with the dot bomb era. Also the the story fell apart in the last 100 pages or so, kind of like Stephenson just stopped caring and wanted to get the thing done.
Anyhow, I'm sure someone will mod this down for not toeing the line.
Actually, I was referring to the implications of the Republicans having direct access to the IP traffic in the state that flipped the last election. I guess you were a little bit too thick to pick up on that as the implication of the article.
Am I alone?
Well, mostly I was taking a swipe at all those "If $X gets elected, I'm moving to Canada" pundits who, unfortunately for those of us in the political center, never actually do.
But yes, the stupidity of the Green party boggles my mind. This is coming from someone who was a member for a brief time. I'm very much about libertarianism and social justice, but I knew that it wasn't for me when I heard their candidate for governor (in VT) speaking about how he thought that Vermont should secede from the Union. Any party willing to run anyone for any office who didn't seem to pick up on the fact that states have no right to secede, as established a hundred and fifty years ago by our Civil War, is not a party I even want to remember. Kind of like waking up next to one of those people you would NEVER sleep with sober and just praying to God there's a condom in the trash.
In all honesty, I'm a little disappointed I got moded down. Then again, thinking I must have hit a few left wing nutcases pretty close to the mark makes me feel good about myself. I think I'll go have a cookie to celebrate.
How much better the political climate is in Canada than in the US.
As long as virtual vixens can more realistically shake what their rendering engines give them, the teenage/20-something boy demographic that is the core of game sales will continue to pony up cash. Guys like prettier girls, not smarter ones, remember? :)
Especially if they're not real.
I'm sick and tired of seeing cops disobey whatever law they choose. They blow through red lights and zip along at 15 or 20 MPH over the speed limit all the time, and as an honest citizen, there's really nothing I can do about it. I've been against these red light camera things, but maybe if they're going to force the people enforcing the law to actually obey the law I need to rethink that stance.
Your country doesn't exist anymore. The brazen stupidity and utter spinelessness on both sides of the aisle has succeeded in selling it to China. Democrats who were too stupid and spineless to NOT fight tooth and nail and keep the fight in the public ear, and Republicans who were too stupid and spineless to do anything but toe the party line. Now we've got a lose/lose situation in Iraq, and impending lose/lose situation with Iran, and the next great superpower can very clearly see that we, as a country, are neither united enough in purpose nor brutal enough in tactic to stand in their way when things start heating up.
If we ever want the America we all knew and loved from history books and our grandparents' stories, we're just going to have to make it all over again ourselves.
Since the executive branch has carelessly demonstrated that they're ready, willing, and able to casually abuse power and lie so often, I'm sure we can trust them with even more power this time.
I'm sure we can trust them.
*GAZE INTO THE HYPNOTIC POWER OF MY EVIL EYE* You are getting sleepy. Sleeeeeeeepyyyyyyyyyy.
I'm sure we can trust them. This isn't the next step toward Fortress America you're looking for. Move along.
Clearly the students have crossed the line, even they admit that, but whereas in days gone by rumors and advertisements might be spread within the school, any internet presence making such claims can be classified as slander and defamation of character. The principal is, IMO, well within his rights to file suite, and in a world where no one gets hired without an employer doing a google search on them, I can completely understand why he feels it necessary to exercise those rights. These kids might think they were playing a harmless prank, but it's had real world consequences, and the sooner they learn to appreciate those consequences, the better we'll all be.
Patents are a government granted monopoly (on an idea, in this case) to encourage a certain behavior (inventing). This sort of monopoly has lots of hidden costs for the economy and an unknown benefit for the patent holder. Why not keep everything clear and open? Don't allow the patent. If they idea is really great, it should be easy for the company that that discovered it to dominate the market in the future. Their competitors should take some time to get "me too" products to market, and that time can get them some real dough. If the idea isn't that innovative, it'll be copied easily and won't mean much. This system -- the one without patents -- still rewards people with good ideas.
No, no, no. This is completely stupid. This is saying that $randomGenius who cobbles something together in their basement automatically has the same resources available as $megaManufacturing corporation. Patents exist to protect the inventor, copyrights the artist, and so forth. The law needs to protect innovation or science and culture will stagnate. Your understanding of manufacturing is sophomoric at best. The only people who get rewarded in your system are the ones with massive amounts of capital and production facilities already in place. In other words, the same great big companies that are profiting right now, only you completely screw the little guy in the process.
Locking up ideas in patetents is, to me, morally reprehensible too. It inhibits the free flow of ideas by regulating techniques, knowledge, and even the conclusions one can draw from data. I believe that the cost to society of the patent is too high. People invented things before they were granted monopolies, and they will continue to do so after those monopolies are removed. As the pace of innovation accelerates, more people encounter roadblocks caused by this unwise funding. And its exactly that they are paying for the discoveries of a past era through royalties now.
Funny; making it impossible to lock up patents seems to me the morally reprehensible thing. You're preventing artists and inventors from profiting from their work. Or don't you believe in the principle that you're entitled to profit from your labor? And yes, exclusivity is part of that profit. Perhaps the terms are too long, but doing away with the entire system is akin to thievery.
Intellectual property of all sorts is absurd.
Bzzt. Wrong. Expecting people to work for free is absurd.
The idea could sink our culture.
Funny, we seem to have got along for the past two hundred years with a system of protecting intellectual property in place, and our culture seems mighty intact after all that time.
Here here!
Asking why study Assembler is a little like asking "why study Latin." It's important to have an understanding of the low level programming because it will help you understand what's going on when using something higher level like malloc(), which will in turn help you write better programs.
Just my $.02
This is one of those things that I'm split on. On the one hand, I think MS is in the right to be pursuing cybersquatters, especially when you consider that most of these folk tend to be trying to peddle spam. On the other, I still don't like the precedent that was set fairly early on of folks who had registered domains in good faith having them stripped away because an individual or company had deemed it "cybersquatting." There is the potential for abuse here, and Microsoft's pockets (and legal resources) are deep enough that even the thought of taking them on will make most people want to settle.