Thanks for the compliment, but I think my comments were exactly on point, not side-stepping it.
Copyright by default is granted to the creator of a work (an author or musician, for example). It is only by a consicous and willful act that the creator transfers copyright to another entity (e.g. their publisher or music label). I have little pity on someone who willfully decides to transfer their copyright by signing a contract that does not adequately protect their own interests. I do have some pity on those who sign themselves into a contract that lasts years but which allows the other party to cast them aside (some of the crap Prince went through, for instance); but my pity is limited. Read the fine print, hire a lawyer to look over a contract and who represents YOUR interests, or risk the consequences.
Copyright law protects copyright holders, it doesn't matter if they are individuals or corporations, so I don't understand why you keep saying it only protects corporations.
Illegal to lead you to a web site that contains popups and adware? Maybe it should be, but I doubt that it is.
On the other hand, if one of the popups actually installed a malicious trojan, then it probably would be illegal, on the same grounds that 'indexing' to copyrighten materials is illegal.
The example you cite is a great example of why tracking can be useful, not invasive.
Why wait 3 1/2 hours? Maybe the employers are not in the habit of watching every move their delivery men make until it becomes an unreasonable problem. Perhaps delays of an hour or so are understood to be common, or the employers are just willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt before they start tracking them down.
Most people here seem to have a problem with an employer tracking someone (even a delivery man) because they are afraid they'll nickel and dime them. Here's an example where the employers waited long past a time may have been appropriate to track someone down. That demonstrates to me that they were not in a rush to infiltrate the lives of their employees even when they ARE on the clock.
That's crazy. You know those devices secretely transmit gamma waves to control the drivers. No way is a company not interested in controlling every facet of their employees' lives. That's why all companies are formed in the first place.
GPS has been used by truckers here in the US for a long time now, as previous posts attest to. So, it must just be the European aspect of it that has failed.
I don't think comparisons between corporate life and military life are valid here.
In the private sector, anyone who is off-duty (even if they are on-call) should not have to be monitored. If part of their job responsibilities is to respond to a call within a given time, then that's easily monitored without having any idea where they are.
"These systems could be used to unfairly discipline drivers, for counting every minute that they might or might not be on or off duty and holding that against them," said Galen Munroe, a Teamsters spokesman.
OMG they might hold against them for engaging in non-business related activities while being paid per time? What is this world coming to?!
Glen: if it really bothers you that much, petition to get companies to stop paying per hour/mile.
Everything I've said is completely on-topic, and infact, in direct response to claims you have made (I even went so far as to quote each claim I was responding to, though you have yet to reciprocate).
Instead, you have merely cut and pasted remarks from various parts of my post which any educated reader of this thread would see were quite substantive (and I encourage said readers to compare with your glib remarks).
You made the outrageous claim that I must be using the Bible to justify my positions. For that, I labeled you a moron, because what you said was moronic.
As for my "moderator-based-ego", well simply look at the mod points for our articles. Look at the mod points for all of our articles. You obviously have a lot of time to spend at Slashdot, whereas I simply have some time to play. Since my articles in this thread have consistently been modded to "1" (which is the default, because I'm registered), for this comment you also prove yourself to be a moron.
Finally, let me say that there are plenty of good, intelligent people who disagree with me on a whole range of issues. Unfortunately, you do not appear to be among them.
The Constitutional aspect of copyright is very simple: "Clause 8:..." The inventor and authors have exclusive right. That is not inclusive of any corporation. That right (whatever that right is defined to include) is exclusive to the author or inventor.
That's correct. Copyright originally was granted to publishers, but English Commonlaw evolved such that it was granted to the original authors, and thus the language int he Constitution (and subsequent copyright laws in the US and abroad). However, as I said, it is an established feature of copyright that it can be willingly licensed or transferred to a wholly new owner. If you transfer your copyright, by writ or prior contract, then you have potentially screwed yourself. In this case, the artist has no one to blame (or thank) but themselves.
Then I feel no compulsion to support any efforts for them to use my tax money to further exploit the public. All arguments about public good can now be dropped in favor of the pirates.
People exploit other people for profit all the time. It is only a rhetorical thing that "exploitation" has a negative connotation, because it does not have to be. Johnson and Johnson "exploits" people's desire to be clean by selling them cleaning products. Are you therefore justified in shoplifting their products from store shelves? Of course not.
Most artists are not successes (at least, not in the superstar sense). The record and movie industries take a risk in promoting them, knowing that the majority of the time, they will be lucky if they break even on their investment (which is actually a loss, given the oportunity cost). If you are a starving artist and an industry man offers you a contract paying you enough to get by for another year or 5, well, guess what, statistically you are probably getting a good deal at their expense. In this case the artist is taking advantage of the promoters. Does that make you feel better about not paying for their work?
My point is that there is nothing unethical about the practice of contracting to produce art for an agreed to sum of money with the knowledge that the art may not sell at all or sell like hotcakes. If you are that sure about your art, then you negotiate a better deal (or skip the middle man and become your own promoter). If it turns out to be a hit and you forgot to include that royalty deal in your contract, well you live you learn.
If I sign a blatantly one-sided contract (and you'll not find a single fair contract in all of the professional industry) then I'm bound by no such honor.
Yes, you are. Don't sign blatantly one-sided contracts. If you can't deal with the industry, then either change it, or get out. If the industry is engaging in monopolistic practices to prevent competition from independents, then it should be sanctioned. Nevertheless, if you enter into a contract then you are morally obliged to follow through with it, unless the contract itself was invalid (for instance, signing away rights which cannot be signed away, etc.).
Again, where are the legions of politicians parading the Constitution to protect my rights as an inventor and creator?
There is no such thing as legions of politicians. They wouldn't be able to hold formation. At any rate, this doesn't matter. The federal and Supreme courts parade the Constition to protect your rights, not politicians. Just because you don't think the current public policy is in your best interest does not mean you are not bound to fulfill obligations you willingly enter into (we're not even talking about civil disobedience here, we're talking about upholding your end of a contract).
I shouldn't have to invest in a lawyer to protect rights that I'm given by the Constitution.
No, you don't. You can always represent yourself. However, I don't believe copying other people's works are rights that are protected by the Constitition, a
I agree with you. Tax dollars shouldn't be used to develop so-called "DRM" (of course, there's a lot of things tax dollars shouldn't be used for, but we all know how frugal Congress is). Neither should additional criminal code be added to circumvent established fair use allowances.
Video games makers figured out long ago that it was not worth all the elaborate anti-piracy mechanisms- they just factored in expected piracy by individuals into the price of their goods. Obviously, they're still gonna go after the egregious cases...
At any rate, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to copyright.
Without the authorization of the copyright holders. If you tranfer your copyright away, then you are not a copyright holder. If you want to maintain your copyright (which is by default granted to the author), then don't transfer it away. It's that simple.
Just as I feel copyright holders have the right to protect the distribution of their works, I also strongly feel they have a right to choose the terms of transfer and/or licensing of their copyright. It's a two-way street. Just because a lot of artists have underestimated the value of their works before signing away copyright doesn't mean the whole system is broke.
To be honest, I don't see that the referenced post is relevant, and while it refers to the "law", it certainly doesn't mention the Constitutional aspects of copyright, or the founders' vision towards it (or even its basis in English Commonlaw).
Do companies take advantage of people by getting them to sign away their copyright and then exploiting them? Yes.
But transferring copyright is a feature permitted with copyright, and no it doesn't imply that any civil right can be transferred away (copyright is, of course, not even a civil right).
And in the end, if you are an author/creator and you feel the terms of your contract are unfavorable, then you either negotiate or walk away. In the information age especially it should be much easier (though perhaps less profitable)to find an alternative means of getting your work out to the market. But if you sign the contract, then you are bound not only by law but by personal honor to adhere to it. And unless the contract has an escape clause, why should you be able to just break it at will and try to reclaim rights over your work. If you make software for a company for 5 years and then leave the company and claim copyright on your work-- well first off chances are you didn't work alone-- second and more basic, are you going to pay the company back their 5 years salary plus interest? Probably not. At any rate, once you agree that the company owns the rights to your produce, you're bound to it. If you don't like the situation then leave and start making your own stuff. That's called the entrepreneurial spirit. And if you're in the music industry, don't sign a contract that says you are obliged to deal with the same label for a fixed amount of time. Invest in your own lawyer, for God's sake!
Well, we owe it in the sense that it is prescribed by the Constitution (and international treaties for those of you not in the states), for the progress of arts and sciences. And in the Federalist Papers, Madison wrote that the interests of society and the interests of the individuals in this case were the same.
In other words, according to our founding document and the arguments of one of our founding fathers, yes, we do owe them protection, and it is in OUR best interests to ensure it.
Slashdot Mirror
I assure you- the least likliest to care about the free/non-free debate over Java is the corporate environment.
Except that Microsoft actually makes money.
SUNW's profit margin (trailing twelve months): -0.94%; MSFT's: 21.38%.
You mean the kind of Top Secret spooky types that use their Sidekicks to store and send sensitive information and allow hackers to gain access to Secret Service files?
Why? Once Sun uses up their cash, they'll be out of business anyway. Come on, they are selling x86 PCs now. They are going the way of SGI.
Thanks for the compliment, but I think my comments were exactly on point, not side-stepping it.
Copyright by default is granted to the creator of a work (an author or musician, for example). It is only by a consicous and willful act that the creator transfers copyright to another entity (e.g. their publisher or music label). I have little pity on someone who willfully decides to transfer their copyright by signing a contract that does not adequately protect their own interests. I do have some pity on those who sign themselves into a contract that lasts years but which allows the other party to cast them aside (some of the crap Prince went through, for instance); but my pity is limited. Read the fine print, hire a lawyer to look over a contract and who represents YOUR interests, or risk the consequences.
Copyright law protects copyright holders, it doesn't matter if they are individuals or corporations, so I don't understand why you keep saying it only protects corporations.
Illegal to lead you to a web site that contains popups and adware? Maybe it should be, but I doubt that it is.
On the other hand, if one of the popups actually installed a malicious trojan, then it probably would be illegal, on the same grounds that 'indexing' to copyrighten materials is illegal.
But since the audio file you did download was not pirated, you haven't broken any law.
You expected a delivery to be before Christmas AND to the correct address?
You fascist!
The example you cite is a great example of why tracking can be useful, not invasive.
Why wait 3 1/2 hours? Maybe the employers are not in the habit of watching every move their delivery men make until it becomes an unreasonable problem. Perhaps delays of an hour or so are understood to be common, or the employers are just willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt before they start tracking them down.
Most people here seem to have a problem with an employer tracking someone (even a delivery man) because they are afraid they'll nickel and dime them. Here's an example where the employers waited long past a time may have been appropriate to track someone down. That demonstrates to me that they were not in a rush to infiltrate the lives of their employees even when they ARE on the clock.
If you tend to go to the bathroom for 3 1/2 hours at a time, perhaps you do need to be tracked.
The example you cite is an example of why these things are USEFUL, not invasive.
That's crazy. You know those devices secretely transmit gamma waves to control the drivers. No way is a company not interested in controlling every facet of their employees' lives. That's why all companies are formed in the first place.
GPS has been used by truckers here in the US for a long time now, as previous posts attest to. So, it must just be the European aspect of it that has failed.
I don't think comparisons between corporate life and military life are valid here.
In the private sector, anyone who is off-duty (even if they are on-call) should not have to be monitored. If part of their job responsibilities is to respond to a call within a given time, then that's easily monitored without having any idea where they are.
But UPS does own the trucks.
Why do you assume that UPS is interested in going after someone who's dentist appointment ran late?
What? That's ridiculous! At least 75% of that income belongs to the Teamsters!
I don't care what you say- I wouldn't want a kindergartner delivering my UPS packages even if she HAS a GPS on board.
Glen: if it really bothers you that much, petition to get companies to stop paying per hour/mile.
You've spelled too many things wrong on /. today to call anyone else an idiot for it. Or is that "aside" the point?
Everything I've said is completely on-topic, and infact, in direct response to claims you have made (I even went so far as to quote each claim I was responding to, though you have yet to reciprocate).
Instead, you have merely cut and pasted remarks from various parts of my post which any educated reader of this thread would see were quite substantive (and I encourage said readers to compare with your glib remarks).
You made the outrageous claim that I must be using the Bible to justify my positions. For that, I labeled you a moron, because what you said was moronic.
As for my "moderator-based-ego", well simply look at the mod points for our articles. Look at the mod points for all of our articles. You obviously have a lot of time to spend at Slashdot, whereas I simply have some time to play. Since my articles in this thread have consistently been modded to "1" (which is the default, because I'm registered), for this comment you also prove yourself to be a moron.
Finally, let me say that there are plenty of good, intelligent people who disagree with me on a whole range of issues. Unfortunately, you do not appear to be among them.
That's correct. Copyright originally was granted to publishers, but English Commonlaw evolved such that it was granted to the original authors, and thus the language int he Constitution (and subsequent copyright laws in the US and abroad). However, as I said, it is an established feature of copyright that it can be willingly licensed or transferred to a wholly new owner. If you transfer your copyright, by writ or prior contract, then you have potentially screwed yourself. In this case, the artist has no one to blame (or thank) but themselves.
People exploit other people for profit all the time. It is only a rhetorical thing that "exploitation" has a negative connotation, because it does not have to be. Johnson and Johnson "exploits" people's desire to be clean by selling them cleaning products. Are you therefore justified in shoplifting their products from store shelves? Of course not.
Most artists are not successes (at least, not in the superstar sense). The record and movie industries take a risk in promoting them, knowing that the majority of the time, they will be lucky if they break even on their investment (which is actually a loss, given the oportunity cost). If you are a starving artist and an industry man offers you a contract paying you enough to get by for another year or 5, well, guess what, statistically you are probably getting a good deal at their expense. In this case the artist is taking advantage of the promoters. Does that make you feel better about not paying for their work?
My point is that there is nothing unethical about the practice of contracting to produce art for an agreed to sum of money with the knowledge that the art may not sell at all or sell like hotcakes. If you are that sure about your art, then you negotiate a better deal (or skip the middle man and become your own promoter). If it turns out to be a hit and you forgot to include that royalty deal in your contract, well you live you learn.
Yes, you are. Don't sign blatantly one-sided contracts. If you can't deal with the industry, then either change it, or get out. If the industry is engaging in monopolistic practices to prevent competition from independents, then it should be sanctioned. Nevertheless, if you enter into a contract then you are morally obliged to follow through with it, unless the contract itself was invalid (for instance, signing away rights which cannot be signed away, etc.).
There is no such thing as legions of politicians. They wouldn't be able to hold formation. At any rate, this doesn't matter. The federal and Supreme courts parade the Constition to protect your rights, not politicians. Just because you don't think the current public policy is in your best interest does not mean you are not bound to fulfill obligations you willingly enter into (we're not even talking about civil disobedience here, we're talking about upholding your end of a contract).
No, you don't. You can always represent yourself. However, I don't believe copying other people's works are rights that are protected by the Constitition, a
Video games makers figured out long ago that it was not worth all the elaborate anti-piracy mechanisms- they just factored in expected piracy by individuals into the price of their goods. Obviously, they're still gonna go after the egregious cases...
At any rate, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to copyright.
Without the authorization of the copyright holders. If you tranfer your copyright away, then you are not a copyright holder. If you want to maintain your copyright (which is by default granted to the author), then don't transfer it away. It's that simple.
Just as I feel copyright holders have the right to protect the distribution of their works, I also strongly feel they have a right to choose the terms of transfer and/or licensing of their copyright. It's a two-way street. Just because a lot of artists have underestimated the value of their works before signing away copyright doesn't mean the whole system is broke.
To be honest, I don't see that the referenced post is relevant, and while it refers to the "law", it certainly doesn't mention the Constitutional aspects of copyright, or the founders' vision towards it (or even its basis in English Commonlaw).
Do companies take advantage of people by getting them to sign away their copyright and then exploiting them? Yes.
But transferring copyright is a feature permitted with copyright, and no it doesn't imply that any civil right can be transferred away (copyright is, of course, not even a civil right).
And in the end, if you are an author/creator and you feel the terms of your contract are unfavorable, then you either negotiate or walk away. In the information age especially it should be much easier (though perhaps less profitable)to find an alternative means of getting your work out to the market. But if you sign the contract, then you are bound not only by law but by personal honor to adhere to it. And unless the contract has an escape clause, why should you be able to just break it at will and try to reclaim rights over your work. If you make software for a company for 5 years and then leave the company and claim copyright on your work-- well first off chances are you didn't work alone-- second and more basic, are you going to pay the company back their 5 years salary plus interest? Probably not. At any rate, once you agree that the company owns the rights to your produce, you're bound to it. If you don't like the situation then leave and start making your own stuff. That's called the entrepreneurial spirit. And if you're in the music industry, don't sign a contract that says you are obliged to deal with the same label for a fixed amount of time. Invest in your own lawyer, for God's sake!
Well, we owe it in the sense that it is prescribed by the Constitution (and international treaties for those of you not in the states), for the progress of arts and sciences. And in the Federalist Papers, Madison wrote that the interests of society and the interests of the individuals in this case were the same.
In other words, according to our founding document and the arguments of one of our founding fathers, yes, we do owe them protection, and it is in OUR best interests to ensure it.