And "sharing" has a helpful and friendly connotation.
Shall we say "copyright infringement"? That's probably best, since it brings both questions into the open: What is your stance on Copyright? How about Infringement? Unfortunately, it's difficult to say.
There's no reason I should leave a brightly colored trail of everything I ever do on the Internet.
Actually, there is. It allows statefulness and memory on the stateless, call-and-response Web. Without cookies or something like them (401 logins are basically crippled cookies, with only a limited subset of manually entered values, and link-rewriting is basically hackneyed cookie emulation), the Web would have far fewer applications than it does. If you block cross-site cookies (and I think this is a common default, isn't it?), it's not like any one site can read down your visited sites list and make a profile of you.
which is essentially the economic equivalent of slavery.
I've heard this over and over, and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it. Sure, "slavery" is a good, emotionally loaded word, but even a sublegal wage job isn't slavery -- the worker is free to leave, and is being compensated, albeit poorly. I'll grant that the lower fringe, such as jobs where illegal immigrants are worked than deported (before payday), would fit the analogous bill of "slavery", but that's only a subset.
AFAIK (USA+IANAL perspective), WFH status occurs when you are an employee of the company, and involves considerations above and beyond just "I pay you, you work" (I'm not sure of the exact considerations, but I know that there are some.) The default state is that of a contract employee, with copyrights defaulting to the creator (not the client). Of course, rights assignment can and should be covered in the contract agreed to before the job begins.
The question is, really, "What are the computers there for?" Chances are, most of the use on those machines is application-centered "getting things done" work. Sure, exploration is well and good, but there's no sense in jumping through hoops and spending twice the time and energy to micromanage every computer so it's unbreakable by both "Just smart enough to break it" and "Dumb enough to break it" types, while still keeping it open enough to satisfy a small number's curiosity. The problem with allowing access is that some people might want to poke and prod, while others might want to play disruptive practical jokes or be malicious. Chances are good that the hacker and the h4x0r are even the same person, in a different mood on a different day.
The best method would probably be to allow supervised but unfettered access to a few isolated machines, for trusted students who expressed an interest to know more, and keep the "production environment" machines safely locked-down. I was lucky enough, in late elementary school and later on, to have instructors that took this approach, and I got my start learning the Mac on a secondary Performa that probably had the most botched-up configuration imaginable when we got through with it. The other machine was understood to be untouchable.
That nice boy down the street that helped them recover their data with a reinstall so easily- are these fictional users going to understand that checkbox means their next screwup means their data is gone for good?
The users that don't understand aren't going to be the ones dual-booting. Even if they do get the dual-boot bug, turning off the encryption is (most likely) just an annoying-but-managable reinstall away.
Then we will need another internet, just to be free.
Or another Internet provider, who can differentiate themselves on "true Internet" service. Granted, I still think the tiered Internet idea should be shot down, but I'm sure it's won't be total instant adoption if it is allowed.
Although I believe in property rights, I understand that in order for valuable "intellectual" professions to be viable, there needs to be artificial restrictions to give value to the fruits of creators' labors.
Consider a farmer: a farmer needs no protection on his productions, because the product is physical. If people want more foodstuffs, there is no "short-circuit" method around either utilizing the farmer or doing it themself.
With non-physical goods, however, there is a short-circuit around an important part of the process. Once the artist or inventor has published, it is trivially easy to create many more copies, indirectly utilizing the products of the artist, but not directly involving them.
The "It's my copy and I can do with it what I like" stance is ideologically defensible, but it breaks down when it comes to practice. If we were to adopt such a stance, art and invention would have to be driven by patronage, in order to make it an endeavor worth undertaking (Some might say "Real artists do it for the art, not the money", but shouldn't that be up to the "Real artist" to decide?). If ideas were not protected, creators would still need to recoup the value of their time and investments. If copies are free, then the original would have to be sold for the thousands-to-millions invested.
Copyright is a compromise, and in my opinion, a necessary one in a society that values both continually advancing art and innovation and the idea of proportional compensation for work done.
If a copy is just "rearranged bits", I suppose you'd be content to just pipe a random number generator to the sound output, and there you go... it even frees up your bandwidth! It's all the just rearranged bits, right?
Probably not, unless you happen upon a rare Monkey/Shakespeare moment. The difference between random digital noise and actual digestible content is what you're paying for. The "cartel" you speak of is... get this... people who produce salable goods for a living! Horrors! Sure, some of them are bastards, but that's what boycotts and market forces are for.
Legally, you'll still have to find and defend some small island, create your own nation, and... most importantly... Don't sign any paperwork with a postmark from Berne, Switzerland.
I disagree. There is more in the world than just money. Copyright exists as a right, even above being an "Intellectual property". It's an edge case, certainly, but consider if some person or group wants to make a special limited run of some thing, to be given only to a specific circle. Copyright control gives them the right to dictate that.
If someone else were to start giving away copies without respecting the wishes and rights of the creator, there would be "damage" even if no money changed hands. I'll grant that most often copyright is simply used as a negotiating tool for monetary compensation, it is still, fundamentally, a right of the owner that can be dispensed as they wish.
Actually, a law like this might be helpful in a wardriving defence. Since the law mandates security, one could say that an open AP was an implicit invitation.
Still, though, aside from that unintended consequence, I'd rather have it be an explicit liability rather than a requirement. (If data got stolen, you'd be much more liable if you had open WiFi, but it isn't mandated. Kind of like the UL seal.)
You pay the people involved in making the content, from concept to post-production. You pay the people who market the content (you might say you could do without that, but chances are that you wouldn't have even known about it if it wasn't marketed). You pay to keep the lights on and the schedules kept at the record label/movie studio/development house. You pay because you aren't a movie producer and they are. They possess that skill, produce that product, and if you want it, you should respect them enough to either take or leave their terms. If not, then don't get self-righteous when the lawyers come a-knockin'. At least their clients actually had something to do with the creative act, as opposed to just hitting "download".
By equating the act of distribution with the act of creation, you're cutting out a fair amount of people who are quite integral to the actual product.
Okay, all right, so "stealing" isn't the right term. Just because the common terminology doesn't accurately describe the practice, that does nothing to wash the practice clean of any wrongdoing. Similarily, just because (you may feel) infringement is often committed against "bad" people, this still does not say anything to the legitimacy or "correctness" of the actual act of infringment. You're arguing about peripheral subjects and haven't said a thing about the actual matter at hand.
To those with the means and ability to create content, a right is granted: to control the distribution of that content by utilizing legal systems. It is an artificial right, but it is given to counteract the fact that it is unfairly easy, given the simple physical requirements of copying, for a copier to profit from someone else's much more laborous act of actually creating content. The creator, without copy control rights, would be a fool to create anything at all, as the inventive work would be worthless after the first knock-off artist came along and did the simple task of pumping out bootlegs.
Do you have the means and motivation to create a couple hours of movie entertainment? If not, than pony up to the people who do, or go without. It's called "specialization" and "trade", and it's been a part of civilized society for quite a while.
Considering that "content" is not a right or a basic sustainance need, and that publishing is not an esoteric or vastly expensive art only available to a select few, then it's a perfect playing field to "let the market decide". So Sony, EMI, BMG, Warner, etc. are all raging bastards? Don't buy... and don't give me lip service about "boycotting" and taking the high road if you'd just go and grab it bootleg. It's not a need, and there are alternatives out there, so a "boycott" without the rather mild sacrifice involved in not actually seeing or hearing the latest blockbuster hit is just hypocritical.
I'd be right with anyone saying that the DMCA is a travesty and that things like legal enforcement for region-encoding and against modchipping is downright wrong, but to "fight" them with piracy has no real weight at all.
Slashdot Mirror
And "sharing" has a helpful and friendly connotation.
Shall we say "copyright infringement"? That's probably best, since it brings both questions into the open: What is your stance on Copyright? How about Infringement? Unfortunately, it's difficult to say.
What was the real issue, again?
Mod me down, but...
See, mudslinging campaigns are not effective.
There's no reason I should leave a brightly colored trail of everything I ever do on the Internet.
Actually, there is. It allows statefulness and memory on the stateless, call-and-response Web. Without cookies or something like them (401 logins are basically crippled cookies, with only a limited subset of manually entered values, and link-rewriting is basically hackneyed cookie emulation), the Web would have far fewer applications than it does. If you block cross-site cookies (and I think this is a common default, isn't it?), it's not like any one site can read down your visited sites list and make a profile of you.
which is essentially the economic equivalent of slavery.
I've heard this over and over, and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it. Sure, "slavery" is a good, emotionally loaded word, but even a sublegal wage job isn't slavery -- the worker is free to leave, and is being compensated, albeit poorly. I'll grant that the lower fringe, such as jobs where illegal immigrants are worked than deported (before payday), would fit the analogous bill of "slavery", but that's only a subset.
Yes, but it was irrelevant, and as such makes you look obsessive over the topic.
the vast majority of work-for-hire contracts
"Work-for-hire" nor "contracts" is "default".
AFAIK (USA+IANAL perspective), WFH status occurs when you are an employee of the company, and involves considerations above and beyond just "I pay you, you work" (I'm not sure of the exact considerations, but I know that there are some.) The default state is that of a contract employee, with copyrights defaulting to the creator (not the client). Of course, rights assignment can and should be covered in the contract agreed to before the job begins.
The question is, really, "What are the computers there for?" Chances are, most of the use on those machines is application-centered "getting things done" work. Sure, exploration is well and good, but there's no sense in jumping through hoops and spending twice the time and energy to micromanage every computer so it's unbreakable by both "Just smart enough to break it" and "Dumb enough to break it" types, while still keeping it open enough to satisfy a small number's curiosity. The problem with allowing access is that some people might want to poke and prod, while others might want to play disruptive practical jokes or be malicious. Chances are good that the hacker and the h4x0r are even the same person, in a different mood on a different day.
The best method would probably be to allow supervised but unfettered access to a few isolated machines, for trusted students who expressed an interest to know more, and keep the "production environment" machines safely locked-down. I was lucky enough, in late elementary school and later on, to have instructors that took this approach, and I got my start learning the Mac on a secondary Performa that probably had the most botched-up configuration imaginable when we got through with it. The other machine was understood to be untouchable.
That nice boy down the street that helped them recover their data with a reinstall so easily- are these fictional users going to understand that checkbox means their next screwup means their data is gone for good?
Yes, and they won't do it again.
The users that don't understand aren't going to be the ones dual-booting. Even if they do get the dual-boot bug, turning off the encryption is (most likely) just an annoying-but-managable reinstall away.
Then we will need another internet, just to be free.
Or another Internet provider, who can differentiate themselves on "true Internet" service. Granted, I still think the tiered Internet idea should be shot down, but I'm sure it's won't be total instant adoption if it is allowed.
Although I believe in property rights, I understand that in order for valuable "intellectual" professions to be viable, there needs to be artificial restrictions to give value to the fruits of creators' labors.
Consider a farmer: a farmer needs no protection on his productions, because the product is physical. If people want more foodstuffs, there is no "short-circuit" method around either utilizing the farmer or doing it themself.
With non-physical goods, however, there is a short-circuit around an important part of the process. Once the artist or inventor has published, it is trivially easy to create many more copies, indirectly utilizing the products of the artist, but not directly involving them.
The "It's my copy and I can do with it what I like" stance is ideologically defensible, but it breaks down when it comes to practice. If we were to adopt such a stance, art and invention would have to be driven by patronage, in order to make it an endeavor worth undertaking (Some might say "Real artists do it for the art, not the money", but shouldn't that be up to the "Real artist" to decide?). If ideas were not protected, creators would still need to recoup the value of their time and investments. If copies are free, then the original would have to be sold for the thousands-to-millions invested.
Copyright is a compromise, and in my opinion, a necessary one in a society that values both continually advancing art and innovation and the idea of proportional compensation for work done.
That doesn't work. My boss has a cellphone and a penchant for random, unexplained calls to the office.
If a copy is just "rearranged bits", I suppose you'd be content to just pipe a random number generator to the sound output, and there you go... it even frees up your bandwidth! It's all the just rearranged bits, right?
Probably not, unless you happen upon a rare Monkey/Shakespeare moment. The difference between random digital noise and actual digestible content is what you're paying for. The "cartel" you speak of is... get this... people who produce salable goods for a living! Horrors! Sure, some of them are bastards, but that's what boycotts and market forces are for.
I didn't get a copy of the agenda. Is this "old news"?
Morally, yes.
Legally, you'll still have to find and defend some small island, create your own nation, and... most importantly... Don't sign any paperwork with a postmark from Berne, Switzerland.
If someone else were to start giving away copies
To clarify: I agree with the concept of First Sale and a person's right to control their property. I'm referring to someone making new copies.
I disagree. There is more in the world than just money. Copyright exists as a right, even above being an "Intellectual property". It's an edge case, certainly, but consider if some person or group wants to make a special limited run of some thing, to be given only to a specific circle. Copyright control gives them the right to dictate that.
If someone else were to start giving away copies without respecting the wishes and rights of the creator, there would be "damage" even if no money changed hands. I'll grant that most often copyright is simply used as a negotiating tool for monetary compensation, it is still, fundamentally, a right of the owner that can be dispensed as they wish.
Thanks! You just made me eighty bucks, friend.
I wish to invest in your groundbreaking new enterprise.
I think how you react to a work of art that someone has made available for free is a good litmus test of your outlook on life.
OTOH, it is a discussion board here, talk is cheap, controversy sells well, and it's not like anyone's going to get mortally wounded by some critique.
Actually, a law like this might be helpful in a wardriving defence. Since the law mandates security, one could say that an open AP was an implicit invitation.
Still, though, aside from that unintended consequence, I'd rather have it be an explicit liability rather than a requirement. (If data got stolen, you'd be much more liable if you had open WiFi, but it isn't mandated. Kind of like the UL seal.)
You pay the people involved in making the content, from concept to post-production. You pay the people who market the content (you might say you could do without that, but chances are that you wouldn't have even known about it if it wasn't marketed). You pay to keep the lights on and the schedules kept at the record label/movie studio/development house. You pay because you aren't a movie producer and they are. They possess that skill, produce that product, and if you want it, you should respect them enough to either take or leave their terms. If not, then don't get self-righteous when the lawyers come a-knockin'. At least their clients actually had something to do with the creative act, as opposed to just hitting "download".
By equating the act of distribution with the act of creation, you're cutting out a fair amount of people who are quite integral to the actual product.
Okay, all right, so "stealing" isn't the right term. Just because the common terminology doesn't accurately describe the practice, that does nothing to wash the practice clean of any wrongdoing. Similarily, just because (you may feel) infringement is often committed against "bad" people, this still does not say anything to the legitimacy or "correctness" of the actual act of infringment. You're arguing about peripheral subjects and haven't said a thing about the actual matter at hand.
To those with the means and ability to create content, a right is granted: to control the distribution of that content by utilizing legal systems. It is an artificial right, but it is given to counteract the fact that it is unfairly easy, given the simple physical requirements of copying, for a copier to profit from someone else's much more laborous act of actually creating content. The creator, without copy control rights, would be a fool to create anything at all, as the inventive work would be worthless after the first knock-off artist came along and did the simple task of pumping out bootlegs.
Do you have the means and motivation to create a couple hours of movie entertainment? If not, than pony up to the people who do, or go without. It's called "specialization" and "trade", and it's been a part of civilized society for quite a while.
Considering that "content" is not a right or a basic sustainance need, and that publishing is not an esoteric or vastly expensive art only available to a select few, then it's a perfect playing field to "let the market decide". So Sony, EMI, BMG, Warner, etc. are all raging bastards? Don't buy... and don't give me lip service about "boycotting" and taking the high road if you'd just go and grab it bootleg. It's not a need, and there are alternatives out there, so a "boycott" without the rather mild sacrifice involved in not actually seeing or hearing the latest blockbuster hit is just hypocritical.
I'd be right with anyone saying that the DMCA is a travesty and that things like legal enforcement for region-encoding and against modchipping is downright wrong, but to "fight" them with piracy has no real weight at all.
And this is significantly relevant to a slideshow how?
No, that's the other way around.