You should NOT be able to obtain material for the purposes of personal entertainment that is out of print but nevertheless covered by copyright. Why? because there is a compelling public interest to encourage the creation of novel works.
Then how are we to populate the public domain? That's the purpose of copyright law, now creation of novel works.
Should you be able to pirate this abandonware because it is "part of your culture?
Yes. In fact, I favor stripping copyright of any work not published or made available for a certain period of years. I think 5 years is a good period, but you are of course free to disagree.
where legitimate demand exceeds supply of existing licenses, companies can often be called upon to sell the rights for further sale
Unless the company no longer exists and ownership is murky. Then noone can do so.
Imagine if all game software written before, say, 5 years ago was "free". The net result would be a watering down of the current software market, and a net loss in choice for society
How is this different from the current state of things?
However, they could start selling it at any point in the future - at which point the pre-existing unauthorized copies would potentially interefere with their making a profit, thus that factor would not help him in making a fair-use defense.
I've got a solution for this: drop the copyright period to 28 years or life of the author + 14 years and apply it retroactively. At that point, it'll be more profitable to sell the prints to film historians.
Absolutely there is- you can go experience it yourself by playing baseball. The subjective part is in your ability to catch the ball, which you do entirely with emotions.
BWAHAHAHAHAH! That's priceless
I like to call subjective evidence "negative evidence".
You and nobody else. Negative evidence is evidence of something's absence.
'Religion of atheism'? 'Emotional baseball catching'? You're just a religious wingnut troll - not even worth baiting for entertainment. Go back to your sheltered ignorance and leave us thinking men alone.
Run your cheats on another program. Any stubs that it requires on your current computer can be implemented as system processes that WoW can't read anyway.
Because it's a discredited 19th century theory, duh.
Why? What have you got against the idea that there are set physical laws that everything has to follow?
That's got nothing to do with god.
Incorrect- you need to read his second book, The Origin of Man.
And you should go read his journal, where he confides that God may not be necessary, but despairs of telling anybody of this for fear of persecution.
The entire purpose of the scientific method is to find a 2nd source of revelation outside of scripture.
The entire purpose of science is to answer the question How? and possibly What?
Such science is utterly useless- and actually often turns out to be wrong at best due to the lack of ability to fit in subjective evidence.
Subjective evidence? *spit* Show me the subjective part of Physics. It's really big and well studied, so there should be some in there if it exists at all.
Neither can Spontaneous Generation- which is the theory the so-called evolutionists want in the classroom.
No it isn't. SG speaks of creating microbes from nothing. Evolution (the part that addresses the very early history of the planet) posits protein strands with the ability to reproduce themselves arose out of a soup of life-friendly chemicals, more or less. This is at least something that can be replicated.
, you can't prove the non-existance of God with the scientific method.
Which is why science doesn't talk about God. Get it through your head: science doesn't care about god. It has nothing to say about gods. We just want you to stop pushing your god into science classrooms.
True Intelligent Design states that evolutionary mutation was the method by which God created the world.
Hence it is not a theory. How are you going to test whether God did this? Ask him?
Newton, Einstien, Darwin, Galileo, and Copernicus would all disagree with you on that one.
Nope. They may have believed in a God (Darwin did not after going to Galapagos), but they didn't incorporate religion into their science.
So would most true scientists today- the atheists posing as scientists are not, their insistence that the only truth is objective evidence is rather laughable and stupid.
True scientists respect only objective evidence. They don't actually pursue truth - that's for philosophers.
Thus proving yourself to be a religious fundamentalist. ID is a perfectly reasonable theory- but your mind is closed to it, because you are religously tied to a single version of science that claims that a lack of evidence is a lack of existance.
Bullshit. Id is not a theory according to the accepted definition: it is not falsifiable, nor can it be duplicated. I am 'religiously' tied to the scientific method.
ID and evolution are exactly the same theory
What are you, insane?
are you really just an radical atheist in disguise who can't stand the idea of a God for non-scientific reasons
What does Microsoft call the people who pass through its program? Microsoft Certified Engineers...
And they aren't Engineers. Engineer generally means that someone has been certified as such by a recognized body, as opposed to a corporation. In some places (like Texas), it is illegal to call yourself an Engineer without the cert to back it up.
Not among certain copyright holders it's not- they're so convinced it's not possible that apparently they're not willing to grant ID teaching schools access to their textbooks. When you stiffle debate, that's where the problem arises.
That's because they're teaching ID as science, which it is not.
I have no problem with debating the existance and nature of God or anything else in the universe.
Nor do I, but nobody is discussing philosophy here.
You do know which party people turn to when they want a powerful central authority to take care of them, right? You do know who promises social welfare, corporate regulation, protectionist economic policy, and universal health care, right? You do know that there was only one candidate in the last election that would make any sense as your guess, right? You do know that he lost, right?
That's your indirect pointer in the big bang. That's the effect. Now some would have us believe that we can have such an effect without a cause...but nobody has been able to show an effect without a cause anywhere else.
And the theory doesn't address that. There's no real way to determine what went on before the big bang, aside from watching one form elsewhere. Whether taht's even possible is up for debate.
The chiefest (?) one being that Atheism is not a philosophy, beyond denying all gods. They have no common belief system, no unifying morality, no doctrine beyond the one statement: 'there is no god'.
Pronography and prayer don't go together, they're opposites.
Yeah they do, just ask Larry Flint. The US is so hung up on sex and the bible - it isn't like this in other parts of the world, although there aren't many temple prostitutes left in the world.
Of course the poster doesn't remember Bill Clinton "pushing" school prayer, Bill Clinton was "pushing" the opposite.
The opposite being what, banning prayer in school? That just isn't the case - you can pray all you like. The only thing that can't be done is have a school employee lead the prayer or do it as an offical function.
Once a corporation has enough information about you and has all your emails, documents, spreadsheets etc they would pretty much have to sell that information to others. There is just too much money there to ignore. Needless to say they won't tell anybody about it either.
This is why you should read your license agreements very well. I wouldn't give them that right, and I'd own them if they did it anyway.
That's not a very good definition. Monopoly power is defined by a company's ability to set prices, not their market share. The ability to control prices is a result of why certain things, such as physical phone service (specifically, the last mile) and utilities are natural monopolies - any new compeitior would need to duplicate a lot of infrastructure and get right of ways which are no longer available - why would the city allow such things if there's already power service to an area. A single supplier is common, but not neessary.
Face it: you could create an mp3 player tomorrow and sell it. That is why Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
What would that do to a country's international reputation?
If we backed out of WTO, that might be a positive thing on the whole.
Won't work. Under the Berne Convention, the United States is required to recognize foreign copyrights for at least life plus 50.
Well, we backed out of the ballistic missile treaty. This should be a bit easier ;)
Great idea, but it doesn't fix anything today.
Kids today, always looking for the quick fix ;)
You should NOT be able to obtain material for the purposes of personal entertainment that is out of print but nevertheless covered by copyright. Why? because there is a compelling public interest to encourage the creation of novel works.
Then how are we to populate the public domain? That's the purpose of copyright law, now creation of novel works.
Should you be able to pirate this abandonware because it is "part of your culture?
Yes. In fact, I favor stripping copyright of any work not published or made available for a certain period of years. I think 5 years is a good period, but you are of course free to disagree.
where legitimate demand exceeds supply of existing licenses, companies can often be called upon to sell the rights for further sale
Unless the company no longer exists and ownership is murky. Then noone can do so.
Imagine if all game software written before, say, 5 years ago was "free". The net result would be a watering down of the current software market, and a net loss in choice for society
How is this different from the current state of things?
However, they could start selling it at any point in the future - at which point the pre-existing unauthorized copies would potentially interefere with their making a profit, thus that factor would not help him in making a fair-use defense.
I've got a solution for this: drop the copyright period to 28 years or life of the author + 14 years and apply it retroactively. At that point, it'll be more profitable to sell the prints to film historians.
Absolutely there is- you can go experience it yourself by playing baseball. The subjective part is in your ability to catch the ball, which you do entirely with emotions.
BWAHAHAHAHAH! That's priceless
I like to call subjective evidence "negative evidence".
You and nobody else. Negative evidence is evidence of something's absence.
'Religion of atheism'? 'Emotional baseball catching'? You're just a religious wingnut troll - not even worth baiting for entertainment. Go back to your sheltered ignorance and leave us thinking men alone.
what can you do?
Run your cheats on another program. Any stubs that it requires on your current computer can be implemented as system processes that WoW can't read anyway.
Really? Then why hasn't anybody replicated it?
Because it's a discredited 19th century theory, duh.
Why? What have you got against the idea that there are set physical laws that everything has to follow?
That's got nothing to do with god.
Incorrect- you need to read his second book, The Origin of Man.
And you should go read his journal, where he confides that God may not be necessary, but despairs of telling anybody of this for fear of persecution.
The entire purpose of the scientific method is to find a 2nd source of revelation outside of scripture.
The entire purpose of science is to answer the question How? and possibly What?
Such science is utterly useless- and actually often turns out to be wrong at best due to the lack of ability to fit in subjective evidence.
Subjective evidence? *spit* Show me the subjective part of Physics. It's really big and well studied, so there should be some in there if it exists at all.
well, it's not *good* coding practice, but I have seen people do that on purpose.
Why not? It's perfectly reasonable when doing windows GUI programming - it can be cleaner too, especially if you have multiple break conditions.
Neither can Spontaneous Generation- which is the theory the so-called evolutionists want in the classroom.
No it isn't. SG speaks of creating microbes from nothing. Evolution (the part that addresses the very early history of the planet) posits protein strands with the ability to reproduce themselves arose out of a soup of life-friendly chemicals, more or less. This is at least something that can be replicated.
, you can't prove the non-existance of God with the scientific method.
Which is why science doesn't talk about God. Get it through your head: science doesn't care about god. It has nothing to say about gods. We just want you to stop pushing your god into science classrooms.
True Intelligent Design states that evolutionary mutation was the method by which God created the world.
Hence it is not a theory. How are you going to test whether God did this? Ask him?
Newton, Einstien, Darwin, Galileo, and Copernicus would all disagree with you on that one.
Nope. They may have believed in a God (Darwin did not after going to Galapagos), but they didn't incorporate religion into their science.
So would most true scientists today- the atheists posing as scientists are not, their insistence that the only truth is objective evidence is rather laughable and stupid.
True scientists respect only objective evidence. They don't actually pursue truth - that's for philosophers.
Thus proving yourself to be a religious fundamentalist. ID is a perfectly reasonable theory- but your mind is closed to it, because you are religously tied to a single version of science that claims that a lack of evidence is a lack of existance.
Bullshit. Id is not a theory according to the accepted definition: it is not falsifiable, nor can it be duplicated. I am 'religiously' tied to the scientific method.
ID and evolution are exactly the same theory
What are you, insane?
are you really just an radical atheist in disguise who can't stand the idea of a God for non-scientific reasons
God has no place in science class. Fucking idiot.
What does Microsoft call the people who pass through its program? Microsoft Certified Engineers...
And they aren't Engineers. Engineer generally means that someone has been certified as such by a recognized body, as opposed to a corporation. In some places (like Texas), it is illegal to call yourself an Engineer without the cert to back it up.
the milder form of ID and evolution are completely compatible
Irrelevant. ID is not a theory and has no place in a science class.
MOST Intelligent Designer people believe in some form of evolution already.
Who cares? ID is not science. Don't teach it in science class.
Neither is insistence on Spontaneous Generation. They're both religious, not scientific, points of view.
And neither should be taught in science class. However, this discussion is about evolution, which doesn't require spontaneous generation.
Not among certain copyright holders it's not- they're so convinced it's not possible that apparently they're not willing to grant ID teaching schools access to their textbooks. When you stiffle debate, that's where the problem arises.
That's because they're teaching ID as science, which it is not.
I have no problem with debating the existance and nature of God or anything else in the universe.
Nor do I, but nobody is discussing philosophy here.
and lease the lines from.. Ma Bell? This is the joke of so-called competition.
The solution is to have Ma Bell own the lines and nothing else. Not sure how that would work in practice, or even how to get there.
You do know which party people turn to when they want a powerful central authority to take care of them, right? You do know who promises social welfare, corporate regulation, protectionist economic policy, and universal health care, right? You do know that there was only one candidate in the last election that would make any sense as your guess, right? You do know that he lost, right?
Bush lost?
That's your indirect pointer in the big bang. That's the effect. Now some would have us believe that we can have such an effect without a cause...but nobody has been able to show an effect without a cause anywhere else.
And the theory doesn't address that. There's no real way to determine what went on before the big bang, aside from watching one form elsewhere. Whether taht's even possible is up for debate.
This differes from Atheism in a few ways.
The chiefest (?) one being that Atheism is not a philosophy, beyond denying all gods. They have no common belief system, no unifying morality, no doctrine beyond the one statement: 'there is no god'.
Pronography and prayer don't go together, they're opposites.
Yeah they do, just ask Larry Flint. The US is so hung up on sex and the bible - it isn't like this in other parts of the world, although there aren't many temple prostitutes left in the world.
Of course the poster doesn't remember Bill Clinton "pushing" school prayer, Bill Clinton was "pushing" the opposite.
The opposite being what, banning prayer in school? That just isn't the case - you can pray all you like. The only thing that can't be done is have a school employee lead the prayer or do it as an offical function.
It didn't- it posited a specific EFFECT, which demands a specific cause.
So you say, but the theory doesn't address this, even indirectly. Demanding that it does this won't change things.
2) Most licences have clauses allowing them to change the terms anytime they want.
Then guess what? I don't sign.
a) You don't have enough money to sue MS or Sun or anybody really
I could probably find a lawyer. How else does white trash manage to sue random people for millions?
If it's a smaller company you are suing they would file for chap 11 right after they sold their assets to a newly establised company in afghanistan.
Probably not them, but you could probably attach the assets in a situation like this.
When you can show me an effect with no cause (not just no discernible cause, but no cause at all) we'll talk about the big bang having no cause.
And when did the Big bang theory posit a specifric cause?
Once a corporation has enough information about you and has all your emails, documents, spreadsheets etc they would pretty much have to sell that information to others. There is just too much money there to ignore. Needless to say they won't tell anybody about it either.
This is why you should read your license agreements very well. I wouldn't give them that right, and I'd own them if they did it anyway.
That's not a very good definition. Monopoly power is defined by a company's ability to set prices, not their market share. The ability to control prices is a result of why certain things, such as physical phone service (specifically, the last mile) and utilities are natural monopolies - any new compeitior would need to duplicate a lot of infrastructure and get right of ways which are no longer available - why would the city allow such things if there's already power service to an area. A single supplier is common, but not neessary.
Face it: you could create an mp3 player tomorrow and sell it. That is why Apple doesn't have a monopoly.