It's wrong to ask society to enforce a non-natural right to control reproduction of your works without compensating society at the end of a reasonable limited time with cessation of that enforcement.
This guy alone is going to cost taxpayers more than he's cost Nintendo. Society, not Nintendo is going to bear that cost.
Sure, for a time. Eventually, however, the work should pass into the hands of society.
Think about it this way: Society pays for the police who protect an artists copyright, and for the courts who enforce the copyrights. Society pays to jail people like this who violate copyrights. The artist is allowed a limited monopoly on their work for a period of time, subsidized by all society.
That being the case, it's only just that after a period of protection, society get something back, and that 'something' is access to the work itself. It's simply ceasing to protect the non-natural right to control the reproduction of a work.
My work is instrumentation, automation, and control engineering. Nearly everything I learned in college was once patented. The bourdon tube, the transducer bridge, PID control, I could go on for years. If patents were treated like copyrights, I wouldn't be able to know anything, because despite the fact that all these inventions are long outdated, they'd still be held by companies trying to milk their ancient inventions for every dime. Instead, after a time where the creator had a chance to make a profit, the inventions became the property of society, and now engineers like me can use this massive body of knowlege to solve new problems.
They're a part of our culture, but only to the extent that they're allowed to be.
You can only sing the song or reference the cartoon if you're willing to pay royalties, and it'll be that way until after I'm dead.
To me, that sounds like a massive sucking parasite. Lobby for perpetual copyrights, worm your way into our culture, then charge perpetually for access to our own culture. Don't sing that lullaby your mother put you to sleep with in a movie or documentary, because you'll be sued, even if you're on your deathbed.
No, I don't think I should get paid for every single use of my design in perpetuity. That would be retarded.
My name is on thousands of drawings, and many of them ARE re-used quite often. One drawing I did was re-used dozens of times.
Jealousy is a bad word for it. I make way more than 99% of recording artists. The thing is, I don't have an effectively permenant monopoly on a facet of our culture.
The artistic works I do, I tend to release for free. Some of them I could profit from, and that'd be fine, but if some aspect of those works was still popular in 100 years, I wouldn't be ok with my grandkids milking my one-off work.
First, I don't hate IP, but I do hate how our culture is being stolen by lobbyists who are extending copyright to unreasonable terms.
My parents, on my first birthday, sang "Happy birthday" to me. Because of the extensions given to copyright, I won't be able to sing that song publicly on my deathbed, because it'll still be protected. I see this as unreasonable theft of our culture. It's one thing to ensure artists get paid, it's quite another to give them a stipend and monopoly in perpetuity if their work becomes part of the cultural zeitgeist.
I design control loops in a paper mill. If a bag of cement built with my paper builds a highly successful theme park, I'm not entitled to a lifetime stipend. Why should musicians or writers, who will spend no more time or effort on their craft, be entitled to such a stipend?
Back to your question, let me re-frame it for you. If you write a few popular songs and have 130 years of royalties to look forward to, why bother writing anymore songs? The limited term is required to ensure creators have an incentive to continue creating. If giving people a lifetime paycheque ensured they'd be productive artists, then there'd be thousands of incredible artists coming from the welfare system.
Neither do people who sincerely oppose commercial exploitation of copyrights.
However, there are plenty of people who think the terms are far far too long. I won't be allowed to publically sing the same "happy birthday" song my parents sang on my 1st birthday on my deathbed. Think about that.
Short answer: This is exactly what people around here think copyright should cover.
There might be some questions as to whether the copyright term is too long (it undoubtedly is -- 140 years is only "limited time" in the broadest sense of the word), but selling copyrighted material for profit is explicitly what many slashdotters believe copyright exists to protect against.
Ok, let me get this straight. I design an industrial plant in 2000, and it gets sold for 300 million in 2010, and I don't get to see a dime? It's just not fair! I'm entitled to my slice of the pie for my creative work! I should get at least a few grand every time my plant changes hands!
If you don't believe we've got a culture, you're dumber than that kid who killed himself because someone stole his iPod, thus becoming "an hero". You're dumber than Bush. You're dumber than the writers of Happy Days when they figured the Fonz jumping a shark was a good idea.
If you don't believe we've got a culture, the terrorists win, because winners don't do drugs.
Honestly though, quit being such a pathetic self-pitying loser. "Oh noes! The tollerant people told me to be tollerant!"
Guess what? You don't have to be tollerant. It's a free country. Nobody is going to lock you up for saying what's on your mind. Quit being such a pussy and accept it. Just as it's your right to say that the Jews control the media and Muslims are crazy religious wackjobs, it's their right to say you're an intollerant ass, and God bless this time we live in where both groups are allowed to say it.
In the words of Ron Paul, you need to shut your whore mouth and follow the constitution.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
If the industrial plant I design continues to run for 100 years, I don't get a 100-year stipend from the company. Why should anyone else get an eternal pension for a one-off work?
I disagree. Steamboat willie, the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, really ought to be in the public domain by now. It's a piece of our culture. It is because it became a part of our culture that Diseny has made billions of dollars on the property, but it is because it becomes part of our culture that it ought to be freed after a reasonable time to make a profit has elapsed.
Our language, and our culture requires the assimilation of the arts. That same assimilation can make people rich, but when an old man's childhood memories are subject to copyright, and will be until decades after his death, copyright has become an unreasonable limitation on our culture.
Best example: The birthday song my parents sung me on my 1st birthday will be copyrighted until after I'm dead. How is that just?
That doesn't say bad things about the video card, it says bad things about X11 and KDE.
People have been drawing anti-aliased text for over a decade. Windows 95 with the plus pack had a version, Windows 98 had a version, Windows XP introduced subpixel rendering, and all of that was fast enough to run on a P2-500 with a crappy Intel video chip. I remember having anti-aliased fonts on Windows 95 running on my 386.
Not just Microsoft, either. BeOS can run at meteoric speeds using only the Vesa driver. Guess what? Full anti-aliased fonts.
It seems pretty ignorant to blame the hardware when everyone else on the planet has been able to get anti-aliased fonts to work with a fraction of the video bandwidth and processing power.
Windows XP runs just fine. I was running Firefox on XP last night with the unaccelerated default drivers, and it was virtually indistinguishable from using the accelerated drivers -- which is to say, it was crazy fast. Could it be that Linux just isn't that quick?
I mean, it's 2008. You shouldn't need to watch task swapping take place on a 2d desktop.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you going around talking about the performance of 2d parts?
In 2008?
Seriously?
Are you sure you want to do that?
I mean, you'll look stupid.
Seriously. A straight framebuffer device can pretty much update at full speed without using a fraction of the PCI-E bus or a fraction of the processing power of a modern CPU.
Oh yeah, it's really easy to design a great x86 processor.
All you have to do is spend millions of dollars recruiting the team that designed the most revered processor in the world, license the finest technologies from multiple companies, spend 20 years as a "second source" to acquire the rights to create x86 compatible parts(and fight constantly in court for years and years to retain those rights), and gamble your entire company on creating a competitor to the fastest x86 processor in the world, then after gaining some marketshare and mindshare, gamble your entire company on a dramatic new design idea.
Ok people, let's ignore that the person proposing the solar cells made in a pizza oven is a woman. Let's ignore that women in science and engineering are exceedingly rare.
That spade is NOT a spade. It's a CUCUMBER, and anyone who tells you differently is a commie!
I'd argue that you're wrong. a CPU is a CENTRAL processing unit. a GPU is a specialised branch processor which may be as powerful, but isn't central to the operation of the unit.
You can boot a PC without a GPU, but you can't boot a PC without a CPU.
Slashdot Mirror
It's wrong to ask society to enforce a non-natural right to control reproduction of your works without compensating society at the end of a reasonable limited time with cessation of that enforcement.
This guy alone is going to cost taxpayers more than he's cost Nintendo. Society, not Nintendo is going to bear that cost.
Sure, for a time. Eventually, however, the work should pass into the hands of society.
Think about it this way: Society pays for the police who protect an artists copyright, and for the courts who enforce the copyrights. Society pays to jail people like this who violate copyrights. The artist is allowed a limited monopoly on their work for a period of time, subsidized by all society.
That being the case, it's only just that after a period of protection, society get something back, and that 'something' is access to the work itself. It's simply ceasing to protect the non-natural right to control the reproduction of a work.
My work is instrumentation, automation, and control engineering. Nearly everything I learned in college was once patented. The bourdon tube, the transducer bridge, PID control, I could go on for years. If patents were treated like copyrights, I wouldn't be able to know anything, because despite the fact that all these inventions are long outdated, they'd still be held by companies trying to milk their ancient inventions for every dime. Instead, after a time where the creator had a chance to make a profit, the inventions became the property of society, and now engineers like me can use this massive body of knowlege to solve new problems.
They're a part of our culture, but only to the extent that they're allowed to be.
You can only sing the song or reference the cartoon if you're willing to pay royalties, and it'll be that way until after I'm dead.
To me, that sounds like a massive sucking parasite. Lobby for perpetual copyrights, worm your way into our culture, then charge perpetually for access to our own culture. Don't sing that lullaby your mother put you to sleep with in a movie or documentary, because you'll be sued, even if you're on your deathbed.
No, I don't think I should get paid for every single use of my design in perpetuity. That would be retarded.
My name is on thousands of drawings, and many of them ARE re-used quite often. One drawing I did was re-used dozens of times.
Jealousy is a bad word for it. I make way more than 99% of recording artists. The thing is, I don't have an effectively permenant monopoly on a facet of our culture.
The artistic works I do, I tend to release for free. Some of them I could profit from, and that'd be fine, but if some aspect of those works was still popular in 100 years, I wouldn't be ok with my grandkids milking my one-off work.
First, I don't hate IP, but I do hate how our culture is being stolen by lobbyists who are extending copyright to unreasonable terms.
My parents, on my first birthday, sang "Happy birthday" to me. Because of the extensions given to copyright, I won't be able to sing that song publicly on my deathbed, because it'll still be protected. I see this as unreasonable theft of our culture. It's one thing to ensure artists get paid, it's quite another to give them a stipend and monopoly in perpetuity if their work becomes part of the cultural zeitgeist.
I design control loops in a paper mill. If a bag of cement built with my paper builds a highly successful theme park, I'm not entitled to a lifetime stipend. Why should musicians or writers, who will spend no more time or effort on their craft, be entitled to such a stipend?
Back to your question, let me re-frame it for you. If you write a few popular songs and have 130 years of royalties to look forward to, why bother writing anymore songs? The limited term is required to ensure creators have an incentive to continue creating. If giving people a lifetime paycheque ensured they'd be productive artists, then there'd be thousands of incredible artists coming from the welfare system.
Yes. Europeans don't have constitutions. All they have are bitter losers without day jobs or reading comprehension.
No, we give THOSE people presidental pardons and multi-million dollar CEO jobs.
Yeah! This is just like all those satanists!
Oh wait. Satanists don't exist.
Neither do people who sincerely oppose commercial exploitation of copyrights.
However, there are plenty of people who think the terms are far far too long. I won't be allowed to publically sing the same "happy birthday" song my parents sang on my 1st birthday on my deathbed. Think about that.
Short answer: This is exactly what people around here think copyright should cover.
There might be some questions as to whether the copyright term is too long (it undoubtedly is -- 140 years is only "limited time" in the broadest sense of the word), but selling copyrighted material for profit is explicitly what many slashdotters believe copyright exists to protect against.
Ok, let me get this straight. I design an industrial plant in 2000, and it gets sold for 300 million in 2010, and I don't get to see a dime? It's just not fair! I'm entitled to my slice of the pie for my creative work! I should get at least a few grand every time my plant changes hands!
I'm fixated on what engineers use their computers for.
I design things all day, and all I've got, all I need, is an ancient Intel 865 video chipset built into the motherboard of my Dell Optiplex.
I don't want or need a GPU, neither does anyone else in our department.
Score: -1, told an uncomfortable truth about what a 3GHz machine should be able to do.
If you don't believe we've got a culture, you're dumber than that kid who killed himself because someone stole his iPod, thus becoming "an hero". You're dumber than Bush. You're dumber than the writers of Happy Days when they figured the Fonz jumping a shark was a good idea.
If you don't believe we've got a culture, the terrorists win, because winners don't do drugs.
Honestly though, quit being such a pathetic self-pitying loser. "Oh noes! The tollerant people told me to be tollerant!"
Guess what? You don't have to be tollerant. It's a free country. Nobody is going to lock you up for saying what's on your mind. Quit being such a pussy and accept it. Just as it's your right to say that the Jews control the media and Muslims are crazy religious wackjobs, it's their right to say you're an intollerant ass, and God bless this time we live in where both groups are allowed to say it.
In the words of Ron Paul, you need to shut your whore mouth and follow the constitution.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
If the industrial plant I design continues to run for 100 years, I don't get a 100-year stipend from the company. Why should anyone else get an eternal pension for a one-off work?
I disagree. Steamboat willie, the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, really ought to be in the public domain by now. It's a piece of our culture. It is because it became a part of our culture that Diseny has made billions of dollars on the property, but it is because it becomes part of our culture that it ought to be freed after a reasonable time to make a profit has elapsed.
Our language, and our culture requires the assimilation of the arts. That same assimilation can make people rich, but when an old man's childhood memories are subject to copyright, and will be until decades after his death, copyright has become an unreasonable limitation on our culture.
Best example: The birthday song my parents sung me on my 1st birthday will be copyrighted until after I'm dead. How is that just?
That doesn't say bad things about the video card, it says bad things about X11 and KDE.
People have been drawing anti-aliased text for over a decade. Windows 95 with the plus pack had a version, Windows 98 had a version, Windows XP introduced subpixel rendering, and all of that was fast enough to run on a P2-500 with a crappy Intel video chip. I remember having anti-aliased fonts on Windows 95 running on my 386.
Not just Microsoft, either. BeOS can run at meteoric speeds using only the Vesa driver. Guess what? Full anti-aliased fonts.
It seems pretty ignorant to blame the hardware when everyone else on the planet has been able to get anti-aliased fonts to work with a fraction of the video bandwidth and processing power.
Windows XP runs just fine. I was running Firefox on XP last night with the unaccelerated default drivers, and it was virtually indistinguishable from using the accelerated drivers -- which is to say, it was crazy fast. Could it be that Linux just isn't that quick?
I mean, it's 2008. You shouldn't need to watch task swapping take place on a 2d desktop.
Probably becuase Linux guis suck.
My Windows XP has been crazy fast since the OS was released.
Hell, I was using an unaccelerated default generic driver last night because I was installing a new copy of XP, and it was STILL fast enough.
You're just a Dungeons and Dragons playing Obama supporter.
You know, Those role-playing games and comic books are tearing America apart!!!
Most Engineers I know tend to use 2d.
If they need 3d, it tends to be in a way where you don't need much more than an Nvidia professional card, which is exactly what they use.
Um...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you going around talking about the performance of 2d parts?
In 2008?
Seriously?
Are you sure you want to do that?
I mean, you'll look stupid.
Seriously. A straight framebuffer device can pretty much update at full speed without using a fraction of the PCI-E bus or a fraction of the processing power of a modern CPU.
Oh yeah, it's really easy to design a great x86 processor.
All you have to do is spend millions of dollars recruiting the team that designed the most revered processor in the world, license the finest technologies from multiple companies, spend 20 years as a "second source" to acquire the rights to create x86 compatible parts(and fight constantly in court for years and years to retain those rights), and gamble your entire company on creating a competitor to the fastest x86 processor in the world, then after gaining some marketshare and mindshare, gamble your entire company on a dramatic new design idea.
Really easy.
(God you're stupid.)
Ok people, let's ignore that the person proposing the solar cells made in a pizza oven is a woman. Let's ignore that women in science and engineering are exceedingly rare.
That spade is NOT a spade. It's a CUCUMBER, and anyone who tells you differently is a commie!
I'd argue that you're wrong. a CPU is a CENTRAL processing unit. a GPU is a specialised branch processor which may be as powerful, but isn't central to the operation of the unit.
You can boot a PC without a GPU, but you can't boot a PC without a CPU.