spend alot of money for pretty much the same level of service.
I think you mean worse service. No one is trying to add a "broadcast flag" to my analog TV signal, to stop my VCR from working.
We also need more states to have laws like California's that require notification when data is revealed. Otherwise, these things are often just hushed up.
Exactly. If we could hold the government of the US to the promises it made to the public in 1948 (copyright lasted 28 years, with one renewal for 28 years) *everything* pre-1949 would now be in the public domain.
Think of the wonder that would be: all of WWII era, all that music, books, films, now legally downloadedable and shareable online.
Instead, thanks to the copyright acts of 1976 and 1998, we are stuck in stasis, with 1923's material not scheduled to enter the public domain until 2019, if we can avoid having any more extensions.
You forget, this is the MPAA -- they own television stations.
They can show the polition in a negative light on news programs, give cheap air time to his opponent, etc. The dollars are only a small part of it.
Copyright law should be focused on unauthorized distribution of copies, not with the act of copying. Let people copy, time shift, format shift, etc to their heart's content, as long as they are not distributing their copies to other people, the law should not be concerned!
Hell, if we could hold the U.S. Goverment to it promises, we'd almost have that right now. Under the laws pre-1978, copyright lasted 28 years, and was eligible for one renewal of 28 years. That's 56 years maximum.
Everything from before 1949 (2005-56) should now be in the public domain. That's what was promised back in 1949. Congress broke that promise with the Copyright Act of 1976. Instead, we are stuck at 1922, with works from 1923 currently not scheduled to enter the public domain until 2018. We, the American public, were robbed.
I'll disagree. Open source is a free market of ideas. The good ones are kept, enhanced traded. The worthless ones are discarded.
Closed source and patents represent artificial trade barriers.
Five years after the death of the author would be plenty, IMHO.
I prefer fixed terms of no more than 56 years in length (preferably shorter, maybe around 20 years). Why?
Life+5 years gives $BigPublishingCompany or $BigFilmCompany large incentives to see that Stephen King (or any other big-selling author) has an unfortunate "accident". Five years later, they no longer have to pay his estate any royalties on his works.
Not quite, if I understand things correctly. The recording would be copyright jointly by the person doing the recording (fixing it in a medium), and the writer of the notes (since the recording is a derivative work). You would not require the speaker's permission to record them assuming the speaking was happening in a public place. You *would* need the writer's persmission to *distribute* the resulting recording however.
Much stupidity might have been avoided if "copyright" had been called "publicationright". People get their knickers in a twicst over "copies", when redistribution is what matters.
If this is truely a problem, I'd suggest bringing in membrane keyboards with disposable plastic slip covers, which could be changed daily.
Sure it would suck to type on. But it would solve the problem.
I've never had cable or satellite. I know friends who are paying $100/month. Instead, if you put $20/month toward netflix, and spend the rest on DVDs you want to own, I think you get a much better deal.
Can you wait 15 minutes?
Try Radio Shack for Rayovac's 15-minute IC3 technology. AA and AAA batteries that recharge in 15 minutes, no joke. I find it handy for my digital camera.
You do not need batteries to make a radio reciever. You should try building a crystal radio sometime. You can receive AM radio without battery or external power. The whole thing is powered by the antenna.
There is privacy, and then there is the right to profit from your messages.
Based on this license, they can log all your traffic, and then license it to marketers. Or take a copy of the photo you IM'd to your sister, and use it as the centerpeice in their new AOL advertising campaign. Or if you are a songwriter, and IM'd someone a mp3 of your new hit single, AOL/Time Warner can start selling it on CD and not give you a dime.
I don't understand what this has to do with human beings.
Humans are more similar to chickens than you think. We share around 60% of our genes. Something that raises the fetal death rate over 450% in chickens certainly suggests that further investigation on human damage is needed.
fully grown human beings
Who says it's only fully grown human beings using cell phones? Around these parts, I even see kids as young as 10 with cell phones. They are about to enter their growth spurt, including maturing their reproductive cells, which could be subject to damage. And what about expectant mothers? Should cellphones have Surgeon General's warnings on them that they should not be used by pregnant women? I certainly think it bears further investigation.
If Utah wants to "protect" minors from that nasty, nasty Internet, they should just pass a law forbidding minors from using the Internet, instead of dumbing down everything else.
Paying for downloading a high-res image is fine (much like paying for a CD of GPLd software), but where do they get the authority to put subsequent usage restrictions on something clearly in the public domain?
Slashdot Mirror
At least he was to me, the one time I met him at a Usenix conference, where he autographed one of his books for me.
His books were tops in the field. Glad to hear the revised edition is still good.
Only in the same way Homo Sapiens are also animals. And did you know that Neaderthals had 7-8% more brain capacity than Homo Sapiens?
I have visions of data thieves, coming after me with pliers!
spend alot of money for pretty much the same level of service. I think you mean worse service. No one is trying to add a "broadcast flag" to my analog TV signal, to stop my VCR from working.
We also need more states to have laws like California's that require notification when data is revealed. Otherwise, these things are often just hushed up.
So fight for it. Other people are.
Exactly. If we could hold the government of the US to the promises it made to the public in 1948 (copyright lasted 28 years, with one renewal for 28 years) *everything* pre-1949 would now be in the public domain.
Think of the wonder that would be: all of WWII era, all that music, books, films, now legally downloadedable and shareable online.
Instead, thanks to the copyright acts of 1976 and 1998, we are stuck in stasis, with 1923's material not scheduled to enter the public domain until 2019, if we can avoid having any more extensions.
Ooh, a new way to fuel those Sony/Apple merger rumors!
OSX for the PS3!
You forget, this is the MPAA -- they own television stations. They can show the polition in a negative light on news programs, give cheap air time to his opponent, etc. The dollars are only a small part of it.
Can we now get someone to attach legislation removing all this Real-ID cruft to some other "must-pass" bill?
Copyright law should be focused on unauthorized distribution of copies, not with the act of copying. Let people copy, time shift, format shift, etc to their heart's content, as long as they are not distributing their copies to other people, the law should not be concerned!
Everything from before 1949 (2005-56) should now be in the public domain. That's what was promised back in 1949. Congress broke that promise with the Copyright Act of 1976. Instead, we are stuck at 1922, with works from 1923 currently not scheduled to enter the public domain until 2018. We, the American public, were robbed.
I'll disagree. Open source is a free market of ideas. The good ones are kept, enhanced traded. The worthless ones are discarded. Closed source and patents represent artificial trade barriers.
Ah, but the movies would still be under copyright, as well as any new movies they made from his works five years after his death.
I prefer fixed terms of no more than 56 years in length (preferably shorter, maybe around 20 years). Why?
Life+5 years gives $BigPublishingCompany or $BigFilmCompany large incentives to see that Stephen King (or any other big-selling author) has an unfortunate "accident". Five years later, they no longer have to pay his estate any royalties on his works.
Much stupidity might have been avoided if "copyright" had been called "publicationright". People get their knickers in a twicst over "copies", when redistribution is what matters.
If this is truely a problem, I'd suggest bringing in membrane keyboards with disposable plastic slip covers, which could be changed daily. Sure it would suck to type on. But it would solve the problem.
I've never had cable or satellite. I know friends who are paying $100/month. Instead, if you put $20/month toward netflix, and spend the rest on DVDs you want to own, I think you get a much better deal.
Can you wait 15 minutes? Try Radio Shack for Rayovac's 15-minute IC3 technology. AA and AAA batteries that recharge in 15 minutes, no joke. I find it handy for my digital camera.
You do not need batteries to make a radio reciever. You should try building a crystal radio sometime. You can receive AM radio without battery or external power. The whole thing is powered by the antenna.
Based on this license, they can log all your traffic, and then license it to marketers. Or take a copy of the photo you IM'd to your sister, and use it as the centerpeice in their new AOL advertising campaign. Or if you are a songwriter, and IM'd someone a mp3 of your new hit single, AOL/Time Warner can start selling it on CD and not give you a dime.
They don't need an irrevocable, perpetual right to do that. A 10-minute right would be plenty.
Humans are more similar to chickens than you think. We share around 60% of our genes. Something that raises the fetal death rate over 450% in chickens certainly suggests that further investigation on human damage is needed.
fully grown human beings
Who says it's only fully grown human beings using cell phones? Around these parts, I even see kids as young as 10 with cell phones. They are about to enter their growth spurt, including maturing their reproductive cells, which could be subject to damage. And what about expectant mothers? Should cellphones have Surgeon General's warnings on them that they should not be used by pregnant women? I certainly think it bears further investigation.
If Utah wants to "protect" minors from that nasty, nasty Internet, they should just pass a law forbidding minors from using the Internet, instead of dumbing down everything else.
Paying for downloading a high-res image is fine (much like paying for a CD of GPLd software), but where do they get the authority to put subsequent usage restrictions on something clearly in the public domain?