It's just a symptom of a much bigger problem. The global economy has reduced the importance of national laws. If you don't like the laws in the country where you operate, moving has never been easier. Child labor laws? Move to Cambodia. So it makes my day just a bit brigher when I see them getting smacked down for it. But, I would much prefer to see a $143 billion instead of million. That would get their attention
Disclaimer: I am not one of those people you see protesting around every IMF meetings
With that said, I swear to god, multinational cooperations have no conscience. Turn on the news, and all you see is the Enrons, Microsofts, and all these other coopertions who do everything they can to screw the consumer and their employees to make an extra penny. Good for the Europeans, bout damn time someone smacked those companies down, even if it is one with good Karma like nintendo.
I helped run a trash (pop-culture) quiz bowl tourament about 9 days ago, and damned if this wasn't one of the things they asked about (but not in any way relating it to the band's 25th anniversary). Sweet...
I prefer having windows launch in seperate windows. KDE takes 3 full seconds to instantiate and Nautilus takes 2. This is on a P4. Is it just me, or is this someone instrinsic to the programs? If it is the setup, what's going on?
Yes, but I think you are missing the point which I have (now) stated about 3 times. Creativity *doesn't* have to be about profits, but 99% of it *is*. If you abolish copyrights, there would be no Independance Days or anything like it. And, quite frankly, 99% of independant films appeal to 1% of the population. With occasional exceptions, it's a niche market, and cannot replace the industry that would be demolished by getting rid of copyrights.
Sorry, I normally don't respond to my own posts, but (a few hours after posting) I realized I had barely glanced one important topic.
The benefit of "imposing" copyrights is the 'other' 98% of works that are created because of the financial incentive copyrights give. Allowing people to freely copy works would essentially abolish copyrights and kill the finincial incentive. With no monetary benefit from creating works, very few people would choose to do it. (Just look how many OSS developers there are compared out of the total number of developers in the world, I think that is a good analogy) It is a fundemental of economics that gift economies are never as large as monetary ones.
Software has few sunk costs. All you need to create it (besides a working knowledge of programming) is a computer. Books, music, and movies has progressively MUCH MUCH higher sunk costs. Who is going to produce a quality movie for $50 million and expect no return. That is why the idea of abolishing copyrights is absurd.
I normally don't respond to AC's, but this merits one. Please see this post where I mention exactly that. It's my response to a sibling comment of yours.
I hate to burst your bubble, but having people do their job for the benefit of society is a hallmark of socialism, and has been conclusively proven not to work, except under very special conditions. If there was no money to be made from writing books, very few would write them
Yes, but just because I can copy something does not mean that I advocate forcing people to create that something. By copying I am not forcing anybody to do anything.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Nobody is being forced to create anything. Copyrights create a financial incentive to work, without which, very few works would be created. As I said before, no copyright protection inevitably means few works created.
.... However, abolishing copyrights is like killing the patient to cure the disease. If you do it, you kill off 98% of the industries that depend on copyrights. [Please, please, prove me and show how the *AA can continue to make anywhere near it's current money without copyrights] In this case, the way to prevent decay is to take the money out of congress, so that commercial interests like the *AA can't exert undue influence.
First off, copyrights place massive restrictions across all of society on what people can duplicate and make. IMHO, you should prove that imposing them is beneficial. I'm not asking to impose anything, just to copy freely without threat of harm or punishment. It goes back to the analogy... proove the plantation masters and America will be as well off without slavery? Well stop imposing it, and then we can talk about it
The benefit of "imposing" copyrights is the 'other' 98% of works that are created because of the financial incentive copyrights give. Allowing people to freely copy works would essentially abolish copyrights and kill the finincial incentive. With no monetary benefit from creating works, very few people would choose to do it. (Just look how many OSS developers there are compared out of the total number of developers in the world, I think that is a good analogy) It is a fundemental of economics that gift economies are never as large as monetary ones.
Ok, then explain this to me - if there were no copyrights, how would authors/musicians/artists/etc make money?
Perhaps through concerts or public display. But this point is part of the problem, the end goal is not to make money for XYZ, but rather to maximize benefit to society. It is an unfair question like in the past how do the poor cotton farm owners make money without slavery? Well, stop trying to exercise rights you don't have and we can discuss it.
I hate to burst your bubble, but having people do their job for the benefit of society is a hallmark of socialism, and has been conclusively proven not to work, except under very special conditions. If there was no money to be made from writing books, very few would write them.
The founders had envisioned a world were copyrights are a tradeoff - for a particular work, certain freedoms allowed under other parts of the constitution (such as the 1st ammendment) do not apply, in order to encourage them to create. But after a time, they go into the public domain. It might be old, but it sounds like solid reasoning to me.
It might have looked reasonable at a time where an encyclopedia of knowledge couldn't be transfered and coppied to every point on the planet in less than 30 seconds, but not today
As one of today's articles pointed out, works hold their value for a shorter period of time nowadays. So I guess the simple solution is to shorten the length for which their copyright apply. That not withstanding, the founders' theory still holds.
Now, I agree that it has since been distorted. What we need (IMO) is repeal of those unconstituional retroactive copyright extensions, a shorter term for future copyrights, and (similiar to Russia) a law on the books making it illegal to create fair-use proof works
Oh and another thing about slavery, is that it started out as short term indentured servitude for blacks and whites that could not be inherited. After the term you got freedom and your own property. Sounded like a good deal, accept there was one problem, it planted the seed for a system that was outright evil and caused a lot of damage in the long run for America.
You make a valid point. Indentured servitude (a valid, morally-neutral arragement), while helping to bring early settlers to America, decayed into something more evil. However, abolishing copyrights is like killing the patient to cure the disease. If you do it, you kill off 98% of the industries that depend on copyrights. [Please, please, prove me and show how the *AA can continue to make anywhere near it's current money without copyrights] In this case, the way to prevent decay is to take the money out of congress, so that commercial interests like the *AA can't exert undue influence.
Ok, then explain this to me - if there were no copyrights, how would authors/musicians/artists/etc make money?
The founders had envisioned a world were copyrights are a tradeoff - for a particular works, certain freedoms allowed under other parts of the constitution (suich as the 1st ammendment) do not apply, in order to encourage them to create. But after a time, they go into the public domain. It might be old, but it sounds like solid reasoning to me.
Now, I agree that it has since been distorted. What we need (IMO) is repeal of those unconstituional retroactive copyright extensions, a shorter term for future copyrights, and (similiar to Russia) a law on the books making it illegal to create fair-use proof works.
I think that you are referring to internet 2, which is paid for by the NSF to connect major universities and research institutions (and, as you said, some companies).
How long until someone finds a way around the commercial filters software? All it would take it to make p2p traffic look like "legit" (http, ssh, etc) traffic. Packet shapers target by port. So how long until someone figures out a way to use the software to cut right around that?
The words they use preclude this, because they call AOL their client. If AOL had not retained them, it would be a bald-faced lie and illegal under several laws. As I understand it, this is quite common in germany, actually.
I am actually keeping a running total of all the in-the-flesh female video game players I have ever met. (Non-trivial video games that is... freecell, snood, and and snowcraft do not count)Here's to Eva, Amanda, Kerri, and Karen, Megan and Ying. Much to my utter astonishment, some of them are half-decent in their respective games (Ying in smash brothers, Amanda in WarCraft III, and Karen in Unreal Tournament) Excelsior to you, you who give us males some hope...
Does someone know when the ruling will be announced? I had thought that they usually wait utnil all the cases are heard (in the spring) before announcing them all at once, but I could be mistaken. Can someone clear this up?
Except for the Ipod, can you please show me *one* single thing available for Apple that doesn't have and equal or greater equivalent on the PC? [And even the Ipod has been made to work in Linux/Windows] And as the parent suggested, if Apple has done such a great marketing job, explain why they fail to break 3%? Could it, perhaps, be their failure to interoperate, innovate, or even give people a reason to switch? I mean, seriously, the easy to use thing doesn't even hold water when you remember that 99% of people know how to use windows now, so to them, it *is* easy to use. *That* is what I meant by doing what apple did to themselves.
What operating system do you think (most) desktop users will be using 10 years down the road, and why? Will it be *nix, or Microsoft, or something else?
Slashdot Mirror
It's just a symptom of a much bigger problem. The global economy has reduced the importance of national laws. If you don't like the laws in the country where you operate, moving has never been easier. Child labor laws? Move to Cambodia. So it makes my day just a bit brigher when I see them getting smacked down for it. But, I would much prefer to see a $143 billion instead of million. That would get their attention
Disclaimer: I am not one of those people you see protesting around every IMF meetings
With that said, I swear to god, multinational cooperations have no conscience. Turn on the news, and all you see is the Enrons, Microsofts, and all these other coopertions who do everything they can to screw the consumer and their employees to make an extra penny. Good for the Europeans, bout damn time someone smacked those companies down, even if it is one with good Karma like nintendo.
I helped run a trash (pop-culture) quiz bowl tourament about 9 days ago, and damned if this wasn't one of the things they asked about (but not in any way relating it to the band's 25th anniversary). Sweet...
Oh lord, I am sorry I used my modpoints. That is too funny.
Just out of curiousity, what would "Steamboat Willie's" special moves be?
Not necessarily. XP (it's a dual-boot system) can load windows in under a half-second. Why would it take 4-6 times longer under *nix?
I prefer having windows launch in seperate windows. KDE takes 3 full seconds to instantiate and Nautilus takes 2. This is on a P4. Is it just me, or is this someone instrinsic to the programs? If it is the setup, what's going on?
Yes, but I think you are missing the point which I have (now) stated about 3 times. Creativity *doesn't* have to be about profits, but 99% of it *is*. If you abolish copyrights, there would be no Independance Days or anything like it. And, quite frankly, 99% of independant films appeal to 1% of the population. With occasional exceptions, it's a niche market, and cannot replace the industry that would be demolished by getting rid of copyrights.
...that everytime I heard the words 'guru' or 'consultant' I get the overwhelming urge to reach for my gun?
Sorry, I normally don't respond to my own posts, but (a few hours after posting) I realized I had barely glanced one important topic.
The benefit of "imposing" copyrights is the 'other' 98% of works that are created because of the financial incentive copyrights give. Allowing people to freely copy works would essentially abolish copyrights and kill the finincial incentive. With no monetary benefit from creating works, very few people would choose to do it. (Just look how many OSS developers there are compared out of the total number of developers in the world, I think that is a good analogy) It is a fundemental of economics that gift economies are never as large as monetary ones.
Software has few sunk costs. All you need to create it (besides a working knowledge of programming) is a computer. Books, music, and movies has progressively MUCH MUCH higher sunk costs. Who is going to produce a quality movie for $50 million and expect no return. That is why the idea of abolishing copyrights is absurd.
I normally don't respond to AC's, but this merits one. Please see this post where I mention exactly that. It's my response to a sibling comment of yours.
I hate to burst your bubble, but having people do their job for the benefit of society is a hallmark of socialism, and has been conclusively proven not to work, except under very special conditions. If there was no money to be made from writing books, very few would write them
.... However, abolishing copyrights is like killing the patient to cure the disease. If you do it, you kill off 98% of the industries that depend on copyrights. [Please, please, prove me and show how the *AA can continue to make anywhere near it's current money without copyrights] In this case, the way to prevent decay is to take the money out of congress, so that commercial interests like the *AA can't exert undue influence.
... proove the plantation masters and America will be as well off without slavery? Well stop imposing it, and then we can talk about it
Yes, but just because I can copy something does not mean that I advocate forcing people to create that something. By copying I am not forcing anybody to do anything.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Nobody is being forced to create anything. Copyrights create a financial incentive to work, without which, very few works would be created. As I said before, no copyright protection inevitably means few works created.
First off, copyrights place massive restrictions across all of society on what people can duplicate and make. IMHO, you should prove that imposing them is beneficial. I'm not asking to impose anything, just to copy freely without threat of harm or punishment. It goes back to the analogy
The benefit of "imposing" copyrights is the 'other' 98% of works that are created because of the financial incentive copyrights give. Allowing people to freely copy works would essentially abolish copyrights and kill the finincial incentive. With no monetary benefit from creating works, very few people would choose to do it. (Just look how many OSS developers there are compared out of the total number of developers in the world, I think that is a good analogy) It is a fundemental of economics that gift economies are never as large as monetary ones.
Ok, then explain this to me - if there were no copyrights, how would authors/musicians/artists/etc make money?
Perhaps through concerts or public display. But this point is part of the problem, the end goal is not to make money for XYZ, but rather to maximize benefit to society. It is an unfair question like in the past how do the poor cotton farm owners make money without slavery? Well, stop trying to exercise rights you don't have and we can discuss it.
I hate to burst your bubble, but having people do their job for the benefit of society is a hallmark of socialism, and has been conclusively proven not to work, except under very special conditions. If there was no money to be made from writing books, very few would write them.
The founders had envisioned a world were copyrights are a tradeoff - for a particular work, certain freedoms allowed under other parts of the constitution (such as the 1st ammendment) do not apply, in order to encourage them to create. But after a time, they go into the public domain. It might be old, but it sounds like solid reasoning to me.
It might have looked reasonable at a time where an encyclopedia of knowledge couldn't be transfered and coppied to every point on the planet in less than 30 seconds, but not today
As one of today's articles pointed out, works hold their value for a shorter period of time nowadays. So I guess the simple solution is to shorten the length for which their copyright apply. That not withstanding, the founders' theory still holds.
Now, I agree that it has since been distorted. What we need (IMO) is repeal of those unconstituional retroactive copyright extensions, a shorter term for future copyrights, and (similiar to Russia) a law on the books making it illegal to create fair-use proof works
Oh and another thing about slavery, is that it started out as short term indentured servitude for blacks and whites that could not be inherited. After the term you got freedom and your own property. Sounded like a good deal, accept there was one problem, it planted the seed for a system that was outright evil and caused a lot of damage in the long run for America.
You make a valid point. Indentured servitude (a valid, morally-neutral arragement), while helping to bring early settlers to America, decayed into something more evil. However, abolishing copyrights is like killing the patient to cure the disease. If you do it, you kill off 98% of the industries that depend on copyrights. [Please, please, prove me and show how the *AA can continue to make anywhere near it's current money without copyrights] In this case, the way to prevent decay is to take the money out of congress, so that commercial interests like the *AA can't exert undue influence.
Ok, then explain this to me - if there were no copyrights, how would authors/musicians/artists/etc make money?
The founders had envisioned a world were copyrights are a tradeoff - for a particular works, certain freedoms allowed under other parts of the constitution (suich as the 1st ammendment) do not apply, in order to encourage them to create. But after a time, they go into the public domain. It might be old, but it sounds like solid reasoning to me.
Now, I agree that it has since been distorted. What we need (IMO) is repeal of those unconstituional retroactive copyright extensions, a shorter term for future copyrights, and (similiar to Russia) a law on the books making it illegal to create fair-use proof works.
I think that you are referring to internet 2, which is paid for by the NSF to connect major universities and research institutions (and, as you said, some companies).
How long until someone finds a way around the commercial filters software? All it would take it to make p2p traffic look like "legit" (http, ssh, etc) traffic. Packet shapers target by port. So how long until someone figures out a way to use the software to cut right around that?
The words they use preclude this, because they call AOL their client. If AOL had not retained them, it would be a bald-faced lie and illegal under several laws. As I understand it, this is quite common in germany, actually.
I am actually keeping a running total of all the in-the-flesh female video game players I have ever met. (Non-trivial video games that is... freecell, snood, and and snowcraft do not count)Here's to Eva, Amanda, Kerri, and Karen, Megan and Ying. Much to my utter astonishment, some of them are half-decent in their respective games (Ying in smash brothers, Amanda in WarCraft III, and Karen in Unreal Tournament) Excelsior to you, you who give us males some hope...
A while back I saw something saying that gen Y was 1980-1989, and gen Z was 1990-1999. If you do it that way, what do you call people born in 2k+?
I feel a great disturbance in the force... as if many network administrators suddenly cried out in great pain, and were silenced.
Ugh, can we please have it in a *real* format? (No pun intended...)
Does someone know when the ruling will be announced? I had thought that they usually wait utnil all the cases are heard (in the spring) before announcing them all at once, but I could be mistaken. Can someone clear this up?
Except for the Ipod, can you please show me *one* single thing available for Apple that doesn't have and equal or greater equivalent on the PC? [And even the Ipod has been made to work in Linux/Windows] And as the parent suggested, if Apple has done such a great marketing job, explain why they fail to break 3%? Could it, perhaps, be their failure to interoperate, innovate, or even give people a reason to switch? I mean, seriously, the easy to use thing doesn't even hold water when you remember that 99% of people know how to use windows now, so to them, it *is* easy to use. *That* is what I meant by doing what apple did to themselves.
He's 100% right. It's fuckups like this on the major distros that will do to linux what apple did to themselves.
Am I the only one whose first thought was that it was referring to deaths caused by cell phones?
What operating system do you think (most) desktop users will be using 10 years down the road, and why? Will it be *nix, or Microsoft, or something else?