Your argument was that English majors are not worthwhile (etc).
No, that was shadowfaxcrx. I jumped into the discussion half-way. And I don't think shadowfaxcrx meant to disrespect English majors specifically - he also mentions web design as an example of a less than useful education.
I do, however, doubt that the college you go to makes much difference. I think most of the differences between the students exist before they get into a college, in the form of social background and motivation. It's natural that the students who get into the most prestigious universities are the most ambitious ones with the highest grades, so it's no wonder they also succeed better later in life.
On the other side of that, a solid English degree from a first or second tier institution provides communications skills, which are key in any endeavor.
Hm... well, I don't have that kind of education. I just make sure to read carefully.
It still creates a lot of uncertainty in the market, though - someone who uses public domain works in their own production, may suddenly find they have to pay licensing fees they didn't anticipate, and if they can't afford them, they'll have to cease distributing their own work and lose the time and money they invested into it. The rules change after the game has started, so to speak. The uncertainty may scare people away from using public domain works, which defeats the purpose of public domain.
Licensing fees tend to be a big problem for documentary producers (who use lots of photographs and film clips) and small film makers who want to include music in their production.
To be fair, the Constitution only explicitly prohibits indefinite copyright.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but the constitution states the purpose of copyright law must be to promote the arts, so presumably, if it's not at all suitable for that purpose, it's unconstitutional. Or is that taking the constitution's wording too far?
It's almost as equally far-fetched to equate "Congress has extended copyright length retroactively one time" with "Congress is establishing indefinite copyright terms."
Yes, that's not a good argument. If history repeats itself (which seems likely), the argument should carry somewhat more weight, though.
Well, obviously he was inspired to write the symphony because he knew, deep in his heart, that 50 years after his death a record company would still be able to sell records with his music with a decent profit.
It's very short-sighted to think that way - if the government needs more tax money, it's better to just increase the income tax by a fraction of a percent, and not ruin a part of the economy along the way.
The entertainment industry is very small in terms of its share of the GNP - the industry is only important because free culture and free speech have significant indirect effects on a nation.
God, what a far-fetched argument. Uncertain future gains with unknown probabilities are practically worthless - you have no choice but to disregard them, since you can't calculate their expected value. And that's assuming the artist even considers the gains their works will generate far in the future, after their own death.
One of the principles of economy is that market rules need to be predictable and well-known for agents to act rationally on them. For example, the government can't give an incentive for people to build more houses by saying they *might* lower the housing tax some time in the future. Anyone who calculated with the tax break would take a risk, and that risk would also represent a cost to the builder.
1. There's no actual harm to orchestras (untrue; and even if it can be argued that the harm is small in purely economic terms, it has a significant effect on academics, research and fine arts) 2. The smaller orchestras have no right to use music without paying (irrelevant, since that right was already granted to them by letting the works fall into the public domain, and taking it back at a later date is similar to confiscation)
You do understand that the issue here is letting works fall into the public domain and than taking them back, don't you?
"I see that it is too expensive for you to play Prokovief. Why is that more important than Rightholder A making money off of his sheet music?"
You're probably right that the judges will reason that way, but the proper answer to the above is:
"Granting Rightsholder A the right to make money from his sheet music does not produce any net benefits; it merely transfers money from the buyer to the rightsholder. The transfers need to stimulate production of new works to have a net benefit, and extending copyright on existing works doesn't qualify. Extending copyright on those works does, however, result in a net loss, since they have a hemming effect on the performance of said works, which means fewer people will be able to enjoy and benefit from them."
It's also legally very problematic to retroactively revoke rights. If a work is in the public domain, you have the right to do what you want with it, including performing them publicly and creating derived works. If the work becomes copyrighted again, who owns the derived works? What happens if someone has bought and paid for the copyright to a derived work?
That's like saying anyone who criticises the political system is against elected representatives.
You can be critical of academia *as it exists today* without being against formal practices of generating and passing on knowledge in themselves. Furthermore, you can be against formal education without being against university research. Furthermore, you can be critical of the quality and usefulness of today's formal education without being against formal education in itself.
Furthermore, colleges and universities are not the only providers of formal education. For example, there are certifications and online courses which may be more useful for some people and parts of the economy.
Seems to me that "college is a waste of time" is an economic, not an anti-learning argument.
What's the difference?
The difference is that you're not against learning or academia in themselves. For example, you can believe computer science research is useful and worthwhile, but that the best way to apply computer science is to pick the knowledge up as you go along solving real-world problems, not studying courses for a number of years before you begin your career.
With today's rapid changes in the economy, and in the IT field in particular, which forces you to keep updating your knowledge your whole life, it makes more sense than before to pick it up as you go along
Economically college can be a waste of time. How many English majors are out there making huge bucks vs how many of them are working at Home Depot?
I love this tired myth.
The average salary for English majors from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and the top tier of Liberal Arts Colleges is well over $150K at age fifty. Compare to the average salary of tech graduates from the ITT level... the difference is the quality of the person and institution, not the major.
The people who go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton and so on are not a representative sample of the people who attend college. They usually start out with a better socio-economic status and better contacts than other college attendees. Contacts (and knowing how to use them) are extremely important in getting a job.
Well, since the OP argued against his professors, I'll assume he doesn't think knowledge is just a social construct. There'd be little reason for his professors to be upset if he merely argued his own viewpoint was equally valid.
Btw, technically speaking, knowledge IS a social construct. The question is if it's MERELY a social construct.
Assuming college provides adequate intellectual stimulus... in my experience, formal education focuses very much on rote learning, and if you want to really understand something, it's better to study it on your own.
I don't see a problem with articles about conditions in the USA, as long as they make clear they only pertain to US conditions. It only annoys me when someone assumes US conditions apply to the whole world, and I don't think articles (or summaries) here on Slashdot usually make that mistake.
I like to read a lot about US copyright law and foreign policy, because, like it or not, what they do affect things in my own country.
Man-made global warming and the position that focus fusion is not viable are not scientific theories, and they're not tested in the sense that scientific theories are.
It seems to be common nowadays to confuse scientific theories (e.g, the theory of evolution, heliocentricity, germ theory) with statements made on a scientific basis (e.g, the viability of focus fusion, meteorological predictions, recommendations for vaccination) or scientific hypotheses (e.g, anthropogenic global warming, the origin of life).
Well, yes, but sometimes you have to wonder if they really need a full-time, supposedly qualified, IT person just to pass along questions... and if the bosses would think she was worth her money if they really understood what was going on.
Well, if they were black hats to begin with, and only switched sides to get out of prison themselves, they're not really any better than their former friends.
Well, it doesn't measure programming ability in itself, but it makes you wonder how serious someone is about learning to program. Why not learn touch typing when it makes your job so much easier?
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument was that English majors are not worthwhile (etc).
No, that was shadowfaxcrx. I jumped into the discussion half-way. And I don't think shadowfaxcrx meant to disrespect English majors specifically - he also mentions web design as an example of a less than useful education.
I do, however, doubt that the college you go to makes much difference. I think most of the differences between the students exist before they get into a college, in the form of social background and motivation. It's natural that the students who get into the most prestigious universities are the most ambitious ones with the highest grades, so it's no wonder they also succeed better later in life.
On the other side of that, a solid English degree from a first or second tier institution provides communications skills, which are key in any endeavor.
Hm... well, I don't have that kind of education. I just make sure to read carefully.
Thanks for the info.
It still creates a lot of uncertainty in the market, though - someone who uses public domain works in their own production, may suddenly find they have to pay licensing fees they didn't anticipate, and if they can't afford them, they'll have to cease distributing their own work and lose the time and money they invested into it. The rules change after the game has started, so to speak. The uncertainty may scare people away from using public domain works, which defeats the purpose of public domain.
Licensing fees tend to be a big problem for documentary producers (who use lots of photographs and film clips) and small film makers who want to include music in their production.
I just said I'm NOT complaining...
Don't take it too hard :)
To be fair, the Constitution only explicitly prohibits indefinite copyright.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but the constitution states the purpose of copyright law must be to promote the arts, so presumably, if it's not at all suitable for that purpose, it's unconstitutional. Or is that taking the constitution's wording too far?
It's almost as equally far-fetched to equate "Congress has extended copyright length retroactively one time" with "Congress is establishing indefinite copyright terms."
Yes, that's not a good argument. If history repeats itself (which seems likely), the argument should carry somewhat more weight, though.
So when someone criticises academia, you take that criticism to include, for example, certifications and online computer science courses?
Well, obviously he was inspired to write the symphony because he knew, deep in his heart, that 50 years after his death a record company would still be able to sell records with his music with a decent profit.
It's very short-sighted to think that way - if the government needs more tax money, it's better to just increase the income tax by a fraction of a percent, and not ruin a part of the economy along the way.
The entertainment industry is very small in terms of its share of the GNP - the industry is only important because free culture and free speech have significant indirect effects on a nation.
God, what a far-fetched argument. Uncertain future gains with unknown probabilities are practically worthless - you have no choice but to disregard them, since you can't calculate their expected value. And that's assuming the artist even considers the gains their works will generate far in the future, after their own death.
One of the principles of economy is that market rules need to be predictable and well-known for agents to act rationally on them. For example, the government can't give an incentive for people to build more houses by saying they *might* lower the housing tax some time in the future. Anyone who calculated with the tax break would take a risk, and that risk would also represent a cost to the builder.
You're conflating two different arguments here:
1. There's no actual harm to orchestras (untrue; and even if it can be argued that the harm is small in purely economic terms, it has a significant effect on academics, research and fine arts)
2. The smaller orchestras have no right to use music without paying (irrelevant, since that right was already granted to them by letting the works fall into the public domain, and taking it back at a later date is similar to confiscation)
You do understand that the issue here is letting works fall into the public domain and than taking them back, don't you?
"I see that it is too expensive for you to play Prokovief. Why is that more important than Rightholder A making money off of his sheet music?"
You're probably right that the judges will reason that way, but the proper answer to the above is:
"Granting Rightsholder A the right to make money from his sheet music does not produce any net benefits; it merely transfers money from the buyer to the rightsholder. The transfers need to stimulate production of new works to have a net benefit, and extending copyright on existing works doesn't qualify. Extending copyright on those works does, however, result in a net loss, since they have a hemming effect on the performance of said works, which means fewer people will be able to enjoy and benefit from them."
It's also legally very problematic to retroactively revoke rights. If a work is in the public domain, you have the right to do what you want with it, including performing them publicly and creating derived works. If the work becomes copyrighted again, who owns the derived works? What happens if someone has bought and paid for the copyright to a derived work?
That's like saying anyone who criticises the political system is against elected representatives.
You can be critical of academia *as it exists today* without being against formal practices of generating and passing on knowledge in themselves. Furthermore, you can be against formal education without being against university research. Furthermore, you can be critical of the quality and usefulness of today's formal education without being against formal education in itself.
Furthermore, colleges and universities are not the only providers of formal education. For example, there are certifications and online courses which may be more useful for some people and parts of the economy.
Seems to me that "college is a waste of time" is an economic, not an anti-learning argument.
What's the difference?
The difference is that you're not against learning or academia in themselves. For example, you can believe computer science research is useful and worthwhile, but that the best way to apply computer science is to pick the knowledge up as you go along solving real-world problems, not studying courses for a number of years before you begin your career.
With today's rapid changes in the economy, and in the IT field in particular, which forces you to keep updating your knowledge your whole life, it makes more sense than before to pick it up as you go along
Economically college can be a waste of time. How many English majors are out there making huge bucks vs how many of them are working at Home Depot?
I love this tired myth.
The average salary for English majors from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and the top tier of Liberal Arts Colleges is well over $150K at age fifty. Compare to the average salary of tech graduates from the ITT level... the difference is the quality of the person and institution, not the major.
The people who go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton and so on are not a representative sample of the people who attend college. They usually start out with a better socio-economic status and better contacts than other college attendees. Contacts (and knowing how to use them) are extremely important in getting a job.
Well, since the OP argued against his professors, I'll assume he doesn't think knowledge is just a social construct. There'd be little reason for his professors to be upset if he merely argued his own viewpoint was equally valid.
Btw, technically speaking, knowledge IS a social construct. The question is if it's MERELY a social construct.
Assuming college provides adequate intellectual stimulus... in my experience, formal education focuses very much on rote learning, and if you want to really understand something, it's better to study it on your own.
I don't see a problem with articles about conditions in the USA, as long as they make clear they only pertain to US conditions. It only annoys me when someone assumes US conditions apply to the whole world, and I don't think articles (or summaries) here on Slashdot usually make that mistake.
I like to read a lot about US copyright law and foreign policy, because, like it or not, what they do affect things in my own country.
Man-made global warming and the position that focus fusion is not viable are not scientific theories, and they're not tested in the sense that scientific theories are.
It seems to be common nowadays to confuse scientific theories (e.g, the theory of evolution, heliocentricity, germ theory) with statements made on a scientific basis (e.g, the viability of focus fusion, meteorological predictions, recommendations for vaccination) or scientific hypotheses (e.g, anthropogenic global warming, the origin of life).
Don't feed the troll...
Hm, each one of those majority positions has a chance of being wrong. I wouldn't be too sure not one of them turns out to be.
Wouldn't it make perfect sense for different government agencies to try to rob from each other, since they have different budgets?
Well, yes, but sometimes you have to wonder if they really need a full-time, supposedly qualified, IT person just to pass along questions... and if the bosses would think she was worth her money if they really understood what was going on.
Well, if they were black hats to begin with, and only switched sides to get out of prison themselves, they're not really any better than their former friends.
Well, it doesn't measure programming ability in itself, but it makes you wonder how serious someone is about learning to program. Why not learn touch typing when it makes your job so much easier?
Thanks, will check it out.