"It was considered at the time that an evil such as limited (in both duration and scope) monopoly on distribution would be a necessary incentive to encourage such publication (so that others could then benefit)."
So, giving a monopoly to publish (which was expensive) was an incentive to encourage such expensive publication by limiting the amount of expensive publication (infringement) being done?
A tad twisted logic there.
"That presumes that not only is paper expensive, but so are printing presses, etc. - expensive enough that some financial return would be required to pay for the cost of those supplies."
Oh. That explains why you're in error. The presumption was no such thing. The presumption was that the author/creator invested time, thought and effort and that those deserved reward. Infringers had the same supplies.
"The point here is that copyright was not meant to reward having a good idea; it was meant to reward DISTRIBUTING that idea."
Um, no. It was meant to provide a control for the distribution (including limiting it), else wise there would be no restrictions on expanding the distribution of the idea. More contradiction on your part.
"(Similarly, patents are meant to reward PUBLICATION of ideas for others to learn from; that is, to facilitate new ideas building on old ones by making the details of the old ones explicitly public.)"
Yes. You however, seem to purposefully neglect that the laws for patents provide penalties for using them without paying the owner.
Actually, if you thought for a moment, you're simply describing the current situation. The creator/owner does set the price they want and then enters into a contract. It is upon delivery that the taxes are paid.
Oh, wait. You want a bogus application of a tax to something that has not changed hands yet (like say, a personal piece of art - which is not taxed) so that copyright becomes untenable, so you can justify wanting to have it for free.
As someone else pointed out, you'll have to put price tags on all your personal possessions and be willing to allow someone to come up and simply buy them out from under you for you to be less than a hypocrite with your suggestion.
You're just arguing and not looking into it on your own. I got a Bachelor's in 2003 and spent less than 2K per semester. I went nights and to remote campuses. All my credits from JuCo got accepted. Oddly, some of my Kansas University ones wouldn't.
Then, next time your boss tells you to do something you don't like, tell him no. From there, you can backtrack until you're in the military taking orders. Your example is a dud. We all give up selected portions of our rights (liberty) everyday for one reason or another.
I'm not sure he actually had it that way. He wouldn't be too damn acceptable to someone forcing you to sell what is yours if you're not interested. Could you provide a reference?
No, thimblebrain, he means it's not an oppressive theocratic regime here, nothing more. Those who spout that it is are purposefully ignoring what one actually does in order to try to inspire urgent actions.
And what other answer would you expect from her. Nothing like blithely taking four bucks from each taxpayer to satisfy your personal curiosity and then claiming they'd be satisfied with dubious technological advances.
Uh, no. The entertainment industry has done nothing new. Go to an art gallery and look at the paintings. Portraits and religious pictures. Shitloads of them. Why? Exactly the reason he stated. At least the current regurgitata is oriented to the common man, not the church or uber-wealthy.
Avant-garde cinema? And you complain about the rehashing of current entertainment? How many grim short flicks about a young woman's angst do you want?
You neglect a few details. In the times of patronage, very few of the commoners got to experience the arts except at the rich peoples will. Me? I'll pay the artist and allow him to exploit the masses for a few cents each instead of relying on Gates, Kennedy, et.al. to "bestow" the privilege of seeing the arts on me.
"Douglas Adams (DA) is paid by the BBC to write... DA is a fine example of exactly how you can make money by giving stuff away for free."
You don't see the conflict in your argument?
Let me fill it in. He didn't give it away from free, the BBC paid him. Neither did the BBC give it away free, as it is "paid" by the British government. Neither did the British gov give it away free, as it is "paid" by British citizens.
"I'm not surprised that biofuels actually make the situation worse. I've been saying that all along;"
Does this sound familiar? Interesting juxtaposition.
"That's actually a really good point. However, if I remember correctly, the plants with high THC levels are unfertilized female plants - if the plants are fertilized (by a male plant) then they don't have that high THC content. I feel like this problem could be relatively easily solved, either by legalization or by making sure there are plenty of male plants out there. And once the price starts rising due to demand for biofuel production the economic incentive will decline."
"... our nation's approach to biofuels (particularly using corn) was a poorly thought out political move to cater to the corporate farm lobby."
Yeah. Let's forget about the hundreds of thousands of people in general (and here on/.) screaming that "we must do something" and "better to do something than wait for destruction".
Not just for the corporates it weren't. Think Al Gore.
Yes, a Utopian dream, but never to be a reality.
First, provide local access channels with a modicum of talent that could actually compete with the tripe produced on the West Coast. I know, hard to imagine, but they are much worse than that dreck. Next, find the money locally. Like it or not, it takes money to make something even as pitiful as the "Starsky and Hutch" remake.
"In the US, a few miles from where I am now and a few months ago, three men were tortured and murdered because they were suspected of being homosexual. In Ohio a man had his penis cut off and then was beaten to death because he had briefly exposed his naked body to high school girls... who were not really harmed in any meaningful way."
You neglect to mention that those acts were by individuals, not the government. You also purposely spin it to sound like US society condoned it, when those individuals were sought and tried as criminals.
Your comparison is bad. In the US, individuals enacting murder in the name of religion are considered criminals.
"These are not rare occurrences compared to the rate of violence in our society as a whole. "
Uh yes, vigilante acts such as that are pretty rare. More spin.
"Many countries consider letting people suffer and die of curable diseases, because they don't have enough money to be barbaric. "
Yes, I agree. Socialized medicine is an abomination. Here in the US, it's law that hospitals treat people regardless of income.
"Just as the people of the middle east judge christians and Americans based upon the actions of George Bush and the US military?"
Like the Iraqis? By a majority of 68%, they don't want US forces leaving before a year. That was 2006, the numbers are now in favor (by 57%) of the US leaving only as security improves.
I notice your thought processes (like many others) can't seem to grasp that the middle of the country is just as important as the rest. How about we start the thing in K.C. and branch out to the coasts? Or is that too demeaning for the sophisticates?
First, you can't block a 3000 mile route. Second, they look for major splash. Crashing a mag rail would qualify, dropping a bridge probably less. And they have tried the bridge, bud. They just got caught. That paranoia is based on actual incidents. No, we shouldn't hide in our basements in fear, but we shouldn't blithely walk along dark lanes just because we don't want to acknowledge there are muggers, either.
Basing your science on works of fiction is not a good thing.
That's one problem with parlor speculation. It does not translate to the real world, regardless of the desires of the speculator. It should remain in the parlor.
You can craft any number of fantastic imaginary scenarios you want, but they're meaningless and of no use whatsoever as analogies. Our universe is not frictionless, it has winds both worldly and solar and there are reference points; in other words, your parlor game remains just that.
As does his.
Your reference to continental drift is also not a good analogy as the people who made those suggestions were basing them on sound observation. The shapes of the friggin' continents fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.
"...I think that it's hard for the human race to get outside the universe."
Not at all, we do it all the time. It's called scifi and fantasy.
Your point means nothing as to the antiquated status of Sharia. Millions of people believe all kinds of things that are empirically wrong, morally wrong, or ethically wrong. Body count is meaningless.
It's called sarcasm. Admittedly you can't hear the vocal tone, but it's assumed over here. So yeah, it means the same thing. Also called a colloquialism. Your country doesn't have those? If you're in either GB or AU, you know it does.
Slashdot Mirror
The obligatory question is of course, who are you to determine this?
"It was considered at the time that an evil such as limited (in both duration and scope) monopoly on distribution would be a necessary incentive to encourage such publication (so that others could then benefit)."
So, giving a monopoly to publish (which was expensive) was an incentive to encourage such expensive publication by limiting the amount of expensive publication (infringement) being done?
A tad twisted logic there.
"That presumes that not only is paper expensive, but so are printing presses, etc. - expensive enough that some financial return would be required to pay for the cost of those supplies."
Oh. That explains why you're in error. The presumption was no such thing. The presumption was that the author/creator invested time, thought and effort and that those deserved reward. Infringers had the same supplies.
"The point here is that copyright was not meant to reward having a good idea; it was meant to reward DISTRIBUTING that idea."
Um, no. It was meant to provide a control for the distribution (including limiting it), else wise there would be no restrictions on expanding the distribution of the idea. More contradiction on your part.
"(Similarly, patents are meant to reward PUBLICATION of ideas for others to learn from; that is, to facilitate new ideas building on old ones by making the details of the old ones explicitly public.)"
Yes. You however, seem to purposefully neglect that the laws for patents provide penalties for using them without paying the owner.
Actually, if you thought for a moment, you're simply describing the current situation. The creator/owner does set the price they want and then enters into a contract. It is upon delivery that the taxes are paid.
Oh, wait. You want a bogus application of a tax to something that has not changed hands yet (like say, a personal piece of art - which is not taxed) so that copyright becomes untenable, so you can justify wanting to have it for free.
As someone else pointed out, you'll have to put price tags on all your personal possessions and be willing to allow someone to come up and simply buy them out from under you for you to be less than a hypocrite with your suggestion.
"We know that many of our emails never reach their destination."
Um.... Bullshit. "We" know no such thing. I have had so few not reach their destination, I cannot remember when last that happened.
You're just arguing and not looking into it on your own. I got a Bachelor's in 2003 and spent less than 2K per semester. I went nights and to remote campuses. All my credits from JuCo got accepted. Oddly, some of my Kansas University ones wouldn't.
This was five years ago.
Fuck you, you gutless coward who only drags people with backbones down so he can feel important behind his AC.
And we have that old saw again:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/upload/cda05-08_t1.gif
Then, next time your boss tells you to do something you don't like, tell him no. From there, you can backtrack until you're in the military taking orders. Your example is a dud. We all give up selected portions of our rights (liberty) everyday for one reason or another.
"First the embedded reporters disappeared..."
So, you're fine with talking out your ass???
http://www.michaeltotten.com/
The best one of those available. Let's see how you deal with the truth from the ground.
I'm not sure he actually had it that way. He wouldn't be too damn acceptable to someone forcing you to sell what is yours if you're not interested. Could you provide a reference?
No, thimblebrain, he means it's not an oppressive theocratic regime here, nothing more. Those who spout that it is are purposefully ignoring what one actually does in order to try to inspire urgent actions.
And what other answer would you expect from her. Nothing like blithely taking four bucks from each taxpayer to satisfy your personal curiosity and then claiming they'd be satisfied with dubious technological advances.
Uh, no. The entertainment industry has done nothing new. Go to an art gallery and look at the paintings. Portraits and religious pictures. Shitloads of them. Why? Exactly the reason he stated. At least the current regurgitata is oriented to the common man, not the church or uber-wealthy.
Avant-garde cinema? And you complain about the rehashing of current entertainment? How many grim short flicks about a young woman's angst do you want?
You neglect a few details. In the times of patronage, very few of the commoners got to experience the arts except at the rich peoples will. Me? I'll pay the artist and allow him to exploit the masses for a few cents each instead of relying on Gates, Kennedy, et.al. to "bestow" the privilege of seeing the arts on me.
"Douglas Adams (DA) is paid by the BBC to write ... DA is a fine example of exactly how you can make money by giving stuff away for free."
You don't see the conflict in your argument?
Let me fill it in. He didn't give it away from free, the BBC paid him. Neither did the BBC give it away free, as it is "paid" by the British government. Neither did the British gov give it away free, as it is "paid" by British citizens.
"I'm not surprised that biofuels actually make the situation worse. I've been saying that all along;"
Does this sound familiar? Interesting juxtaposition.
"That's actually a really good point. However, if I remember correctly, the plants with high THC levels are unfertilized female plants - if the plants are fertilized (by a male plant) then they don't have that high THC content. I feel like this problem could be relatively easily solved, either by legalization or by making sure there are plenty of male plants out there. And once the price starts rising due to demand for biofuel production the economic incentive will decline."
"... our nation's approach to biofuels (particularly using corn) was a poorly thought out political move to cater to the corporate farm lobby."
/.) screaming that "we must do something" and "better to do something than wait for destruction".
Yeah. Let's forget about the hundreds of thousands of people in general (and here on
Not just for the corporates it weren't. Think Al Gore.
Yes, a Utopian dream, but never to be a reality. First, provide local access channels with a modicum of talent that could actually compete with the tripe produced on the West Coast. I know, hard to imagine, but they are much worse than that dreck. Next, find the money locally. Like it or not, it takes money to make something even as pitiful as the "Starsky and Hutch" remake.
"In the US, a few miles from where I am now and a few months ago, three men were tortured and murdered because they were suspected of being homosexual. In Ohio a man had his penis cut off and then was beaten to death because he had briefly exposed his naked body to high school girls... who were not really harmed in any meaningful way."
You neglect to mention that those acts were by individuals, not the government. You also purposely spin it to sound like US society condoned it, when those individuals were sought and tried as criminals.
Your comparison is bad. In the US, individuals enacting murder in the name of religion are considered criminals.
"These are not rare occurrences compared to the rate of violence in our society as a whole. "
Uh yes, vigilante acts such as that are pretty rare. More spin.
"Many countries consider letting people suffer and die of curable diseases, because they don't have enough money to be barbaric. "
Yes, I agree. Socialized medicine is an abomination. Here in the US, it's law that hospitals treat people regardless of income.
"Just as the people of the middle east judge christians and Americans based upon the actions of George Bush and the US military?"
Like the Iraqis? By a majority of 68%, they don't want US forces leaving before a year. That was 2006, the numbers are now in favor (by 57%) of the US leaving only as security improves.
I notice your thought processes (like many others) can't seem to grasp that the middle of the country is just as important as the rest. How about we start the thing in K.C. and branch out to the coasts? Or is that too demeaning for the sophisticates?
First, you can't block a 3000 mile route. Second, they look for major splash. Crashing a mag rail would qualify, dropping a bridge probably less. And they have tried the bridge, bud. They just got caught. That paranoia is based on actual incidents. No, we shouldn't hide in our basements in fear, but we shouldn't blithely walk along dark lanes just because we don't want to acknowledge there are muggers, either.
Basing your science on works of fiction is not a good thing.
That's one problem with parlor speculation. It does not translate to the real world, regardless of the desires of the speculator. It should remain in the parlor.
You can craft any number of fantastic imaginary scenarios you want, but they're meaningless and of no use whatsoever as analogies. Our universe is not frictionless, it has winds both worldly and solar and there are reference points; in other words, your parlor game remains just that.
As does his.
Your reference to continental drift is also not a good analogy as the people who made those suggestions were basing them on sound observation. The shapes of the friggin' continents fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.
"...I think that it's hard for the human race to get outside the universe."
Not at all, we do it all the time. It's called scifi and fantasy.
Your point means nothing as to the antiquated status of Sharia. Millions of people believe all kinds of things that are empirically wrong, morally wrong, or ethically wrong. Body count is meaningless.
It's called sarcasm. Admittedly you can't hear the vocal tone, but it's assumed over here. So yeah, it means the same thing. Also called a colloquialism. Your country doesn't have those? If you're in either GB or AU, you know it does.
He didn't say it was theft, oh pedant. He said it was stealing. It doesn't have to be a physical item to be stolen.
Webster's
steal -
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
Apparently, your ideas about copyright are predicated on linguistic ignorance.