I'd say most of the people who have older model embedded media playback devices that only support it, that is why I have had to go that route on several home networks.
What are these devices ? Why would any "embedded media playback device" preference NFS over SMB, when the proportion of the target audience who even had an NFS-capable data source would be fractions of one percent ?
I'd hardly consider nfs support an enterprise feature, considering windows xp had it.
NFS, outside of serious (as in: all the way to the desktop) UNIX environments and virtualisation, is practically unheard of.
Basically my primary bitching is about how microsoft artificially limits its own software, and doesn't get with the times.
No, your bitching is about how Microsoft isn't supporting your niche requirements.
Whoa there, champ. Ignorance of the law is absolutely a defence, albeit one (naturally) not recognised by the legal system.
If you disagree, I would expect you to be able to reproduce, from memory and without reference to any sources, the entire legal code of whatever jurisdiction(s) you happen to fall within, past and present.
But if it's in the prison system killing prisoners, isn't that reducing the costs of those prisons? How is that unfortunate?
Well, I suppose that hinges on whether or not you believe every crime that qualifies for a gaol sentence also qualifies for the death penalty, and that the legal system is infallible.
The founders thought it was important, so they specifically included in the Constitution. On top of that, every other industrialized country out there has similar systems. If you want to question that, then go ahead, but I have no desire to entertain a conversation about such a dumb topic.
Appeal to authority it is, then.
I'm only here to discuss how the system should be reworked to make it better, not to waste time with extremists. This whole thread started with you yourself proposing copyright terms in the single digits and saying unpopular works should get longer protection, not with extremist crap about abolishing copyright altogether, and my proposal was an answer to that, agreeing with the single-digit terms and countering on the unpopular works getting longer protection part.
But your system isn't going to end up with single-digit protections for all but the most insignificant and irrelevant works.
So you think the government should track every single shell script someone writes, or every short story or poem an 8-year-old writes, so that the least profitable works can get longer protection even though they don't make any money?
No, I think if you want commercial protection for your Copyrighted work then it should be an opt-in system, just like a patent. There's no need to track every work, just the ones that are registered for commercial exploitation.
The proper way to implement this was to use a native (non-Windows) file system, and let people transfer their files using wifi or a $3 mini/micro usb cable.
WiFi - apart from the performance constraints - means running something like Samba on the phone to share files, which brings with it a whole bunch of other problems that need to be addressed.
A USB cable wouldn't make any difference since the phone still needs to present a block device in a format Windows understands (so a FAT variant or NTFS). Once you're at that point, there's no reason NOT to just format the SD card natively to that same filesystem.
A FAT license is clearly the best engineering decision once you actually spend more than a second's knee-jerk analysis.
Considering that the US is the only nation on Earth to use nuclear weapons against another nation, twice, do you think it is a good idea that the US has nuclear arms?
Considering your logic means the only country in any danger from them is Japan, it doesn't seem the world has too much worry about as a whole.
I've already answered this question over and over, you just don't like the answer.
No, you really haven't. You haven't identified why producing art is such an important endeavour that it deseves such incredibly generous legal protection. You also haven't explained why it's preferable for system ostensibly geared towards creating, advancing and spreading culture and science *for everyone* should be specifically geared towards the most important and influential works to be locked up for the longest periods of time.
The only reason I can imagine you're so against this is because you're an extremist who wants to eliminate all copyright altogether.
No, the fundamental disagreement we have is that I think the most popular and influential works should enter the public domain the quickest, so a) they can be freely built upon by others and b) the creator has an incentive to create more, because I believe the purpose of Copyright is to provide the largest benefit to society as a whole. You think that the most popular and influential works should be contained for as long as possible because you believe the purpose of Copyright is to enrich the individual as much as possible.
This basic difference in objective is why I disagree with your proposal.
I'm uncomfortable with Copyright (outside of moral rights) as a concept because it's arbitrary, goes against natural behaviour and appears to have no grounding in any sort of natural law. On top of that it's clearly quite easily manipulated by powerful interests to further their own agendas. I do, however, recognise that our current economic systems are deficient and rewarding certain types of creative workers (in particular, writers of books) and that Copyright - albeit vastly more limited than its current implementation - is a tolerable crutch for that.
But then it gives those who want to make more money on copyrights, namely corporations who probably wouldn't exist without copyright law (like big movie studios), a way of extending the protection for those (relatively few) works they really want to keep their monopoly on, and which are profitable enough to justify the expense of the renewal fees.
This is backwards. Corporations are the least in need of protection. A huge, billion-dollar-profit movie like Avatar could fund dozens of abject failures and hundreds of borderline break-even films.
There are plenty of avenues for large, organised corporations to make money from most types of creative work. Maybe not the kind of license-to-print-money results that they enjoy today, but certainly more than enough to be secure and profitable businesses.
I'm personally of the opinion that the vast majority of modern white collar jobs are going to require some form of computer programming in the very near future. For example, my wife works in supply chain and the ridiculous shit they do because they are simply ignorant of even 50 year old computing methods cause them to waste a considerable amount of time and resources. It's not uncommon either, people get in a rut doing repetitive, computationally simple tasks because they don't know any better. Those kinds of jobs are doomed and I think that in order to be competitive or even hire-able you will need to know how to automate the minutiae.
I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. Once the automatable has been automated, the person that did it is out of a job.
You realize of course that foreign language is a basic skill for almost anybody in the world as it lets kids recognize the fact that there are people beyond borders of your country and that these people speak, it allows you also to know about these people and communicate with them. Besides this it may allow you to be exposed to other cultures which may be beneficial.
It will also probably teach you about grammar and spelling, things likely sorely lacking from your English education if it happened in the last 15-20 years.
I remember a cogent comment from a podcast... if you were sent back in time 150 years, you wouldn't recognize much... but one thing you *would* recognize would be a classroom... a bunch of kids in a square room listening to a single adult talking at them... maybe we can do better?
It's been an effective teaching method for millennia. Does it really need changing ?
Either of which reduce the value of the right of first performance.
And ?
According to what theory of economics?
Uh, the same one that states the performer will try and maximise *his* gain out of the transaction. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and all that.
There is undoubtedly both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the production of creative works, but there exist at least some potential creators who are rational, self-interested actors [wikipedia.org] who will pursue alternatives that have a higher expected return than the maximum recognisable value of their creation.
So without special privileges they'll be just like any other "economic actor" then ? Why is removing an arbitrary and behaviour-distorting incentive a bad thing ?
An economic incentive such as copyright monopoly raises the maximum recognisable value of a creation. In its absence there will be some actors that choose an alternative vocation, and society/culture will never receive those potential creations.
The only place that argument leads is perpetual Copyright, since with anything less there will always be "some actors that choose an alternative vocation, and society/culture will never receive [their] potential creations".
What you're saying is true....but in your own words, "the purpose of copyrighting is to incentivize more creation." The entire purpose of copyrighting is to protect your intellectual property/ideas/designs in order to keep others from using them, right? Why would I want this type of protection? 1) to keep others from using it for financial gain (i.e., it would cut into my profit margin), and/or 2) to be recognized as the intellectual origin of the artifact.
Moral rights (ie: attribution) are a separate kettle of fish to commercial protection. I don't have any disagreement with them being automatic and perpetual.
That's simple: the fact that most people who try to create super-profitable works utterly fail, and they'll keep trying until they do, or at least keep making more works that are profitable enough to make a living on.
No, that's a different situation. It doesn't address the question of why a very profitable work should remain in Copyright for a long time, thus giving a disincentive for creating any more.
Do you really think it's that simple to create highly profitable works?
I think it's at least as much a matter of luck as planning.
That's not what he said. He said paycheck, which is every 2 weeks.
Protip: not everyone is paid on the same schedule. So just saying "I get $X" is rather ambiguous.
When he wrapped up the paragraph with "my net was around $1300 for the week", the assumption of a weekly pay seemed reasonable.
Just in case, though, and because of the "I'm in the middleclass bracket 52-74k/yr", I put in the numbers for a $74k income as well - and it still doesn't add up. At $76,800, with a fortnightly pay, he should be losing about $535 in federal income tax.
The incentive is for you to try to create something that will earn bucketloads of cash, so that it'll be worth it for you to keep renewing the copyright term over and over.
No.
The incentive of Copyright is (ostensibly) to maximise the volume of new works created. Where is the incentive to create more works if you've made one so profitable it will support you for the rest of your life ? Where's the payback to society from the privilege extended to the creator ?
We really need to have government agents asking me about every 3-line shell script I wrote and finding out how much money I made from it (zero) so it can be afforded the maximum copyright protection?
This highlights another problem, which is that Copyright for the purposes of commercial protection is opt-out, when it should be opt-in, like patents.
The only Copyright that should be automatic (and perpetual) is the moral right of attribution.
Group, singular. Once the composition has been performed it can be recreated from the performance, and there is no need for any performer or group beyond the first to pay (to anyone) more than the cost of "reverse engineering" the performance (which many musicians can do quite easily).
Unless the composer, say, negotiates with multiple groups simultaneously. Or contractually binds the first one not to perform until he has sold the work to other groups.
Given that a second group intending to perform the composition will either reverse engineer it or pay (someone), it is economically sensible for the first group to undercut any price requested by the composer, as this maximizes the first group's profit.
It is also economically sensible for the composer to only sell the work for enough to support him while he creates and sells the next one.
A regular old white or blue collar worker didn't work for $0 for months or years. You guys need to stop using salaried/wage workers, who get paid week by week or month by month to do their job, with creative artists, who receive no income while they work on their project.
So a bit like, say, going to University before starting a salaried job ?
(You must really hate Peter Pan by the way, the only work I know of with a literally permanent copyright term - even if the reason is simply because the author decreed that the royalties be gifted to a children's hospital).
It does sound like an excellent example of how Copyright could be abused.
Nice idea in La La land, but here in the real world people often band together to create something together. In this case who had to die for the copyright to enter the public domain? All of them? Or any one of them?
Last paycheck I brought home was 3200 in gross, with 1100 in income tax, with another 600 and change gone in various provincial taxes and 300 or so in UI and CPP, I know I'm missing a lot. Though there was a lot of overtime involved because of christmas/new years. My net was around $1300 for the week.
$3200/wk gross puts you at ca. $166k/yr.
This on $166k/yr, your overall federal income tax should be $28,020 + (166,000 - 132,406)*0.29 = $37,762.26. Or $726/wk, not $1100.
I'm in the middleclass bracket 52-74k/yr. But that's a lot of money to lose in one week.
So let's use the same table at $74k/yr. That means your federal income tax should be 6,406 + (74,000 - 42,707)*0.22 = $13,290.46, or $256/wk.
No, you didn't. You gave a particular example using a small amount of money and dismissed it as insignificant. You in no way addressed the actual question, which is why should Copyright holders be extended these extraordinarily generous legal privileges. "It's only a dollar" is no more a defense of Copyright than "it's only a pat down" is a defense of the TSA.
If it's so easy and artists are so lazy, go make your own art and entertain yourself!
I said neither of these things.
What is the justification for copying it then?
Why is a justification necessary ? Copying things is normal and natural human behaviour that has been going on since the beginning of time (and is also demonstrated by other animals). It's the basis of all culture, learning and progress.
But seriously, why should that matter? If an artist records a song, he should be able to profit from selling the recording and not be forced to tour live if he doesn't want to.
Why ? Why should someone be able to spend a day recording a song and then sit on their arse for the rest of their life making money from it just because they're an "artist" ? Why shouldn't they have to go out and _work_ every day for an income like most other people do ?
What is the justification for creating arbitrary laws to extend this extraordinary privilege to *entertainers* ?
Slashdot Mirror
What are these devices ? Why would any "embedded media playback device" preference NFS over SMB, when the proportion of the target audience who even had an NFS-capable data source would be fractions of one percent ?
NFS, outside of serious (as in: all the way to the desktop) UNIX environments and virtualisation, is practically unheard of.
No, your bitching is about how Microsoft isn't supporting your niche requirements.
Whoa there, champ. Ignorance of the law is absolutely a defence, albeit one (naturally) not recognised by the legal system.
If you disagree, I would expect you to be able to reproduce, from memory and without reference to any sources, the entire legal code of whatever jurisdiction(s) you happen to fall within, past and present.
This raises the questions of a) why Julian Assange is still in the UK, and b) why is he so concerned about going to Sweden ?
Well, I suppose that hinges on whether or not you believe every crime that qualifies for a gaol sentence also qualifies for the death penalty, and that the legal system is infallible.
Windows NT hasn't had a BSD-derived TCP/IP stack since NT 3.1 anyway. They rewrote it from scratch for NT 3.5.
Appeal to authority it is, then.
But your system isn't going to end up with single-digit protections for all but the most insignificant and irrelevant works.
No, I think if you want commercial protection for your Copyrighted work then it should be an opt-in system, just like a patent. There's no need to track every work, just the ones that are registered for commercial exploitation.
WiFi - apart from the performance constraints - means running something like Samba on the phone to share files, which brings with it a whole bunch of other problems that need to be addressed.
A USB cable wouldn't make any difference since the phone still needs to present a block device in a format Windows understands (so a FAT variant or NTFS). Once you're at that point, there's no reason NOT to just format the SD card natively to that same filesystem.
A FAT license is clearly the best engineering decision once you actually spend more than a second's knee-jerk analysis.
Considering your logic means the only country in any danger from them is Japan, it doesn't seem the world has too much worry about as a whole.
No, you really haven't. You haven't identified why producing art is such an important endeavour that it deseves such incredibly generous legal protection. You also haven't explained why it's preferable for system ostensibly geared towards creating, advancing and spreading culture and science *for everyone* should be specifically geared towards the most important and influential works to be locked up for the longest periods of time.
No, the fundamental disagreement we have is that I think the most popular and influential works should enter the public domain the quickest, so a) they can be freely built upon by others and b) the creator has an incentive to create more, because I believe the purpose of Copyright is to provide the largest benefit to society as a whole. You think that the most popular and influential works should be contained for as long as possible because you believe the purpose of Copyright is to enrich the individual as much as possible.
This basic difference in objective is why I disagree with your proposal.
I'm uncomfortable with Copyright (outside of moral rights) as a concept because it's arbitrary, goes against natural behaviour and appears to have no grounding in any sort of natural law. On top of that it's clearly quite easily manipulated by powerful interests to further their own agendas. I do, however, recognise that our current economic systems are deficient and rewarding certain types of creative workers (in particular, writers of books) and that Copyright - albeit vastly more limited than its current implementation - is a tolerable crutch for that.
This is backwards. Corporations are the least in need of protection. A huge, billion-dollar-profit movie like Avatar could fund dozens of abject failures and hundreds of borderline break-even films.
There are plenty of avenues for large, organised corporations to make money from most types of creative work. Maybe not the kind of license-to-print-money results that they enjoy today, but certainly more than enough to be secure and profitable businesses.
I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. Once the automatable has been automated, the person that did it is out of a job.
It will also probably teach you about grammar and spelling, things likely sorely lacking from your English education if it happened in the last 15-20 years.
It's been an effective teaching method for millennia. Does it really need changing ?
And ?
Uh, the same one that states the performer will try and maximise *his* gain out of the transaction. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and all that.
So without special privileges they'll be just like any other "economic actor" then ? Why is removing an arbitrary and behaviour-distorting incentive a bad thing ?
The only place that argument leads is perpetual Copyright, since with anything less there will always be "some actors that choose an alternative vocation, and society/culture will never receive [their] potential creations".
Moral rights (ie: attribution) are a separate kettle of fish to commercial protection. I don't have any disagreement with them being automatic and perpetual.
No, that's a different situation. It doesn't address the question of why a very profitable work should remain in Copyright for a long time, thus giving a disincentive for creating any more.
I think it's at least as much a matter of luck as planning.
Protip: not everyone is paid on the same schedule. So just saying "I get $X" is rather ambiguous.
When he wrapped up the paragraph with "my net was around $1300 for the week", the assumption of a weekly pay seemed reasonable.
Just in case, though, and because of the "I'm in the middleclass bracket 52-74k/yr", I put in the numbers for a $74k income as well - and it still doesn't add up. At $76,800, with a fortnightly pay, he should be losing about $535 in federal income tax.
No.
The incentive of Copyright is (ostensibly) to maximise the volume of new works created. Where is the incentive to create more works if you've made one so profitable it will support you for the rest of your life ? Where's the payback to society from the privilege extended to the creator ?
This highlights another problem, which is that Copyright for the purposes of commercial protection is opt-out, when it should be opt-in, like patents.
The only Copyright that should be automatic (and perpetual) is the moral right of attribution.
I guess that's why we have such a huge problem with corporations killing rich people and stealing all their stuff.
If you valued maintaining your copyright over more money, that would be your choice.
In reality, however, the popularity of a work is rarely something the creator can engineer. It is determined by his audience.
Unless the composer, say, negotiates with multiple groups simultaneously. Or contractually binds the first one not to perform until he has sold the work to other groups.
It is also economically sensible for the composer to only sell the work for enough to support him while he creates and sells the next one.
So it appears we have a standoff.
So a bit like, say, going to University before starting a salaried job ?
It does sound like an excellent example of how Copyright could be abused.
All of them would be the most obvious conclusion.
$3200/wk gross puts you at ca. $166k/yr.
This on $166k/yr, your overall federal income tax should be $28,020 + (166,000 - 132,406)*0.29 = $37,762.26. Or $726/wk, not $1100.
So let's use the same table at $74k/yr. That means your federal income tax should be 6,406 + (74,000 - 42,707)*0.22 = $13,290.46, or $256/wk.
Something here doesn't add up.
No, you didn't. You gave a particular example using a small amount of money and dismissed it as insignificant. You in no way addressed the actual question, which is why should Copyright holders be extended these extraordinarily generous legal privileges. "It's only a dollar" is no more a defense of Copyright than "it's only a pat down" is a defense of the TSA.
I said neither of these things.
Why is a justification necessary ? Copying things is normal and natural human behaviour that has been going on since the beginning of time (and is also demonstrated by other animals). It's the basis of all culture, learning and progress.
Why ? Why should someone be able to spend a day recording a song and then sit on their arse for the rest of their life making money from it just because they're an "artist" ? Why shouldn't they have to go out and _work_ every day for an income like most other people do ?
What is the justification for creating arbitrary laws to extend this extraordinary privilege to *entertainers* ?