You seem to be confusing "creative" with "artistic." US copyright covers "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." An email containing the author's own words is certainly creative. Nothing "weird" in any way about emails being subject to copyright. It has been well established that postal letters are covered by copyright, in what way are emails substantially different?
Whoosh. If I take a dollar from you, be it physical or an electronic debit, you no longer have it. If I copy a work (not copy and then sell/distribute, but merely copy), it takes nothing away from the creator.
Copying a work is often called theft, and it is not - it is copying, and nothing of substance has been taken.
I think most people agree that some limited form of protection for creative works is a fair trade for encouraging the creation of works which will eventually become public domain. But there is no natural right to "own" a thought, and "intellectual property" laws are merely a privilege which society grants in exchange for value.
But, the extension of copyright terms prevents works from entering the public domain, making that exchange a fraud. I will submit that creative works made for profit are based on ROIs measured in years, not decades. There is no legitimate need for, or public good which comes from "author's life plus 70 years," or 95 years after publication.
Why should MS-DOS still be under copyright? Lotus 1-2-3? SVR4? When they enter public domain, they will be useless. They are substantially so already, now add another 60 years (presuming no further term extensions). So, the tradeoff has already failed - the public will receive nothing of value in exchange for giving copyright protection for a time.
Also, under what circumstances does extending the copyright of an existing work encourage the creation of new works? It's exactly the opposite - if they can live off income created from old works, there's less incentive to create new ones.
Have you always been so logically challenged? Saying that a non-person can't vote is not the same as claiming that someone who can't vote isn't a person.
"Why would you want to limit yourself to only one screen?"
Desktop real estate? How about a laptop with support for only a single display?
You need to provide a citation to back up your claim, I don't believe it except for specific cases (e.g. CAD or DTP). How do multiple screens help productivity for a typical user who does email, or word processing, or spreadsheet, or even web browsing (where a multiple document interface is near ubiquitous).
"Keurigs one selling point is that only coffee that is wanted gets made"
My Breville Youbrew (I have no affiliation...) does that, too. The amount is variable from a small cup through a full pot. Strength is adjustable. No extra waste if you use the gold foil basket. Plus, it will grind fresh beans immediately before brewing. So, the only incremental costs are coffee beans, water and electricity.
And, if you just want hot water, or want to fill the basket with something other than ground beans from the hopper, you can do that, too.
" too many people have been way too happy to promote the thinking that if it didn't exist the late 1700's, then it wasn't covered in the Bill of Rights. "
<sarcasm>Yes, that's true. Freedom of the Press obviously only applies to Gutenburg-type manual presses, not high speed lithography and photocopiers. And certainly not electronic media, which the founding fathers could have never envisioned.</sarcasm>
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be confusing "creative" with "artistic." US copyright covers "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." An email containing the author's own words is certainly creative. Nothing "weird" in any way about emails being subject to copyright. It has been well established that postal letters are covered by copyright, in what way are emails substantially different?
As soon as I get my ram to grow golden fleece, I'll be rich!
You'd think he could just have his mother give every gnome a flashlight, then train them to put on a coordinated display.
Santa is just Satan, misspelled.
"The point is nobody ever "has" dollars in the first place"
Never mind, you're an idiot. You can go troll elsewhere now.
"Taking a dollar is theft"
Whoosh. If I take a dollar from you, be it physical or an electronic debit, you no longer have it. If I copy a work (not copy and then sell/distribute, but merely copy), it takes nothing away from the creator.
Copying a work is often called theft, and it is not - it is copying, and nothing of substance has been taken.
I think most people agree that some limited form of protection for creative works is a fair trade for encouraging the creation of works which will eventually become public domain. But there is no natural right to "own" a thought, and "intellectual property" laws are merely a privilege which society grants in exchange for value.
But, the extension of copyright terms prevents works from entering the public domain, making that exchange a fraud. I will submit that creative works made for profit are based on ROIs measured in years, not decades. There is no legitimate need for, or public good which comes from "author's life plus 70 years," or 95 years after publication.
Why should MS-DOS still be under copyright? Lotus 1-2-3? SVR4? When they enter public domain, they will be useless. They are substantially so already, now add another 60 years (presuming no further term extensions). So, the tradeoff has already failed - the public will receive nothing of value in exchange for giving copyright protection for a time.
" it's aimed at +8 years old children. "
So, Congress? I assume you're referring to mental, not physical, age.
Dysons suck.
In this whole world, you're unique. Just like everyone else.
My amp goes to 11.
YHBT. YHL. HTH. HAND!
Also, under what circumstances does extending the copyright of an existing work encourage the creation of new works? It's exactly the opposite - if they can live off income created from old works, there's less incentive to create new ones.
Interesting fact: "timothy" is actually a Turing Test. As can be seen, machines have still not shown intelligence.
Have you always been so logically challenged? Saying that a non-person can't vote is not the same as claiming that someone who can't vote isn't a person.
You can't vote in the country of your citizenship? What dictatorship are you from?
CCC = Cheap Chinese Crap.
China seems to be like 1950's Japan - some signs of innovation and quality, but mostly tin toys.
I have an LS-16.
Carbonite, FTW!
"Why would you want to limit yourself to only one screen?"
Desktop real estate? How about a laptop with support for only a single display?
You need to provide a citation to back up your claim, I don't believe it except for specific cases (e.g. CAD or DTP). How do multiple screens help productivity for a typical user who does email, or word processing, or spreadsheet, or even web browsing (where a multiple document interface is near ubiquitous).
"Keurigs one selling point is that only coffee that is wanted gets made"
My Breville Youbrew (I have no affiliation...) does that, too. The amount is variable from a small cup through a full pot. Strength is adjustable. No extra waste if you use the gold foil basket. Plus, it will grind fresh beans immediately before brewing. So, the only incremental costs are coffee beans, water and electricity.
And, if you just want hot water, or want to fill the basket with something other than ground beans from the hopper, you can do that, too.
All easily done by pushing a few buttons.
Sure, have both, but why have 2?
The Radius Pivot let you switch on the fly, in the early 1990's.
I think that summary sets a new /. record for poor grammar.
" too many people have been way too happy to promote the thinking that if it didn't exist the late 1700's, then it wasn't covered in the Bill of Rights. "
<sarcasm>Yes, that's true. Freedom of the Press obviously only applies to Gutenburg-type manual presses, not high speed lithography and photocopiers. And certainly not electronic media, which the founding fathers could have never envisioned.</sarcasm>
Look up misnomer. Copyright is not in any way a right, it is a privilege.