Yeah, unfortunately the law doesn't read exactly like that. It's applied retroactively to works created since Mickey Mouse appeared. Anything that was not under copyright at that time is not affected by that law.
I totally agree with you. Except for the fact that I DON'T believe in purchasing CD's. I was in a record store yesterday, and didn't see anything that I considered worthy of purchase. Yet, I would pay for a service like emusic, though I'm not sure if I like the way they distribute the money they make. And, here's why. I don't listen to ANY of the CD's I have. I don't have a CD player in my car, and tapes have become too much hassle for me. When, I'm driving, I just listen to the radio, as mediocre and annoying as it is. And, when I'm at home I listen to music on my PC. I'd prefer to simply be able to pay for high quality mp3s from a service that has a reliable, fast connection and a vast selection of music. I prefer to be able to use my general purpose internet connected device to seek out new music that I can preview before I buy. I guess I'm just spoiled, but that's the way I feel about it. CDs no longer have any attraction to me, and I'd like the content industry to make the necessary adjustments to fulfill the needs of the market that I represent. It would be quite profitable for them.
Unfortunately, the CGI studios are in the game to make money not to be freedom fighters. If even one such studio tried to pull that shit, they'd quickly find themselves out of business because another studio with less idiotic licensing terms would take their place in an instant. This is the same principle that the content industry doesn't understand. Their customers are not going to put up with this bullshit greediness. They will go elsewhere if ridiculously inconvenient anti-piracy measures are put in place to restrict their ability to use the content that they have paid for in whatever way they choose. The content industries are fighting a losing battle that would only hurt them if they win. It's stupid. They need to wake up.
No doubt, but using a browser that allows me to reject all cookies from a new cookie desiring domain came in real handy. If you run Linux, try out Konqueror, it maintains a list of your policy regarding cookies for each domain it has encountered. Whenever it encounters a new one that tries to set a cookie it allows you to accept all cookies from that domain without question in the future, deny all cookies for the domain in the future, or accept or deny for only that specific cookie. It's very slick..
No doubt. Great transcript. Like I said in another post, it would have been REALLY interesting if Valenti, Eisner and Rosen were present to state their case in a second segment and then have a third segment where the two sides discussed everything together. Personally, I don't think the content side would have been able to provide even a simulacrum of a convincing argument. I'm biased, though, which provokes me to want to hear a reasoned point blank response from the content industry to the issues enumerated by the panelists. Oh well, maybe another day..
Well, as amiable of a compromise as that sounds, you MUST realize that just about everything that has ever been produced is based of of material in the public domain. Where do you draw the line? Our entire language, every word of it, resides in the public domain, so every work that made use of words would be restricted to your proposed copyright term. The unfortunate part is that public domain works aren't kept track of. You know something's in the public domain only by the lack of a registered copyright on the work. However, the way our copyright system works, everything is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's created. So, how doo you propose to make this plan practical?
Wow! That was one of the best articles (transcripts) I have read in a long time about this issue. The worst flaw in it is that Valenti and Eisner weren't present to present their side of the case. Had they been there, and had the even been run in a structured format that was three times the length of that one, with 1/3 for Grove, Lessig and Arthur, 1/3 Eisner & Valenti, 1/3 Jerry Springer style free for all, they might have actually come to some sort of compromise and plan for the future. Sadly, though, most probably didn't read the transcript of that event, and the content industries will continue to play their stupid little games.
Well, technically it "could", be likely the things that are going around are papers that have been sold to the students rather than text copied from a book. In which case, the owner of the copyright is encouraging that use of the material. Either way, nobody's going to go after kids for copying papers as a copyright violation, it's just very not worth the trouble.
Did you hear that? Frank White, the owner of White Castle, just admitted that they make their burgers out of homeless children. It's unfortunate that he was modded to -1, I thought that was a pretty bold, though off-topic, admission of guilt. Yet,/. just brushes it under the rug.. We don't want to know the TRUTH!!! You people make me sick, just keep eating your White Castles then... Screw it all..
I'm saying that playing the lottery every day for a billion years sure as hell does increase your odds of winning it, EVENTUALLY. It won't increase your chances of winning it on any one particular day, but when you look at the odds across that span of time, they don't look half bad. The problem would be staying alive long enough to make the odds favor you.
Here's another example:
If one day you decide to walk across a busy street without looking both ways, your chances of getting hit by a car might not be TOO bad. However, if you make it a practice to do so every day, you will eventually get hit. You see, although the odds of you getting hit are the same every day, the repeated testing of those odds ensures that you will get hit eventually. Thus bringing the odds of you getting hit by a car nearly to 100%.
So, what the hell are you talking about? Your statistics are about as practically useful as a gun to the head, thus my first example of Russian roulette.
You didn't need to read the article, it was just a bunch of recycled quotes that we all saw last year and the year b4. Wired == Tired. It was basically all about the "BIG DEAL" created by Deep-Linking, something easily blocked by a competent web admin, yet some idiots had to take it to court, AGAIN. Don't fucking bother, get some rest and continue to be nice to your dog..
Or people could invest in companies that were doing something valuable and as such would be likely to make a profit. Just because theives, liars and politicians don't make their money that way, doesn't mean everyone else can't.
Or, we can take your road....
Lemme sell you on an idea... Let's start a business where we take capture homeless people, expecially children, kill them, butcher them, and sell them to fast food processing plants as raw material! I'd say we'd have a high profit margin, because homeless people are easy to sneak up on while they're sleeping, nobody will miss them and we don't have to breed and feed them like ranchers do with cattle. Would you like to invest? If not, would you like to be a customer? Or a customer of our customers?
No, that's copyright violation, which is a *copy* of the text.
Plagiarize \'pla-je-,riz also j - -\ vb -rized; -riz*ing vt [plagiary] : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (a created production) without crediting the source vi: to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source - pla*gia*riz*er n
Plagiarism is different from copyright violation in that, it requires only a "theft" of ideas without giving credit to the source. Usually it's meaning is applied in academic or journalistic realms, in which the important factor is that you are not being honest about the source of the idea. It is not a copyright violation to paraphrase someone, though it may be a theft of their ideas. To avoid being labelled as an "idea stealer", people tend to give credit to the originator of the idea when quoting or paraphrasing their work. However, it's not illegal not to give that credit, but it can get you expelled from school or fired from a job.
Of course I could be wrong about all of this... That's just how I understand it.
I'm sure it appears that way from your limited perception of time. So, let's put things on your time scale: How many times in a row would you play Russian Roulette? Not very many, I think.
So, it's Open Source software is like a chain letter, but backwards? "Pass this on to five of your friends and they too will get sued by Microsoft!! Ignore this and live a happy, successful life free from frivolous lawsuits!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!!"
Microsoft can't enforce their license without the power of the US Government which also grants them their "intellectual property" rights that are in question here. So, yeah, I think this most definiitely WOULD fall under the jurisdiction of the US Government.
And, is plagiarism a crime? I thought it was just a violation of academic ethics.
Wouldn't work. They'd just file it as "obvious", since they do it everyday themselves. Then, they'd file their own patent on the process with slightly different wording, grant it to themselves and process as many silly applications as they could each day and charge each applicant an additional "silliness" fee on top of the standard registration fee.
No it's not. That's what they are paid to do. If they are unable to do it, then there is a problem with the organization or the law that charges them with that responsibility. Your claim, that patents should be automatically accepted without discrimination, is extremely short-sighted. The Patent Office is there to act as a filter, so that the burden of arguing the merits of the enormous number of patent applications does not fall to the court system, which is overburdened bullshit as it is.
Rather than claim that it's too expensive to filter out bad patents, why don't you suggest a practical solution that doesn't involve making thousands of lawyers even richer at the expense of the taxpayer. For instance, a system in which the patent office is payed a licensing fee on sales of goods that are covered by the patent protection it provides for the length of the patent's term. If corporations don't feel it's worth it to share the expense for the protection provided them by the patent, then they can refuse to pay the licensing fee, which would push their patent off the books and open the market for competition. Additionally, any patent that the inventor has not brought to market by the mid-point of the patent term would automatically expire, opening the market to competition. IMO, this would drastically reduce the number of bulshitters, lawyers and patent-hoarders involved in the process and actually serve to promote progress while paying for the cost of running the patent office.
One has to wonder when the music industry is ever going to just shut the fuck up and get with the program. How long do they think they can fool people into believing that their lack of success is due to the "evil" of others while they continue to repeatedly deny reality and make really bad business decisions. Enough already.
I doubt that the plants are depending on us to burn hydrocarbons for survival. With the earth's population distribution what it is I think it would be a better idea to grow more plants in the cities where billions of natural CO2 factories (humans) already exist. In this way we could shorten the O2/CO2 cycle that both we and plants depend on. I hardly think that the plants of the world need more CO2 than can be produced automatically by sustenance of our overcrowded human populations.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, unfortunately the law doesn't read exactly like that. It's applied retroactively to works created since Mickey Mouse appeared. Anything that was not under copyright at that time is not affected by that law.
I totally agree with you. Except for the fact that I DON'T believe in purchasing CD's. I was in a record store yesterday, and didn't see anything that I considered worthy of purchase. Yet, I would pay for a service like emusic, though I'm not sure if I like the way they distribute the money they make. And, here's why. I don't listen to ANY of the CD's I have. I don't have a CD player in my car, and tapes have become too much hassle for me. When, I'm driving, I just listen to the radio, as mediocre and annoying as it is. And, when I'm at home I listen to music on my PC. I'd prefer to simply be able to pay for high quality mp3s from a service that has a reliable, fast connection and a vast selection of music. I prefer to be able to use my general purpose internet connected device to seek out new music that I can preview before I buy. I guess I'm just spoiled, but that's the way I feel about it. CDs no longer have any attraction to me, and I'd like the content industry to make the necessary adjustments to fulfill the needs of the market that I represent. It would be quite profitable for them.
.
Unfortunately, the CGI studios are in the game to make money not to be freedom fighters. If even one such studio tried to pull that shit, they'd quickly find themselves out of business because another studio with less idiotic licensing terms would take their place in an instant. This is the same principle that the content industry doesn't understand. Their customers are not going to put up with this bullshit greediness. They will go elsewhere if ridiculously inconvenient anti-piracy measures are put in place to restrict their ability to use the content that they have paid for in whatever way they choose. The content industries are fighting a losing battle that would only hurt them if they win. It's stupid. They need to wake up.
No doubt, but using a browser that allows me to reject all cookies from a new cookie desiring domain came in real handy. If you run Linux, try out Konqueror, it maintains a list of your policy regarding cookies for each domain it has encountered. Whenever it encounters a new one that tries to set a cookie it allows you to accept all cookies from that domain without question in the future, deny all cookies for the domain in the future, or accept or deny for only that specific cookie. It's very slick..
No doubt. Great transcript. Like I said in another post, it would have been REALLY interesting if Valenti, Eisner and Rosen were present to state their case in a second segment and then have a third segment where the two sides discussed everything together. Personally, I don't think the content side would have been able to provide even a simulacrum of a convincing argument. I'm biased, though, which provokes me to want to hear a reasoned point blank response from the content industry to the issues enumerated by the panelists. Oh well, maybe another day..
.
Well, as amiable of a compromise as that sounds, you MUST realize that just about everything that has ever been produced is based of of material in the public domain. Where do you draw the line? Our entire language, every word of it, resides in the public domain, so every work that made use of words would be restricted to your proposed copyright term. The unfortunate part is that public domain works aren't kept track of. You know something's in the public domain only by the lack of a registered copyright on the work. However, the way our copyright system works, everything is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's created. So, how doo you propose to make this plan practical?
Wow! That was one of the best articles (transcripts) I have read in a long time about this issue. The worst flaw in it is that Valenti and Eisner weren't present to present their side of the case. Had they been there, and had the even been run in a structured format that was three times the length of that one, with 1/3 for Grove, Lessig and Arthur, 1/3 Eisner & Valenti, 1/3 Jerry Springer style free for all, they might have actually come to some sort of compromise and plan for the future. Sadly, though, most probably didn't read the transcript of that event, and the content industries will continue to play their stupid little games.
.
Well, technically it "could", be likely the things that are going around are papers that have been sold to the students rather than text copied from a book. In which case, the owner of the copyright is encouraging that use of the material. Either way, nobody's going to go after kids for copying papers as a copyright violation, it's just very not worth the trouble.
.
Did you hear that? Frank White, the owner of White Castle, just admitted that they make their burgers out of homeless children. It's unfortunate that he was modded to -1, I thought that was a pretty bold, though off-topic, admission of guilt. Yet,
I'm saying that playing the lottery every day for a billion years sure as hell does increase your odds of winning it, EVENTUALLY. It won't increase your chances of winning it on any one particular day, but when you look at the odds across that span of time, they don't look half bad. The problem would be staying alive long enough to make the odds favor you.
Here's another example:
If one day you decide to walk across a busy street without looking both ways, your chances of getting hit by a car might not be TOO bad. However, if you make it a practice to do so every day, you will eventually get hit. You see, although the odds of you getting hit are the same every day, the repeated testing of those odds ensures that you will get hit eventually. Thus bringing the odds of you getting hit by a car nearly to 100%.
So, what the hell are you talking about? Your statistics are about as practically useful as a gun to the head, thus my first example of Russian roulette.
.
Grow a brain!! Learn how to stop people from doing that. You're just complaining because you're too lazy to learn how to do shit right.
You didn't need to read the article, it was just a bunch of recycled quotes that we all saw last year and the year b4. Wired == Tired. It was basically all about the "BIG DEAL" created by Deep-Linking, something easily blocked by a competent web admin, yet some idiots had to take it to court, AGAIN. Don't fucking bother, get some rest and continue to be nice to your dog..
.
Or people could invest in companies that were doing something valuable and as such would be likely to make a profit. Just because theives, liars and politicians don't make their money that way, doesn't mean everyone else can't.
Or, we can take your road....
Lemme sell you on an idea... Let's start a business where we take capture homeless people, expecially children, kill them, butcher them, and sell them to fast food processing plants as raw material! I'd say we'd have a high profit margin, because homeless people are easy to sneak up on while they're sleeping, nobody will miss them and we don't have to breed and feed them like ranchers do with cattle. Would you like to invest? If not, would you like to be a customer? Or a customer of our customers?
.
No, that's copyright violation, which is a *copy* of the text.
Plagiarize \'pla-je-,riz also j - -\ vb -rized; -riz*ing vt [plagiary] : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (a created production) without crediting the source vi: to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source - pla*gia*riz*er n
Plagiarism is different from copyright violation in that, it requires only a "theft" of ideas without giving credit to the source. Usually it's meaning is applied in academic or journalistic realms, in which the important factor is that you are not being honest about the source of the idea. It is not a copyright violation to paraphrase someone, though it may be a theft of their ideas. To avoid being labelled as an "idea stealer", people tend to give credit to the originator of the idea when quoting or paraphrasing their work. However, it's not illegal not to give that credit, but it can get you expelled from school or fired from a job.
Of course I could be wrong about all of this... That's just how I understand it.
.
I'm sure it appears that way from your limited perception of time. So, let's put things on your time scale: How many times in a row would you play Russian Roulette? Not very many, I think.
.
So address them already!! tap tap tap.....
tap tap tap..... Hello!!
fuckit.
So, it's Open Source software is like a chain letter, but backwards? "Pass this on to five of your friends and they too will get sued by Microsoft!! Ignore this and live a happy, successful life free from frivolous lawsuits!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!!"
Ok.
.
Microsoft can't enforce their license without the power of the US Government which also grants them their "intellectual property" rights that are in question here. So, yeah, I think this most definiitely WOULD fall under the jurisdiction of the US Government.
And, is plagiarism a crime? I thought it was just a violation of academic ethics.
Fuck off troll, and listen. This is NOT a CODE LICENSE.
This is not a license on code. It is a license on a Technical Reference. Pay attention. This was on
Wouldn't work. They'd just file it as "obvious", since they do it everyday themselves. Then, they'd file their own patent on the process with slightly different wording, grant it to themselves and process as many silly applications as they could each day and charge each applicant an additional "silliness" fee on top of the standard registration fee.
.
No it's not. That's what they are paid to do. If they are unable to do it, then there is a problem with the organization or the law that charges them with that responsibility. Your claim, that patents should be automatically accepted without discrimination, is extremely short-sighted. The Patent Office is there to act as a filter, so that the burden of arguing the merits of the enormous number of patent applications does not fall to the court system, which is overburdened bullshit as it is.
Rather than claim that it's too expensive to filter out bad patents, why don't you suggest a practical solution that doesn't involve making thousands of lawyers even richer at the expense of the taxpayer. For instance, a system in which the patent office is payed a licensing fee on sales of goods that are covered by the patent protection it provides for the length of the patent's term. If corporations don't feel it's worth it to share the expense for the protection provided them by the patent, then they can refuse to pay the licensing fee, which would push their patent off the books and open the market for competition. Additionally, any patent that the inventor has not brought to market by the mid-point of the patent term would automatically expire, opening the market to competition. IMO, this would drastically reduce the number of bulshitters, lawyers and patent-hoarders involved in the process and actually serve to promote progress while paying for the cost of running the patent office.
One has to wonder when the music industry is ever going to just shut the fuck up and get with the program. How long do they think they can fool people into believing that their lack of success is due to the "evil" of others while they continue to repeatedly deny reality and make really bad business decisions. Enough already.
.
I doubt that the plants are depending on us to burn hydrocarbons for survival. With the earth's population distribution what it is I think it would be a better idea to grow more plants in the cities where billions of natural CO2 factories (humans) already exist. In this way we could shorten the O2/CO2 cycle that both we and plants depend on. I hardly think that the plants of the world need more CO2 than can be produced automatically by sustenance of our overcrowded human populations.
Yeah, all we need is 30,000 script kiddies running distributed trojan bots that query google for the terms that the kiddie has just bought stock in.