Grow a brain. Everything, including Time Machine, builds on the work of others. It's only "IP" fanatics who thinks that ideas come, de novo, from thin air.
Useful but worth noting that this measures what the suspect thinks is true. That may be different from reality.
The woman has had several decades to convince herself that she didn't actually do it; that it was all just a bad dream. Alternatively, to convince her innocent self that maybe she did actually do it.
It's common for criminals, anybody really, to blame everybody but themselves for bad things and false memory syndrome can contribute to that.
Don't confuse patents with innovations. They are not the same and patent parasites who deliberately confuse the two are a large part of the problem.
---
Creating simple artificial scarcity with copyright and patents on things that can be copied billions of times at minimal cost is a fundamentally stupid economic idea.
... but it's the inventors blood; sweat; tears; time; effort; intellect; experience; grad students; and ingenuity that makes it work.
How melodramatic. That's their job, that's what they're paid for.
Universities, and individual academics, who double dip and come up with bullshit excuses about why they should be able to retain the benefits of taxpayer funded work should be given a swift boot up the backside.
You want to keep the work? YOU PAY FOR IT.
---
The name "Copy Right" is incorrect. It's really "Copy Control Privilege". "Patent" is incorrect. It's really "Idea Control Privilege".
"Hand wave"? I have no need of any evidence beyond the strong correlation between innovative societies and strong IP protection.
Correlation is is not causation and the automatic assumption that it is one of the hallmarks of bad science and bad logic.
This correlation is obvious and ubiquitous throughout the world.
No it isn't, you just wish it was. The fastest growing major economy is China, not noted for being too concerned about "IP". Neither was the early USA. Limited "IP" does appear to work in certain very limited societies and very limited industries but it is not the ubiquitous good that you are claiming.
The simplest explanation for this correlation is that IP protection fosters innovation.
No it isn't, you just wish it was. My explanation is equally simple. In addition the two explanations are not mutually exclusive as you are implying and many other explanations are possible and not exclusive as well, everything from creative societies being likely to have both creative technologists as well as creative lawyers to rich societies being able to support both technologists and "IP" lawyers. The world is not so black and white as your almost religious devotion implies.
So the burden of proof is actually on you to demonstrate not only that this correlation is without causation, but also that innovation will flourish to an even larger degree if IP protections are removed.
No it isn't, you just wish it was. "IP", both copyright and patent, is a massive interference in the citizen's business. Massive interference requires massive justification. It's just not there. "IP" mainly exists because of an historical accident when rich people, not even creators but distributers instead, bought more privilege. Now there are entrenched interests trying to preserve their privilege.
In any case, any law which creates unstable, winner-take-all markets, where a very small number of players derive almost all the benefit (e.g. M$, RIAA and J.K Rowling) is not in general good law. Just like feudalism.
e.g. I've been creating software my entire working life and copyright has never done me any good. Just like the vast majority of the software market I create software for in-house use; it's protected by contract and employee law. Retail "IP" is a tiny fraction of the software market but because of it's visibility it's been allowed to dominate the copyright/patent debate way too much. It's likely that by freeing up copyright and patent law industries that use copyrighted and patented material would be far more productive and creative. And that industry dwarfs the so-called pure content creators.
---
Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.
the theory of a demonic Microsoft playing with its market like they were pawns in a chess game is absolutely absurd.
Follow the money. M$ has a multi-billion dollar incentive, and the lack of corporate ethics, to do exactly this and your hyperbole doesn't change that.
Apologies to those at M$ who do have ethics; please do what you can to improve M$' ethical standards.
---
Open source software is everything that closed source software is. Plus the source is available.
I doubt that it was that fast as you are implying.
Trivial to automate.
---
"Advertising supported" just means you're paying twice over, once in time to watch/avoid the ad and twice in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad.
Of course not, although in your way of thinking, it must certainly be a strange coincidence that the most innovative and creative nation on Earth also has some of the strongest intellectual property protection.
Why do you automatically assume that IP law promotes innovation? It could equally be that innovation attracts IP parasites.
That's the problem with a lot of IP proponents. They hand wave a lot but they lack any actual rigorous evidence for this massive interference in the citizen's business.
Billions of people are being blocked from sharing because one, count them, one person should be given total control always.
---
Creating simple artificial scarcity with copyright and patents on things that can be copied billions of times at minimal cost is a fundamentally stupid economic idea.
pass the chunk of the URI after the ? into a search), but that isn't exactly the same.
String re-writing is a very old well established technique in many domains including URL's. Claiming a specific instance of this is somehow original just shows how broken the patent office's idea of what originality really is.
Please, a little less handwaving, and a little more rigor, about what originality is. The patent office's entire edifice is based on some hopelessly shaky foundations about what originality is (e.g. I start a new hardware store in a growing town. Nobody's done that before. Why shouldn't I be able to get a patent on that idea and stop any competition in that town?) and some really messed up and ill-defined word definitions (e.g. about what is different and what is the same) basically justifying whatever they like. This word play is costing the wider community trillions with huge numbers of obvious ideas being unusable because the patent office arbitrarily says so.
---
Every new patent is another opportunity for a lawyer to make money at the expense of the wider community.
Actually, I often recognise twitter's posts by the bigoted comments attached to them.
Try to get your head around the fact that M$ marketing propaganda is not the only point of view. Twitter's view is just as legitimate as anything that comes out of M$ marketing.
Both Darl McBride and his lawyers were necessary pre-requisites for the SCO stupidity. Like I said the responsibility is joint and several. Lawyers are free agents and they can't wash their hands of their responsibility by pretending it was only Darl.
---
Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.
Before there were patents there were guilds and these guilds have trade secrets that they jealously guarded out of fear of losing their exclusive meal ticket. Patents, because the schematics are public records, discourage this behavior.
In other words patents are pointless for any idea that can't be kept secret if actually being used. In other words not reverse-engineer-able.
The only class of invention where that might happen are "construction" ideas, such as creating salable chemicals and physical product using a process that cannot be reverse-engineered from the resulting product. That appears to be rare in modern technology and non-existent in software.
---
Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.
And the fake ad's were/are a lot more entertaining than any real ad's. The whole point of games is escapism.
---
"Advertising supported" just means you're paying twice over, once in time to watch/avoid the ad and twice in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad.
I don't mind in-game ads, as long as they're inobtrusive.
There is no such thing as a successful, unobtrusive ad.
The whole point of an ad is to be noticed and acted on.
Unless you take subliminal advertising seriously, and science disproved that decades ago. Even if it were subliminal that doesn't somehow give them the right to bypass people's fully informed consent.
This is nothing more than the continuing theft of people's time and money by unethical marketers. An arms race where everybody loses except the marketing parasites.
---
"Advertising supported" just means you're paying twice over, once in time to watch/avoid the ad and twice in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad.
Or, in other words, lawyers don't sue people, people sue people.
Total, unmitigated bullshit. The responsibility is joint and several and lawyers washing their hands of their responsibility is a large part of the problem. Or to put it another way "I was only following orders" went out as an excuse a very long time ago.
Lawyers are the experts in the domain of law and their clients generally follow their advice, including whether or not to sue and whether or not to get patents.
The current bullshit IP rush is driven almost entirely by and for lawyers, aided and abetted by the lawyers in congress who create the self-serving IP laws in the first place. A not very surprising consequence of the amorality of many lawyers and the quantity of lawyers in this country. A gigantic and extremely harmful game of real life nomic.
---
It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work. It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons. Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.
It's very nebulous. And unjustified. All deliberate actions are a product of the mind. Intellectual property in other words. What is the criteria for deciding what is or is not an "invention"? In an arbitrary category? Sufficiently different? Sufficiently innovative? Deserving protection? It's all based on ill-defined words and lots of hand waving to justify a massive interference in the citizen's business. Intellectual property at the moment is a mess and is due a major overhaul.
---
Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.
No it doesn't. The reality, not the fiction that you're pushing, is that it tends to reward distributors, middlemen and assorted other parasites. Creators sometimes get lucky and are rewarded but it's the exception rather than the rule.
Naive people like you who think "copyright is goooood" are a large part of the problem. That and lying astroturfers fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as objective third party opinion.
The rights of many different parties are being balanced here, including the rights of billions of free citizens to do what they damn well please with what they have in their hands. Your "sky is falling" nonsense implying that copyright is the only incentive for creating content is also silly. People have been creating and sharing since the dawn of time and the jury is still out on how much of an incentive and/or disincentive copyright is to that process.
---
Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.
The purpose of copyright law is to grant a temporary monopoly on the rights to copy a piece of art
No, the purpose is to "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". The method is "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." In my opinion it was a mistake for the constitution to even mention the method.
The fact that a lawsuit has been won by the copyright owner demonstrates that the law does exactly what it was intended to do - set out a series of punishments for those who would break the law and copy a piece of art which they have no right to do.
No, a conviction says nothing about whether the law does what is intended to do. An intention is an abstract concept completely separate from the written law. The present conviction merely shows that the law as written does in practice allow a conviction to occur. Whether that conviction is or is not at odds with the intention of the writers of the law is a completely separate issue.
Also, many people confuse the law with ethics (as in, if it's legal then it's ethical) but the two are often completely at odds. Copyright law currently appears to be in that category with billions of people being stopped from doing a completely reasonable thing, sharing with their friends and acquaintances, because the originators want completely unreasonable profits for a few hours work.
---
It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work. It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons. Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Grow a brain. Everything, including Time Machine, builds on the work of others. It's only "IP" fanatics who thinks that ideas come, de novo, from thin air.
---
Has your software been deliberately crippled?
Useful but worth noting that this measures what the suspect thinks is true. That may be different from reality.
The woman has had several decades to convince herself that she didn't actually do it; that it was all just a bad dream. Alternatively, to convince her innocent self that maybe she did actually do it.
It's common for criminals, anybody really, to blame everybody but themselves for bad things and false memory syndrome can contribute to that.
---
How has your software been deliberately crippled?
Don't confuse patents with innovations. They are not the same and patent parasites who deliberately confuse the two are a large part of the problem.
---
Creating simple artificial scarcity with copyright and patents on things that can be copied billions of times at minimal cost is a fundamentally stupid economic idea.
How melodramatic. That's their job, that's what they're paid for.
Universities, and individual academics, who double dip and come up with bullshit excuses about why they should be able to retain the benefits of taxpayer funded work should be given a swift boot up the backside.
You want to keep the work? YOU PAY FOR IT.
---
The name "Copy Right" is incorrect. It's really "Copy Control Privilege". "Patent" is incorrect. It's really "Idea Control Privilege".
Come on, own up: who's buying these console-priced cards, and why?
Not many but these cards are expensive and high margin and slashdot is close to their target demographic.
So you're going to see lots of lying astroturf in both articles and comments implying that everybody's buying them.
People buy based on perception and the marketers want people to perceive that they're not keeping up.
---
It's market failure whenever any one player has more than 50% of the market power.
"Hand wave"? I have no need of any evidence beyond the strong correlation between innovative societies and strong IP protection.
Correlation is is not causation and the automatic assumption that it is one of the hallmarks of bad science and bad logic.
This correlation is obvious and ubiquitous throughout the world.
No it isn't, you just wish it was. The fastest growing major economy is China, not noted for being too concerned about "IP". Neither was the early USA. Limited "IP" does appear to work in certain very limited societies and very limited industries but it is not the ubiquitous good that you are claiming.
The simplest explanation for this correlation is that IP protection fosters innovation.
No it isn't, you just wish it was. My explanation is equally simple. In addition the two explanations are not mutually exclusive as you are implying and many other explanations are possible and not exclusive as well, everything from creative societies being likely to have both creative technologists as well as creative lawyers to rich societies being able to support both technologists and "IP" lawyers. The world is not so black and white as your almost religious devotion implies.
So the burden of proof is actually on you to demonstrate not only that this correlation is without causation, but also that innovation will flourish to an even larger degree if IP protections are removed.
No it isn't, you just wish it was. "IP", both copyright and patent, is a massive interference in the citizen's business. Massive interference requires massive justification. It's just not there. "IP" mainly exists because of an historical accident when rich people, not even creators but distributers instead, bought more privilege. Now there are entrenched interests trying to preserve their privilege.
In any case, any law which creates unstable, winner-take-all markets, where a very small number of players derive almost all the benefit (e.g. M$, RIAA and J.K Rowling) is not in general good law. Just like feudalism.
e.g. I've been creating software my entire working life and copyright has never done me any good. Just like the vast majority of the software market I create software for in-house use; it's protected by contract and employee law. Retail "IP" is a tiny fraction of the software market but because of it's visibility it's been allowed to dominate the copyright/patent debate way too much. It's likely that by freeing up copyright and patent law industries that use copyrighted and patented material would be far more productive and creative. And that industry dwarfs the so-called pure content creators.
---
Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.
the theory of a demonic Microsoft playing with its market like they were pawns in a chess game is absolutely absurd.
Follow the money. M$ has a multi-billion dollar incentive, and the lack of corporate ethics, to do exactly this and your hyperbole doesn't change that.
Apologies to those at M$ who do have ethics; please do what you can to improve M$' ethical standards.
---
Open source software is everything that closed source software is. Plus the source is available.
By your logic you'll be running windows for the rest of eternity.
Nothing lasts forever and sometimes having some short term pain for long term gain is a reasonable trade off.
---
Keep your options open!
I doubt that it was that fast as you are implying.
Trivial to automate.
---
"Advertising supported" just means you're paying twice over, once in time to watch/avoid the ad and twice in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad.
Nope, nothing to do with him/her. Just an interested bystander. You on the other hand...
---
It's market failure whenever any one player has more than 50% of the market power.
Of course not, although in your way of thinking, it must certainly be a strange coincidence that the most innovative and creative nation on Earth also has some of the strongest intellectual property protection.
Why do you automatically assume that IP law promotes innovation? It could equally be that innovation attracts IP parasites.
That's the problem with a lot of IP proponents. They hand wave a lot but they lack any actual rigorous evidence for this massive interference in the citizen's business.
Billions of people are being blocked from sharing because one, count them, one person should be given total control always.
---
Creating simple artificial scarcity with copyright and patents on things that can be copied billions of times at minimal cost is a fundamentally stupid economic idea.
pass the chunk of the URI after the ? into a search), but that isn't exactly the same.
String re-writing is a very old well established technique in many domains including URL's. Claiming a specific instance of this is somehow original just shows how broken the patent office's idea of what originality really is.
Please, a little less handwaving, and a little more rigor, about what originality is. The patent office's entire edifice is based on some hopelessly shaky foundations about what originality is (e.g. I start a new hardware store in a growing town. Nobody's done that before. Why shouldn't I be able to get a patent on that idea and stop any competition in that town?) and some really messed up and ill-defined word definitions (e.g. about what is different and what is the same) basically justifying whatever they like. This word play is costing the wider community trillions with huge numbers of obvious ideas being unusable because the patent office arbitrarily says so.
---
Every new patent is another opportunity for a lawyer to make money at the expense of the wider community.
How many of these articles are we going to get?
Not as many as all the Vista propaganda articles I hope. Though that would balance things out.
---
Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.
Actually, I often recognise twitter's posts by the bigoted comments attached to them.
Try to get your head around the fact that M$ marketing propaganda is not the only point of view. Twitter's view is just as legitimate as anything that comes out of M$ marketing.
---
Paid marketers are the worst zealots.
Both Darl McBride and his lawyers were necessary pre-requisites for the SCO stupidity. Like I said the responsibility is joint and several. Lawyers are free agents and they can't wash their hands of their responsibility by pretending it was only Darl.
---
Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.
Shareholders do have a diluted responsibility. As I said the responsibility is joint and several.
Lawyers, primary responsibility. Company management, once removed. Shareholders, twice removed.
---
Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.
Before there were patents there were guilds and these guilds have trade secrets that they jealously guarded out of fear of losing their exclusive meal ticket. Patents, because the schematics are public records, discourage this behavior.
In other words patents are pointless for any idea that can't be kept secret if actually being used. In other words not reverse-engineer-able.
The only class of invention where that might happen are "construction" ideas, such as creating salable chemicals and physical product using a process that cannot be reverse-engineered from the resulting product. That appears to be rare in modern technology and non-existent in software.
---
Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.
or had fake advertisements.
And the fake ad's were/are a lot more entertaining than any real ad's. The whole point of games is escapism.
---
"Advertising supported" just means you're paying twice over, once in time to watch/avoid the ad and twice in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad.
Astroturfed much recently?
---
Most advertising is a shell game to hide the true cost of a product from the user.
I don't mind in-game ads, as long as they're inobtrusive.
There is no such thing as a successful, unobtrusive ad.
The whole point of an ad is to be noticed and acted on.
Unless you take subliminal advertising seriously, and science disproved that decades ago. Even if it were subliminal that doesn't somehow give them the right to bypass people's fully informed consent.
This is nothing more than the continuing theft of people's time and money by unethical marketers. An arms race where everybody loses except the marketing parasites.
---
"Advertising supported" just means you're paying twice over, once in time to watch/avoid the ad and twice in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad.
Or, in other words, lawyers don't sue people, people sue people.
Total, unmitigated bullshit. The responsibility is joint and several and lawyers washing their hands of their responsibility is a large part of the problem. Or to put it another way "I was only following orders" went out as an excuse a very long time ago.
Lawyers are the experts in the domain of law and their clients generally follow their advice, including whether or not to sue and whether or not to get patents.
The current bullshit IP rush is driven almost entirely by and for lawyers, aided and abetted by the lawyers in congress who create the self-serving IP laws in the first place. A not very surprising consequence of the amorality of many lawyers and the quantity of lawyers in this country. A gigantic and extremely harmful game of real life nomic.
---
It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.
It's very nebulous. And unjustified. All deliberate actions are a product of the mind. Intellectual property in other words. What is the criteria for deciding what is or is not an "invention"? In an arbitrary category? Sufficiently different? Sufficiently innovative? Deserving protection? It's all based on ill-defined words and lots of hand waving to justify a massive interference in the citizen's business. Intellectual property at the moment is a mess and is due a major overhaul.
---
Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.
Copyright rewards creators.
No it doesn't. The reality, not the fiction that you're pushing, is that it tends to reward distributors, middlemen and assorted other parasites. Creators sometimes get lucky and are rewarded but it's the exception rather than the rule.
Naive people like you who think "copyright is goooood" are a large part of the problem. That and lying astroturfers fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as objective third party opinion.
The rights of many different parties are being balanced here, including the rights of billions of free citizens to do what they damn well please with what they have in their hands. Your "sky is falling" nonsense implying that copyright is the only incentive for creating content is also silly. People have been creating and sharing since the dawn of time and the jury is still out on how much of an incentive and/or disincentive copyright is to that process.
---
Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.
The purpose of copyright law is to grant a temporary monopoly on the rights to copy a piece of art
No, the purpose is to "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". The method is "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." In my opinion it was a mistake for the constitution to even mention the method.
The fact that a lawsuit has been won by the copyright owner demonstrates that the law does exactly what it was intended to do - set out a series of punishments for those who would break the law and copy a piece of art which they have no right to do.
No, a conviction says nothing about whether the law does what is intended to do. An intention is an abstract concept completely separate from the written law. The present conviction merely shows that the law as written does in practice allow a conviction to occur. Whether that conviction is or is not at odds with the intention of the writers of the law is a completely separate issue.
Also, many people confuse the law with ethics (as in, if it's legal then it's ethical) but the two are often completely at odds. Copyright law currently appears to be in that category with billions of people being stopped from doing a completely reasonable thing, sharing with their friends and acquaintances, because the originators want completely unreasonable profits for a few hours work.
---
It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.
I do not get this "apps as services" dream so many have.
Just follow the money. It's marketing, nothing more, trying to make you think "everybody's doing it."
Companies want to convert consumers from one-off purchases to ongoing, controllable, more profitable revenue streams.
The problem for those companies is that most consumers, like you, know better.
---
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair