Patent and copyright are both broken in that they reward mere firstness infinitely more than quality of implementation. They get the whole concept ass-backwards. Ideas are a dime a dozen. It's implementation and marketing where the real work lies. Any fool can have a brilliant idea, indeed we all have them every time we discover something that doesn't work as well as we would like, and in fact I had three yesterday. Probably all three have already been solved in one way or another by other people, but the fact that I don't have, or even know about, a solution implies that the solution isn't good enough or hasn't been marketed well enough. There may be plenty of possible better solutions than mine already thiught of, that the patent system is making non viable because some asshole got there *first* with their half-assed device.
The patent system is even worse than that. At least in the story in the article, the plaintiff has actually implemented *some* kind of solution, however ridiculously expensive. The current US patent system rewards trolling: *not* implementing *anything*, just sitting on the patent until some poor bastard actually bothers to think up a viable solution and produces it, then springing out to snatch a share of *their* work.
And this is the system the US is frantically, despertely attempting to foist onto the rest of the world.
The thing that really gives me the shudders about this is the 1984-style public recantation: "We understand Nintendo's right to protect its characters and trademarks and understand how in order to keep their property unspoiled by fan's interpretation of the franchise, Nintendo needs to protect itself -- even from fan-works with good intentions." You can just imagine the tearful, contrite speech through broken teeth...
Sad? Sad? Dude, this is Rupert Fucking Murdoch we're talking about. The most evil man alive. Every second his foul influence remains on the earth is a second too long.
they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existence and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.
When you consider that it only takes two or three fundy whackjobs complaining about nipples or language to get TV and radio shows fined, it looks even more disgusting.
It is a hell of a lot less "wrong" to download a pirate copy of a game to see if it works properly, than it is to release a game that doesn't work properly.
I'm sure as soon as the RIAA put out a press release that clarifies or contradicts their earlier statements, the "journalists" will print that without comment or analysis too.
Judge Judy is a bad choice there - she tends to go for the quick, harsh, and "obvious" (including a very strong implication that you are a fuckwit for thinking any differently) solution. That is very likely to be "don't steal songs". Do you think Judge Judy will recognize any human need for music?
If that isn't good enough, do without. Just because you want it doesn't mean *anyone* is under any obligation to make it available to you. It isn't ethics; it's the free market, stupid. There are lots of books from those in current publication to those written by authors long dead that aren't available as an eBook. Just because you want one of those in an eBook format doesn't somehow justify pirating a copy; nor does it justify pirating the book in question.
Back atcha. Just because you want money for every single copy doesn't mean *anyone* is under any obligation to give you money when they can make a copy without involving you. That would be the 'free market' in action: the natural cost of distribution is zero, and propping it up above zero--particularly with legislation, something the typical libertard otherwise equates with scabies--is the interference with the market's actions. It's not the 'pirate' (a stupid term propagated by stupid people - copyright violators do not normally interfere with commercial shipping) who is obliged to justify his action of copying, it's the copyright holder who is obliged to justify why preventing copying is a better thing for the economy as a whole. (Which can never be done, and therefore, copyright holders will tend to fall back on whining, tattling, and pulling at the skirts of the legislature.)
Grow up and quit whining that the world doesn't give you everything you want.
If you can't see which side is simply doing what the technology allows, and which side is whining that advancing technology is interfering with their vast desire for precious precious money, it's you who needs to do some growing up.
I don't know if you libertards are just unbelievably stupid or are intentionally lying, but I'm inclined to think it's the latter. The natural state of commerce, in the unregulated 'free' market, is to form monopolies of various kinds, and suppress--brutally, if need be--any and all threats to that monopoly power. The failure of government to properly restrain this tendency, thanks to billions of dollars of lobbying spent on lying to the American public (like you) to the effect that "Jesus loves rich people and wants you to be one, so you should let corporations do whatever they like" is the primary cause of the USA's present troubles. Small business is good capitalism; big business is worse than communism, because at least under communism, there's a basic pretense of working for the good of equal fellow men, rather than to further enrich people who are already richer than you or I could possibly become in a dozen lifetimes.
I wonder who Obama will pick for the two empty seats on the SCOTUS, and what their take on this issue is.
Unfortunately, while Obama is by far the better choice in every other way, the Democrats are as bad, if not worse, than the Repugs on the matter of copyright. Look up Fritz Hollings and Dianne Feinstein, for example. Fellating the RIAA is a bipartisan activity; which makes it not an issue of distinction between the major parties of the US. Unlike, say, abortion, gays, or evolution, copyright reform can't be used as a bell to ring out the single-issue voter. Even if you are a single issue voter and copyright is your issue, there is no-one for you to vote for (except for a handful of meaningless retards who will never be elected if they ran over and over again until the heat-death of the Universe). So it's an issue you need to leave aside when selecting your President.
That said, on voting day I strongly recommend you either (a) vote for Obama; (g) go shoot yourself, to assuage your future guilt and save yourself the horror of living under a McCain administration.
No, their reasoning for charging so much is to make the ordinary person so afraid to violate copyrights, that people do not do this perfectly ordinary and easy thing to do, for fear of "being caught".
BitTorrent by definition can't be used to steal stuff. There is absolutely no way, even with your full cooperation, for me to use BitTorrent to take away anything you own.
And even worse - how the hell did you get modded +5 informative for it?
Because it's really, really, really fucking annoying. His claim isn't a reasoned argument, it's an angry accusation - that he is absolutely right to make.
I think I might develop a liking for throwing stones at the roof of your house, Unpossible. But you better not ask for me to be regulated, because next time, they might end up banning you from leaving your house during daylight hours or something.
You're forgetting that the concepts of "discretion" and "judgement" can be (and always should be) applied to regulation. But I guess if you understood or believed in those, you couldn't be a libertarian.
By the legal theory that you can't say you're doing one thing, and enter into contracts on that basis, and then actually do something else. (Not that I support link-farmers in any way; just answering the question.)
Newspapers lack a Comments box. Letters to the Editor are an 1800's technology. They are slow; it will be at least a day, probably two, before your letter appears. Letters are heavily and arbitrarily censored. Many letters are simply "not printed" for no apparent reason; in their arrogance, the newspaper people assume that letter-writers will simply take that kind of crap from them, and keep trying. If they do choose to publish my letter, the idiotic 'editing process' they put it through is insulting to me, and to anyone who prides themselves on their ability to write. I've had sub-editors leave out sentences that are critical to the entire purpose of my letter, insert or remove words that change the entire meaning of sentences, and in short, I am over it. Writing to the newspaper is a fool's game.
What I want is the article, and on the same page as the article, a "Comments" box, where I and others may publicly discuss the article, and not have our comments messed with unless they fail to meet some (fairly low) standards designed to prevent trolling, user-fights, and spamvertising.
Slashdot Mirror
The patent system is even worse than that. At least in the story in the article, the plaintiff has actually implemented *some* kind of solution, however ridiculously expensive. The current US patent system rewards trolling: *not* implementing *anything*, just sitting on the patent until some poor bastard actually bothers to think up a viable solution and produces it, then springing out to snatch a share of *their* work.
And this is the system the US is frantically, despertely attempting to foist onto the rest of the world.
Plutocracy, or kleptocracy, depending on whether you view them as merchants or thieves.
Just a guess, but I suspect your name is neither female nor visibly "ethnic".
The thing that really gives me the shudders about this is the 1984-style public recantation: "We understand Nintendo's right to protect its characters and trademarks and understand how in order to keep their property unspoiled by fan's interpretation of the franchise, Nintendo needs to protect itself -- even from fan-works with good intentions." You can just imagine the tearful, contrite speech through broken teeth ...
Sad? Sad? Dude, this is Rupert Fucking Murdoch we're talking about. The most evil man alive. Every second his foul influence remains on the earth is a second too long.
... is there anything stupid, evil or simply wrong that they will not do?
That would have taken about a teaspoon of paint.
When you consider that it only takes two or three fundy whackjobs complaining about nipples or language to get TV and radio shows fined, it looks even more disgusting.
It is a hell of a lot less "wrong" to download a pirate copy of a game to see if it works properly, than it is to release a game that doesn't work properly.
Except that SSH solves the problem.
I'm sure as soon as the RIAA put out a press release that clarifies or contradicts their earlier statements, the "journalists" will print that without comment or analysis too.
Judge Judy is a bad choice there - she tends to go for the quick, harsh, and "obvious" (including a very strong implication that you are a fuckwit for thinking any differently) solution. That is very likely to be "don't steal songs". Do you think Judge Judy will recognize any human need for music?
If that isn't good enough, do without. Just because you want it doesn't mean *anyone* is under any obligation to make it available to you. It isn't ethics; it's the free market, stupid. There are lots of books from those in current publication to those written by authors long dead that aren't available as an eBook. Just because you want one of those in an eBook format doesn't somehow justify pirating a copy; nor does it justify pirating the book in question. Back atcha. Just because you want money for every single copy doesn't mean *anyone* is under any obligation to give you money when they can make a copy without involving you. That would be the 'free market' in action: the natural cost of distribution is zero, and propping it up above zero--particularly with legislation, something the typical libertard otherwise equates with scabies--is the interference with the market's actions. It's not the 'pirate' (a stupid term propagated by stupid people - copyright violators do not normally interfere with commercial shipping) who is obliged to justify his action of copying, it's the copyright holder who is obliged to justify why preventing copying is a better thing for the economy as a whole. (Which can never be done, and therefore, copyright holders will tend to fall back on whining, tattling, and pulling at the skirts of the legislature.) Grow up and quit whining that the world doesn't give you everything you want. If you can't see which side is simply doing what the technology allows, and which side is whining that advancing technology is interfering with their vast desire for precious precious money, it's you who needs to do some growing up.
I don't know if you libertards are just unbelievably stupid or are intentionally lying, but I'm inclined to think it's the latter. The natural state of commerce, in the unregulated 'free' market, is to form monopolies of various kinds, and suppress--brutally, if need be--any and all threats to that monopoly power. The failure of government to properly restrain this tendency, thanks to billions of dollars of lobbying spent on lying to the American public (like you) to the effect that "Jesus loves rich people and wants you to be one, so you should let corporations do whatever they like" is the primary cause of the USA's present troubles. Small business is good capitalism; big business is worse than communism, because at least under communism, there's a basic pretense of working for the good of equal fellow men, rather than to further enrich people who are already richer than you or I could possibly become in a dozen lifetimes.
Depends whether or not you want me to kill you and take your stuff.
If it fails, it'll fail on the meaning of the word "fine", which is (I think) a reserved word in the law.
Unfortunately, while Obama is by far the better choice in every other way, the Democrats are as bad, if not worse, than the Repugs on the matter of copyright. Look up Fritz Hollings and Dianne Feinstein, for example. Fellating the RIAA is a bipartisan activity; which makes it not an issue of distinction between the major parties of the US. Unlike, say, abortion, gays, or evolution, copyright reform can't be used as a bell to ring out the single-issue voter. Even if you are a single issue voter and copyright is your issue, there is no-one for you to vote for (except for a handful of meaningless retards who will never be elected if they ran over and over again until the heat-death of the Universe). So it's an issue you need to leave aside when selecting your President.
That said, on voting day I strongly recommend you either (a) vote for Obama; (g) go shoot yourself, to assuage your future guilt and save yourself the horror of living under a McCain administration.
No, their reasoning for charging so much is to make the ordinary person so afraid to violate copyrights, that people do not do this perfectly ordinary and easy thing to do, for fear of "being caught".
BitTorrent by definition can't be used to steal stuff. There is absolutely no way, even with your full cooperation, for me to use BitTorrent to take away anything you own.
Because it's really, really, really fucking annoying. His claim isn't a reasoned argument, it's an angry accusation - that he is absolutely right to make.
Does this imply a fix to the "We're sorry, but the TV show episode you wish to view is not available from your location." annoyance?
I think I might develop a liking for throwing stones at the roof of your house, Unpossible. But you better not ask for me to be regulated, because next time, they might end up banning you from leaving your house during daylight hours or something.
You're forgetting that the concepts of "discretion" and "judgement" can be (and always should be) applied to regulation. But I guess if you understood or believed in those, you couldn't be a libertarian.
By the legal theory that you can't say you're doing one thing, and enter into contracts on that basis, and then actually do something else. (Not that I support link-farmers in any way; just answering the question.)
Or asking a biochemist to make you a cake.
What I want is the article, and on the same page as the article, a "Comments" box, where I and others may publicly discuss the article, and not have our comments messed with unless they fail to meet some (fairly low) standards designed to prevent trolling, user-fights, and spamvertising.