That's actually the whole point of copyright. Contrary to popular belief, copyright isn't "incentive" or motivation. A person's motivation for creating art (any book/film/music, etc.) is his passion for that art. Copyright is just a way of financing him. It's to make sure we don't have talented people out there who would've made valuable art, but didn't because they had to keep a day job. Copyright isn't supposed to motivate people through dreams of becoming rich, because such dreams never lead to good art. Inspiration leads to good art, and, in fact, many studies indicate that excessive rewards lead to less creative work. motivation
So there is a very effective social model that can increase culture while still providing an income for artists. Have the copyright end after 12 years. It's that simple.
Overall, on average, art only makes 10% of it's revenues after those 12 years.
A commodity, by definition is a product which is the same regardless from who you buy it from. Indistinguishable in quality and price.
Maybe people claim that hard drives are commodity items. If what they're saying is true, than the article had nothing to say about how this company's product compares to other hard drive companies' product, because there was nothing to be said.
It's funny that you mention it. The only time I ever responded positively to a phone solicitation is when Verizon (probably Bell Atlantic then) offered me a caller ID box free with caller ID service, I too couldn't have been more interested.
There is something that makes Caller ID much more useful. If you punch in *77 (I believe) you activate anonymous call rejection which blocks anyone with a private number from calling you. If someone with a private number calls you they get a message to type in a star code (I think it's *82) to make their number not private for that one phone call. So you don't get calls from any private numbers.
Unfortunately, this isn't too successful with telemarketers, because based on the nature of the phone system they use, they can't give you a phone number, and the call goes through anyway (bastards).
But what about the money you could've made by investing that $3K with an 8% interest rate:
3000*(1.08)^6 = 4,760.62
Gas would not cost you that much, even with the projected price increases.
That being said, there are other reasons to get a fuel efficient car than to save money. To help the environment. And, in my eyes, that's a very noble reason for spending a little extra money on a car.
But, regardless, you can't justify an extra $3K just based on money saved, because no money will be saved at all.
Speaking of Philip K. Dick, I just got "Flow, My Tears, The Policeman Said" (whacky title) and I'm halfway through it, and I gotta say, it's really great. I liked "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," but I'm really enjoying this one a lot more.
Sorry, that doesn't really make any sense. If it were constant angular velocity, than the linear velocity would not be constant (it would change depending on where the laser was). Plus if you click on his link, they list the exact same statistic, but it says "constant linear velocity" not "constant angular velocity"
Well, it's kind of like this article that was up here a few months ago about bars that require licenses, and how they scan the barcodes on your license to collect demographic information.
Just because this information has always been available, that doesn't mean that the situation isn't changing. Until now, all that information was useless because there was no way to extract any value from it.
It's like, imagine I use a car service fairly often. I don't give my name when I call, but they have to come pick me up at my house. Well imagine I often go from A to B, and from B to C and from C to D and from D to B, etc. A, B, C and D all being fairly unique places. Until now, no car service could mine all that data to get anything meaningful from it. But imagine this car service company can now see that there is a person who often goes to and from a certain residence, and to and from a certain store. They also see that there is a person who goes to and from that store, often, and to and from a third place.
It's not too hard to imagine that it would be possible to figure out who is going where.
Just because it wasn't "secret" that you were going to a Gay and Lesbian meeting, you called up a public car service, and you didn't keep it a secret, that doesn't mean it's not dangerous that now all of a sudden people have the ability to extract meaningful information from all that data, information that until we would never have been able to mine.
Even though the data source is the same public information that was always available, the end result is still bad: people will know things about you that you don't want them to know, and you won't be able to keep anything secret.
Even though the method that they use to invade our privacy is legitimate and "legal" that doesn't change the end result: you will no longer have any secrets. Everyone will know.
This isn't about rights to a photograph as a copyrighted piece of art. It's about the right to keep your personal information private. Don't you understand the difference? Pointing out the fact that a photograph can contain this information, and a person can own the rights to a photograph does nothing to shed light on this issue.
It's like the people who tried to encode DNA into an MP3 and be like "oh well this is my song, so therefore I have the right to this DNA sequence." Sorry, that doesn't compute.
Well, yeah. That was my point. I obviously didn't mean "because of genetics, white people can't tell asian people apart". So in other words, the point I was trying to make was that foreigners can't recognize American Dollars because their genes are different?
So yeah, obviously I was talking about familiarity. So a white person brought up in an Asian country can probably tell the difference as good as any Asian person can.
You're missing the key point in my post. If revenues after 12 years are only 10% then your hypothetical scenarios aren't happening. In other words after 12 years, it's just not that important to the artist.
I don't see what the average life span in 1790 has anything to do with the intention of the law. Copyright law is not in any way in consideration for the artist. It's a way of funding his work. Are you saying that now that people live longer the prospect of not controlling their art for the rest of their life is going to discourage them? That doesn't really make any sense.
I didn't even take into account all the cannibalization that goes on in the entertainment industry. Actors, being so valuable, manage to suck up all the extra revenues that the movie studios manage to bring in with extensive copyright. Music and movie studios cannibalize each other with advertising.
I can't really back this up entirely, but this is my position: If there were less money at stake, there'd be less money to pay actors, less money to waste on advertising, but the output, would remain the same, because the public demand would remain the same.
Think about advertising. If I spend 100 million dollars on advertising, and you spend 100 million dollars on equally effective advertising for a competing product, we end up where we started. Advertising is a necessary evil, but I believe that will be the first thing to go, along with exorbitant actor's salaries if reduced copyright led to reduced revenue for the entertainment industry.
Of course, it's always important to consider the source; I don't think Richard Stallman would post any studies which didn't support his theory. But still, this cannot be ignored, and adds a whole new dimension to this question.
Slashdot Mirror
Uch I'll probably get modded as offtopic, but whatever.
I'm just curious, is this post sarcastic? "That is fascinating!" I can't tell if you're sarcastic, or just very enthusiastic.
That's actually the whole point of copyright. Contrary to popular belief, copyright isn't "incentive" or motivation. A person's motivation for creating art (any book/film/music, etc.) is his passion for that art. Copyright is just a way of financing him. It's to make sure we don't have talented people out there who would've made valuable art, but didn't because they had to keep a day job. Copyright isn't supposed to motivate people through dreams of becoming rich, because such dreams never lead to good art. Inspiration leads to good art, and, in fact, many studies indicate that excessive rewards lead to less creative work. motivation
So there is a very effective social model that can increase culture while still providing an income for artists. Have the copyright end after 12 years. It's that simple.
Overall, on average, art only makes 10% of it's revenues after those 12 years.
The I in RAID no longer stands for 'inexpensive' it stands for 'independent'.
Does anyone know what this condition is called? I'd like to learn more about it.
Yeah, because amazon is evil, but B&N isn't, right? Get with it.
A commodity, by definition is a product which is the same regardless from who you buy it from. Indistinguishable in quality and price.
Maybe people claim that hard drives are commodity items. If what they're saying is true, than the article had nothing to say about how this company's product compares to other hard drive companies' product, because there was nothing to be said.
That's a really weird way of saying $200,000: "nearly a quarter of a million dollar"
It's funny that you mention it. The only time I ever responded positively to a phone solicitation is when Verizon (probably Bell Atlantic then) offered me a caller ID box free with caller ID service, I too couldn't have been more interested.
There is something that makes Caller ID much more useful. If you punch in *77 (I believe) you activate anonymous call rejection which blocks anyone with a private number from calling you. If someone with a private number calls you they get a message to type in a star code (I think it's *82) to make their number not private for that one phone call. So you don't get calls from any private numbers.
Unfortunately, this isn't too successful with telemarketers, because based on the nature of the phone system they use, they can't give you a phone number, and the call goes through anyway (bastards).
Who do you attribute that last quote to?
I will NOT let them put an atari logo on my ass.
Hmm, so many questions.
Airtight means no air can leak into it, regardless of whether it's filled with gas, or vacuum.
Helium balloons are not airtight. That's why they always end up like half empty after a couple of days.
I wish they could create a more permanent solution.
Like monks, copying manuscripts over and over in a cycle of a hundred years.
But what about the money you could've made by investing that $3K with an 8% interest rate:
3000*(1.08)^6 = 4,760.62
Gas would not cost you that much, even with the projected price increases.
That being said, there are other reasons to get a fuel efficient car than to save money. To help the environment. And, in my eyes, that's a very noble reason for spending a little extra money on a car.
But, regardless, you can't justify an extra $3K just based on money saved, because no money will be saved at all.
How many business apps do you know of now, or in the future, that use DX9 and can take advantage of vertex shaders?
Speaking of Philip K. Dick, I just got "Flow, My Tears, The Policeman Said" (whacky title) and I'm halfway through it, and I gotta say, it's really great. I liked "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," but I'm really enjoying this one a lot more.
Umm, is there never any room to add more features?
Sorry, that doesn't really make any sense. If it were constant angular velocity, than the linear velocity would not be constant (it would change depending on where the laser was). Plus if you click on his link, they list the exact same statistic, but it says "constant linear velocity" not "constant angular velocity"
Well, it's kind of like this article that was up here a few months ago about bars that require licenses, and how they scan the barcodes on your license to collect demographic information.
Just because this information has always been available, that doesn't mean that the situation isn't changing. Until now, all that information was useless because there was no way to extract any value from it.
It's like, imagine I use a car service fairly often. I don't give my name when I call, but they have to come pick me up at my house. Well imagine I often go from A to B, and from B to C and from C to D and from D to B, etc. A, B, C and D all being fairly unique places. Until now, no car service could mine all that data to get anything meaningful from it. But imagine this car service company can now see that there is a person who often goes to and from a certain residence, and to and from a certain store. They also see that there is a person who goes to and from that store, often, and to and from a third place.
It's not too hard to imagine that it would be possible to figure out who is going where.
Just because it wasn't "secret" that you were going to a Gay and Lesbian meeting, you called up a public car service, and you didn't keep it a secret, that doesn't mean it's not dangerous that now all of a sudden people have the ability to extract meaningful information from all that data, information that until we would never have been able to mine.
Even though the data source is the same public information that was always available, the end result is still bad: people will know things about you that you don't want them to know, and you won't be able to keep anything secret.
Even though the method that they use to invade our privacy is legitimate and "legal" that doesn't change the end result: you will no longer have any secrets. Everyone will know.
This isn't about rights to a photograph as a copyrighted piece of art. It's about the right to keep your personal information private. Don't you understand the difference? Pointing out the fact that a photograph can contain this information, and a person can own the rights to a photograph does nothing to shed light on this issue.
It's like the people who tried to encode DNA into an MP3 and be like "oh well this is my song, so therefore I have the right to this DNA sequence." Sorry, that doesn't compute.
In Minority Report, when Tom Cruise's character was running away, he was bombarded by ads that would scan his eyes.
"Hello, John Anderton, you look like you could use a Guinness right about now."
"John Anderton, wouldn't you rather be driving a Lexus?"
After a little bit, all you heard was "John Anderton" over and over in many different voices. Spooky.
Well, yeah. That was my point. I obviously didn't mean "because of genetics, white people can't tell asian people apart". So in other words, the point I was trying to make was that foreigners can't recognize American Dollars because their genes are different?
So yeah, obviously I was talking about familiarity. So a white person brought up in an Asian country can probably tell the difference as good as any Asian person can.
That's no joke. It's just such a shame that slashdotters (probably myself included) are so politically languid.
Sorry, but angular velocity is not measured in meters/sec it's measure in radians/sec or rotations/sec. That's what they mean by "angular". :)
You're missing the key point in my post. If revenues after 12 years are only 10% then your hypothetical scenarios aren't happening. In other words after 12 years, it's just not that important to the artist.
I don't see what the average life span in 1790 has anything to do with the intention of the law. Copyright law is not in any way in consideration for the artist. It's a way of funding his work. Are you saying that now that people live longer the prospect of not controlling their art for the rest of their life is going to discourage them? That doesn't really make any sense.
I didn't even take into account all the cannibalization that goes on in the entertainment industry. Actors, being so valuable, manage to suck up all the extra revenues that the movie studios manage to bring in with extensive copyright. Music and movie studios cannibalize each other with advertising.
I can't really back this up entirely, but this is my position: If there were less money at stake, there'd be less money to pay actors, less money to waste on advertising, but the output, would remain the same, because the public demand would remain the same.
Think about advertising. If I spend 100 million dollars on advertising, and you spend 100 million dollars on equally effective advertising for a competing product, we end up where we started. Advertising is a necessary evil, but I believe that will be the first thing to go, along with exorbitant actor's salaries if reduced copyright led to reduced revenue for the entertainment industry.
Plus, read this:
creative motivation
Of course, it's always important to consider the source; I don't think Richard Stallman would post any studies which didn't support his theory. But still, this cannot be ignored, and adds a whole new dimension to this question.