the eu has made ruling after ruling that amount to little more than cash grabs from american companies. when it was the nonsensical browser bundling allegations against microsoft, most slashdotters "piled on" with their usual anti-MS bias even though the facts on the ground showed that the basic substance of the EU complaint was baseless - the browser landscape shifted because of market and technological pressures and the alleged "bundling" over which the EU was prepared to extract hundreds of millions in fines was a non-issue (and, because the world of law is slow and absurd, you still have lawyers collecting paychecks trying to justify that plainly nonsense old contention and to squeeze more money out of MS based on what anybody with eyes can now see were nonsense charges).
And now that google is the target? well, slashdotters are finally catching on that the EU's actions are basically dishonorable. sorry, but the EU has for whatever reason failed to produce major internet companies (sorry, but it's true) or the cmopanies that it has produced have been sold to US firms relatively early on. So, the EU adopts another tack - simply tax American companies' success with nonsense suits. As much as I like the EU as an entity in general, here they are so in the wrong.
That my post has been modded down is indicative of the pathetic group think that permeates slashdot. Disgraceful. I posted a counter-argument to this guy's "insightful"points and promptly got modded down.
I don't think you have thought through this matter hard enough.
If the problems with copyright are "obvious", then, well, you have utterly failed to prove that you recognize these "obvious" problems.
You start with a discussion of copyright terms. You basically arbitrarily decide that the term should be less. Why? You don't say. You simply state that it should be less. For you to make a credible argument, you'd need to show that the solution you propose is more beneficial than the current situation. I think it's fairly obvious that a 10 year term is ridiculously short and would discourage much of the for-profit development of content that so drives the world now.
Next, you come up with an idiotic "use it or lose it" rule. First, this rule is impossible to enforce as it would be possible to symbolically sell anything indefinitely. Here's five bucks - I just bought 10,000 copies. Your solution is completely unworkable, and also limits copyright to a commercial activity.
Your "it had better work on a kindle" argument is BS. So, picasso needs to digitize his paintings and sell posters of it or they lose protection? Bollocks.
Your argument about "corporations" is also utter tripe. THe ability for individuals to be able to assign (sell) copyrights to companies is one of the most powerful forces for innovation out there. That you would water this down suggests deep, deep cluelessness.
so, start again:
do actual research on the effects of copyright on innovation. not some biased study by some boldrine and levine fraud, but something real - for example, something that looks on the effect of IP protction in, say, japan vs taiwan or something accrtoss different industries where the IP regulation varies in practice. you will see that copyright and strong IP regulations are actually drivers of economic progress.
What POSSIBLE advantage might the eventual production outcomes of this R&D prototype have? If you can't see that you are suffering from a severe lack of imagination.
- readable syntax - very approachable - compiles to actual.exe, unlike.net - superb UI
there's a reason why MANY MANY places are still using it despite it being over a decade old and despite the fact that snobs throughout geekspace look down on it.
it's just a pity there hasn't been a vb7 with commonsense upgrades like more modern controls, png support, and the like. even if all legacy ocx support were dropped, i guarantee you it would continue to be IMMENSELY popular.
sigh. how many times will you people keep repeating the same BS argument?
of COURSE something was taken.
what was taken was:
- the opportunity to legitimately sell the software. - the perceived market value of the original was diminished.
even if you were to argue that nobody who pirated would have bought it, the second point is very important. how would you feel if everybody was jumping the turnstiles but you were the only one paying for the subway? you'd feel like a fool and so your willingness to pay is decreased. same thing here.
1. the word piracy has several meanings. get a dictionary. 2. you added the word "stealing." However, it is stealing. It's stealing the opportunity to sell to certain people and, more importantly, ruining the *perceived value" of the goods which cannot be returned.
your arguments have been weighed and found to be immature.
Seriously. This is the latest twist on the slashdot mentality of "make any argument, no matter how dubious, as long as it rationalizes piracy and thine comment shall be marked up."
You know, because truly, his and your freedom demands his downloading the tale of a courageous pig that learns to be a sheepdog with the help of farmer hoggett.
I'm sorry, but as much as I respect RMS for some of his technical achievements, the moment he (or anybody) mentions "Boldrine and Levine" as a serious source of anti-copyright theory, this gives up the fact that they don't know what they are talking about. Boldrine and Levine are frauds, pure and simple. Their theoretical ideas don't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny and their empirical observations tend to be cherrypicked as well. Their entire body of work seems to simply exist for people of a certain mindset to obliquely refer to their work hoping against hope that the listener won't actually do their homework. If you're interested, I encourage you to go and actually read their "against intellctual monopoly." It's utter, and utterly uscientific trash.
Kind of cool I guess, though not really suitable for 'flight logging" from a pilot perspective. More like a cool piece of social media stuff. Still, for people who use social media, I guess it's cool.
For what it's worth, I'm a pilot and use Safelog / PilotLog.com to log my flights. It's not OSS and is payware, but it's an impressive piece of software engineering in that it works well accross multiple platforms (I use their web-based system, mac client, and android client) and has a ton of useful features that I found that 'free' pilot log systems lacked completely. It does something vaguely similar in its map view of logged flights - you can specify to draw thicker lines and change displayed airport icon size based on visit frequency, though I rarely use this option as a simple map with uniform lines is interesting enough.
There are any number of excellent movies out regularly. I suggest you do a google search for whatever's on at the arts picturehouse, cambridge (my local). your "insigntful" comment is simply ignorance of the many excellent films being made if you bother wandering beyond the strip mall and your own preconceived notions
Given the current system, a copyrightholder pretty much has to have a full-time person monitoring youtube for infringement. Meanwhile, youtube continues to make hundreds of millions off their copyrighted work. how is this fair?
If youtuve had any integrity, google would be forced to give advertising monies gained from showing copyrighted vidoes to the copyright holder..
but, is that happening any time soon? no, google prefers to keep the cash.
right, because the one in a million counterexample, easily rectified, clearly has more weight than the tens if not hundreds of thousands fo infringing videos.
really: shame. shame on you for such an obvious self-serving bs rationalization.
has anybody here every seriously looked at the process to report and have removed infringing material from youtube? if you try, the first thing google/youtube does is basically threaten you with jail and worse if you dont happen to be the copyright holder. they make it as slow and painful as possible though probably within what is allowed by law. why? google has a vested interest in keeping the pirated material on there.
it would take me all of one day at most to find over 1000 movies just with the search "full movie", each of which has a view count of 10,000+. Google could too, but they have no interest in this. They play this game where they pretend they are some innocent service, and of course meanhwhile providing de facto anonymity to serial uploaders (anybody even ONCE prosecuted for uploading pirated stuff? at worst it's "account suspended, make a new one homer jo jo junior shabadoo"). meanwhile, google collects HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in ad revenue on infringing material. Oh, and when something is pointed out to be infringing, does google contact the rightsholder and offer them a the money or at least a split? you must be joking.
If youtube were anything but a giant company armed with masses of lawyers *and didnt enjoy the popular support of those below who find it useful and who are about to make all sorts of yesbuts and rationalizations, it would have been shut down for conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement a long time ago.
yes, i find it useful too. but i'm under no illusions that the system is any way a fair to the rightsholders off of whom youtube is making massive profits especially during that delay between upload and takedown.
again - actually try the takedown process before you flame away. it's diabolical.
In America, you get screaming meemies, lawyers, and "everybody's a special case" syndrome. So, the discount airline is Southwest, with "low low fares" as low as a few hudred bucks, basically.
In "nanny state" britain, the system is less regulated and adults are allowed to enter (or not, as they so choose) into contracts which they are expect to keep. The result is ryanair, which can be "less than the cost of a pizza" cheap, regularly.
I'd be more than happy if companies competed on information as well. I am not excited otherwise about what half of you are proposing, which is the inability of companies to compete on such things. If you dont want to give such companies your business, don't. but FFS, don't get the regulators involved in free market innovation (good bad or otherwise this is one place where the market actually can work).
and don't get me started on the eedjits who think it should be written into the constitution that the price of their luggage be included in the ticket... that is, that everybody else should subsidize their luggage.
Wow. Slashdot has some shallow analysis about, Noughmad, but yours is about the knee-jerkiest shallowest nonsense I've heard in a while. Honestly: think before typing next time.
Is it also your human right to let your children go hungry if you are unwilling to work to support yourself? the theory of "welfare" (defined in its narrow sense here as specific programs designed to give money to the needy) is that we are willing to tolerate some mooching by adults in order to protect children, given that options of actually taking away / moving childen are often in practice very limited (much more limited than you might think).
any person actually skilled in nuclear physics and who cannot find a well paying job is a fool. actual quantitative / analytical skills are always in demand.
so, this is one of the slashdot "encryption standards are still secure" threads, not one of the "DRM is impossible / nothing is crackproof" threads, right?
Slashdot Mirror
the eu has made ruling after ruling that amount to little more than cash grabs from american companies. when it was the nonsensical browser bundling allegations against microsoft, most slashdotters "piled on" with their usual anti-MS bias even though the facts on the ground showed that the basic substance of the EU complaint was baseless - the browser landscape shifted because of market and technological pressures and the alleged "bundling" over which the EU was prepared to extract hundreds of millions in fines was a non-issue (and, because the world of law is slow and absurd, you still have lawyers collecting paychecks trying to justify that plainly nonsense old contention and to squeeze more money out of MS based on what anybody with eyes can now see were nonsense charges).
And now that google is the target? well, slashdotters are finally catching on that the EU's actions are basically dishonorable. sorry, but the EU has for whatever reason failed to produce major internet companies (sorry, but it's true) or the cmopanies that it has produced have been sold to US firms relatively early on. So, the EU adopts another tack - simply tax American companies' success with nonsense suits. As much as I like the EU as an entity in general, here they are so in the wrong.
That my post has been modded down is indicative of the pathetic group think that permeates slashdot. Disgraceful. I posted a counter-argument to this guy's "insightful"points and promptly got modded down.
SLASHDOT IS BROKEN.
I don't think you have thought through this matter hard enough.
If the problems with copyright are "obvious", then, well, you have utterly failed to prove that you recognize these "obvious" problems.
You start with a discussion of copyright terms. You basically arbitrarily decide that the term should be less. Why? You don't say. You simply state that it should be less. For you to make a credible argument, you'd need to show that the solution you propose is more beneficial than the current situation. I think it's fairly obvious that a 10 year term is ridiculously short and would discourage much of the for-profit development of content that so drives the world now.
Next, you come up with an idiotic "use it or lose it" rule. First, this rule is impossible to enforce as it would be possible to symbolically sell anything indefinitely. Here's five bucks - I just bought 10,000 copies. Your solution is completely unworkable, and also limits copyright to a commercial activity.
Your "it had better work on a kindle" argument is BS. So, picasso needs to digitize his paintings and sell posters of it or they lose protection? Bollocks.
Your argument about "corporations" is also utter tripe. THe ability for individuals to be able to assign (sell) copyrights to companies is one of the most powerful forces for innovation out there. That you would water this down suggests deep, deep cluelessness.
so, start again:
do actual research on the effects of copyright on innovation. not some biased study by some boldrine and levine fraud, but something real - for example, something that looks on the effect of IP protction in, say, japan vs taiwan or something accrtoss different industries where the IP regulation varies in practice. you will see that copyright and strong IP regulations are actually drivers of economic progress.
.
What POSSIBLE advantage might the eventual production outcomes of this R&D prototype have? If you can't see that you are suffering from a severe lack of imagination.
Thank you, captain obvious.
Still a wonderful language.
- readable syntax .exe, unlike .net
- very approachable
- compiles to actual
- superb UI
there's a reason why MANY MANY places are still using it despite it being over a decade old and despite the fact that snobs throughout geekspace look down on it.
it's just a pity there hasn't been a vb7 with commonsense upgrades like more modern controls, png support, and the like. even if all legacy ocx support were dropped, i guarantee you it would continue to be IMMENSELY popular.
sigh. how many times will you people keep repeating the same BS argument?
of COURSE something was taken.
what was taken was:
- the opportunity to legitimately sell the software.
- the perceived market value of the original was diminished.
even if you were to argue that nobody who pirated would have bought it, the second point is very important. how would you feel if everybody was jumping the turnstiles but you were the only one paying for the subway? you'd feel like a fool and so your willingness to pay is decreased. same thing here.
stop repeating tired and well debunked nonsense.
1. the word piracy has several meanings. get a dictionary.
2. you added the word "stealing." However, it is stealing. It's stealing the opportunity to sell to certain people and, more importantly, ruining the *perceived value" of the goods which cannot be returned.
your arguments have been weighed and found to be immature.
but this is slashdot - information wants to be FREE*
* unless it's a GPL violation, in which case they flay you alive.
"Cool story, bro."
Seriously. This is the latest twist on the slashdot mentality of "make any argument, no matter how dubious, as long as it rationalizes piracy and thine comment shall be marked up."
You know, because truly, his and your freedom demands his downloading the tale of a courageous pig that learns to be a sheepdog with the help of farmer hoggett.
I'm sorry, but as much as I respect RMS for some of his technical achievements, the moment he (or anybody) mentions "Boldrine and Levine" as a serious source of anti-copyright theory, this gives up the fact that they don't know what they are talking about. Boldrine and Levine are frauds, pure and simple. Their theoretical ideas don't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny and their empirical observations tend to be cherrypicked as well. Their entire body of work seems to simply exist for people of a certain mindset to obliquely refer to their work hoping against hope that the listener won't actually do their homework. If you're interested, I encourage you to go and actually read their "against intellctual monopoly." It's utter, and utterly uscientific trash.
Kind of cool I guess, though not really suitable for 'flight logging" from a pilot perspective. More like a cool piece of social media stuff. Still, for people who use social media, I guess it's cool.
For what it's worth, I'm a pilot and use Safelog / PilotLog.com to log my flights. It's not OSS and is payware, but it's an impressive piece of software engineering in that it works well accross multiple platforms (I use their web-based system, mac client, and android client) and has a ton of useful features that I found that 'free' pilot log systems lacked completely. It does something vaguely similar in its map view of logged flights - you can specify to draw thicker lines and change displayed airport icon size based on visit frequency, though I rarely use this option as a simple map with uniform lines is interesting enough.
There are any number of excellent movies out regularly. I suggest you do a google search for whatever's on at the arts picturehouse, cambridge (my local). your "insigntful" comment is simply ignorance of the many excellent films being made if you bother wandering beyond the strip mall and your own preconceived notions
Given the current system, a copyrightholder pretty much has to have a full-time person monitoring youtube for infringement. Meanwhile, youtube continues to make hundreds of millions off their copyrighted work. how is this fair?
If youtuve had any integrity, google would be forced to give advertising monies gained from showing copyrighted vidoes to the copyright holder..
but, is that happening any time soon? no, google prefers to keep the cash.
right, because the one in a million counterexample, easily rectified, clearly has more weight than the tens if not hundreds of thousands fo infringing videos.
really: shame. shame on you for such an obvious self-serving bs rationalization.
I know, -1 Flamebait, but ...
has anybody here every seriously looked at the process to report and have removed infringing material from youtube? if you try, the first thing google/youtube does is basically threaten you with jail and worse if you dont happen to be the copyright holder. they make it as slow and painful as possible though probably within what is allowed by law. why? google has a vested interest in keeping the pirated material on there.
it would take me all of one day at most to find over 1000 movies just with the search "full movie", each of which has a view count of 10,000+. Google could too, but they have no interest in this. They play this game where they pretend they are some innocent service, and of course meanhwhile providing de facto anonymity to serial uploaders (anybody even ONCE prosecuted for uploading pirated stuff? at worst it's "account suspended, make a new one homer jo jo junior shabadoo"). meanwhile, google collects HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in ad revenue on infringing material. Oh, and when something is pointed out to be infringing, does google contact the rightsholder and offer them a the money or at least a split? you must be joking.
If youtube were anything but a giant company armed with masses of lawyers *and didnt enjoy the popular support of those below who find it useful and who are about to make all sorts of yesbuts and rationalizations, it would have been shut down for conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement a long time ago.
yes, i find it useful too. but i'm under no illusions that the system is any way a fair to the rightsholders off of whom youtube is making massive profits especially during that delay between upload and takedown.
again - actually try the takedown process before you flame away. it's diabolical.
naive.
I'm guessing it's a Giant Putin Head with frickin lasers. Amirite?
In America, you get screaming meemies, lawyers, and "everybody's a special case" syndrome. So, the discount airline is Southwest, with "low low fares" as low as a few hudred bucks, basically.
In "nanny state" britain, the system is less regulated and adults are allowed to enter (or not, as they so choose) into contracts which they are expect to keep. The result is ryanair, which can be "less than the cost of a pizza" cheap, regularly.
I'd be more than happy if companies competed on information as well. I am not excited otherwise about what half of you are proposing, which is the inability of companies to compete on such things. If you dont want to give such companies your business, don't. but FFS, don't get the regulators involved in free market innovation (good bad or otherwise this is one place where the market actually can work).
and don't get me started on the eedjits who think it should be written into the constitution that the price of their luggage be included in the ticket... that is, that everybody else should subsidize their luggage.
Wow. Slashdot has some shallow analysis about, Noughmad, but yours is about the knee-jerkiest shallowest nonsense I've heard in a while. Honestly: think before typing next time.
tell me again how sculptures make paintings obsolete?
Is it also your human right to let your children go hungry if you are unwilling to work to support yourself? the theory of "welfare" (defined in its narrow sense here as specific programs designed to give money to the needy) is that we are willing to tolerate some mooching by adults in order to protect children, given that options of actually taking away / moving childen are often in practice very limited (much more limited than you might think).
any person actually skilled in nuclear physics and who cannot find a well paying job is a fool. actual quantitative / analytical skills are always in demand.
so, this is one of the slashdot "encryption standards are still secure" threads, not one of the "DRM is impossible / nothing is crackproof" threads, right?
so hard to keep track sometimes.
slashdot karma is an excellent indicator of groupthink.
really, it's true, and it's a major problem here. sorry to be a downer.