I disagree with that last statement. I'm doing some embedded development right now, and I leave my machines on overnight intentionally. Powering up the entire system to the point where I can continue from CoB yesterday would take 30 minutes or so. I'd chew through that $36-per-year savings in a few days, possibly one day if I'm working at a customer's site running at my external-billing rate rather than my internal rate.
And no, I can't just go get coffee while the machine boots itself. The applications interact with the target, and get completely hosed if the host or target machines go into power-save modes.
There are a handful of things fundamental to this existence, regardless of where you live. On the "basic survival" end of the spectrum, you've got shelter, water, and food.
If you seek something more than just basic subsistence, the list expands to include energy, communications, and transportation.
If you believe that a modern society is beneficial, then providing more accessible transportation is a good thing. If you believe we should all be subsistence farmers, then the Tata Nano is a plague upon the land.
You also haven't met the douchebag College Painters who were hired by the former owner of my house. They used Montgomery Ward's cheapest latex over walls that had been done with oil-based paint. No, they don't know what "primer" is.
Getting back OT, the big thing missing from the analysis is labor. The guy isn't unskilled, so using minimum wage isn't appropriate. Let's say that his labor rate is $10/hr. He has built several iterations of the panel. If he has spent one 8-hour day building a panel, that's $80. Compare that to the ~$40 in materials he's got. I can buy a framed 20W solar panel from Sundance Solar for $180.
If he spent more than a day building his panel, or if he values his time at more than $10/hr, it's not cost effective to DiY.
Absolutely. If President Obama wants to demonstrate a platform of change, he can start by eliminating bloat in the government. Dissolving the BATFE would be a good start. Hell, just moving it to be a subset of the FBI would be a good start - they wouldn't have to maintain their own "everything." (Note - I'm not holding my breath on this one.)
1) What gives you the right to something I create?
A: I have no "right" to something you create. However, when you claim copyright protection, you are entering into an agreement that in exchange for a time-limited monopoly, you agree to put your creation into the public domain at the end of the term.
2) What incentive remains for me to create anything if you will only steal it and say you had a "right" to it from the beginning?
A: I'll side-step the presumption of theft on your part, and interpret your questions as "What incentive remains for me to create anything without copyright protection?" I believe that's the jist of the original question. If the only thing that drives you is possession (i.e. "I have something that you don't,") then my answer is "nothing." However, if you are motivated to create "anythings" for reasons other than possession or compensation, I would posit that the answer is within you, and that you are the only one qualified to answer this question. Me personally? I do creative things all the time with no expectation of compensation.
3) Where is the "benefit to society" when those who create choose to stop being creative because it is no longer profitable and protected from theft?
A: Copyright is a modern construct. Artistic and scientific works have been created as far back as cave paintings, all without benefit of copyright protection. Your presumption that "all creative works will stop" is a fiction. The profit-motivated folks may stop, but I and others like me won't stop being creative. See, my art isn't motivated by profit, and that scares the shit out of the folks who currently have a strangle hold on the distribution channel.
At the restaurant, you have a contract:
. 1: The restaurant presented an offer in the form of a menu with prices.
. 2: You accepted the offer by placing an order.
. 3: Consideration was exchanged by the restaurant providing you with the meal.
By walking out on the restaurant, you are in material breach of contract by not paying. There is no "entitlement" on either side.
Copyright law provides the protection. The entitlement in question isn't that copyright protection should or should not exist. It's that, for example, a musician *expects* to be able to make a living from his chosen trade. Just because you declare yourself to be a musician/coder/plumber doesn't a) mean you're good at it; b) guarantee you an income supporting your lifestyle. The entitlement statement from the music industry is that "the creators' livelihood is unsustainable." They have declared themselves to be "musicians," and therefore should be entitled to make a living as musicians. Why do they get a guarantee of "sustainable livelihood" when nobody else on the planet does?
Copyright encourages development by protecting a creative work from theft. The benefit to society comes in having wonderfully creative works that you can buy.
Man, you really don't understand how copyright works in the US. In exchange for creating a work, you are provided a time-limited monopoly on that work. At the end of the time period, the work falls into the public domain. The benefit to society is that works are created and become public-use after the creator has had a chance to reap some benefit.
Under copyright, you are not obligated to distribute or license said work (there are some minor exceptions regarding compulsory licensing for music, etc.) You may camp on it to your heart's content. However, at the end of the copyright term, you can't use force-of-law to prohibit others' use of the work. The benefit to society has nothing to do with "consumerism."
"Without compensation the creators' livelihood is unsustainable. It is therefore of utmost importance that licensing schemes and new legal services can emerge in the digital environment, while at the same time legislation says firmly no to grand scale businesses that are built on copyright infringement."
You, me, and everyone else are not guaranteed a living in *any* profession we choose. You have to earn a living. Additional legislation results in either welfare or socialism. (Let's just say I'm not a big fan of either.) If you want to be a musician, great, find a way to make it happen. If it's not economically sustainable on it's own, get a job to support yourself. You can still be a musician. However, you are not entitled to be a full-time musician just because you want to.
If musicians get lifetime royalties for their songs, then software engineers should get lifetime royalties for their code. Electrical engineers should get lifetime royalties for their schematics. Plumbers should get lifetime royalties for the toilets they installed in your house (proper plumbing is an art, after all.)
If this sounds extreme, consider the opposite side. A musician/artist/whoever has a backed-by-force-of-law monopoly on some work he did. Copyright is intended to benefit society by encouraging development of creative works (says so in the US Constitution, I can't say about it elsewhere.) So at some point, society is supposed to benefit. Exactly when does that happen if the originator of the work can camp on it for his entire lifetime plus 75 years? You and I have been swindled out of our part of the bargain - the work is supposed to drop into the community for use by others. Extension of copyright has stolen that from us, and yes, you have been deprived of access to something, so "stealing" is appropriately used.
Kudos for a very simple, concise description of the current situation.
I'd personally like to see copyright forced into a structure more like patents. Patents must be registered to an individual. That person may assign rights to another person or company, but the patent is still his. Copyright should be associated with one or more living, breathing person(s). Corporate copyright ownership becomes a permanent monopoly, because "life plus N years" is meaningless in that context. A company is incapable of creating a work that "promotes the progress of science and useful arts." People do that.
How many of these people who believe our copyright laws are outdated and should be abolished do you think work in one of the copyright-dependent industries? Better yet, how many of them have ever given a dime, let alone a cup of hot coffee, to a starving artist, musician, painter,or writer who has lost their job due to piracy?
And here again we see the Entitlement Mentality. The "starving artist" can't earn a living at his chosen profession. Exactly why is the artist *entitled* to make a living at said profession? If his chosen career path isn't economically viable, why am I suddenly obligated to support him? Perhaps the "starving artist" wouldn't be starving if he made better choices in his life.
Further, I work in an industry that relies heavily on copyright law. It is plainly obvious that copyright law is broken, and is detrimental to society in it's current form. The "temporary monopoly" was never intended to grant a semi-permanent revenue stream for you and your children. Copyright Rebels, my ass.
"General usage of the internet can cause congestion and latency on the network. We therefore propose that no one should be allowed to use the internet. Any usage would lead to depletion of the valuable network bandwidth. Oh, and, uhm, think of the children."
You did read the first line in my post, quoting the statement about artists being unable to live off 10 cents per song, right?
As for being a straw man argument, could you please explain why the RIAA is so opposed to media-shifting the recordings I purchased 20 years ago? Why does the blank media tax keep popping up? (hint: because they think they're owed something.)
If this was a simple market-driven decision, the music industry would have been out of business years ago. Unfortunately, they're usurping the legal system. They are taking away your civil rights. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act is probably the most egregious example of the erosion of the US legal system in favor of something far more Fascist.
I don't by the music. I don't bootleg the music. I'm paying for my part of the copyright bargain, but the entertainment industry keeps changing the rules. US Copyright is seriously broken.
Also, I don't think that most artists could live off of 10 cents a song...
Okay, I gotta ask - exactly why do artists think they're owed a living? If you choose to make acting/singing/performing your way of life, more power to you. It's up to you to make that happen, however. Personally, I'd love to be a professional beach-bum. "Pursuit of Happiness" in the Constitution isn't "Guarantee of Happiness." I have a day job that pays the bills, and I spend whatever "extra" time I have on things I *want* to do. If I want to be a musician, why would I deserve a public subsidy? (that's basically what Copyright has turned into.) May I become a professional snowboarder by copyrighting my Amazing Shredz? May I sue other boarders for copying my Custom Faceplant Ollie? Why not?
Trane manufactures packaged units. The "HVAC system in a box" unit has existed for decades. In fact, I have one on my house (best money I ever spent... got that noisy blower outside.) Granted, it's not in a sea-freight container, but it's about the same overhead to connect to your server-cluster-in-a-box. What's next? Cubicle in a box?
Uhm... not to be pedantic, but I made that last comment about "make her look good" in the context of someone just learning to dance. Most beginners are so focused on the mechanics of dance that they can completely forget that they're dancing *with* someone.
When I was about 14, I watched my folks get out on the dance floor. It was the coolest thing (after the initial WtF?!?!? moment wore off.) I made a commitment to myself to learn to dance. School got in the way, but after college I went to a local club and took group lessons. They're inexpensive compared to private lessons, and you get the social benefit of peers who are at the same level of proficiency as you. After the lesson, ask someone from the class to practice what you just learned. (Note: you'll need several hours of practice to reinforce what you learned in the 1-hour group lesson.) Go from there. No one will bust on you for trying to learn, as long as you're polite.
Fast forward 10+ years... I'm a competitive dancer now. I've traveled all over the US for competitions. I also met my wife through dancing. Learning to dance was life-altering for me, and in a very good way.
As a final note, if you're a guy, your job while dancing is to make *her* look good.
Perhaps the dance floor can open to reveal a pool full of sharks. Or maybe, Woz and Steve-O can dance in a Jackass-esgue showdown. (No really, Steve-O is one of the contestants.)
Does this message thread constitute an "access control circumvention device" under the DMCA? It's a reach to consider a message board thread to be a "device," but information herein does identify a statistical bias toward passwords used for access control. That wasn't the original intent of the DMCA... but the original intent is irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree with that last statement. I'm doing some embedded development right now, and I leave my machines on overnight intentionally. Powering up the entire system to the point where I can continue from CoB yesterday would take 30 minutes or so. I'd chew through that $36-per-year savings in a few days, possibly one day if I'm working at a customer's site running at my external-billing rate rather than my internal rate.
And no, I can't just go get coffee while the machine boots itself. The applications interact with the target, and get completely hosed if the host or target machines go into power-save modes.
I had the same thought. I also have a very vivid imagination.
There are a handful of things fundamental to this existence, regardless of where you live. On the "basic survival" end of the spectrum, you've got shelter, water, and food.
If you seek something more than just basic subsistence, the list expands to include energy, communications, and transportation.
If you believe that a modern society is beneficial, then providing more accessible transportation is a good thing. If you believe we should all be subsistence farmers, then the Tata Nano is a plague upon the land.
Clearly you haven't met my neighbor yet.
You also haven't met the douchebag College Painters who were hired by the former owner of my house. They used Montgomery Ward's cheapest latex over walls that had been done with oil-based paint. No, they don't know what "primer" is.
Getting back OT, the big thing missing from the analysis is labor. The guy isn't unskilled, so using minimum wage isn't appropriate. Let's say that his labor rate is $10/hr. He has built several iterations of the panel. If he has spent one 8-hour day building a panel, that's $80. Compare that to the ~$40 in materials he's got. I can buy a framed 20W solar panel from Sundance Solar for $180.
If he spent more than a day building his panel, or if he values his time at more than $10/hr, it's not cost effective to DiY.
Absolutely. If President Obama wants to demonstrate a platform of change, he can start by eliminating bloat in the government. Dissolving the BATFE would be a good start. Hell, just moving it to be a subset of the FBI would be a good start - they wouldn't have to maintain their own "everything." (Note - I'm not holding my breath on this one.)
The BATFE is the most redundant element of the US government. The FBI covers the B, the F and the E. The FDA covers the A and the T. What's left?
I was kinda hoping for "insightful" or "informative" moderation. [sigh]
BDSM (doesn't require sex)
... shouldn't it get worse?
You should tip more, it gets better.
Awright, I'll bite ...
1) What gives you the right to something I create?
A: I have no "right" to something you create. However, when you claim copyright protection, you are entering into an agreement that in exchange for a time-limited monopoly, you agree to put your creation into the public domain at the end of the term.
2) What incentive remains for me to create anything if you will only steal it and say you had a "right" to it from the beginning?
A: I'll side-step the presumption of theft on your part, and interpret your questions as "What incentive remains for me to create anything without copyright protection?" I believe that's the jist of the original question. If the only thing that drives you is possession (i.e. "I have something that you don't,") then my answer is "nothing." However, if you are motivated to create "anythings" for reasons other than possession or compensation, I would posit that the answer is within you, and that you are the only one qualified to answer this question. Me personally? I do creative things all the time with no expectation of compensation.
3) Where is the "benefit to society" when those who create choose to stop being creative because it is no longer profitable and protected from theft?
A: Copyright is a modern construct. Artistic and scientific works have been created as far back as cave paintings, all without benefit of copyright protection. Your presumption that "all creative works will stop" is a fiction. The profit-motivated folks may stop, but I and others like me won't stop being creative. See, my art isn't motivated by profit, and that scares the shit out of the folks who currently have a strangle hold on the distribution channel.
At the restaurant, you have a contract:
. 1: The restaurant presented an offer in the form of a menu with prices.
. 2: You accepted the offer by placing an order.
. 3: Consideration was exchanged by the restaurant providing you with the meal.
By walking out on the restaurant, you are in material breach of contract by not paying. There is no "entitlement" on either side.
Copyright law provides the protection. The entitlement in question isn't that copyright protection should or should not exist. It's that, for example, a musician *expects* to be able to make a living from his chosen trade. Just because you declare yourself to be a musician/coder/plumber doesn't a) mean you're good at it; b) guarantee you an income supporting your lifestyle. The entitlement statement from the music industry is that "the creators' livelihood is unsustainable." They have declared themselves to be "musicians," and therefore should be entitled to make a living as musicians. Why do they get a guarantee of "sustainable livelihood" when nobody else on the planet does?
Man, you really don't understand how copyright works in the US. In exchange for creating a work, you are provided a time-limited monopoly on that work. At the end of the time period, the work falls into the public domain. The benefit to society is that works are created and become public-use after the creator has had a chance to reap some benefit.
Under copyright, you are not obligated to distribute or license said work (there are some minor exceptions regarding compulsory licensing for music, etc.) You may camp on it to your heart's content. However, at the end of the copyright term, you can't use force-of-law to prohibit others' use of the work. The benefit to society has nothing to do with "consumerism."
You, me, and everyone else are not guaranteed a living in *any* profession we choose. You have to earn a living. Additional legislation results in either welfare or socialism. (Let's just say I'm not a big fan of either.) If you want to be a musician, great, find a way to make it happen. If it's not economically sustainable on it's own, get a job to support yourself. You can still be a musician. However, you are not entitled to be a full-time musician just because you want to.
If musicians get lifetime royalties for their songs, then software engineers should get lifetime royalties for their code. Electrical engineers should get lifetime royalties for their schematics. Plumbers should get lifetime royalties for the toilets they installed in your house (proper plumbing is an art, after all.)
If this sounds extreme, consider the opposite side. A musician/artist/whoever has a backed-by-force-of-law monopoly on some work he did. Copyright is intended to benefit society by encouraging development of creative works (says so in the US Constitution, I can't say about it elsewhere.) So at some point, society is supposed to benefit. Exactly when does that happen if the originator of the work can camp on it for his entire lifetime plus 75 years? You and I have been swindled out of our part of the bargain - the work is supposed to drop into the community for use by others. Extension of copyright has stolen that from us, and yes, you have been deprived of access to something, so "stealing" is appropriately used.
Kudos for a very simple, concise description of the current situation.
I'd personally like to see copyright forced into a structure more like patents. Patents must be registered to an individual. That person may assign rights to another person or company, but the patent is still his. Copyright should be associated with one or more living, breathing person(s). Corporate copyright ownership becomes a permanent monopoly, because "life plus N years" is meaningless in that context. A company is incapable of creating a work that "promotes the progress of science and useful arts." People do that.
And here again we see the Entitlement Mentality. The "starving artist" can't earn a living at his chosen profession. Exactly why is the artist *entitled* to make a living at said profession? If his chosen career path isn't economically viable, why am I suddenly obligated to support him? Perhaps the "starving artist" wouldn't be starving if he made better choices in his life.
Further, I work in an industry that relies heavily on copyright law. It is plainly obvious that copyright law is broken, and is detrimental to society in it's current form. The "temporary monopoly" was never intended to grant a semi-permanent revenue stream for you and your children. Copyright Rebels, my ass.
"General usage of the internet can cause congestion and latency on the network. We therefore propose that no one should be allowed to use the internet. Any usage would lead to depletion of the valuable network bandwidth. Oh, and, uhm, think of the children."
You did read the first line in my post, quoting the statement about artists being unable to live off 10 cents per song, right?
As for being a straw man argument, could you please explain why the RIAA is so opposed to media-shifting the recordings I purchased 20 years ago? Why does the blank media tax keep popping up? (hint: because they think they're owed something.)
If this was a simple market-driven decision, the music industry would have been out of business years ago. Unfortunately, they're usurping the legal system. They are taking away your civil rights. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act is probably the most egregious example of the erosion of the US legal system in favor of something far more Fascist.
I don't by the music. I don't bootleg the music. I'm paying for my part of the copyright bargain, but the entertainment industry keeps changing the rules. US Copyright is seriously broken.
Okay, I gotta ask - exactly why do artists think they're owed a living? If you choose to make acting/singing/performing your way of life, more power to you. It's up to you to make that happen, however. Personally, I'd love to be a professional beach-bum. "Pursuit of Happiness" in the Constitution isn't "Guarantee of Happiness." I have a day job that pays the bills, and I spend whatever "extra" time I have on things I *want* to do. If I want to be a musician, why would I deserve a public subsidy? (that's basically what Copyright has turned into.) May I become a professional snowboarder by copyrighting my Amazing Shredz? May I sue other boarders for copying my Custom Faceplant Ollie? Why not?
Thank you. That was exactly my point.
Trane manufactures packaged units. The "HVAC system in a box" unit has existed for decades. In fact, I have one on my house (best money I ever spent ... got that noisy blower outside.) Granted, it's not in a sea-freight container, but it's about the same overhead to connect to your server-cluster-in-a-box. What's next? Cubicle in a box?
Uhm ... not to be pedantic, but I made that last comment about "make her look good" in the context of someone just learning to dance. Most beginners are so focused on the mechanics of dance that they can completely forget that they're dancing *with* someone.
When I was about 14, I watched my folks get out on the dance floor. It was the coolest thing (after the initial WtF?!?!? moment wore off.) I made a commitment to myself to learn to dance. School got in the way, but after college I went to a local club and took group lessons. They're inexpensive compared to private lessons, and you get the social benefit of peers who are at the same level of proficiency as you. After the lesson, ask someone from the class to practice what you just learned. (Note: you'll need several hours of practice to reinforce what you learned in the 1-hour group lesson.) Go from there. No one will bust on you for trying to learn, as long as you're polite.
... I'm a competitive dancer now. I've traveled all over the US for competitions. I also met my wife through dancing. Learning to dance was life-altering for me, and in a very good way.
Fast forward 10+ years
As a final note, if you're a guy, your job while dancing is to make *her* look good.
Perhaps the dance floor can open to reveal a pool full of sharks. Or maybe, Woz and Steve-O can dance in a Jackass-esgue showdown. (No really, Steve-O is one of the contestants.)
Does this message thread constitute an "access control circumvention device" under the DMCA? It's a reach to consider a message board thread to be a "device," but information herein does identify a statistical bias toward passwords used for access control. That wasn't the original intent of the DMCA ... but the original intent is irrelevant.