You missed the point. If the consumer wants to edit their copy of a movie, or pay some one to do it for them, that is their right. However, if the studio wants to make an edited version of the film and sell it, they should have to get the permition of the director.
Now, I know that the studio owns the film, but what is at issue here is the concept of "moral right." In Europe, this concept has been codified into law. The directors in question are hoping to set a legal precedent regarding the "moral right" an artist has over their work. By trying to make this into a consumer rights issue, you are essentially saying that the directors have a legal obligation to produce censored versions of their films, and that is utter BS. This is a battle bettween artist rights and the rights of the studios; consumer rights dont' even enter the equation.
This may come as a shock to you, but the US is not the only government in the world; so if Australia (or any other country) doesn't want to recognize the new-found authority of the **AA's as "lawful", they don't have to.
And in real life, searches and seizures are handled by the police/FBI, and potential virus outbreaks are handled jointly by the CDC and law enforcement (though, depending on the circumstances, the military might get involved).
The point is that the proper authorities already have the power to search computers for pirated data and viruses (with a warrant), so why do we need to give ordinary citizens (copyright holders and sys admins) this kind of power?
"You either need to be a lawyer, or invest so much time that you could be, to have read everything relevant."
IANAL, and I have never taken any law classes, but I *can* understand the law (and I know this because I frequently have legal disscussions with my dad, who is a lawyer). Hell, most of the people who *write* the laws don't have a law degree (that's one of the reasons we have the Supreme Court). Think of it this way, you don't need an English degree to understand poetry, but it would make it easier to understand. The biggest problem is that most people, myself included, don't know how to search the law libraries.
"I've often proposed that the entire legal code an individual be subjected to be readable and roughly memorizable by "the average non-college educated person"."
The problem with that is that it leads to ambiguous laws. Take "Thou shalt not kill" for example. It's short, simple, and fairly easy to understand, but it is ambigous. Does it mean that I can't kill *anything*? If so, I'd better stop using anti-bacterial soap. Maybe it's just other humans that I'm not supposed to kill, but what about self defense, or killing one person to save millions (like killing Hitler to stop the Holocaust)? And then there's the question of liability. What if I order someone's death, is that the same thing as killing? Or what if I just refuse to stop a murder from taking place, am I liable for that person's death?
"...include legal classes as standard curiculum."
That is a very good idea, and thats exactly why it will never happen. If the government passed a law that actually made sense, it would set a dangerous precedent;)
PS, sorry about the Biblical reference, but it was the first thing that came to mind.
" Perhaps the ad campgaign is not the people in the bars; perhaps the actual ad campaign is the free publicity in the WSJ, on Slashdot, and hundreds of other places."
Or maybe that's what they want us to think. If we all belive that this article is nothing more than an attempt at free publicity, we'll all be fooled by the real campaign.
Very clever Sony/Ericson, but not clever enough.
Re:How to take care of the situation you describe
on
Copyright as Cudgel
·
· Score: 1
If your boss isn't paying enough, find a better company in town, or a better part of the country.
Who's to say that there will be other companies. After all, we've just eliminated the anitrust laws, so in 5 or 10 years, ther will probably be only one or two compainies in each industry (and some companies will span multiple industries).
I am currently both a college student (maintaining a 4.0, ha) and a farmer. I know what 96 hrs a week feals like, and it sucks. Hell, durring the week I get a couple hours of sleep per day.
You do make some good points about minimum wage though. I think that people should be paid based on the amount of work they get done in a day, like we do in agriculture. That way, hard workers make more money and the lazy bastards find some place else to work. Of course, I'm not shure how well that would translate to certain jobs (like that 18-year-old kid at the gas station).
Anyway, my point is: less regulation may be a good thing, but no regulation is very, very bad.
Re:How to take care of the situation you describe
on
Copyright as Cudgel
·
· Score: 1
Great idea, no more minimum wage and no more overtime. We'll all be working 96 hrs. a week for $1/hr. You'll have to import all your food (because the American agriculture industry couldn't survive without subsidies), and companies would be free to sell defective products that kill childern without fear of liability, even if there's no warning label. Yea!
Besides, big business would still try to purchase legislation. Why do you think your required to have car insurance? If companies are allowed to do what ever they want, they'll become much more powerful than the govenment, if they aren't already.
I suppose nothing is stopping you from doing that, but why don't you just A) order it through Amazon for the $50 mail in rebate, or B) buy it through Apples educational store for $69 (pretend your a student). AFAIK they don't require any proof of enrollment, they just restrict the number of puchases you can make per academic year.
As I understand it, the problem is that they've got WebObjects storing session information in the URL instead of using cookies. Should be an easy fix, but then again, I know jack sh*t about WebObjects.
Do you realize how unethical that is? It is a senators job to listen to all voters in their district, not just the ones with perfect spelling and grammar. Why don't you just throw out all the letters that express opinions contrary to your own while your at it?
Why would a civilization of superior beings travel the who-knows-how-many light years from their own planet to earth just to destroy crops, mutilate cattle and anal probe some rednecks? Granted, some of those rednecks could use a good anal probing, but still.
" Now, considering that our options for resisting the corporate takeover are non-existent since laws and social institutions are in place to enable their power (ie: automatic deduction of taxes from income, which the government distributes to corporations as it sees fit..."
You can cheet on your tax returns. The easiest thing to do is start your own church and donate 50% of your income to it (since 50% is the maximum amount deductable and churches don't have to make their records available to the IRS).
The other option is to start your own business and request that your customers pay in cash. Since cash money is too hard to trace, you'll only have to report the income you recive fromm checks and credit cards plus just enough cash to explain your purchasing habits while keeping you below the "poverty line."
Of course, you might get caught, but since you're talking about using tax evasion as a form of protest that doesn't matter.
The food processing industry only buys the low quality crap that the grocery stores can't sell, and they pay practically nothing for it. It cost's alot of money to grow food and, if all their stuff goes to processing, the farmers wouldn't be able to stay in business unless the processors paid more or the govt. subsidized their farms (even more than they already do).
Now if they can make these vegetable oil cars more fuel efficiant (right now they are equally as efficiant as diesel), the higher cost can be justified and such a shift could very well save the US agriculture indusrty.
Use Disk Copy (located in the Utilities folder) to ccreate an encrypted disk image and add that image to you "Login Items" in the Login Prefrence Pane.
Technically, you're correct, all govt. property is owned by the public. So, technically, Area 51 is public property, but that doesn't mean you're going to get a tour of the place. That would be a security risk, and in the eyes of whatever govt. agency that developed this software, releasing the source would be too. In fact, I'd bet that reverse engineering it would be considered an act of terrorism.
"They have direct decisions already, and they choose to sell it."
Oh, come on.
Shure the artist has a choice: Sell the record companyALL rights to their work or NO DEAL. Only the well estabilsed artists (or those signed to indepedents) are able to (re)negotiate their contracts.
The RIAA claims to own 90% of all recorded music and yet they created none of it (all of the RIAA's members are companies, no artists). It would be a much better system if only those who create music can own copyright over it, unless it's a "work for hire" (like a jingle).
Of course then the record companies could just change the standard contract so that all songs the artist writes while under contract will be considerd a "work for hire," but they tried that once and it didn't work out very well.
For some idea of the ramifications, I'll give you a personal example.
I've been writing music in my spare time for a bout a year, which I give away for the cost of a blank disc. This is something I do for fun, I have no desire to become a professional. If there were no copyright law, anybody could take my work and claim it to be their own, posibly making millions of dollars (though not likely, I doubt my stuff is that good), and would not even have to give me credit. If this were the case, I would never let anyone listen to my music, no matter how much they were willing to pay.
Now I know what you're saying, you're saying "PastorOfMuppets, your music probably sucks any way and the world would be a much better place if no one ever heard your crap." Well I have two thing to say to that. First, ouch. Second, I doubt that I'm the only one who feels that way. Most artists would continue to create art even if no one paid them, but very few would make their work available to the public if someone else could just claim that they created it.
Basicaly, what you would have is one or two "artists" that would "embrace-and-extend" every new work of art and claim it to be their own invention, Microsoft style.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I know that the studio owns the film, but what is at issue here is the concept of "moral right." In Europe, this concept has been codified into law. The directors in question are hoping to set a legal precedent regarding the "moral right" an artist has over their work. By trying to make this into a consumer rights issue, you are essentially saying that the directors have a legal obligation to produce censored versions of their films, and that is utter BS. This is a battle bettween artist rights and the rights of the studios; consumer rights dont' even enter the equation.
This may come as a shock to you, but the US is not the only government in the world; so if Australia (or any other country) doesn't want to recognize the new-found authority of the **AA's as "lawful", they don't have to.
The point is that the proper authorities already have the power to search computers for pirated data and viruses (with a warrant), so why do we need to give ordinary citizens (copyright holders and sys admins) this kind of power?
Language was created by those with the vazeptitude to invent new words. ;)
I would have been happy to pay extra to have the horrible dialog removed! So, you want it to be a silent film? ;)
IANAL, and I have never taken any law classes, but I *can* understand the law (and I know this because I frequently have legal disscussions with my dad, who is a lawyer). Hell, most of the people who *write* the laws don't have a law degree (that's one of the reasons we have the Supreme Court). Think of it this way, you don't need an English degree to understand poetry, but it would make it easier to understand. The biggest problem is that most people, myself included, don't know how to search the law libraries.
"I've often proposed that the entire legal code an individual be subjected to be readable and roughly memorizable by "the average non-college educated person"."
The problem with that is that it leads to ambiguous laws. Take "Thou shalt not kill" for example. It's short, simple, and fairly easy to understand, but it is ambigous. Does it mean that I can't kill *anything*? If so, I'd better stop using anti-bacterial soap. Maybe it's just other humans that I'm not supposed to kill, but what about self defense, or killing one person to save millions (like killing Hitler to stop the Holocaust)? And then there's the question of liability. What if I order someone's death, is that the same thing as killing? Or what if I just refuse to stop a murder from taking place, am I liable for that person's death?
"...include legal classes as standard curiculum."
That is a very good idea, and thats exactly why it will never happen. If the government passed a law that actually made sense, it would set a dangerous precedent ;)
PS, sorry about the Biblical reference, but it was the first thing that came to mind.
Or maybe that's what they want us to think. If we all belive that this article is nothing more than an attempt at free publicity, we'll all be fooled by the real campaign.
Very clever Sony/Ericson, but not clever enough.
Who's to say that there will be other companies. After all, we've just eliminated the anitrust laws, so in 5 or 10 years, ther will probably be only one or two compainies in each industry (and some companies will span multiple industries).
I am currently both a college student (maintaining a 4.0, ha) and a farmer. I know what 96 hrs a week feals like, and it sucks. Hell, durring the week I get a couple hours of sleep per day.
You do make some good points about minimum wage though. I think that people should be paid based on the amount of work they get done in a day, like we do in agriculture. That way, hard workers make more money and the lazy bastards find some place else to work. Of course, I'm not shure how well that would translate to certain jobs (like that 18-year-old kid at the gas station).
Anyway, my point is: less regulation may be a good thing, but no regulation is very, very bad.
Besides, big business would still try to purchase legislation. Why do you think your required to have car insurance? If companies are allowed to do what ever they want, they'll become much more powerful than the govenment, if they aren't already.
As I understand it, the problem is that they've got WebObjects storing session information in the URL instead of using cookies. Should be an easy fix, but then again, I know jack sh*t about WebObjects.
Do you realize how unethical that is? It is a senators job to listen to all voters in their district, not just the ones with perfect spelling and grammar. Why don't you just throw out all the letters that express opinions contrary to your own while your at it?
Never underestemate the power of martyrdom.
Not yet.
Why would a civilization of superior beings travel the who-knows-how-many light years from their own planet to earth just to destroy crops, mutilate cattle and anal probe some rednecks? Granted, some of those rednecks could use a good anal probing, but still.
DISCLAIMER: This is a troll and I am a lunatic
You can cheet on your tax returns. The easiest thing to do is start your own church and donate 50% of your income to it (since 50% is the maximum amount deductable and churches don't have to make their records available to the IRS).
The other option is to start your own business and request that your customers pay in cash. Since cash money is too hard to trace, you'll only have to report the income you recive fromm checks and credit cards plus just enough cash to explain your purchasing habits while keeping you below the "poverty line."
Of course, you might get caught, but since you're talking about using tax evasion as a form of protest that doesn't matter.
Now if they can make these vegetable oil cars more fuel efficiant (right now they are equally as efficiant as diesel), the higher cost can be justified and such a shift could very well save the US agriculture indusrty.
Use Disk Copy (located in the Utilities folder) to ccreate an encrypted disk image and add that image to you "Login Items" in the Login Prefrence Pane.
Technically, you're correct, all govt. property is owned by the public. So, technically, Area 51 is public property, but that doesn't mean you're going to get a tour of the place. That would be a security risk, and in the eyes of whatever govt. agency that developed this software, releasing the source would be too. In fact, I'd bet that reverse engineering it would be considered an act of terrorism.
OK, how about you post a link to your broadcast site.
And what if you just record a regular radio broadcast digitaly?
Could this be M$'s new slogan?
--
--
Oh, come on.
Shure the artist has a choice: Sell the record companyALL rights to their work or NO DEAL. Only the well estabilsed artists (or those signed to indepedents) are able to (re)negotiate their contracts.
The RIAA claims to own 90% of all recorded music and yet they created none of it (all of the RIAA's members are companies, no artists). It would be a much better system if only those who create music can own copyright over it, unless it's a "work for hire" (like a jingle).
Of course then the record companies could just change the standard contract so that all songs the artist writes while under contract will be considerd a "work for hire," but they tried that once and it didn't work out very well.
--
I've been writing music in my spare time for a bout a year, which I give away for the cost of a blank disc. This is something I do for fun, I have no desire to become a professional. If there were no copyright law, anybody could take my work and claim it to be their own, posibly making millions of dollars (though not likely, I doubt my stuff is that good), and would not even have to give me credit. If this were the case, I would never let anyone listen to my music, no matter how much they were willing to pay.
Now I know what you're saying, you're saying "PastorOfMuppets, your music probably sucks any way and the world would be a much better place if no one ever heard your crap." Well I have two thing to say to that. First, ouch. Second, I doubt that I'm the only one who feels that way. Most artists would continue to create art even if no one paid them, but very few would make their work available to the public if someone else could just claim that they created it.
Basicaly, what you would have is one or two "artists" that would "embrace-and-extend" every new work of art and claim it to be their own invention, Microsoft style.
--