What a laugh. The low-lives are just gaming the system like the corporations do. They're no worse than their overlords. It's getting harder and harder to find a decent, challenging, good-paying job. Even low-paying, dead-end service jobs are beginning to run credit checks and background checks in addition to invasive urinalysis exams before hiring someone. I don't blame people for leeching off the state one bit. Good for them.
Yeah, man. The only people who deserve a pay increase are CEO's. God, everyone knows that.
Really, do you mean to suggest that fewer domestic people entering the business will result in a different outcome (regarding the number of Indian programmers) than current employees getting overtime pay?
It's been that way for decades. "Just say NO!" while gulping down an aspirin, antihistamine, Alka-Seltzer, Viagra, Prozac, amphetamine cocktail, and chasing it with a martini and a cigarette. Yeah, we hate drugs in this country.
The right is the property, as I've said no fewer than three times previously in this thread.
Well, at least we agree on this. Whew.
Nowhere is anything different suggested.
Except when you say "The work belongs to the creator until he sells it." Unless, of course, you assert that the work is not property of any kind. In which case, how can one own something that is not property, much less litigate over it?
Straw man. The word property is not at issue here.
I refer you to your own words: "Property cannot predate law, because property is a legal construct." and "You don't know what property is." It would seem that the word property is an issue here.
"includes all a person's legal rights, of whatever description. A man's property is all that is his in law. This usage, however, is obsolete at the present day, though it is common enough in the older books.... In a second and narrower sense, property includes not all a person's rights, but only his proprietary as opposed to his personal rights. The former constitute his estate or property, while the latter constitute his status or personal condition. In this sense a man's land, chattels, shares, and the debts due to him are his property; but not his life or liberty or reputation.... In a third application, which is that adopted [here], the term includes not even all proprietary rights, but only those which are both proprietary and in rem. The law of property is the law of proprietary rights in rem, the law of proprietary rights in personam being distinguished from it as the law of obligations. According to this usage a freehold or leasehold estate in land, or a patent or copyright, is property; but a debt or the benefit of a contract is not.... Finally, in the narrowest use of the term, it includes nothing more than corporeal property -- that is to say, the right of ownership in a material object, or that object itself."
I don't see anything there about an idea, or an array of pixels on a monitor, or a pattern of dots on a canvas, or a sequence of words being classified as property. Indeed, it seems to affirm what I said before, that the copyright or patent is the property.
It most certainly does not. The work belongs to the creator until he sells it. My paintings don't belong to everyone. They belong to me. If I choose to license copies, that physical piece of canvas still belongs to me. The likeness of that painting within the copies still belongs to me. It continues to belong to me forever, though I lose the ability to enforce that ownership after the copyright ends. Society does not subsume ownership of anything--once something is protected by copyright, the likeness of that work becomes freely accessible to all, with NO ONE able to assert ownership when the copyright lapses. This is distinctly different from "everyone owning it"--if that were the case, you would open the door to disputes between individuals over its use. Once something is in the public domain, it is excluded from anyone asserting ownership, individually OR collectively.
That's not a proof. That's your opinion. Whose property is The Iliad? According to you, it is the property of Homer. Never mind that Homer isn't alive, nor that anyone knows who Homer was. The point is moot anyway, since I don't know what property is.
And for the fourth time, I'm going to remind you to stop conflating lay property with legal property . Property cannot predate law, because property is a legal construct.
Prove it. Please demonstrate that the word property exclusively denotes a legal construct, and nothing else.
The creative work is the exclusive possession of the creator.
Once again, prove it. The work belongs to everyone. That is the arrangement. The copyright belongs to the creator, or to whomever they transfer it to.
"Exclusive right" pretty much covers that. The right to control something is a property interest.
I have a right as a parent to control my children. Does that make them my property? May I dispose of them as I see fit? It's not so cut and dry.
People in general don't know what property means, and they don't know what "real" means either, and instead they decide that somehow "Intellectual Property" causes people to think in false terms, as though it has any consequence whatsoever on the legal community.
You may have a point there. Consequently, it will be difficult for them to obey laws regarding property when they don't understand the terminology. In any case, "Intellectual Property" does cause people to think in false terms. For example, copyright infringement equating to theft. Or the conflation of a creative work with exclusive rights to its reproduction.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Hmm, no mention of IP here. But, keep fighting the power.
I am talking about 'using something which is not yours, against or in contradiction of terms imposed by the owner of said item
Who owns what? If a creator wants ownership and complete control over their creation, they may have it by keeping it to themselves. Once they release it into the wild, it ain't theirs anymore. It belongs to everyone. In return, under the law, the creator has certain limited rights --- but exclusive ownership of the creation is not one of them. All this business about property is irrelevant to the actual issue.
I think it starts in the DNA. When people banded together in small tribes, what was the shaman: hunter/gatherer ratio? Some people are just not interested in science, and never will be. You can't normalize interest in all the spheres of human activity.
I guess they are conveniently ignoring copyright law as written when it comes to fair use.
That's okay. More and more people are ignoring copyright law when it comes to sharing copyrighted works. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
You can't prove that, it's an axiom in logic. Either you take it as a given or you can't do logic.
That's not science --- it's logic.
The very proposition that science gives an accurate description of a consistent external world is a belief.
Yep. But only a fool would propose that. Enlightened scientists don't speak of absolutes, but of models. In the immortal words of Alan Watts "The menu is not the meal".
It's very nice more schools are accepting the high-tech way of doing work. Not only it makes managing assignments much easier (meaning teachers can spend more time TEACHING and less time going through homework)
Please do explain. How is it going to be easier managing assignments? Whether an essay is submitted on paper or as a.doc, it takes just as long to read and grade it. Furthermore, you imply that managing/grading/going through homework is not a part of teaching --- so, what is teaching?
but it trains children to real life, where high-tech work has already became a standard.
Using a word processor to replace a typewriter doesn't mean you have graduated to "high-tech". Most jobs in the U.S. are service jobs, not "high-tech" jobs. I know how to program microprocessors and microcontrollers, using various assembly languages, C, FORTRAN, and BASIC. I have mastered markup languages like LaTeX and HTML. I have honed my script-fu using bash, sed, and awk. I am comfortable using Excel, Word, and Photoshop. I've built my own computer, built my own LAN, used IPTables for firewalling, and have (repeatedly) installed various incarnations of Windows and Linux. Care to take a guess at how much formal training I've had? ZERO. NONE. I taught myself all these things, as an adult. And yet, bozos like you claim "It's a technological world and kids need technical training at an early age to prepare them for the REAL WORLD." It's a load of bullshit. What most kids need to learn can be taught in a matter of a few weeks.
As have I, so I guess I'm caught being hypocritical on that front, but I have been involved with a great many demonstrations, have written countless letters, and have done about as much as i possibly can to stand up and try to make harmless plant matter legalized.
How's that working out for you?
If everyone went thru the proper channels, we wouldn't have to ignore laws, because the laws would reflect the common interests of the people.
I know it's a fools errand, but I'll be damned if I can think of a better way.
Slashdot Mirror
it's copyright infringement. Oh, darn it. Wrong story.
but in the end you got something without paying the price at which it was being offered.
So, I'm stealing from F.Y.E. when I purchase a CD from Amazon at $9.99 by not paying the $19.99 price that was being offered at F.Y.E. Nice logic.
What a laugh. The low-lives are just gaming the system like the corporations do. They're no worse than their overlords. It's getting harder and harder to find a decent, challenging, good-paying job. Even low-paying, dead-end service jobs are beginning to run credit checks and background checks in addition to invasive urinalysis exams before hiring someone. I don't blame people for leeching off the state one bit. Good for them.
Yeah, man. The only people who deserve a pay increase are CEO's. God, everyone knows that.
Really, do you mean to suggest that fewer domestic people entering the business will result in a different outcome (regarding the number of Indian programmers) than current employees getting overtime pay?
it doesn't even compare to commercial drugs.
You are quite right. From: Drug War Facts
Deaths per year in the U.S. attributable to:
Cigarettes ~ 430,000
Alcohol ~ 80,000
Prescription Drugs ~ 30,000
All illicit Drugs ~ 17,000
Yes indeed, illicit drugs have a lot of catching up to do.
It's been that way for decades. "Just say NO!" while gulping down an aspirin, antihistamine, Alka-Seltzer, Viagra, Prozac, amphetamine cocktail, and chasing it with a martini and a cigarette. Yeah, we hate drugs in this country.
I don't know the statistics, but it must make up a shit load of traffic.
Oh, come on. You just pulled that statistic out of your ass.
The right is the property, as I've said no fewer than three times previously in this thread.
Well, at least we agree on this. Whew.
Nowhere is anything different suggested.
Except when you say "The work belongs to the creator until he sells it." Unless, of course, you assert that the work is not property of any kind. In which case, how can one own something that is not property, much less litigate over it?
Straw man. The word property is not at issue here.
I refer you to your own words: "Property cannot predate law, because property is a legal construct." and "You don't know what property is." It would seem that the word property is an issue here.
"includes all a person's legal rights, of whatever description. A man's property is all that is his in law. This usage, however, is obsolete at the present day, though it is common enough in the older books.... In a second and narrower sense, property includes not all a person's rights, but only his proprietary as opposed to his personal rights. The former constitute his estate or property, while the latter constitute his status or personal condition. In this sense a man's land, chattels, shares, and the debts due to him are his property; but not his life or liberty or reputation.... In a third application, which is that adopted [here], the term includes not even all proprietary rights, but only those which are both proprietary and in rem. The law of property is the law of proprietary rights in rem, the law of proprietary rights in personam being distinguished from it as the law of obligations. According to this usage a freehold or leasehold estate in land, or a patent or copyright, is property; but a debt or the benefit of a contract is not.... Finally, in the narrowest use of the term, it includes nothing more than corporeal property -- that is to say, the right of ownership in a material object, or that object itself."
I don't see anything there about an idea, or an array of pixels on a monitor, or a pattern of dots on a canvas, or a sequence of words being classified as property. Indeed, it seems to affirm what I said before, that the copyright or patent is the property.
It most certainly does not. The work belongs to the creator until he sells it. My paintings don't belong to everyone. They belong to me. If I choose to license copies, that physical piece of canvas still belongs to me. The likeness of that painting within the copies still belongs to me. It continues to belong to me forever, though I lose the ability to enforce that ownership after the copyright ends. Society does not subsume ownership of anything--once something is protected by copyright, the likeness of that work becomes freely accessible to all, with NO ONE able to assert ownership when the copyright lapses. This is distinctly different from "everyone owning it"--if that were the case, you would open the door to disputes between individuals over its use. Once something is in the public domain, it is excluded from anyone asserting ownership, individually OR collectively.
That's not a proof. That's your opinion. Whose property is The Iliad? According to you, it is the property of Homer. Never mind that Homer isn't alive, nor that anyone knows who Homer was. The point is moot anyway, since I don't know what property is.
And for the fourth time, I'm going to remind you to stop conflating lay property with legal property . Property cannot predate law, because property is a legal construct.
Prove it. Please demonstrate that the word property exclusively denotes a legal construct, and nothing else.
The creative work is the exclusive possession of the creator.
Once again, prove it. The work belongs to everyone. That is the arrangement. The copyright belongs to the creator, or to whomever they transfer it to.
You're wasting my time. Does that mean that time is my possession?
You don't know what property is. It doesn't have any material impact on your life.
I would be willing to bet that the concept of property predated law.
What conflation? Authors of a work do have exclusive rights to its reproduction.
A creative work is not the same as an exclusive right to reproduce it. The creative work is not the property of the creator, the copyright is.
Sounds to me like it's indicating the author of a written work or the discoverer of something.
"Exclusive right" pretty much covers that. The right to control something is a property interest.
I have a right as a parent to control my children. Does that make them my property? May I dispose of them as I see fit? It's not so cut and dry.
People in general don't know what property means, and they don't know what "real" means either, and instead they decide that somehow "Intellectual Property" causes people to think in false terms, as though it has any consequence whatsoever on the legal community.
You may have a point there. Consequently, it will be difficult for them to obey laws regarding property when they don't understand the terminology. In any case, "Intellectual Property" does cause people to think in false terms. For example, copyright infringement equating to theft. Or the conflation of a creative work with exclusive rights to its reproduction.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Hmm, no mention of IP here. But, keep fighting the power.
I am talking about 'using something which is not yours, against or in contradiction of terms imposed by the owner of said item
Who owns what? If a creator wants ownership and complete control over their creation, they may have it by keeping it to themselves. Once they release it into the wild, it ain't theirs anymore. It belongs to everyone. In return, under the law, the creator has certain limited rights --- but exclusive ownership of the creation is not one of them. All this business about property is irrelevant to the actual issue.
Honestly, slashdot is the only place I've ever seen where Windows is so almost universally hated.
Apparently you have never been here.
I think it starts in the DNA. When people banded together in small tribes, what was the shaman : hunter/gatherer ratio? Some people are just not interested in science, and never will be. You can't normalize interest in all the spheres of human activity.
You're full of shit. When I purchase a CD or DVD, I do not enter into any agreement with the companies/studios/producers/artists/ad infinitum.
Fair use ... is not some "inalienable" God Given right like free speech or freedom of religion.
But then again, neither is copyright. What the public giveth, the public can taketh away.
I guess they are conveniently ignoring copyright law as written when it comes to fair use.
That's okay. More and more people are ignoring copyright law when it comes to sharing copyrighted works. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
We accept these things as truth (on faith) because we have never proven otherwise and don't expect to ever prove otherwise.
Well, maybe you do. I don't accept them on faith. Physics is a model of the physical universe. There is no faith involved.
You can't prove that, it's an axiom in logic. Either you take it as a given or you can't do logic.
That's not science --- it's logic.
The very proposition that science gives an accurate description of a consistent external world is a belief.
Yep. But only a fool would propose that. Enlightened scientists don't speak of absolutes, but of models. In the immortal words of Alan Watts "The menu is not the meal".
It's very nice more schools are accepting the high-tech way of doing work. Not only it makes managing assignments much easier (meaning teachers can spend more time TEACHING and less time going through homework)
.doc, it takes just as long to read and grade it. Furthermore, you imply that managing/grading/going through homework is not a part of teaching --- so, what is teaching?
Please do explain. How is it going to be easier managing assignments? Whether an essay is submitted on paper or as a
but it trains children to real life, where high-tech work has already became a standard.
Using a word processor to replace a typewriter doesn't mean you have graduated to "high-tech". Most jobs in the U.S. are service jobs, not "high-tech" jobs. I know how to program microprocessors and microcontrollers, using various assembly languages, C, FORTRAN, and BASIC. I have mastered markup languages like LaTeX and HTML. I have honed my script-fu using bash, sed, and awk. I am comfortable using Excel, Word, and Photoshop. I've built my own computer, built my own LAN, used IPTables for firewalling, and have (repeatedly) installed various incarnations of Windows and Linux. Care to take a guess at how much formal training I've had? ZERO. NONE. I taught myself all these things, as an adult. And yet, bozos like you claim "It's a technological world and kids need technical training at an early age to prepare them for the REAL WORLD." It's a load of bullshit. What most kids need to learn can be taught in a matter of a few weeks.
As have I, so I guess I'm caught being hypocritical on that front, but I have been involved with a great many demonstrations, have written countless letters, and have done about as much as i possibly can to stand up and try to make harmless plant matter legalized.
How's that working out for you?
If everyone went thru the proper channels, we wouldn't have to ignore laws, because the laws would reflect the common interests of the people. I know it's a fools errand, but I'll be damned if I can think of a better way.
Just smoke the spliff and be done with it.