Or, even easier, just run the torrent stuff from a virtual machine (virtual box is nice enough), and store the suspicious files on a random external device.
Once shit hits the fan, nuke the virtual machine, dispose of the device, and off you go.
Since you didn't provide a citation, I'll try to explain why you're wrong. For a derivative work to _even exist_, at least in the US, it has to fulfill many conditions.
Among other conditions, a true derivative work must be created in permanent, concrete form. A rendering of a web page by the browser doesn't pass this test, so it isn't a derivative work.
What is also new today (or, stronger and better coordinated than 20 years ago) is the mechanism where nefarious organizations like the WIPO are used by politicians and lobbyists to subvert national discourse on "IP" legislation, passing inconvenient stuff as "international agreements" and then imposing it on the national public opinion as the "international consensus", subverting the democratic process totally.
One side does it for the censorship and monitoring potential, the other - for the monopoly powers -- the match of motives and technological requirements is perfect.
So, you'll be seeing exactly the opposite - further strengthening of the patent system (and other mechanisms of "IP" protection") instead.
"how easily people here will casually dismiss computer science"
lol, wut? science is not patentable by definition of the patent. there's a reason for that, summarized by some scientist some centuries ago. he's quoted to have said "we stand upon shoulders of giants" or somesuch.
"when other scientific fields enjoy that protection."
like which? care to provide an example? math? physics? biology?
"why should anyone be trying to force me to wear a seat belt? How does it help them"
you're using an insurance program -- that is, you rely on someone else to pay for a part of your medical bills. lowering the risk of you suffering a serious injury in an accident (and requiring a serious amount of money to fix) helps all of them.
Well, from the looks of it, there is no big change from the traditional "content" production, as it was known through the centuries.
There ain't no such thing as free lunch, and in the end, someone's paying. For better or worse, the end consumers of the product will be getting what they are paying for. For some things, like scientific information, "free" model will probably work out great. For other things, like information from which one can directly derive profit, that will mean paid services. For news, commentaries and political stuff, that will mean a ton of manipulative sources that get money from somewhere to promote a point; and a melee of losers with blogs that will be "joining the debate". For everything else, a lot of copy-paste and marketing write-ups.
In other words, business as usual, just over a "new" medium. Which hasn't been new for two decades now;)
While at that, why not consider throwing in another coupla trillions and develop an extension to enable the defenders to also shoot down the aliens that undoubtedly hide among the asteroids.
of course, to go with the wishes of the copyright owner, that is, buy the work and use it the way they have published it. whether this is wise, smart, useful or economically efficient has no bearing on the logic of the law, which is that copyright holder has a monopoly on copying until the copyright expires.
the right question is not so much "is downloading an illegal copy of a book i purchased unethical", but "is the law that determines copy rights ethical", i.e. does the law deliver on its promise -- to increase creativity, and whether extending the laws in the same direction is really smart.
you are pointing out an obvious failure of the law -- given monopoly profits, the copyright holder may find little incentive to offer works in novel formats that would benefit the society.
As frighteningly scary this copyright violation behavior we hear about all the time is, all those corporate scumbags who have for years been pushing for the privatization of culture and are step by step chipping at the rights of societies worldwide to enjoy the public domain (which is the fix for the economic damage the copyright monopoly inflicts in the short run) provided themselves the fertile ground for these violations by not adapting to new technologies, and ripping off the customers as hard as they could.
Slashdot Mirror
"Has Ubuntu saved the unwashed masses from the evil empire yet?"
The unwashed masses have been saved from the evil long time ago.
It is the people that wash that are still enslaved.
Nope, it is the new Soylent Green. Now with extra hair.
You're only slightly wrong, as in 3 of 3.
ka - over, excessive
rou - labor, work
shi - death,
all borrowed from our Chinese overlords.
In glorious Japanese, here: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%81%8E%E5%8A%B4%E6%AD%BB
Death from too much work/too little sleep is so popular in Japan, that they have a nice name for it here - karoshi.
Which, surprisingly, translates literally to "death from too much work".
why? mafiaa was fighting it when it was called "time-shifting", etc.
you should recognize what you see -- this is mafiaa fighting against fair use, because to them there is no such thing.
Actually, with a Real Doll case mod, some misunderestimated types may be able to.
Or, even easier, just run the torrent stuff from a virtual machine (virtual box is nice enough), and store the suspicious files on a random external device.
Once shit hits the fan, nuke the virtual machine, dispose of the device, and off you go.
The parties that have lobbied for them?
try eduke32
"Something displayed on a computer screen is a concrete form"
So, I am infringing if I look at pictures on a non-calibrated monitor?
Since you didn't provide a citation, I'll try to explain why you're wrong. For a derivative work to _even exist_, at least in the US, it has to fulfill many conditions.
Among other conditions, a true derivative work must be created in permanent, concrete form. A rendering of a web page by the browser doesn't pass this test, so it isn't a derivative work.
Even if it were a derivative work, creating such under the circumstances described are, at least in the US, allowed under the fair use doctrine (see, e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Nature_of_the_copied_work) [wikipedia warning ;)]
So, it is okay to modify a page before viewing, and even to save a modified page in certain circumstances.
"Copyright law says you don't have that right."
Citation, please.
What is also new today (or, stronger and better coordinated than 20 years ago) is the mechanism where nefarious organizations like the WIPO are used by politicians and lobbyists to subvert national discourse on "IP" legislation, passing inconvenient stuff as "international agreements" and then imposing it on the national public opinion as the "international consensus", subverting the democratic process totally.
One side does it for the censorship and monitoring potential, the other - for the monopoly powers -- the match of motives and technological requirements is perfect.
So, you'll be seeing exactly the opposite - further strengthening of the patent system (and other mechanisms of "IP" protection") instead.
"how easily people here will casually dismiss computer science"
lol, wut? science is not patentable by definition of the patent. there's a reason for that, summarized by some scientist some centuries ago. he's quoted to have said "we stand upon shoulders of giants" or somesuch.
"when other scientific fields enjoy that protection."
like which? care to provide an example? math? physics? biology?
"why should anyone be trying to force me to wear a seat belt? How does it help them"
you're using an insurance program -- that is, you rely on someone else to pay for a part of your medical bills. lowering the risk of you suffering a serious injury in an accident (and requiring a serious amount of money to fix) helps all of them.
Well, from the looks of it, there is no big change from the traditional "content" production, as it was known through the centuries.
There ain't no such thing as free lunch, and in the end, someone's paying. For better or worse, the end consumers of the product will be getting what they are paying for. For some things, like scientific information, "free" model will probably work out great. For other things, like information from which one can directly derive profit, that will mean paid services. For news, commentaries and political stuff, that will mean a ton of manipulative sources that get money from somewhere to promote a point; and a melee of losers with blogs that will be "joining the debate". For everything else, a lot of copy-paste and marketing write-ups.
In other words, business as usual, just over a "new" medium. Which hasn't been new for two decades now ;)
That's the spirit! You made only one mistake ... posting here. Now they are after you.
This is exactly the attitude the evil social engineering masterminds behind these stories are shooting for.
The truth is out there, except you blind fools cannot see it, because of the wool the mass media and the government pull over your eyes.
Ah well ... it is hopeless.
I don't care what you say you are, you're making factually incorrect claims. Not a big surprise on slashdot at all, this is the norm here.
DNRTFA, but given the source I'd hold my horses until someone with a less obvious bias comments on the effects of the law.
"The Church of the Middle Ages was actually quite progressive -"
Yeah indeed. That was how, for example, Copernicus got his Nobel prize for his work in cosmology, with heavy sponsorship from the clergy.
While at that, why not consider throwing in another coupla trillions and develop an extension to enable the defenders to also shoot down the aliens that undoubtedly hide among the asteroids.
of course, to go with the wishes of the copyright owner, that is, buy the work and use it the way they have published it. whether this is wise, smart, useful or economically efficient has no bearing on the logic of the law, which is that copyright holder has a monopoly on copying until the copyright expires.
the right question is not so much "is downloading an illegal copy of a book i purchased unethical", but "is the law that determines copy rights ethical", i.e. does the law deliver on its promise -- to increase creativity, and whether extending the laws in the same direction is really smart.
you are pointing out an obvious failure of the law -- given monopoly profits, the copyright holder may find little incentive to offer works in novel formats that would benefit the society.
so, maybe the law is the problem.
the obvious answer is, of course, opensource it and make money from related services, you insensitive clod!
As frighteningly scary this copyright violation behavior we hear about all the time is, all those corporate scumbags who have for years been pushing for the privatization of culture and are step by step chipping at the rights of societies worldwide to enjoy the public domain (which is the fix for the economic damage the copyright monopoly inflicts in the short run) provided themselves the fertile ground for these violations by not adapting to new technologies, and ripping off the customers as hard as they could.
so, there you go.