It's tricky, isn't it? The trouble is that you can't really say that they wouldn't have bought it. They downloaded (and presumably - why otherwise - listened) to it. They benefitted from the artist's work without contributing towards the effort, as per society's bargain with the artist, as specified by law.
Yes, there are fair use exceptions, but making the work available to the entire (or at least a large number) internet, hardly falls under it. So technically, we all are the victims, as someone is breaking our covenant to encourage works for their own selfish gain (offering free access to copyrighted material, as part of a scheme to access the same).
Having said all of that, copyright as currently is, is too damn long in duration. Limited times, damn it!
It's a lot harder to sit in front of a bunch of spreadsheets and try and decide which path (i.e. short term or long term) will actually work.
Well, that would be some of my point. As a CEO of a multi-national, you get paid mega-bucks to do the difficult work. If it was easy, they would wear a paper hat, and get paid 5.15/hr;)
I'm not disagreeing with you that when times are hard, people need to find other jobs when the money isn't there. And, yes, everyone does need to take responsibility for themselves. And yes, IT and engineering, being generally at least college educated, should have less to whine about in this regards. But the point I was trying to make was that CEOs (who earn millions per year, and get more than a months salary/notice when they leave) should not be pontificating about job security and financial security when they are looking to lay people off.
Once again, lets turn it around. You've just taken responsibility for a company (as CEO). What does that actually mean?
Scenario One - short term shareholder/board member returns? Apparently, today's CEO is responsible for screwing the customers and staff as much as possible to turn in a modest share price increase. I've now made my money, so that's OK. Shareholders are happy (except that they're no longer share holders, as they realised their gain by selling).
Scenario Two - year after year steady growth? Apparently, most of the shareholders are institutional pension funds, and prefer long term gains. Continuity and growth is key - will need to keep employee relations good, board bonuses built on profits, not share price.
Unless you are the mobile, golden parachute CEO of scenario one, the employees are generally your most important resource. Having a millionaire CEO telling the workers who earn less than a 1/100th of their salary "you should be financially secure to work here, just in case" really doesn't cut it.
The key here is whether the CEO should have the responsibility for all the people in the company (that they accepted when they took the job). If the CEO's advice to their employees is "You should financially secure so that I can play with your lives" then they need a gunshot upside the head. You seem to think that CEO's who get paid good money to be responsible are not to blame when things go wrong. Well, guess what - they are. That's why they get paid the big bucks.
I don't care how financially secure YOU are, johnlcallaway. I'm pretty secure myself. The point is that quite a few people aren't. And as a manager, some of them may work for you. And if that is the case, making business decisions that affect their lives CANNOT be made with a glib attitude of "well it's your fault you didn't see this coming". Grow a pair, or go retire on your "financial security" already.
Now hold on there a minute. Let's look at that in reverse. Basically, if you are financially independent, then you can try anything knowing that if it goes completely to the wall, at least you're not going to suffer for it. What you're saying is that her view is that her job is easier if she is less accountable (no fear of being sacked).
The rest of the world is dependent on their patychecks, and irresponsible yahoos who make high level decisions without taking that into account need to be taken out and shot.
It's all about the grand gesture. A bunch of cheap missions will not inspire a new generation of scientists in the same way, say, a moon landing, did (insire to become scientists, or vote for... - well, the jury is out on that, but I'm sure there is thinking behind it).
We're too damn rational. But ultimately, this is all funded by the public, and the public (as an entity) loves the dog and pony show - we *need* the grand gesture.
Not quite. It is widely known by the industry that viewers can and do skip the adverts, go get a drink, use restroom, whatever. Therefore their assumption can only accurately be that you *may* watch the commercials.
The assumption that because they have broadcast programs for free, that I am obligated to watch the commercials is a fallacy. What is next, that if I watch the commercial I'm obliged to buy the product? How about if I answer a telemarketing call, I'm obliged to listen to it?!!! This is a power grab, pure and simple.
I just hope that Congress doesn't institute secret ballots for its own voting.
This is unrelated to an anonymous public vote. When you vote, you vote your view. When Congress votes, they are supposed to be voting on your behalf, as your representative. Therefore, it is important to know which way a Senator or Representative voted in order to ensure that they are representing their constituents. In a public vote, you aren't voting on behalf of someone else, and therefore how you vote should not need to be known to someone else - other posters have already elucidated why this is important.
I can't. Thanks to your assinine idea that the creator owns the idea, the original Star Wars is not available because the creator thinks the work should not be available, period. His sense of entitlement is sickening...
> No, we don't give them the "right to charge for their work." Legislation does.
Would that be the legislation created by the government? Our government? We, the people, government? Presumably on the planet your mind inhabits, laws fly out of monkey's butts? On this planet all laws are a contract with society created by the government of the people to regulate behaviour. Copyright laws are the granting of intelectual property rights in order to achieve some benefit to the people in return. So, yes - *we* grant a benefit in order to secure a benefit in return. Read the Constitution.
The point I was trying to make is that we grant the right to encourage people to create new works - that does not necessarily include the part about them making a mint. I doubt I'm ever going to see a penny for this post - but it's still copyright me, 2004.
Similarly, Lucas the right to "monkey" about and create derivative works based on his original - but since he released the original for profit, it is supposed to be available to the public. He's already made money out of it, so why should he have the right to make it unavailable once it has been sold to the public. So yes, as long as I pay whatever fee is reasonable for access to the work, I should have the right to see the original Star Wars.
My point was that copyright is supposed to be a two way street. He's seeing the quids, and we ain't seeing the pro quos!
This is same argument regarding out of print books - why should the work be made unavailable because the rights holders did not come up with a procedure for access to the work. It's not profitable for them, but they won't licence someone else to make the work available. They helped themselves to the benefits of the copyright agreement, but are unwilling to live upto the responsibilities.
And thus, I opined the idea that if a rights holder does not uphold their responsibilities, then they should lose the benefits going forward. It's not a difficult concept.
This is the crux of it, and Lucas is not the only copyright abuser in this regard (see also disney's "buy now, 'cause it will be locked back in the vault forever" scam.
We give them the sole protected right to charge for their work, on the basis that they will make the work available to the public. Artificially making movies scarce to milk additional profits is the antithesis of the copyright deal.
Given that the three Star Wars films have been out for over a decade, and DVD has been out a while too, and that these are some of the most popular films ever, it is unbelievable that there would be a justification in delaying the DVD release.
In these cases (where a work is deliberately made unavailable, even though it is in demand) the government should revoke copyright protection to the works in question - the studio can still release it anyway they like, but they can't stop anyone else doing likewise. Let's stamp out this copyright abuse!
The airlines will require it because it prevents an aftermarket in tickets - it's easy to ensure that "this ticket is non-transferable" if you have to provide ID.
Ever resented having to pay the $75+ fee to change a ticket - when really it shouldn't be more than a nominal amount...
You cannot use Fahrenheit 9/11 or the Da Vinci Code for primary source material.
You don't need to. Go look up when the law was made available, and then when the vote took place (hint - hours later), and check the number of pages (hint - over 1000). How many legislators are you implying could have read it?
I think perhaps, that the lawyer in question should have looked to sue the alleged libelist/slanderist first, then use that judgement and your argument, to go after Yahoo. Certainly, as an example, the RIAA has not won judgement cases against the ISPs, but it has been allowed subpeonas in Jon Doe cases (as another poster mentioned).
Doing it the other way about (sue Yahoo first), surely allows the money (Yahoo) to slam dunk him, and then allow the now vindicated non-libelist/slanderist to go after the lawyer (and his client), possibly with a little help from Yahoo just to send a message, for defamation of character.
Obligatory IANAL. These lawsuits shall officially be known as "Sticks-and-stones-suits".
Nothing - that is the whole point of having the paper trail. Your question should be - "what are you going to do if you want a recount, and you don't have a hard copy?"
The idea of having a paper copy to backup the computer means that eventually, only a few random recounts will be needed as people come to trust the initial computer count. Also, the computer print out may make manual recounts easier due to clear format, etc.
People trust ATMs, because they can always check their statement later - would you like the banks to stop sending you a statement, and just trust their computers to correctly handle their money with no recourse if it gets it wrong?
What we use it for is what we do every day, because that's what we've got to do. I do what my boss tells me to do, and I get paid, and that allows me to secure living space, food, and hopefully some entertainment and so on.
That's not to say that we all use computers for the same old thing, but most of us do because we're not computer researchers, mkay... we don't have time to make the computers do wonderous things...
Wasn't the topic that we are no longer free to use various filering techniques for spam because our wonderful patent office decided that one company now has the sole right to allow or deny us use of said techniques.
Oh wait, I can still speak, I must be free.
----
My brain hurts. I've got my head stuck in the cupboard (monty python).
But they have got an ordinary Joe Shmoe doing the google. I did the parlimentary search using "vice chairman"+"back care"+"parliamentary group", and I get two identical hits, a PDF that has the right answer. Why this took the guy 6 minutes I don't know, unless he was searching on "back"... not a highly competent google user.
No. No. No. We the people expect the government to provide services (army, post, roads, etc), but we know we are all too tight-fisted to pay for it. So we allowed the government the means to collect funds to pay for he services we require the government to run. We the people have a habit of learning lessons the hard way. Our society today runs on some essentials. A good water and sanitation system. Good Roads and infrastructure. Fire and Police services to keep order and protect our property. In short, our taxes pay for our way of life. Begrudge them all you want, but be thankful of all they have paid for.
Your post was (maybe unwittingly) a great example of the current mentality - a denial of the fact that "I'm entitled" goes hand in hand with "I have responsibility". The government always thinks it's the master. It's your responsibility to keep reminding it, that it is the servant.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots"
Yes, the ACLU has a one sided agenda. It goes like this "There is a line the government can't cross. We oppose them crossing it." They are there to ensure that everyone (and based on innocent until proven guilty, that means everyone) is treated fairly, and that the rights that we the people have said is entitled to are given to them.
This does not mean that the ACLU supports terrorists, or acts of terrorism. It means that until the random people the government has rounded up and blamed are actually found guilty they are not "terrorists", but merely "suspects".
Here is a hypothetical for you. Almost everyone who drives has broken the speed limit at some time or another (even if only by 1mph). Thus, every driver is a criminal. Instead of having the police prove that you were speeding, lets just fine you - we know you broke the law at some point. In fact, let's look at the probability (not the certainty) that someone committed a crime, and simply sentence them now. Black - must be a drug user - jail. College education - must be anti-war - aiding and abetting terrorism - jail. White male - possible drunk driver - jail. Trial by puplic opinion, without any of the facts is not acceptable. Try this view "I've never met the person, and know nothing about them, or what actually happened, but I think they should be put in prision, or to death."
We as a society pride ourselves that we're civilised. This means we don't form lynch mobs any more. If you can't deal with this, then the person behaving anti-american is you
Slashdot Mirror
It's tricky, isn't it? The trouble is that you can't really say that they wouldn't have bought it. They downloaded (and presumably - why otherwise - listened) to it. They benefitted from the artist's work without contributing towards the effort, as per society's bargain with the artist, as specified by law.
Yes, there are fair use exceptions, but making the work available to the entire (or at least a large number) internet, hardly falls under it. So technically, we all are the victims, as someone is breaking our covenant to encourage works for their own selfish gain (offering free access to copyrighted material, as part of a scheme to access the same).
Having said all of that, copyright as currently is, is too damn long in duration. Limited times, damn it!
It's a lot harder to sit in front of a bunch of spreadsheets and try and decide which path (i.e. short term or long term) will actually work.
Well, that would be some of my point. As a CEO of a multi-national, you get paid mega-bucks to do the difficult work. If it was easy, they would wear a paper hat, and get paid 5.15/hr ;)
I'm not disagreeing with you that when times are hard, people need to find other jobs when the money isn't there. And, yes, everyone does need to take responsibility for themselves. And yes, IT and engineering, being generally at least college educated, should have less to whine about in this regards. But the point I was trying to make was that CEOs (who earn millions per year, and get more than a months salary/notice when they leave) should not be pontificating about job security and financial security when they are looking to lay people off.
Thanks for responding, btw.
Once again, lets turn it around. You've just taken responsibility for a company (as CEO). What does that actually mean?
Scenario One - short term shareholder/board member returns? Apparently, today's CEO is responsible for screwing the customers and staff as much as possible to turn in a modest share price increase. I've now made my money, so that's OK. Shareholders are happy (except that they're no longer share holders, as they realised their gain by selling).
Scenario Two - year after year steady growth? Apparently, most of the shareholders are institutional pension funds, and prefer long term gains. Continuity and growth is key - will need to keep employee relations good, board bonuses built on profits, not share price.
Unless you are the mobile, golden parachute CEO of scenario one, the employees are generally your most important resource. Having a millionaire CEO telling the workers who earn less than a 1/100th of their salary "you should be financially secure to work here, just in case" really doesn't cut it.
The key here is whether the CEO should have the responsibility for all the people in the company (that they accepted when they took the job). If the CEO's advice to their employees is "You should financially secure so that I can play with your lives" then they need a gunshot upside the head. You seem to think that CEO's who get paid good money to be responsible are not to blame when things go wrong. Well, guess what - they are. That's why they get paid the big bucks.
I don't care how financially secure YOU are, johnlcallaway. I'm pretty secure myself. The point is that quite a few people aren't. And as a manager, some of them may work for you. And if that is the case, making business decisions that affect their lives CANNOT be made with a glib attitude of "well it's your fault you didn't see this coming". Grow a pair, or go retire on your "financial security" already.
Now hold on there a minute. Let's look at that in reverse. Basically, if you are financially independent, then you can try anything knowing that if it goes completely to the wall, at least you're not going to suffer for it. What you're saying is that her view is that her job is easier if she is less accountable (no fear of being sacked).
The rest of the world is dependent on their patychecks, and irresponsible yahoos who make high level decisions without taking that into account need to be taken out and shot.
It's all about the grand gesture. A bunch of cheap missions will not inspire a new generation of scientists in the same way, say, a moon landing, did (insire to become scientists, or vote for ... - well, the jury is out on that, but I'm sure there is thinking behind it).
We're too damn rational. But ultimately, this is all funded by the public, and the public (as an entity) loves the dog and pony show - we *need* the grand gesture.
Arrest every one that resigns or is voted out!
Not quite. It is widely known by the industry that viewers can and do skip the adverts, go get a drink, use restroom, whatever. Therefore their assumption can only accurately be that you *may* watch the commercials.
The assumption that because they have broadcast programs for free, that I am obligated to watch the commercials is a fallacy. What is next, that if I watch the commercial I'm obliged to buy the product? How about if I answer a telemarketing call, I'm obliged to listen to it?!!! This is a power grab, pure and simple.
I just hope that Congress doesn't institute secret ballots for its own voting.
This is unrelated to an anonymous public vote. When you vote, you vote your view. When Congress votes, they are supposed to be voting on your behalf, as your representative. Therefore, it is important to know which way a Senator or Representative voted in order to ensure that they are representing their constituents. In a public vote, you aren't voting on behalf of someone else, and therefore how you vote should not need to be known to someone else - other posters have already elucidated why this is important.
Good point! When is America going to convert to the metric system, and do away with those confusing Miles, Inches, Pounds, Gallons ... ;)
And causation vs correlation is a case of the logical falacy "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" IIRC.
> Don't buy the product then.
...
I can't. Thanks to your assinine idea that the creator owns the idea, the original Star Wars is not available because the creator thinks the work should not be available, period. His sense of entitlement is sickening
> No, we don't give them the "right to charge for their work." Legislation does.
Would that be the legislation created by the government? Our government? We, the people, government? Presumably on the planet your mind inhabits, laws fly out of monkey's butts? On this planet all laws are a contract with society created by the government of the people to regulate behaviour. Copyright laws are the granting of intelectual property rights in order to achieve some benefit to the people in return. So, yes - *we* grant a benefit in order to secure a benefit in return. Read the Constitution.
The point I was trying to make is that we grant the right to encourage people to create new works - that does not necessarily include the part about them making a mint. I doubt I'm ever going to see a penny for this post - but it's still copyright me, 2004.
Similarly, Lucas the right to "monkey" about and create derivative works based on his original - but since he released the original for profit, it is supposed to be available to the public. He's already made money out of it, so why should he have the right to make it unavailable once it has been sold to the public. So yes, as long as I pay whatever fee is reasonable for access to the work, I should have the right to see the original Star Wars.
My point was that copyright is supposed to be a two way street. He's seeing the quids, and we ain't seeing the pro quos!
This is same argument regarding out of print books - why should the work be made unavailable because the rights holders did not come up with a procedure for access to the work. It's not profitable for them, but they won't licence someone else to make the work available. They helped themselves to the benefits of the copyright agreement, but are unwilling to live upto the responsibilities.
And thus, I opined the idea that if a rights holder does not uphold their responsibilities, then they should lose the benefits going forward. It's not a difficult concept.
So, as young Anakin from Episode 1 then ;)
This is the crux of it, and Lucas is not the only copyright abuser in this regard (see also disney's "buy now, 'cause it will be locked back in the vault forever" scam.
We give them the sole protected right to charge for their work, on the basis that they will make the work available to the public. Artificially making movies scarce to milk additional profits is the antithesis of the copyright deal.
Given that the three Star Wars films have been out for over a decade, and DVD has been out a while too, and that these are some of the most popular films ever, it is unbelievable that there would be a justification in delaying the DVD release.
In these cases (where a work is deliberately made unavailable, even though it is in demand) the government should revoke copyright protection to the works in question - the studio can still release it anyway they like, but they can't stop anyone else doing likewise. Let's stamp out this copyright abuse!
The airlines will require it because it prevents an aftermarket in tickets - it's easy to ensure that "this ticket is non-transferable" if you have to provide ID.
...
Ever resented having to pay the $75+ fee to change a ticket - when really it shouldn't be more than a nominal amount
You don't need to. Go look up when the law was made available, and then when the vote took place (hint - hours later), and check the number of pages (hint - over 1000). How many legislators are you implying could have read it?
I think perhaps, that the lawyer in question should have looked to sue the alleged libelist/slanderist first, then use that judgement and your argument, to go after Yahoo. Certainly, as an example, the RIAA has not won judgement cases against the ISPs, but it has been allowed subpeonas in Jon Doe cases (as another poster mentioned).
Doing it the other way about (sue Yahoo first), surely allows the money (Yahoo) to slam dunk him, and then allow the now vindicated non-libelist/slanderist to go after the lawyer (and his client), possibly with a little help from Yahoo just to send a message, for defamation of character.
Obligatory IANAL. These lawsuits shall officially be known as "Sticks-and-stones-suits".
Nothing - that is the whole point of having the paper trail. Your question should be - "what are you going to do if you want a recount, and you don't have a hard copy?"
The idea of having a paper copy to backup the computer means that eventually, only a few random recounts will be needed as people come to trust the initial computer count. Also, the computer print out may make manual recounts easier due to clear format, etc.
People trust ATMs, because they can always check their statement later - would you like the banks to stop sending you a statement, and just trust their computers to correctly handle their money with no recourse if it gets it wrong?
What we use it for is what we do every day, because that's what we've got to do. I do what my boss tells me to do, and I get paid, and that allows me to secure living space, food, and hopefully some entertainment and so on.
... we don't have time to make the computers do wonderous things ...
That's not to say that we all use computers for the same old thing, but most of us do because we're not computer researchers, mkay
I see it too, and it does look a bit amateurish. I also found that Magpie doesn't work in Firefox, so I'm still browsing with Firebird.
Wasn't the topic that we are no longer free to use various filering techniques for spam because our wonderful patent office decided that one company now has the sole right to allow or deny us use of said techniques.
Oh wait, I can still speak, I must be free.
----
My brain hurts. I've got my head stuck in the cupboard (monty python).
Dude - never underestimate the nagging power of the "Can I get it in cornflower blue?" crowd. ;)
But they have got an ordinary Joe Shmoe doing the google. I did the parlimentary search using "vice chairman"+"back care"+"parliamentary group", and I get two identical hits, a PDF that has the right answer. Why this took the guy 6 minutes I don't know, unless he was searching on "back" ... not a highly competent google user.
No. No. No. We the people expect the government to provide services (army, post, roads, etc), but we know we are all too tight-fisted to pay for it. So we allowed the government the means to collect funds to pay for he services we require the government to run. We the people have a habit of learning lessons the hard way. Our society today runs on some essentials. A good water and sanitation system. Good Roads and infrastructure. Fire and Police services to keep order and protect our property. In short, our taxes pay for our way of life. Begrudge them all you want, but be thankful of all they have paid for.
Your post was (maybe unwittingly) a great example of the current mentality - a denial of the fact that "I'm entitled" goes hand in hand with "I have responsibility". The government always thinks it's the master. It's your responsibility to keep reminding it, that it is the servant.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots"
Yes, the ACLU has a one sided agenda. It goes like this "There is a line the government can't cross. We oppose them crossing it." They are there to ensure that everyone (and based on innocent until proven guilty, that means everyone) is treated fairly, and that the rights that we the people have said is entitled to are given to them.
This does not mean that the ACLU supports terrorists, or acts of terrorism. It means that until the random people the government has rounded up and blamed are actually found guilty they are not "terrorists", but merely "suspects".
Here is a hypothetical for you. Almost everyone who drives has broken the speed limit at some time or another (even if only by 1mph). Thus, every driver is a criminal. Instead of having the police prove that you were speeding, lets just fine you - we know you broke the law at some point. In fact, let's look at the probability (not the certainty) that someone committed a crime, and simply sentence them now. Black - must be a drug user - jail. College education - must be anti-war - aiding and abetting terrorism - jail. White male - possible drunk driver - jail. Trial by puplic opinion, without any of the facts is not acceptable. Try this view "I've never met the person, and know nothing about them, or what actually happened, but I think they should be put in prision, or to death."
We as a society pride ourselves that we're civilised. This means we don't form lynch mobs any more. If you can't deal with this, then the person behaving anti-american is you