Elimination of copyright laws would destroy innovation and would collect intellectual properties into large corporations and would gaurantee the move to strong DRM.
If we eliminated copyright laws, yes, you'd get all of the existing books, software, movies, and music for virtually nothing... and there would be a short term spike in amount of new products that were created as derivatives of these products. But... there would be no money, initially, in continuing to invest in these products. Publishing houses would lose money on books, because anyone who could print it cheaper could undercut them... meaning their marketing and initial investments in the author are lost. Software development houses would fall into the same boat... once they produce an innovative idea, that idea would be immediately copied and reproduced and the profits from the use of the idea (specifically the implementation code) would be redirected to others. And their software itself could be resold by anyone... so...
the big corporations with big distribution would thrive. The bigger your distribution network the more powerful you become. All you have to do is identify new products, get a copy, and then sell access to those products. Bittorrent and other P2P may level the field some, until...
everyone realizes there is a MASSIVE financial incentive to ultra strong DRM in everything. If you can create this technology and deploy it, you can then avoid copyrights entirely, and deal exclusively with licenses which are legal constructs you can fashion into just about anything that benefits you. No more fair use. You licensed the product and if they can manage to make a copy fine... of course the owners of the DRM solution are going to take a cut per license and maybe at the behest of their biggest customer will require you to pay an upfront licensing or setup fee (maybe $100... maybe $10000). So small time content producers either make a big investment (which may not be returned) or release their products without any protections. Of course the big time shops will snatch up the content, bundle it with their existing content and make a profit, while the small time guy makes $0.
The current copyright model isn't perfect... the copyright extensions need to be reduced. But without legal support for restricting the ability to copy someones work you will usher in the new age of slow innovation, big corporations, and DRM so strong that DVD Jon will die before it's cracked (or cracked on not successfully prosecuted as theft).
Although there is a group of people who create meaningful content purely for the personal enjoyment of it, the underlying assumption is that they have a means by which they can pursue this hobby. This means they're either independantly wealthy, spend only their spare time on the project while they use their other time to earn money to live, or they are taking a risk with the expectation that they'll be paid. That's on an individual level. Group efforts, corporate efforts, are almost always expecting a return and those non-profits that aren't are independantly funded. The point... if you take away a opportunity to make a return from content that you have created that other people are willing to pay for then you drastically reduce the pool of content producers and thereby reduce the pools of available new content.
Of course I'm wrong... and everyone will keep working their day jobs writing code... and authors will keep writing books for nothing... and we'll all just sit around and create high quality new and innovative content with a virtual certainity that we'll recieve no compensation for it.
Attribution of copyright/authorship is tied directly to copyright. Without copyright laws I can copy anything I would like to and claim it as my own or chose not to cite the original author without any legal fears. As for lying, not only is that common practice, but I could easily skirt the ethical issues by making modifications to the original work and claiming it as my own, even though it is highly derivative.
Here are some thoughts
* Any constraint creates a false scarcity. * Atribution of creation is legally enforced through copyright. * Copyrights by definition create a constraint, even if they only require attribution (see/. post about clause in GPLv3 requiring text in the binary... thereby making GPLv3 code unusable for embedded projects fighting for each byte of space). * Attribution creates a false scarcity, even if it is minor, and sense you are against all false scarcity (all constraints) you are against attribution and the copyrights that enforce it?
Oh I'm absurd... of course what did you really mean? Explain it in more detail.
CORPORATIONS WANT POWER. WHAT IS DIGITAL MEDIA ? HOW MUCH DOES IT COST ? zero, nada. THESE COPS BEHAVE JUST AS THE CHURCH, THEY WANT TO SAY WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT. hardware is different... much more physical in a sense,
Hey everybody it's RMS... or a crazy old man who hasn't been given his medicine this week.
So you are against copyrights entirely? All copyrights create scarcity by placing demands on the owner of a copy. Even physical copies can't be reproduced in whole w/o permission. The only thing that has changed is the barriers related to reproduction of copyrighted material have been significantly reduced, in some cases almost to zero. Would you support me if I took a complete copy of something you created, distributed it and took credit for creating it?
Seriously, this is the right approach, but it doesn't solve you're whole problem. Every other company is like this too. You can't change it. It's all the same. Your life will be miserable. The only way to deal with this miserable existance is to... leave. Time to call Jack Kavorkian.
You can buy a radio for $10. Why do you need a television for news and weather? The answer is you don't. This is a bullshit waste of money. Anyways, the cable and dish companies would just run a promotion that would allow you finance a digital TV.
Thanks for the comment template. I'll use this template anytime any new feature of any product is released. It'll save me so much time having to actually think up a specific meaningful response.
Times have changed. "Intel inside" signified performance as well as a standard tried-and-true processing platform. It meant, "no knock offs" and "Windows and your other applications will work here fine". Now, AMD has a strong competitive position and have proven that they can produce chips that outperform and are as reliable as Intels... "Intel inside" has lost most of it's relevance. Cost and performance are the major concerns today and so Intel has adopted "Leap Ahead" to help position itself as the performance leader which will help them justify higher costs (slightly or not so slightly). They may also use this "Leap ahead" to signify that their chips and chipsets have more capabilities.
You could be right about the pizza-place-return issue... good insight really, but I think the idea of Blockbuster expanding their in store inventory to the equal all of the available DVDs is more likely and a workable business model (assuming licensing can be worked out). And if you can replace a store w/ a kiosk then you can make movie/media rentals available at any retail establishment.
We don't you moron! You draw your own line, make your own decisions. This bullshit idea that "we", whatever the hell that means, have to come to some sort of consensus is idiotic. Make up your own mind about what works for you and leave the rest of use alone.
As we become more connected, we have the right to be paranoid.
Bullshit. You don't have the right to be paranoid... no one can stop you from being paranoid... but that doesn't somehow impart a right to you in the same sense that you have the right to free speech or to practice your religion. Sure, you might want to be paranoid, or be inclined to be more paranoid... but that's a behavior and action a choice on your part, not some sort of right. If anything our "rights" are being assaulted by careless use of the term "right"... everything is a right so that truly important rights become lost in the sea of rights to paranoia, and right to wear a tinfoil hat in public, and my right to run Linux on every single thing that might sustain an electric current.
Before any DVD you want will be either available on demand over the Internet, or available for immediate burn at your local blockbuster (or kiosk). A Coke Machine sized vending machine could easily store hundreds of DVDs and have a high speed connection to the Internet to download more of them as needed. Why not order a pizza and have a DVD of your choice delivered w/ it? Netflix idea fits a niche right now, but I don't think it's viable over the next 5-10 years.
This article, written in JANUARY, provides a better overview of the product.
A few interesting quotes...
That's because the QWERTY layout was never intended to slow down typists - a common accusation from Dvorak supporters - but to allow them to type quickly without jamming the keys in their typewriters. In other words, QWERTY was designed to be efficient, too.
The New Standard Keyboard addresses the issue of key layout by subsuming ergonomics and typing efficiency for the sake of the hunt-and-peck typist.
Meaning it targets the lowest common denominator... another quote I read said that it was target at (or atleast could appeal to) senior citizens and those who don't know how to type. I can see that... but figure the market for people who are going to die before it makes sense to learn how to type is probably not that large or sustainable. Could be wrong.
Anyways the website for the product is here, and appears to under reconstruction. Lame... like the color scheme of this keyboard.
that your "End of Days Compensation Package" is largely determined by your religious beliefs, your compliance to the requirements of those beliefs, and whether or not those religious beliefs are actually backed up by a real God/gods/force/FSM/great nothingness/etc. But I guess you were just talking about losing your job.
If you had been wearing your tinfoil hat while reading the study you would have found that the study shows that tinfoil hats are the only sure protection from invasive mind control waves. Of course, by now the government has manipulated your mind so you will be unable to see the truth and will see lies about why you should not wear tinfoil hats. Trust no one!
Slashdot Mirror
Someone got fired... so what? Really, why is this news?
Elimination of copyright laws would destroy innovation and would collect intellectual properties into large corporations and would gaurantee the move to strong DRM.
If we eliminated copyright laws, yes, you'd get all of the existing books, software, movies, and music for virtually nothing... and there would be a short term spike in amount of new products that were created as derivatives of these products. But... there would be no money, initially, in continuing to invest in these products. Publishing houses would lose money on books, because anyone who could print it cheaper could undercut them... meaning their marketing and initial investments in the author are lost. Software development houses would fall into the same boat... once they produce an innovative idea, that idea would be immediately copied and reproduced and the profits from the use of the idea (specifically the implementation code) would be redirected to others. And their software itself could be resold by anyone... so...
the big corporations with big distribution would thrive. The bigger your distribution network the more powerful you become. All you have to do is identify new products, get a copy, and then sell access to those products. Bittorrent and other P2P may level the field some, until...
everyone realizes there is a MASSIVE financial incentive to ultra strong DRM in everything. If you can create this technology and deploy it, you can then avoid copyrights entirely, and deal exclusively with licenses which are legal constructs you can fashion into just about anything that benefits you. No more fair use. You licensed the product and if they can manage to make a copy fine... of course the owners of the DRM solution are going to take a cut per license and maybe at the behest of their biggest customer will require you to pay an upfront licensing or setup fee (maybe $100... maybe $10000). So small time content producers either make a big investment (which may not be returned) or release their products without any protections. Of course the big time shops will snatch up the content, bundle it with their existing content and make a profit, while the small time guy makes $0.
The current copyright model isn't perfect... the copyright extensions need to be reduced. But without legal support for restricting the ability to copy someones work you will usher in the new age of slow innovation, big corporations, and DRM so strong that DVD Jon will die before it's cracked (or cracked on not successfully prosecuted as theft).
Although there is a group of people who create meaningful content purely for the personal enjoyment of it, the underlying assumption is that they have a means by which they can pursue this hobby. This means they're either independantly wealthy, spend only their spare time on the project while they use their other time to earn money to live, or they are taking a risk with the expectation that they'll be paid. That's on an individual level. Group efforts, corporate efforts, are almost always expecting a return and those non-profits that aren't are independantly funded. The point... if you take away a opportunity to make a return from content that you have created that other people are willing to pay for then you drastically reduce the pool of content producers and thereby reduce the pools of available new content.
Of course I'm wrong... and everyone will keep working their day jobs writing code... and authors will keep writing books for nothing... and we'll all just sit around and create high quality new and innovative content with a virtual certainity that we'll recieve no compensation for it.
Attribution of copyright/authorship is tied directly to copyright. Without copyright laws I can copy anything I would like to and claim it as my own or chose not to cite the original author without any legal fears. As for lying, not only is that common practice, but I could easily skirt the ethical issues by making modifications to the original work and claiming it as my own, even though it is highly derivative.
/. post about clause in GPLv3 requiring text in the binary... thereby making GPLv3 code unusable for embedded projects fighting for each byte of space).
Here are some thoughts
* Any constraint creates a false scarcity.
* Atribution of creation is legally enforced through copyright.
* Copyrights by definition create a constraint, even if they only require attribution (see
* Attribution creates a false scarcity, even if it is minor, and sense you are against all false scarcity (all constraints) you are against attribution and the copyrights that enforce it?
Oh I'm absurd... of course what did you really mean? Explain it in more detail.
I support you AC.
CORPORATIONS WANT POWER. WHAT IS DIGITAL MEDIA ? HOW MUCH DOES IT COST ? zero, nada. THESE COPS BEHAVE JUST AS THE CHURCH, THEY WANT TO SAY WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT. hardware is different ... much more physical in a sense,
Hey everybody it's RMS... or a crazy old man who hasn't been given his medicine this week.
So you are against copyrights entirely? All copyrights create scarcity by placing demands on the owner of a copy. Even physical copies can't be reproduced in whole w/o permission. The only thing that has changed is the barriers related to reproduction of copyrighted material have been significantly reduced, in some cases almost to zero. Would you support me if I took a complete copy of something you created, distributed it and took credit for creating it?
leave!
Seriously, this is the right approach, but it doesn't solve you're whole problem. Every other company is like this too. You can't change it. It's all the same. Your life will be miserable. The only way to deal with this miserable existance is to... leave. Time to call Jack Kavorkian.
and got my money in 2 weeks. Very nice!
Any movie w/ Milla Jovovich should be in the criterion collection... instant classic!
You can buy a radio for $10. Why do you need a television for news and weather? The answer is you don't. This is a bullshit waste of money. Anyways, the cable and dish companies would just run a promotion that would allow you finance a digital TV.
in feudal Japan if ropes could have dropped down and ninjas could have poured out of the airship unto the unsuspecting armies below.
Dude, the aliens have been using those things for ages now.
Thanks for the comment template. I'll use this template anytime any new feature of any product is released. It'll save me so much time having to actually think up a specific meaningful response.
Times have changed. "Intel inside" signified performance as well as a standard tried-and-true processing platform. It meant, "no knock offs" and "Windows and your other applications will work here fine". Now, AMD has a strong competitive position and have proven that they can produce chips that outperform and are as reliable as Intels... "Intel inside" has lost most of it's relevance. Cost and performance are the major concerns today and so Intel has adopted "Leap Ahead" to help position itself as the performance leader which will help them justify higher costs (slightly or not so slightly). They may also use this "Leap ahead" to signify that their chips and chipsets have more capabilities.
I bet there are a lot of ignorant investors gearing up to pour money into this.
You could be right about the pizza-place-return issue... good insight really, but I think the idea of Blockbuster expanding their in store inventory to the equal all of the available DVDs is more likely and a workable business model (assuming licensing can be worked out). And if you can replace a store w/ a kiosk then you can make movie/media rentals available at any retail establishment.
We don't you moron! You draw your own line, make your own decisions. This bullshit idea that "we", whatever the hell that means, have to come to some sort of consensus is idiotic. Make up your own mind about what works for you and leave the rest of use alone.
As we become more connected, we have the right to be paranoid.
Bullshit. You don't have the right to be paranoid... no one can stop you from being paranoid... but that doesn't somehow impart a right to you in the same sense that you have the right to free speech or to practice your religion. Sure, you might want to be paranoid, or be inclined to be more paranoid... but that's a behavior and action a choice on your part, not some sort of right. If anything our "rights" are being assaulted by careless use of the term "right"... everything is a right so that truly important rights become lost in the sea of rights to paranoia, and right to wear a tinfoil hat in public, and my right to run Linux on every single thing that might sustain an electric current.
Please just disregard this idiotic thread.
Before any DVD you want will be either available on demand over the Internet, or available for immediate burn at your local blockbuster (or kiosk). A Coke Machine sized vending machine could easily store hundreds of DVDs and have a high speed connection to the Internet to download more of them as needed. Why not order a pizza and have a DVD of your choice delivered w/ it? Netflix idea fits a niche right now, but I don't think it's viable over the next 5-10 years.
This article, written in JANUARY, provides a better overview of the product.
A few interesting quotes...
That's because the QWERTY layout was never intended to slow down typists - a common accusation from Dvorak supporters - but to allow them to type quickly without jamming the keys in their typewriters. In other words, QWERTY was designed to be efficient, too.
The New Standard Keyboard addresses the issue of key layout by subsuming ergonomics and typing efficiency for the sake of the hunt-and-peck typist.
Meaning it targets the lowest common denominator... another quote I read said that it was target at (or atleast could appeal to) senior citizens and those who don't know how to type. I can see that... but figure the market for people who are going to die before it makes sense to learn how to type is probably not that large or sustainable. Could be wrong.
Anyways the website for the product is here, and appears to under reconstruction. Lame... like the color scheme of this keyboard.
Old news... lame news... next please.
Lassie must be a pretty stupid dog... I've trained my beagles to text me when they have a problem.
that your "End of Days Compensation Package" is largely determined by your religious beliefs, your compliance to the requirements of those beliefs, and whether or not those religious beliefs are actually backed up by a real God/gods/force/FSM/great nothingness/etc. But I guess you were just talking about losing your job.
do what this guy did.
Because if your resume is as grammatically flawed as your post then you're going to be serving me fries w/ my Big Mac.
If you had been wearing your tinfoil hat while reading the study you would have found that the study shows that tinfoil hats are the only sure protection from invasive mind control waves. Of course, by now the government has manipulated your mind so you will be unable to see the truth and will see lies about why you should not wear tinfoil hats. Trust no one!