Why exactly does it require less faith to believe in an entity that has not been proven to exist versus to believe that the basic rules by which all biological creatures live have not changed?
Re:binary (possible spoiler-warning)
on
Futurama Returns!
·
· Score: 1
To me, it looked like binary counting.. 001 010 011 100 101 110
I would personally support some sort of grant system where anyone with a copyright would get money from the government, with money taken from levies or some other taxes.
The most accurate measure of the worth of a work is a combination of how much it improves a society and the quality of a work. These are obviously impossible to quantify. "Improvement of a society" isn't easily measurable, and this improvement may happen over years, decades, or centuries. Quality is something that is largely subjective, and can't be quantified either.
The current system rewards neither; it rewards popularity above all else. This system necessarily promotes works that, instead of improve a society or are of extremely high quality, works are made simply to appeal to the largest number of people. The artist who makes quality music ahead of his time wouldn't be able to support himself if too few people want to listen to his music right now.
You lay several restrictions fol this system, including the requirement that the system work on many small contributions from the benefitters, as opposed to a major benefactor. I appreciate your reasons for this, as it ensures no one organization is in control of who gets money (and is thus able to quash down something they disagree with, for example) However, I don't see how a fully free market could possibly reward based on quality and improvement to society. A fair governmental organization (yes, I know, this requires a truly fair government first) would.Keep in mind that copyright, in itself, is a sort of government grant. Without it, there is no requirement for beneficiaries give any sort of reward at all.
The whole point behind this discovery is stepping towards the ability to actually prove the existence of these alternate universes. A mathematical proof saying something exists at the very least gives us direction on how to design experiments and demonstrate falsifiability. IIRC, these proofs also show how our universe would interact with others. Any event where a quantum wave collapses into one of its possibilities results in a multitude of universes, each with a different result. This requires interaction, and the first step in figuring out that interaction is to figure out that it exists, and how it behaves.
Also, I should note that while dark energy hasn't been proven, there is at least one experiment that potentially proves its existence: ahref=http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2171rel=url2html-2392http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2171 > . This discovery would almost certainly not have been possible without the math beforehand to theorize on how it would react.
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism (well, weak atheism) is the lack of belief in a deity. Agnosticism is, as you point out above, the opinion that the existence or nonexistence of a deity cannot be conclusively proven either way. It is possible to not believe in the existence of a deity and believe that that nonexistence is not provable.
Actually, them making money is exactly the point of this law, and how it's done is merely the method. If you're concerned about the fact that the people who are paying for it are subsidising for those who aren't, keep in mind that that is exactly what's happening right now, not even including any illegal action. Those who pay for media during the period it's copyrighted are, in effect, paying for its use by everyone who wants to use it once the copyright runs out. The very system is set up so that a relatively small portion of the population pays so that the entirety of society benefits. This is the way it's been set up since the beginning, and this is how it's intended to work.
I don't necessarily doubt what you say about Sweden's adherence to the WIPO treaty. However, why wouldn't it be a better solution to amend the WIPO treaty to reflect what Sweden is promising, and hold every other country to that standard? Afterwards, then every country would be able to benefit from this kind of IP law.
By "personal copying" I do mean the latter. I would disagree that the economics do entirely break down, and I know for a fact that copying *is* legal in several areas around the world. The entire reason Pirate Bay exists is due to the fact that it is an entirely legal organization in Sweden. The legal battles have not entirely finished, but it also seems to be legal in Canada. Both these countries have cultures that produce plenty of media, and yes, people *do* pay for it. They do so partly out of convenience, and partly out of wanting to support the artist.
Also, despite its legality, it *still* happens in enormous amounts inside this country. If personal copying were sufficient to wreck our culture, it would've *already* happened. We would have droves of newly starving artists, and no new artists would be able to support themselves. However, this culture is one that still desires to pay its artists, despite the existence of ways to get stuff for free.
The basic principle of copyright, to me, includes two opposing sections. The first is control over the media, as it provides an easier approach to a business model intended to support those who make the media. The second is the ability for the populace at large to actually use the media and let it add to their culture. These abilities include distributing the material, consuming the material and using that material as a base or piece in a later piece. The only potential justification for limiting these abilities is for the first purpose, or assistance in creating a more easily viable business model.
I certainly agree with the creators getting total rights to commercially distribute the material, as it, in a very real sense, takes money away from both the artist and the consumer and puts it in the hands of the guy who, for example, made the DVD the person is buying. However, the evidence that personal copying actually impacts the artists' business model is sketchy at best. The RIAA has certainly paid off several studies saying it does, but the actual, truly independent studies I've seen show either no effect or even a positive one on the amount of money the artists get. Assuming this is true, then there is *no* reason to disallow personal copying, as it actually is fair to the artist. Copyright exists to help ensure that they get paid. If they get paid when copyright is ignored, then the power of copyright is an unjustified limitation on the freedom of the populace and should be removed or reduced.
I'd say that having the people experience life without unjust laws would go a very long way towads getting such laws repealed, especially when done so en masse. One of the major reasons for prohibition being repealed was the fact that everyone was getting drunk anyway.
legitimate, legal rights While the rights you're talking about are technically legal, it would probably be no stretch to assume most here think they're not legitimate. Most of us are aware of the finagling these organizations have done to aquire these rights, and at least some of us believe that they do not reflect the fair balance copyright really needs.
As such, we tend to not feel the need to adhere to such laws. We are certainly aware that they exist, but attempts to defend laws that aren't fair aren't seen as particularly noble.
In addition...
One definite element to overturning such laws is to instill in the people the mindset that such laws are indeed wrong. Copying for personal purposes is illegal, but its commonness means that the people are now much more used to an environment where it exists. There is a relatively small number of people who do not see this as wrong, and the existence of copying for personal purposes is likely to make that grow.
You've hit the nail right on the head. The legal rights given by copyright, while providing useful incentives for additions to known knowledge and culture, are also inherently limiting to those who want to actually make those additions.
These limits are largely ignored because, in my view, far too few people actually do anything to add to our intellectual body. And even when people are encouraged to add to our intellect, how often are they told to protect it and keep it close, and how often are they told to ultimately give it to the world for everyone's benefit?
How many people have a good understanding of the theory of evolution, are not religious nutcases, and still have an issue with the fundamental concept?
Slashdot Mirror
I thought they were to be driven to Sangatte. (Nissan.. Hardbody?)
..who saw Sacha Baron-Cohen instead of Simon Baron-Cohen?
So... they've run out of Windows.
Sweet!
Seriously.. these people don't have anything to do with videogames.
A number of those don't seem to be per capita. In which case it's only natural for California to be the most, as it is the most populous state.
That is exactly what I was thinking of. I heard exactly what you present when I heard RMS talk about copyright a while back.
After reading the clarifications, this is the license in question. It certainly seems to be something RMS would approve of.
I thought RMS was not a fan of the Creative Commons license.
Why exactly does it require less faith to believe in an entity that has not been proven to exist versus to believe that the basic rules by which all biological creatures live have not changed?
To me, it looked like binary counting..
001
010
011
100
101
110
and then mirrored across the right side.
Yeah, but then you can't go to Europa.
Actually, the first was Robert April. The second was Chris Pike, then Kirk was second.
7of7? Is that you?
I would personally support some sort of grant system where anyone with a copyright would get money from the government, with money taken from levies or some other taxes.
The most accurate measure of the worth of a work is a combination of how much it improves a society and the quality of a work. These are obviously impossible to quantify. "Improvement of a society" isn't easily measurable, and this improvement may happen over years, decades, or centuries. Quality is something that is largely subjective, and can't be quantified either.
The current system rewards neither; it rewards popularity above all else. This system necessarily promotes works that, instead of improve a society or are of extremely high quality, works are made simply to appeal to the largest number of people. The artist who makes quality music ahead of his time wouldn't be able to support himself if too few people want to listen to his music right now.
You lay several restrictions fol this system, including the requirement that the system work on many small contributions from the benefitters, as opposed to a major benefactor. I appreciate your reasons for this, as it ensures no one organization is in control of who gets money (and is thus able to quash down something they disagree with, for example) However, I don't see how a fully free market could possibly reward based on quality and improvement to society. A fair governmental organization (yes, I know, this requires a truly fair government first) would.Keep in mind that copyright, in itself, is a sort of government grant. Without it, there is no requirement for beneficiaries give any sort of reward at all.
I have to disagree with your agreement there.
The whole point behind this discovery is stepping towards the ability to actually prove the existence of these alternate universes. A mathematical proof saying something exists at the very least gives us direction on how to design experiments and demonstrate falsifiability. IIRC, these proofs also show how our universe would interact with others. Any event where a quantum wave collapses into one of its possibilities results in a multitude of universes, each with a different result. This requires interaction, and the first step in figuring out that interaction is to figure out that it exists, and how it behaves.
Also, I should note that while dark energy hasn't been proven, there is at least one experiment that potentially proves its existence: ahref=http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2171rel=url2html-2392http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2171 > . This discovery would almost certainly not have been possible without the math beforehand to theorize on how it would react.
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism (well, weak atheism) is the lack of belief in a deity. Agnosticism is, as you point out above, the opinion that the existence or nonexistence of a deity cannot be conclusively proven either way. It is possible to not believe in the existence of a deity and believe that that nonexistence is not provable.
Actually, them making money is exactly the point of this law, and how it's done is merely the method. If you're concerned about the fact that the people who are paying for it are subsidising for those who aren't, keep in mind that that is exactly what's happening right now, not even including any illegal action. Those who pay for media during the period it's copyrighted are, in effect, paying for its use by everyone who wants to use it once the copyright runs out. The very system is set up so that a relatively small portion of the population pays so that the entirety of society benefits. This is the way it's been set up since the beginning, and this is how it's intended to work.
I don't necessarily doubt what you say about Sweden's adherence to the WIPO treaty. However, why wouldn't it be a better solution to amend the WIPO treaty to reflect what Sweden is promising, and hold every other country to that standard? Afterwards, then every country would be able to benefit from this kind of IP law.
By "personal copying" I do mean the latter. I would disagree that the economics do entirely break down, and I know for a fact that copying *is* legal in several areas around the world. The entire reason Pirate Bay exists is due to the fact that it is an entirely legal organization in Sweden. The legal battles have not entirely finished, but it also seems to be legal in Canada. Both these countries have cultures that produce plenty of media, and yes, people *do* pay for it. They do so partly out of convenience, and partly out of wanting to support the artist.
Also, despite its legality, it *still* happens in enormous amounts inside this country. If personal copying were sufficient to wreck our culture, it would've *already* happened. We would have droves of newly starving artists, and no new artists would be able to support themselves. However, this culture is one that still desires to pay its artists, despite the existence of ways to get stuff for free.
The basic principle of copyright, to me, includes two opposing sections. The first is control over the media, as it provides an easier approach to a business model intended to support those who make the media. The second is the ability for the populace at large to actually use the media and let it add to their culture. These abilities include distributing the material, consuming the material and using that material as a base or piece in a later piece. The only potential justification for limiting these abilities is for the first purpose, or assistance in creating a more easily viable business model.
I certainly agree with the creators getting total rights to commercially distribute the material, as it, in a very real sense, takes money away from both the artist and the consumer and puts it in the hands of the guy who, for example, made the DVD the person is buying. However, the evidence that personal copying actually impacts the artists' business model is sketchy at best. The RIAA has certainly paid off several studies saying it does, but the actual, truly independent studies I've seen show either no effect or even a positive one on the amount of money the artists get. Assuming this is true, then there is *no* reason to disallow personal copying, as it actually is fair to the artist. Copyright exists to help ensure that they get paid. If they get paid when copyright is ignored, then the power of copyright is an unjustified limitation on the freedom of the populace and should be removed or reduced.
I'd say that having the people experience life without unjust laws would go a very long way towads getting such laws repealed, especially when done so en masse. One of the major reasons for prohibition being repealed was the fact that everyone was getting drunk anyway.
As such, we tend to not feel the need to adhere to such laws. We are certainly aware that they exist, but attempts to defend laws that aren't fair aren't seen as particularly noble.
In addition...
One definite element to overturning such laws is to instill in the people the mindset that such laws are indeed wrong. Copying for personal purposes is illegal, but its commonness means that the people are now much more used to an environment where it exists. There is a relatively small number of people who do not see this as wrong, and the existence of copying for personal purposes is likely to make that grow.
You've hit the nail right on the head. The legal rights given by copyright, while providing useful incentives for additions to known knowledge and culture, are also inherently limiting to those who want to actually make those additions.
These limits are largely ignored because, in my view, far too few people actually do anything to add to our intellectual body. And even when people are encouraged to add to our intellect, how often are they told to protect it and keep it close, and how often are they told to ultimately give it to the world for everyone's benefit?
How many people have a good understanding of the theory of evolution, are not religious nutcases, and still have an issue with the fundamental concept?
I believe the modified rule is:
mod 2 = suck
mod 5 = ultra-suck (think of star trek 5 and 10)
Seeing as how people don't have any issue looking like complete tools with the current bluetooth headsets, I don't think it'll be an issue.