patents: like i said before, patenting how to make something PHYSICAL is ok, patenting IDEAS goes against the philosophical basis of liberal democracy. why you think how complicated something is is supposed to matter, i don't know why
professors: yes, they are expensive. and? if a professor is good, he generates good ideas, and therefore gets a good salary. i don't understand your point. their ideas should be patented to support this? you haven't noticed this fancy radical idea called college tuition?
a codec is a codec is a codec. how useful or difficult it is to generate is without meaning. its purpose is to manipulate bits, its software. it is therefore incompatible with the idea of patenting, on a philosophical level
you bring in all these red herrings of costs, as if a patent is the ONLY way to create the infrastructure necessary to create better codecs. as if there aren't a dozen orthogonally related ancillary reasons and motivations and revenue streams more than adequate for people and companies to pour money into codec development
don't destroy the philosophical foundations of liberal democracy because you can't imagine other ways besides patents to generate money for codec research
the free exchange of ideas is the only thing underpinning any sense of philosophical integrity in modern liberal democracy. besides, you basically lie when you say its expensive to develop this stuff. a university professional could do this, and by publishing it, for free (in an ideal world) he cements his academic credentials, which is the only reward anyone deserves for the advancement of ideas
capitalizing on those ideas is a secondary game that does not overlap, and should not overlap (in an ideal world) with the primary game of development of better ideas
ideas should not be patented
manipulating bits is simply an idea, not a marketable product
in fact, a little known subplot in the whole drama last week over china hacking into google email servers is that chinese intel knew the master password for gmail was "chuck norris"
problem was, when the chinese spies typed chuck norris into the human rights activists' email logins, the password itself would jump off the computer screen, hit the spy with five roundhouse kicks to the face, then smash their keyboard into dust just by giving it a hard stare
so the chinese government had no other choice but to hire hackers to break into the accounts. because even when they hired seven of the greatest kung fu masters and the most proficient in the eighteen arms of wushu in all of china to stand by while the spy logged in, plus jet li, plus jackie chan, and plus the reanimated cyborg admantium zombie of bruce lee, the chuck norris password still roundhouse kicked all of them into submission
the native americans would stand in slack jaw amazement at york, as if he were possessed of magic. they never saw a black man before. york would further dumbfound them by taking out and reinserting his false teeth
meanwhile, consider the cantina scene in star wars: aliens of extreme forms, and humans mingling in with them as if no big deal
both the cantina scene and york's experience are the truth: our amazement at first is profound and very real at seeing new ethnicities/ life forms. but it also wears off very quick
we can get used to interacting with anything. the uncanny valley is real, but its also very temporary
"remember only this algorithm except for site xyz and site abc" is still a lot easier than "for 46 different sites, here is what i have remember uniquely for each one..."
something like "rotate the names of the days of the week, plus the last name of the person who lives in the apartment number of the numerical value of the day of the week we are on"
or "the last name of the person in the next cubicle, moving east and north from the southwest corner of my floor plus a numerical value on a scale of 1 to 4 of how much i dislike that person"
or whatever
even if you forget which particular day of the week you or on, or what cubicle you are up to, you still have a pretty good idea of approximately where you left off, so you try a few passwords plus or minus where you think you are in your sequence/ cycle if you can't login. you should get it in 3-4 tries
the number and kinds of algorithms are endless, only your creativity is a hurdle. and it really is easy to remember than dozens of passwords, and just as effective as a unique complicated password for each site/ sequence of changing passwords
you can even remember 3-4 different wacky algorithms. say a weak algorithm for your social networking sites (where a weak algorithm still generates unique, strong passwords for dozens of sites), and some really far out algorithm you rotate for your bank website
then someone has to hack two databases or more, zero in on the password for the same username, and calculate your algorithm
this is assuming the same username is the same person across websites, and that the hacker has the time or inclination out of millions of passwords to devote the analysis
furthermore, if your algorithm is something like
"if the website's name begins with the letter m or lower, use the weekday my son was born, if above m, the weekday my daughter was born. plus the last 3 letters of the website name backwards rotated plus 2"
then there is still not enough unique information from 2 or maybe even 3 hacks to successfully derive your algorithm
plus, i just thought up this algorithm on the spot. i'm certain there are plenty of clever algorithms out there that you can use to generate your password from the website name on the fly that no hacker could isolate. something like "the second letter of each website name corresponds to someone you know in college. use their room number. then take the last letter of the website, get the ascii value of that, divide by 2, and write the last name of the relative who was born on that day of the month"
the kinds of algorithms you use can be endless, and beyond the time or effort or even possibility (depending up the algorithm) of any hacker deriving it. the last algorithm i just wrote is still kind of hard: your algorithm assumes you are memorizing 26 college names and 13 birthdays. so maybe you only take the last digit of the ascii value of the 4th letter of the website name or whatever, so you only need to memorize 10 birthdays, or whatever: you just need a good algorithm
the point is: a well chosen algorithm can be foolproof from a hacking perspective in terms of generating a complex password, and foolproof in terms of having a unique password for thousands of sites. and all you have to remember is a good creative algorithm only you know
something like "if the website's name begins with the letter m or lower, use the weekday my son was born, if above m, the weekday my daughter was born. plus the last 3 letters of the website name backwards rotated plus 2"
if a hacker gets access to one database they have no idea what your algorithm is
pick something you will always remember say "frankie45"
lets say the website you are visiting is facebook.com
so your password there will be "frankie45face"
and your password at twitter.com would be "frankie45twit"
in other words, you want to use what's called an algorithm
make your ALGORITHM unique, not your password. so maybe your algorithm would be "'twenty23' plus the second through fifth letters in the website's name plus my daughter's birthday" or whatever
the point is: having one password across all websites is a vulnerability, and having simple passwords is a vulnerability. so instead, don't remember a password, remember an ALGORITHM that you can use to recreate your password for any site on the fly
by the way, i got this idea from a slashdot thread, and it was an eureka moment for me, and i went about resetting all my passwords
i forget the thread or the user id of whoever made the comment, but it was a password related subject matter and i think it was in the last 6 months or so
whoever you are, and i hope you read this: thank you!
and when i'm done, i want you to pay me for building the patio. then i'm going to insist you pay me a small fee every time you use the patio. finally, 80 years from now, whoever you sell your house to has to pay my grandchildren the same small fee
ip law, going back to the 1800s, starts with the assumption that distribution is expensive, and distribution can be controlled
every single philosophical assumption in ip law has therefore been made null and void by the internet
it would be nice if you could work within the existing ip legal framework to work your way to the new world, but you can't since the new world exists in fundamental tension with the foundational philosophical assumptions of existing ip law
therefore, not because i'm some hot head, but as a simple logical consequence of irreconciability, the entirety of ip law must be forfeit
i am of course, tlaking about it as it only applies to creators and consumers. not amongst creators. one on one agreements: to make a book into a movie, to record a song written by someone else, still applies, ip law still has value there
but consumption of media is hereby bereft of all legal framework
look, when the spanish came to the new world, they encountered the incans, the aztecs: well-entrenched, long living power structures going back decades and centuries. and they destroyed these existing social constructs in a matter of weeks. its called disruptive technology, and that is exactly what the internet has done with ip law. there is no reconciliation, there is only destruction
now i know, for some who have invested in the pre-internet media distribution structure, that a lot of investment is hereby rendered as nothing. as if the incan rulers or aztec rulers are owed anything by us? its a quirk of history, a fate beyond anyone's control: all ip lawyer and existing media distribution personnel have brought into a framework which due to bad timing, history has rendered extinct in front of their eyes. the only thing that can be done with them is to tell them to just deal with it already. go open that restaurant you always wanted. but all existing ip law and media sitrubtion channels are dying before you, with no possibility for preservation. i'm sorry, that's just technological progress at work. its not always accretionary, its sometimes disruptive. bad timing if you've bought into the previous, now extinct and archaic structure
that is hellbent on breeding itself out of existence
of course an ideology is not genetic, but values are values: they tend to overlap mightily generation to generation. you can't depend upon the offspring of the gas guzzlers to always adapt your point of view. that's not a valid mechanism for the continuation of your ideas to remain alive and fruitful in the coming generations
think of the problem as one of sustainability;-)
i agree the planet is overpopulated, and we should have less kids. but the paradox is that anyone who follows through on that thought only leaves the earth to those human beings raised by people hellbent on having 10 kids and consuming everything they can
with the idea that if i make a movie derived from the works of jk rowling, that jk rowling deserves a cut. that's ip law that makes sense to me
my problem is with the idea that i have to pay to watch that movie off the internet. of course i should pay when it is in a theatre: that's physical space i am renting. but you can't control the flow of bits anymore in the internet world, so you need to give that up, rather than punitively punishing random consumers out of your futility and panic at the changing technological landscape
ip law makes sense to me when it is amongst creators. that deals with 95% of what you have written above. ip law meanwhile does not make sense to me when it foisted upon consumers
the technological model changes, therefore, the consumption model changes. therefore, creators should adapt. and they are adapting, or they will adapt. however, the only ones really resisting the technological change are the DISTRIBUTORS
see the big lie that you buy into is that ip law serves creators
ip law serves distributors. it was extended by distributors. in a way, that sir arthur conan doyle's works are still private is a side effect of disney's desire to retain ownership of the image of a certain mouse, and paid sonny bono to do that. that's the thrust ip extension, not protecting creators. anything extra creators get, that isn't gobbled up by one-sided distributor contracts foisted no small-time creators, is just legal cruft, a pointless after-effect, from the distributors point of view, from the main game of retaining revenue streams against all common sense
you go ahead and ask any one hit wonder from the 80s: they signed contracts where they gave up most of their rights in return for a year or two of limo rides and hotel rooms. the only artists from the 80s still making good money are the big sustained acts that were able to muscle in on the distributors turf and sign real agreements with them
the war against ip law is not a war against creators. creators stand to BENEFIT from the new world because they can distribute works directly to consumers. its free advertising. like radio airplay. meanwhile, ancillary streams of revenue: endorsements, real world gigs, personalized content, etc.: that's how artists make their money in the future. and it can be quite successful, and it can last a long time. and they can make a lot more money than when the bulk of their income goes to a corporation whose only value-added part of the equation: pressing cds, has become defunct. now the distributor is only a parasite with a bully club of lawyers and paid for legislators to retain their income stream. an income stream which in no way benefits the artist or the consumer
the only issue that causes problems in the new world of no ip law on consumers is THERE IS NO NEED FOR A DISTRIBUTOR IN THE PICTURE. and that's the source of ALL of the heat and friction on ip law. there is no conflict between artist and consumer. only between consumer and distributor now (there always has been a conflict between artist and distributor)
the reality is that +internet, -ip laws = creators benefit, consumers benefit, and distributors DIE. not gracefully, at least
and when i'm done, i want you to pay me for building the patio. then i'm going to insist you pay me a small fee every time you use the patio. finally, 80 years from now, whoever you sell your house to has to pay my grandchildren the same small fee
give me a fucking break: it IS a completely stupid argument
Mr. Reynolds did not have much time to exploit the acquisition. In 1980 Sherlock Holmes and Conan Doyle's other works entered the public domain in Britain. In America the passage of the Copyright Act of 1976 gave an author or his heirs a chance to recapture lost rights; Conan Doyle's daughter, Jean, did so in 1981.
its all very confusing, but apparently shoerlocke holmes is still somehow under copyright in some places/ ways. for example, warner brothers made legal agreement's with the copyright holders to make the recent movie
not that the article means anything to me but yet another example of how fucking useless, parasitical, and obstructionist ip law has become. it is everyone's moral duty to ignore or subvert the joke that is ip law
you're beating your prostate into submission. the result is impotence and erectile dysfunction. the male prostate was not designed to take the pounding a bicycle seat gives it
they need some form of new bicycle seat for men. greener lifestyles should not result in men who can't have children... to carry on the greener lifestyle
not that that is supposed to mean anything morally, intellectually, or philosophically valid
anything made before the year 2000 should be in the public domain, and that's the way i'm going to act. there is no reforming ip law, it is too broken and too securely in the pocket of deeply vested interests
the only morally valid thing to do is to completely ignore, circumvent, and undermine ip law
His adventures in books, plays, television shows and movies continue to pay dividends for the heirs of his creator, Arthur Conan Doyle. Holmes's latest appearance on film, directed by Guy Ritchie, has sold more than $311 million in tickets worldwide, and on Sunday won a Golden Globe award for its star, Robert Downey Jr.
At his age, Holmes would logically seem to have entered the public domain. But not only is the character still under copyright in the United States, for nearly 80 years he has also been caught in a web of ownership issues so tangled that Professor Moriarty wouldn't have wished them upon him.
no, it does not make any fucking sense that your grandchildren should profit from a story you wrote, a song you sang, a movie you directed, whatever
it simply does NOT make sense. it is an intellectually and philosophically corrupt concept
intelletual property law only deserves to be disrespected, fought, and subverted. intellectual property law is a parasitical drain on our culture. intellectual property law must be destroyed. it is not of any benefit to anyone except certain entrenched well-connected, well-lawyered interests
100 people around the world want that piece of paper
this will involve copying and mailing that paper, a lengthy task. it is indeed, protected, because it is a time consuming and expensive. therefore, there are natural hurdles to sharing this information, which means that publishing, or, the large scale movement of media, is the domain of a few rich players. laws governing their behavior can easily be enforced, mainly gentleman's agreements in the club house. a closet holding cd duplicators or a warehouse holding vhs machine copiers can be located and shut down, and it is expensive to set up these shops. for these many reasons, it is easy to enforce the rules
#2: i have a file on on my computer
100 people around the world want that file
this will involve nothing but installing a free easily available program, which requires no monitoring or effort to use to distribute. it is not protected, because it is effortless and cost-free. therefore, there are no natural hurdles to sharing this information, which means publishing, or, the large scale movement of media, can be performed by any teenager in any basement. a 13 year old in novosibirsk or johannesburg or pasadena has the same publishing might of bertelsmann or time warner or disney in 1980. laws governing the behavior of these teenagers cannot easily be enforced: they're teenagers. the sharing software is headless, encrypted, obfuscated, made sparse and otherwise untraceable. for these many reasons, it is no longer possible to enforce rules created in the age of vinyl records or even player pianos
this technological progress. it is not moved by legal standards, legal standards change in response to technological progress. read up on your history. when you say "The fact that one is physical and one is not doesn't change that they're both carrying the same protected thing" all i see is someone living in colossal denial about how the world is changing around them
the world is changing friend. the whole edifice of ip law is now completely unenforceable. and therefore completely useless. welcome to reality
Slashdot Mirror
patents: like i said before, patenting how to make something PHYSICAL is ok, patenting IDEAS goes against the philosophical basis of liberal democracy. why you think how complicated something is is supposed to matter, i don't know why
professors: yes, they are expensive. and? if a professor is good, he generates good ideas, and therefore gets a good salary. i don't understand your point. their ideas should be patented to support this? you haven't noticed this fancy radical idea called college tuition?
a codec is a codec is a codec. how useful or difficult it is to generate is without meaning. its purpose is to manipulate bits, its software. it is therefore incompatible with the idea of patenting, on a philosophical level
you bring in all these red herrings of costs, as if a patent is the ONLY way to create the infrastructure necessary to create better codecs. as if there aren't a dozen orthogonally related ancillary reasons and motivations and revenue streams more than adequate for people and companies to pour money into codec development
don't destroy the philosophical foundations of liberal democracy because you can't imagine other ways besides patents to generate money for codec research
keyser soze!
patenting how to manipulate bits is not ok
the free exchange of ideas is the only thing underpinning any sense of philosophical integrity in modern liberal democracy. besides, you basically lie when you say its expensive to develop this stuff. a university professional could do this, and by publishing it, for free (in an ideal world) he cements his academic credentials, which is the only reward anyone deserves for the advancement of ideas
capitalizing on those ideas is a secondary game that does not overlap, and should not overlap (in an ideal world) with the primary game of development of better ideas
ideas should not be patented
manipulating bits is simply an idea, not a marketable product
YOU'RE doing it wrong
are you the Gatekeeper?
in fact, a little known subplot in the whole drama last week over china hacking into google email servers is that chinese intel knew the master password for gmail was "chuck norris"
problem was, when the chinese spies typed chuck norris into the human rights activists' email logins, the password itself would jump off the computer screen, hit the spy with five roundhouse kicks to the face, then smash their keyboard into dust just by giving it a hard stare
so the chinese government had no other choice but to hire hackers to break into the accounts. because even when they hired seven of the greatest kung fu masters and the most proficient in the eighteen arms of wushu in all of china to stand by while the spy logged in, plus jet li, plus jackie chan, and plus the reanimated cyborg admantium zombie of bruce lee, the chuck norris password still roundhouse kicked all of them into submission
went on their famous expedition, there was a black guy in their group, york
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_(explorer)
the native americans would stand in slack jaw amazement at york, as if he were possessed of magic. they never saw a black man before. york would further dumbfound them by taking out and reinserting his false teeth
meanwhile, consider the cantina scene in star wars: aliens of extreme forms, and humans mingling in with them as if no big deal
both the cantina scene and york's experience are the truth: our amazement at first is profound and very real at seeing new ethnicities/ life forms. but it also wears off very quick
we can get used to interacting with anything. the uncanny valley is real, but its also very temporary
i remember that kid
he would type "dolly parton is 5'5" (55) and her chest size is 37 (37) and she weighs 80 pounds (80). if she lost 8 pounds (08) she would be"
and then he would hold his wrist upside down and 55378008 becomes "BOOBLESS"
this was the very height of witty reparte in the 6th grade
Your mistake was to think about the subject matter before posting a comment, nobody else does.
"remember only this algorithm except for site xyz and site abc" is still a lot easier than "for 46 different sites, here is what i have remember uniquely for each one..."
something like "rotate the names of the days of the week, plus the last name of the person who lives in the apartment number of the numerical value of the day of the week we are on"
or "the last name of the person in the next cubicle, moving east and north from the southwest corner of my floor plus a numerical value on a scale of 1 to 4 of how much i dislike that person"
or whatever
even if you forget which particular day of the week you or on, or what cubicle you are up to, you still have a pretty good idea of approximately where you left off, so you try a few passwords plus or minus where you think you are in your sequence/ cycle if you can't login. you should get it in 3-4 tries
the number and kinds of algorithms are endless, only your creativity is a hurdle. and it really is easy to remember than dozens of passwords, and just as effective as a unique complicated password for each site/ sequence of changing passwords
you can even remember 3-4 different wacky algorithms. say a weak algorithm for your social networking sites (where a weak algorithm still generates unique, strong passwords for dozens of sites), and some really far out algorithm you rotate for your bank website
you just need a good algorithm
then someone has to hack two databases or more, zero in on the password for the same username, and calculate your algorithm
this is assuming the same username is the same person across websites, and that the hacker has the time or inclination out of millions of passwords to devote the analysis
furthermore, if your algorithm is something like
"if the website's name begins with the letter m or lower, use the weekday my son was born, if above m, the weekday my daughter was born. plus the last 3 letters of the website name backwards rotated plus 2"
then there is still not enough unique information from 2 or maybe even 3 hacks to successfully derive your algorithm
plus, i just thought up this algorithm on the spot. i'm certain there are plenty of clever algorithms out there that you can use to generate your password from the website name on the fly that no hacker could isolate. something like "the second letter of each website name corresponds to someone you know in college. use their room number. then take the last letter of the website, get the ascii value of that, divide by 2, and write the last name of the relative who was born on that day of the month"
the kinds of algorithms you use can be endless, and beyond the time or effort or even possibility (depending up the algorithm) of any hacker deriving it. the last algorithm i just wrote is still kind of hard: your algorithm assumes you are memorizing 26 college names and 13 birthdays. so maybe you only take the last digit of the ascii value of the 4th letter of the website name or whatever, so you only need to memorize 10 birthdays, or whatever: you just need a good algorithm
the point is: a well chosen algorithm can be foolproof from a hacking perspective in terms of generating a complex password, and foolproof in terms of having a unique password for thousands of sites. and all you have to remember is a good creative algorithm only you know
something like "if the website's name begins with the letter m or lower, use the weekday my son was born, if above m, the weekday my daughter was born. plus the last 3 letters of the website name backwards rotated plus 2"
if a hacker gets access to one database they have no idea what your algorithm is
by the way, i got this idea from a slashdot thread, and it was an eureka moment for me, and i went about resetting all my passwords
i forget the thread or the user id of whoever made the comment, but it was a password related subject matter and i think it was in the last 6 months or so
whoever you are, and i hope you read this: thank you!
and when i'm done, i want you to pay me for building the patio. then i'm going to insist you pay me a small fee every time you use the patio. finally, 80 years from now, whoever you sell your house to has to pay my grandchildren the same small fee
that's what ip law says, you moron
ip law, going back to the 1800s, starts with the assumption that distribution is expensive, and distribution can be controlled
every single philosophical assumption in ip law has therefore been made null and void by the internet
it would be nice if you could work within the existing ip legal framework to work your way to the new world, but you can't since the new world exists in fundamental tension with the foundational philosophical assumptions of existing ip law
therefore, not because i'm some hot head, but as a simple logical consequence of irreconciability, the entirety of ip law must be forfeit
i am of course, tlaking about it as it only applies to creators and consumers. not amongst creators. one on one agreements: to make a book into a movie, to record a song written by someone else, still applies, ip law still has value there
but consumption of media is hereby bereft of all legal framework
look, when the spanish came to the new world, they encountered the incans, the aztecs: well-entrenched, long living power structures going back decades and centuries. and they destroyed these existing social constructs in a matter of weeks. its called disruptive technology, and that is exactly what the internet has done with ip law. there is no reconciliation, there is only destruction
now i know, for some who have invested in the pre-internet media distribution structure, that a lot of investment is hereby rendered as nothing. as if the incan rulers or aztec rulers are owed anything by us? its a quirk of history, a fate beyond anyone's control: all ip lawyer and existing media distribution personnel have brought into a framework which due to bad timing, history has rendered extinct in front of their eyes. the only thing that can be done with them is to tell them to just deal with it already. go open that restaurant you always wanted. but all existing ip law and media sitrubtion channels are dying before you, with no possibility for preservation. i'm sorry, that's just technological progress at work. its not always accretionary, its sometimes disruptive. bad timing if you've bought into the previous, now extinct and archaic structure
that is hellbent on breeding itself out of existence
of course an ideology is not genetic, but values are values: they tend to overlap mightily generation to generation. you can't depend upon the offspring of the gas guzzlers to always adapt your point of view. that's not a valid mechanism for the continuation of your ideas to remain alive and fruitful in the coming generations
think of the problem as one of sustainability ;-)
i agree the planet is overpopulated, and we should have less kids. but the paradox is that anyone who follows through on that thought only leaves the earth to those human beings raised by people hellbent on having 10 kids and consuming everything they can
its a genuine problem
with the idea that if i make a movie derived from the works of jk rowling, that jk rowling deserves a cut. that's ip law that makes sense to me
my problem is with the idea that i have to pay to watch that movie off the internet. of course i should pay when it is in a theatre: that's physical space i am renting. but you can't control the flow of bits anymore in the internet world, so you need to give that up, rather than punitively punishing random consumers out of your futility and panic at the changing technological landscape
ip law makes sense to me when it is amongst creators. that deals with 95% of what you have written above. ip law meanwhile does not make sense to me when it foisted upon consumers
the technological model changes, therefore, the consumption model changes. therefore, creators should adapt. and they are adapting, or they will adapt. however, the only ones really resisting the technological change are the DISTRIBUTORS
see the big lie that you buy into is that ip law serves creators
ip law serves distributors. it was extended by distributors. in a way, that sir arthur conan doyle's works are still private is a side effect of disney's desire to retain ownership of the image of a certain mouse, and paid sonny bono to do that. that's the thrust ip extension, not protecting creators. anything extra creators get, that isn't gobbled up by one-sided distributor contracts foisted no small-time creators, is just legal cruft, a pointless after-effect, from the distributors point of view, from the main game of retaining revenue streams against all common sense
you go ahead and ask any one hit wonder from the 80s: they signed contracts where they gave up most of their rights in return for a year or two of limo rides and hotel rooms. the only artists from the 80s still making good money are the big sustained acts that were able to muscle in on the distributors turf and sign real agreements with them
the war against ip law is not a war against creators. creators stand to BENEFIT from the new world because they can distribute works directly to consumers. its free advertising. like radio airplay. meanwhile, ancillary streams of revenue: endorsements, real world gigs, personalized content, etc.: that's how artists make their money in the future. and it can be quite successful, and it can last a long time. and they can make a lot more money than when the bulk of their income goes to a corporation whose only value-added part of the equation: pressing cds, has become defunct. now the distributor is only a parasite with a bully club of lawyers and paid for legislators to retain their income stream. an income stream which in no way benefits the artist or the consumer
the only issue that causes problems in the new world of no ip law on consumers is THERE IS NO NEED FOR A DISTRIBUTOR IN THE PICTURE. and that's the source of ALL of the heat and friction on ip law. there is no conflict between artist and consumer. only between consumer and distributor now (there always has been a conflict between artist and distributor)
the reality is that +internet, -ip laws = creators benefit, consumers benefit, and distributors DIE. not gracefully, at least
it was your greatgranddaddy aaron that subverted the constitution ;-)
(i'm just teasing)
and when i'm done, i want you to pay me for building the patio. then i'm going to insist you pay me a small fee every time you use the patio. finally, 80 years from now, whoever you sell your house to has to pay my grandchildren the same small fee
give me a fucking break: it IS a completely stupid argument
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/books/19sherlock.html
its all very confusing, but apparently shoerlocke holmes is still somehow under copyright in some places/ ways. for example, warner brothers made legal agreement's with the copyright holders to make the recent movie
not that the article means anything to me but yet another example of how fucking useless, parasitical, and obstructionist ip law has become. it is everyone's moral duty to ignore or subvert the joke that is ip law
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/health/nutrition/04bike.html
you're beating your prostate into submission. the result is impotence and erectile dysfunction. the male prostate was not designed to take the pounding a bicycle seat gives it
they need some form of new bicycle seat for men. greener lifestyles should not result in men who can't have children... to carry on the greener lifestyle
but not in the usa
not that that is supposed to mean anything morally, intellectually, or philosophically valid
anything made before the year 2000 should be in the public domain, and that's the way i'm going to act. there is no reforming ip law, it is too broken and too securely in the pocket of deeply vested interests
the only morally valid thing to do is to completely ignore, circumvent, and undermine ip law
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/books/19sherlock.html
dear all creators:
no, it does not make any fucking sense that your grandchildren should profit from a story you wrote, a song you sang, a movie you directed, whatever
it simply does NOT make sense. it is an intellectually and philosophically corrupt concept
intelletual property law only deserves to be disrespected, fought, and subverted. intellectual property law is a parasitical drain on our culture. intellectual property law must be destroyed. it is not of any benefit to anyone except certain entrenched well-connected, well-lawyered interests
can you possibly understand what grave implications this has in store for superman? the kryptonite is coming!
100 people around the world want that piece of paper
this will involve copying and mailing that paper, a lengthy task. it is indeed, protected, because it is a time consuming and expensive. therefore, there are natural hurdles to sharing this information, which means that publishing, or, the large scale movement of media, is the domain of a few rich players. laws governing their behavior can easily be enforced, mainly gentleman's agreements in the club house. a closet holding cd duplicators or a warehouse holding vhs machine copiers can be located and shut down, and it is expensive to set up these shops. for these many reasons, it is easy to enforce the rules
#2: i have a file on on my computer
100 people around the world want that file
this will involve nothing but installing a free easily available program, which requires no monitoring or effort to use to distribute. it is not protected, because it is effortless and cost-free. therefore, there are no natural hurdles to sharing this information, which means publishing, or, the large scale movement of media, can be performed by any teenager in any basement. a 13 year old in novosibirsk or johannesburg or pasadena has the same publishing might of bertelsmann or time warner or disney in 1980. laws governing the behavior of these teenagers cannot easily be enforced: they're teenagers. the sharing software is headless, encrypted, obfuscated, made sparse and otherwise untraceable. for these many reasons, it is no longer possible to enforce rules created in the age of vinyl records or even player pianos
this technological progress. it is not moved by legal standards, legal standards change in response to technological progress. read up on your history. when you say "The fact that one is physical and one is not doesn't change that they're both carrying the same protected thing" all i see is someone living in colossal denial about how the world is changing around them
the world is changing friend. the whole edifice of ip law is now completely unenforceable. and therefore completely useless. welcome to reality