I don't have text messaging on my phone, so I don't know how easy it is to spoof the system and to make vast numbers of disposable text message accounts, like email spammers do. Wouldn't this be something that could be relatively easy to fix with a personal/wireless provider-wide blacklist?
Or do I just have no idea how text messaging works? (I've never really seen the point of it)
I'm assuming that Microsoft wrote their own decoding process using PKWare's source... (can anyone tell me if this is true? I can't imagine MS licensing.zip tech from someone else)
So WinXP will be able to read all old PKWare.zip's and WinZip.zip's... just not new, *encrypted*.zip's (and regular new.zip's are still fine!)... until Microsoft releases a patch, I guess.
Ah lemonade stand... that was good stuff. I remember my school had all these old Apple IIes and we would 'computer class' every two weeks because someone thought it was important for 7th graders to be learning how to use these new-fangled 'computer-thingies', and all we'd do during class was play games. I think the rationale behind letting us play Lemonade Stand was that it taught us "economics"...
But if I
1) Find the copyrighted work
2) Find a publisher/start up my own
3) Publish the work
4) Market the creation
5) Sell the creation
Why should *I* not profit from it? Ten years after you've done the creation, you have probably made more than enough profit to pay for the work you did (unless you are crap at points 2-5). So the only difference between you and me is that I haven't had 10 years to find most of the market for the work and profit off it. I've probably done more work in points 4 and 5 than you had to, since I have to find a market not tapped out.
Not all creative works sell like pop records. Some continue to have small but solid sales well past your 10-year limit, their markets aren't "tapped out" but are continually replaced by new people who might enjoy an artist's creative work. If someone is able to create something that has an appeal like that for 20, 30, even 50 years, enough to still make money, why shouldn't he/she be able to profit off of it?
This isn't saying that non-profitable works, or works that are no longer important to the artist should be covered indefinately, which is what this legislation is trying to counter-act (granted, it has a 50-year limit, rather than your 10, but that's something that could be discussed further).
Great, should have known everyone else would use this house analogy (as in my other post).
Anyway, your analogy is somewhat problematic as well, as many copyrighted works are not 'designs', as in the concept or the basic construction are the important part (hey, my book has chapters too!), but it is the actual creative content, style, what have you that is the important part. If your house is Frank Gehry's Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, and if I build another 'house' with shiny sheet metal curved in odd ways the same way your house is designed, then I may be infringing on your (Frank's) work or copyright (not actually certain how copyright law applies to architecture, but this is me trying to bring the analogy as close as possible to copyrights I know, like books).
Yeah and to make the perfectly safe house, don't let anyone live in it.
Seriously, this 'gift' argument seems a little flawed to me... protection from invading armies is not a 'gift' from my government, it's something I *demand* of my government. I also think that works should be protected for the life of the creator (if the 'creator' not a corporation), and so my government creates copyright laws.
And so I would like to announce to the Slashdot community that I will soon be offering special commemorative copies of Zathrus's post (#6108358), printed on attractive bond paper, for the low, low price of $9.95. Production run limited to the amount of paper in my printer. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to own a part of Slashdot history. Act now!
But there certainly are some copyright owners who are not "big bad corporations" with $50000 to throw around who still might find their copyrights profitable and worth keeping.
It's possible, it almost seems to depend on your jogging style. I have a friend who's gone running with his Archos 20 gig and never had a problem. But maybe he doesn't prance and frolic as much as I do...
We think you'll agree, there have never been computer images as beautiful and as meaningful as you'll see in The Journey to Wild Divine.
I don't know, I've seen screenshots of me attacking innocent bystanders with a chainsaw in Vice City. One could derive all too much meaning from that kind of computer imagery...
Speaking of which, can I get someone to live my real life for me? Specifically, the working/commuting/dental exams parts?
I think part of the appeal of virtual worlds is that they are less contrained by the rules/laws of the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have text messaging on my phone, so I don't know how easy it is to spoof the system and to make vast numbers of disposable text message accounts, like email spammers do. Wouldn't this be something that could be relatively easy to fix with a personal/wireless provider-wide blacklist?
Or do I just have no idea how text messaging works? (I've never really seen the point of it)
I'm assuming that Microsoft wrote their own decoding process using PKWare's source... (can anyone tell me if this is true? I can't imagine MS licensing .zip tech from someone else)
.zip's and WinZip .zip's... just not new, *encrypted* .zip's (and regular new .zip's are still fine!)... until Microsoft releases a patch, I guess.
So WinXP will be able to read all old PKWare
I quickly glance at this post and all I see is "...playing the child... you can fiddle... some head-to-head action..."
ewwwww....
Ah lemonade stand... that was good stuff. I remember my school had all these old Apple IIes and we would 'computer class' every two weeks because someone thought it was important for 7th graders to be learning how to use these new-fangled 'computer-thingies', and all we'd do during class was play games. I think the rationale behind letting us play Lemonade Stand was that it taught us "economics"...
But if I 1) Find the copyrighted work 2) Find a publisher/start up my own 3) Publish the work 4) Market the creation 5) Sell the creation Why should *I* not profit from it? Ten years after you've done the creation, you have probably made more than enough profit to pay for the work you did (unless you are crap at points 2-5). So the only difference between you and me is that I haven't had 10 years to find most of the market for the work and profit off it. I've probably done more work in points 4 and 5 than you had to, since I have to find a market not tapped out.
Not all creative works sell like pop records. Some continue to have small but solid sales well past your 10-year limit, their markets aren't "tapped out" but are continually replaced by new people who might enjoy an artist's creative work. If someone is able to create something that has an appeal like that for 20, 30, even 50 years, enough to still make money, why shouldn't he/she be able to profit off of it?
This isn't saying that non-profitable works, or works that are no longer important to the artist should be covered indefinately, which is what this legislation is trying to counter-act (granted, it has a 50-year limit, rather than your 10, but that's something that could be discussed further).
Great, should have known everyone else would use this house analogy (as in my other post).
Anyway, your analogy is somewhat problematic as well, as many copyrighted works are not 'designs', as in the concept or the basic construction are the important part (hey, my book has chapters too!), but it is the actual creative content, style, what have you that is the important part. If your house is Frank Gehry's Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, and if I build another 'house' with shiny sheet metal curved in odd ways the same way your house is designed, then I may be infringing on your (Frank's) work or copyright (not actually certain how copyright law applies to architecture, but this is me trying to bring the analogy as close as possible to copyrights I know, like books).
Yeah and to make the perfectly safe house, don't let anyone live in it.
Seriously, this 'gift' argument seems a little flawed to me... protection from invading armies is not a 'gift' from my government, it's something I *demand* of my government. I also think that works should be protected for the life of the creator (if the 'creator' not a corporation), and so my government creates copyright laws.
And so I would like to announce to the Slashdot community that I will soon be offering special commemorative copies of Zathrus's post (#6108358), printed on attractive bond paper, for the low, low price of $9.95. Production run limited to the amount of paper in my printer. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to own a part of Slashdot history. Act now!
But there certainly are some copyright owners who are not "big bad corporations" with $50000 to throw around who still might find their copyrights profitable and worth keeping.
It's possible, it almost seems to depend on your jogging style. I have a friend who's gone running with his Archos 20 gig and never had a problem. But maybe he doesn't prance and frolic as much as I do...
We think you'll agree, there have never been computer images as beautiful and as meaningful as you'll see in The Journey to Wild Divine.
I don't know, I've seen screenshots of me attacking innocent bystanders with a chainsaw in Vice City. One could derive all too much meaning from that kind of computer imagery...
Speaking of which, can I get someone to live my real life for me? Specifically, the working/commuting/dental exams parts? I think part of the appeal of virtual worlds is that they are less contrained by the rules/laws of the real world.