Yes your original post was a summation, but it also offered a suggestion as to how things might be remedied through the implementation of a "tax".
The point being that a band-aid tax will not solve the problem because the problem is the perception that copying information is morally wrong. Which it is most definitly not.
Those who founded this country and that piece of law felt that information should be public domain. ALL information.
But this of course would not lead to much creativity. Only those who are rich orcould find a patron (the way it was usually done during the Renaissance) would be able to make a living creating.
Realizing this our founders decided that they would TOLERATE a small MONOPOLY for the sake of creativity.
They gave authors Copyright.
Somehow (read: greed) that has turned into a mad dash for cash and the assumption that anything and everything created is created in a vacuum with no influence from the culture in which is was formed. Nothing angers me more than hearing the RIAA, MPAA, or whoever accusing someone of STEALING a piece of music, movie, code. Those that died for our freedom, those that threw off the Old English Monarchy for a life of Liberty did so in order for its decendants to be free. Not to be imprisioned, fined, or harrassed because we are participating in the spread of our own culture.
Copyright in this day and age has only one purpose. To make as much money as possible. Often times it isn't even the creator that gets the most money. So whats the point anymore? Why does it exist except to make Publishers richer?
I don't have an answer for that. Not one that justifies the loss of Liberty.
-Scott 'Education and Religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have the less they want.' - The Charolette Observer, 1857
Would I be foolish in saying that the argument supplied by the parent is particularly over-complex? I though to of it this way.
If there are human simulations, then we are in one. Why? Because WE sure as hell don't have them =) So our recursives must have them.
If there are no simulators then... there aren't.
Perhaps I'm over-simplifying?
'Education and Religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have the less they want.'
Re:In socialist Canada, the card cashes you!
on
Cashless Society
·
· Score: 1
In the U.S. we have Credit Cards, Debit Cards, or Cash. All of which are excepted at major retail stores, restaurants, etc. If I;m planning on going someplace rural, or a place that doesn't accept credit/debit, I bring cash.
One of the problems one has to grasp not being from the U.S. is that it's freakin' huge. We have a lot of land, so implementing a system such as this and have it be the "final word" is next to impossible. After all you could be driving through some isolated town in Iowa and the buck toothed yahoo in cover-all jeans sure as hell isn't going to accept credit/debit. =)
Re:CNN's cluelessness/MY cluelessness...
on
Cashless Society
·
· Score: 1
Question.
How does the Merchant verify that he has only $80 dollars (assuming Smith is his only customer that day). Sure the machine says $80 but technically couldn't the machine say anything you want it too? Is there another couple steps in there thats missing? Whats to stop someone from hacking the machine? Will it be like cash money where the bank has to report deposits of $10,000 or more?
Re:Okay, I did well on my verbal SATs, but...
on
LOTR: The Two Towers
·
· Score: 1
They serve a very valid and necessary purpose: protecting someone else from stealing your work and thereby depriving you of what you should be earning.
You say "stealing your work". The founding fathers understood then what some do not understand now. Our ideas are not property. However, as an incentive to put down your ideas to paper (or CDs, canvas, etc.) we let go of our right to copy information for profit to allow the creator to have a temporary monopoly.
So yes, the constitution (not just legislators), limits our absolute right to copy information for profit by granting the creator a monopoly on his/her/its creation.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is by this mantra that laws should tested against.
You have the right to life.
You have the right to do what you wish(liberty) so long as it does not violate my right to life.
You have the right to pursue happiness so long as it does not violate my right to liberty or my right to life.
So, does my right to pursue happiness by creating a record and selling it through a publisher override your right to copy that information for profit? No. It fails the check. However, the founding fathers understood that without incentive only the very dedicated and possibly rich (because they can afford to just create art, music, whatever and not worry about an income) would be in a posiiton to create. So in order to encourage innovation for the public good they created copyright law. It is my opinion that the "Recording Industry" and others like them that have overstepped their bounds and have created an atmosphere where your right to copy information is less important than someone elses right to profit from information.
So what we have now is a situation which is counter to what the founding fathers had in mind. Right now the RIAA and its ilk would like things to stay the way they were. In the past a normal person could not copy information in the form of music so well. You had to have expensive machines to make perfect copies. Now, because of innovations in technology, we CAN FINALLY make perfect copies of music, movies, etc. What is the RIAA's response? They want to curtail our right to copy because they are too lazy, or stubborn, to innovate themselves! They do not want to invent a new model for the 21st century and are putting pressure on legislators to make sure it will not be necessary. Or as is quite possible they are simply holding out until they DO find a new model themselves. Thus using law to give them enough time to figure something out, and no doubt paying to have the laws repealed once they do figure it out.
Government: Hey Sony, you're practicing bad business, you'd better stop or we'll shut you down. Sony: Please don't shut us down mister government! If you do all those people who need our servers to watch their movies, listen to their music, and play their video games will no longer be able to. Please! Think of the people! It isn't fair to THEM! Government: Ohh I guess you're right. As you were!
*shiver*
'Education and religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have, the less they want.
- [Charlotte Observer, 1897]'
It doesn't matter. If you are going to copy something for yourself or for someone else they can't tell. So instead assuming that you are innocent until proven guilty you ARE GUILTY.
Why would they need to put these "precautions" into place unless they believed that YOU are a criminal. In there eyes you WILL commit a crime, and they are going to throw out "fair use" to stop you.
'Education and religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have, the less they want.
- [Charlotte Observer, 1897]'
There is indeed a problem with her quote. She's turning 'art' into 'business'. As someone who wishes he had an ounce of artistic ability perhaps I over glorify what it means to be an artist. After all, I always thought it was about the creative process. Sharing my thoughts, ideas, ideals with everyone. Turning my emotions and my life experiences into percievable media. Perhaps I have learned a valuable lesson from Ms. Hillary Rosen. Thanks to her I now know that being an artist is nothing more then a mad-dash for cash. A cheap whoring of my feelings and my abilities.
Excellent. Now thanks to the RIAA I know what being a artist is all about. And now I can steer clear.
Please read up on umbra and penumbra. Suffice it to say a basketball WILL NOT make a shadow larger then itself (if that). Hell even the moon casts only a shadow the size of itself during an eclipse. The direct sunlight will be affected but because of the size of the sun there is a heck of a lot of light that comes in "from the side".
'Education and religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have, the less they want.
- [Charlotte Observer, 1897]'
Slashdot Mirror
Yes your original post was a summation, but it also offered a suggestion as to how things might be remedied through the implementation of a "tax". The point being that a band-aid tax will not solve the problem because the problem is the perception that copying information is morally wrong. Which it is most definitly not.
You're missing the point.
Those who founded this country and that piece of law felt that information should be public domain. ALL information.
But this of course would not lead to much creativity. Only those who are rich orcould find a patron (the way it was usually done during the Renaissance) would be able to make a living creating.
Realizing this our founders decided that they would TOLERATE a small MONOPOLY for the sake of creativity.
They gave authors Copyright.
Somehow (read: greed) that has turned into a mad dash for cash and the assumption that anything and everything created is created in a vacuum with no influence from the culture in which is was formed. Nothing angers me more than hearing the RIAA, MPAA, or whoever accusing someone of STEALING a piece of music, movie, code. Those that died for our freedom, those that threw off the Old English Monarchy for a life of Liberty did so in order for its decendants to be free. Not to be imprisioned, fined, or harrassed because we are participating in the spread of our own culture.
Copyright in this day and age has only one purpose. To make as much money as possible. Often times it isn't even the creator that gets the most money. So whats the point anymore? Why does it exist except to make Publishers richer?
I don't have an answer for that. Not one that justifies the loss of Liberty.
-Scott
'Education and Religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have the less they want.' - The Charolette Observer, 1857
Would I be foolish in saying that the argument supplied by the parent is particularly over-complex? I though to of it this way.
If there are human simulations, then we are in one. Why? Because WE sure as hell don't have them =) So our recursives must have them.
If there are no simulators then... there aren't.
Perhaps I'm over-simplifying?
'Education and Religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have the less they want.'
In the U.S. we have Credit Cards, Debit Cards, or Cash. All of which are excepted at major retail stores, restaurants, etc. If I;m planning on going someplace rural, or a place that doesn't accept credit/debit, I bring cash.
One of the problems one has to grasp not being from the U.S. is that it's freakin' huge. We have a lot of land, so implementing a system such as this and have it be the "final word" is next to impossible. After all you could be driving through some isolated town in Iowa and the buck toothed yahoo in cover-all jeans sure as hell isn't going to accept credit/debit. =)
Question.
How does the Merchant verify that he has only $80 dollars (assuming Smith is his only customer that day). Sure the machine says $80 but technically couldn't the machine say anything you want it too? Is there another couple steps in there thats missing? Whats to stop someone from hacking the machine? Will it be like cash money where the bank has to report deposits of $10,000 or more?
It means the movie was a doctrinarian cessation.
You say "stealing your work". The founding fathers understood then what some do not understand now. Our ideas are not property. However, as an incentive to put down your ideas to paper (or CDs, canvas, etc.) we let go of our right to copy information for profit to allow the creator to have a temporary monopoly.
So yes, the constitution (not just legislators), limits our absolute right to copy information for profit by granting the creator a monopoly on his/her/its creation.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is by this mantra that laws should tested against.
So, does my right to pursue happiness by creating a record and selling it through a publisher override your right to copy that information for profit? No. It fails the check. However, the founding fathers understood that without incentive only the very dedicated and possibly rich (because they can afford to just create art, music, whatever and not worry about an income) would be in a posiiton to create. So in order to encourage innovation for the public good they created copyright law. It is my opinion that the "Recording Industry" and others like them that have overstepped their bounds and have created an atmosphere where your right to copy information is less important than someone elses right to profit from information.
So what we have now is a situation which is counter to what the founding fathers had in mind. Right now the RIAA and its ilk would like things to stay the way they were. In the past a normal person could not copy information in the form of music so well. You had to have expensive machines to make perfect copies. Now, because of innovations in technology, we CAN FINALLY make perfect copies of music, movies, etc. What is the RIAA's response? They want to curtail our right to copy because they are too lazy, or stubborn, to innovate themselves! They do not want to invent a new model for the 21st century and are putting pressure on legislators to make sure it will not be necessary. Or as is quite possible they are simply holding out until they DO find a new model themselves. Thus using law to give them enough time to figure something out, and no doubt paying to have the laws repealed once they do figure it out.
In the future...
Government: Hey Sony, you're practicing bad business, you'd better stop or we'll shut you down.
Sony: Please don't shut us down mister government! If you do all those people who need our servers to watch their movies, listen to their music, and play their video games will no longer be able to. Please! Think of the people! It isn't fair to THEM!
Government: Ohh I guess you're right. As you were!
*shiver*
'Education and religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have, the less they want.
- [Charlotte Observer, 1897]'
It doesn't matter. If you are going to copy something for yourself or for someone else they can't tell. So instead assuming that you are innocent until proven guilty you ARE GUILTY.
Why would they need to put these "precautions" into place unless they believed that YOU are a criminal. In there eyes you WILL commit a crime, and they are going to throw out "fair use" to stop you.
'Education and religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have, the less they want.
- [Charlotte Observer, 1897]'
There is indeed a problem with her quote. She's turning 'art' into 'business'. As someone who wishes he had an ounce of artistic ability perhaps I over glorify what it means to be an artist. After all, I always thought it was about the creative process. Sharing my thoughts, ideas, ideals with everyone. Turning my emotions and my life experiences into percievable media. Perhaps I have learned a valuable lesson from Ms. Hillary Rosen. Thanks to her I now know that being an artist is nothing more then a mad-dash for cash. A cheap whoring of my feelings and my abilities.
Excellent. Now thanks to the RIAA I know what being a artist is all about. And now I can steer clear.
"If you can't protect what you own, you don't own anything," Valenti said in a statement
Lets turn this around a bit.
"If you can't freely use what you own, you don't own anything." - Me
Please read up on umbra and penumbra. Suffice it to say a basketball WILL NOT make a shadow larger then itself (if that). Hell even the moon casts only a shadow the size of itself during an eclipse. The direct sunlight will be affected but because of the size of the sun there is a heck of a lot of light that comes in "from the side".
'Education and religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have, the less they want.
- [Charlotte Observer, 1897]'