Although, with the faulty intake control on a lot of the human engines, you have to take into account that they still might be taking in "fuel" even when they're dormant.
Therefore, best case scenerio: Unmanned hybrid transport devices that run off of both solar-generated hydrogen, and the gases from the decomposing bodies of the obsolete, inefficient human engines, which were "decommissioned" to conserve resources.
Of course, the vehicles should also be made out of a cannibalizable material, since, once much of their utility will be unneeded, as the decommissioned humans no longer require their services....
Or we could all telecommute while hooked to a computer-regulated IV "fuel injection" system, I suppose.
But wouldn't the electrolyzing hydrogen car be cleaner than the petrol-powered carpool vehicle? Granted, it's marginal, taking into account the pollution generated by actually manufacturing the car, but for many usage patterns, I'd imagine things would work out in favor of the solar/hydrogen.
No. That's correct. If you are "too stupid to secure it", you would either fail to try (in your stupidity), or be inadequate to the task of securing it.
If they said "stupid enough to secure it", they would be incorrect, but the current form is A-Okay.
...and all that's physically protecting your postal mail is an envelope.
Although I can understand that there are reasons to emphasize that email isn't secure, there are also some very good reasons to place legal restrictions on reading other people's email without their consent. It's in the same vein as the "legalized security" of postal mail.
Sure, you still have to worry about getting hax0red, just as you have to worry about people swiping your mail or beige boxing your phone. With laws on the books, though, it means that people who do it will be held responsible, and (more importantly) that the "good guys" won't be able to indescretely watch your email.
Until then, you just have to put up with the fact that some of your fans didn't pay you.
Than should we assume that you're for musicians suing infringers into the ground? After all, copiers just have to put up with the fact that they're opening themselves up to civil action.
Although, on the upside, the better publishing and catalouging methods for ideas that do exist certainly do make it easier to sift through the larger amounts of prior art. GTFP! (Google the Fr'k'n Patent!)
Not to mention the fact that the Internet has made it much easier to quickly form coalitions of similarily interested and knowledgeable people to thoroughly "call bullshit" when a spurious patent (as well as many other types of public fraud) does come to light.
With the proper fidelity of copying, of both medium and message, both sides of the issue can be happy.
I'm certain that materials and mechanical science is to the point (or would be adequate if applied to the question) that a replica of many art pieces... at least those of the scale and type that they can be stolen... can be well copied, with both the message and the idiosynchrosies(sp?) of the medium intact.
You're saying that the actual "theft" was done by the original copier, and the transaction is (more) legitimate from the secondhand downloader's perspective, since he's being openly given a file from a third party, as opposed to knowingly "pirating" it from the original licensor.
That's the kicker, though... add in the price of licensing, and the higher baseline price will kick the end price into the stratosphere.
Not that I'm disagreeing with "the dream"... and I even think it's possible on a more targeted scale with the right labels backing, but I don't think you'll see something this grand on a wide-variety music store.
I've got to congratulate you on (what to the best of my knowledge is) the first post I've seen here with the argument of "duplication isn't stealing", with a solidly-explained reason (other than muddying the legal/moral discussion) for wanting to distingush the two.
In reply, though, I think much of the law as it is, and the desire not to curtail legitimate practices, leads to the situation where many distributors and "middlemen" (network operators and facilitators) are harder to catch or prevent, because although their goal may be to facilitate infringement, their actions are not specifically malicious enough to be legislated out.
I believe it's fully within the power of rightsholders to go after both parties who knowingly allowed the unauthorized duplication, both the poster and the downloader. Although the laws could be made saner, sure, the fact of the matter is that both parties do NOT have the rights to make the transaction.
Could you expound on your justification for focusing on the distributors (I'm assuming you mean sharers as opposed to downloaders). Is it the higher effectiveness of shutting down "dealers" over "buyers" that makes it a better choice?
-- Why isn't it okay for people to record something they've experienced and sell it?
Because the artists and promoters decided to distribute that music in the form of a live concert, strictly to those attending the event. This is within their rights as content producers, and, unless they allow further use or distribution of the music, you are usurping their given rights to control the content which they created.
At such point as you, yourself, start writing music, you can have the distinction of controlling the rights to your music. Until that day arrives, though, you have to live with the fact that you're on their terms, because they have an ability which you want to benefit from.
Yeah, the current system sucks and needs to be changed, but the underlying principles are still sound. If you don't like it, work on convincing artists and publishers to open up their rights, and only patronize and personally promote artists and publishers who do.
And... the fact that you've actually heard of this band has nothing AT ALL to do with anyone else at the record company except the actual artists?
As I prefer to be paid when I work, no matter how glamourous or central the cause, I can imagine that everyone from the band to the reps to the accountants and janitors also prefer to be paid for their services, however marginal, to the production of an album.
Curiously enough, groups of these workers of disparite(sp?) disciplines have come together to create a quick and simple structure in order to facilitate, and compensate, the creation of mass-produced music... the RECORD LABEL.
"But, the band is all that's important!", you might say, but I pose this: If record companies provided no services, then few if any bands would utilize them. Since the bands are utilizing the labels of their own free will, and have been for a significant enough time to account for statistical error, one could come to the conclusion that some useful work being done by the label.
I suppose you could kludge this by having something periodically eyeball your bookmarks.html file, and barf out a bunch of URL shortcuts into a directory.
Actually, it's one step removed from that. I imagine they're having the same problems that the CC companies were having a while back.
People would buy porn services, someone (a wife, SO, or the like) would catch them, and they'd try to chargeback it saying they'd never heard of the company, to make it look like they weren't the kind of person who bought porn on the Internet.
The CCs just got pissed about having to deal with all the chargebacks, and tried to cut off online porn retailers from CC service. I don't recall if it succeeded... I don't think it did.
(Sorry, no links... just something I read a long while back.)
The problem with this system is that any time you label content, it only just stops short a hair away from censorship. By universally categorizing, there's no gray area. You'd end up with beheadings in the same group as hunting videos, by some people's tastes. Sure, you could add more categories, then, but even those would have their gray areas, and so on, and so on.
Then, by using the extreme examples of the category to implicate the whole class, it's easy to convince people to censor these "content ghettoes" (easily marked by a TLD or a tag), and even the marginal-but-useful content gets cut off.
Even if it's author-classified, that just means that the author will just be pressured by accusations of misusing the classification system. If not, then the classification system is pretty much useless.
For example: If I set up... say... an "Olde Tyme Horribly Violent Execution Pics" website, and self-rated it "Kid-Friendly"... either because I think kids should know the full history of violent execution, or just because I'm an asshole, one of two results would happen:
1.) I would be accused of misusing the system, and probably be forced to re-rate or drop from the rating system altogether (if it were a centrally-run system like RSACi).
2.) If I was not rerated, then many would consider the system to be inadequate, and choose a centrally-controlled rating system instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Although, with the faulty intake control on a lot of the human engines, you have to take into account that they still might be taking in "fuel" even when they're dormant.
...
Therefore, best case scenerio: Unmanned hybrid transport devices that run off of both solar-generated hydrogen, and the gases from the decomposing bodies of the obsolete, inefficient human engines, which were "decommissioned" to conserve resources.
Of course, the vehicles should also be made out of a cannibalizable material, since, once much of their utility will be unneeded, as the decommissioned humans no longer require their services.
Or we could all telecommute while hooked to a computer-regulated IV "fuel injection" system, I suppose.
But wouldn't the electrolyzing hydrogen car be cleaner than the petrol-powered carpool vehicle? Granted, it's marginal, taking into account the pollution generated by actually manufacturing the car, but for many usage patterns, I'd imagine things would work out in favor of the solar/hydrogen.
No. That's correct. If you are "too stupid to secure it", you would either fail to try (in your stupidity), or be inadequate to the task of securing it.
If they said "stupid enough to secure it", they would be incorrect, but the current form is A-Okay.
...and all that's physically protecting your postal mail is an envelope.
Although I can understand that there are reasons to emphasize that email isn't secure, there are also some very good reasons to place legal restrictions on reading other people's email without their consent. It's in the same vein as the "legalized security" of postal mail.
Sure, you still have to worry about getting hax0red, just as you have to worry about people swiping your mail or beige boxing your phone. With laws on the books, though, it means that people who do it will be held responsible, and (more importantly) that the "good guys" won't be able to indescretely watch your email.
Link!
Until then, you just have to put up with the fact that some of your fans didn't pay you.
Than should we assume that you're for musicians suing infringers into the ground? After all, copiers just have to put up with the fact that they're opening themselves up to civil action.
It makes me wonder what the legality is on pre-editing, deleting, or "wedging" a new EULA in before you run the installer.
1 down, 100t+100,000 to go.
Although, on the upside, the better publishing and catalouging methods for ideas that do exist certainly do make it easier to sift through the larger amounts of prior art. GTFP! (Google the Fr'k'n Patent!)
Not to mention the fact that the Internet has made it much easier to quickly form coalitions of similarily interested and knowledgeable people to thoroughly "call bullshit" when a spurious patent (as well as many other types of public fraud) does come to light.
With the proper fidelity of copying, of both medium and message, both sides of the issue can be happy.
I'm certain that materials and mechanical science is to the point (or would be adequate if applied to the question) that a replica of many art pieces... at least those of the scale and type that they can be stolen... can be well copied, with both the message and the idiosynchrosies(sp?) of the medium intact.
I gotcha.
-- There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Soap, ballot, jury, ammo... LASER!
I think I understand you...
You're saying that the actual "theft" was done by the original copier, and the transaction is (more) legitimate from the secondhand downloader's perspective, since he's being openly given a file from a third party, as opposed to knowingly "pirating" it from the original licensor.
Am I reading you right?
(Ahh, economics, law and insomnia)
That's the kicker, though... add in the price of licensing, and the higher baseline price will kick the end price into the stratosphere.
Not that I'm disagreeing with "the dream"... and I even think it's possible on a more targeted scale with the right labels backing, but I don't think you'll see something this grand on a wide-variety music store.
If only my mod points hadn't expired...
I've got to congratulate you on (what to the best of my knowledge is) the first post I've seen here with the argument of "duplication isn't stealing", with a solidly-explained reason (other than muddying the legal/moral discussion) for wanting to distingush the two.
In reply, though, I think much of the law as it is, and the desire not to curtail legitimate practices, leads to the situation where many distributors and "middlemen" (network operators and facilitators) are harder to catch or prevent, because although their goal may be to facilitate infringement, their actions are not specifically malicious enough to be legislated out.
I believe it's fully within the power of rightsholders to go after both parties who knowingly allowed the unauthorized duplication, both the poster and the downloader. Although the laws could be made saner, sure, the fact of the matter is that both parties do NOT have the rights to make the transaction.
Could you expound on your justification for focusing on the distributors (I'm assuming you mean sharers as opposed to downloaders). Is it the higher effectiveness of shutting down "dealers" over "buyers" that makes it a better choice?
-- Why isn't it okay for people to record something they've experienced and sell it?
Because the artists and promoters decided to distribute that music in the form of a live concert, strictly to those attending the event. This is within their rights as content producers, and, unless they allow further use or distribution of the music, you are usurping their given rights to control the content which they created.
At such point as you, yourself, start writing music, you can have the distinction of controlling the rights to your music. Until that day arrives, though, you have to live with the fact that you're on their terms, because they have an ability which you want to benefit from.
Yeah, the current system sucks and needs to be changed, but the underlying principles are still sound. If you don't like it, work on convincing artists and publishers to open up their rights, and only patronize and personally promote artists and publishers who do.
And... the fact that you've actually heard of this band has nothing AT ALL to do with anyone else at the record company except the actual artists?
As I prefer to be paid when I work, no matter how glamourous or central the cause, I can imagine that everyone from the band to the reps to the accountants and janitors also prefer to be paid for their services, however marginal, to the production of an album.
Curiously enough, groups of these workers of disparite(sp?) disciplines have come together to create a quick and simple structure in order to facilitate, and compensate, the creation of mass-produced music... the RECORD LABEL.
"But, the band is all that's important!", you might say, but I pose this: If record companies provided no services, then few if any bands would utilize them. Since the bands are utilizing the labels of their own free will, and have been for a significant enough time to account for statistical error, one could come to the conclusion that some useful work being done by the label.
Ahh, just call it Fire-somethin-or-other.
Although he may own the digital photos on the memory stick, he doesn't have the right to COPY them.
Lenticular array?
I suppose you could kludge this by having something periodically eyeball your bookmarks.html file, and barf out a bunch of URL shortcuts into a directory.
Wouldn't be too hard.
Actually, DVDs are quite wrinkle-resistant, and you never need to dry-clean them, either. I'm satisfied.
Actually, it's one step removed from that. I imagine they're having the same problems that the CC companies were having a while back.
People would buy porn services, someone (a wife, SO, or the like) would catch them, and they'd try to chargeback it saying they'd never heard of the company, to make it look like they weren't the kind of person who bought porn on the Internet.
The CCs just got pissed about having to deal with all the chargebacks, and tried to cut off online porn retailers from CC service. I don't recall if it succeeded... I don't think it did.
(Sorry, no links... just something I read a long while back.)
The problem with this system is that any time you label content, it only just stops short a hair away from censorship. By universally categorizing, there's no gray area. You'd end up with beheadings in the same group as hunting videos, by some people's tastes. Sure, you could add more categories, then, but even those would have their gray areas, and so on, and so on.
Then, by using the extreme examples of the category to implicate the whole class, it's easy to convince people to censor these "content ghettoes" (easily marked by a TLD or a tag), and even the marginal-but-useful content gets cut off.
Even if it's author-classified, that just means that the author will just be pressured by accusations of misusing the classification system. If not, then the classification system is pretty much useless.
For example: If I set up... say... an "Olde Tyme Horribly Violent Execution Pics" website, and self-rated it "Kid-Friendly"... either because I think kids should know the full history of violent execution, or just because I'm an asshole, one of two results would happen:
1.) I would be accused of misusing the system, and probably be forced to re-rate or drop from the rating system altogether (if it were a centrally-run system like RSACi).
2.) If I was not rerated, then many would consider the system to be inadequate, and choose a centrally-controlled rating system instead.
That and screwdriver claw marks, I'd imagine.