I'm not gonna say anything about the buttons, because I think it has too many buttons (although having only one button on each shoulder helps - i always get confused on the PSX), but the overall design of the N64 controller is amazingly good.
Oh, it looks ugly as all get out, but the feel is excellent. I really wish that I could get an N64 controller for my PSX (I had an N64 till it got stolen, so I decided to see how the other half lived)
Ah. I was also a lost soul^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H English major in college. So I've heard the whole Shakespeare was Bacon, or deVere, or Marlowe.... Frankly, I no longer care. I'll just call the author of those plays 'Shakespeare,' and until there's overwhelming evidence one way or another put it aside.
Perhaps we just need to have Sherman set the wayback machine;)
And I agree that there are severe problems with any idea of legislating the use and distribution of information. One thing a lot of people here may not be aware of is that when you wish to distribute your copyrighted information widely (e.g. take it to a book publisher, or a music label) they will refuse to even consider it, unless you give them the copyright.
So in fact, illegally copying copywritten information rarely does hurt the author or artist. It's not theirs either, and they only get to work with the fruits of their own labor if the company which owns it permits them to. Which is not always the case.
Example: One great filmaker (he makes films) by the name of Mike Jittlov is well aware of this. Particularly after having been screwed royally wrt his opus magnum, "The Wizard of Speed and Time." But he's very cool, and encourages people to just duplicate the film since he hasn't got any more rights to it than anyone else, and is most decidedly not being harmed by anything other than having had it effectively stolen from him to begin with. He has his own usenet group, alt.fan.mike-jittlov, and posts there, so you might wish to talk with him on the subject. You'll never find a more bright and cheery guy, I kid you not. (and watch the movie, it's very geeky)
Note that I am an art guy, not a programmer or math head.
my math is off though. it ought to be 2.28 * 10^29.
This is 27! * 21, because you need a 27th character for 'end of word' and sometimes you'll have a 20-character long word but still need to fit in a EOW. But i forgot about the 21st character last time.
but it's been so long since i needed to do any math besides rotate a ratio wheel, that i'm obviously completely wrong and any preschooler nowdays can point out my errors...
so far i've got
a, b, c, d....
However, I must point out that some bastard already invented *letters* which is really going to make this a difficult thing to pull off;)
And of course, I immediately thought of Linux Collectors' Plates. You know, like by the Franklin Mint.
Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, the ever-charming Tux, and many more of the greatest Linux developers.... Some plates have doubled in value, but like any investment some risk is taken, and you have to distribute the source code for the plates....
Well... IIRC there's no provision for a draft in the Constitution. Therefore, draft laws can be trumped.
I think offhand there could be a 13th amendment case against the draft. In fact, there _have_ been 13th amendment cases against the draft, and suprise, suprise, the Supremes didn't go for them. I seem to recall a sentiment which was something like '...any American should be proud to serve...'
As for your second point, the 5th amendment has been violated all over the place. When I-90 was being built in Boston, the city basically kicked out with virtually no compensation, the residents of Boston's West Side. Note that you don't hear about that neighborhood anymore.
However, I'm all for the exercise of 5th amendmetn rights when real property is confiscated by the government. This has nothing to do with copyrights though.
1)I never said copyright/patent/trademark laws in general are dumb. I said that the current laws go too far, and are probably unconstitutional. Further, the argument which I was replying too not only was in favor of the harsh laws we currently have, but actually suggested that we go even further than we have.
I don't mind supporting copyright et al laws if they satisfy the constitution (which means that they are of limited duration, which is de facto no longer the case, and that they promote the useful arts and sciences, which is more frequently not the case either) and my moral faculties.
The DMCA is not satisfactory for either requirement.
2)I have created a number of works, which puts me on par with Apple, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, etc. I have a number of copyrights, though sadly no patents yet. However, I'm all for doing away with the *current* laws, and putting in some *good* laws.
3)The original poster was operating on the untrue assumption that copyright laws have some basis in reality and are not artificial legal constructions. I feel that I proved him wrong: Copyrights exist as a matter of law, but they are not natural rights, such as your right to free speech.
It is important to keep this in mind, because copyrights are an incentive to get more material into the public domain, where it truly benefits everyone, not just those that can afford to pay for it. The intent and construction of copyrights in the Constitution is clearly not so that people can assert nonexistant property rights.
4)Why isn't it fair to use someone else's ideas or works without fairly reimbursing them, provided that you in no way impair their ability to use their own ideas or works? As I had mentioned before, the coining of words or phrases seems to be a legitimate, though extreme, use of copyright from this point of view.
Let us consider the word 'Quiz.' There's a fairly likely, though apocryphal story that this word was coined by a man in Dublin. Basically he made a bet that a word which had no meaning would be the talk of the entire city within a day. Whereupon he wrote it in chalk all over the town. And won the bet;)
Let us assume that this story is true. Furthermore, let us assume that at that time, everyone adopted copyright laws which stated that 'because it is fair, people who create ideas or works deserve to be reimbursed if those ideas or works are used by others.' That's what you propose, is it not? And lastly, let us assume that the current trend towards extending copyrights illegally is followed to the logical conclusion, and that copyrights last forever, and can be transferred just like real property (sold, inherited, etc.), and that 'quiz' has never entered the public domain.
This *is* your argument, right? While the current law has a time limit on copyrights, that's a legal issue - you're talking about 'fair.' 'Quiz' will always have been coined by the same guy. So this means that just speaking that word, or writing it, incurs a use. And you have to pay him.
Now how come the logical extension of your argument sucks? It would be a world in which people couldn't even communicate unless charitable souls placed the words that they coined or inherited into the public domain, or where you had to give different people nickles whenever you opened your mouth.
Because that's _fair_. You're using things that other people invented. You have to pay them for that.
Fortunately, this has never happened. What has happened, and what has been the rule for most of history, is a state in which no one is ever compelled to pay for the use of an idea, and where there are no protections on ideas.
Strangely enough, companies like Apple, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, etc. have benefited from the use of ideas which had no legal restrictions on them. Disney routinely makes movies which are derivative works of other creators - "The Little Mermaid" was originally written by Hans Christian Andersen. Disney never paid him a red cent. By your argument, this is unfair.
I would argue that it's okay because in a world with no relevant laws (intriguing certainly) I could make a copy of their movie without paying them. Of course, I couldn't just take the tape - that would be stealing the tape (not the movie). But I could pass out copies to all my friends. Curiously, this state of affairs is what Andersen had to deal with, and he still published.
More realistically, I would argue that Disney can keep the monopoly for only a short period of time. Let us say, 5 years. They have that long to recover the cost of the movie, plus any profit they wish to make. After that, it's up for grabs.
The only difference between that and the current system is that right now Disney has roughly 100 years to do so. And Disney is well known for lobbying legislators to extend copyrights so that when that ~100 years is up, it will surely have been extended to ~1000 years. Obviously this is an unconstitutional copyright law, but that's besides the point.
I suspect that, accounting tricks aside (never take the net) Disney made the cost of their movie and a healthy profit in 5 years. I can accept letting them get _some_ profit as an incentive to do it in the first place, but copyrights exist to benefit everyone, and not the copyright holder. Beyond a certain point, when greed takes over, I have no more reason to support *that* copyright.
Heh. When I think of how to design interfaces, I'm always aming at something that I think my mom could use. Largely because while my mom uses a computer (at least, you can call it that;) my dad doesn't at all. He did send me an email once. Complained that he couldn't figure out how to make capital letters. honest.
Backup copies of computer programs are explicitly permitted by Title 17, United States Code, Section 117 a 1. (meaning that you're allowed to make a backup if you own a copy of some software, if you don't agree to a license that revokes your legal rights - even if it substitutes them)
But I could have sworn that the archiving thing has in fact come up. I need to dig around a little more. Wish that LEXIS didn't have the law so fscking locked up (there's a good Wired article on this some years back. Awful shit, believe you me)
Here's the thing: how can you assert any claim of ownership on an idea?
Quite simply, unless you never, in any way (speech, writing, implementation) reveal the idea, you can't. Of course there is no value to a secret idea in the marketplace.
Already, fundemental differences in the nature of real property versus ideas become evident.
Here's another conundrum which illustrates that you cannot treat ideas as though they were tangible things: It's well established that the owner of some real property can own it for as long as they live. They can do anything with it that they like. This includes transferring it to another person, who may then own it for as long as they wish and transfer it, etc.
However, if this is the case for ideas, then even thinking about something that someone else says, without their permission is a violation of their property rights. Using a word someone else has coined is similarly a violation. And since the original owner can transfer ownership and this process can be repeated indefinately, ideas will forever be owned by people.
Clearly this is bad.
The reality of the situation is that ideas are never owned by anyone. This means that while you own some tangible expression of your ideas (e.g. a CD with music you made on it, which you own as real property) you don't own the ideas themselves (e.g. the actual music). Again, this levels the playing field - while I have the ability to copy content you created, you have the same for me.
However, and this was hotly debated when the US constitution was framed, an incentive system was developed, even though this infringes on your natural rights.
The idea behind copyright is simply that to encourage people to create content or advance science a monopoly which is only in effect for a limited time can be granted by Congress. It clearly isn't considered to be an ennumerated right, and in fact the Constitution itself does not state any copyright laws. It merely permits Congress to make those laws. And the laws are clearly unconstitutional if they are not of a limited time (and they meant limited - copyrights were originally 14 years long) or do not promote the advancement of the useful arts and sciences.
And don't forget that copyrights don't confer ownership anyway. Only secondary rights (usage, redistributing new copies, etc.) which generally are not held to impair the rights you have to real property (which is why you're allowed to redistribute copies that you bought from the author).
Going one step further, while IANAL it is my understanding that the courts generally look very closely at whether copyrights have not advanced the useful arts and sciences. It is from this that much of the fair use doctrine came. Should a teacher have to get a copy of a book for every student in order to read aloud to them? No, it is a foolish argument, and requiring this would not advance anything except the author's pocketbook. Making money is not enough to justify copyrights, as you can clearly see.
Now licenses are a different matter altogether.
Licenses are contracts. But you don't need a contract at all to protect a copyright. I am not allowed to make copies for sale of some content I do not hold the rights to, as a matter of federal copyright law. A license would be redundant. It's obvious that the only instances in which a license is useful is when the licensor wishes to further restrict your rights beyond what is granted as a matter of copyright.
This is disturbing morally. And furthermore, the courts (AFAIK, IANAL) generally look down upon non-negotiated contracts, including the sort we're used to in the computer world.
Throw UCITA and other similar legislation into the mix and we might end up in the very BAD position of automatically agreeing to a contract that you don't even get to read first upon listening to music that someone else is playing.
Rand rather depended on both a peculiar legal system *and* certain types of behavior from the people who interacted in it. But we do not live in her little world.
We have to work with what we've got, and what we're getting these days stinks on ice. Copyrights are going way too far, and it's being driven by corporate interests that have become so large that we generally can't influence them any more. (particularly when the companies you're boycotting owns most news sources, the tools used to distribute information widely, etc.)
Sigh. You're obviously a troll, but even deliberately stupid arguments like yours have to be fought lest someone actually believe you.
The phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is not even in the Constitution. It's in the Declaration of Independence.
Furthermore, copyrights are not ennumerated rights. The constitution never, ever says that people can own ideas. It says that the Congress has the power to enact legislation which grants copyrights, patents, etc. This is very different. It means that the only controls over ideas are laws, which are trumped by the Constitution. Therefore it's easily possible for a court to interpret the current gang of copyright laws as being unconstitutional, even though the Congress has the power to make these types of laws (because the exercise of that power requires that it carry the intent that is explicitly written in the Constitution).
So to recap: 1)Copyright laws are not natural, ennumerated rights 2)Copyright laws are not granted in the Constitution 3)Copyright laws are merely possible, provided they fulfill the associated requirements spelled out in the Constitution 4)The copyright laws you're so fond of are quite likely unconstitutional 5)And not only that, but any copyright law ever is contrary to your natural rights anyway
I won't even dignify the 2nd part of your post with any response other than reiterating that you're very much a troll. Why people can't be honest around here is beyond me....
It is impossible to, and immoral to attempt to restrict the ways in which a person can think. Yet this is what you propose.
I am going to coin a phrase: The frogs jumped from the tower.
According to you, I not only now own this phrase, but you aren't allowed to redistribute it. You can't repeat it. You can't write it down. You can't write something derivative of it. Frankly, you aren't even allowed to *think* it. No without my specific approval.
And furthermore, you (I'm making the safe (IMHO) assumption here that you're the previous AC) claim that I can eternally assign this ownership to my heirs, so that unless they're feeling charitable, no one will ever, through the entire course of the future ever, EVER repeat that phrase in any way whatsoever.
That's insane.
However, my course is now clear. I think I'll just rev up the old computer and have it print out a list containing every possible combination of letters up to words that are 20 letters long (approx 2*10^29 unless my math is off). I and my heirs will forever own all of these words, so you'd better not get caught using any of them, ever.
If ideas _were_ property, you'd still owe money to the heirs of the guy who invented words like 'the'.
Rather, there is no natural law that grants anyone ownership of any idea. That's impossible. Just conveying your idea to others spreads it. I suppose if you had an idea which you never said, or wrote, or illustrated in any way you would own it. Wouldn't do any good though, huh?
Furthermore, copyright laws are really quite new. For thousands of years, barring any cultural restrictions (e.g. our God says you have to be a holy scribe to write his mysteries down; the King frowns on people who correspond with his enemies) there have been no laws regulating ideas.
If you wrote a book anyone could reprint it (although there were limits on what kind of writing the government might allow, and if they'd let you keep your press or your life...), if you gave a speech, anyone could repeat it, and if you invented something, anyone could figure it out and make a copy.
(in fact, the only reason we have anything of Shakespeare's is due to people stealing his papers and printing the contents, and actors transcribing the plays from memory. I remember seeing a really hilarious version of Hamlet's soliloquy where the actor didn't remember things properly)
But the common thread here, is that there is no such thing as ownership of an idea. Ownership relies on the scarcity of things. But tell me an idea and now we *both* have the idea. Scarcity has not been reduced. Ergo, you do not own your ideas. No one does.
As an INCENTIVE for coming up with ideas though, copyright and patent laws came about. They granted a temporary monopoly on some limited types of use (e.g. copyrights prevent other people from making many copies and selling them all, although they can sell any copies they bought from the copyright holder)
But the monopoly is only to be granted for a limited time (so sayeth the Constitution), because monopolies stifle creativity. They only give you a reason to persue creative persuits in the first place, but limit you when you're doing it. After this time has expired, your monopoly ends and your ideas are no longer artificially constrained. Anyone can use them in any way, and if this helps them come up with something, so much the better.
And btw, you're dead wrong on your ideas about real property too. Squatter's rights have a long established history. If you own some piece of property which you ignore, and someone else improves your property for you - putting in effort that you don't expend yourself - eventually the rights to it transfer to them. You have to use it or lose it.
So do try to remember that free copying and use are the natural way of things. Congress has actually been acting unconstitutionally IMHO in regards to copyrights for the few decades. (the Constitution says that it has to both promote progress and be for a limited time, and right now it's effectively doing neither)
Re:Here's to you, Mrs. Robinson
on
Database Nation
·
· Score: 1
puts a whole new spin on "Hey lamppost, whatcha knowin'" doesn't it....
Brin unfortunately relies on everyone giving up their privacy. However, I find that the idea of having your cake and eating it too is nigh-universally attractive.
A big company will insist on preserving secrets not only to keep ahead of the competition, but also because if they do something shameful they're going to want to cover that up. As long as people who want to keep all of their own options open (while eliminating all of yours) can exert the kind of power that they do today, we're rather screwed.
This is not to say that i disagree with his idea that you can't put the privacy genie back in the bottle.
However, different methods - preferably a whole set of many different methods incorporating ideas from all comers - will end up being needed to come to a generally satisfactory conclusion.
Heh. IIRC, the Mac originally shipped in '84 without even the ability to create a new directory. You had to keep an empty one around and duplicate it.
Makes you long for the good old days before microcomputers when _some_ thought went into these things. Not to say they were bug-free, but they were probably somewhat better than the 'if it compiles ship it' mentality we're seeing now.
So what if it changes? Digital -> Analog conversions change the content as well and have been legal for a long time (and are not even being debated).
I really doubt that it could be considered derivative - it's an inherent limitation to the shifting mechanism.
As for ignoring the issue because you won't get caught, that's a lame argument. The RIAA et al are moving to enforce their brand of controls at very high levels. If they do so, we won't even have the ability to do this - legal or not. Copyrights mustn't be extended to the point where they either eliminate fair use or cut it off at the pass (as in the DVD cases)
You're explicitly allowed to make backups under copyright law - licenses have nothing to do with it. So sayeth the Supreme Court.
So of course - if I don't agree to the EULA and manage to install it anyway (using some sort of extraction program, I'd guess), I'm limited only by copyright law. I don't think that you have to agree to the EULA to use it, unless that was a prerequisite to *buying* it. Once you buy it though, go wild. Sadly, DMCA might fsck this up.
Slashdot Mirror
oh, that's okay. there's probably a fair number of feminists who believe that women aren't equal to men - they're better ;)
why not fragment the file and place the fragments into several different geocities accounts? (iirc, they have a small hard quota)
;)
posting it to usenet might also work, but it would piss off a lot of people
Marketing. Who would buy a product that filters stuff out but is also incredibly slow?
Mind translating that for us dumb Americans?
Poe was good at Latin, and I would expect that he knew French as well.
I'm not gonna say anything about the buttons, because I think it has too many buttons (although having only one button on each shoulder helps - i always get confused on the PSX), but the overall design of the N64 controller is amazingly good.
Oh, it looks ugly as all get out, but the feel is excellent. I really wish that I could get an N64 controller for my PSX (I had an N64 till it got stolen, so I decided to see how the other half lived)
Ah. I was also a lost soul^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H English major in college. So I've heard the whole Shakespeare was Bacon, or deVere, or Marlowe.... Frankly, I no longer care. I'll just call the author of those plays 'Shakespeare,' and until there's overwhelming evidence one way or another put it aside.
;)
Perhaps we just need to have Sherman set the wayback machine
And I agree that there are severe problems with any idea of legislating the use and distribution of information. One thing a lot of people here may not be aware of is that when you wish to distribute your copyrighted information widely (e.g. take it to a book publisher, or a music label) they will refuse to even consider it, unless you give them the copyright.
So in fact, illegally copying copywritten information rarely does hurt the author or artist. It's not theirs either, and they only get to work with the fruits of their own labor if the company which owns it permits them to. Which is not always the case.
Example: One great filmaker (he makes films) by the name of Mike Jittlov is well aware of this. Particularly after having been screwed royally wrt his opus magnum, "The Wizard of Speed and Time." But he's very cool, and encourages people to just duplicate the film since he hasn't got any more rights to it than anyone else, and is most decidedly not being harmed by anything other than having had it effectively stolen from him to begin with. He has his own usenet group, alt.fan.mike-jittlov, and posts there, so you might wish to talk with him on the subject. You'll never find a more bright and cheery guy, I kid you not. (and watch the movie, it's very geeky)
Note that I am an art guy, not a programmer or math head.
;)
my math is off though. it ought to be 2.28 * 10^29.
This is 27! * 21, because you need a 27th character for 'end of word' and sometimes you'll have a 20-character long word but still need to fit in a EOW. But i forgot about the 21st character last time.
but it's been so long since i needed to do any math besides rotate a ratio wheel, that i'm obviously completely wrong and any preschooler nowdays can point out my errors...
so far i've got
a, b, c, d....
However, I must point out that some bastard already invented *letters* which is really going to make this a difficult thing to pull off
Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, the ever-charming Tux, and many more of the greatest Linux developers.... Some plates have doubled in value, but like any investment some risk is taken, and you have to distribute the source code for the plates....
well... don't knock running around in the nude eating raw fruit. but i admit that it's not what i want to do all the time ;)
The Lisa did, the Mac doesn't (except for the MAC address on the ethernet card, but everyone ends up with that pita)
Well... IIRC there's no provision for a draft in the Constitution. Therefore, draft laws can be trumped.
I think offhand there could be a 13th amendment case against the draft. In fact, there _have_ been 13th amendment cases against the draft, and suprise, suprise, the Supremes didn't go for them. I seem to recall a sentiment which was something like '...any American should be proud to serve...'
As for your second point, the 5th amendment has been violated all over the place. When I-90 was being built in Boston, the city basically kicked out with virtually no compensation, the residents of Boston's West Side. Note that you don't hear about that neighborhood anymore.
However, I'm all for the exercise of 5th amendmetn rights when real property is confiscated by the government. This has nothing to do with copyrights though.
You have misinterpreted my earlier post.
;)
1)I never said copyright/patent/trademark laws in general are dumb. I said that the current laws go too far, and are probably unconstitutional. Further, the argument which I was replying too not only was in favor of the harsh laws we currently have, but actually suggested that we go even further than we have.
I don't mind supporting copyright et al laws if they satisfy the constitution (which means that they are of limited duration, which is de facto no longer the case, and that they promote the useful arts and sciences, which is more frequently not the case either) and my moral faculties.
The DMCA is not satisfactory for either requirement.
2)I have created a number of works, which puts me on par with Apple, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, etc. I have a number of copyrights, though sadly no patents yet. However, I'm all for doing away with the *current* laws, and putting in some *good* laws.
3)The original poster was operating on the untrue assumption that copyright laws have some basis in reality and are not artificial legal constructions. I feel that I proved him wrong: Copyrights exist as a matter of law, but they are not natural rights, such as your right to free speech.
It is important to keep this in mind, because copyrights are an incentive to get more material into the public domain, where it truly benefits everyone, not just those that can afford to pay for it. The intent and construction of copyrights in the Constitution is clearly not so that people can assert nonexistant property rights.
4)Why isn't it fair to use someone else's ideas or works without fairly reimbursing them, provided that you in no way impair their ability to use their own ideas or works? As I had mentioned before, the coining of words or phrases seems to be a legitimate, though extreme, use of copyright from this point of view.
Let us consider the word 'Quiz.' There's a fairly likely, though apocryphal story that this word was coined by a man in Dublin. Basically he made a bet that a word which had no meaning would be the talk of the entire city within a day. Whereupon he wrote it in chalk all over the town. And won the bet
Let us assume that this story is true. Furthermore, let us assume that at that time, everyone adopted copyright laws which stated that 'because it is fair, people who create ideas or works deserve to be reimbursed if those ideas or works are used by others.' That's what you propose, is it not? And lastly, let us assume that the current trend towards extending copyrights illegally is followed to the logical conclusion, and that copyrights last forever, and can be transferred just like real property (sold, inherited, etc.), and that 'quiz' has never entered the public domain.
This *is* your argument, right? While the current law has a time limit on copyrights, that's a legal issue - you're talking about 'fair.' 'Quiz' will always have been coined by the same guy. So this means that just speaking that word, or writing it, incurs a use. And you have to pay him.
Now how come the logical extension of your argument sucks? It would be a world in which people couldn't even communicate unless charitable souls placed the words that they coined or inherited into the public domain, or where you had to give different people nickles whenever you opened your mouth.
Because that's _fair_. You're using things that other people invented. You have to pay them for that.
Fortunately, this has never happened. What has happened, and what has been the rule for most of history, is a state in which no one is ever compelled to pay for the use of an idea, and where there are no protections on ideas.
Strangely enough, companies like Apple, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, etc. have benefited from the use of ideas which had no legal restrictions on them. Disney routinely makes movies which are derivative works of other creators - "The Little Mermaid" was originally written by Hans Christian Andersen. Disney never paid him a red cent. By your argument, this is unfair.
I would argue that it's okay because in a world with no relevant laws (intriguing certainly) I could make a copy of their movie without paying them. Of course, I couldn't just take the tape - that would be stealing the tape (not the movie). But I could pass out copies to all my friends. Curiously, this state of affairs is what Andersen had to deal with, and he still published.
More realistically, I would argue that Disney can keep the monopoly for only a short period of time. Let us say, 5 years. They have that long to recover the cost of the movie, plus any profit they wish to make. After that, it's up for grabs.
The only difference between that and the current system is that right now Disney has roughly 100 years to do so. And Disney is well known for lobbying legislators to extend copyrights so that when that ~100 years is up, it will surely have been extended to ~1000 years. Obviously this is an unconstitutional copyright law, but that's besides the point.
I suspect that, accounting tricks aside (never take the net) Disney made the cost of their movie and a healthy profit in 5 years. I can accept letting them get _some_ profit as an incentive to do it in the first place, but copyrights exist to benefit everyone, and not the copyright holder. Beyond a certain point, when greed takes over, I have no more reason to support *that* copyright.
Heh. When I think of how to design interfaces, I'm always aming at something that I think my mom could use. Largely because while my mom uses a computer (at least, you can call it that ;) my dad doesn't at all. He did send me an email once. Complained that he couldn't figure out how to make capital letters. honest.
Backup copies of computer programs are explicitly permitted by Title 17, United States Code, Section 117 a 1. (meaning that you're allowed to make a backup if you own a copy of some software, if you don't agree to a license that revokes your legal rights - even if it substitutes them)
But I could have sworn that the archiving thing has in fact come up. I need to dig around a little more. Wish that LEXIS didn't have the law so fscking locked up (there's a good Wired article on this some years back. Awful shit, believe you me)
Here's the thing: how can you assert any claim of ownership on an idea?
Quite simply, unless you never, in any way (speech, writing, implementation) reveal the idea, you can't. Of course there is no value to a secret idea in the marketplace.
Already, fundemental differences in the nature of real property versus ideas become evident.
Here's another conundrum which illustrates that you cannot treat ideas as though they were tangible things: It's well established that the owner of some real property can own it for as long as they live. They can do anything with it that they like. This includes transferring it to another person, who may then own it for as long as they wish and transfer it, etc.
However, if this is the case for ideas, then even thinking about something that someone else says, without their permission is a violation of their property rights. Using a word someone else has coined is similarly a violation. And since the original owner can transfer ownership and this process can be repeated indefinately, ideas will forever be owned by people.
Clearly this is bad.
The reality of the situation is that ideas are never owned by anyone. This means that while you own some tangible expression of your ideas (e.g. a CD with music you made on it, which you own as real property) you don't own the ideas themselves (e.g. the actual music). Again, this levels the playing field - while I have the ability to copy content you created, you have the same for me.
However, and this was hotly debated when the US constitution was framed, an incentive system was developed, even though this infringes on your natural rights.
The idea behind copyright is simply that to encourage people to create content or advance science a monopoly which is only in effect for a limited time can be granted by Congress. It clearly isn't considered to be an ennumerated right, and in fact the Constitution itself does not state any copyright laws. It merely permits Congress to make those laws. And the laws are clearly unconstitutional if they are not of a limited time (and they meant limited - copyrights were originally 14 years long) or do not promote the advancement of the useful arts and sciences.
And don't forget that copyrights don't confer ownership anyway. Only secondary rights (usage, redistributing new copies, etc.) which generally are not held to impair the rights you have to real property (which is why you're allowed to redistribute copies that you bought from the author).
Going one step further, while IANAL it is my understanding that the courts generally look very closely at whether copyrights have not advanced the useful arts and sciences. It is from this that much of the fair use doctrine came. Should a teacher have to get a copy of a book for every student in order to read aloud to them? No, it is a foolish argument, and requiring this would not advance anything except the author's pocketbook. Making money is not enough to justify copyrights, as you can clearly see.
Now licenses are a different matter altogether.
Licenses are contracts. But you don't need a contract at all to protect a copyright. I am not allowed to make copies for sale of some content I do not hold the rights to, as a matter of federal copyright law. A license would be redundant. It's obvious that the only instances in which a license is useful is when the licensor wishes to further restrict your rights beyond what is granted as a matter of copyright.
This is disturbing morally. And furthermore, the courts (AFAIK, IANAL) generally look down upon non-negotiated contracts, including the sort we're used to in the computer world.
Throw UCITA and other similar legislation into the mix and we might end up in the very BAD position of automatically agreeing to a contract that you don't even get to read first upon listening to music that someone else is playing.
Rand rather depended on both a peculiar legal system *and* certain types of behavior from the people who interacted in it. But we do not live in her little world.
We have to work with what we've got, and what we're getting these days stinks on ice. Copyrights are going way too far, and it's being driven by corporate interests that have become so large that we generally can't influence them any more. (particularly when the companies you're boycotting owns most news sources, the tools used to distribute information widely, etc.)
Sigh. You're obviously a troll, but even deliberately stupid arguments like yours have to be fought lest someone actually believe you.
The phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is not even in the Constitution. It's in the Declaration of Independence.
Furthermore, copyrights are not ennumerated rights. The constitution never, ever says that people can own ideas. It says that the Congress has the power to enact legislation which grants copyrights, patents, etc. This is very different. It means that the only controls over ideas are laws, which are trumped by the Constitution. Therefore it's easily possible for a court to interpret the current gang of copyright laws as being unconstitutional, even though the Congress has the power to make these types of laws (because the exercise of that power requires that it carry the intent that is explicitly written in the Constitution).
So to recap:
1)Copyright laws are not natural, ennumerated rights
2)Copyright laws are not granted in the Constitution
3)Copyright laws are merely possible, provided they fulfill the associated requirements spelled out in the Constitution
4)The copyright laws you're so fond of are quite likely unconstitutional
5)And not only that, but any copyright law ever is contrary to your natural rights anyway
I won't even dignify the 2nd part of your post with any response other than reiterating that you're very much a troll. Why people can't be honest around here is beyond me....
Bzzzt. Wrong, but thanks for playing.
It is impossible to, and immoral to attempt to restrict the ways in which a person can think. Yet this is what you propose.
I am going to coin a phrase: The frogs jumped from the tower.
According to you, I not only now own this phrase, but you aren't allowed to redistribute it. You can't repeat it. You can't write it down. You can't write something derivative of it. Frankly, you aren't even allowed to *think* it. No without my specific approval.
And furthermore, you (I'm making the safe (IMHO) assumption here that you're the previous AC) claim that I can eternally assign this ownership to my heirs, so that unless they're feeling charitable, no one will ever, through the entire course of the future ever, EVER repeat that phrase in any way whatsoever.
That's insane.
However, my course is now clear. I think I'll just rev up the old computer and have it print out a list containing every possible combination of letters up to words that are 20 letters long (approx 2*10^29 unless my math is off). I and my heirs will forever own all of these words, so you'd better not get caught using any of them, ever.
Beginning to see the problems with your argument?
Ideas are not property.
If ideas _were_ property, you'd still owe money to the heirs of the guy who invented words like 'the'.
Rather, there is no natural law that grants anyone ownership of any idea. That's impossible. Just conveying your idea to others spreads it. I suppose if you had an idea which you never said, or wrote, or illustrated in any way you would own it. Wouldn't do any good though, huh?
Furthermore, copyright laws are really quite new. For thousands of years, barring any cultural restrictions (e.g. our God says you have to be a holy scribe to write his mysteries down; the King frowns on people who correspond with his enemies) there have been no laws regulating ideas.
If you wrote a book anyone could reprint it (although there were limits on what kind of writing the government might allow, and if they'd let you keep your press or your life...), if you gave a speech, anyone could repeat it, and if you invented something, anyone could figure it out and make a copy.
(in fact, the only reason we have anything of Shakespeare's is due to people stealing his papers and printing the contents, and actors transcribing the plays from memory. I remember seeing a really hilarious version of Hamlet's soliloquy where the actor didn't remember things properly)
But the common thread here, is that there is no such thing as ownership of an idea. Ownership relies on the scarcity of things. But tell me an idea and now we *both* have the idea. Scarcity has not been reduced. Ergo, you do not own your ideas. No one does.
As an INCENTIVE for coming up with ideas though, copyright and patent laws came about. They granted a temporary monopoly on some limited types of use (e.g. copyrights prevent other people from making many copies and selling them all, although they can sell any copies they bought from the copyright holder)
But the monopoly is only to be granted for a limited time (so sayeth the Constitution), because monopolies stifle creativity. They only give you a reason to persue creative persuits in the first place, but limit you when you're doing it. After this time has expired, your monopoly ends and your ideas are no longer artificially constrained. Anyone can use them in any way, and if this helps them come up with something, so much the better.
And btw, you're dead wrong on your ideas about real property too. Squatter's rights have a long established history. If you own some piece of property which you ignore, and someone else improves your property for you - putting in effort that you don't expend yourself - eventually the rights to it transfer to them. You have to use it or lose it.
So do try to remember that free copying and use are the natural way of things. Congress has actually been acting unconstitutionally IMHO in regards to copyrights for the few decades. (the Constitution says that it has to both promote progress and be for a limited time, and right now it's effectively doing neither)
puts a whole new spin on "Hey lamppost, whatcha knowin'" doesn't it....
Brin unfortunately relies on everyone giving up their privacy. However, I find that the idea of having your cake and eating it too is nigh-universally attractive.
A big company will insist on preserving secrets not only to keep ahead of the competition, but also because if they do something shameful they're going to want to cover that up. As long as people who want to keep all of their own options open (while eliminating all of yours) can exert the kind of power that they do today, we're rather screwed.
This is not to say that i disagree with his idea that you can't put the privacy genie back in the bottle.
However, different methods - preferably a whole set of many different methods incorporating ideas from all comers - will end up being needed to come to a generally satisfactory conclusion.
Heh. IIRC, the Mac originally shipped in '84 without even the ability to create a new directory. You had to keep an empty one around and duplicate it.
Makes you long for the good old days before microcomputers when _some_ thought went into these things. Not to say they were bug-free, but they were probably somewhat better than the 'if it compiles ship it' mentality we're seeing now.
So what if it changes? Digital -> Analog conversions change the content as well and have been legal for a long time (and are not even being debated).
I really doubt that it could be considered derivative - it's an inherent limitation to the shifting mechanism.
As for ignoring the issue because you won't get caught, that's a lame argument. The RIAA et al are moving to enforce their brand of controls at very high levels. If they do so, we won't even have the ability to do this - legal or not. Copyrights mustn't be extended to the point where they either eliminate fair use or cut it off at the pass (as in the DVD cases)
You're explicitly allowed to make backups under copyright law - licenses have nothing to do with it. So sayeth the Supreme Court.
;)
So of course - if I don't agree to the EULA and manage to install it anyway (using some sort of extraction program, I'd guess), I'm limited only by copyright law. I don't think that you have to agree to the EULA to use it, unless that was a prerequisite to *buying* it. Once you buy it though, go wild. Sadly, DMCA might fsck this up.
IANAL, so corrections are sullenly accepted
Dinosaur is afaik *not* a full cgi movie. There are a lot of live action segments in it as well, and the two have been combined.
for an example, look at much of the vegetation and particularly the splashing water when the egg-thief is running away, over the stream.
frankly i'd be happy with it if there were no story - just a 'documentary'. hopefully the story angle won't screw it up.