If you ignore the scientists who thought going to the Moon in the first place was a waste of time, not one of them thinks we did anything like a suitable amount of research during Apollo. We don't even know what we don't know about the Moon yet. We can't even ask interesting questions!
A copyright reform should give the small guy, those who actually created the work, more rights, not the big cooperations more reasons to screw them. Umm, why? How does that promote science and the useful arts? Please, make an argument.
How does a "normal job" result in a revenue stream for your heirs after you die? Did you even think about that before you wrote it?
Here, I'll make your argument for you: if working on science and the arts will most likely result in a revenue stream for your heirs then people who care greatly for their heirs future riches will stop working 'normal jobs' and take up working on science and the arts, therefore promoting it, which is the goal of copyright.
To which I have to ask, will the number of people switching from these 'normal jobs' to working on science and the arts really make up for the chilling effects that the increased copyright terms will have on science and the arts?
If this really is a problem then it would be tolerable to not cease registered copyright terms when the creator of the work dies.. but seeing as we have fixed terms under this new system, and these terms are reasonable then "waiting them out" is still the strategy most publishers and distributors will take if the timeliness of the work is not relevant.
BTW - why do you continue to use terms like "artist" when we're talking about copyright? Copyright covers a hell of a lot more works than those created by so-called "artists". I can't help but feel it is to evoke some sort of emotional response.
These are exactly the reasons why I suggested it, yes. Giving "recording artists" control over how society can use their works is just retarded.. it's like giving the presidency to an imbecile or something. Oh, I see.
Why? What's the point? I think the point is to promote the sciences and the useful arts. That's what a lot of people think. How does collecting royalties for heirs or some foundation encourage a dead person to make more works? It can't. Does it promote the sciences and useful arts in some other way? How exactly?
It's actually much harder than that. You have to figure out when the work was created and where, and when the creator died, and then there's exceptions for different types of work in some countries.
a fixed length, long enough for the creator to have the opportunity to profit (and hence be motivated to create more), And therefore, by your own justification for the duration of the term, it should expire when the person dies - or, for that matter becomes unable to produce more works of the same type, by say:
1. they lose their mind 2. are imprisoned 3. go missing
or even, that they are so damn rich that a profit motive is unlikely to be effective anymore.
Stopping the already insane copyright system from becoming more insane is a good thing, but it is not the same as actually trying to make it less insane.
1. The copyright must be registered 2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents) 3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try) 4. At time of registration a term can be chosen, and an appropriate fee paid. 5. A reasonable number of extensions (say, three) are permitted, provided a new fee is paid. 6. A set of standard royalties for a common class of work (say, songs) should be decided, and made available to anyone who cares to pay the standard rate. 7. Willful royalty evasion justifies reasonable punitive damages (say, 3 times the standard royalty), nothing else does. 8. Indoctrinated fair use should be ratified by international treaty and be recognized as a means to end a complaint pre-trial.
And that's about the bare minimum needed to make copyright fit for the intended purpose of encouraging the science and the useful arts. It still doesn't make copyright just but it would at least make it something people would be willing to respect.
who manages to get a home router to work out of the box with no configuration? And if you're doing configuration to get your router to work, why are you not setting the password to something other than the default? Seriously, some people need a good kick in the head before they realize they shouldn't stand behind the horse.
You're fucking kidding me right? 25 tabs open.. using 600MB of ram.. that's 24MB per page.. exactly how can you consider that a bad thing? I think you're one of the few people who have actually managed to understate the amount of memory Firefox uses (being that most no-one knows how to measure memory usage).
the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials
to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property 1. which is it, copyrighted materials or intellectual property? Are they trying to suggest the two are synonymous? 2. what illegal downloading are they talking about? Can they state which laws exactly make downloading illegal? Cause if they're talking about the No Electronic Theft act, sorry, that's not relevant to downloading. 3. haha, your stupid country has laws that deal with civil matters with criminal laws.. how fucked are you?
I also have never been satisfactorily explained why the model is outdated. The model is created on copyright law, which is still very current. Copyright law was created to avert the inevitable cultural disaster that came with increased copying and communication potential. The need for copyright law has significantly grown with the internet and P2P. If anything, copyright law and the business model based upon it are less outdated than ever. Living up to your nick I see.
It will be effectively impossible for anyone to debunk the research if it is genuinely good, because that's how science works. Wow, I wanna live in the same universe as you. Science is often debunked by people who know nothing about science. Look at the steam cell and cloning 'debate' in the US.
Wardialers were popular because people often used security via obscurity to protect computer systems instead of proper authentication. "No-one knows the phone number, so we're safe."
Slashdot Mirror
If you ignore the scientists who thought going to the Moon in the first place was a waste of time, not one of them thinks we did anything like a suitable amount of research during Apollo. We don't even know what we don't know about the Moon yet. We can't even ask interesting questions!
Here's a tip, genius, not everyone on Slashdot is in your timezone.
There are already solutions to this "problem". They're called "advances" and frankly, this is clutching at straws.
How does a "normal job" result in a revenue stream for your heirs after you die? Did you even think about that before you wrote it?
Here, I'll make your argument for you: if working on science and the arts will most likely result in a revenue stream for your heirs then people who care greatly for their heirs future riches will stop working 'normal jobs' and take up working on science and the arts, therefore promoting it, which is the goal of copyright.
To which I have to ask, will the number of people switching from these 'normal jobs' to working on science and the arts really make up for the chilling effects that the increased copyright terms will have on science and the arts?
Don't we have some laws already to prevent that? I think they start with 'm'.
Idiot.
If this really is a problem then it would be tolerable to not cease registered copyright terms when the creator of the work dies.. but seeing as we have fixed terms under this new system, and these terms are reasonable then "waiting them out" is still the strategy most publishers and distributors will take if the timeliness of the work is not relevant.
BTW - why do you continue to use terms like "artist" when we're talking about copyright? Copyright covers a hell of a lot more works than those created by so-called "artists". I can't help but feel it is to evoke some sort of emotional response.
These are exactly the reasons why I suggested it, yes. Giving "recording artists" control over how society can use their works is just retarded.. it's like giving the presidency to an imbecile or something. Oh, I see.
Why? What's the point? I think the point is to promote the sciences and the useful arts. That's what a lot of people think. How does collecting royalties for heirs or some foundation encourage a dead person to make more works? It can't. Does it promote the sciences and useful arts in some other way? How exactly?
It's actually much harder than that. You have to figure out when the work was created and where, and when the creator died, and then there's exceptions for different types of work in some countries.
For the US see:
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm
What about him? You and Rakishi should get together and have some training on making an argument.
1. they lose their mind
2. are imprisoned
3. go missing
or even, that they are so damn rich that a profit motive is unlikely to be effective anymore.
Another good reason to be reluctant to become a copyright holder.
Stopping the already insane copyright system from becoming more insane is a good thing, but it is not the same as actually trying to make it less insane.
1. The copyright must be registered
2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents)
3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)
4. At time of registration a term can be chosen, and an appropriate fee paid.
5. A reasonable number of extensions (say, three) are permitted, provided a new fee is paid.
6. A set of standard royalties for a common class of work (say, songs) should be decided, and made available to anyone who cares to pay the standard rate.
7. Willful royalty evasion justifies reasonable punitive damages (say, 3 times the standard royalty), nothing else does.
8. Indoctrinated fair use should be ratified by international treaty and be recognized as a means to end a complaint pre-trial.
And that's about the bare minimum needed to make copyright fit for the intended purpose of encouraging the science and the useful arts. It still doesn't make copyright just but it would at least make it something people would be willing to respect.
We're not talking about the SSID or WPA or WEP here.. we're talking about the administration password on the router.
who manages to get a home router to work out of the box with no configuration? And if you're doing configuration to get your router to work, why are you not setting the password to something other than the default? Seriously, some people need a good kick in the head before they realize they shouldn't stand behind the horse.
Xen won't squeeze VMWare out until they get themselves a freakin' UI that is usable.
You're fucking kidding me right? 25 tabs open.. using 600MB of ram.. that's 24MB per page.. exactly how can you consider that a bad thing? I think you're one of the few people who have actually managed to understate the amount of memory Firefox uses (being that most no-one knows how to measure memory usage).
tight-knit local communities have always been a little creepy to me anyway.
2. what illegal downloading are they talking about? Can they state which laws exactly make downloading illegal? Cause if they're talking about the No Electronic Theft act, sorry, that's not relevant to downloading.
3. haha, your stupid country has laws that deal with civil matters with criminal laws.. how fucked are you?
He's an american, of course he's missing the point.
I was more looking forward to the 5th of November.
Although you probably won't remember it.
Wardialers were popular because people often used security via obscurity to protect computer systems instead of proper authentication. "No-one knows the phone number, so we're safe."