I have to agree. The whole supply/demand thing comes into play in a pretty simple fashion- once an object of "intellectual property" is made and stored digitally, technology's ability to make absolutely perfect copies has rendered its "market value" to virtually zero dollars.
This doesn't mean give everything away (unless you want to), but it does sort of force us to take a second look at how we consider the supply/demand issue. Technology has continued to render real supply controls useless (i.e., every time they crack a DRM scheme, that breaks the control). So other forms of supply controls have been tried (i.e., laws). I think that we have an inclination to slap law-shaped bandaids on these things without considering that maybe the whole economy of "intellectual property" cannot be adequately described or regulated in traditionally capitalist terms.
Hey,can you blame him? When we built our child, we tried the basement, the living room, the kitchen, the bedroom, the spare bedroom, the car, the bedroom again...
Okay, that's very clever, I tried it and it did copy everything to the folder as you described. However, it did not import nearly the entire folder. It wound up importing about 1/10 the total # of songs. Fascinating hack, but I'm not sure I did it right.
Just add a comma, look at it just so, and you read it with new eyes... I swore for a second it said
Gates Opens Source, Kills Jobs
Which for me begs this hypothetical question: would the death of Steve Jobs be worth it if it meant Microsoft freed their source code? I mean, I'd be sad and all, but I just have to wonder...
Wait, explain how "We would have been so much better without them..."? I mean, yeah, we actually WOULD be much better off without Coolidge. But Washington, Lincoln and FDR? You're joking right?
Mac OS X.x KZIN!
The real killer app!
Arm your system to the *teeth* with this advanced OS that's centuries ahead of the competition!
This time really take the battle to the people of Redmond with...
oh man. that's too much. this marketing shit practically writes itself!
I'm a devoted mac user, and if I followed every one of these upgrades with an actual purchase, I'd be greatly annoyed. 5 * $129 in 5 years is... just too much money (okay, it's $645, I was just trying to avoid actually doing the math). But think about that! Probably the cost of new macs will soon approach $645... which means as a user, if I just buy a piece of hardware, hold onto it a little longer and enjoy my stock OS, I can probably save those $129/year OS upgrades and use the cash to buy my next hardware, which would come bundled with the practically-newest-version of the OS. I think that's lamer than lame.
Yes I see. Perhaps the example I used was already covered. However, the original post did state that the rights of the copyright holder were explicitly enumerated in the Title 17 code and were *no broader* than the 6 listed therein. I disagree, and to refine my disagreement, I would argue to a judge that there is a constitutional precedent in the form of the 9th amendment.
My argument is that such precedent can and should be interpreted as a broader statement of the framers' intention- to wit, they didn't want congress drafting laws that grant only certain rights at the exclusion of others. Or put another way, the constitution (which is the norming norm for legality and efficacy of any US law, whether it fits the definition of 'natural right' or not)... under this interpretation, the constitution demands that laws err on the side of extending freedoms, not limiting them. If as a copyright holder I were brought to court to defend my copyright, and if I had granted rights that fall outside those enumerated by the law, I would argue that the law's language (especially in the original poster's interpretation) is too restrictive a burden on the owner of the copyright and violates the spirit of the constitution. I would cite the 9th as proof of that spirit. ARE there any lawyers reading these posts? Maybe one of them would comment on this.
As for the statement "copyright 'rights' are not 'natural' rights", I respectfully disagree. I feel confident that creations covered by copyright could be declared property of the creator and therefore subject to the property rights extended to citizens. And there's little doubt the framers of the constitution sought to protect property rights. Without getting all libertarian on your ass, remember, before the revision, the declaration of independence said we are endowed with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Property. Despite the change (I consider it a good change), I think there is considerable court precedent that acknowledges property rights and considers them constitutionally protected.
"Those are the ONLY rights a copyright holder has available to licence to anyone. If he isn't granting one or more of those rights then he isn't licencing anything."
I would think that this is too restrictive an interpretation of the code. Wouldn't a law that presumes to so enumerate "only" those rights run afowl of the 9th Amendment? I mean, my reading of the 9th amendment is pretty broad, but I would think that a law couldn't enumerate rights at the expense of others and a law that extends to the copyright holder certain rights does not deny them a greater field of rights to grant?
i.e., if as the copyright holder I choose to grant the rights listed in Title 17 that doesn't prohibit me granting the right to others to modify or resell the copyrighted work, does it? I'm thinking of open/copylefted music which is permitted (i.e., licensed) for all use, alteration and distribution provided creation/origination is acknowledged. I mean, technically, that's neither fair use, nor is it specifically provided for in Title 17, but I would think just because it's not specifically provided, it does not therefore deny.
I'm no law student, heck no. But I'd argue that if I had to.
My own experience shows this is so. I was born in '72 which means I had no knowledge of the Vietnam era, the early 70's, etc. But when I was 11 I found a trove of Doonesbury anthologies. I learned a lot about the history of that period from them. Not understanding all the jokes made me read some of the historical records more closely and I think it gave me a better appreciation of what was going on.
Not only that, it was really funny and made other things (like in-jokes on tv or in movies) funnier because I "got" what they were poking fun at.
The same with that anthology of Bill Mauldin cartoons, "Up Front" or whatever. I gleaned a ton of information about the plight of the soldiers in WWII when I was only 10 or 12 years old because of the comics.
Dammit, that's it! Jupiter and its allies are clearly taking an expansionist stance. Our regime of sanctions and flybys of this wayward planet has failed. And it continues to acquire masses. We require a firm resolution permitting the use of force to stop the brutal Jovian empire now, before it destabilizes its entire region.
I'm quite dismayed by the "we went there a generation ago, big deal" responses. The moon IS a big deal!
Luna should be considered a science-critical, mission-critical, humanity-critical resource that's just aching for our close attention and more manned and unmanned missions.
1. Astronomy. Hubble is great. But can you imagine a ground telescope on the dark side of the moon? We could image back to the beginning! We could discover more extrasolar planets, prove or disprove more theories, unlock the secrets of the cosmos. The stability of a ground based scope is so great; and the total lack of an atmosphere would permit such fantastic resolution! Think of Keck _on the moon_. Wow.
2. Further solar exploration. Creating a staging area on the moon for missions to mars, jupiter, io, saturn, ganymede, titan, uranus, the asteroid belt, ceres, venus, the oort clouds-- all these things at which we need more looks-- it would make launches to them faster, more efficient and less energy intensive. Especially when we employ
3. Lunar Mining. There are significant lunar resources from which we can truly benefit. Robofactured propellents. Building materials. Water? People if there's water under the lunar surface (still only theoretical, I know) we MUST get there and SOON.
There's more, I know there is. I just can't believe we'd cast aside the moon so easily because "we done that afore hyuck hyuck!" There's so many ways further lunar exploration would assist all other space exploration that it's foolish to ignore it.
J
The features of great SF that really turn my crank and that have shown real endurance either in the marketplace or in the realm of influencing later writers have are things like
Internal consistency--rules the effects of which impact the world and the characters
Accessibility through the story first. So that rather than having to read a hundred page index on the rules of interstellar travel (one of my favorites, David Weber, does this kind of thing--it's cool enough in it's own way) you experience the rules of the world as the characters do. So you're plunged into the story and understanding the "rules" is emergent, *as long as you keep reading*. William Gibson loves this technique where the story is already underway and you're thrilling to the adventure before you fully grasp the implications of the methods/tech his characters are using.
Unique vision-- something new, something original (not just the ideas, but the plotting too!) For example: In _The Diamond Age_ Neal Stephenson wrote what I consider an original plot that was also innovative in the ideas and technology, wherein to the question 'what would happen if nanotech worked?' his story responded with, 'a new Victorian era would result of course!'
---
BUT, in the laundry lists of writers and their universes we've seen here, I think we're missing some of the greats like
Brian Aldiss, James Schmitz, Robert Silverberg, Ursula K. LeGuin, and many many other.
I wanted to be among the first to add a special nod to Alfred Bester whose Tyger! Tyger! (aka The Stars My Destination) and The Demolished Man showcased consistent worlds were recognizably human while wildly imaginative and often more fun and exciting stories in 200 pages than the first 950 pages of the totally admirable but glacial _Dune_ .
And of course Samuel R. Delany whose _Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand_ showed a universe of vast scope and rich ideas and intriguing technology beneath a deeply personal and intimate storyline with powerful characterization. (While you're at it, buy his Neveryon!, Trouble on Triton!, Dhalgren! Buy now!)
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree. The whole supply/demand thing comes into play in a pretty simple fashion- once an object of "intellectual property" is made and stored digitally, technology's ability to make absolutely perfect copies has rendered its "market value" to virtually zero dollars.
This doesn't mean give everything away (unless you want to), but it does sort of force us to take a second look at how we consider the supply/demand issue. Technology has continued to render real supply controls useless (i.e., every time they crack a DRM scheme, that breaks the control). So other forms of supply controls have been tried (i.e., laws). I think that we have an inclination to slap law-shaped bandaids on these things without considering that maybe the whole economy of "intellectual property" cannot be adequately described or regulated in traditionally capitalist terms.
Hey,can you blame him? When we built our child, we tried the basement, the living room, the kitchen, the bedroom, the spare bedroom, the car, the bedroom again...
Okay, that's very clever, I tried it and it did copy everything to the folder as you described. However, it did not import nearly the entire folder. It wound up importing about 1/10 the total # of songs. Fascinating hack, but I'm not sure I did it right.
Just add a comma, look at it just so, and you read it with new eyes... I swore for a second it said Gates Opens Source, Kills Jobs Which for me begs this hypothetical question: would the death of Steve Jobs be worth it if it meant Microsoft freed their source code? I mean, I'd be sad and all, but I just have to wonder...
"Are you being sarcastic?"
"I don't even know anymore" -the Simpsons
Mac OS X.x KZIN! The real killer app! Arm your system to the *teeth* with this advanced OS that's centuries ahead of the competition! This time really take the battle to the people of Redmond with... oh man. that's too much. this marketing shit practically writes itself! I'm a devoted mac user, and if I followed every one of these upgrades with an actual purchase, I'd be greatly annoyed. 5 * $129 in 5 years is... just too much money (okay, it's $645, I was just trying to avoid actually doing the math). But think about that! Probably the cost of new macs will soon approach $645... which means as a user, if I just buy a piece of hardware, hold onto it a little longer and enjoy my stock OS, I can probably save those $129/year OS upgrades and use the cash to buy my next hardware, which would come bundled with the practically-newest-version of the OS. I think that's lamer than lame.
Yes. Yes, you're right. Well, between you and the other guy, by now it's clear that I'm done.
Yes I see. Perhaps the example I used was already covered. However, the original post did state that the rights of the copyright holder were explicitly enumerated in the Title 17 code and were *no broader* than the 6 listed therein. I disagree, and to refine my disagreement, I would argue to a judge that there is a constitutional precedent in the form of the 9th amendment.
My argument is that such precedent can and should be interpreted as a broader statement of the framers' intention- to wit, they didn't want congress drafting laws that grant only certain rights at the exclusion of others. Or put another way, the constitution (which is the norming norm for legality and efficacy of any US law, whether it fits the definition of 'natural right' or not)... under this interpretation, the constitution demands that laws err on the side of extending freedoms, not limiting them. If as a copyright holder I were brought to court to defend my copyright, and if I had granted rights that fall outside those enumerated by the law, I would argue that the law's language (especially in the original poster's interpretation) is too restrictive a burden on the owner of the copyright and violates the spirit of the constitution. I would cite the 9th as proof of that spirit. ARE there any lawyers reading these posts? Maybe one of them would comment on this.
As for the statement "copyright 'rights' are not 'natural' rights", I respectfully disagree. I feel confident that creations covered by copyright could be declared property of the creator and therefore subject to the property rights extended to citizens. And there's little doubt the framers of the constitution sought to protect property rights. Without getting all libertarian on your ass, remember, before the revision, the declaration of independence said we are endowed with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Property. Despite the change (I consider it a good change), I think there is considerable court precedent that acknowledges property rights and considers them constitutionally protected.
"Those are the ONLY rights a copyright holder has available to licence to anyone. If he isn't granting one or more of those rights then he isn't licencing anything."
I would think that this is too restrictive an interpretation of the code. Wouldn't a law that presumes to so enumerate "only" those rights run afowl of the 9th Amendment? I mean, my reading of the 9th amendment is pretty broad, but I would think that a law couldn't enumerate rights at the expense of others and a law that extends to the copyright holder certain rights does not deny them a greater field of rights to grant?
i.e., if as the copyright holder I choose to grant the rights listed in Title 17 that doesn't prohibit me granting the right to others to modify or resell the copyrighted work, does it? I'm thinking of open/copylefted music which is permitted (i.e., licensed) for all use, alteration and distribution provided creation/origination is acknowledged. I mean, technically, that's neither fair use, nor is it specifically provided for in Title 17, but I would think just because it's not specifically provided, it does not therefore deny.
I'm no law student, heck no. But I'd argue that if I had to.
I've understood that technically speaking, it's mouses, believe it or not. When referring to computer mouses. I just say mice because I'm lazy.
Not only that, it was really funny and made other things (like in-jokes on tv or in movies) funnier because I "got" what they were poking fun at.
The same with that anthology of Bill Mauldin cartoons, "Up Front" or whatever. I gleaned a ton of information about the plight of the soldiers in WWII when I was only 10 or 12 years old because of the comics.
Dammit, that's it! Jupiter and its allies are clearly taking an expansionist stance. Our regime of sanctions and flybys of this wayward planet has failed. And it continues to acquire masses. We require a firm resolution permitting the use of force to stop the brutal Jovian empire now, before it destabilizes its entire region.
I'm quite dismayed by the "we went there a generation ago, big deal" responses. The moon IS a big deal!
Luna should be considered a science-critical, mission-critical, humanity-critical resource that's just aching for our close attention and more manned and unmanned missions.
1. Astronomy. Hubble is great. But can you imagine a ground telescope on the dark side of the moon? We could image back to the beginning! We could discover more extrasolar planets, prove or disprove more theories, unlock the secrets of the cosmos. The stability of a ground based scope is so great; and the total lack of an atmosphere would permit such fantastic resolution! Think of Keck _on the moon_. Wow.
2. Further solar exploration. Creating a staging area on the moon for missions to mars, jupiter, io, saturn, ganymede, titan, uranus, the asteroid belt, ceres, venus, the oort clouds-- all these things at which we need more looks-- it would make launches to them faster, more efficient and less energy intensive. Especially when we employ
3. Lunar Mining. There are significant lunar resources from which we can truly benefit. Robofactured propellents. Building materials. Water? People if there's water under the lunar surface (still only theoretical, I know) we MUST get there and SOON.
There's more, I know there is. I just can't believe we'd cast aside the moon so easily because "we done that afore hyuck hyuck!" There's so many ways further lunar exploration would assist all other space exploration that it's foolish to ignore it.
J
What professor there is hankering to watch Top Gun so badly that s/he can't wait to see it on the newest possible technology?
The features of great SF that really turn my crank and that have shown real endurance either in the marketplace or in the realm of influencing later writers have are things like Internal consistency--rules the effects of which impact the world and the characters Accessibility through the story first. So that rather than having to read a hundred page index on the rules of interstellar travel (one of my favorites, David Weber, does this kind of thing--it's cool enough in it's own way) you experience the rules of the world as the characters do. So you're plunged into the story and understanding the "rules" is emergent, *as long as you keep reading*. William Gibson loves this technique where the story is already underway and you're thrilling to the adventure before you fully grasp the implications of the methods/tech his characters are using. Unique vision-- something new, something original (not just the ideas, but the plotting too!) For example: In _The Diamond Age_ Neal Stephenson wrote what I consider an original plot that was also innovative in the ideas and technology, wherein to the question 'what would happen if nanotech worked?' his story responded with, 'a new Victorian era would result of course!' --- BUT, in the laundry lists of writers and their universes we've seen here, I think we're missing some of the greats like Brian Aldiss, James Schmitz, Robert Silverberg, Ursula K. LeGuin, and many many other. I wanted to be among the first to add a special nod to Alfred Bester whose Tyger! Tyger! (aka The Stars My Destination) and The Demolished Man showcased consistent worlds were recognizably human while wildly imaginative and often more fun and exciting stories in 200 pages than the first 950 pages of the totally admirable but glacial _Dune_ . And of course Samuel R. Delany whose _Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand_ showed a universe of vast scope and rich ideas and intriguing technology beneath a deeply personal and intimate storyline with powerful characterization. (While you're at it, buy his Neveryon!, Trouble on Triton!, Dhalgren! Buy now!)