What real-world effects does this have, if any (crime rates are certainly not going up)? How severe is the effect? Which individuals does it affect? I've only heard of temporary aggressive behavior.
Good question. Video gaming has grown explosively in the last 10-20 years, yet crime rates are generally in decline. Presumably video games are indeed causing aggressive behaviour, yet something else is happening that cancels this out. The alternative is that these Congressmen are fucking idiots, or pandering to an electorate that doesn't know what's wrong, or even if something is wrong, but are eager to be protected from whatever it is that might possibly exist.
Because it will remove a major reward for people to create works of art. Consider this scenario: Joe Musician writes a song in 1997 that is pretty cool but never really goes anywhere. 15 years later (2012), the music supervisor on the next Hollywood blockbuster or hugely popular TV show includes it in the soundtrack. They make a billion dollars with the movie or TV show, Joe Musician gets a big fat zero.
I could come up with an endless number of very plausible examples like this. Remember that copyright law protects the little people too, not just the mega media conglomerates. In fact, it often protects the little people from the mega media conglomerates.
And I could produce an endless example of innovation prevented or hampered by onerous copyright durations, and examples of creation that came as a result of works lapsing in to the public domain.
I'm not sure how your proposal fixes this. You said that copyright terms should last as long as the public values and demands a work, and while the author lives. Joe's work obviously fell from popularity or was very obscure until the studio picked it up. What happened there? Did Joe lose his copyright during the obscure years, to regain it when the song became popular?
If Joe is still producing music 15 years later, one would hope that in that time he's been able to come up with something else to pay the bills (unless his music is more a hobby). We shouldn't provide these long copyright terms on the off-chance that song/story x could in 15 years time be used commercially. 15 years to me seems a reasonably amount of time for someone to control a work and pursue profit from it. Joe was either remiss in his efforts to profit from his work or the later success of his song is a bit of a freak occurrence.
The idea of copyright only be owned by creators is a nice one, albeit problematic. I should have the right to sell the rights to my work to anyone I chose, which is why I think that copyright terms should simply be fixed periods. I'm presuming when you say that creators should be the only ones to profit, that this would include some scope for licencing works? Otherwise I don't see how publishers could exist, and although many of these companies are vultures (particularly on the music side) they do serve a purpose in the physical world. I would hope though that the move to digital distribution reduces their power.
Maybe 15 is too short for all cases, but certainly I think we agree that the idea of copyright persisting after death is perverse and morbid. History records no instances of creation from beyond the grave.
As long as the public values and demands a work, the original creator of the work should be able to continue benefiting from it.
Why? Copyright is a monopoly granted by the state. We agree to allow this monopoly, on the understanding that the monopoly shall after a reasonable period expire. What you propose us misguided and dangerous.
A tax or any other kind of payment would be complicated to administer. It'd require clever handling of works that are published and developed over time - such as a Wikipedia page or OpenSSH.
With any copyright discussion, the elephant in the room has to be the length of copyright terms. Drop the terms down to far more reasonably limits and we see many such problems go away. Publishers can continue to benefit from older works, so long as they can find ways to enhance them, thus creating a derivative work that is subject to a fresh copyright term. They already do this for movies, either through adding fresh content or by remastering.
Why we allow copyright beyond 15 years for anything at all is to me a travesty. A publisher that cannot make a reasonable return within 15 years really should think long and hard about their business model and the quality of their work.
Tony did so much, particularly in his willingness to have UK citizens and guests handed over to the US with evidence that wouldn't even allow a UK prosecution. Dave, here are some options:
1) Fuck the need to even have a court decide - just send the U.S. a weekly list of everyone in the UK. The U.S. can tick the names they'd like, and the UK will helpfully ship them over with a minimum of fuss.
2) More military blank cheques! It's a been a while since Tony went all Lord of The Rings when he promised to follow George to "whatever end" - let's do this again. Just place the entire British armed forces under Obama's control.
Dave, you may feel tempted to ask for something in return - DON'T! It'd be terribly rude to expect something in return, and what would the Americans think of us?
President Obama, don't you think that slogan of yours is a wee bit negative. Even if you end up going toe to toe with Santorum, you'll still need something that speaks more to your strengths.
The painting's been behind a wall for the last X hundred years. How much better do you think preservation can get?
By modern standards, conditions can get far better. You're assuming that conditions "in situ" are the best option for preservation. The only thing guaranteed by being hidden is that the work was safe from vandalism and ineffective attempts at preservation/repair. For all we know generations of mice have been trimming their teeth on Leonardo's work.
Rule of law is whst makes freedom possible. What you appear to be describing is an online version of that Randian dream, Somalia. Try building an online encyclopedia of this scale, without having rules and measures to deal with the guys who will devote alarming amounts of time to replacing all nouns with "shitcock".
It does, although the more mainstream view (and the one held by this guy) is that God did the deed.
Raelians are an interesting aberration in that ID to them is base on aliens, and some of their positions could actually be conducive to scientific work. It's one reason why I think that beliefs aren't alone a good reason to exclude. In his case though, he certainly appears to be the annoying guy in the office who's never more than a minute away from whipping out Jesus.
Muslims are always the safe and easy target for criticism, yet in this case there may be a little more to this than choosing a target solely on the basis of safety.
It's not just about the guy being such a dick that he was stopping work - just that the workplace is not a suitable venue for his junk. Conservative evangelical Christianity is not known for subtly, or keeping faith a personal and solemn thing. Anyone who has worked alongside a guy like this, and I have seen this a few times, knows that these guys are simply itching to share their Jesus with all around, and consider denial of their "right" to impose religion is a shocking attack on their freedom of religion. Coppedge is the kind of guy who likely already has a ready supply of pamphlets and the ability to shoe-horn his religion in to any subject, and lacks the ability or willingness to accept how unwelcome such things are - even to Christians who just want to do their job and keep their faith a personal thing.
If he's fired purely for his religious beliefs then I hope he gets a bunch of cash from NASA, and that the people responsible are disciplined. If his misfortune is related to the religious activities he engaged in, and he'd received a written warning for harassment, so may I just suggest that Coppedge draw some comfort from Christ's words.
"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin." Matthew 6:28
I think discussion sections work great in the small and medium scale special interest category. A number of smaller blogs I frequent, the comment section/side forum becomes a good area for discussion... and often times particularly good bits end up edited into the original post.
This! The only places where I've found genuinely interesting and thought provoking comments is on sites with a focus specific enough to attract a certain crowd of people. Unfortunately though with such places it's difficult to avoid it becoming an intellectual circle jerk.
I never read YouTube viewer comments. Nowhere else have I encountered such a graphic example of what happens when everyone is handed a bullhorn and invited to comment on anything that comes to mind.
I avoid Sony like the plague, due mainly to the root kit shenanigans and how I feel they as a company are contemptuous of their customers. However, what I've read of your posts is in fact fair. There's plenty of psychologically damaged people here acting blindly as cheerleaders and apologists for brands, spewing vitriol against their "enemy" brands, but your comments do not belong to the detritus spewed by this pack of psychologically damaged people.
Sony consoles and kit are generally as open/closed as anything comparable on the market.
I'm with you on that, at least for schools providing mandatory education to minors. What adults study is their business, do long as they don't ask the state for a penny. Comparative religion though - everybody should study that. Religion is
It was tried, but failed. It had no support for graphics, and stability and a lack of standardization were major problems.
While the majority of programs ran reasonably fine, a significant minority would deliberately crash themselves and other applications. This instability is due to a feature by which Zombie Mohammed code ensures correctness. Unlike Catholic++, Zombie Mohammed certification is very decentralized, and has reached the point at which each individual program considers itself to be the sole arbiter of correctness. When a program encounters another that doesn't adhere perfectly to its own standards, it will attempt to crash it - which normally leads to both applications being killed. Although widely claimed that Zombie Mohammed code will only attack other languages, such as Borland's Turbo Presbyterian, the truth is that Zombie Mohammed code is far more likely to kill its kin than foreign languages.
To this day, many Zombie Mohammed developers claim their language to be stable, and that crashing programs are the result of the language being distorted or misused. Oddly enough though, the "stable" developers seem unable to explain exactly how the rogue developers' code is a misuse of the language, and are slow in condemning their actions. Even now in developed nations that have discarded archaic languages, criticism of these outdated languages attracts threats of violence - with many people and publications opting for self-censorship. Zombie Mohammed is gaining popularity in Europe, which some have likened to the idiocy of buying a top of the range modern PC in order to run Windows 3.11. Sensitivities considered, it would be a good idea if the immigration process would encourage those who wish to use modern languages. It doesn't mean that use of Zombie Mohammed in Europe should be prohibited - more than immigrants must understand that Zombie Mohammed is just one of many languages in use, and that it shall not be protected from criticism or ridicule. Really, how can they expect no criticism when they use a dysfunctional programming requiring an interpreter?
The language remains popular in some parts of the world considered socially backwards and unsophisticated, where pretty much anything is an excuse for a flag burning angry mob. Whether Zombie Mohammed is a cause or a symptom of social retardation is unclear, and certainly such issues are not restricted to this language. One of the largest and most developed countries uses JC (albeit in thousands of variations), yet there is regular in-fighting between various schools of JC developers, and antics that baffle the rest of the developed world, such as JC developers trying to have a programing language taught in religious ed. Thankfully thus far religious leaders have presented a united front in claiming that computer programming is more suited to science than to religious education.
Slashdot Mirror
What real-world effects does this have, if any (crime rates are certainly not going up)? How severe is the effect? Which individuals does it affect? I've only heard of temporary aggressive behavior.
Good question. Video gaming has grown explosively in the last 10-20 years, yet crime rates are generally in decline. Presumably video games are indeed causing aggressive behaviour, yet something else is happening that cancels this out. The alternative is that these Congressmen are fucking idiots, or pandering to an electorate that doesn't know what's wrong, or even if something is wrong, but are eager to be protected from whatever it is that might possibly exist.
Have to nick off - Paddy's day booze to be drunk. Thanks for a very interesting discussion.
Because it will remove a major reward for people to create works of art. Consider this scenario: Joe Musician writes a song in 1997 that is pretty cool but never really goes anywhere. 15 years later (2012), the music supervisor on the next Hollywood blockbuster or hugely popular TV show includes it in the soundtrack. They make a billion dollars with the movie or TV show, Joe Musician gets a big fat zero.
I could come up with an endless number of very plausible examples like this. Remember that copyright law protects the little people too, not just the mega media conglomerates. In fact, it often protects the little people from the mega media conglomerates.
And I could produce an endless example of innovation prevented or hampered by onerous copyright durations, and examples of creation that came as a result of works lapsing in to the public domain.
I'm not sure how your proposal fixes this. You said that copyright terms should last as long as the public values and demands a work, and while the author lives. Joe's work obviously fell from popularity or was very obscure until the studio picked it up. What happened there? Did Joe lose his copyright during the obscure years, to regain it when the song became popular?
If Joe is still producing music 15 years later, one would hope that in that time he's been able to come up with something else to pay the bills (unless his music is more a hobby). We shouldn't provide these long copyright terms on the off-chance that song/story x could in 15 years time be used commercially. 15 years to me seems a reasonably amount of time for someone to control a work and pursue profit from it. Joe was either remiss in his efforts to profit from his work or the later success of his song is a bit of a freak occurrence.
The idea of copyright only be owned by creators is a nice one, albeit problematic. I should have the right to sell the rights to my work to anyone I chose, which is why I think that copyright terms should simply be fixed periods. I'm presuming when you say that creators should be the only ones to profit, that this would include some scope for licencing works? Otherwise I don't see how publishers could exist, and although many of these companies are vultures (particularly on the music side) they do serve a purpose in the physical world. I would hope though that the move to digital distribution reduces their power.
Maybe 15 is too short for all cases, but certainly I think we agree that the idea of copyright persisting after death is perverse and morbid. History records no instances of creation from beyond the grave.
As long as the public values and demands a work, the
original creator of the work should be able to continue
benefiting from it.
Why? Copyright is a monopoly granted by the state. We agree to allow this monopoly, on the understanding that the monopoly shall after a reasonable period expire. What you propose us misguided and dangerous.
I see what you did thar!
If you die today, your estate will only have until 2082 to profit from that post. (although technically it's probably too short to protect)
A tax or any other kind of payment would be complicated to administer. It'd require clever handling of works that are published and developed over time - such as a Wikipedia page or OpenSSH.
With any copyright discussion, the elephant in the room has to be the length of copyright terms. Drop the terms down to far more reasonably limits and we see many such problems go away. Publishers can continue to benefit from older works, so long as they can find ways to enhance them, thus creating a derivative work that is subject to a fresh copyright term. They already do this for movies, either through adding fresh content or by remastering.
Why we allow copyright beyond 15 years for anything at all is to me a travesty. A publisher that cannot make a reasonable return within 15 years really should think long and hard about their business model and the quality of their work.
Tony did so much, particularly in his willingness to have UK citizens and guests handed over to the US with evidence that wouldn't even allow a UK prosecution. Dave, here are some options:
1) Fuck the need to even have a court decide - just send the U.S. a weekly list of everyone in the UK. The U.S. can tick the names they'd like, and the UK will helpfully ship them over with a minimum of fuss.
2) More military blank cheques! It's a been a while since Tony went all Lord of The Rings when he promised to follow George to "whatever end" - let's do this again. Just place the entire British armed forces under Obama's control.
Dave, you may feel tempted to ask for something in return - DON'T! It'd be terribly rude to expect something in return, and what would the Americans think of us?
President Obama, don't you think that slogan of yours is a wee bit negative. Even if you end up going toe to toe with Santorum, you'll still need something that speaks more to your strengths.
Verbs? No-one would ever be that crazy.
The painting's been behind a wall for the last X hundred years. How much better do you think preservation can get?
By modern standards, conditions can get far better. You're assuming that conditions "in situ" are the best option for preservation. The only thing guaranteed by being hidden is that the work was safe from vandalism and ineffective attempts at preservation/repair. For all we know generations of mice have been trimming their teeth on Leonardo's work.
Sure, if the fresco contains genitals. Aren't TSA scanners highly calibrated to detect concealed genitals and not much else?
Rule of law is whst makes freedom possible. What you appear to be describing is an online version of that Randian dream, Somalia. Try building an online encyclopedia of this scale, without having rules and measures to deal with the guys who will devote alarming amounts of time to replacing all nouns with "shitcock".
If that comment were porn, it'd be giving us all two-day boners. Well said, and about as balanced as it can get.
It does, although the more mainstream view (and the one held by this guy) is that God did the deed.
Raelians are an interesting aberration in that ID to them is base on aliens, and some of their positions could actually be conducive to scientific work. It's one reason why I think that beliefs aren't alone a good reason to exclude. In his case though, he certainly appears to be the annoying guy in the office who's never more than a minute away from whipping out Jesus.
Muslims are always the safe and easy target for criticism, yet in this case there may be a little more to this than choosing a target solely on the basis of safety.
It's not just about the guy being such a dick that he was stopping work - just that the workplace is not a suitable venue for his junk. Conservative evangelical Christianity is not known for subtly, or keeping faith a personal and solemn thing. Anyone who has worked alongside a guy like this, and I have seen this a few times, knows that these guys are simply itching to share their Jesus with all around, and consider denial of their "right" to impose religion is a shocking attack on their freedom of religion. Coppedge is the kind of guy who likely already has a ready supply of pamphlets and the ability to shoe-horn his religion in to any subject, and lacks the ability or willingness to accept how unwelcome such things are - even to Christians who just want to do their job and keep their faith a personal thing.
If he's fired purely for his religious beliefs then I hope he gets a bunch of cash from NASA, and that the people responsible are disciplined. If his misfortune is related to the religious activities he engaged in, and he'd received a written warning for harassment, so may I just suggest that Coppedge draw some comfort from Christ's words.
"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin."
Matthew 6:28
I think discussion sections work great in the small and medium scale special interest category. A number of smaller blogs I frequent, the comment section/side forum becomes a good area for discussion... and often times particularly good bits end up edited into the original post.
This! The only places where I've found genuinely interesting and thought provoking comments is on sites with a focus specific enough to attract a certain crowd of people. Unfortunately though with such places it's difficult to avoid it becoming an intellectual circle jerk.
I never read YouTube viewer comments. Nowhere else have I encountered such a graphic example of what happens when everyone is handed a bullhorn and invited to comment on anything that comes to mind.
I avoid Sony like the plague, due mainly to the root kit shenanigans and how I feel they as a company are contemptuous of their customers. However, what I've read of your posts is in fact fair. There's plenty of psychologically damaged people here acting blindly as cheerleaders and apologists for brands, spewing vitriol against their "enemy" brands, but your comments do not belong to the detritus spewed by this pack of psychologically damaged people.
Sony consoles and kit are generally as open/closed as anything comparable on the market.
Wha-hut the #uck is a "full-scale cyber attack"?
It's a euphemism for "we need harsher laws and another metric fuckton of money to be poured in to the security theatre industry".
Yeah, that's exactly what it means.
Honestly, no idea, but cheers.
I'm with you on that, at least for schools providing mandatory education to minors. What adults study is their business, do long as they don't ask the state for a penny. Comparative religion though - everybody should study that. Religion is
Cheers. I'll nick off back there - been a while. At the very least it gives me an excuse to knock-up some amusing and life-threatening images.
Yeah, started as a quick joke, but grew in to an Uncyclopedia article. I'm going to sit down with a cup of tea.
It was tried, but failed. It had no support for graphics, and stability and a lack of standardization were major problems.
While the majority of programs ran reasonably fine, a significant minority would deliberately crash themselves and other applications. This instability is due to a feature by which Zombie Mohammed code ensures correctness. Unlike Catholic++, Zombie Mohammed certification is very decentralized, and has reached the point at which each individual program considers itself to be the sole arbiter of correctness. When a program encounters another that doesn't adhere perfectly to its own standards, it will attempt to crash it - which normally leads to both applications being killed. Although widely claimed that Zombie Mohammed code will only attack other languages, such as Borland's Turbo Presbyterian, the truth is that Zombie Mohammed code is far more likely to kill its kin than foreign languages.
To this day, many Zombie Mohammed developers claim their language to be stable, and that crashing programs are the result of the language being distorted or misused. Oddly enough though, the "stable" developers seem unable to explain exactly how the rogue developers' code is a misuse of the language, and are slow in condemning their actions. Even now in developed nations that have discarded archaic languages, criticism of these outdated languages attracts threats of violence - with many people and publications opting for self-censorship. Zombie Mohammed is gaining popularity in Europe, which some have likened to the idiocy of buying a top of the range modern PC in order to run Windows 3.11. Sensitivities considered, it would be a good idea if the immigration process would encourage those who wish to use modern languages. It doesn't mean that use of Zombie Mohammed in Europe should be prohibited - more than immigrants must understand that Zombie Mohammed is just one of many languages in use, and that it shall not be protected from criticism or ridicule. Really, how can they expect no criticism when they use a dysfunctional programming requiring an interpreter?
The language remains popular in some parts of the world considered socially backwards and unsophisticated, where pretty much anything is an excuse for a flag burning angry mob. Whether Zombie Mohammed is a cause or a symptom of social retardation is unclear, and certainly such issues are not restricted to this language. One of the largest and most developed countries uses JC (albeit in thousands of variations), yet there is regular in-fighting between various schools of JC developers, and antics that baffle the rest of the developed world, such as JC developers trying to have a programing language taught in religious ed. Thankfully thus far religious leaders have presented a united front in claiming that computer programming is more suited to science than to religious education.