No, just submarines. (and some associated apparatus, like diving suits) I don't recall that Nautilus was nuclear-powered... just that it had some handwaving electrical powerplant. It involved breaking apart the salt in seawater for the sodium.
Clarke _did_ predict geosync communications satellites... but he _didn't_ predict tightbeam communications, e.g. by microwave or laser, or the transistor. He thought that the satellites would be manned, because people would have to replace the vacuum tubes onboard.
IIRC, similar predictions were made in the short stories in the 'Venus Ecliptic' stories. More interestingly, it had a discussion of the societal problems of replicator technology. (they could convert matter into radio, transcribe it onto LP's, and then play it out to make copies) Sadly, the author wimped out with the introduction of a substance that couldn't be copied.
Not nearly so elegant or useful as forks/streams, however. G'wan -- tell me how your lame OS X application bundles could be made to work with a file that has to be accompanied by several font files (to support the fonts used within), backup milestones of previous versions of the document, and original objects, e.g. raw scans that were used as source material for the main document?
Use symlinks to avoid unecesarily duplicating space (but with the ability to fork the links into seperate files if changes are made to the master) and a well-designed interface for mucking with the guts, and you'd have a far superior solution.
I agree -- apps should be single, apparently indivisible icons, but there are compelling reasons to do the same elsewhere too.
Out of curiosity do you have some screenshots of the interior? I'd like to know if it was just raw directories and files, or if there was some attempt at making it accessible and usable for people, along the same lines of thought as making the container executable.
Although MacOS _does_ do what you describe with regards to application binding (rather elegantly -- though OS X has regressed to a crappy-ass method, as though it were strapped underneath a Devolvo-Ray) it doesn't really help all that much with regards to organization.
Heavy use of resource forks, streams or workalikes (OS X application bundles don't fit the bill -- there are other uses for this besides actual applications, e.g. documents with included fonts) to bind multiple files and subdirectories together into what generally behaves like an atomic object, which is executable on its own strikes me as another element of a better solution. Especially if combined with a) symlinks and b) a GOOD UI for interacting with the guts, perhaps with inspiration from the MacOS 7+ System Folder.
Yes -- provided that your system automagically creates those symlinks. Doing so manually is a waste of time.
This is another incarnation of 'Bins' as developed by Alan Kay, IIRC, when he was at Apple, and which showed up to an extent in BeOS. I don't have time to fully discuss it here, but look up his article in Brenda Laurel's "The Art of Human Computer Interface" book. Essentially imagine having folders in the fs that are actually displaying search results as symlinks rather than files expressly placed in there. (e.g. if a folder were "*.mp3" and automatically had symlinks to all matching files)
IANAL, and my knowledge of patent law is spotty, but I'm pretty sure that it's legal alright. What you're thinking of is perhaps if the patent holder actively tried to encourage infringement (e.g. by implying that the patent wouldn't be enforced, or that licenses would be granted) which could result in the holder being required to grant a license to the infringer.
I'm fairly sure that passively waiting for someone to infringe is A-OK, however. Do you have some links or such that you could post to support your position? I'd be interested to see if my understanding is correct or not.
I do not recall getting beer from you. Not that I'd get much use out of it;)
Last year I got Altus a working Apple IIgs, signed by the Woz. Not the cheesy limited edition type, I mean I mailed it to the Woz and he wrote on it in marker. I thought it was fairly neat, but I wouldn't send it to him anytime after Labor Day, what with the backlog of mail he has. Working antique computers are always a good geek gift, however, provided that it's something they haven't got.
Everyone else got Klein Bottles made by Cliff Stoll. (www.kleinbottle.com)
This year, I've already had Altus' gift made, and bought another friend his all the way back in Feburary. Still doing some shopping for a third friend. Sadly, they all read/., so I can't reveal them.
I remember that! Worse still -- you couldn't even create a new folder in System 1.0. You had to keep an empty one hanging around, and duplicate it as necessary.
Therefore we need DVD playing software that can accept independently created and distributed MST3K jokes as overlays.
There'd probably be hundreds of Star Wars ones, and I bet a number would be quite funny. I've seen it done for text (even for short stories!) and there's plenty of people just as clever but not as fortunate to have their own show.
If you've got old milk goin' bad, you sure as hell don't need more milk -- you're clearly not drinking it.
There are definately some nice things about that kind of automation, I agree. But my needs are pretty different than what some damn marketers think they are. My need for an advertising-free life, for example, seems to escape them time and again. (i.e. no ads, for anything, ever, for any reason, no exceptions. It just doesn't sink in with so many people, can't imagine why.)
Re:Ethernet does work, for some
on
MAME On Xbox
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Eh, the gall bladder's not _that_ useless. It stores bile so that it needn't be produced on demand. This aids in the efficient digestion of fats.
I had to have mine out, and while there's not a significant difference in my day to day life, it was somewhat more important than say, the appendix, or the lobe of the brain that allows men to watch the Lifetime channel.
Well, barring a headset plugged into the pda phone, i imagine it would be annoying to have to stop talking at times so as to look something up, or write something down on the pda. Provided you can even switch out of the phone mode w/o hanging up.
Calvin's Dad is a patent attorney. As such, he has to have a pretty good science background (e.g. a BS in a hard science or engineering, a ton of credit hours in physics, etc.) in order to pass the patent bar.
He probably knows _exactly_ how they determine the maximum bridge load. He just enjoys abusing his parental authority. Remember the one where he tells Calvin that most children are bought at Sears, and then assembled at home, but that Calvin was the blue light special at K-Mart? "Almost as good, and a lot cheaper."
I've got to say, it does sound like an awful temptation.;)
You're right -- you're not a lawyer. While I also am not a lawyer, I do know that Apple has not invalidated any patent claims at all. The best argument that could be made would be that under latches, Apple was deliberately trying to cause the PNG developers to infringe so that it could then require them to pay. In such an extreme case, Apple would be required to license them to use it, and STILL not lose its patent rights against third parties. And frankly, it would be pretty difficult to prove such a thing in the first place.
Copyrights are inherently unconstitutional AND harmful to artistic progress when they last forever. It's already bad enough that they last for as long as they do... I'd like to see a return to ~20-30 year terms. Europe's always had a screwy scheme compared to the US. The whole moral rights thing is total BS. At least we recognize that they're utilitarian in nature, and only worth having when they contribute something to society.
And at any rate, if the license were a perpetual, exclusive license, with harsh terms for breach by the licensor, there would be no functional difference.
Okay --
Let us imagine that there is an author, Alice. She writes a book, and holds the copyright to it.
Let us further imagine that there is a reader, Bob. He wants to get a copy of Alice's book.
If Bob goes to the store and buys Alice's book, this is an ordinary commercial transaction. Bob must comply with copyright law, and so cannot, for example, copy the entire book and resell it, while a) the copyright is in force, b) copyright law as set forth by the government prohibits it, and c) if prohibited by copyright law, is also prohibited by Alice. If any one of these elements is missing, Bob _can_ copy the book and resell it.
In fact, if, for example, Congress modified copyright law (b) so that authors did not have the exclusive right to copy their works while they wished to and the copyright was in effect, Alice's wishes would be entirely moot. Her abilities to exert control over Bob are limited by Congress. She can only choose to exercise or refrain from exercising the powers she's granted.
If Bob, under the normal copyright scheme, wants to quote part of Alice's book in a book review without Alice's permission, assuming that the book satisfies a, b, and c, he may. This is because b, the law, which grants Alice certain powers also limits those powers in certain respects. Among these limitations, are that Alice has no authority to refuse to allow her book to be quoted in such a case, even if she wanted to.
Similarly, if Alice wrote a computer program, and sold it to Bob, Bob can use it and back it up, regardless of what Alice wants. Alice cannot tell him not to back up his software -- she has no legal authority to do so.
Now see, here's the thing you're not getting:
When Alice sells Bob the copy of the book, Alice is NOT GRANTING HIM A LICENSE THAT RESTRICTS BOB'S USAGE OF THE BOOK.
That _is not_ happening. There is no "loan" of copyright, you're speaking out of your ass.
When Alice sells that book, the BOOK is Bob's. He owns it. He cannot exercise certain natural rights that are precluded by copyright, and no one owns the work itself, but he _really_ owns that book. If Alice sold him the book, and then told him after the transaction, that he was not allowed to read it, Bob can not only read it, he can tell her to go to Hell. Unless the government tells Bob he cannot do something, Bob _CAN_.
You are laboring under the misconception that copyright law is the same as contract law. It is not.
Now, had Alice said "No, you cannot buy this book until you sign this contract" you might have a point. Oddly enough, this doesn't seem to be happening in most music stores I've been to.
Perhaps you think that psudolegal notices have weight? Or EULAs? Well, the last time I checked, IANAL, the weight of opinion was against you. Some EULAs may be enforcable, but there's a good argument to be made as well -- one that has been more successful -- that they are not, as a rule.
Nor are they common anywhere but software.
Now of course, if Alice wants to sit her butt down at the store, and require people to sign contracts before she'll sell them a copy of her book, she's free to do so. But this is by far the exception rather than the rule. (and the power to do this has nothing to do with copyright, once again, but in that Alice can set the terms under which she'll sell anything, with some restrictions)
Does this perhaps clear up some of your misconceptions?
IANAL, but didn't the MP3.com case say precisely the opposite?
That regardless of whether or not the user owned the CD, a rip was only legal if the user made the rip himself? And that it was infringement to give him a rip someone else had made?
(incidentally, ripping is NOT covered in fair use; sampling might be)
I think that you don't grant the courts enough recognition. The RIAA v. Diamond case a few years back made ripping CDDA to MP3 legal even regardless of the AHRA. (which wouldn't apply)
Besides -- you're backwards. The default state of a work is to be freely copyable. Congress must explicitly infringe on that right for everyone but authors in order to restrict copying, and they can create further exceptions within those restricted bounds.
So if Congress said that copyright applies to only sufficiently creative books and maps, music would be left out in the cold.
Presently it is something like 'sufficiently creative works' which is incredibly broad, but still requires positive action on the part of Congress to establish.
While you are correct in that the story is not owned by the posessor of a copy of a work, that's very nearly about all that you're correct about.
No one owns creative works. Their very nature causes them to be intrinsically unownable. Hence the need for a special set of doctrines and laws collectively known as copyright, when notions of property date back to time immemorable.
Like a lot of people you're confusing the copyright -- which is an optional, owned, temporary, limited, grant of monopoly to an author by the government if it desires to so make a grant -- and the work -- which is the actual story, or whatnot -- and the fixation -- which is the medium within which a work is carried, and which is ordinary property.
It's really a bad idea to even imagine for a moment that artists (I'm an artist, btw) are entitled to squat. Copyrights are gifts. They are in fact, very, very conditional gifts, and the practice of giving them really is in order to satisfy interests that don't necessarily coincide with our own at all.
For example, you mention Fair Use, (but not very accurately -- what's this "loan" B.S.?) but wrongly think that it is an agreement between authors and readers. In fact, it is a condition of the gift imposed by the government. Authors can rant and rail against fair use and be squarely opposed to it all they like -- but they have no say in the matter. (aside from ordinary democratic processes, natch) Copyright is simply limited from the get go, and it is the government, not any private parties, that makes the rules, and even decides whether or not copyright will exist, and if so, whether or not it will exist for certain things. (e.g. go back to ~1950 and discover that software is uncopyrightable; go back to ~1800 and discover that paintings and songs are uncopyrightable)
Simply buying a copy of a work doesn't necessarily mean that you can do whatever you want with it, provided that it is still copyrighted (public domain works are wide open of course) BUT it is not the author's place to make that decision, unless it was required prior, and as a condition of receiving, the copy of the work.
(e.g. publishers cannot require that used books be sold for a particular price, or not sold at all, unless that was a condition of getting the books in the first place.)
I don't really think so. I'm Jewish and I could care less what other people say. But I'll tell you this -- sometimes I wish that we _did_ run everything as is sometimes claimed. Then I could get a better job.;)
Anyway I'm definately opposed to censorship. You won't catch me claiming that offensive speech should be silenced.
Because it is possible to only grant copyrights on the condition that the work not be encrypted.
Frankly, I think that a work encrypted in order to deny access, and not as a simple side effect of an encoding technique (e.g. people cannot listen to CDDA bits w/o knowing what to do with them) should not be considered to have been published at all. But then, I'd also reserve statutory copyrights for published works as well.
Authors don't need encryption. They already have copyright law on their side. And while a counter argument might be made that burglary is illegal but people still have locks, remember that the _purpose_ of copyright is to encourage many people to read the works, and eventually change and incorporate them in new works -- which fundementally requires openness.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. Wrong sf series. The taser derives from the significantly older Tom Swift novels, according to the inventor. (so I've been told)
Taser stands for 'Thomas A Swift's Electric Rifle'
No, just submarines. (and some associated apparatus, like diving suits) I don't recall that Nautilus was nuclear-powered... just that it had some handwaving electrical powerplant. It involved breaking apart the salt in seawater for the sodium.
Clarke _did_ predict geosync communications satellites... but he _didn't_ predict tightbeam communications, e.g. by microwave or laser, or the transistor. He thought that the satellites would be manned, because people would have to replace the vacuum tubes onboard.
IIRC, similar predictions were made in the short stories in the 'Venus Ecliptic' stories. More interestingly, it had a discussion of the societal problems of replicator technology. (they could convert matter into radio, transcribe it onto LP's, and then play it out to make copies) Sadly, the author wimped out with the introduction of a substance that couldn't be copied.
Not nearly so elegant or useful as forks/streams, however. G'wan -- tell me how your lame OS X application bundles could be made to work with a file that has to be accompanied by several font files (to support the fonts used within), backup milestones of previous versions of the document, and original objects, e.g. raw scans that were used as source material for the main document?
Use symlinks to avoid unecesarily duplicating space (but with the ability to fork the links into seperate files if changes are made to the master) and a well-designed interface for mucking with the guts, and you'd have a far superior solution.
I agree -- apps should be single, apparently indivisible icons, but there are compelling reasons to do the same elsewhere too.
Out of curiosity do you have some screenshots of the interior? I'd like to know if it was just raw directories and files, or if there was some attempt at making it accessible and usable for people, along the same lines of thought as making the container executable.
Although MacOS _does_ do what you describe with regards to application binding (rather elegantly -- though OS X has regressed to a crappy-ass method, as though it were strapped underneath a Devolvo-Ray) it doesn't really help all that much with regards to organization.
Heavy use of resource forks, streams or workalikes (OS X application bundles don't fit the bill -- there are other uses for this besides actual applications, e.g. documents with included fonts) to bind multiple files and subdirectories together into what generally behaves like an atomic object, which is executable on its own strikes me as another element of a better solution. Especially if combined with a) symlinks and b) a GOOD UI for interacting with the guts, perhaps with inspiration from the MacOS 7+ System Folder.
Yes -- provided that your system automagically creates those symlinks. Doing so manually is a waste of time.
This is another incarnation of 'Bins' as developed by Alan Kay, IIRC, when he was at Apple, and which showed up to an extent in BeOS. I don't have time to fully discuss it here, but look up his article in Brenda Laurel's "The Art of Human Computer Interface" book. Essentially imagine having folders in the fs that are actually displaying search results as symlinks rather than files expressly placed in there. (e.g. if a folder were "*.mp3" and automatically had symlinks to all matching files)
IANAL, and my knowledge of patent law is spotty, but I'm pretty sure that it's legal alright. What you're thinking of is perhaps if the patent holder actively tried to encourage infringement (e.g. by implying that the patent wouldn't be enforced, or that licenses would be granted) which could result in the holder being required to grant a license to the infringer.
I'm fairly sure that passively waiting for someone to infringe is A-OK, however. Do you have some links or such that you could post to support your position? I'd be interested to see if my understanding is correct or not.
I do not recall getting beer from you. Not that I'd get much use out of it ;)
/., so I can't reveal them.
Last year I got Altus a working Apple IIgs, signed by the Woz. Not the cheesy limited edition type, I mean I mailed it to the Woz and he wrote on it in marker. I thought it was fairly neat, but I wouldn't send it to him anytime after Labor Day, what with the backlog of mail he has. Working antique computers are always a good geek gift, however, provided that it's something they haven't got.
Everyone else got Klein Bottles made by Cliff Stoll. (www.kleinbottle.com)
This year, I've already had Altus' gift made, and bought another friend his all the way back in Feburary. Still doing some shopping for a third friend. Sadly, they all read
I remember that! Worse still -- you couldn't even create a new folder in System 1.0. You had to keep an empty one hanging around, and duplicate it as necessary.
;)
Ah, those were the days.
Therefore we need DVD playing software that can accept independently created and distributed MST3K jokes as overlays.
There'd probably be hundreds of Star Wars ones, and I bet a number would be quite funny. I've seen it done for text (even for short stories!) and there's plenty of people just as clever but not as fortunate to have their own show.
If you've got old milk goin' bad, you sure as hell don't need more milk -- you're clearly not drinking it.
There are definately some nice things about that kind of automation, I agree. But my needs are pretty different than what some damn marketers think they are. My need for an advertising-free life, for example, seems to escape them time and again. (i.e. no ads, for anything, ever, for any reason, no exceptions. It just doesn't sink in with so many people, can't imagine why.)
Eh, the gall bladder's not _that_ useless. It stores bile so that it needn't be produced on demand. This aids in the efficient digestion of fats.
I had to have mine out, and while there's not a significant difference in my day to day life, it was somewhat more important than say, the appendix, or the lobe of the brain that allows men to watch the Lifetime channel.
Well, barring a headset plugged into the pda phone, i imagine it would be annoying to have to stop talking at times so as to look something up, or write something down on the pda. Provided you can even switch out of the phone mode w/o hanging up.
Calvin's Dad is a patent attorney. As such, he has to have a pretty good science background (e.g. a BS in a hard science or engineering, a ton of credit hours in physics, etc.) in order to pass the patent bar.
;)
He probably knows _exactly_ how they determine the maximum bridge load. He just enjoys abusing his parental authority. Remember the one where he tells Calvin that most children are bought at Sears, and then assembled at home, but that Calvin was the blue light special at K-Mart? "Almost as good, and a lot cheaper."
I've got to say, it does sound like an awful temptation.
You're right -- you're not a lawyer. While I also am not a lawyer, I do know that Apple has not invalidated any patent claims at all. The best argument that could be made would be that under latches, Apple was deliberately trying to cause the PNG developers to infringe so that it could then require them to pay. In such an extreme case, Apple would be required to license them to use it, and STILL not lose its patent rights against third parties. And frankly, it would be pretty difficult to prove such a thing in the first place.
Frankly, that would be infinitely worse.
Copyrights are inherently unconstitutional AND harmful to artistic progress when they last forever. It's already bad enough that they last for as long as they do... I'd like to see a return to ~20-30 year terms. Europe's always had a screwy scheme compared to the US. The whole moral rights thing is total BS. At least we recognize that they're utilitarian in nature, and only worth having when they contribute something to society.
And at any rate, if the license were a perpetual, exclusive license, with harsh terms for breach by the licensor, there would be no functional difference.
Like fun it's not. True, it's really just a remake of Thunderball, but it's an authentic Bond movie. What part of James Bond don't you understand?
(n.b. that I'm not saying it's not a crappy Bond movie, just that authentic movies about 007 can be made by people other than Cubby Broccoli)
Well, that is more or less the argument... though which side will triumph is in fact, up in the air.
Sigh.
Okay --
Let us imagine that there is an author, Alice. She writes a book, and holds the copyright to it.
Let us further imagine that there is a reader, Bob. He wants to get a copy of Alice's book.
If Bob goes to the store and buys Alice's book, this is an ordinary commercial transaction. Bob must comply with copyright law, and so cannot, for example, copy the entire book and resell it, while a) the copyright is in force, b) copyright law as set forth by the government prohibits it, and c) if prohibited by copyright law, is also prohibited by Alice. If any one of these elements is missing, Bob _can_ copy the book and resell it.
In fact, if, for example, Congress modified copyright law (b) so that authors did not have the exclusive right to copy their works while they wished to and the copyright was in effect, Alice's wishes would be entirely moot. Her abilities to exert control over Bob are limited by Congress. She can only choose to exercise or refrain from exercising the powers she's granted.
If Bob, under the normal copyright scheme, wants to quote part of Alice's book in a book review without Alice's permission, assuming that the book satisfies a, b, and c, he may. This is because b, the law, which grants Alice certain powers also limits those powers in certain respects. Among these limitations, are that Alice has no authority to refuse to allow her book to be quoted in such a case, even if she wanted to.
Similarly, if Alice wrote a computer program, and sold it to Bob, Bob can use it and back it up, regardless of what Alice wants. Alice cannot tell him not to back up his software -- she has no legal authority to do so.
Now see, here's the thing you're not getting:
When Alice sells Bob the copy of the book, Alice is NOT GRANTING HIM A LICENSE THAT RESTRICTS BOB'S USAGE OF THE BOOK.
That _is not_ happening. There is no "loan" of copyright, you're speaking out of your ass.
When Alice sells that book, the BOOK is Bob's. He owns it. He cannot exercise certain natural rights that are precluded by copyright, and no one owns the work itself, but he _really_ owns that book. If Alice sold him the book, and then told him after the transaction, that he was not allowed to read it, Bob can not only read it, he can tell her to go to Hell. Unless the government tells Bob he cannot do something, Bob _CAN_.
You are laboring under the misconception that copyright law is the same as contract law. It is not.
Now, had Alice said "No, you cannot buy this book until you sign this contract" you might have a point. Oddly enough, this doesn't seem to be happening in most music stores I've been to.
Perhaps you think that psudolegal notices have weight? Or EULAs? Well, the last time I checked, IANAL, the weight of opinion was against you. Some EULAs may be enforcable, but there's a good argument to be made as well -- one that has been more successful -- that they are not, as a rule.
Nor are they common anywhere but software.
Now of course, if Alice wants to sit her butt down at the store, and require people to sign contracts before she'll sell them a copy of her book, she's free to do so. But this is by far the exception rather than the rule. (and the power to do this has nothing to do with copyright, once again, but in that Alice can set the terms under which she'll sell anything, with some restrictions)
Does this perhaps clear up some of your misconceptions?
IANAL, but didn't the MP3.com case say precisely the opposite?
That regardless of whether or not the user owned the CD, a rip was only legal if the user made the rip himself? And that it was infringement to give him a rip someone else had made?
(incidentally, ripping is NOT covered in fair use; sampling might be)
Really?
I think that you don't grant the courts enough recognition. The RIAA v. Diamond case a few years back made ripping CDDA to MP3 legal even regardless of the AHRA. (which wouldn't apply)
Besides -- you're backwards. The default state of a work is to be freely copyable. Congress must explicitly infringe on that right for everyone but authors in order to restrict copying, and they can create further exceptions within those restricted bounds.
So if Congress said that copyright applies to only sufficiently creative books and maps, music would be left out in the cold.
Presently it is something like 'sufficiently creative works' which is incredibly broad, but still requires positive action on the part of Congress to establish.
While you are correct in that the story is not owned by the posessor of a copy of a work, that's very nearly about all that you're correct about.
No one owns creative works. Their very nature causes them to be intrinsically unownable. Hence the need for a special set of doctrines and laws collectively known as copyright, when notions of property date back to time immemorable.
Like a lot of people you're confusing the copyright -- which is an optional, owned, temporary, limited, grant of monopoly to an author by the government if it desires to so make a grant -- and the work -- which is the actual story, or whatnot -- and the fixation -- which is the medium within which a work is carried, and which is ordinary property.
It's really a bad idea to even imagine for a moment that artists (I'm an artist, btw) are entitled to squat. Copyrights are gifts. They are in fact, very, very conditional gifts, and the practice of giving them really is in order to satisfy interests that don't necessarily coincide with our own at all.
For example, you mention Fair Use, (but not very accurately -- what's this "loan" B.S.?) but wrongly think that it is an agreement between authors and readers. In fact, it is a condition of the gift imposed by the government. Authors can rant and rail against fair use and be squarely opposed to it all they like -- but they have no say in the matter. (aside from ordinary democratic processes, natch) Copyright is simply limited from the get go, and it is the government, not any private parties, that makes the rules, and even decides whether or not copyright will exist, and if so, whether or not it will exist for certain things. (e.g. go back to ~1950 and discover that software is uncopyrightable; go back to ~1800 and discover that paintings and songs are uncopyrightable)
Simply buying a copy of a work doesn't necessarily mean that you can do whatever you want with it, provided that it is still copyrighted (public domain works are wide open of course) BUT it is not the author's place to make that decision, unless it was required prior, and as a condition of receiving, the copy of the work.
(e.g. publishers cannot require that used books be sold for a particular price, or not sold at all, unless that was a condition of getting the books in the first place.)
I don't really think so. I'm Jewish and I could care less what other people say. But I'll tell you this -- sometimes I wish that we _did_ run everything as is sometimes claimed. Then I could get a better job. ;)
Anyway I'm definately opposed to censorship. You won't catch me claiming that offensive speech should be silenced.
Because it is possible to only grant copyrights on the condition that the work not be encrypted.
Frankly, I think that a work encrypted in order to deny access, and not as a simple side effect of an encoding technique (e.g. people cannot listen to CDDA bits w/o knowing what to do with them) should not be considered to have been published at all. But then, I'd also reserve statutory copyrights for published works as well.
Authors don't need encryption. They already have copyright law on their side. And while a counter argument might be made that burglary is illegal but people still have locks, remember that the _purpose_ of copyright is to encourage many people to read the works, and eventually change and incorporate them in new works -- which fundementally requires openness.