When I was in Thailand and tried to access a wikipedia page about King Rama IX I actually got a friendly page telling me that that page is banned in Thailand. At least they were upfront about it. Much nicer than a 404 or 451.
Of course, I then just pulled up the Google cache copy of it and read that.
Well when the country best suited to lead technological advance is more concerned about preventing marriages that have zero impact on their own life and think that genetic engineering is "playing god" we might be heading to a pretty significant "disruption". It's up to the rest of the world to pick up our slack.
It depends on how old the title is. If you are talking public domain then you have thousands available on Project Gutenberg which you can read on your reader.
And I guess you get your internet connection free since you don't believe in paying for non-durable goods.
It's a pro/con balance thing. I can read a new release without lugging around a hardcover. I can finish one book and immediately switch to the next without having to carry two books on the train - or worse several books when flying for 15+hours. I can bookmark a book on one device and pick it up on another (like my phone). I can instantly get more obscure titles that aren't in store without having to have it shipped.
The biggest downside is that right now you can't read them during take off and landing.
I don't find that to be the case - at least with nook. Nooks are almost always cheaper than hardcover and sometimes cheaper than paperbacks. They also sometimes have sales on nooks but not on the paper version.
Windows 8 and Win RT are two very different things. Windows 8 will likely take off with the changes in 8.1. Once you get passed the odd tile layout and go back to the regular desktop it is a brilliant OS. I hate using XP or 7 now.
RT was just a non-starter with its inherent limitations.
Megablizzard to me implies a "once in a century" type storm. When you get have several of these "once in a century" storms and you tie it together with the "once in a century droughts" and the overall higher global temperatures you start evaluating what is causation and what is coincidence.
It's not un-PC - it's just incorrect. It's not just about temperatures going up. It's about wild variations in the weather patterns (droughts in some areas and floods in others), melting of the ice-caps wiping out coastal cities (where most people live), and impaired food production in countries that already have borderline temperatures.
Well I think art is definitely more of a gamble. The risk is greater and therefore the reward should be greater. Without copyrights, of a reasonable term as I've said, they would potentially not benefit at all. Then why take the risk?
Society doesn't guarantee them income. Not sure where you got that idea. Society just says that for a certain period they should be the only people who DO benefit off their work. Copyright is mainly there so that somebody else can't profit off of my work. If my work sucks, though, I am not going to make enough to live. Nothing changes that.
And copying in the 18th century was an involved process. It wasn't something easily done. Copyright laws followed soon after the printing press for a reason. Before then making a copy probably took longer than actually writing the book in the first place. Not to mention that the literacy rate was ridiculous low.
The problem is you aren't comparing apples to apples. Copying things even just 100 years ago was very difficult and time-consuming. If a wandering minstrel overheard a song from another minstrel then he could copy it and perform it but not on a massive scale. The equivalent today is if 5 minutes after a minstrel performed a new song that every minstrel in the world could perform it an infinite number of times.
No one is saying they have to be compensated but if their work is great than they SHOULD be compensated. Without that then there is no incentive to create amazing art. Have you never read a book or listened to music in your life? Do you have no appreciation for creative works and the effort that goes into them?
You misunderstand, the term doesn't guarantee that they'll make back their money. Most authors wouldn't even come close. It's just a reasonable term that on average would allow somebody to have enough time to make back about the same amount of money. Some artists will make far more and some will make nothing. The market will still determine that.
And why is it any more unreasonable to think that an artist make a living doing art than an accounting doing accounting?
Wow. So nobody should ever be an author, musician, painter, photographer, etc. Why bother doing anything that can be copied. What a sad world we would live in.
I am not saying that every author needs to live like them. But they do need to live.
And those top grossing authors all have one thing in common - they put out bestsellers nearly every year. And for many of them they have multiple movie deals. They most likely spend more hours actually working than most 9-5ers.
People can't feed themselves off of love for what they do. You don't just write a book overnight and feed yourself the next day. You can go years struggling, working odd jobs just to eat, living in poverty, just for the chance that your book will get noticed and receive financial success. The people who can do these truly do love what they do and are willing to make that sacrifice. But even they would have to think twice if at the end they didn't get paid.
Slashdot Mirror
Goddam Ponch and Jon.
When I was in Thailand and tried to access a wikipedia page about King Rama IX I actually got a friendly page telling me that that page is banned in Thailand. At least they were upfront about it. Much nicer than a 404 or 451.
Of course, I then just pulled up the Google cache copy of it and read that.
Not sure what your point is. Yes - from 1863 on we saw more innovation than the previous 2000 years before.
Well when the country best suited to lead technological advance is more concerned about preventing marriages that have zero impact on their own life and think that genetic engineering is "playing god" we might be heading to a pretty significant "disruption". It's up to the rest of the world to pick up our slack.
You missed the part where I said "relatively".
It's less the effectiveness than the cost and regional limitations.
And then we can look at how relatively little progress was made during the 1000+ years previous.
It depends on how old the title is. If you are talking public domain then you have thousands available on Project Gutenberg which you can read on your reader.
And I guess you get your internet connection free since you don't believe in paying for non-durable goods.
It's a pro/con balance thing. I can read a new release without lugging around a hardcover. I can finish one book and immediately switch to the next without having to carry two books on the train - or worse several books when flying for 15+hours. I can bookmark a book on one device and pick it up on another (like my phone). I can instantly get more obscure titles that aren't in store without having to have it shipped.
The biggest downside is that right now you can't read them during take off and landing.
I don't find that to be the case - at least with nook. Nooks are almost always cheaper than hardcover and sometimes cheaper than paperbacks. They also sometimes have sales on nooks but not on the paper version.
Windows 8 and Win RT are two very different things. Windows 8 will likely take off with the changes in 8.1. Once you get passed the odd tile layout and go back to the regular desktop it is a brilliant OS. I hate using XP or 7 now.
RT was just a non-starter with its inherent limitations.
Yes. Extreme weather is evidence towards climate change.
I'll leave the God discussion to you and the other flat-earthers.
Megablizzard to me implies a "once in a century" type storm. When you get have several of these "once in a century" storms and you tie it together with the "once in a century droughts" and the overall higher global temperatures you start evaluating what is causation and what is coincidence.
It's not un-PC - it's just incorrect. It's not just about temperatures going up. It's about wild variations in the weather patterns (droughts in some areas and floods in others), melting of the ice-caps wiping out coastal cities (where most people live), and impaired food production in countries that already have borderline temperatures.
Wouldn't the megablizzard fall into Climate Change or are you making the common mistake to assume that climate change just means higher temperatures?
Well I think art is definitely more of a gamble. The risk is greater and therefore the reward should be greater. Without copyrights, of a reasonable term as I've said, they would potentially not benefit at all. Then why take the risk?
Society doesn't guarantee them income. Not sure where you got that idea. Society just says that for a certain period they should be the only people who DO benefit off their work. Copyright is mainly there so that somebody else can't profit off of my work. If my work sucks, though, I am not going to make enough to live. Nothing changes that.
And copying in the 18th century was an involved process. It wasn't something easily done. Copyright laws followed soon after the printing press for a reason. Before then making a copy probably took longer than actually writing the book in the first place. Not to mention that the literacy rate was ridiculous low.
It's just not apples to apples.
The problem is you aren't comparing apples to apples. Copying things even just 100 years ago was very difficult and time-consuming. If a wandering minstrel overheard a song from another minstrel then he could copy it and perform it but not on a massive scale. The equivalent today is if 5 minutes after a minstrel performed a new song that every minstrel in the world could perform it an infinite number of times.
We just live in a very different world.
No one is saying they have to be compensated but if their work is great than they SHOULD be compensated. Without that then there is no incentive to create amazing art. Have you never read a book or listened to music in your life? Do you have no appreciation for creative works and the effort that goes into them?
You misunderstand, the term doesn't guarantee that they'll make back their money. Most authors wouldn't even come close. It's just a reasonable term that on average would allow somebody to have enough time to make back about the same amount of money. Some artists will make far more and some will make nothing. The market will still determine that.
And why is it any more unreasonable to think that an artist make a living doing art than an accounting doing accounting?
Wow. So nobody should ever be an author, musician, painter, photographer, etc. Why bother doing anything that can be copied. What a sad world we would live in.
A real artist still needs to eat.
I am not saying that every author needs to live like them. But they do need to live.
And those top grossing authors all have one thing in common - they put out bestsellers nearly every year. And for many of them they have multiple movie deals. They most likely spend more hours actually working than most 9-5ers.
People can't feed themselves off of love for what they do. You don't just write a book overnight and feed yourself the next day. You can go years struggling, working odd jobs just to eat, living in poverty, just for the chance that your book will get noticed and receive financial success. The people who can do these truly do love what they do and are willing to make that sacrifice. But even they would have to think twice if at the end they didn't get paid.
Artists often had wealthy sponsors who fed and clothed them so they could enjoy the exclusive benefit of their works.