Once it rolls out and costs go down, it'll be a matter of time before they put such systems in place for the other means of public transportation.
London buses are demonstrably a threat, right? So is the subway (Tokyo, Seoul, etc.). So is the railway. You may think highways are had to monitor, but in Japan we've had fingerprint locks on cars for a while, and people like it. How long until the locks are hooked to the wireless highway toll stations we already have, or to the wireless navigation that is being rolled out?
You'll be surprised how fast you'll be in the net as well;)
Oh, no doubt it could be cheaper. Especially if the gubbermint would sponsor it. All in the name of national security and safety from the terrorists, naturally.
"The company said the move had been necessitated by the design of Terminal 5, where international and domestic passengers share the same lounges and public areas after they have checked in. "
And if you're unlucky, you may for a few years see fast crackdowns on all challengers of the political establishment for various minor and unimportant crimes (which will later conveniently preclude them from running for public office), until the day you stop seeing a lot of unapproved challengers to the political establishment.
Then one day you may be asked to cooperate for an investigation of your neghbour, or to close down your blog, or something, and when you decline, someone may produce your file and say "see, there are these records about you here, your case hasn't quite made it to court but it will if you don't help, and since there's three of them, by statute no. 22, you get a very long sentence". So, you'll have the choice to cooperate or else. For many people that may be enough pressure.
Of course, I don't think that scenario is particularly likely in the US. Still, it seems the potential of harm from a comprehensive dossier the government has on people is enough to not let them have it, or at least have it cheaply.
Is that so? I am not familiar with the procedure, but isn't there a need for a request to be specific? I recall that at least in one case covered here of RIAA suing someone for whatever, the sued party was able to put limits on the scope of the inquiry. If you cannot figure out the scope of a search/seizure, could you probably argue it is unreasonable, at least in the US?
Feeling I owe nothing to society for providing me with inspiration...
You've shifted goalposts somewhat from your original comment, but even in this case you don't owe nothing to society for providing you with inspiration, except anything you borrow from the culture you were brought up with. It'll be interesting to see what kind of inspired work you'll prouce if you were to remove all traces of your cultural background from it.
This notion that you somehow owe society the work you create for the benefit of society is absolutely ludicrous.
Exactly. So, am I safe to assume that if I copy your work to my benefit, screwing you up badly in the process, you'll come after me personally and beat me up instead of using the mechanisms (courts, police, etc.) that the society provides for you? If you do, you can claim the notion you owe society is ludicrous. If you don't, you're just talking out of your ass.
Well, first of all it is not "society" that came up with the idea of "intellectual property", it is IFPI that came up with that idea in the early 60s. They've been paying for its promotion since then. If you don't know this, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. That's allright though, a lot of people here are the same way.
Then, what is not the point declaring something a property unless making it permanent? Property is by definition permanent. The reason IFPI is using the word "property" is they want to make it permanent. The people who buy the soundbite may have different ideas, but that's it what it's coming to. I'll let you guess why.
What is the point of the rest of your comment? The society, the Greek philosophers, the Ford family and even automobiles were there long before the assembly line. So what?
You're saying that because other people existed, you can't do anything new?
No, he's saying the opposite -- you may not do so well on your own without the support of this society thingy. That includes your family, your country and the Greek philosophers.
But, attributing everything to others because because they're older is anti-knowledge.
And so is keeping a perpetual right on what you invented. So?
and you pulled that legal definiton of yours out of where? can you provide a reference of sorts to support your claim? it'd be interesting to see, because most of what i have read says exactly the opposite.
Theoretically, any monopoly will be abused unless taxed appropriately. A monopoly generates extra compensation to the holder in excess of their "normal profits", i.e. what the holder would get in a competitive market. As long as that excessive profit is positive, the holder has incentive to use part of that profit to promote the status quo -- for example by bribing (AKA lobbying) the government to extend the monopoly.
Also, this situation is not self-correcting. The only way to "fix" the problem is to tax the monopoly so that the extra profit disappears. That is what monopoly regulation authorities usually do, but it is problematic (and the gubbermint officials may not want to deprive themselves of lobby "revenues" either).
Because the extra markup of the monopoly holder is very large compared to the extra loss incurred by each consumer in the market, the incentive of the holder to cheat is very strong, and the incentive of the consumers to act is small -- which is exactly what we're seeing.
Well, you're right, but only as far as the point that neither mortgage nor bond are property -- they are both financial claims against the future revenue stream of whoever sells them.
Similarly, copyright, trademarks and the host of related items aren't property. They are a limited monopoly issued by the government for whatever reasons to their holder.
Well, in truth, since anyone else could do the same to the (ostensibly very large by that time) public domain source base, and since costs of adding 1% original code won't be as high as they are to duplicate a car, I doubt you'll see a lot of that done.
I'd expect a boom in online services as companies switch from copyright to trade secrets though;)
As far as I understand it, Ass. of A. can only sue on behalf of labels. It is the labels that aren't receiving settlement money, not the artists. It seems the artists don't have a direct (or indirect) claim on the settlement cash anyway. But IANAL, so if someone can clarify this point, I'll appreciate it.
Well, *. I. Ass. of wherever are obviously crooks. That said, however, I don't feel particularly broken that their members are getting screwed by their own representative. Most of the members of the various labels under the hat of IFPI & Co. are there for one reason -- to pool lobbying resources so that they can bribe politicians more effectively into extending the (already extravagant) copyright laws.
This is as an attempt to screw me, the consumer, twice -- first, by raising the prices (which I accept while the copyright lasts, as long as the time limits are reasonable, and they stopped being so long time ago), and second by removing competition, usually by directly abusing legal system.
So, I am amused rather than heart-broken. Suck it, people, and before you call on lawyers to extortion for you, don't be surprised if you get extorted in turn.
interesting. i seem to have missed the discussion, but seeing the date i am not surprised. thanks for the prop, i'll try to dig up the paper and read it. is this: yuba.stanford.edu/csdi/dm.pdf what you have in mind?
on the contrary, there is significant difference between the two. the evolution theory (especially in the context of modern genetic research) provides a plausible, conceptually simple, statistically and exprimentally testable theory of how species evolve.
the ID "theory" does nothing of the sort. the only "innovation" it has over the overtly religious stories is the simple substitution of "god" with "intelligent designer". still, it does not explain why an "intelligent designer" is necessary, nor does it provide a fact (or a reason) that would point to the existence of such.
in other words, it performs the act known on teh internets as "epic fail".
the bangwagon of the copyright (and related) rights touting pirates from IFPI is called "intellectual property". it is an attempt to subvert the "promoting creativity" rationale for copyright with the principle of "lemme squeeze these suckers, forever".
companies and lawyers who jump onto this bangwagon and fight for extension of copyrights are worse pirates than the despised varieties that sell bootleg shit, or rob people at sea. so, yeah, my big middle finger is for them, especially when they bribe politicians to do it.
as for the "cost of the internet" (which was _obviously_ not my point, but anyway), i dunno about you, but i'm paying for mine in a free market and not getting it as a social service. i'm also pay to my government, which builds some of the internet infrastructure in my country.
since i pay twice, i get to have a say into what it is used for.
True, there are nutty people that support all kinds of control-freakishness, but in my opinion they are less dangerous, especially when it comes to gaining enough traction for their ideas in the more or less democratic parts of the world. A trully nutty opinion will tend to remain fringe and be easier to get rid of. Plus, it will be less likely to be embraced by the governments, for obvious reasons.
Well-funded lobbyists with no obvious "nuttiness" on the other hand have a lot more leverage, especially if the ears of the gubbermint are sympathetic to what they have to say to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
make one yourself. some people do ;)
Once it rolls out and costs go down, it'll be a matter of time before they put such systems in place for the other means of public transportation.
;)
London buses are demonstrably a threat, right? So is the subway (Tokyo, Seoul, etc.). So is the railway. You may think highways are had to monitor, but in Japan we've had fingerprint locks on cars for a while, and people like it. How long until the locks are hooked to the wireless highway toll stations we already have, or to the wireless navigation that is being rolled out?
You'll be surprised how fast you'll be in the net as well
well, obviously, you just fingerprint everyone. the legal system will tell the guilty apart later.
Oh, no doubt it could be cheaper. Especially if the gubbermint would sponsor it. All in the name of national security and safety from the terrorists, naturally.
"The company said the move had been necessitated by the design of Terminal 5, where international and domestic passengers share the same lounges and public areas after they have checked in. "
Nothing to add here.
And if you're unlucky, you may for a few years see fast crackdowns on all challengers of the political establishment for various minor and unimportant crimes (which will later conveniently preclude them from running for public office), until the day you stop seeing a lot of unapproved challengers to the political establishment.
Then one day you may be asked to cooperate for an investigation of your neghbour, or to close down your blog, or something, and when you decline, someone may produce your file and say "see, there are these records about you here, your case hasn't quite made it to court but it will if you don't help, and since there's three of them, by statute no. 22, you get a very long sentence". So, you'll have the choice to cooperate or else. For many people that may be enough pressure.
Of course, I don't think that scenario is particularly likely in the US. Still, it seems the potential of harm from a comprehensive dossier the government has on people is enough to not let them have it, or at least have it cheaply.
Is that so? I am not familiar with the procedure, but isn't there a need for a request to be specific? I recall that at least in one case covered here of RIAA suing someone for whatever, the sued party was able to put limits on the scope of the inquiry. If you cannot figure out the scope of a search/seizure, could you probably argue it is unreasonable, at least in the US?
You've shifted goalposts somewhat from your original comment, but even in this case you don't owe nothing to society for providing you with inspiration, except anything you borrow from the culture you were brought up with. It'll be interesting to see what kind of inspired work you'll prouce if you were to remove all traces of your cultural background from it.
oops, sorry, that'd be WIPO, not IFPI. that's what happens when you post with one eye in the other tab.
This notion that you somehow owe society the work you create for the benefit of society is absolutely ludicrous. Exactly. So, am I safe to assume that if I copy your work to my benefit, screwing you up badly in the process, you'll come after me personally and beat me up instead of using the mechanisms (courts, police, etc.) that the society provides for you? If you do, you can claim the notion you owe society is ludicrous. If you don't, you're just talking out of your ass.
Well, first of all it is not "society" that came up with the idea of "intellectual property", it is IFPI that came up with that idea in the early 60s. They've been paying for its promotion since then. If you don't know this, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. That's allright though, a lot of people here are the same way.
Then, what is not the point declaring something a property unless making it permanent? Property is by definition permanent. The reason IFPI is using the word "property" is they want to make it permanent. The people who buy the soundbite may have different ideas, but that's it what it's coming to. I'll let you guess why.
What is the point of the rest of your comment? The society, the Greek philosophers, the Ford family and even automobiles were there long before the assembly line. So what?
No, he's saying the opposite -- you may not do so well on your own without the support of this society thingy. That includes your family, your country and the Greek philosophers.
But, attributing everything to others because because they're older is anti-knowledge.And so is keeping a perpetual right on what you invented. So?
and you pulled that legal definiton of yours out of where? can you provide a reference of sorts to support your claim? it'd be interesting to see, because most of what i have read says exactly the opposite.
Theoretically, any monopoly will be abused unless taxed appropriately. A monopoly generates extra compensation to the holder in excess of their "normal profits", i.e. what the holder would get in a competitive market. As long as that excessive profit is positive, the holder has incentive to use part of that profit to promote the status quo -- for example by bribing (AKA lobbying) the government to extend the monopoly.
Also, this situation is not self-correcting. The only way to "fix" the problem is to tax the monopoly so that the extra profit disappears. That is what monopoly regulation authorities usually do, but it is problematic (and the gubbermint officials may not want to deprive themselves of lobby "revenues" either).
Because the extra markup of the monopoly holder is very large compared to the extra loss incurred by each consumer in the market, the incentive of the holder to cheat is very strong, and the incentive of the consumers to act is small -- which is exactly what we're seeing.
all the moons of Saturn obrit a ring in their own twisted way ;)
Well, you're right, but only as far as the point that neither mortgage nor bond are property -- they are both financial claims against the future revenue stream of whoever sells them.
Similarly, copyright, trademarks and the host of related items aren't property. They are a limited monopoly issued by the government for whatever reasons to their holder.
Well, in truth, since anyone else could do the same to the (ostensibly very large by that time) public domain source base, and since costs of adding 1% original code won't be as high as they are to duplicate a car, I doubt you'll see a lot of that done.
;)
I'd expect a boom in online services as companies switch from copyright to trade secrets though
Now if you englighten me to the difference in the positions of the main players of the RIAA and RIAA itself ...
As far as I understand it, Ass. of A. can only sue on behalf of labels. It is the labels that aren't receiving settlement money, not the artists. It seems the artists don't have a direct (or indirect) claim on the settlement cash anyway. But IANAL, so if someone can clarify this point, I'll appreciate it.
Well, *. I. Ass. of wherever are obviously crooks. That said, however, I don't feel particularly broken that their members are getting screwed by their own representative. Most of the members of the various labels under the hat of IFPI & Co. are there for one reason -- to pool lobbying resources so that they can bribe politicians more effectively into extending the (already extravagant) copyright laws.
This is as an attempt to screw me, the consumer, twice -- first, by raising the prices (which I accept while the copyright lasts, as long as the time limits are reasonable, and they stopped being so long time ago), and second by removing competition, usually by directly abusing legal system.
So, I am amused rather than heart-broken. Suck it, people, and before you call on lawyers to extortion for you, don't be surprised if you get extorted in turn.
Thanks for the link. I posted before I actually opened the file, and I knew it was wrong hehe
interesting. i seem to have missed the discussion, but seeing the date i am not surprised. thanks for the prop, i'll try to dig up the paper and read it. is this: yuba.stanford.edu/csdi/dm.pdf what you have in mind?
on the contrary, there is significant difference between the two. the evolution theory (especially in the context of modern genetic research) provides a plausible, conceptually simple, statistically and exprimentally testable theory of how species evolve.
the ID "theory" does nothing of the sort. the only "innovation" it has over the overtly religious stories is the simple substitution of "god" with "intelligent designer". still, it does not explain why an "intelligent designer" is necessary, nor does it provide a fact (or a reason) that would point to the existence of such.
in other words, it performs the act known on teh internets as "epic fail".
meh, astroturfer.
the bangwagon of the copyright (and related) rights touting pirates from IFPI is called "intellectual property". it is an attempt to subvert the "promoting creativity" rationale for copyright with the principle of "lemme squeeze these suckers, forever".
companies and lawyers who jump onto this bangwagon and fight for extension of copyrights are worse pirates than the despised varieties that sell bootleg shit, or rob people at sea. so, yeah, my big middle finger is for them, especially when they bribe politicians to do it.
as for the "cost of the internet" (which was _obviously_ not my point, but anyway), i dunno about you, but i'm paying for mine in a free market and not getting it as a social service. i'm also pay to my government, which builds some of the internet infrastructure in my country.
since i pay twice, i get to have a say into what it is used for.
so suck it and go away.
True, there are nutty people that support all kinds of control-freakishness, but in my opinion they are less dangerous, especially when it comes to gaining enough traction for their ideas in the more or less democratic parts of the world. A trully nutty opinion will tend to remain fringe and be easier to get rid of. Plus, it will be less likely to be embraced by the governments, for obvious reasons.
Well-funded lobbyists with no obvious "nuttiness" on the other hand have a lot more leverage, especially if the ears of the gubbermint are sympathetic to what they have to say to begin with.