What has 'global warming' or 'left versus right' to do with it?
I don't know what country you are in, but in the USA global warming denialism is almost exclusively the domain of the right side of the political spectrum, and your average Whole Foods shopper is decidedly left-leaning.
E.g. I never claimed that GMO has health risks,
You called me an idiot for claiming that there was no scientific evidence that "organic" has a benefit, and now you can't substantiate your claim. It's OK, this is common behavior. Just be aware that you are doing the exact same thing as AGW deniers.
e.g. allergic reactions to chicken proteins in tomatoes...
I'm sure your imaginary product is quite scary! What other fake products have pretend health effects?
You are the one asserting that I'm an idiot, and then when I call you out on it you have nothing to back up your assertion. This is fairly typical and is exactly why I made my original comment that organic and anti-GMO is the global warming denial of the left. Most are like you and just say things with no scientific basis for their beliefs.
I think I remember reading that there was actually an ideological basis. Basically, natural selection reeked of capitalist-like ideas and so was troubling for a good communist. Lysenko basically tried to shoehorn older theories about transmutation into cooperative ideals of communism.
That's just a potential side-benefit, and only if you do a lot of research ahead of time to make sure.
For instance, I can (and occasionally do) buy "organic" produce from 10,000 miles away. There is nothing even remotely "sustainable" about that.
"Organic" farmers can dump any pesticides on their field that come from "natural" sources, completely irrespective of how "sustainable" it is. Some older pesticides, like copper-based anti-fungals, are perfectly cromulent with the "organic" label, but build up in soil over time.
Finally, 1950s farming tech does not scale to the current world population, so no matter how sustainable you think it is, adopting it globally can only happen if half of the world dies.
If sustainable is what everyone was after, there would be a "sustainable" label. For many (most?), it's a perceived health benefit. But don't believe me, believe the data: From this survey:
“Polling shows the No. 1 reason people go organic is to avoid pesticides, chemicals and all of those things that are not allowed in organics,” said Katherine Paul, associate director of Minnesota-based Organic Consumers Association. “So I think you are looking at a better-educated population that is connecting the dots between what they eat and their health.”
I live in a country where all of our basic needs are met, and yet we have a birth rate below maintenance levels. This is the norm in all such countries. Meanwhile, in countries with staggering poverty and food insecurity, people procreate like rabbits.
Perhaps the solution is to feed everyone, no? You get your declining population, I get my no people starving to death. Win-win.
They don't use FreeBSD kernel, they use a Mach derivative called XNU.
Though to be fair, the BSD stuff does sit on the kernel, so it could be what is leaking - but since they split off so long ago, it seems unlikely since the leaks started more recently.
That's great for rich people. Too bad using 1950s farming technology doesn't scale. And again, I've heard these claims but I'm suspicious that these grand advantages are just being made up by farmers who make a lot more money selling "organic" produce. Some "organic" chemicals are very capable of destroying soils - for one example look at copper compounds, used to control fungus. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that using something that can't break down in soils at concentrations high enough to kill microbes over the long term is not sustainable.
I'm all for creating a label - analogous to "organic" - that lets the consumer know that the farmer is using best-practices for sustainable agriculture. We could even call it "sustainable". But don't pretend that is what "organic" means, because that's just a bolt-on claim used to justify unmitigated bullshit (technical term).
In order to metabolically get a higher yield what are you exchanging to get that yield?
The same things we traditionally jettison - viability of the plant in a natural setting. The list is long, but in general the plant can no longer compete without human help. If we planting and weeding for corn, "corn" as we know it is gone. If we stop planting and weeding for wheat, "wheat" as we know it is gone. The same is true of apple trees bearing huge fruit. Or beets with ridiculous sugar content. I don't think I even need to mention "seedless" varieties.
The whole chimera thing is way overblown. It's not as if we aren't already well-adapted to all sorts of chemicals produced by both animals and plants. The precautionary principle can be taken to an extreme - and I think acting before there is any evidence of a need for action is an example of that extreme. Apply this logic to other technology realms and you completely halt progress.
Yes, I'm an idiot, and probably ignorant. Now show me a peer-reviewed study that shows health benefits of organically grown anything to cure me of that.
Because people are TERRIBLE at assessing risk. People probably felt pangs of fear while hearing the news reports in their car, completely oblivious to the irony.
Because there are more of us than this world can support already.
Let me restate your position, just so I make sure I have it right: You oppose a technology that could boost yields, and your rationale is that we should be starving people so the population will go down?
Seed patents are no better or worse than most other kinds of patents. Drug patents are almost exactly analogous. Whether or not you think that IP in general helps encourage or stifle innovation is a hot topic, but the mainstream is pro-IP so we need to deal in that reality. At least it is a patent and so enjoys short protection times. It could be like copyright and we'd be stuck with ~100 years of suffering instead of ~20 years of suffering.
I think we are down to semantics. It's not static, even if you consider the changes minor. I used the word "fiddle" because I feel it implies minor change. So I think we agree on this point.
In the US you have the idea that copyright exists to give authors an incentive to create more works, beccause that is how it is written in the constitution. In Europe the incentive simply us to protect the work.
OK? I'm in the US - that's our justification for copyright.
The court costs are irrelevant, you need the courts anyway.
Surely that isn't your real argument? You don't think there are marginal costs associated with adding more cases? More judges, more staff, more courtrooms to handle the caseload?
noticeable less amount of tax money
You are very hung up on tax money. Societal cost (in dollars) of a law is more than just tax money. Obamacare, for instance, used tax money - but it also required people to purchase private health insurance with their own dollars. It's a law that costs people thousands of dollars per year, despite not increasing their taxes very much. Copyright (and IP in general) is like that - everyone pays more for everything, and not the trivial amount you are dismissing. A cost-benefit analysis is worth doing with just about any law, so I'm not sure why you are elevating copyright to some religious untouchable status. Even in Europe you are constantly fiddling with it.
A "normal" copyright infringement case, is a civil case.
If you'd like to define it as such, sure. I don't know why criminal cases aren't "normal", but I don't want to argue semantics. In any case, the courts are still operated by the government. Maybe your country has a different arrangement... it doesn't really matter whether your government pays or the litigants pay - the central point is that the existence of copyright is not free. Money - lots of money - is spent on IP, so a cost-benefit analysis is appropriate.
In your country, not in mine.
If your country is the UK, then the origins of copyright have something to do with the establishment protecting book publishers when the press was invented. Does that really make a difference? The point is that we have copyright not for moral reasons, but because we want a system to reward people to create stuff so that they will create more stuff.
If it a "sample" of a song, and you use it as background rhythm for a new song, then it is an infringement.
I'm aware of this. Are we going to redefine fair use in this thread now? The original comment you made was in reply to someone making educational videos about jazz musical theory. I don't think you can make a case that this use impacted the commercial viability of those ancient jazz recordings. If anything they should generate some interest.
And the "commercial value of the original work" has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
It has everything to do with the topic. It's the whole point of copyright.
Not in the US. The courts are taxpayer funded. Criminal courts are entirely taxpayer funded.
So is everyone who owns land and uses it to build a house on top of it to rent it to poor blokes who are to poor to own such lands themselves and live in their own house.
Yes, and those lucky bastards get to pay property tax, which in this country funds all of the roads, schools, and often infrastructure like sewer lines.
But you are correct in pointing out other beneficiaries of government subsidy - all of those need to be justified. You would never argue "Why should you have a right to hike on valuable mineral lands?" You instead would ask, "Why should we let this company mine this great hiking area?"
IP rights got introduced a few hundred years ago
Yes, I'm aware of this. And the reason is an incentive to create, not some moral reasoning.
Now we have the internet and lots of IP is digital and just because it is more easy to copy you demand less protection?
I've been demanding less protection for a long time. Lifesaving drugs get less protection than nearly century-old Mickey Mouse short films. You can not provide incentive to a creator who is long dead - copyright durations should look a lot more like patents. But no, I'm not demanding less protection in this particular conversation - I was directly responding to your 2-second clip comment, which you yourself point out is a perfectly legal use. As it should be, since it does nothing to the commercial value of the original work.
I don't know what government that is - in the US, there are criminal copyright laws and even an entire government body.
X has himself to go to court to protect his work or demand compensations...
And who pays for these courts? The only reason they have any protection of their work at all is the government. And of course we the people need to spend money on lawyers to make sure everything is above board or to defend ourselves in court - all expenses that would not exist if not for copyright law.
Regarding comparing two songs in a video and only sampling a few seconds: that is completely legal.
I never said otherwise. It's an example of fair use.
So: no idea what your point is.
You wrote: 'Why should it be "fair use" to use some others work for 2 seconds in your own "commercial use"?'
I was directly addressing your question. My points are: (a) it's already fair use to use excerpts - you seem to agree now but did not in the post I originally responded to, and (b) it's backwards to ask "why should I be allowed to..." when you should be asking "why shouldn't I be allowed to" as the default state of things is that there is no such thing as IP. Anyone who uses IP to make a living is basically getting a huge-ass subsidy from the government, and like all governmental actions we need to constantly examine whether or not it benefits society.
The government does not expend time and money protecting x's work.
They most certainly do - there are criminal as well as civil aspects to copyright law. But even if there were no criminal cases, without the government there would be no such thing as IP at all. We as a society spend a lot of time and money dealing with IP. You can argue cost-benefit, but you can't argue that we don't spend a fortune on it.
But that's all a tangent - my point was that the GP had it backwards... the person with active government support is the one that needs to justify that support, not the other way around.
First let's take a step back - why should anything be protected by copyright in the first place? The answer is of course that we want to encourage people to create things. All the rules should pretty much follow from there: will this usage impact the incentive to create in some significant way? As an example, creating a video where you compare the beats in two songs, playing a small sample from each song, has zero commercial impact one way or another on the value of the two songs. The creators will continue to create.
So don't ask, "Why should x be allowed to use x's work?"
Ask, "Why should our government expend time and money protecting x's work?"
I can't believe how cheap the Leaf is on the used market - even from a dealer. Sure, the range is abysmal - but if your commute is in the 10-20 mile range, you could probably justify it even as a third car. In my case, the main thing holding me back is the reluctance to clear out the garage:)
you can bet that the data set owner will charge plenty of money for access fees
That is a dangerous game when your corporate charter, tax rate, and countless regulations come exclusively from the government you are trying to fleece...
Slashdot Mirror
What has 'global warming' or 'left versus right' to do with it?
I don't know what country you are in, but in the USA global warming denialism is almost exclusively the domain of the right side of the political spectrum, and your average Whole Foods shopper is decidedly left-leaning.
E.g. I never claimed that GMO has health risks,
You called me an idiot for claiming that there was no scientific evidence that "organic" has a benefit, and now you can't substantiate your claim. It's OK, this is common behavior. Just be aware that you are doing the exact same thing as AGW deniers.
e.g. allergic reactions to chicken proteins in tomatoes ...
I'm sure your imaginary product is quite scary! What other fake products have pretend health effects?
Why actually are you asking for that?
You are the one asserting that I'm an idiot, and then when I call you out on it you have nothing to back up your assertion. This is fairly typical and is exactly why I made my original comment that organic and anti-GMO is the global warming denial of the left. Most are like you and just say things with no scientific basis for their beliefs.
I think I remember reading that there was actually an ideological basis. Basically, natural selection reeked of capitalist-like ideas and so was troubling for a good communist. Lysenko basically tried to shoehorn older theories about transmutation into cooperative ideals of communism.
Organic is about sustainability
That's just a potential side-benefit, and only if you do a lot of research ahead of time to make sure.
For instance, I can (and occasionally do) buy "organic" produce from 10,000 miles away. There is nothing even remotely "sustainable" about that.
"Organic" farmers can dump any pesticides on their field that come from "natural" sources, completely irrespective of how "sustainable" it is. Some older pesticides, like copper-based anti-fungals, are perfectly cromulent with the "organic" label, but build up in soil over time.
Finally, 1950s farming tech does not scale to the current world population, so no matter how sustainable you think it is, adopting it globally can only happen if half of the world dies.
If sustainable is what everyone was after, there would be a "sustainable" label. For many (most?), it's a perceived health benefit. But don't believe me, believe the data:
From this survey:
Pure, unmitigated bullshit.
I live in a country where all of our basic needs are met, and yet we have a birth rate below maintenance levels. This is the norm in all such countries. Meanwhile, in countries with staggering poverty and food insecurity, people procreate like rabbits.
Perhaps the solution is to feed everyone, no? You get your declining population, I get my no people starving to death. Win-win.
They don't use FreeBSD kernel, they use a Mach derivative called XNU.
Though to be fair, the BSD stuff does sit on the kernel, so it could be what is leaking - but since they split off so long ago, it seems unlikely since the leaks started more recently.
That's great for rich people. Too bad using 1950s farming technology doesn't scale. And again, I've heard these claims but I'm suspicious that these grand advantages are just being made up by farmers who make a lot more money selling "organic" produce. Some "organic" chemicals are very capable of destroying soils - for one example look at copper compounds, used to control fungus. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that using something that can't break down in soils at concentrations high enough to kill microbes over the long term is not sustainable.
I'm all for creating a label - analogous to "organic" - that lets the consumer know that the farmer is using best-practices for sustainable agriculture. We could even call it "sustainable". But don't pretend that is what "organic" means, because that's just a bolt-on claim used to justify unmitigated bullshit (technical term).
This can only be true if you are adding a line to an existing plan. Your average per phone is higher than that.
Maybe, but there are headlines from organizations as mainstream as Forbes saying New York / Chicago In Potential Crash Path Of Out Of Control Chinese Space Station. And I've seen absolutely idiotic comments that border on satire online - but that is par for the course. Who knows? Humans are still terrible at risk assessment.
In order to metabolically get a higher yield what are you exchanging to get that yield?
The same things we traditionally jettison - viability of the plant in a natural setting. The list is long, but in general the plant can no longer compete without human help. If we planting and weeding for corn, "corn" as we know it is gone. If we stop planting and weeding for wheat, "wheat" as we know it is gone. The same is true of apple trees bearing huge fruit. Or beets with ridiculous sugar content. I don't think I even need to mention "seedless" varieties.
The whole chimera thing is way overblown. It's not as if we aren't already well-adapted to all sorts of chemicals produced by both animals and plants. The precautionary principle can be taken to an extreme - and I think acting before there is any evidence of a need for action is an example of that extreme. Apply this logic to other technology realms and you completely halt progress.
Yes, I'm an idiot, and probably ignorant. Now show me a peer-reviewed study that shows health benefits of organically grown anything to cure me of that.
Because people are TERRIBLE at assessing risk. People probably felt pangs of fear while hearing the news reports in their car, completely oblivious to the irony.
Because there are more of us than this world can support already.
Let me restate your position, just so I make sure I have it right:
You oppose a technology that could boost yields, and your rationale is that we should be starving people so the population will go down?
Seed patents are no better or worse than most other kinds of patents. Drug patents are almost exactly analogous. Whether or not you think that IP in general helps encourage or stifle innovation is a hot topic, but the mainstream is pro-IP so we need to deal in that reality. At least it is a patent and so enjoys short protection times. It could be like copyright and we'd be stuck with ~100 years of suffering instead of ~20 years of suffering.
"Organic" and anti-GMO are the left's global warming. Scientific education and critical thinking are not as common as they should be.
Well you've been in a dark corner of the internet, haven't you?
I think we are down to semantics. It's not static, even if you consider the changes minor. I used the word "fiddle" because I feel it implies minor change. So I think we agree on this point.
In the US you have the idea that copyright exists to give authors an incentive to create more works, beccause that is how it is written in the constitution. In Europe the incentive simply us to protect the work.
OK? I'm in the US - that's our justification for copyright.
The court costs are irrelevant, you need the courts anyway.
Surely that isn't your real argument? You don't think there are marginal costs associated with adding more cases? More judges, more staff, more courtrooms to handle the caseload?
noticeable less amount of tax money
You are very hung up on tax money. Societal cost (in dollars) of a law is more than just tax money. Obamacare, for instance, used tax money - but it also required people to purchase private health insurance with their own dollars. It's a law that costs people thousands of dollars per year, despite not increasing their taxes very much. Copyright (and IP in general) is like that - everyone pays more for everything, and not the trivial amount you are dismissing. A cost-benefit analysis is worth doing with just about any law, so I'm not sure why you are elevating copyright to some religious untouchable status. Even in Europe you are constantly fiddling with it.
A "normal" copyright infringement case, is a civil case.
If you'd like to define it as such, sure. I don't know why criminal cases aren't "normal", but I don't want to argue semantics. In any case, the courts are still operated by the government. Maybe your country has a different arrangement... it doesn't really matter whether your government pays or the litigants pay - the central point is that the existence of copyright is not free. Money - lots of money - is spent on IP, so a cost-benefit analysis is appropriate.
In your country, not in mine.
If your country is the UK, then the origins of copyright have something to do with the establishment protecting book publishers when the press was invented. Does that really make a difference? The point is that we have copyright not for moral reasons, but because we want a system to reward people to create stuff so that they will create more stuff.
If it a "sample" of a song, and you use it as background rhythm for a new song, then it is an infringement.
I'm aware of this. Are we going to redefine fair use in this thread now? The original comment you made was in reply to someone making educational videos about jazz musical theory. I don't think you can make a case that this use impacted the commercial viability of those ancient jazz recordings. If anything they should generate some interest.
And the "commercial value of the original work" has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
It has everything to do with the topic. It's the whole point of copyright.
The one who loses the case.
Not in the US. The courts are taxpayer funded. Criminal courts are entirely taxpayer funded.
So is everyone who owns land and uses it to build a house on top of it to rent it to poor blokes who are to poor to own such lands themselves and live in their own house.
Yes, and those lucky bastards get to pay property tax, which in this country funds all of the roads, schools, and often infrastructure like sewer lines.
But you are correct in pointing out other beneficiaries of government subsidy - all of those need to be justified. You would never argue "Why should you have a right to hike on valuable mineral lands?" You instead would ask, "Why should we let this company mine this great hiking area?"
IP rights got introduced a few hundred years ago
Yes, I'm aware of this. And the reason is an incentive to create, not some moral reasoning.
Now we have the internet and lots of IP is digital and just because it is more easy to copy you demand less protection?
I've been demanding less protection for a long time. Lifesaving drugs get less protection than nearly century-old Mickey Mouse short films. You can not provide incentive to a creator who is long dead - copyright durations should look a lot more like patents. But no, I'm not demanding less protection in this particular conversation - I was directly responding to your 2-second clip comment, which you yourself point out is a perfectly legal use. As it should be, since it does nothing to the commercial value of the original work.
My governmet
I don't know what government that is - in the US, there are criminal copyright laws and even an entire government body.
X has himself to go to court to protect his work or demand compensations ...
And who pays for these courts? The only reason they have any protection of their work at all is the government. And of course we the people need to spend money on lawyers to make sure everything is above board or to defend ourselves in court - all expenses that would not exist if not for copyright law.
Regarding comparing two songs in a video and only sampling a few seconds: that is completely legal.
I never said otherwise. It's an example of fair use.
So: no idea what your point is.
You wrote: 'Why should it be "fair use" to use some others work for 2 seconds in your own "commercial use"?'
I was directly addressing your question. My points are: (a) it's already fair use to use excerpts - you seem to agree now but did not in the post I originally responded to, and (b) it's backwards to ask "why should I be allowed to..." when you should be asking "why shouldn't I be allowed to" as the default state of things is that there is no such thing as IP. Anyone who uses IP to make a living is basically getting a huge-ass subsidy from the government, and like all governmental actions we need to constantly examine whether or not it benefits society.
The government does not expend time and money protecting x's work.
They most certainly do - there are criminal as well as civil aspects to copyright law. But even if there were no criminal cases, without the government there would be no such thing as IP at all. We as a society spend a lot of time and money dealing with IP. You can argue cost-benefit, but you can't argue that we don't spend a fortune on it.
But that's all a tangent - my point was that the GP had it backwards... the person with active government support is the one that needs to justify that support, not the other way around.
First let's take a step back - why should anything be protected by copyright in the first place? The answer is of course that we want to encourage people to create things. All the rules should pretty much follow from there: will this usage impact the incentive to create in some significant way? As an example, creating a video where you compare the beats in two songs, playing a small sample from each song, has zero commercial impact one way or another on the value of the two songs. The creators will continue to create.
So don't ask, "Why should x be allowed to use x's work?"
Ask, "Why should our government expend time and money protecting x's work?"
I can't believe how cheap the Leaf is on the used market - even from a dealer. Sure, the range is abysmal - but if your commute is in the 10-20 mile range, you could probably justify it even as a third car. In my case, the main thing holding me back is the reluctance to clear out the garage :)
you can bet that the data set owner will charge plenty of money for access fees
That is a dangerous game when your corporate charter, tax rate, and countless regulations come exclusively from the government you are trying to fleece...