Your argument doesn't make sense. The fact that you are not allowed to use it for public performances and the manufacturing of copies means that, by definition, you do indeed only own a limited licence to view that DVD (or whatever.) at home.
There's a difference between "being allowed to do something" and "having a license". Let me give an example.
If you buy a can of pesticide, you're allowed to do some things with it, but not others. For example, you're allowed to use it to spray your roses, but not to empty it into the public sewage system. But you don't say you have a "license to spray your roses" with the pesticide. You don't need a license, since it's not illegal in the first place. However, if you get a permit to pour a limited amount of pesticide into the sewers, that's a kind of license, since doing it is normally disallowed.
With copyrighted material, you don't need a license to view, read or use it in private, since that's not illegal in the first place. However, if you want to make copies of it, you need to get permission from the copyright holder. That permission is a "license", since it allows you to do something which is normally disallowed.
I guess it's just semantics, but it's more legally correct to use the word "license" this way.
If you could "do whatever you want with it" how could they stop you from using it for paying public performances? If I buy a physical car, I can use it for my business however I see fit, including painting it pink and racing it for prize money.
The way copyright law is worded, it reserves to the creator of a work the right to make copies of it and perform it publicly. That's why a license is needed for those things.
Copyright law is, however, silent on private use, so it's allowed by default. That's why a license is not needed.
Copyright law doesn't talk about "intellectual property" or "owning a work". Those are political terms, not legal. The law just lists a number of specific rights which are reserved to the creator of a work.
(Then there are a number of exceptions and complications, for example, that you're allowed to make copies for backup purposes in some cases. I guess those exceptions can be called "licenses", in a sense.)
That's the part you don't understand, it's been true since the dawn of copyright but many people are just ignorant to the fact that you never owned it, what you bought was a license, not the content.
Not according to the law. When you walk into a store and buy a music CD, DVD, or whatever, you buy that specific physical copy, not a license. You can play that copy at home without a license. A license (=permission) is only required to do something which is normally forbidden, and copyright doesn't apply to private performances, only to public performances and the manufacturing of copies.
The copyright lobby would have you believe they have absolute rights to copyrighted content, and can control when and how you use it. That's a lie. Once they sell you a physical copy, the law allows you to do whatever you want with it (excepting performing it publicly or manufacturing copies).
In my country, official government documents such as court proceedings, protocols, reports, and so on, are not copyrighted. You don't even need to make a "fair use" argument, since copyright doesn't apply to them in the first place.
I'm guessing it's somewhat similar in most Western countries.
Then I don't disagree with you, but there's still a difference between things which derive most of their value from how useful we perceive them to be (such as cows), and things which derive most of their value from being used as currency (such as paper money).
Are you sure? The world produces more than it's ever done before, so I'm under the impression that we just have different priorities. As long as there's no threat of war ("hot" or "cold") the state can't raise enough money for moon landings, because people think their iPhones, 3D movies and sunny vacations are more important.
It's not that we can't, it's that we don't want to. The practical use of going to the moon was very small. It only happened because the USA needed to make a show of force towards the USSR.
Consider all the other things we do today which were inconceivable in the era of the moon landings, such as information technology, which have a much greater impact on people's lives. We've also made substantial progress towards eliminating disease and hunger across the globe.
In the USA, it requires a significant number of states to agree to the amendment (don't know how many).
I don't know about the UK, but in Sweden, a change to our "constitution" (Grundlag) only requires two successive governments, with an election in between, to approve the change. Moreover, courts can only strike down a law if it is in obvious violation of the Grundlag - i.e, the party who wants to overthrow a law has a much higher burden of proof than their opponents.
That sounds strange. You mean you can't get monetary compensation in the US if a government agency, such as the police or social services, make a mistake, or even break their own rules?
If you exchange a plot of land for three cows, it's not just an agreed-upon value; it's the value you personally assign to the land. If that's imaginary, then all value is imaginary, whether it be cows, cocoa leaves, the plot of land, your computer, etc.
Bit coins are highly variable - if I take out a policy against 10,000 bit coins, and they're lost, what value would the policy pay out based on? The value at the time I got my policy? The value at the time they were stolen? The value at the time the claim is settled? Does this take into account that if someone steals a large number of bitcoins, they're probably going to liquidate them quickly, which would depress the market? If the policy is based on the value at the time it's issued, the insured party has a motivation to purposefully lose or destroy the coins if the market dramatically drops - the insured value is higher than the market value. On the other hand, if the policy is based on the market value at the time of the incident, the insurance company's costs can skyrocket and no sane underwriter would write such a policy.
The last - the BitCoins would be insured at the value they have at the time of loss, up to the insurance value. This is not different from how insuring a building works - you pay a sum each month (say, $500) based on the insurance value you choose (say, $1 million), and if the building burns up, you get the building's actual value at the time of the fire, but not more than $1 million.
I haven't checked if the study is double-blind, but if it isn't, it doesn't even prove the differences exist. It's very easy to see differences when you expect them to be there.
Slashdot Mirror
The philosophy in the first movie made sense... not so the 2nd and 3rd.
Perhaps people are just upset about incompetence and having their freedoms violated?
... the FBI lay behind the credit card theft themselves?
Your argument doesn't make sense. The fact that you are not allowed to use it for public performances and the manufacturing of copies means that, by definition, you do indeed only own a limited licence to view that DVD (or whatever.) at home.
There's a difference between "being allowed to do something" and "having a license". Let me give an example.
If you buy a can of pesticide, you're allowed to do some things with it, but not others. For example, you're allowed to use it to spray your roses, but not to empty it into the public sewage system. But you don't say you have a "license to spray your roses" with the pesticide. You don't need a license, since it's not illegal in the first place.
However, if you get a permit to pour a limited amount of pesticide into the sewers, that's a kind of license, since doing it is normally disallowed.
With copyrighted material, you don't need a license to view, read or use it in private, since that's not illegal in the first place. However, if you want to make copies of it, you need to get permission from the copyright holder. That permission is a "license", since it allows you to do something which is normally disallowed.
I guess it's just semantics, but it's more legally correct to use the word "license" this way.
If you could "do whatever you want with it" how could they stop you from using it for paying public performances? If I buy a physical car, I can use it for my business however I see fit, including painting it pink and racing it for prize money.
The way copyright law is worded, it reserves to the creator of a work the right to make copies of it and perform it publicly. That's why a license is needed for those things.
Copyright law is, however, silent on private use, so it's allowed by default. That's why a license is not needed.
Copyright law doesn't talk about "intellectual property" or "owning a work". Those are political terms, not legal. The law just lists a number of specific rights which are reserved to the creator of a work.
(Then there are a number of exceptions and complications, for example, that you're allowed to make copies for backup purposes in some cases. I guess those exceptions can be called "licenses", in a sense.)
That's the part you don't understand, it's been true since the dawn of copyright but many people are just ignorant to the fact that you never owned it, what you bought was a license, not the content.
Not according to the law. When you walk into a store and buy a music CD, DVD, or whatever, you buy that specific physical copy, not a license. You can play that copy at home without a license. A license (=permission) is only required to do something which is normally forbidden, and copyright doesn't apply to private performances, only to public performances and the manufacturing of copies.
The copyright lobby would have you believe they have absolute rights to copyrighted content, and can control when and how you use it. That's a lie. Once they sell you a physical copy, the law allows you to do whatever you want with it (excepting performing it publicly or manufacturing copies).
It's not lack of energy that keeps us from going to the moon. It's manpower and equipment that costs too much.
Cash is not a good indicator of available energy. Manpower tends to cost a lot more than the energy for a given project.
But why would there be ten specific religious taboos on each of the plagues?
If we're at the peak now, why did we do the moon landings in the 60's and early 70's?
You're counting on the Pound collapsing faster than the Euro?
This is not a catch-22, it's a cost of doing business. The lawyer needs to purchase the information for the application and failed to do so.
Ah, but what if the other party buys the copyright to the publication the prior art is published in, and refuses to license it at any cost?
In my country, official government documents such as court proceedings, protocols, reports, and so on, are not copyrighted. You don't even need to make a "fair use" argument, since copyright doesn't apply to them in the first place.
I'm guessing it's somewhat similar in most Western countries.
Then I don't disagree with you, but there's still a difference between things which derive most of their value from how useful we perceive them to be (such as cows), and things which derive most of their value from being used as currency (such as paper money).
Are you sure? The world produces more than it's ever done before, so I'm under the impression that we just have different priorities. As long as there's no threat of war ("hot" or "cold") the state can't raise enough money for moon landings, because people think their iPhones, 3D movies and sunny vacations are more important.
It's not that we can't, it's that we don't want to. The practical use of going to the moon was very small. It only happened because the USA needed to make a show of force towards the USSR.
Consider all the other things we do today which were inconceivable in the era of the moon landings, such as information technology, which have a much greater impact on people's lives. We've also made substantial progress towards eliminating disease and hunger across the globe.
In the USA, it requires a significant number of states to agree to the amendment (don't know how many).
I don't know about the UK, but in Sweden, a change to our "constitution" (Grundlag) only requires two successive governments, with an election in between, to approve the change. Moreover, courts can only strike down a law if it is in obvious violation of the Grundlag - i.e, the party who wants to overthrow a law has a much higher burden of proof than their opponents.
That sounds strange. You mean you can't get monetary compensation in the US if a government agency, such as the police or social services, make a mistake, or even break their own rules?
You mean, escapes from modern day communists.
Out of the frying pan, into the fire?
I'd buy that for a pound sterling!
I'll buy that for 10 Euros in a couple of years.
Eh... BitCoins are supposed to be generated by third parties. That's part of the point.
If you exchange a plot of land for three cows, it's not just an agreed-upon value; it's the value you personally assign to the land. If that's imaginary, then all value is imaginary, whether it be cows, cocoa leaves, the plot of land, your computer, etc.
Bit coins are highly variable - if I take out a policy against 10,000 bit coins, and they're lost, what value would the policy pay out based on? The value at the time I got my policy? The value at the time they were stolen? The value at the time the claim is settled? Does this take into account that if someone steals a large number of bitcoins, they're probably going to liquidate them quickly, which would depress the market? If the policy is based on the value at the time it's issued, the insured party has a motivation to purposefully lose or destroy the coins if the market dramatically drops - the insured value is higher than the market value. On the other hand, if the policy is based on the market value at the time of the incident, the insurance company's costs can skyrocket and no sane underwriter would write such a policy.
The last - the BitCoins would be insured at the value they have at the time of loss, up to the insurance value. This is not different from how insuring a building works - you pay a sum each month (say, $500) based on the insurance value you choose (say, $1 million), and if the building burns up, you get the building's actual value at the time of the fire, but not more than $1 million.
You want USA to annect them?
That's what I said.
I haven't checked if the study is double-blind, but if it isn't, it doesn't even prove the differences exist. It's very easy to see differences when you expect them to be there.
Do you have any reason to believe it was so?