You should play a binary representation of a normal number of your choice. Every binary string will eventually appear infinitely many times. This way you can claim that the audio feed violates every copyright, present or future.
If it is a civil case, then statutory punitive damages should not be awarded: it should be enough that the other party is compensated for their loss, which, again, they failed to show.
I support her cause because they cannot prove any damages at all. Them downloading a song
does not actually cause them any damage.
I also support her cause because, even if they could prove that her sharing resulted in X copies
of the song being distributed illegally in a way which caused a loss of sale, then the actual damages
to them would be something between X/10 and X dollars. Suppose X=25. Asking for $250 and the
attorney fees would be just. Asking for $2500 would be an overkill, but they think they should get
at least $25000 = 1000 times the damages, and that without ever proving the loss of a single sale.
There is tons of evidence that the monetary incentive encourages content creation.
Monetary incentive is an assurance of payment. Of course, if an artist has an assurance of payment (e.g. a contract or a steady pay check) then she will be encouraged to create. The problem is that the copyright does not provide such assurance, so what you are saying here is irrelevant.
There is no evidence that the rate of artistic production is affected by the copyright term (which could go down to zero). There is very limited evidence that the types of artistic works are affected, but (even if totally true) the benefit of that is completely subjective. I am getting this out of the academic research in economics. Studies have been done. Where are you coming from?
Copyright is in the direct conflict with the freedom of speech, and there is not a shred of evidence
that it provides an actual incentive to produce works of art: i.e. there is no evidence that fewer works
would be produced without it. It follows that it only benefits the lucky few, while the public gets stuck
with a tax on all art production and consumption. Looks like a pretty good case for it being immoral.
Direct harvesting of solar energy would be far more effective than exploiting us, whatever their goals are. We're far less useful than robots.
I had a thought recently: the first alien contact may be with a robot drone. Look at us: we are freaking mammals. What are we going to do in space? The Solar system exploration is done principally by robots right now, because they are that much better adapted to the conditions in space. A Mars rover rolls around, takes pictures, chips away rock, and shouts across hundreds of thousands of miles, and the only thing it eats is photons. Human beings, on the other hand, require a complex ecosystem producing all kinds of complicated chemistry just to keep us going day to day, let alone feel happy and accomplished. If we were to boldly go to colonize our 100-th star system, then, realistically, would we not send robots first so that they (1) get into the star's orbit (2) collect solar energy and minerals from meteorites and replicate themselves (3) once they have an economy going, build a gigantic space station for humans (4) complete with gyms, gold courses, and red-light theaters (5) and once the space station is complete, we don't even have to fly there: they'll just unfreeze a DNA and off we go. I just don't see anyone flying around, when they can simply send a robot.
You bring up a good point: the raw data would be more eye-friendly than this travesty.
But also, if it's not backed up by the free and open raw data - that is, if there is such data,
but it's being kept secret - then it cannot be good science.
Guys are not that attracted by science either: the ideal of manliness is found in a college gym locker room.
So I think many guys have this opinion that science isn't a "masculine" thing - at least that's an opinion
my male classmates had back in my undergrad psychology days.
What we really need is some hot and rugged scientist studs. Is there anyone out there who can be possibly
attracted by these guys?
Or this crazy dude?
I think to encourage boys into science it should be pointed out that you can be a stud and a scientist.
And may be, just may be, you won't realistically ever get a Fields Medal while looking like this,
but in the REAL world, where looks dominate, it may pay to invest into that penis you saw on the Internet.
When you lend a book, you don't expect it to be copied and redistributed.
You are redistributing it, at least in the ordinary sense of the word. You have no expectation at all with regard to copying. The lender is free to copy: how would you find out?
When you put something on a P2P network, you expect it to be copied and redistributed, because having copies distributed throughout the P2P increases efficiency.
This makes no sense.
So while you may only observe that two people downloaded your copy, you can't tell how many people downloaded copies originating from those 2 downloads
I want to see a meta-search engine which runs locally, may be as a plugin or a daemon. It should search Google, Bing, Yahoo, Wikipedia, and more,
and then combine and sort the results according to the local preferences, and display them as a local HTML page. The advantages for the Web user are huge.
Besides simply having more hits than any one engine will give you, a user can train the meta-engine to favor certain engines
(e.g. Google and Wikipedia over Bing), or disfavor certain domains (e.g. about.com). A user can also benefit from increased
privacy if the meta-engine strips the referrer information and presents direct links. The engine-served ads also go away.
Which brings up a question of how to measure innovation objectively.
Should one count inventions per year (what is an "invention")? Products per year?
And then there are other factors, some of which can easily make the impact of patents
insignificant. A war, an economic crisis, an ecological disaster, or a bad educational system may slow down
the research or halt it altogether. An easy access to natural resources, the main one being energy, or a political system
which protects free speech will probably greatly increase the rate of innovation.
If one cannot adequately measure how the rate of innovation changes with respect to the
patent term, then there can be no rational argument for having a patent system at all,
since the costs are real and can be calculated directly.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, totally. I am using Windows 7 on a laptop to write this message, and my battery is as healthy as
<NO CARRIER>
You should play a binary representation of a normal number of your choice. Every binary string will eventually appear infinitely many times. This way you can claim that the audio feed violates every copyright, present or future.
My first thought, actually. The extra genitals are a nice touch :)
We'll start reading TFA when the limited time mouse copyright expires.
If it is a civil case, then statutory punitive damages should not be awarded: it should be enough that the other party is compensated for their loss, which, again, they failed to show.
I support her cause because they cannot prove any damages at all. Them downloading a song does not actually cause them any damage.
I also support her cause because, even if they could prove that her sharing resulted in X copies of the song being distributed illegally in a way which caused a loss of sale, then the actual damages to them would be something between X/10 and X dollars. Suppose X=25. Asking for $250 and the attorney fees would be just. Asking for $2500 would be an overkill, but they think they should get at least $25000 = 1000 times the damages, and that without ever proving the loss of a single sale.
There is tons of evidence that the monetary incentive encourages content creation.
Monetary incentive is an assurance of payment. Of course, if an artist has an assurance of payment (e.g. a contract or a steady pay check) then she will be encouraged to create. The problem is that the copyright does not provide such assurance, so what you are saying here is irrelevant.
There is no evidence that the rate of artistic production is affected by the copyright term (which could go down to zero). There is very limited evidence that the types of artistic works are affected, but (even if totally true) the benefit of that is completely subjective. I am getting this out of the academic research in economics. Studies have been done. Where are you coming from?
http://web.archive.org/web/20071202115315/http://www.newsday.com/
Copyright is in the direct conflict with the freedom of speech, and there is not a shred of evidence that it provides an actual incentive to produce works of art: i.e. there is no evidence that fewer works would be produced without it. It follows that it only benefits the lucky few, while the public gets stuck with a tax on all art production and consumption. Looks like a pretty good case for it being immoral.
Translation for the Slashdot crowd:
This is just like every nation having The Great Library in the original Civilization. Oh, what a game that was.
Motherland could be Mother Wet Soil. Literal translations are so funny.
Direct harvesting of solar energy would be far more effective than exploiting us, whatever their goals are. We're far less useful than robots.
I had a thought recently: the first alien contact may be with a robot drone. Look at us: we are freaking mammals. What are we going to do in space? The Solar system exploration is done principally by robots right now, because they are that much better adapted to the conditions in space. A Mars rover rolls around, takes pictures, chips away rock, and shouts across hundreds of thousands of miles, and the only thing it eats is photons. Human beings, on the other hand, require a complex ecosystem producing all kinds of complicated chemistry just to keep us going day to day, let alone feel happy and accomplished. If we were to boldly go to colonize our 100-th star system, then, realistically, would we not send robots first so that they (1) get into the star's orbit (2) collect solar energy and minerals from meteorites and replicate themselves (3) once they have an economy going, build a gigantic space station for humans (4) complete with gyms, gold courses, and red-light theaters (5) and once the space station is complete, we don't even have to fly there: they'll just unfreeze a DNA and off we go. I just don't see anyone flying around, when they can simply send a robot.
I know, just joking. It's actually a great name for a band which is named after a place, like Boston, Europe, or Kansas - Observable Universe.
The proof may still exist inside the black hole, never to come out.
Could it be because we are on the OUTSIDE of the UNIVERSE?
You cannot spell "fundamental" without "crazy". Oh, wait, you can...
You bring up a good point: the raw data would be more eye-friendly than this travesty. But also, if it's not backed up by the free and open raw data - that is, if there is such data, but it's being kept secret - then it cannot be good science.
Guys are not that attracted by science either: the ideal of manliness is found in a college gym locker room. So I think many guys have this opinion that science isn't a "masculine" thing - at least that's an opinion my male classmates had back in my undergrad psychology days. What we really need is some hot and rugged scientist studs. Is there anyone out there who can be possibly attracted by these guys? Or this crazy dude? I think to encourage boys into science it should be pointed out that you can be a stud and a scientist. And may be, just may be, you won't realistically ever get a Fields Medal while looking like this, but in the REAL world, where looks dominate, it may pay to invest into that penis you saw on the Internet.
I don't get it.
When you lend a book, you don't expect it to be copied and redistributed.
You are redistributing it, at least in the ordinary sense of the word. You have no expectation at all with regard to copying. The lender is free to copy: how would you find out?
When you put something on a P2P network, you expect it to be copied and redistributed, because having copies distributed throughout the P2P increases efficiency.
This makes no sense.
So while you may only observe that two people downloaded your copy, you can't tell how many people downloaded copies originating from those 2 downloads
The same is true of photocopies of a paper book.
I want to see a meta-search engine which runs locally, may be as a plugin or a daemon. It should search Google, Bing, Yahoo, Wikipedia, and more, and then combine and sort the results according to the local preferences, and display them as a local HTML page. The advantages for the Web user are huge. Besides simply having more hits than any one engine will give you, a user can train the meta-engine to favor certain engines (e.g. Google and Wikipedia over Bing), or disfavor certain domains (e.g. about.com). A user can also benefit from increased privacy if the meta-engine strips the referrer information and presents direct links. The engine-served ads also go away.
They control our physiology, but we control their programming, so they may be some kind of meta-lords.
The researcher's name is Dr. Seeman.
The proper questions are "by how much?" and "what is the benefit to consumer, in dollars?", and the answer better include some sound statistics.
Which brings up a question of how to measure innovation objectively. Should one count inventions per year (what is an "invention")? Products per year? And then there are other factors, some of which can easily make the impact of patents insignificant. A war, an economic crisis, an ecological disaster, or a bad educational system may slow down the research or halt it altogether. An easy access to natural resources, the main one being energy, or a political system which protects free speech will probably greatly increase the rate of innovation. If one cannot adequately measure how the rate of innovation changes with respect to the patent term, then there can be no rational argument for having a patent system at all, since the costs are real and can be calculated directly.