me: downloading is bad. It gives the RIAA leverage when they lobby for voting support in Congress. People shouldn't download
you: downloading has nothing to do with it. The RIAA has already bought every person in Congress and the real evil is the duration of time that they have extended copyright to.
A) Am I wrong that these are our stances?
You: Downloading is bad. Members of Congress actually research claims made by fellow legislators when campaign money is on the table. [What a hoot!] People shouldn't download, and perpetual copyright protection is fine. The Founding Fathers were a bunch of racist, sexist, agrarian, dead white guys who knew squat, which is a good reason to get rid of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Me: Downloading serves as a convenient excuse for current legislation. The xxAA has bought enough members of Congress to sponsor legislation, and the rest will happily enact it to ensure further campaign contributions. All modifications to the original copyright law have screwed the public. People should be allowed to use and share what is rightfully theirs. Mom, apple pie, truth, justice, and the American way!:)
No troll, just a fundamental disagreement about what is the bigger evil: the severity of the punishment or the length of time that a punishment, any punishment, can be enforced.
I agree that "the severity of the punishment" has become outrageous for a minor civil infraction. I am opposed to all changes to the orginal law, which includes the DMCA, etc. However, you have previously stated that the length of copyright protection doesn't matter. Okay, let's make the copyright period one billion years (where it's headed) - that's still limited. What does the public ever get out of the copyright trade-off?
I find it hard to believe you can't see that copyright was a bargain and a balance between two sides with opposing wishes. Congress gave the originator a legal monopoly for a couple of decades, which is plenty of time to be recompensed if the work is worth anything. Unlike the natural laws of Locke, there is no natural right to a monopoly on common property (copyright). That bargain has been completely undone by extensions to copyright. I've given examples before; it's pointless to do it again. The "real evil" is that the xxAA is step-by-step making copyright protection perpetual, and you don't care. It's like cooking a frog -- just put it cool water, and slowly increase the heat. The end result is a happy, dead, cooked frog.
No, this is how legislation gets drafted. The fact that they can point to people ruining their profits through downloading is how it gets passed by many many votes.
So, you've proved you don't read my responses, and you're just trolling. I already noted that the RIAA made such a claim during a period of increasing profits, and the Congress bought it. They will *believe* the people who pay for their election campaigns and who give them jobs when they leave office.
Now consider if copyright was for the original 14 years, but if you infringed or used it improperly, you were thrown in a cell with Bubba and you were wearing a prom dress. Would there be a problem? Yes. Society would be so afraid that the onwer would have their monopoly like Congress originally stated so many moons ago. Would the public benefit? Not until the 14 years were up.
This becomes a more obvious troll with each paragraph. Look at the current situation: It's a freaking federal crime to copy a movie AND IT'S FOR 95 YEARS. They aren't sending emails, they're sending summons. Being public domain after 14 years would certainly be better. How can you be so blind as to ignore that the xxAA has criminalized behavior that would have been legal had they not perverted the law?
I'm singled-mided? If you took 2 seconds to read what I was saying, you would see I was giving an EXAMPLE of what YOU COULD HAVE SAID that would have been a better argument than your original "The Founding Fathers did it."
You're the one who called me single-minded, and a Texan to boot, remember? Try to keep it straight, Pilgrim. What you wrote was so blatantly ridiculous, I would never have written it, and I pointed out why. The founding fathers are the ones who guaranteed us individual rights. You are unconcerned that they have been taken away, which proves you have ulterior motives or are just trolling.
Sorry, if mickey mouse is public domain tomorrow or twenty years from now really doesn't matter.
Did I ever mention that you are a brainwashed tool of the robber barons? The difference between 14 years and 95 years (ever increasing) is significant because of the money it pipes into the xxAA for things that should be free. This allows said companies to purchase more legislators and legislation to perpetuate their stranglehold on material that should belong to the public. There is old music (and movies) that you can't purchase from the xxAA because they aren't selling it, yet it is illegal for people to share because of copyright extensions.
What is atrocious is the legislation passed to criminalize those that copy during the defined period.
What is this strange about-face? Yeah, that's really bad. Making it criminal for 7 times as long is 7 times as bad. Do the math.
Do you honestly think that if all of a sudden copyright length was returned to the original 14 years, yet we retained the DMCA and 18 USC 2519, we would live in some copyright paradise? If so man, pass th Kool-aid, because I want some.
It was never intended to be a "copyright paradise"; it was intended to give both sides a fair deal, and returning to the original copyright law would return to that fair deal. Bands would be allowed to play old music without paying protection money. People would be allowed to share old music and movies that aren't even retailed anymore. You don't need any more Kool-Aid, you've already swallowed enough from the people stealing your freedom.
I believe this is the point where you tell me that I have been trolled. Yes, ha ha, very funny. Please stop signing your trolls with "-truth".
Jimmy Carter, who is the only president who was an actual nuclear engineer earlier in his career, pronounced it this way.
So did his (twelve-year-old?) daughter, who was majorly concerned about nuclear proliferation, according to him. I always thought that was the claim that cost him the election.
they're Still Here. That means there's something Wrong with the theory.
And it's not hard to figure out. There was no asteroid impact. Dick Cheney wiped out the dinosaurs and started the rumors of asteroids of mass destruction for obvious oil-related reasons. It's a darned good thing for the bees that you can't run an SUV on honey. (Just kidding - it's post-election humor.:)
Maybe they lived on honey for a few years. Perhaps they had really giant honeycombs where they lived in like a nuclear fallout shelter kind of way until the bad air went away.
Perhaps the collective hive-mind realized the danger and triggered a stasis field for the length of the cold weather. Although Nivens and Pournelle never did explain how a timer works in a stasis field or how bees could procure a GP hull or . ..
Sorry, but they haven't bought every Senator or Congressmen. But for the ones they haven't, if they can point to downloading, and they do, they will gain sympathy.
Again, they don't need to buy more than one or two in each house who will sponsor legislation, like Bono or Hollings. That is how the DMCA and similar legislation was passed.
And digital reproduction is EXACTLY the problem. That's why taping was determined to be fair use: because the quality degrades with each generation of tape.
It has NOTHING to do with the ongoing perversion of the copyright law. The issue is the length of copyright protection, after which the work BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE PEOPLE. Once it belongs to the public, the quality of copies is totally irrelevant. The relevant point is that works no longer ever become property of the people because monied interests have purchased legislation to distort the law.
And as long as they have the priacy scapegoat, Congressmen will buy it and judges will enforce it.
That cat is long out of the bag. Sharing of copyrighted material will never be completely stopped. The U.S. Congress has no power to make law in the rest of the world. The scapegoat is just that and will be used as such no matter how insignificant or harmless it is. The RIAA claimed loudly to be losing money to downloading while sales were in fact up. Judges only apply the law that the legislature makes. To paraphrase the SCOTUS on the most recent copyright extension: "While it might be a stupid decision, Congress has the power to extend copyright protection."
Aw c'mon. Of course I played the race card. Your justification for following the original copyright statute was that the Founders came up with it. Give me something a little more solid than that.
Hmm, I've generally found that when people gratuitously bring accusations of racism or hate speech into an argument, it's because they are trying to avoid the issue and demonize the opponent. You must have missed my mention of freedom of speech and inalienable rights. There's also the protection from unreasonable search and the right to due process, which the RIAA has pretty well dismantled. All subjects that concerned the founders and concern many of us today. Too bad that dated old stuff doesn't concern you, but it gives me a good indication of your age.
The copyright and patent provisions were put in the Constitution to benefit the public. Other than the beatles and elvis catalogs, no other group of works has had a life-span monetarily beyond 30 years (citation).
I can't believe you wrote that. Yeah, the point of copyright was to benefit both originators and the public. The perversions done to copyright since have no benefit for the public. There is a huge amount of 30+ year-old music (and movies) still raking in money for the labels: Fleetwood Mac, Jefferson Airplane, Moody Blues, Deep Purple, Doors, Rod Stewart, Creedence, Simon and Garfunkel, and of course, our favorite Sonny and Cher -- the list would go on for pages. All of it should be public domain, and I can certainly understand why some might think some civil disobedience is in order.
I've said, all along, "people shouldn't download stuff they aren't willing to pay for."
That sentiment I could agree with, but what you said was that people should not download because it would make a difference to Congress, which is untrue. Congress will do whatever the xxAA tells it to.
Though with your single-mindedness, I wouldn't be surprised if you were George Bush.
That's funny coming from someone whose mind on this subject is as closed as a bank vault on a Sunday. So far, you've accused me of being racist, misogynist, criminal, Texan -- and the last one really hurt. How low can you go? Shouldn't you be off polishing some arguments about how extending copyright protection benefits the economy or something?
It sounds like, given my quote, you are saying downloading stuff doesn't help them. Downloading is what you are responding to.
The downloading thing is so firmly entrenched in your thinking that you read what you expect to see. I said downloading does not give them any more leverage with Congress. The xxAA have already purchased that. It's so obvious that even some mainstream computer magazines have started referring to one senator as Fritz Hollings (D-Disney). Whether people downloading is actually a problem is debatable, but the MPAA will claim it is despite having record revenue and will continue to tell Congress what to think.
Sure, I follow here that you don't want to pay them for stuff that you think should be in the public domain and that you've downloaded stuff before
Again, you're reading intent that was never written. I have never downloaded a movie, and I have never downloaded music that wasn't legitimately available for download. The fact that you automatically attribute evil intent to those who disagree with you is not my problem.
Downloading was the theme of what you quoted, and you stated that you've done it before. You have paid for stuff in the past BUT not anymore. It's completely reasonable for me to assume you intend to download stuff
I never said I'd done it before. The parenthetic phrase "(and I admit to being guilty)", by the rules of English, applies to the preceding "Paying them for stuff that should be in the public domain". I am guilty of paying the MPAA for material that should be in the public domain. Your twisting of the meaning simply shows your mindset.
But I am sure when you download things, you only download the ones older that 28 years since you still respect the original copyright provisions.
I don't download things that are not legally available. I follow the law, even though I don't agree with its current bastardized form. Your continuing insinuations about illegal behavior on my part is irritating to say the least.
But bully for you for thinking that we should follow Congress's original thoughts on Copyright. I guess I understand how a law proposed over 200 years ago should stand the test of time without alteration since they had to worry about digital reproduction and what-not back then.
That makes the least sense of anything you've said so far. Digital reproduction has zero to do with it. The issue is that copyright was given to the originator for a LIMITED time, and then the work became public domain. Do you think masses of people marched on Washington D.C. and demanded that Congress extend the copyright period? No. It was Sonny Bono trying to make even more money out of Cher's voice. (What an all-time champion pimp he was.) It was Disney buying congresscritters to write legislation that makes Disney more money. The *people* got nothing out of the changes to the law, nor were they ever allowed to vote on it.
They got that slavery thing right too. And that women-can't-vote thing. Man, if only we still listened to a bunch of rich, white, slave-owners, at least we could download songs from 1976.
Sure, throw some implications of racism and misogynism in as well -- you've accused me of everything else. We should also update those whole "inalienable rights" and "freedom of speech" things, which allows you to post your opinions. All that old stuff in the Consitution is really getting dated, and we don't need opinions like yours anyway. In the gleaming, corporate future, we should only allow the posting of opinions approved by the corporations. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Did I mention that you are a brainwashed tool of the robber barons?
The other reason games aren't funny is that the designers aren't comedians. Mostly, programmers have a math/science background, and they would honestly prefer to focus on improving the physics.
First, game designers aren't usually programmers. Second, programmers produce some of the deadliest puns around. Your analysis is flawed. "Ha, ha." - Jack o' the Green, MediEvil
Let's back up. If you're going to stop buying stuff, that's one thing, and, duh, is completely ok.
Um, duh, that's what I said originally. You interpreted that to mean I was going to go do some underhanded P2P stuff. You are a brainwashed tool.
Yet you still didn't answer my question. What should be in the public domain? Mickey Mouse, which is near the end of his copyright lifespan? Maybe. There's an argument for that. The Beatles catalog (as another poster suggested)? Well they're not all dead yet and Congress originally said life-of-author, so the fact their not still a band shouldn't matter.
As I suggested, you should read a history book. Congress originally provided a copyright for 14 years which could be extended to 28 years by request. Mickey Mouse would have been public domain decades ago. The fact that two of the Beatles are still alive has nothing to do with it. They made millions from their works, and those works should now, rightfully, be in the public domain. Sonny Bono being elected to Congress should not have had the end effect of screwing the people.
Deus Ex was great because the game was different every time you played it depending on your actions. Beyond Good and Evil was just plain a great game. It's sad that the planned sequels won't happen because of the poor sales. I don't get it. When companies turn out great games like Ico and Beyond Good and Evil, gamers don't buy them. I guess if it's not a franchise and number 5 in the series, most gamers won't play it. Sad.
You can, er, call, whatever makes you happy as long as you don't call me Shirley.
Comparing Mother Theresa to anyone is ludicrous. . ..But it's not as if Gordon Moore raped and pillaged his way to huge fortune. . . . What does Gordon Moore have on his conscience? How could you possibly know if he has more on his conscience than you do?
Comparing my charitable person to your charitable person is not ludicrous. Gordon Moore ripped off Fairchild Semiconductor by taking its work and using it to build a competing company and his personal fortune. CEOs in the 60's made about 10 times the salary of the average worker. Now, it's about 300 times the salary of the average worker. I don't have anything on my conscience that could compare to that. Seriously, get three hundred productive workers together, stand up in front of them, and tell them that you are worth more than all of them combined.
As for your supposed knowledge of what motivates people to get into politics, you've been standing in the echo chamber for too long. If you haven't ever operated in the world of politics, how can you say you know what motivates all of the people who become involved in it?
By watching what they do after leaving office -- and it wasn't all, just 99.5 percent, remember?
Judging the powerful from afar is an easy excercise in cynicism, but it doesn't make your judgements any more accurate.
Yes, I should be more humble, know my place, keep my eyes lowered, and not dare to have opinions about the powerful, which I have observed for over a half-century. However, not being in the forest allows me to see the forest clearly.
When you buy shoes, clothes, computers, you are taking those objects out of the market place. You have "consumed" them.
Not in any normal sense of the word. All these things still exist and can be resold or given away.
Please, tell me what should be in the public domain. This is the second time I've seen this asserted and I want to know what you think should pull the public domain trigger.
It should be as it was originally written by Congress -- not the ever-extended and nearly eternal copyright of today. Read a history book.
Well enjoy the lawsuit because until Congress says otherwise, what you're doing is unlawful, civily and potentially criminally.
Do tell. The fact that I'm going to reduce my purchases of DVDs and do without is unlawful and criminal? Well go ahead and sue my butt off and put me in jail for not buying their products. You really are a brainwashed tool of the robber barons.
For the record, the MPAA doesn't make money off it. The MPAA get paid by the studios to act in the general interests of the movie industry, studios contribute based on some formula that takes their size into account.
Yes, yes, I think we're all aware of that, and for this discussion, most identify the MPAA as being the collective studios as well as the public relations and legislative mouthpiece.
The studio that made the movie makes the money off the re-release, and depending on how the contracts were written, the actors heirs would get their cut if need be.
The point being that the actors and film crew were paid -- period -- over sixty years ago. No cut from new releases. All money goes to the studio (an MPAA member).
The studio likely remastered the movie for the DVD release, tracking down several copies and and putting effort into making the disc a clean copy.
If the studio didn't have the master at hand, it shouldn't have a right to charge for a new version in any case. The point is that any existing versions should be in the public domain, even if they are grainy. If the studio wants to offer a value-added, non-grainy version, that's wonderful but not really germane to the discussion.
I can quit seeing Quentin Tarantino films any time I want. I just dont want to.
Speaking of which, why do people think Uma Thurman is so hot? Okay, she's slightly attractive when the camera is kind, but she must have the ugliest feet in the movie industry. Why didn't they get one of those foot models as a stand-in (bad pun not intended) when filming Kill Bill and the ten minutes of her toes?
It doesn't matter. The cost of consuming that media is set by the owners. By consuming it, whether you would have paid for it or not, is a lost sale since you did not pay the price they set for it.
I'm not advocating copyright infringement, but you really sound like you've been brainwashed. Consuming media? Be sure to put catsup (yeah, the ketchup poll was wrong) on that CD before you "consume" it. Or perhaps you should put in your ears before you *consume* the electronic version.
Downloading stuff HELPS THEM by giving them congressional leverage.
Wrong. Paying them for stuff that should be in the public domain (and I admit to being guilty) gives them tons of money to buy more Congresscritters and all the legislation they want. I've been aiding and abetting the enemy with money, but in response to this new tack, I'm going to reduce their income.
While I agree with your basic point, look at it from the other side; Joe Dirt is in posession of their "property" which they value at full price. If Joe wasn't willing to pay the $$$, he shouldn't have the benefit of listening/watching the content.
Look at it from the public's point of view. I collect old classics, and I'm willing to pay for them because that's the law, but it doesn't make it right. Casablanca on DVD costs as much or more as a two-year-old movie. People have been born, lived full lives, and died since that movie was filmed. The people who made the film and acted in it are all dead -- they're not getting royalties. The studio made huge bucks off of it decades ago. Why is the MPAA still entitled to constantly more money?
I'm not sure that the distinction is important to you, but a letter of intent is not the same as a signed contract. The contract was just signed. The previous story was about the letter of intent.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up -- I thought it was a dupe, too. The fact that lawyers agreed to accept more money is certainly newsworthy.
What about the members of Responsible Wealth? What about Gordon Moore, who in addition to founding Intel, has been giving away huge sums of money for decades?
When you have more money than any person can possibly use, you can afford to toss coins to the peasants, and it helps assuage one's conscience. I'm far more impressed by people like Mother Theresa, who had nothing and gave everything.
As for politicians, having worked in Washington, D.C., I can tell you that the vast majority of the elected and appointed people I met had very little interest in padding their fortunes. Politics is in general a much more difficult means of obtaining wealth than going into business.
You admit to being tainted by the dark side. Political office has become the means to aquire future payback. What do politicians do when they leave office? They go to work as highly-paid lobbyists and/or for federal contractors who *owe* them, e.g., Dick Cheney.
You may not agree with their political leanings, their methods, or their effectiveness, but to paint them all as greedy bastards, while satisfying, is quite an exaggeration.
It's got nothing to do with their political leanings; it's about what drives them to those positions. And I didn't mean to say they were ALL greedy bastards -- only 99.5 percent. There could be one person accidentally elected to Congress who doesn't lust for power or wealth.
I know of many janitors who clean and complete their daily tasks in one hour, then goof off for 7. I know of retail clerks that shoplift clothes and merchandise.
Sure you do. You know all these people out to cheat an honest CEO out of their millions. I personally have known one janitor and several retail clerks who were all honest employees.
You tell me who is worse, the relative few executives who embezzle $1 to $100 million, or the minimum wage employees . ..
You don't want to see the point. It's not about a few CEOs embezzling. It's about a whole group of executives looting companies (somewhat legally) for personal gain and putting the real workers in the unemployment line in order to satisfy personal greed.
Cooks that take home "extra" food. The list goes on and on with a total approaching many $billions.
Right. I'll counter the "$billions" in losses from all your cooks stealing food until the heat death of the universe with the losses caused by executives from one company: Enron.
Slashdot is overwhelmingly workers versus executives and business owners so it is not surprising that they have a protectionistic and socialist outlook on employment.
And of course executives like this guy who burned all the shareholders and put thousands of employees in the unemployment line, gets *replaced* and slinks away (to the boardroom) with $100 million. Yes, we should realize how hard they work for for the good of the *cough* country.
He won the electoral vote and the popular vote for a reason: people believe in his vision for the economy.
According the post-election polls, the economy didn't have squat to do with it. Most people indicated it was about moral issues and character. Nobody in their right mind would vote for Bush based on his handling of the economy or his administration's view that all exports are good -- including jobs.
I welcome correspondence with other young Republicans
I'm an old Republican, and I call 'em like I see 'em. Sorry about corresponding.
When it gets to the point that companies have laid off enough workers, they will realize that the workers are customers of the economy and without jobs people don't buy much.
Companies don't outsource jobs, company executives outsource jobs. Companies don't "realize" anything, and the CxOs don't care. Why don't people understand that the so-called *leaders* of corporate America (and government) don't care about anything except personal fortunes? Once they've got theirs, they couldn't care less what happens to the company or the "workers". How many executives have to be indicted or jailed before it's obvious? (And those are only the ones stupid enough to get caught.)
Which is what you're likely to get if you turn the keys to the company over to people without any personal interest in the company or its future. Of course the CEO will then use his/her golden parachute and retire to spend more time with their family after all that exhausting CEO-ing.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's look back on our apparent stances:
me: downloading is bad. It gives the RIAA leverage when they lobby for voting support in Congress. People shouldn't download
you: downloading has nothing to do with it. The RIAA has already bought every person in Congress and the real evil is the duration of time that they have extended copyright to.
A) Am I wrong that these are our stances?
You: Downloading is bad. Members of Congress actually research claims made by fellow legislators when campaign money is on the table. [What a hoot!] People shouldn't download, and perpetual copyright protection is fine. The Founding Fathers were a bunch of racist, sexist, agrarian, dead white guys who knew squat, which is a good reason to get rid of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Me: Downloading serves as a convenient excuse for current legislation. The xxAA has bought enough members of Congress to sponsor legislation, and the rest will happily enact it to ensure further campaign contributions. All modifications to the original copyright law have screwed the public. People should be allowed to use and share what is rightfully theirs. Mom, apple pie, truth, justice, and the American way! :)
No troll, just a fundamental disagreement about what is the bigger evil: the severity of the punishment or the length of time that a punishment, any punishment, can be enforced.
I agree that "the severity of the punishment" has become outrageous for a minor civil infraction. I am opposed to all changes to the orginal law, which includes the DMCA, etc. However, you have previously stated that the length of copyright protection doesn't matter. Okay, let's make the copyright period one billion years (where it's headed) - that's still limited. What does the public ever get out of the copyright trade-off?
I find it hard to believe you can't see that copyright was a bargain and a balance between two sides with opposing wishes. Congress gave the originator a legal monopoly for a couple of decades, which is plenty of time to be recompensed if the work is worth anything. Unlike the natural laws of Locke, there is no natural right to a monopoly on common property (copyright). That bargain has been completely undone by extensions to copyright. I've given examples before; it's pointless to do it again. The "real evil" is that the xxAA is step-by-step making copyright protection perpetual, and you don't care. It's like cooking a frog -- just put it cool water, and slowly increase the heat. The end result is a happy, dead, cooked frog.
No, this is how legislation gets drafted. The fact that they can point to people ruining their profits through downloading is how it gets passed by many many votes.
So, you've proved you don't read my responses, and you're just trolling. I already noted that the RIAA made such a claim during a period of increasing profits, and the Congress bought it. They will *believe* the people who pay for their election campaigns and who give them jobs when they leave office.
Now consider if copyright was for the original 14 years, but if you infringed or used it improperly, you were thrown in a cell with Bubba and you were wearing a prom dress. Would there be a problem? Yes. Society would be so afraid that the onwer would have their monopoly like Congress originally stated so many moons ago. Would the public benefit? Not until the 14 years were up.
This becomes a more obvious troll with each paragraph. Look at the current situation: It's a freaking federal crime to copy a movie AND IT'S FOR 95 YEARS. They aren't sending emails, they're sending summons. Being public domain after 14 years would certainly be better. How can you be so blind as to ignore that the xxAA has criminalized behavior that would have been legal had they not perverted the law?
I'm singled-mided? If you took 2 seconds to read what I was saying, you would see I was giving an EXAMPLE of what YOU COULD HAVE SAID that would have been a better argument than your original "The Founding Fathers did it."
You're the one who called me single-minded, and a Texan to boot, remember? Try to keep it straight, Pilgrim. What you wrote was so blatantly ridiculous, I would never have written it, and I pointed out why. The founding fathers are the ones who guaranteed us individual rights. You are unconcerned that they have been taken away, which proves you have ulterior motives or are just trolling.
Sorry, if mickey mouse is public domain tomorrow or twenty years from now really doesn't matter.
Did I ever mention that you are a brainwashed tool of the robber barons? The difference between 14 years and 95 years (ever increasing) is significant because of the money it pipes into the xxAA for things that should be free. This allows said companies to purchase more legislators and legislation to perpetuate their stranglehold on material that should belong to the public. There is old music (and movies) that you can't purchase from the xxAA because they aren't selling it, yet it is illegal for people to share because of copyright extensions.
What is atrocious is the legislation passed to criminalize those that copy during the defined period.
What is this strange about-face? Yeah, that's really bad. Making it criminal for 7 times as long is 7 times as bad. Do the math.
Do you honestly think that if all of a sudden copyright length was returned to the original 14 years, yet we retained the DMCA and 18 USC 2519, we would live in some copyright paradise? If so man, pass th Kool-aid, because I want some.
It was never intended to be a "copyright paradise"; it was intended to give both sides a fair deal, and returning to the original copyright law would return to that fair deal. Bands would be allowed to play old music without paying protection money. People would be allowed to share old music and movies that aren't even retailed anymore. You don't need any more Kool-Aid, you've already swallowed enough from the people stealing your freedom.
I believe this is the point where you tell me that I have been trolled. Yes, ha ha, very funny. Please stop signing your trolls with "-truth".
Jimmy Carter, who is the only president who was an actual nuclear engineer earlier in his career, pronounced it this way.
So did his (twelve-year-old?) daughter, who was majorly concerned about nuclear proliferation, according to him. I always thought that was the claim that cost him the election.
hive intelligence. use google.
Why would I leave Slashdot for Google? :)
they're Still Here. That means there's something Wrong with the theory.
And it's not hard to figure out. There was no asteroid impact. Dick Cheney wiped out the dinosaurs and started the rumors of asteroids of mass destruction for obvious oil-related reasons. It's a darned good thing for the bees that you can't run an SUV on honey. (Just kidding - it's post-election humor. :)
Maybe they lived on honey for a few years. Perhaps they had really giant honeycombs where they lived in like a nuclear fallout shelter kind of way until the bad air went away.
Perhaps the collective hive-mind realized the danger and triggered a stasis field for the length of the cold weather. Although Nivens and Pournelle never did explain how a timer works in a stasis field or how bees could procure a GP hull or . . .
Sorry, but they haven't bought every Senator or Congressmen. But for the ones they haven't, if they can point to downloading, and they do, they will gain sympathy.
Again, they don't need to buy more than one or two in each house who will sponsor legislation, like Bono or Hollings. That is how the DMCA and similar legislation was passed.
And digital reproduction is EXACTLY the problem. That's why taping was determined to be fair use: because the quality degrades with each generation of tape.
It has NOTHING to do with the ongoing perversion of the copyright law. The issue is the length of copyright protection, after which the work BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE PEOPLE. Once it belongs to the public, the quality of copies is totally irrelevant. The relevant point is that works no longer ever become property of the people because monied interests have purchased legislation to distort the law.
And as long as they have the priacy scapegoat, Congressmen will buy it and judges will enforce it.
That cat is long out of the bag. Sharing of copyrighted material will never be completely stopped. The U.S. Congress has no power to make law in the rest of the world. The scapegoat is just that and will be used as such no matter how insignificant or harmless it is. The RIAA claimed loudly to be losing money to downloading while sales were in fact up. Judges only apply the law that the legislature makes. To paraphrase the SCOTUS on the most recent copyright extension: "While it might be a stupid decision, Congress has the power to extend copyright protection."
Aw c'mon. Of course I played the race card. Your justification for following the original copyright statute was that the Founders came up with it. Give me something a little more solid than that.
Hmm, I've generally found that when people gratuitously bring accusations of racism or hate speech into an argument, it's because they are trying to avoid the issue and demonize the opponent. You must have missed my mention of freedom of speech and inalienable rights. There's also the protection from unreasonable search and the right to due process, which the RIAA has pretty well dismantled. All subjects that concerned the founders and concern many of us today. Too bad that dated old stuff doesn't concern you, but it gives me a good indication of your age.
The copyright and patent provisions were put in the Constitution to benefit the public. Other than the beatles and elvis catalogs, no other group of works has had a life-span monetarily beyond 30 years (citation).
I can't believe you wrote that. Yeah, the point of copyright was to benefit both originators and the public. The perversions done to copyright since have no benefit for the public. There is a huge amount of 30+ year-old music (and movies) still raking in money for the labels: Fleetwood Mac, Jefferson Airplane, Moody Blues, Deep Purple, Doors, Rod Stewart, Creedence, Simon and Garfunkel, and of course, our favorite Sonny and Cher -- the list would go on for pages. All of it should be public domain, and I can certainly understand why some might think some civil disobedience is in order.
I've said, all along, "people shouldn't download stuff they aren't willing to pay for."
That sentiment I could agree with, but what you said was that people should not download because it would make a difference to Congress, which is untrue. Congress will do whatever the xxAA tells it to.
Though with your single-mindedness, I wouldn't be surprised if you were George Bush.
That's funny coming from someone whose mind on this subject is as closed as a bank vault on a Sunday. So far, you've accused me of being racist, misogynist, criminal, Texan -- and the last one really hurt. How low can you go? Shouldn't you be off polishing some arguments about how extending copyright protection benefits the economy or something?
It sounds like, given my quote, you are saying downloading stuff doesn't help them. Downloading is what you are responding to.
The downloading thing is so firmly entrenched in your thinking that you read what you expect to see. I said downloading does not give them any more leverage with Congress. The xxAA have already purchased that. It's so obvious that even some mainstream computer magazines have started referring to one senator as Fritz Hollings (D-Disney). Whether people downloading is actually a problem is debatable, but the MPAA will claim it is despite having record revenue and will continue to tell Congress what to think.
Sure, I follow here that you don't want to pay them for stuff that you think should be in the public domain and that you've downloaded stuff before
Again, you're reading intent that was never written. I have never downloaded a movie, and I have never downloaded music that wasn't legitimately available for download. The fact that you automatically attribute evil intent to those who disagree with you is not my problem.
Downloading was the theme of what you quoted, and you stated that you've done it before. You have paid for stuff in the past BUT not anymore. It's completely reasonable for me to assume you intend to download stuff
I never said I'd done it before. The parenthetic phrase "(and I admit to being guilty)", by the rules of English, applies to the preceding "Paying them for stuff that should be in the public domain". I am guilty of paying the MPAA for material that should be in the public domain. Your twisting of the meaning simply shows your mindset.
But I am sure when you download things, you only download the ones older that 28 years since you still respect the original copyright provisions.
I don't download things that are not legally available. I follow the law, even though I don't agree with its current bastardized form. Your continuing insinuations about illegal behavior on my part is irritating to say the least.
But bully for you for thinking that we should follow Congress's original thoughts on Copyright. I guess I understand how a law proposed over 200 years ago should stand the test of time without alteration since they had to worry about digital reproduction and what-not back then.
That makes the least sense of anything you've said so far. Digital reproduction has zero to do with it. The issue is that copyright was given to the originator for a LIMITED time, and then the work became public domain. Do you think masses of people marched on Washington D.C. and demanded that Congress extend the copyright period? No. It was Sonny Bono trying to make even more money out of Cher's voice. (What an all-time champion pimp he was.) It was Disney buying congresscritters to write legislation that makes Disney more money. The *people* got nothing out of the changes to the law, nor were they ever allowed to vote on it.
They got that slavery thing right too. And that women-can't-vote thing. Man, if only we still listened to a bunch of rich, white, slave-owners, at least we could download songs from 1976.
Sure, throw some implications of racism and misogynism in as well -- you've accused me of everything else. We should also update those whole "inalienable rights" and "freedom of speech" things, which allows you to post your opinions. All that old stuff in the Consitution is really getting dated, and we don't need opinions like yours anyway. In the gleaming, corporate future, we should only allow the posting of opinions approved by the corporations. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Did I mention that you are a brainwashed tool of the robber barons?
The other reason games aren't funny is that the designers aren't comedians. Mostly, programmers have a math/science background, and they would honestly prefer to focus on improving the physics.
First, game designers aren't usually programmers. Second, programmers produce some of the deadliest puns around. Your analysis is flawed. "Ha, ha." - Jack o' the Green, MediEvil
Sophisticated sense of humor? Please identify the versions you played.
Let's back up. If you're going to stop buying stuff, that's one thing, and, duh, is completely ok.
Um, duh, that's what I said originally. You interpreted that to mean I was going to go do some underhanded P2P stuff. You are a brainwashed tool.
Yet you still didn't answer my question. What should be in the public domain? Mickey Mouse, which is near the end of his copyright lifespan? Maybe. There's an argument for that. The Beatles catalog (as another poster suggested)? Well they're not all dead yet and Congress originally said life-of-author, so the fact their not still a band shouldn't matter.
As I suggested, you should read a history book. Congress originally provided a copyright for 14 years which could be extended to 28 years by request. Mickey Mouse would have been public domain decades ago. The fact that two of the Beatles are still alive has nothing to do with it. They made millions from their works, and those works should now, rightfully, be in the public domain. Sonny Bono being elected to Congress should not have had the end effect of screwing the people.
Deus Ex was great because the game was different every time you played it depending on your actions. Beyond Good and Evil was just plain a great game. It's sad that the planned sequels won't happen because of the poor sales. I don't get it. When companies turn out great games like Ico and Beyond Good and Evil, gamers don't buy them. I guess if it's not a franchise and number 5 in the series, most gamers won't play it. Sad.
I still call bullshit.
You can, er, call, whatever makes you happy as long as you don't call me Shirley.
Comparing Mother Theresa to anyone is ludicrous. . . .But it's not as if Gordon Moore raped and pillaged his way to huge fortune. . . . What does Gordon Moore have on his conscience? How could you possibly know if he has more on his conscience than you do?
Comparing my charitable person to your charitable person is not ludicrous. Gordon Moore ripped off Fairchild Semiconductor by taking its work and using it to build a competing company and his personal fortune. CEOs in the 60's made about 10 times the salary of the average worker. Now, it's about 300 times the salary of the average worker. I don't have anything on my conscience that could compare to that. Seriously, get three hundred productive workers together, stand up in front of them, and tell them that you are worth more than all of them combined.
As for your supposed knowledge of what motivates people to get into politics, you've been standing in the echo chamber for too long. If you haven't ever operated in the world of politics, how can you say you know what motivates all of the people who become involved in it?
By watching what they do after leaving office -- and it wasn't all, just 99.5 percent, remember?
Judging the powerful from afar is an easy excercise in cynicism, but it doesn't make your judgements any more accurate.
Yes, I should be more humble, know my place, keep my eyes lowered, and not dare to have opinions about the powerful, which I have observed for over a half-century. However, not being in the forest allows me to see the forest clearly.
When you buy shoes, clothes, computers, you are taking those objects out of the market place. You have "consumed" them.
Not in any normal sense of the word. All these things still exist and can be resold or given away.
Please, tell me what should be in the public domain. This is the second time I've seen this asserted and I want to know what you think should pull the public domain trigger.
It should be as it was originally written by Congress -- not the ever-extended and nearly eternal copyright of today. Read a history book.
Well enjoy the lawsuit because until Congress says otherwise, what you're doing is unlawful, civily and potentially criminally.
Do tell. The fact that I'm going to reduce my purchases of DVDs and do without is unlawful and criminal? Well go ahead and sue my butt off and put me in jail for not buying their products. You really are a brainwashed tool of the robber barons.
For the record, the MPAA doesn't make money off it. The MPAA get paid by the studios to act in the general interests of the movie industry, studios contribute based on some formula that takes their size into account.
Yes, yes, I think we're all aware of that, and for this discussion, most identify the MPAA as being the collective studios as well as the public relations and legislative mouthpiece.
The studio that made the movie makes the money off the re-release, and depending on how the contracts were written, the actors heirs would get their cut if need be.
The point being that the actors and film crew were paid -- period -- over sixty years ago. No cut from new releases. All money goes to the studio (an MPAA member).
The studio likely remastered the movie for the DVD release, tracking down several copies and and putting effort into making the disc a clean copy.
If the studio didn't have the master at hand, it shouldn't have a right to charge for a new version in any case. The point is that any existing versions should be in the public domain, even if they are grainy. If the studio wants to offer a value-added, non-grainy version, that's wonderful but not really germane to the discussion.
I can quit seeing Quentin Tarantino films any time I want. I just dont want to.
Speaking of which, why do people think Uma Thurman is so hot? Okay, she's slightly attractive when the camera is kind, but she must have the ugliest feet in the movie industry. Why didn't they get one of those foot models as a stand-in (bad pun not intended) when filming Kill Bill and the ten minutes of her toes?
It doesn't matter. The cost of consuming that media is set by the owners. By consuming it, whether you would have paid for it or not, is a lost sale since you did not pay the price they set for it.
I'm not advocating copyright infringement, but you really sound like you've been brainwashed. Consuming media? Be sure to put catsup (yeah, the ketchup poll was wrong) on that CD before you "consume" it. Or perhaps you should put in your ears before you *consume* the electronic version.
Downloading stuff HELPS THEM by giving them congressional leverage.
Wrong. Paying them for stuff that should be in the public domain (and I admit to being guilty) gives them tons of money to buy more Congresscritters and all the legislation they want. I've been aiding and abetting the enemy with money, but in response to this new tack, I'm going to reduce their income.
While I agree with your basic point, look at it from the other side; Joe Dirt is in posession of their "property" which they value at full price. If Joe wasn't willing to pay the $$$, he shouldn't have the benefit of listening/watching the content.
Look at it from the public's point of view. I collect old classics, and I'm willing to pay for them because that's the law, but it doesn't make it right. Casablanca on DVD costs as much or more as a two-year-old movie. People have been born, lived full lives, and died since that movie was filmed. The people who made the film and acted in it are all dead -- they're not getting royalties. The studio made huge bucks off of it decades ago. Why is the MPAA still entitled to constantly more money?
I'm not sure that the distinction is important to you, but a letter of intent is not the same as a signed contract. The contract was just signed. The previous story was about the letter of intent.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up -- I thought it was a dupe, too. The fact that lawyers agreed to accept more money is certainly newsworthy.
What about the members of Responsible Wealth? What about Gordon Moore, who in addition to founding Intel, has been giving away huge sums of money for decades?
When you have more money than any person can possibly use, you can afford to toss coins to the peasants, and it helps assuage one's conscience. I'm far more impressed by people like Mother Theresa, who had nothing and gave everything.
As for politicians, having worked in Washington, D.C., I can tell you that the vast majority of the elected and appointed people I met had very little interest in padding their fortunes. Politics is in general a much more difficult means of obtaining wealth than going into business.
You admit to being tainted by the dark side. Political office has become the means to aquire future payback. What do politicians do when they leave office? They go to work as highly-paid lobbyists and/or for federal contractors who *owe* them, e.g., Dick Cheney.
You may not agree with their political leanings, their methods, or their effectiveness, but to paint them all as greedy bastards, while satisfying, is quite an exaggeration.
It's got nothing to do with their political leanings; it's about what drives them to those positions. And I didn't mean to say they were ALL greedy bastards -- only 99.5 percent. There could be one person accidentally elected to Congress who doesn't lust for power or wealth.
I know of many janitors who clean and complete their daily tasks in one hour, then goof off for 7. I know of retail clerks that shoplift clothes and merchandise.
Sure you do. You know all these people out to cheat an honest CEO out of their millions. I personally have known one janitor and several retail clerks who were all honest employees.
You tell me who is worse, the relative few executives who embezzle $1 to $100 million, or the minimum wage employees . . .
You don't want to see the point. It's not about a few CEOs embezzling. It's about a whole group of executives looting companies (somewhat legally) for personal gain and putting the real workers in the unemployment line in order to satisfy personal greed.
Cooks that take home "extra" food. The list goes on and on with a total approaching many $billions.
Right. I'll counter the "$billions" in losses from all your cooks stealing food until the heat death of the universe with the losses caused by executives from one company: Enron.
Slashdot is overwhelmingly workers versus executives and business owners so it is not surprising that they have a protectionistic and socialist outlook on employment.
And of course executives like this guy who burned all the shareholders and put thousands of employees in the unemployment line, gets *replaced* and slinks away (to the boardroom) with $100 million. Yes, we should realize how hard they work for for the good of the *cough* country.
He won the electoral vote and the popular vote for a reason: people believe in his vision for the economy.
According the post-election polls, the economy didn't have squat to do with it. Most people indicated it was about moral issues and character. Nobody in their right mind would vote for Bush based on his handling of the economy or his administration's view that all exports are good -- including jobs.
I welcome correspondence with other young Republicans
I'm an old Republican, and I call 'em like I see 'em. Sorry about corresponding.
When it gets to the point that companies have laid off enough workers, they will realize that the workers are customers of the economy and without jobs people don't buy much.
Companies don't outsource jobs, company executives outsource jobs. Companies don't "realize" anything, and the CxOs don't care. Why don't people understand that the so-called *leaders* of corporate America (and government) don't care about anything except personal fortunes? Once they've got theirs, they couldn't care less what happens to the company or the "workers". How many executives have to be indicted or jailed before it's obvious? (And those are only the ones stupid enough to get caught.)
cannot be complete without chapter 11.
Which is what you're likely to get if you turn the keys to the company over to people without any personal interest in the company or its future. Of course the CEO will then use his/her golden parachute and retire to spend more time with their family after all that exhausting CEO-ing.