"Now add the restriction that the land outside the town walls either isn't suitable to support new construction or is already owned and used as farm land, again which the owner is unwilling to sell at any price. What should someone do now?"
Go live in another town. You want to kick the owner out so someone else can live there? That is the situation we are talking about. Right?
It was me who posted the thought of generational sentimental value. I did not sasy that they should be able to do their own tax assessment in that case. If you were unwilling to sell at any price (I guess it could happen, but I would guess as the figures continued to rise, many would have a change of heart) then the powers that be would need to assess a fair value for tax purposes. (This too could get ugly.)
"We can replicate old recordings and (GASP!) re-record them using modern methods, saving old lost tapes, making old recordings available in SACD and DVD-Audio."
Naturally, all with brand spanking new COPYRIGHTS on them that are so durable that they will last and last.
Any bets on which lasts longer - the Eveready Bunny, or modern copyrights...
Hey Yamaha, make me proud, put them under a copyleft or in the public domain. (If they are there now that is.)
"the copyright belongs to the same people who own the copyright to the songs."
This is tricky. Are you talking (C) or (P), I am talking (P).
It would in fact be posssible to have (C) copyrights to songs where no (P) copyrights exist on those songs at all. I publish a song as sheet music. A local band decides to play it in their act. At local clubs and events for instance. Now, so far, no one has made an audio recording of the song. I have a (C) copyright on the song. No (P) copyright exists.
One night, a person sneaks a recorder into a club and makes a recording without permission. Their performance of my song has now been "fixed."
Is there now a (P) copyright? If so, who owns it? Me? The band? The person doing the recording?
We would have to try to see the results. It does seem to me that private money built the railroads, iirc. They were hugh projects for the time. If you made it a monopoly, why would such a private monopoly be worse than a government one?
"You're probably not any worse off with your state-owned radio, electric, telephone, and water/sewer companies than we Americans are with our privately owned radio, electric, and telephone monopolies (my water and sewer are city-owned), and possibly better off since the government doesn't have a mandate to turn a profit like our monopolies do."
Come live here and tell me that after you have tried it. You also underestimate the abilities of governments. Ours set up "quasi-corporations" to run phone, electricity, and water and sewerage, so that in fact, they do try to make profits, they gouge us. Plus they are monopolies with the power to pass laws to benefit themselves. For instance, if there is water running by your house, you must be a customer and pay for a minimum amount of water each billing period even if you don't use any because you have a well or a cistern. They even tried to pass a law years ago to meter your wells and make you pay as that was competition for them. With the electric company, if there is power running by your home/business, it is illegal to generate and use your own power.
"I do think having government-owned TV and airlines isn't a good idea;"
Well, they do. As to the airlines, they claim there is not enough business to support routes to all the islands and so they must do it and they need the business from the profitable routes to support the unprofitable routes. We are an island nation - think of airlines and "mail boats" as our interstates.
TV - well, the government needs to control that to play election games. We got our first broadcast station in the 1970s iirc, and that is still the only one.
"And with the government, at least you have voting power over them."
That is the whole point, you lose that control when it is in their employees interests to only put in governments that will continue to raid private industry to benefit government employees and they hold so many votes as to be able to dictate any election.
Also, please note that these are in effect federal government operations. (phone, electricity, water and sewerage.) When local communities set up their own, say power companies because the government monopoly can't be bothered with them, or ignores them to punish them politically, then later, the government comes along and forces them to sell.
Also, our roads are in effect all federal plays, and the central government can not fund a communities road repairs as a form of punishment. They can even prevent the local communities of spending private money to make needed repairs to those government roads which they are refusing to fix. You don't want this system. (Again, things have been improving in some of these areas lately.)
You may be right, but it is still a dangerous lesson to teach. We really need to have the punishment fit the crime or things will break down with increasing frequency.
"Maybe stealing feels 'more wrong'"
Could be, but maybe you are convinced that copying is not wrong and so the fact that society is telling you that stealing is even less wrong may convince you to overcome your reservations and begin stealing. Not a wise move on your part, but not a wise move on society's part either.
"yes, this is true... which is why the recording of the concert is copyrighted material. that's what i meant."
Yes, but to the untrained mind (like mine) it gets tricky.
Say no one with the right to record the concert does, but someone with no right to record it does. (In other words, makes a bootleg recording.) Is there a copyright (P) in the concert? Who owns that copyright?
[As a geek, it frightens me that the "war on pirates" seems set to be the next "war on drugs", along with the "war on terror".]
So, does GPL 3 need to include a prohibition on use by anyone who brings or aids in criminal charges over a copyright matter or who sues over copyrighted material that is over 14 years old?
Bring some of the economics to bare against those most misusing the current laws and pushing for worse ones? I don't like this idea too much, but something has to give.
"a concert is copyrighted and it is illegal to tape or trade recordings of a concert unless the band has a specific policy giving permission to do so."
If you put on a concert and no one records it, it has no (P) copyright at all. Now, the songs may have been copyrighted, but that particular concert will have no copyright at all associated with it. At least, it seems to work like that. (There is a trick here though.)
Wasn't the US law covering bootlegs recently held to be unconstitutional as there was not a time limit? I seem to remember reading something about that.
When I did, I thought it might make all of the old National Geographic recordings illegal if actually applied as written.
"Doesn't matter. Copyright is the right to distribute."
OK, can someone who knows answer a question?
If I live in the Bahamas and for copyright purposes we are grouped in South America instead of North America where we mostly consider we are, can a shop in the Bahamas buy legit CDs in the US market, import them into the Bahamas and put them on sale?
"If you download something copyrighted (be it music, movies, or games) it is stealing no matter how you look at it."
No it is not. It may be illegal, but it is not stealing. Is it rape? Is it treason? Is it pornographic? Is it breaking and entering? Is it assault and battery?
"I'm pretty sure the CDC is federally run and funded. The Fed also funds a lot of scientific research in universities."
I was not questioning if they were, just that they must be.
"What's the point of this? Theoretically, this is just the same thing the government is: it's an organization given power with the consent of the governed (the citizens), operated with money from taxes (just like an investment, except you don't get more votes for having more money invested)."
I think you missed my point in this answer, the funding would not come from the government, but by humans buying shares who expect to profit. It was an idea for better corporations for big projects, not a better way to spend government money.
"The only thing wrong with having the government run projects, in theory, is the beaurocratic waste."
Nope, that is one of the things wrong, the concentration of power is another.
I live in a country where about one third of the workforce is government employed. (I think I remember that figure correctly. Someone can correct me if I am wrong. This is the Bahamas.)
During my lifetime, they owned the only radio stations, the only TV station, the only local airline, the monopoly electricity company, the monopoly telephone company, the monopoly water and sewerage corporation and if I wanted to think a bit harder, I could go on. Things are getting a little better on this front.
This is too much power. Also, this is too large of a percentage of voters essentially on the "dole" and who vote to keep their perks. (Not really on the dole as in theory they all work, but the word on the street is that not all actually do. There is a great song out now that deals with this particular aspect.)
"that leaked movies and music hurt in the pocketbook?"
Ah, didn't they get statutory damages put in the law because they basically never prove monetary damages? Aren't these damages just things they imagine? Can anyone point to actual proof of damages? I really would like to know.
" I actually RTFL (legislation), and I have a couple of points to add:
1. The provisions of this bill only apply if the infringement is "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." As I read it, this means that somebody who puts it up on Kazaa or BitTorrent is not covered by this bill unless they say, work for Paramount and put a Fox production up just to screw Fox out of profits."
Yes, but what is private financial gain defined as?
"As for jury nullification, well, that would be an opportunity to use common sense, but the powers that be in the US seem to be very busy making sure that it almost never happens."
"The jobs of judges and juries is not to think about it, dude -- their job is to enforce the law as written. What matters is exactly how the law is written here, if it does become law. (Which it sounds like it will.)"
"Now, let me get this straight. If I take a home movie of my kid's birthday party (which I know has not been commercially released) and I put it in the "Shared Documents" folder on my home computer, I'm now a felon?"
Better yet, give copies to all of the parents whose kids came to the party then watch their shares. If it shows up, you get to collect hugh amounts of money and send them to jail! Wheeee! That's what everyone wants right?
"I am a liberal. I want to end Medicare and SS. I think the rich should pay at least as high a % of their income in taxes as the middle class."
I think everyone should pay the same % of their income to the government. Not the same % of their income as income tax mind you, that is a different equation. If the poor need help after having paid their fair share, couldn't the government give tax free help? This could get ugly though. How about only voters pay taxes, or all taxpayers can vote?
"I think we need to have more roads and less military spending."
Pass.
"I think schools should be federally funded and parents should be able to get just as much money to send their students to an accredited private institution as a public school."
Nope, maybe. And why federally? Why not state or county?
"I also think that you need to regulate clean air and water though large enforced penalties for non-compliance and not by giving people cash to clean up their act."
If it is done right and there are no hidden, agenda driven gotchas in there, probably.
"I think it should cost as much to use federal government land as it does to use private land. (Oil / Mineral / Logging / Grazing rights.)"
Sure. Should there be some assessment as to whether there needs to be so much federal land though? What percentage of US land is government owned? Coprorate owned? Individually owned? Break those down by citizen/non-citizen.
"I think the tax code should be simple and 100% automated"
What does automated mean in this context? I agree whole heartedly with simple though.
"with no tax breaks other than # of dependents."
How about none at all? If some, how about only non-child dependents?
"Want to give people money for collage fine give people cash don't add it to the tax code."
Agreed. No deductions at all. Just give cash grants where needed. Again, this could get ugly.
"I think the government should spend at least 200 Billion a year doing basic research into material science, medicine, fusion, ect."
Fine, but again could get ugly. Giving grants to cronies, etc. Must adjust amount to keep up with inflation. Better yet, how about we get rid of inflation! ~;-)
"But the gov should never subsidies private research into things like another form of Viagra."
Sure, but see below.
"If you have a patentable idea on a US grant fine you can patent it in every country but the US."
Try this: All patents, copyrights, etc. that are even partially funded by government monies go under some form of copy-left license and must not be licensed any other way, even by the owners.
These are all off the top remarks and there is a good chance they do not mesh well with each other or with other ideas I have for improving things. Ponder at your own risk.
"Without federal funding, we wouldn't have a lot of things, such as the space program, immunizations, public health clinics, the CDC, and lots of new technologies. Basically, if we hadn't had federal funding for research for the past 100 years, we'd be a crappy third-world country with a totally collapsed economy by now."
Except possibly for the space program, are you sure you are not confusing government funding and federal funding?
"Government funding is easily prone to waste, but it's a lot better than not getting any research done at all, which is what would happen if we relied on companies and individuals for it, since they either can't afford anything extremely large, or aren't interested if it doesn't generate profits in less than 3 years."
I am not a big fan of large multi-national corporations as they currently operate, but what inherently stops them from doing big projects?
Why couldn't the Federal Government charter a single purpose corporation whose shares could only be owned by human citizens or human tax payers to run big projects?
Slashdot Mirror
"Now add the restriction that the land outside the town walls either isn't suitable to support new construction or is already owned and used as farm land, again which the owner is unwilling to sell at any price. What should someone do now?"
Go live in another town. You want to kick the owner out so someone else can live there? That is the situation we are talking about. Right?
It was me who posted the thought of generational sentimental value. I did not sasy that they should be able to do their own tax assessment in that case. If you were unwilling to sell at any price (I guess it could happen, but I would guess as the figures continued to rise, many would have a change of heart) then the powers that be would need to assess a fair value for tax purposes. (This too could get ugly.)
all the best,
drew
"We need to write these ideas down."
h t_Term_Reform
Try collecting some here:
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Copyrig
"We can replicate old recordings and (GASP!) re-record them using modern methods, saving old lost tapes, making old recordings available in SACD and DVD-Audio."
Naturally, all with brand spanking new COPYRIGHTS on them that are so durable that they will last and last.
Any bets on which lasts longer - the Eveready Bunny, or modern copyrights...
Hey Yamaha, make me proud, put them under a copyleft or in the public domain. (If they are there now that is.)
all the best,
drew
"the copyright belongs to the same people who own the copyright to the songs."
This is tricky. Are you talking (C) or (P), I am talking (P).
It would in fact be posssible to have (C) copyrights to songs where no (P) copyrights exist on those songs at all. I publish a song as sheet music. A local band decides to play it in their act. At local clubs and events for instance. Now, so far, no one has made an audio recording of the song. I have a (C) copyright on the song. No (P) copyright exists.
One night, a person sneaks a recorder into a club and makes a recording without permission. Their performance of my song has now been "fixed."
Is there now a (P) copyright? If so, who owns it? Me? The band? The person doing the recording?
all the best,
drew
As to your first two paragraphs:
We would have to try to see the results. It does seem to me that private money built the railroads, iirc. They were hugh projects for the time. If you made it a monopoly, why would such a private monopoly be worse than a government one?
"You're probably not any worse off with your state-owned radio, electric, telephone, and water/sewer companies than we Americans are with our privately owned radio, electric, and telephone monopolies (my water and sewer are city-owned), and possibly better off since the government doesn't have a mandate to turn a profit like our monopolies do."
Come live here and tell me that after you have tried it. You also underestimate the abilities of governments. Ours set up "quasi-corporations" to run phone, electricity, and water and sewerage, so that in fact, they do try to make profits, they gouge us. Plus they are monopolies with the power to pass laws to benefit themselves. For instance, if there is water running by your house, you must be a customer and pay for a minimum amount of water each billing period even if you don't use any because you have a well or a cistern. They even tried to pass a law years ago to meter your wells and make you pay as that was competition for them. With the electric company, if there is power running by your home/business, it is illegal to generate and use your own power.
"I do think having government-owned TV and airlines isn't a good idea;"
Well, they do. As to the airlines, they claim there is not enough business to support routes to all the islands and so they must do it and they need the business from the profitable routes to support the unprofitable routes. We are an island nation - think of airlines and "mail boats" as our interstates.
TV - well, the government needs to control that to play election games. We got our first broadcast station in the 1970s iirc, and that is still the only one.
"And with the government, at least you have voting power over them."
That is the whole point, you lose that control when it is in their employees interests to only put in governments that will continue to raid private industry to benefit government employees and they hold so many votes as to be able to dictate any election.
Also, please note that these are in effect federal government operations. (phone, electricity, water and sewerage.) When local communities set up their own, say power companies because the government monopoly can't be bothered with them, or ignores them to punish them politically, then later, the government comes along and forces them to sell.
Also, our roads are in effect all federal plays, and the central government can not fund a communities road repairs as a form of punishment. They can even prevent the local communities of spending private money to make needed repairs to those government roads which they are refusing to fix. You don't want this system. (Again, things have been improving in some of these areas lately.)
all the best,
drew
You may be right, but it is still a dangerous lesson to teach. We really need to have the punishment fit the crime or things will break down with increasing frequency.
"Maybe stealing feels 'more wrong'"
Could be, but maybe you are convinced that copying is not wrong and so the fact that society is telling you that stealing is even less wrong may convince you to overcome your reservations and begin stealing. Not a wise move on your part, but not a wise move on society's part either.
all the best,
drew
"yes, this is true... which is why the recording of the concert is copyrighted material. that's what i meant."
Yes, but to the untrained mind (like mine) it gets tricky.
Say no one with the right to record the concert does, but someone with no right to record it does. (In other words, makes a bootleg recording.) Is there a copyright (P) in the concert? Who owns that copyright?
all the best,
drew
[As a geek, it frightens me that the "war on pirates" seems set to be the next "war on drugs", along with the "war on terror".]
So, does GPL 3 need to include a prohibition on use by anyone who brings or aids in criminal charges over a copyright matter or who sues over copyrighted material that is over 14 years old?
Bring some of the economics to bare against those most misusing the current laws and pushing for worse ones? I don't like this idea too much, but something has to give.
all the best,
drew
"Civil cases are civil because they don't effect the populace as a whole."
Where did this idea come from? Did I just crawl out from under a rock?
So if you kill just one person, that is a civil case?
all the best,
drew
"a concert is copyrighted and it is illegal to tape or trade recordings of a concert unless the band has a specific policy giving permission to do so."
If you put on a concert and no one records it, it has no (P) copyright at all. Now, the songs may have been copyrighted, but that particular concert will have no copyright at all associated with it. At least, it seems to work like that. (There is a trick here though.)
all the best,
drew
Wasn't the US law covering bootlegs recently held to be unconstitutional as there was not a time limit? I seem to remember reading something about that.
When I did, I thought it might make all of the old National Geographic recordings illegal if actually applied as written.
all the best,
drew
"Doesn't matter. Copyright is the right to distribute."
OK, can someone who knows answer a question?
If I live in the Bahamas and for copyright purposes we are grouped in South America instead of North America where we mostly consider we are, can a shop in the Bahamas buy legit CDs in the US market, import them into the Bahamas and put them on sale?
all the best,
drew
"If you download something copyrighted (be it music, movies, or games) it is stealing no matter how you look at it."
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
No it is not. It may be illegal, but it is not stealing. Is it rape? Is it treason? Is it pornographic? Is it breaking and entering? Is it assault and battery?
If you go to:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
and download some of my stuff and then violate my copyrights in some way, you are not stealing from me.
OK, now if someone finds some way to take my copyrights from me, that would be stealing or fraud or something more like stealing.
all the best,
drew
"I'm pretty sure the CDC is federally run and funded. The Fed also funds a lot of scientific research in universities."
I was not questioning if they were, just that they must be.
"What's the point of this? Theoretically, this is just the same thing the government is: it's an organization given power with the consent of the governed (the citizens), operated with money from taxes (just like an investment, except you don't get more votes for having more money invested)."
I think you missed my point in this answer, the funding would not come from the government, but by humans buying shares who expect to profit. It was an idea for better corporations for big projects, not a better way to spend government money.
"The only thing wrong with having the government run projects, in theory, is the beaurocratic waste."
Nope, that is one of the things wrong, the concentration of power is another.
I live in a country where about one third of the workforce is government employed. (I think I remember that figure correctly. Someone can correct me if I am wrong. This is the Bahamas.)
During my lifetime, they owned the only radio stations, the only TV station, the only local airline, the monopoly electricity company, the monopoly telephone company, the monopoly water and sewerage corporation and if I wanted to think a bit harder, I could go on. Things are getting a little better on this front.
This is too much power. Also, this is too large of a percentage of voters essentially on the "dole" and who vote to keep their perks. (Not really on the dole as in theory they all work, but the word on the street is that not all actually do. There is a great song out now that deals with this particular aspect.)
all the best,
drew
"that leaked movies and music hurt in the pocketbook?"
Ah, didn't they get statutory damages put in the law because they basically never prove monetary damages? Aren't these damages just things they imagine? Can anyone point to actual proof of damages? I really would like to know.
all the best,
drew
"Somebody's rights are clearly being violated when people download software, music, and movies illegally."
Granted, bot only rights that the GOVERNMENT GAVE THEM in the first place.
all the best,
drew
" I actually RTFL (legislation), and I have a couple of points to add:
1. The provisions of this bill only apply if the infringement is "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." As I read it, this means that somebody who puts it up on Kazaa or BitTorrent is not covered by this bill unless they say, work for Paramount and put a Fox production up just to screw Fox out of profits."
Yes, but what is private financial gain defined as?
all the best,
drew
Hear! Hear!
mod parent up please.
all the best,
drew
"As for jury nullification, well, that would be an opportunity to use common sense, but the powers that be in the US seem to be very busy making sure that it almost never happens."
And how can that problem be fixed?
all the best,
drew
"The jobs of judges and juries is not to think about it, dude -- their job is to enforce the law as written. What matters is exactly how the law is written here, if it does become law. (Which it sounds like it will.)"
Are you sure abaout that?
http://www.seark.net/~jlove/jury_null.htm
all the best,
drew
"But, after the air date, it has been released publicly. So it would not violate this law as I understand it (but IANAL)."
That would make sense, but then why is a movie not released commercially when it hits the theatres? Or is it?
all the best,
drew
"Now, let me get this straight. If I take a home movie of my kid's birthday party (which I know has not been commercially released) and I put it in the "Shared Documents" folder on my home computer, I'm now a felon?"
Better yet, give copies to all of the parents whose kids came to the party then watch their shares. If it shows up, you get to collect hugh amounts of money and send them to jail! Wheeee! That's what everyone wants right?
all the best,
drew
"I am a liberal. I want to end Medicare and SS. I think the rich should pay at least as high a % of their income in taxes as the middle class."
I think everyone should pay the same % of their income to the government. Not the same % of their income as income tax mind you, that is a different equation. If the poor need help after having paid their fair share, couldn't the government give tax free help? This could get ugly though. How about only voters pay taxes, or all taxpayers can vote?
"I think we need to have more roads and less military spending."
Pass.
"I think schools should be federally funded and parents should be able to get just as much money to send their students to an accredited private institution as a public school."
Nope, maybe. And why federally? Why not state or county?
"I also think that you need to regulate clean air and water though large enforced penalties for non-compliance and not by giving people cash to clean up their act."
If it is done right and there are no hidden, agenda driven gotchas in there, probably.
"I think it should cost as much to use federal government land as it does to use private land. (Oil / Mineral / Logging / Grazing rights.)"
Sure. Should there be some assessment as to whether there needs to be so much federal land though? What percentage of US land is government owned? Coprorate owned? Individually owned? Break those down by citizen/non-citizen.
"I think the tax code should be simple and 100% automated"
What does automated mean in this context? I agree whole heartedly with simple though.
"with no tax breaks other than # of dependents."
How about none at all? If some, how about only non-child dependents?
"Want to give people money for collage fine give people cash don't add it to the tax code."
Agreed. No deductions at all. Just give cash grants where needed. Again, this could get ugly.
"I think the government should spend at least 200 Billion a year doing basic research into material science, medicine, fusion, ect."
Fine, but again could get ugly. Giving grants to cronies, etc. Must adjust amount to keep up with inflation. Better yet, how about we get rid of inflation! ~;-)
"But the gov should never subsidies private research into things like another form of Viagra."
Sure, but see below.
"If you have a patentable idea on a US grant fine you can patent it in every country but the US."
Try this: All patents, copyrights, etc. that are even partially funded by government monies go under some form of copy-left license and must not be licensed any other way, even by the owners.
These are all off the top remarks and there is a good chance they do not mesh well with each other or with other ideas I have for improving things. Ponder at your own risk.
all the best,
drew
"Without federal funding, we wouldn't have a lot of things, such as the space program, immunizations, public health clinics, the CDC, and lots of new technologies. Basically, if we hadn't had federal funding for research for the past 100 years, we'd be a crappy third-world country with a totally collapsed economy by now."
Except possibly for the space program, are you sure you are not confusing government funding and federal funding?
"Government funding is easily prone to waste, but it's a lot better than not getting any research done at all, which is what would happen if we relied on companies and individuals for it, since they either can't afford anything extremely large, or aren't interested if it doesn't generate profits in less than 3 years."
I am not a big fan of large multi-national corporations as they currently operate, but what inherently stops them from doing big projects?
Why couldn't the Federal Government charter a single purpose corporation whose shares could only be owned by human citizens or human tax payers to run big projects?
all the best,
drew
How does that page prove that?
all the best,
drew