Here's the difference; record companies have the reputation of ripping people off over the years, and they're making millions off of starving artists....
Dude, they're not starving. It's all the drugs and booze that makes them look like that.
I think we agree on 99.9% of this, too. The point about slavery in the Constitution is well-taken.
Thanks for printing the quote. It's always a relief when we look at history and find that our modern problems aren't so modern after all. I have little doubt that current and future generations will revise and improve IP law. If we want to continue to progress, we may have no choice.
In other words, if I write a song, and it is recorded, I no longer have control over the spread of said song, and my song must stand on it's own value.
It's a nit-pick, but I think that statement mischaracterizes Jefferson's words. Jefferson was saying that there is no natural property right inherent to the creation of work.
What the post omits is Jefferson's statement that there is an artificial property right created by men. Jefferson even seems resigned to the concept as an inheritence from British law. That he considers the right artificial does not automatically mean the right has no merit. Again, it's inclusion in the text of the Constitution implies the framers thought it was a good idea.
Where the original post is dead-on is in pointing out that this is the same debate we face today.
Now to pick on myself -- it was poor word choice for me to characterize the Bill of Rights as an affirmation rather than an enumeration. The Ninth Amendment actually refers to, "The enumeration of rights...." The whole text of the Ninth, however, makes it clear that the framers believed there were more natural rights than could possibly be enumerated.
I disagree a little with your interpretation of Jefferson's words.
What he is really saying is that the protection of ideas is a recent social creation. Ideas are not "naturally" anyone's property. He is questioning the need for such an artificial protection, but stops short of actually condemning it.
Remember that the writers of the Constitution were very concerned with the idea of natural rights. Natural rights are inherently part of being a human being. They are not "granted" -- you get them just for being born. Jefferson is saying he believes what we know today as IP is not a natural right.
The Bill of Rights reflects this philosophy. It is an AFFIRMATION of rights, not an ENUMERATION of rights.
The Consitution DOES provide for IP protection in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 -- "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." Had Jefferson and the other Constitutional framers been opposed to these artificial restrictions, this clause would certainly not exist. This is NOT a contradiction, Jefferson is merely expressing his reservations in this letter.
Nevertheless, he clearly believes it to be an artificial right. The U.S. would do well to review its IP law in this light. Perhaps we are concentrating too much on "securing... exclusive rights" and not enough on promoting "the progress of science and useful arts."
The concept of IP protection may not be fundamentally broken. It may just need some tuning.
(Side note -- a Jefferson quote did not spark a Second Amendment debate on Slashdot? What are the odds?)
I've read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's obvious that they used the Bill of Rights as a starting point.
The fundamental flaw with the UDHR is that it enumerates rights and offers no protection for rights not listed. If they forgot to put it in there -- you're out of luck.
An optimist would say that a broad interpretation of the UDHR will guarantee all human rights. Unfortunately, the United States provides an example of how long broad interpretations last. Right now, we have a government and a court system which takes the attitude, "If it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it's not a right." This is in spite of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments which make it absolutely clear that the Bill of Rights should NOT be read this way.
As a matter of fact, we have a hard time even guaranteeing the rights that ARE listed in our Bill of Rights.
Worst of all, the UDHR has no teeth. There is no means for resisting an oppressive government or regime. I guess you just have to wait for the guys in blue helmets to come save you -- assuming their governments decide that you're worth the effort. Even then, you'll be dead by the time everyone finishes their speeches, casts their votes, and signs all the paperwork.
First off, AC, I didn't say it was VB. I said the environment looked like VB. Does anyone doubt that Delphi's most direct competitor is VB? There's no VB in Linux, so they obviously hope to become "the VB of Linux". More power to 'em. They just won't be as l337 as the k-rad Perl hackers.
VB on the other hand is rather limited in comparison, especially with databases.
Please enlighten us with an example of something Delphi can do with a database that VB can't.
Yes, we're Linux users. We wouldn't be caught dead using Visual Basic. VB programmers are braindead drooling mouth-breathing idiots who wouldn't know how to code their way out of wet tissue paper.
I don't own my music. I own copies of my music. I don't own most of my software. I believe that I own copies of my software.
Wrong. You own copies of someone else's music. You own copies of someone else's software.
This "my" business is important. The only transfer of ownership was materials -- the box and the CD. The bits encoded into the CD are the product of someone else's hard work. They are not transferring ownership of those bits to you because $13.95 is not adequate consideration for x hours in a studio. $89.00 is not enough to repay dozens (hundreds?) of developers working thousands of hours.
Therefore, they loan you the bits. They let you use them.
I agree some of the new copyright terms are onerous -- that's why I don't buy the software (and I don't pirate it, either). "Voting with your dollars" and all that. When I really need something, I'll either tolerate someone else's license or I'll write the thing myself. If I write it myself and decide to release it, I'll release it under whatever terms I damn well please. Why? Because I still OWN it.
Oh, and to mister downmoderation, I'm terribly sorry. I keep forgetting that Slashdork won't tolerate dissenting opinions because it thinks it IS the dissenting opinion.
In a few months, I will own my car. Completely. All mine. I don't do the leasing BS. That's for people making 30K a year who still want to drive a Lexus.
"I don't own my music. I don't own my software." WTF are you talking about? I own the complete rights to every song I've written and recorded. That's MY music.
I own the complete rights to every piece of software I've written FOR MYSELF (versus software I was PAID to write for somebody else). How is it I don't own my software?
Copyright law says: I created it. I didn't create it as a work for hire. I own it. Simple as that.
Unless you're still buying into the Stallman anti-copyright philosophy. Can't help you then.
Of course, under the Stallman program, you won't even own the music and software you created. You'll be forced to "share" it with everybody else. Good for the freeloaders; bad for the creators. You'll forgive me if I think the current system is better -- I'm a creator.
What your article really meant to say was, "I don't own OTHER people's music. I don't own OTHER people's software." But that's not nearly as slashdot-worthy, is it?
I'll give you a topic: SMTP IS NEITHER SECURE NOR AUTHENTICATED.
Discuss.
It says so right there in the RFC. You can lie in the headers. There is nothing to verify that the sender is who they say they are.
If you're relying on the "From:" line of an e-mail to tell you from whence a message was generated, well, that's your problem. I guess you think hotsexx@youroffice.com is a real address, too.
I hate spam as much as the next guy, but let's get real here.
Being slashdot, I'm surprised nobody is claiming they have a First Amendment right to create bogus headers. What if he's doing it to make a political statement?
When it's a criminal offense, you need to get the cops involved. A denial of service attack qualifies. Therefore, we contact the authorities and report a crime in progress.
So, the next-door FBI agent contacted a judge for you?
"I respect gun laws, though they do need to be changed."
Not "changed" as much as "enforced".
Hint: Most things the Million Mom Mayhem demanded are already laws in one form or another in my state. Making them federal laws will accomplish nothing more than giving Clinton and his allies the ability to say, "See? We're doing something! We're trying!".
Making it a federal law doesn't make it any MORE illegal, you know. It just changes the enforcers from state/local PDs (who still answer to the citizens) to the FBI and BATF who don't give a flip.
What is it with resentment of the United States by some slashdotters? We just had a day dedicated to remembering those who gave their lives for our country and I come back and have to read this garbage.
That's true, AC. Most of the Pacific fleet -- especially the battleships -- was destroyed at Pearl Harbor.
Of course, you fail to mention that we "yanks" made do with only our aircraft carriers. We struggled for a few years, then began turning it around at the battle of Midway.
You might also note that U.S. carrier tactics forever changed the way naval battles were fought. The days of battleships blasting shells at each other were pretty much over.
As far as yank foreign policy, bear in mind that the harsh conditions of surrender imposed on Germany after WWI are partly responsible for helping Hitler and the Nazi party rise to power. It's also worth noting that the same European nations who insisted on punishing Germany after WWI sat by and watched while Germany rebuilt their armed forces and began a campaign of aggression.
It's a shame that European governments and media continue to mischaracterize American life.
You see, they HAVE to create an impression that American liberties lead to violence, ignorance, and poverty -- it's the most effective way to keep their own citizens from demanding the same liberties.
The same tactics have been employed on a larger scale in China, Cuba, and the old Soviet Union. They created the false impression that America is a place dominated by chaos and prejudice -- no sane person would choose life in a free country over the order and safety of an authoritarian government.
Personally, I'm thankful that I live in a country where people have tasted freedom first-hand and intend to keep it. I'm glad my government's powers were severely limited from day one. I will happily accept the responsibilities and "risks" of my freedom because I want my destiny controlled by me -- not a bureaucrat. I accept the risk because I know the reward is so much greater.
In fact, my only complaint about America right now is the number of citizens who fear their freedom and want to trade it for government-promised security which will never come. How dare these people compromise my liberty for the sake of their own cowardice!? Perhaps they should relocate to the same country as our Anonymous Coward poster here.
All non-Americans who continue to use Slashdot as forum to spread your government and media-generated lies be warned -- I'm not going to sit quietly and let you continue. Keep whatever system of government you want, but LEAVE MINE ALONE.
Slashdot Mirror
I just made 40 bucks donating some plasma at the blood bank yesterday!
I'm glad to be part of the effort.
What moron moderated that post "Flamebait" when it was CLEARLY "Offtopic"?
Get it right!
even hand lotion can make me type a little different
No kidding!
Oh wait, we're not talking about the same thing are we?
Here's the difference; record companies have the reputation of ripping people off over the years, and they're making millions off of starving artists....
Dude, they're not starving. It's all the drugs and booze that makes them look like that.
I think we agree on 99.9% of this, too. The point about slavery in the Constitution is well-taken.
Thanks for printing the quote. It's always a relief when we look at history and find that our modern problems aren't so modern after all. I have little doubt that current and future generations will revise and improve IP law. If we want to continue to progress, we may have no choice.
In other words, if I write a song, and it is recorded, I no longer have control over the spread of said song, and my song must stand on it's own value.
It's a nit-pick, but I think that statement mischaracterizes Jefferson's words. Jefferson was saying that there is no natural property right inherent to the creation of work.
What the post omits is Jefferson's statement that there is an artificial property right created by men. Jefferson even seems resigned to the concept as an inheritence from British law. That he considers the right artificial does not automatically mean the right has no merit. Again, it's inclusion in the text of the Constitution implies the framers thought it was a good idea.
Where the original post is dead-on is in pointing out that this is the same debate we face today.
Now to pick on myself -- it was poor word choice for me to characterize the Bill of Rights as an affirmation rather than an enumeration. The Ninth Amendment actually refers to, "The enumeration of rights...." The whole text of the Ninth, however, makes it clear that the framers believed there were more natural rights than could possibly be enumerated.
I disagree a little with your interpretation of Jefferson's words.
What he is really saying is that the protection of ideas is a recent social creation. Ideas are not "naturally" anyone's property. He is questioning the need for such an artificial protection, but stops short of actually condemning it.
Remember that the writers of the Constitution were very concerned with the idea of natural rights. Natural rights are inherently part of being a human being. They are not "granted" -- you get them just for being born. Jefferson is saying he believes what we know today as IP is not a natural right.
The Bill of Rights reflects this philosophy. It is an AFFIRMATION of rights, not an ENUMERATION of rights.
The Consitution DOES provide for IP protection in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 -- "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." Had Jefferson and the other Constitutional framers been opposed to these artificial restrictions, this clause would certainly not exist. This is NOT a contradiction, Jefferson is merely expressing his reservations in this letter.
Nevertheless, he clearly believes it to be an artificial right. The U.S. would do well to review its IP law in this light. Perhaps we are concentrating too much on "securing... exclusive rights" and not enough on promoting "the progress of science and useful arts."
The concept of IP protection may not be fundamentally broken. It may just need some tuning.
(Side note -- a Jefferson quote did not spark a Second Amendment debate on Slashdot? What are the odds?)
No. But it's still the best.
I've read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's obvious that they used the Bill of Rights as a starting point.
The fundamental flaw with the UDHR is that it enumerates rights and offers no protection for rights not listed. If they forgot to put it in there -- you're out of luck.
An optimist would say that a broad interpretation of the UDHR will guarantee all human rights. Unfortunately, the United States provides an example of how long broad interpretations last. Right now, we have a government and a court system which takes the attitude, "If it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it's not a right." This is in spite of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments which make it absolutely clear that the Bill of Rights should NOT be read this way.
As a matter of fact, we have a hard time even guaranteeing the rights that ARE listed in our Bill of Rights.
Worst of all, the UDHR has no teeth. There is no means for resisting an oppressive government or regime. I guess you just have to wait for the guys in blue helmets to come save you -- assuming their governments decide that you're worth the effort. Even then, you'll be dead by the time everyone finishes their speeches, casts their votes, and signs all the paperwork.
Rock on, my brother. Fight the power.
You spell words correctly, use proper grammar, and clearly express thoughtful opinions.
:)
You will be sick of Slashdot in 6 months.
...ok?
Cool. I would not have even tried any of that in VB. I would have proceeded directly to C++ without passing Go or collecting $200. You win.
First off, this is not VB.
First off, AC, I didn't say it was VB. I said the environment looked like VB. Does anyone doubt that Delphi's most direct competitor is VB? There's no VB in Linux, so they obviously hope to become "the VB of Linux". More power to 'em. They just won't be as l337 as the k-rad Perl hackers.
VB on the other hand is rather limited in comparison, especially with databases.
Please enlighten us with an example of something Delphi can do with a database that VB can't.
Yes, we're Linux users. We wouldn't be caught dead using Visual Basic. VB programmers are braindead drooling mouth-breathing idiots who wouldn't know how to code their way out of wet tissue paper.
What's that? A Linux IDE? It looks a lot like VB?
Cool!
I don't own my music. I own copies of my music. I don't own most of my software. I believe that I own copies of my software.
Wrong. You own copies of someone else's music. You own copies of someone else's software.
This "my" business is important. The only transfer of ownership was materials -- the box and the CD. The bits encoded into the CD are the product of someone else's hard work. They are not transferring ownership of those bits to you because $13.95 is not adequate consideration for x hours in a studio. $89.00 is not enough to repay dozens (hundreds?) of developers working thousands of hours.
Therefore, they loan you the bits. They let you use them.
I agree some of the new copyright terms are onerous -- that's why I don't buy the software (and I don't pirate it, either). "Voting with your dollars" and all that. When I really need something, I'll either tolerate someone else's license or I'll write the thing myself. If I write it myself and decide to release it, I'll release it under whatever terms I damn well please. Why? Because I still OWN it.
Oh, and to mister downmoderation, I'm terribly sorry. I keep forgetting that Slashdork won't tolerate dissenting opinions because it thinks it IS the dissenting opinion.
In a few months, I will own my car. Completely. All mine. I don't do the leasing BS. That's for people making 30K a year who still want to drive a Lexus.
"I don't own my music. I don't own my software."
WTF are you talking about? I own the complete rights to every song I've written and recorded. That's MY music.
I own the complete rights to every piece of software I've written FOR MYSELF (versus software I was PAID to write for somebody else). How is it I don't own my software?
Copyright law says: I created it. I didn't create it as a work for hire. I own it. Simple as that.
Unless you're still buying into the Stallman anti-copyright philosophy. Can't help you then.
Of course, under the Stallman program, you won't even own the music and software you created. You'll be forced to "share" it with everybody else. Good for the freeloaders; bad for the creators. You'll forgive me if I think the current system is better -- I'm a creator.
What your article really meant to say was, "I don't own OTHER people's music. I don't own OTHER people's software." But that's not nearly as slashdot-worthy, is it?
...you guys sure don't know your RFCs very well.
I'll give you a topic:
SMTP IS NEITHER SECURE NOR AUTHENTICATED.
Discuss.
It says so right there in the RFC. You can lie in the headers. There is nothing to verify that the sender is who they say they are.
If you're relying on the "From:" line of an e-mail to tell you from whence a message was generated, well, that's your problem. I guess you think hotsexx@youroffice.com is a real address, too.
I hate spam as much as the next guy, but let's get real here.
Being slashdot, I'm surprised nobody is claiming they have a First Amendment right to create bogus headers. What if he's doing it to make a political statement?
When it's a criminal offense, you need to get the cops involved. A denial of service attack qualifies. Therefore, we contact the authorities and report a crime in progress.
So, the next-door FBI agent contacted a judge for you?
(Fortunately, we have a friendly FBI agent right next door, so we can actually GET subpeona's at 3AM)
Since when do FBI agents have the power to issue subpoenas? That's what judges are for.
"I respect gun laws, though they do need to be changed."
Not "changed" as much as "enforced".
Hint: Most things the Million Mom Mayhem demanded are already laws in one form or another in my state. Making them federal laws will accomplish nothing more than giving Clinton and his allies the ability to say, "See? We're doing something! We're trying!".
Making it a federal law doesn't make it any MORE illegal, you know. It just changes the enforcers from state/local PDs (who still answer to the citizens) to the FBI and BATF who don't give a flip.
Kinda gives that "...got such a supple wrist" lyric a whole new meaning, don't it?
What is it with resentment of the United States by some slashdotters? We just had a day dedicated to remembering those who gave their lives for our country and I come back and have to read this garbage.
That's true, AC. Most of the Pacific fleet -- especially the battleships -- was destroyed at Pearl Harbor.
Of course, you fail to mention that we "yanks" made do with only our aircraft carriers. We struggled for a few years, then began turning it around at the battle of Midway.
You might also note that U.S. carrier tactics forever changed the way naval battles were fought. The days of battleships blasting shells at each other were pretty much over.
As far as yank foreign policy, bear in mind that the harsh conditions of surrender imposed on Germany after WWI are partly responsible for helping Hitler and the Nazi party rise to power. It's also worth noting that the same European nations who insisted on punishing Germany after WWI sat by and watched while Germany rebuilt their armed forces and began a campaign of aggression.
After that, it'll all seem easy.
It's a shame that European governments and media continue to mischaracterize American life.
You see, they HAVE to create an impression that American liberties lead to violence, ignorance, and poverty -- it's the most effective way to keep their own citizens from demanding the same liberties.
The same tactics have been employed on a larger scale in China, Cuba, and the old Soviet Union. They created the false impression that America is a place dominated by chaos and prejudice -- no sane person would choose life in a free country over the order and safety of an authoritarian government.
Personally, I'm thankful that I live in a country where people have tasted freedom first-hand and intend to keep it. I'm glad my government's powers were severely limited from day one. I will happily accept the responsibilities and "risks" of my freedom because I want my destiny controlled by me -- not a bureaucrat. I accept the risk because I know the reward is so much greater.
In fact, my only complaint about America right now is the number of citizens who fear their freedom and want to trade it for government-promised security which will never come. How dare these people compromise my liberty for the sake of their own cowardice!? Perhaps they should relocate to the same country as our Anonymous Coward poster here.
All non-Americans who continue to use Slashdot as forum to spread your government and media-generated lies be warned -- I'm not going to sit quietly and let you continue. Keep whatever system of government you want, but LEAVE MINE ALONE.
I figured the real debate would be in court and all this "online" stuff was just noise. Silly me.