Ben Franklin died seven damned days after the Federal Patent Act was passed by Congress on the 10th of April, 1790. Kind of hard to argue he wouldn't have availed himself of patents.
Now there's a good phrase. Easy to say too, after that other person had the idea and did the work to make it happen.
Without IP laws, these things would have been thrown onto the world for everyone to use for free.
Uh, no. Those "things" would not have been created because the people would have been working at earning food and shelter. Those things come first.
People need to eat. Your idea would only work if society supports those who make ideas. I'm all for that, by the way. I write. I would like the gov to simply mail me checks because I write, not because people want to read said writing. And therein you have the failure of that system.
If it where up to me, IP laws would be scrapped from the books, so that companies can have succes by innovating faster or smarter than the competition, as opposed to having a bigger pack of lawyers.
Then, I take it, you're for large companies ripping off the little guy? Because that is exactly what would happen. You personally have a great idea? Good. Now you work in secret with every penny you have to.... Oh, it takes more money than you have. OK. Now you to to talk to someone about funding.... Oh, they stole your idea and did it on their own and now your screwed? Oh well, too bad.
IP laws shouldn't be applied to plants. IP laws exist to prevent copying items & plant's only purpose in life is to make copies of itself.
You're very ignorant of plants. Where do you suppose seedless grapes, oranges, grapefruit and other plants come from? Most nursery fruit stock is derived from grafting, not planting.
Try this. Take the best orange you've ever tasted and plant its seeds. Lemme know how inferior its offspring are. Plants do not reproduce in the manner you think.
IF, unlike the cases so far, you have not purposely gathered said seeds and planted them with the goal of avoiding purchase. The GP takes an abstract and acts like it happens. Read up on the cases.
Then I would argue that you're simply looking for an excuse to brutalize and steal. You're not in a position that justifies killing, so don't make false claims.
You betray your venue. Why would you storm his "stronghold" and steal his "poisoned" seeds? You're just looking for an excuse.
And you get to decide how much? Why you? What makes your decision better than mine, which is Bill can give everything he has to one person if Bill wants?
One-half of those who have never used e-mail are over 65, and 56 percent had no schooling beyond high school.
What do you want to be there's a significant overlap in those two groups? What do you want do bet that those over 65 aren't concerned about e-mail being the sole communication method of either job or consumer markets? That 'evaporation' will be simple attrition and won't support any conclusions at all.
Same here. When I was running a stunt show, I had a physical. I sat there with my shirt off and the doctor in all seriousness told me I should lose 40 pounds. I looked down and asked "Where?" He was at a loss, of course. BMI is stupid.
For rusotto above. The leeching he's referring to is where they use leeches to drain blood because there's too much, not to reduce specific swellings.
Uh, he's (David Emery) talking about the current election, not historic trends as you infer from the GP (For the past eight years). The article you pulled a partial quote from also says "there's still plenty of time before the election."
Not really. All he's said so far is "my heart sinks at the thought". There's nothing there to flesh out. What are his basic reasons is not an untoward question to ask.
The site is/.ed at the moment, so I can't tell if you have to use their servers for the processing or even read their user agreement. But, all they have to do is tell you that whatever you create on their site they will keep a copy of and release, and if you agree, you relinquish copyright.
If you want to retain full ownership, do it at home.
Well, since you're throwing pedantry at him, I'll return some for you. The word "abusers" is plural, which is not necessarily all-inclusive. Stopping abusers does not mean stopping every abuser, only more than one.
You cretinous, syphilitic little worm sucker. Your brain has leaked out of your lower member if you think that trolling is no more than spouting curse words, you worthless pile of canine excrement. Your thoughts aren't worth printing here and your mother, well, once gets her lazy body out of my bed and rinses her mouth out, I'll ask her why she didn't abort you once she discovered you weren't her husband's child.
Please inform me as to how you would filter that. That's what trolls do.
The irony is he uses terms such as "too stupid", "they dish out", "appeal to the lowest common denominator" and "ignorant mentality" in a distinct attempt to segregate himself from them.
Interactive video games are based in a reality that is modeled upon human experience. Hence, they are unoriginal. Your concept of originality precludes all.
"I plan on doing many vague things in the future, too."
Problem is, for you to do as you say, they have to be based on the contents of something you already have under copyright. Got such a thing, or are you just spouting?
She's not suing over the idea of doing it, but over the contents they're violating the copyright of.
You're correct. If you impinged upon a Royal privilege, you would find yourself in much deeper shit than today. Just because there were copyright violators does not mean he is incorrect in his references to copyright.
Those references at the bottom of that Wikipedia page are nothing you could sneeze at.
And, you yourself don't understand copyright if you think that however thinly the rewrite is, it's not new material and therefore not a copyright violation. Contained text, not idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Ben Franklin died seven damned days after the Federal Patent Act was passed by Congress on the 10th of April, 1790. Kind of hard to argue he wouldn't have availed himself of patents.
'bound to happen sooner or later'
Now there's a good phrase. Easy to say too, after that other person had the idea and did the work to make it happen.
Without IP laws, these things would have been thrown onto the world for everyone to use for free.
Uh, no. Those "things" would not have been created because the people would have been working at earning food and shelter. Those things come first.
People need to eat. Your idea would only work if society supports those who make ideas. I'm all for that, by the way. I write. I would like the gov to simply mail me checks because I write, not because people want to read said writing. And therein you have the failure of that system.
If it where up to me, IP laws would be scrapped from the books, so that companies can have succes by innovating faster or smarter than the competition, as opposed to having a bigger pack of lawyers.
Then, I take it, you're for large companies ripping off the little guy? Because that is exactly what would happen. You personally have a great idea? Good. Now you work in secret with every penny you have to.... Oh, it takes more money than you have. OK. Now you to to talk to someone about funding.... Oh, they stole your idea and did it on their own and now your screwed? Oh well, too bad.
IP laws shouldn't be applied to plants. IP laws exist to prevent copying items & plant's only purpose in life is to make copies of itself.
You're very ignorant of plants. Where do you suppose seedless grapes, oranges, grapefruit and other plants come from? Most nursery fruit stock is derived from grafting, not planting.
Try this. Take the best orange you've ever tasted and plant its seeds. Lemme know how inferior its offspring are. Plants do not reproduce in the manner you think.
IF, unlike the cases so far, you have not purposely gathered said seeds and planted them with the goal of avoiding purchase. The GP takes an abstract and acts like it happens. Read up on the cases.
Then I would argue that you're simply looking for an excuse to brutalize and steal. You're not in a position that justifies killing, so don't make false claims.
You betray your venue. Why would you storm his "stronghold" and steal his "poisoned" seeds? You're just looking for an excuse.
Then don't buy Monsanto's seeds. Problem solved. Before you spout more, read.
And no, farmers did not share their seeds. They sold them. You're spouting ignorance.
And you get to decide how much? Why you? What makes your decision better than mine, which is Bill can give everything he has to one person if Bill wants?
No it doesn't.
From article:
One-half of those who have never used e-mail are over 65, and 56 percent had no schooling beyond high school.
What do you want to be there's a significant overlap in those two groups? What do you want do bet that those over 65 aren't concerned about e-mail being the sole communication method of either job or consumer markets? That 'evaporation' will be simple attrition and won't support any conclusions at all.
Same here. When I was running a stunt show, I had a physical. I sat there with my shirt off and the doctor in all seriousness told me I should lose 40 pounds. I looked down and asked "Where?" He was at a loss, of course. BMI is stupid.
For rusotto above. The leeching he's referring to is where they use leeches to drain blood because there's too much, not to reduce specific swellings.
Uh, he's (David Emery) talking about the current election, not historic trends as you infer from the GP (For the past eight years). The article you pulled a partial quote from also says "there's still plenty of time before the election."
Your post sounds like a liberal e-mail.
Yeah, that works when liberals send their shit too.
Not really. All he's said so far is "my heart sinks at the thought". There's nothing there to flesh out. What are his basic reasons is not an untoward question to ask.
Only looks that way to someone on the extreme left.
The site is /.ed at the moment, so I can't tell if you have to use their servers for the processing or even read their user agreement. But, all they have to do is tell you that whatever you create on their site they will keep a copy of and release, and if you agree, you relinquish copyright.
If you want to retain full ownership, do it at home.
Well, since you're throwing pedantry at him, I'll return some for you. The word "abusers" is plural, which is not necessarily all-inclusive. Stopping abusers does not mean stopping every abuser, only more than one.
A "naughty" filter?
You cretinous, syphilitic little worm sucker. Your brain has leaked out of your lower member if you think that trolling is no more than spouting curse words, you worthless pile of canine excrement. Your thoughts aren't worth printing here and your mother, well, once gets her lazy body out of my bed and rinses her mouth out, I'll ask her why she didn't abort you once she discovered you weren't her husband's child.
Please inform me as to how you would filter that. That's what trolls do.
You would deny me the right to sell my copyright why?
You would open me up to theft of my material until I personally could publish why?
Uh, no. The entire point of the myth is that a simple and inexpensive solution worked as good or better, which the pencil does not.
The irony is he uses terms such as "too stupid", "they dish out", "appeal to the lowest common denominator" and "ignorant mentality" in a distinct attempt to segregate himself from them.
More gray than they.
Interactive video games are based in a reality that is modeled upon human experience. Hence, they are unoriginal. Your concept of originality precludes all.
"I plan on doing many vague things in the future, too."
Problem is, for you to do as you say, they have to be based on the contents of something you already have under copyright. Got such a thing, or are you just spouting?
She's not suing over the idea of doing it, but over the contents they're violating the copyright of.
You're correct. If you impinged upon a Royal privilege, you would find yourself in much deeper shit than today. Just because there were copyright violators does not mean he is incorrect in his references to copyright.
Those references at the bottom of that Wikipedia page are nothing you could sneeze at.
And, you yourself don't understand copyright if you think that however thinly the rewrite is, it's not new material and therefore not a copyright violation. Contained text, not idea.
Uh, uhn. You can paint any number of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves pictures you want, as long as you don't use their characters.
"Because Disney DOES consider Snow White and every other story they've touched to be their own."
That's already been shown false, as there are a number of later releases of same that have been left alone.