Nice idea, but my limited funds should go toward fighting the RIAA, not helping pay them. If the RIAA sees that "small" settlements like this can be "effortlessly" paid by people, it will only encourage that behavior. How many settlements are we supposed to cover?
I'm sure some musicians who have released their work under the Open Audio License (and similar licenses) would appreciate attention from young listeners. No need for the young to only 'love' what they hear on the radio. My 11-year-old wrote to FreezePop after hearing their music via the Open Music Registry, and she also convinced me to buy a couple of their CDs.
There is obviously a lot wrong with the open letter being discussed, but I think it bears emphasizing that its audience is probably not the stated audience of the "Open Source community."
As a developer who has released code under the GPL, do I give a damn whether enterprise customers use it or not? No. I recognize that certain businesses who wish to "monetize" Open Source/Free Software will be interested in reaching those enterprise customers, and I further recognize that certain Open Source advocates see enterprise acceptance as key to advancement of Open Source itself, but such views are certainly not unanimous amongst Open Source/Free Software developers. For myself, and for many developers, the motivation is not being accepted by "enterprise customers" but in making code freely available to, and potentially receiving "acceptance" from, peers and/or general users.
(As an aside, to point out that "enterprise acceptance" is not the sole marker of success, to what degree has Quake been accepted in the enterprise? Thus the subject line for this post, that there is more to life and computers than "enterprise customers.")
I doubt that McBride is unaware of widespread apathy and/or antipathy regarding acceptance or use of code by enterprise customers. But I believe the stated audience of the letter is not truly the intended audience; I believe the intended audience is enterprise customers themselves, and anyone else who can have a positive impact on SCO's bottom line. McBride derides the Open Source community for firing off a rant and not wanting to "sit across a negotiation table" but he demonstrates the very behavior he derides. With respect to the stated audience, his letter is a "rant" fired off by him instead of him wanting to sit across a negotiation table.
See it for what it's worth: Financial propaganda. It's not any more communication with the Open Source community than him giving the community the finger.
Perhaps, if I believed SCO's legal argument had merit, I might consider your suggestion as a logical way to get away with something inappropriate or illegal.
That's certainly not the case here. I have no qualms letting SCO know that I use Linux, and, given that lack of reluctance, I didn't hesitate to file a complaint with the FTC and the Washington State Attorney General regarding my view that their offer of a license at this point, when the legal question is still unanswered, amounts to false advertising. Part of the complaint process, at least for the WA AG, is to submit a copy of the complaint to the company concerned.
I haven't heard back on either complaint, but I'm certainly not going to "hide" the fact that I use Linux.
A short time ago I filed complaints with the FTC and with the WA state Attorney General's office regarding what I consider to be (at this time) false advertising, i.e., claims by SCO to provide some actual benefit in return for licensing fees. In my not-a-lawyer viewpoint, SCO can't make that claim in a solid way until the legal issues surrounding it are resolved; until then, they should at least be required to label the benefit as "speculative."
Haven't heard anything back on either complaint, nor do I necessarily expect to, although I know that SCO will receive a copy of it (at least from WA state if not the FTC). Not that they'll likely care unless the government agrees with my complaint and takes specific action accordingly...
As someone unwilling to put up with rude audiences and overpriced popcorn, no, I'll pass on the "theater experience" (with the rare exception of something that is truly visually better on the large screen -- certainly not the case for most movies).
As for watching movies at no cost making me a "greedy bastard" then I guess we should re-label the VHS/DVD section at the local library the "greedy bastard" section.
Despite what some might believe, your local library may have surprisingly up-to-date selections and major motion pictures available, and for someone like me who feels no need to be a sheep about watching what everyone else is watching, there's no problem with what little delay there is between the release of the movie and the movie being available from the local library.
I guess I don't get it. I'm not sure how a document that mostly lists grievances with a long-dead king, written in a time when it was perfectly acceptable to refer to the prior inhabitants of the thirteen original US states as "merciless Indian Savages" (and a time, by the way, when it wasn't even an accepted fact that rocks [meteorites] can fall from the sky), has any relevance at all regarding the handling of patents by modern corporations.
I'm a reasonable patriot and a Libertarian -- I love my country (served it for several years) and want the best for it, but don't assume that it's always "best and right" -- and I probably find more value in the writings of the "founding fathers" of the US than most people I know, but referring to the Declaration of Independence in reference to patent abuses just strikes me as an odd non sequitur. A reference to Jefferson's writings about intellectual products would be much more fitting, IMHO.
The music industry loves to draw the analogy between stealing tangible products (shoplifting a CD, etc.) and making copies of intangible products that leave the original untouched, and of course they use the term "theft" to describe making those copies. For those who would mindlessly nod their heads and mumble about how correct this analogy must be, a simple definition of "theft" puts the lie to it:
...The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same...
(emphasis mine)
I'm not saying that making copies is not a violation of our woefully-imbalanced copyright laws, because in many cases it is a violation of the law (i.e., when no permission from the copyright owner exists, whether on an individual or advance license basis). But the "shoplifting" analogy should immediately result in derisive laughter until the person presenting it is silenced and never brings it up again.
Yet Another Windows Nuisance. Then at least the acronym for it would be apt for the reaction this sort of thing should have by now. This patch, that patch, blah blah blah... Security through reliance on patches is laughable, especially at the rate of patches being distributed. If reliance was on the core of the OS and patches were rare, then the YAWN reaction wouldn't be so warranted.
I hate it even more when I know which person has the infected system that is forging my email address on outbound virus/worm messages, and I tell him, and he appears to do nothing about it.:-(
As I wrote when Lessig discussed this weeks (months?) ago, I disagree with this on a fundamental level. Yes, I've read the many comments that say this "isn't about legitimizing" grossly-long copyright durations, DRM, and other evidence of the imbalanced nature of copyright law today. But, the PATRIOT Act wasn't "about" violating the liberty that US citizens should, by design of those who brought the country into being, enjoy still today -- yet that is the end result. Should we compare what the DMCA was "about" versus the end result? I think you get the point.
This will help solidify the imbalance already in effect, and it will not address any real problems. For the majority of the general public -- the supposed beneficiary of this proposal -- this will be meaningless. How many people will actually notice that some obscure work has slipped into the public domain? If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it...
If the copyright owner really believes they deserve an extension, perhaps the burden should be on them to prove, in court, that their retention of their copyright is more important to the public than the release of their work into the public domain. That would be ultimately more meaningful than some silly administrative fee that wouldn't have any impact on copyright-protected works that the majority of the public would be interested in. It would also restore the balance (because at the expiration of the time limit, the benefit to the public becomes the primary interest), and presumably result in very few works actually staying out of the public domain.
The key problem is imbalance, and this trivial fee notion does nothing to restore it.
I understand your point and agree that at the trivial level there is no comparison between DRM and torture, genocide, etc.
However, at a less trivial level, DRM technology is essentially oriented toward the inhibition of communication. This is promoted under the auspices of the "benefits" (from the view of corporations) of preventing "theft" of intellectual "property." However, inhibition of communication is a tool that, like many, can be put to nefarious uses well beyond that which would fit nicely into a glossy marketing spin piece or a slick lobbyist presentation. In the long run, the inhibition of communication can readily serve those who would commit and/or foment direct crimes against humanity. Genocide, for example, is much more "effective" if those not immediately affected are left in ignorance.
The "secret" content of a movie you haven't seen yet doesn't hold a candle to the "secret" that an entire ethnic group is buried in mass graves in a remote forest, but the "benefits" of DRM technology will serve both equally. Free speech is critical to bringing such evil to light; however, the deeper DRM technologies are integrated into technology we rely on, the more we will wave goodbye to free speech.
Standards should be lean and so easy to understand and so trivial to implement that one undergrad student can implement it to full compliance in one afternoon.
I suppose that appeals to undergrads, and those who like extremely granular standards that only address small parts of a solution. Beyond that, it's an absurd overstatement. Standards should be lean in the sense that they should be focused, but to be trivial enough for full implementation by an undergrad in one afternoon ducks below the bar of general usefulness. It's somewhat analogous to what I've heard more than one teacher respond when asked by a student "how long" a paper should be: It should be like a skirt -- long enough to cover the important parts, short enough to keep it interesting. You're right that it should be lean (short enough to keep it interesting) but your criterion for that might not cover the important parts.
I was incredibly disappointed by the worthlessness of this "proposal." I had to laugh at the comment that the "right answer is obvious." Ah, the fallacy of "common sense" (which is rarely both common and sensible).
I had hoped an "EFF lawyer" would be more clued-in. What a disappointment, but also an effective reminder that an organization that comes up with some good ideas and solutions can't be relied upon for them.
I'm still using an old copy of MoneyCounts from the 90s, which luckily handled Y2K but it doesn't export to QIF or anything else that's readily useful. There used to be an offer to send data in to have it converted, but I don't have that much trust in some faceless company. I was so disappointed when Parsons Technology sold out, but now it's gone from disappointment to significant inconvenience and concern. I don't want to stay locked into this thing, but I haven't found an alternative that I like and I don't favor losing all my financial history when I make the switch.:-/
FWIW, I looked at Moneydance before and didn't like it. I'll guess I'll give it another look.
Or maybe I should just go back to ExpressCheck for DOS...;-)
This is a great place to find all sorts of strange stuff. I took my kids (10 and under) there not too long ago. They dreaded it before they got there. Oh no, another strange place that Dad is dragging us to. When they got there, they just about freaked. We spent much more time there than I'd planned, and they didn't really want to leave. It's not that there were any toys or other kid things there, but the wide variety of "junk" to look at and fiddle with really captured their attention and imagination.
Furniture, computers, magazines, video tapes (all blanked, I think, with some funny labels), tools, miscellaneous electronics that I couldn't identify, bulk materials... Fun browsing.
Re:Was I the only kid who read Three Investigators
on
Soundless Music?
·
· Score: 1
The first thing I thought of, when I saw this topic come up, was a Hardy Boys book that also used the same type of effect in a supposedly-haunted house. I never read The Three Investigators. Did one copy from the other?
I don't disagree with your points, but it needs to go beyond that -- the RIAA won't care at all if a few people (defined percentage-wise, those who read Slashdot are "few" compared to the RIAA's primary market) make their own music and only buy non-RIAA-supporting music.
To make the RIAA pay attention, it's really necessary to get the Average Joes and Janes -- those who are quite familiar with Tower Records or Wherehouse but not very (or at all) familiar with the RIAA itself and who have no clue what Slashdot is -- to understand that they have Free music alternatives. (Actually, Free entertainment in general as well as Free software, since music isn't the only problem area.) Just sticking to non-commercial entertainment yourself is a drop in the ocean to the RIAA; it's the overall tide that will get their attention.
It's important to realize that the balance between the benefits to the public and the benefits to the copyright owner will not be achieved by allowing the copyright owner to decide what balance is best for their bottom line. We cannot sit idly by and hope that Sony et al decide on a balance that will be acceptable to us; instead, we must focus on convincing the government to abandon their imbalanced support of such corporations and start doing what is right to achieve a balance for all concerned. (I didn't say this would be easy, so don't bother with the "too late" comments.)
It's sad to see that some replies in this topic have shown obvious confusion regarding the role of corporations versus the role of government. In the US, the Constitution was not written by corporations, nor should amendments (codified or de facto) be done so. That corporations have more sway than Joe Public is a given at this time, but times change and so do governments, for good or ill. The more apathetic the public, the more "oh, it's too late, they're already in power anyway" responses, the more things will decay in favor of the corporations. The more motivated the public, the more politicians will put the input of corporations in a subordinate (or at least equal) position compared to the input of their voters. Corporate money can only buy an election when the public is apathetic and detached from the political process, and thus open to glitzy ads. If there is a strong sentiment in the public to reduce or eliminate the effect of those ads, then the role of corporate money is also reduced or eliminated. In the end, the vote counts, not the advertising.
First, since when is it not the role of the Judicial Branch to "second guess" the Legislative Branch? I must've really misunderstood my US history lessons, because I grew up thinking that we (in the US) had the right to free speech, the right to keep and bear arms suitable for the overthrow of a government (nothing to do with hunting or personal defense, since neither was the intent behind the 2nd Amendment), and a host of other rights that are largely empty now, and I also thought that the three branches of government are supposed to control each other. I must be very confused, if the Supreme Court is "respecting limits on its own power" by not providing a controlling influence over Congress.
Second, why would we want to sell out to the idea that money controls the rights of the public? That's precisely what this concept would do. The rights of the public under the Constitution are not something to be decided by money. They are much too important for that. No matter what the renewal fee is, I consider it philosophically incorrect to decide the rights of the public through the direct application of money. (Yes, I understand how much money influences our rights already; that doesn't mean we need to sell out to the implicit role of money in our governance by creating an explicit one.) At most, I could see a one-time, short-term extension in exchange for something given back directly to the public -- not a token sum to the coffers of government, but something that every person deprived of public domain access to the work could tangibly enjoy.
Third, why would we settle for the 98% least popular works? What is so special from a public rights perspective regarding those other 2% except that the public will notice their lack of public domain access to those 2% far more than the other 98%?
The question should not be how we can manage the financial concerns of those who create original works. The question should be how we can manage a reasonable balance between the interests of the copyright owners and the interests of the public. I do not believe that extending copyright protections to the point that they don't disappear until everyone alive when the work was created is dead is a "reasonable balance."
Thanks for the feedback. The inline frame is relatively new and there is already an alternative for browsers that don't support inline frames. A way to manually bypass it for a browser that supports inline frames but does so in a troublesome way is a worthwhile idea (even if rudely presented). I'll add that when I get a chance. It might be useful for my short stories as well, as they gain illustrations.
MailWasher is an example of a tool that sits between your POP server and your mail client... I'm sure you know that "TCP/IP"... [is] so far away from POP or LDAP it's not even funny.
That's an "interesting" way of looking at it; I guess MailWasher doesn't use the TCP/IP connection, then. Is it magic?
I was pointing out the ambiguity of the original question. You merely answered the question as you interpreted it, which isn't necessarily correct, even if the information you provided is accurate. While I won't argue with the potential merit of MailWasher, your "logic" leaves something to be desired.
Re:Prevent SPAM instead of trying to deal with it.
on
Spam Conference in Boston
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I've been promoting this notion for a couple years at least, while at the same time offering a spam filtering tutorial for Pegasus users. I've seen others also promoting the same general concept, sometimes with more details. However...
"One's feelings waste themselves in words; they ought all to be distilled into action[s]... which bring results."
Florence Nightingale
To see this happen, somebody needs to do it rather than talking about it. A technical demonstration, at the very least. And if I'm missing something and there's something like this in the works, it needs publicity, development support, testing, etc. to take it "out of the lab" and moving toward common use.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice idea, but my limited funds should go toward fighting the RIAA, not helping pay them. If the RIAA sees that "small" settlements like this can be "effortlessly" paid by people, it will only encourage that behavior. How many settlements are we supposed to cover?
I'm sure some musicians who have released their work under the Open Audio License (and similar licenses) would appreciate attention from young listeners. No need for the young to only 'love' what they hear on the radio. My 11-year-old wrote to FreezePop after hearing their music via the Open Music Registry, and she also convinced me to buy a couple of their CDs.
Avoiding all the crap laws: where is the 'sourceforge' of music and other media that is released under GPL?
You mean like the Open Music Registry? Doesn't include "other media" but if you're looking for music, it's a place to start.
There is obviously a lot wrong with the open letter being discussed, but I think it bears emphasizing that its audience is probably not the stated audience of the "Open Source community."
As a developer who has released code under the GPL, do I give a damn whether enterprise customers use it or not? No. I recognize that certain businesses who wish to "monetize" Open Source/Free Software will be interested in reaching those enterprise customers, and I further recognize that certain Open Source advocates see enterprise acceptance as key to advancement of Open Source itself, but such views are certainly not unanimous amongst Open Source/Free Software developers. For myself, and for many developers, the motivation is not being accepted by "enterprise customers" but in making code freely available to, and potentially receiving "acceptance" from, peers and/or general users.
(As an aside, to point out that "enterprise acceptance" is not the sole marker of success, to what degree has Quake been accepted in the enterprise? Thus the subject line for this post, that there is more to life and computers than "enterprise customers.")
I doubt that McBride is unaware of widespread apathy and/or antipathy regarding acceptance or use of code by enterprise customers. But I believe the stated audience of the letter is not truly the intended audience; I believe the intended audience is enterprise customers themselves, and anyone else who can have a positive impact on SCO's bottom line. McBride derides the Open Source community for firing off a rant and not wanting to "sit across a negotiation table" but he demonstrates the very behavior he derides. With respect to the stated audience, his letter is a "rant" fired off by him instead of him wanting to sit across a negotiation table.
See it for what it's worth: Financial propaganda. It's not any more communication with the Open Source community than him giving the community the finger.
Perhaps, if I believed SCO's legal argument had merit, I might consider your suggestion as a logical way to get away with something inappropriate or illegal.
That's certainly not the case here. I have no qualms letting SCO know that I use Linux, and, given that lack of reluctance, I didn't hesitate to file a complaint with the FTC and the Washington State Attorney General regarding my view that their offer of a license at this point, when the legal question is still unanswered, amounts to false advertising. Part of the complaint process, at least for the WA AG, is to submit a copy of the complaint to the company concerned.
I haven't heard back on either complaint, but I'm certainly not going to "hide" the fact that I use Linux.
A short time ago I filed complaints with the FTC and with the WA state Attorney General's office regarding what I consider to be (at this time) false advertising, i.e., claims by SCO to provide some actual benefit in return for licensing fees. In my not-a-lawyer viewpoint, SCO can't make that claim in a solid way until the legal issues surrounding it are resolved; until then, they should at least be required to label the benefit as "speculative."
Haven't heard anything back on either complaint, nor do I necessarily expect to, although I know that SCO will receive a copy of it (at least from WA state if not the FTC). Not that they'll likely care unless the government agrees with my complaint and takes specific action accordingly...
How about you?
As someone unwilling to put up with rude audiences and overpriced popcorn, no, I'll pass on the "theater experience" (with the rare exception of something that is truly visually better on the large screen -- certainly not the case for most movies).
As for watching movies at no cost making me a "greedy bastard" then I guess we should re-label the VHS/DVD section at the local library the "greedy bastard" section.
Despite what some might believe, your local library may have surprisingly up-to-date selections and major motion pictures available, and for someone like me who feels no need to be a sheep about watching what everyone else is watching, there's no problem with what little delay there is between the release of the movie and the movie being available from the local library.
Given his 50% success rate, it's probably the same size. "One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small..." (Jefferson Airplane)
I guess I don't get it. I'm not sure how a document that mostly lists grievances with a long-dead king, written in a time when it was perfectly acceptable to refer to the prior inhabitants of the thirteen original US states as "merciless Indian Savages" (and a time, by the way, when it wasn't even an accepted fact that rocks [meteorites] can fall from the sky), has any relevance at all regarding the handling of patents by modern corporations.
I'm a reasonable patriot and a Libertarian -- I love my country (served it for several years) and want the best for it, but don't assume that it's always "best and right" -- and I probably find more value in the writings of the "founding fathers" of the US than most people I know, but referring to the Declaration of Independence in reference to patent abuses just strikes me as an odd non sequitur. A reference to Jefferson's writings about intellectual products would be much more fitting, IMHO.
The music industry loves to draw the analogy between stealing tangible products (shoplifting a CD, etc.) and making copies of intangible products that leave the original untouched, and of course they use the term "theft" to describe making those copies. For those who would mindlessly nod their heads and mumble about how correct this analogy must be, a simple definition of "theft" puts the lie to it:
(emphasis mine)
I'm not saying that making copies is not a violation of our woefully-imbalanced copyright laws, because in many cases it is a violation of the law (i.e., when no permission from the copyright owner exists, whether on an individual or advance license basis). But the "shoplifting" analogy should immediately result in derisive laughter until the person presenting it is silenced and never brings it up again.
Just my humble opinion, of course. :-)
Yet Another Windows Nuisance. Then at least the acronym for it would be apt for the reaction this sort of thing should have by now. This patch, that patch, blah blah blah... Security through reliance on patches is laughable, especially at the rate of patches being distributed. If reliance was on the core of the OS and patches were rare, then the YAWN reaction wouldn't be so warranted.
I hate it even more when I know which person has the infected system that is forging my email address on outbound virus/worm messages, and I tell him, and he appears to do nothing about it. :-(
This will help solidify the imbalance already in effect, and it will not address any real problems. For the majority of the general public -- the supposed beneficiary of this proposal -- this will be meaningless. How many people will actually notice that some obscure work has slipped into the public domain? If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it...
If the copyright owner really believes they deserve an extension, perhaps the burden should be on them to prove, in court, that their retention of their copyright is more important to the public than the release of their work into the public domain. That would be ultimately more meaningful than some silly administrative fee that wouldn't have any impact on copyright-protected works that the majority of the public would be interested in. It would also restore the balance (because at the expiration of the time limit, the benefit to the public becomes the primary interest), and presumably result in very few works actually staying out of the public domain.
The key problem is imbalance, and this trivial fee notion does nothing to restore it.
However, at a less trivial level, DRM technology is essentially oriented toward the inhibition of communication. This is promoted under the auspices of the "benefits" (from the view of corporations) of preventing "theft" of intellectual "property." However, inhibition of communication is a tool that, like many, can be put to nefarious uses well beyond that which would fit nicely into a glossy marketing spin piece or a slick lobbyist presentation. In the long run, the inhibition of communication can readily serve those who would commit and/or foment direct crimes against humanity. Genocide, for example, is much more "effective" if those not immediately affected are left in ignorance.
The "secret" content of a movie you haven't seen yet doesn't hold a candle to the "secret" that an entire ethnic group is buried in mass graves in a remote forest, but the "benefits" of DRM technology will serve both equally. Free speech is critical to bringing such evil to light; however, the deeper DRM technologies are integrated into technology we rely on, the more we will wave goodbye to free speech.
Standards should be lean and so easy to understand and so trivial to implement that one undergrad student can implement it to full compliance in one afternoon.
I suppose that appeals to undergrads, and those who like extremely granular standards that only address small parts of a solution. Beyond that, it's an absurd overstatement. Standards should be lean in the sense that they should be focused, but to be trivial enough for full implementation by an undergrad in one afternoon ducks below the bar of general usefulness. It's somewhat analogous to what I've heard more than one teacher respond when asked by a student "how long" a paper should be: It should be like a skirt -- long enough to cover the important parts, short enough to keep it interesting. You're right that it should be lean (short enough to keep it interesting) but your criterion for that might not cover the important parts.
I had hoped an "EFF lawyer" would be more clued-in. What a disappointment, but also an effective reminder that an organization that comes up with some good ideas and solutions can't be relied upon for them.
FWIW, I looked at Moneydance before and didn't like it. I'll guess I'll give it another look.
Or maybe I should just go back to ExpressCheck for DOS... ;-)
Furniture, computers, magazines, video tapes (all blanked, I think, with some funny labels), tools, miscellaneous electronics that I couldn't identify, bulk materials... Fun browsing.
The first thing I thought of, when I saw this topic come up, was a Hardy Boys book that also used the same type of effect in a supposedly-haunted house. I never read The Three Investigators. Did one copy from the other?
To make the RIAA pay attention, it's really necessary to get the Average Joes and Janes -- those who are quite familiar with Tower Records or Wherehouse but not very (or at all) familiar with the RIAA itself and who have no clue what Slashdot is -- to understand that they have Free music alternatives. (Actually, Free entertainment in general as well as Free software, since music isn't the only problem area.) Just sticking to non-commercial entertainment yourself is a drop in the ocean to the RIAA; it's the overall tide that will get their attention.
It's sad to see that some replies in this topic have shown obvious confusion regarding the role of corporations versus the role of government. In the US, the Constitution was not written by corporations, nor should amendments (codified or de facto) be done so. That corporations have more sway than Joe Public is a given at this time, but times change and so do governments, for good or ill. The more apathetic the public, the more "oh, it's too late, they're already in power anyway" responses, the more things will decay in favor of the corporations. The more motivated the public, the more politicians will put the input of corporations in a subordinate (or at least equal) position compared to the input of their voters. Corporate money can only buy an election when the public is apathetic and detached from the political process, and thus open to glitzy ads. If there is a strong sentiment in the public to reduce or eliminate the effect of those ads, then the role of corporate money is also reduced or eliminated. In the end, the vote counts, not the advertising.
Second, why would we want to sell out to the idea that money controls the rights of the public? That's precisely what this concept would do. The rights of the public under the Constitution are not something to be decided by money. They are much too important for that. No matter what the renewal fee is, I consider it philosophically incorrect to decide the rights of the public through the direct application of money. (Yes, I understand how much money influences our rights already; that doesn't mean we need to sell out to the implicit role of money in our governance by creating an explicit one.) At most, I could see a one-time, short-term extension in exchange for something given back directly to the public -- not a token sum to the coffers of government, but something that every person deprived of public domain access to the work could tangibly enjoy.
Third, why would we settle for the 98% least popular works? What is so special from a public rights perspective regarding those other 2% except that the public will notice their lack of public domain access to those 2% far more than the other 98%?
The question should not be how we can manage the financial concerns of those who create original works. The question should be how we can manage a reasonable balance between the interests of the copyright owners and the interests of the public. I do not believe that extending copyright protections to the point that they don't disappear until everyone alive when the work was created is dead is a "reasonable balance."
Thanks for the feedback. The inline frame is relatively new and there is already an alternative for browsers that don't support inline frames. A way to manually bypass it for a browser that supports inline frames but does so in a troublesome way is a worthwhile idea (even if rudely presented). I'll add that when I get a chance. It might be useful for my short stories as well, as they gain illustrations.
That's an "interesting" way of looking at it; I guess MailWasher doesn't use the TCP/IP connection, then. Is it magic?
I was pointing out the ambiguity of the original question. You merely answered the question as you interpreted it, which isn't necessarily correct, even if the information you provided is accurate. While I won't argue with the potential merit of MailWasher, your "logic" leaves something to be desired.
I've been promoting this notion for a couple years at least, while at the same time offering a spam filtering tutorial for Pegasus users. I've seen others also promoting the same general concept, sometimes with more details. However...
To see this happen, somebody needs to do it rather than talking about it. A technical demonstration, at the very least. And if I'm missing something and there's something like this in the works, it needs publicity, development support, testing, etc. to take it "out of the lab" and moving toward common use.