"But its not free. Companies and individuals can spend millions of dollars to compile that information."
Well suppose I have gained insight into how to deal with abusive people, and I could tell you a trick to do that, which would change your life, but I've only got that insight and knowlege through extensive abuse at the hands of these people: does that mean I should have copyright on the information just because I gained that info at significant cost?
Here's a good example. If you're jumped at by a badly-behaved dog, and you're scared witless, fold your arms, look up at the sky, and do not respond to the dog. The dog will simmer down after a little confusion, and won't bother you any more.
Suppose I risked my life, with many dog-bites and maulings to uncover that information - great cost to myself. Logically if information is able to be copyrighted bacause the compilers can expend significant resources to acquire it, the information about dogs should be similarly protected. Otherwise, what's my motivation to share?
[serious point follows satire] As a farmer, I know how appaling theft of intellectual property can be. I selectively breed plants, spend much time and effort to produce healthy and unique plants, and then people can come along and take them, use them for their own purposes, profit from them and all without rewarding my efforts and ingenuity.
Society needs to realise that everything should be owned. Look at all those programs that use your presence in a crowd, say at a local sporting event, to profit. What do you see for your contribution? Nothing. And that needs to change.
Sniff my fart? I spent money on expensive and rich foodstuffs, and yet you inhale my methane for free. Where's the justice?
[serious stuff]
Extensions of the scope of copyright monopoly, are logical to the concept of intellectual property, and in being extended they reveal the underlying absurdity of the concept. The concept is itself a hack, a convenience invented for a greater good, a "necessary evil" but it is only a good in it's restrained form. Extended to information and facts, it reveals it's malignant core: ownership of eveything that is naturally free and available to all, now only at a price.
How about, a public list of everyone's music in the town square, and you with your CD rack and a player in your front yard, and they bring their connectable cd burner and blank CDs?
"I could[sic]* care less what an expired, non-existant bankrupt recording industry cites as the reason for their demise. They can say whatever they want. If they no longer exist, they lost."
Nice plan. Except for one thing: what makes you think even in your wildest dreams, that the government would let a major capitalist organisation be snuffed out like that?
We're not talking ship-workers, or miners, or other manufacturers, we're talking pure-evil capitalism with the RIAA, and as I recall, they're the types the government numbers as "one of their own."
*Off Topic: I could love someone and care less, since there is an abundance of care that I have. So I could look at my loved one and say, "I could care less," and it would be true, since there is so much care that I have. If I couldn't care less, there is no level of care below which I could sink. I could not say that of my beloved, but I could say that of someone I disliked, hated, or was utterly indifferent to.
Therefore "[sic]" "I couldn't care less about this; I care nothing whatsoever."
I agree. His death really was a loss. he's genuinely the only famous person who has died, who I've occasionally just stopped and boggled at the fact they're no more.
It's like, WTF?... That's not right.... surely.
My theory is that in the cosmic fabric of space and time in this reality, something went seriously wrong.
I like to think he's probably sitting, alive and well, on some huge desert planet somewhere, twiddling his thumbs waiting for the next passing starship.
" If you need a good cup of tea that tastes like a good cup of tea pick up a box of Tetley British Blend!"
God no... not the sweepings, please.
Try a good strong cup of Assam, or a milder Indian tea like Darjeeling (preferably leaves rather than bags, and drunk without milk.) George Orwell, on tea.
Actually, he said BBC4 and never mentioned channel 4 (a 'commercial' channel with a public charter) though meant "BBC Radio 4"; "BBC 4" is actually a relatively new digital TV station from the BBC.
"this is obviously a not particularly bright attempt by the BBC to defend a role which is no longer clear to themselves nor to the spin-based Blair dictatorship...
That would be a broadcaster with a duty to serve the public, rather than exploit them to make revenue for shareholders, only catering to LCD large-revenue audiences, serving programmes as the carrot-to-get-eyes-watching-adverts in an arse-about-face way. Seems pretty clear to me.
"recently torpedoed by the Kelly affair"
If you read the Times or the Sun, operated by Rupert Murdoch who has an axe to grind against the BBC, because he would like to be the dominant force in British Media (God deliver us all from such a hellish fate.)
"...with the review of the Royal Charter, which provides the conditions under which the BBC operates, due soon (I think in 2005,"
2006
" in any case before Tony the liar gets the boot); it looks like pre-emptive defensive action thus..."
The BBC's internet arm is being reviewed currently. They've been making quite a push with their interactive TV services, and are constantly innovating.
I think you're being cynical in suggesting the only reason that the Beeb is planning this is to defend against hostile forces in the government, though it will surely help.
BBC Radio 7 currently available on DAB in the UK, and over the internet to the entire world, for free, makes the BBC radio archives available to everyone, in much the same way as this proposal (though a "listen again" function for the station is not, because of diverse licensing conditions.)
What Greg Dyke announced is simply a bigger and broader development of things like BBC online Radio, Radio 7, and many of it's news-themed programmes which are already available.
I don't know what went on with the teletext thing you mention, maybe licensing/copyright issues, but it's a fact that you can listen to BBC radio for nothing, so it would seem unusual if this were being done to prevent anyone from outside "Little England" from getting BBC produced culture (see... I avoided "content.")
In short they're not really known for their meanness in this regard. Your misting of the fire-logs seems a little unnecessary.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Well I certainly won't be signing it. All my sympathy evaporated when the word "litigation" entered the fray.
Well suppose I have gained insight into how to deal with abusive people, and I could tell you a trick to do that, which would change your life, but I've only got that insight and knowlege through extensive abuse at the hands of these people: does that mean I should have copyright on the information just because I gained that info at significant cost?
Here's a good example. If you're jumped at by a badly-behaved dog, and you're scared witless, fold your arms, look up at the sky, and do not respond to the dog. The dog will simmer down after a little confusion, and won't bother you any more.
Suppose I risked my life, with many dog-bites and maulings to uncover that information - great cost to myself. Logically if information is able to be copyrighted bacause the compilers can expend significant resources to acquire it, the information about dogs should be similarly protected. Otherwise, what's my motivation to share?
As a farmer, I know how appaling theft of intellectual property can be. I selectively breed plants, spend much time and effort to produce healthy and unique plants, and then people can come along and take them, use them for their own purposes, profit from them and all without rewarding my efforts and ingenuity.
Society needs to realise that everything should be owned. Look at all those programs that use your presence in a crowd, say at a local sporting event, to profit. What do you see for your contribution? Nothing. And that needs to change.
Sniff my fart? I spent money on expensive and rich foodstuffs, and yet you inhale my methane for free. Where's the justice?
[serious stuff]
Extensions of the scope of copyright monopoly, are logical to the concept of intellectual property, and in being extended they reveal the underlying absurdity of the concept.
The concept is itself a hack, a convenience invented for a greater good, a "necessary evil" but it is only a good in it's restrained form. Extended to information and facts, it reveals it's malignant core: ownership of eveything that is naturally free and available to all, now only at a price.
The article calls it DRM-ware, but surely "SPY-ware" is more appropriate.
Anyone have a copy of the EULA?
How about, a public list of everyone's music in the town square, and you with your CD rack and a player in your front yard, and they bring their connectable cd burner and blank CDs?
Nice plan. Except for one thing: what makes you think even in your wildest dreams, that the government would let a major capitalist organisation be snuffed out like that?
We're not talking ship-workers, or miners, or other manufacturers, we're talking pure-evil capitalism with the RIAA, and as I recall, they're the types the government numbers as "one of their own."
*Off Topic: I could love someone and care less, since there is an abundance of care that I have. So I could look at my loved one and say, "I could care less," and it would be true, since there is so much care that I have.
If I couldn't care less, there is no level of care below which I could sink. I could not say that of my beloved, but I could say that of someone I disliked, hated, or was utterly indifferent to.
Therefore "[sic]" "I couldn't care less about this; I care nothing whatsoever."
So that's Apple's business plan!
If you're visiting a chip shop that sells anal dildoes, I'd consider buying your chips elsewhere.
You forgot, ""going equipped" with a black skin" and "being in posession of a non-standard hair-cut."
Not looking like you're the type to sue, is also a good reason for being searched/harassed.
That reminds me, I must buy some peaches tomorrow.
I think governments generally like to tax people whenever money changes hands.
Try "First-Flush" Darjeeling tea leaves. They're the new shoots picked, well, as they're new.
It's called "The Champagne of Teas."
Never tasted any bitterness with that; it's very light and refreshing.
It's like, WTF?... That's not right.... surely.
My theory is that in the cosmic fabric of space and time in this reality, something went seriously wrong.
I like to think he's probably sitting, alive and well, on some huge desert planet somewhere, twiddling his thumbs waiting for the next passing starship.
God no... not the sweepings, please.
Try a good strong cup of Assam, or a milder Indian tea like Darjeeling (preferably leaves rather than bags, and drunk without milk.)
George Orwell, on tea.
Murdoch Henchman's screed.
I was just listening to Blakes 7 (the one where Avon gets a clone from a transporter accident.) Horror, Sci-Fi, Dr Who, Hitchhikers, Comedy.... free.
BBC TV Stations.
BBC tv stations are known just by BBC and a number.
BBC Radio, is known by "BBC Radio" and a number.
Except for BBC 7. Which is a radio station.
Because otherwise it would have been all too easy.
BBC Radio Stations. [all with streaming.]
That would be a broadcaster with a duty to serve the public, rather than exploit them to make revenue for shareholders, only catering to LCD large-revenue audiences, serving programmes as the carrot-to-get-eyes-watching-adverts in an arse-about-face way. Seems pretty clear to me.
"recently torpedoed by the Kelly affair"
If you read the Times or the Sun, operated by Rupert Murdoch who has an axe to grind against the BBC, because he would like to be the dominant force in British Media (God deliver us all from such a hellish fate.)
"...with the review of the Royal Charter, which provides the conditions under which the BBC operates, due soon (I think in 2005,"
2006
" in any case before Tony the liar gets the boot); it looks like pre-emptive defensive action thus..."
The BBC's internet arm is being reviewed currently. They've been making quite a push with their interactive TV services, and are constantly innovating.
I think you're being cynical in suggesting the only reason that the Beeb is planning this is to defend against hostile forces in the government, though it will surely help.
BBC Radio 7 currently available on DAB in the UK, and over the internet to the entire world, for free, makes the BBC radio archives available to everyone, in much the same way as this proposal (though a "listen again" function for the station is not, because of diverse licensing conditions.)
What Greg Dyke announced is simply a bigger and broader development of things like BBC online Radio, Radio 7, and many of it's news-themed programmes which are already available.
I don't know what went on with the teletext thing you mention, maybe licensing/copyright issues, but it's a fact that you can listen to BBC radio for nothing, so it would seem unusual if this were being done to prevent anyone from outside "Little England" from getting BBC produced culture (see... I avoided "content.")
In short they're not really known for their meanness in this regard. :)
Your misting of the fire-logs seems a little unnecessary.
try this.
"I don't find that very funny."
(Score:-1, Whatever)
Oh yeah cheap Thai WinXP without product activation story at the inquirer.
Win XP and Office XP for $35 each and NO product activation nonsense.
I sure hope Abrams didn't put "GSOH" in his profile.
Now that really would be fake.
I have no idea if they could be applied in such DMCA takedown notices, however.