The problem is that then you have the pro-copyright people pointing out that the anti-copyright people still use copyright to protect their works. "Why don't they release them into public domain if they don't like copyright?" is the common complaint. And the problem is that without those legal tricks, they can lose control over their creation (not a problem) to a person who locks them out and makes a profit from it exploiting others (a problem).
My stance is that abolising copyright and patents would leave us better off than we are now. I've seen nothing that goes against that, other than personal opinions that assert otherwise.
Governemnt control doesn't have to kill anything. You are comparing the best free market (we don't havE) to the worst possible governemnt (which we don't have).
They are trying to solve the problem, namely by taking away government control of health care (and other parts of our lives) and handing it back to individuals and markets.
So they claim that the state of health care prior to ACA was the best in the world? The best it could be? Better than any government-controlled system possible? The people had the "power", and the result was people suffering under a poor system.
The thing is, I've never seen anybody to refer to the Commonwealth of Nations as just "Britain",
I agree, but Americans are bad with geography, and English is descriptive, not proscriptive, so "wrong" words are words nonetheless.
but everyone around here in Europe uses "America" either for the US, or for the combined NA+SA landmass, quite unambiguously based on the context.
And in the US, "America" is unambiguously "The USA". "The Americas" is the combined landmass.
One reason I hear "America" as being The Americas are false friends in Spanish and other languages that the bilingual people insist are cognates.
In the USA "North America" means "Mexico, USA, and Canada". That's US only, and I'd presume it to be inconsistent with the rest of the world. Latin America is everything south of Mexico or an island. Yes, that means Bermuda isn't in "North America" but is in "Latin America" despite being British Territory that is part of the North American Continent. I never claimed linguistic consistency, just accuracy.
There is inconsistency on whether "Latin America" includes South America. "Central America" is almost never used in the US, so I couldn't give an indication as to a precise meaning in American English.
The Koch brothers, like most people who believe in classical liberalism, simply believe that government financing of programs like health care and retirement is simply not sustainable;
It is no more or less sustainable than 100% participation in private insurance. Stating that government financing of "insurance" is not sustainable is stating that everyone having "insurance" itself is not sustainable. That's a different problem from government funding.
Given their focus on blaming the government and not solving the problem they state exists makes me doubt all that comes from them. They aren't internally consistent. And it shows.
Diesels also have more particulates. You know, the small particles that are more likely to land in your lungs and cause cancer or other diseases.
When you run gasoline at the same compression ratios as diesel, you get equal efficiency. Then it comes to an issue of the diesel fuel having more energy than gasoline. But that's an artefact of gasoline being "cheaper" to make, as you get more useful products from a barrel of oil if you are making gasoline with it than diesel. So the overall environmental cost is the same for the same compression ratios. And they are getting close. And the gasoline engine will outperform the diesel.
Hydrogen has no carbon footprint. The energy used to put hydrogen in a usable form may be considered to have a carbon footprint, but if you use that logic, everything has a carbon footprint, and nothing can avoid it. If you use electricity to generate your hydrogen from water, then hydrogen has no more carbon footprint than electric. Yes, I know much is taken from methane and such as it's lower cost, but that's the worst it can be, and even then the by-products are 100% captured. It's carbon neutral at worst, so long as your waste is disposed of properly.
Since you take a British English dictionary for the definition of The Americas, should we check Websters for Britain?
"1 [...]Great Britain
2 united kingdom
3 commonwealth of nations "
So whenever I need to refer to the Commonwealth of Nations, I'll just call it "Britain". The dictionary says so. After all, that is your argument, right?
One of the checks when I got my last smog inspection was a check of the VIN. The VIN plates are not so easily changed, though they only checked the one in the drivers'-side windshield, not the chassis (door-jam and firewall) or engine one.
I see that a lot in older people. But I find the sentiment less common among those who grew up not even understanding there was such a thing as copyright. It's why piracy doesn't upset me all that much, but the idea that people aren't willing to accept that what they're doing is wrong bothers me a lot.
The older people are lying and your memory is faulty. "piracy" (sharing media, without regard to established business wishes) is ancient. Your parents, the "older people" did it as kids. They'd share what they could. They'd build play houses that looked like ones in the Sears catelog, shamelessly ripping off Sears's IP. The only reason they remember it differently is that the technology wasn't around then. "Share your things" is encouraged in kindergarden. It isn't until you get older when selfishness is taught by the older generation.
It all reminds me about my dad. He'd go ballistic about my driving (I had a much better record than him), and eventually Mom told us about him being a street racer when he was younger. He only stopped when both his parents were killed in separate car crashes the same year when he was about 21. So he was a car-modifying greaser doing street racing from 12 to 21 (or so), but when his 18 year old son gets his car backed into in a parking lot, he goes off on "responsibility" for 6 hours of lecture. That's the intellectual consistenct that the "older people" have. We haven't had generations grow out of it, but I expect that age does correlate with lowered piracy, and not because there's something wrong with the young. Every generation has thought the one behind them was the worst generation ever. If everyone was right, then civilization is doomed. More likely every "old person" is wrong. So no, I don't place much weight on someone's opinion just because they were born first.
You forgot the most important way to profit - the way which can't be eliminated no matter what you do: Getting free stuff. So long as people can give a copy of their movie/software/music to their friends, thus enriching their friends at no expense to themselves, piracy will continue. They did it with mix tapes and VHS long before the internet or mp3s, and they won't stop any time soon.
And "mix tapes" are illegal, as illegal as P2P, but smaller scale, so the record companies actually encouraged it. Legal is if you sit there and witness the private (not public) mixing and it isn't recorded. I have a CD "for promotional use only" somewhere laying around, I don't even remember what it is. But I could mix that, or play it publicly without licensing issues. Won it in a radio contest.
You forgot the most important way to profit - the way which can't be eliminated no matter what you do: Getting free stuff. So long as people can give a copy of their movie/software/music to their friends, thus enriching their friends at no expense to themselves, piracy will continue. They did it with mix tapes and VHS long before the internet or mp3s, and they won't stop any time soon.
And "mix tapes" are illegal, as illegal as P2P, but smaller scale, so the record companies actually encouraged it. Legal is if you sit there and witness the private (not public) mixing and it isn't recorded.
I have a CD "for promotional use only" somewhere laying around, I don't even remember what it is. But I could mix that, or play it publicly without licensing issues. Won it in a radio contest. Short of some fringe cases like that, there isn't much you can do with your media that's legal.
So it's immoral to look over someone's shoulder? I should pay for my own paper, and the guy at work whose paper I'm reading is Kim Dotcom, enabling copyright infringement world-wide, and I'm some worthless paper hacker who should be in jail?
Non-destructive use of already-made product doesn't seem to be morally wrong, unless you say "on a computer" and people can't use basic logic anymore.
I didn't realize that the Dentist who buys magazines is colluding with patients to devalue magazines everywhere.
But taking what does not belong to you is generally understood by almost every English speaker as theft - whether the theft is of a tangible item, the opportunity to economically exploit something you created, or even a person's freedom.
Again, not law. Since you are talking things with legal repercussions, it's easier to use the "official" definitions. Stealing a car to joyride in it, until it's out of gas, then abandon it isn't "theft" Which is why there's generally a separate law for it (GTA, from the game;). Same with theft of a service. Breaking (or sneaking) into a movie theater to watch a movie isn't "theft" so they invented a new term "theft of a service" (previously a form of trespass, but kicking them out is the only thing you can do with a first offender). But theft requires the intent to deprive the "owner" of the item. Copyright violations don't deprive the copyright owner of the item in question, so they can't be theft. But as you say you are not a lawyer and reject any definitions you don't like, regardless of what reality says.
Then how is it relevant? I had a conviction for "speeding" for 35 mph in a 55 mph zone in Texas when all traffic laws were misdemeanors (they've since been switched to administrative non-crime infractions). So how is it relevant in *any* discussion to refer to me as a convicted criminal? Perhaps if I were to get sued in Texas for my part in a traffic crash, but certainly not for a copyright discussion. The fact that it's brought up implies some relevance, or else the speaker is a douche.
First, no artist was *ever* forced to go through the big labels.
You sound like the people defending Ticketmaster. There was an act that couldn't get venues or insurance unless they paid the Ticketmaster Tax. They weren't "forced" to use Ticketmaster, they just weren't able to tour without them. I used to go to the UA theater when I was a kid (the theater is long gone, and I think they left the theater owning business) but yes, they would *only* show big label sanctioned movies.
There's a reason why Robert Rodriguez had to sell the rights to the completed movie El Mariachi to get it shown in a theater. The contracts blocked access to anyone but the big labels. I'm sure there were a handfull of theaters that were dollar theaters or the like that could show it, but they don't even if they "can". Instead, it gets bought and re-mastered for millions (for a sub $100k movie), and shows for a loss after making more than 10x the production cost of the movie (mostly lost to "sound" and "marketing").
Yeah, you aren't "forced" to go through a big label, but you'll never get your movie shown in the US unless you sell the rights to them or pay them millions for approval.
Yes, and the copyright model is also optional. If you want to create something and give it away, copyright doesn't get in your way. It says, "More power to you." The open source dreamers and the copyright fanatics can and do coexist.
So explain how giving away with copyright works? Someone takes your work. Changes it slightly, copyrights it, then sues you for copying them. The dreamers can't coexist with copyright unless they use copyright. Not copying something gives you no benefit, and additional liability.
I thought most of them worked well. People paid for the item when they could download it for free. I've never seen a choose-your-own-price where you agree to some payment (pre-authorizing a valid card to ensure it can work, like a one-clock service) then ask you to provide a number once you've had it for a month. Though shareware worked like that for years, and managed to survive. If it doesn't work, how do you explain shareware and freeware?
14 years, extendable by another 14 on application, provided the author/creator was human (not a corporation) and didn't assign copyright to a corporation in the first 14 years (except for self or family owned corporations).
Though I prefer something more silly like $0.01 for a month of copyright, doubling every month. Under $100 for a year of copyright. More than the sum of human wealth for 10 years.
I'm a programmer - I'd be upset if my Boss told me he was taking the code I wrote, but not paying me. And then told me it wasn't stealing, because I still had the source on my hard drive. So I understand if content providers don't see the difference between piracy and theft - I don't.
That's not "theft" that's slavery (or a civil contract braech). You have a contract to exchange work for money. If your boss changes that to work for free, that's slavery (or an internship). It's still not theft. Theft is when he pays you, then breaks into your bank account while you are asleep and takes the money back out. Good thing you are a programmer, you'd make a horrible lawyer.
The title says "scooter". The summary says "scooter". The article says "scooter". But you disagree with everyone and use unique definitions for all words. No real point when you either don't know Engish, or are being argumentative for the sake of arguing.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that then you have the pro-copyright people pointing out that the anti-copyright people still use copyright to protect their works. "Why don't they release them into public domain if they don't like copyright?" is the common complaint. And the problem is that without those legal tricks, they can lose control over their creation (not a problem) to a person who locks them out and makes a profit from it exploiting others (a problem).
My stance is that abolising copyright and patents would leave us better off than we are now. I've seen nothing that goes against that, other than personal opinions that assert otherwise.
They are trying to solve the problem, namely by taking away government control of health care (and other parts of our lives) and handing it back to individuals and markets.
So they claim that the state of health care prior to ACA was the best in the world? The best it could be? Better than any government-controlled system possible? The people had the "power", and the result was people suffering under a poor system.
The thing is, I've never seen anybody to refer to the Commonwealth of Nations as just "Britain",
I agree, but Americans are bad with geography, and English is descriptive, not proscriptive, so "wrong" words are words nonetheless.
but everyone around here in Europe uses "America" either for the US, or for the combined NA+SA landmass, quite unambiguously based on the context.
And in the US, "America" is unambiguously "The USA". "The Americas" is the combined landmass.
One reason I hear "America" as being The Americas are false friends in Spanish and other languages that the bilingual people insist are cognates.
In the USA "North America" means "Mexico, USA, and Canada". That's US only, and I'd presume it to be inconsistent with the rest of the world. Latin America is everything south of Mexico or an island. Yes, that means Bermuda isn't in "North America" but is in "Latin America" despite being British Territory that is part of the North American Continent. I never claimed linguistic consistency, just accuracy.
There is inconsistency on whether "Latin America" includes South America. "Central America" is almost never used in the US, so I couldn't give an indication as to a precise meaning in American English.
The Koch brothers, like most people who believe in classical liberalism, simply believe that government financing of programs like health care and retirement is simply not sustainable;
It is no more or less sustainable than 100% participation in private insurance. Stating that government financing of "insurance" is not sustainable is stating that everyone having "insurance" itself is not sustainable. That's a different problem from government funding.
Given their focus on blaming the government and not solving the problem they state exists makes me doubt all that comes from them. They aren't internally consistent. And it shows.
Diesels also have more particulates. You know, the small particles that are more likely to land in your lungs and cause cancer or other diseases.
When you run gasoline at the same compression ratios as diesel, you get equal efficiency. Then it comes to an issue of the diesel fuel having more energy than gasoline. But that's an artefact of gasoline being "cheaper" to make, as you get more useful products from a barrel of oil if you are making gasoline with it than diesel. So the overall environmental cost is the same for the same compression ratios. And they are getting close. And the gasoline engine will outperform the diesel.
Hydrogen has no carbon footprint. The energy used to put hydrogen in a usable form may be considered to have a carbon footprint, but if you use that logic, everything has a carbon footprint, and nothing can avoid it. If you use electricity to generate your hydrogen from water, then hydrogen has no more carbon footprint than electric. Yes, I know much is taken from methane and such as it's lower cost, but that's the worst it can be, and even then the by-products are 100% captured. It's carbon neutral at worst, so long as your waste is disposed of properly.
Since you take a British English dictionary for the definition of The Americas, should we check Websters for Britain?
"1 [...]Great Britain 2 united kingdom 3 commonwealth of nations "
So whenever I need to refer to the Commonwealth of Nations, I'll just call it "Britain". The dictionary says so. After all, that is your argument, right?
America as in the continent, not the United States.
"The Americas" is the term you are looking for.
One of the checks when I got my last smog inspection was a check of the VIN. The VIN plates are not so easily changed, though they only checked the one in the drivers'-side windshield, not the chassis (door-jam and firewall) or engine one.
I see that a lot in older people. But I find the sentiment less common among those who grew up not even understanding there was such a thing as copyright. It's why piracy doesn't upset me all that much, but the idea that people aren't willing to accept that what they're doing is wrong bothers me a lot.
The older people are lying and your memory is faulty. "piracy" (sharing media, without regard to established business wishes) is ancient. Your parents, the "older people" did it as kids. They'd share what they could. They'd build play houses that looked like ones in the Sears catelog, shamelessly ripping off Sears's IP. The only reason they remember it differently is that the technology wasn't around then. "Share your things" is encouraged in kindergarden. It isn't until you get older when selfishness is taught by the older generation.
It all reminds me about my dad. He'd go ballistic about my driving (I had a much better record than him), and eventually Mom told us about him being a street racer when he was younger. He only stopped when both his parents were killed in separate car crashes the same year when he was about 21. So he was a car-modifying greaser doing street racing from 12 to 21 (or so), but when his 18 year old son gets his car backed into in a parking lot, he goes off on "responsibility" for 6 hours of lecture. That's the intellectual consistenct that the "older people" have. We haven't had generations grow out of it, but I expect that age does correlate with lowered piracy, and not because there's something wrong with the young. Every generation has thought the one behind them was the worst generation ever. If everyone was right, then civilization is doomed. More likely every "old person" is wrong. So no, I don't place much weight on someone's opinion just because they were born first.
You forgot the most important way to profit - the way which can't be eliminated no matter what you do: Getting free stuff. So long as people can give a copy of their movie/software/music to their friends, thus enriching their friends at no expense to themselves, piracy will continue. They did it with mix tapes and VHS long before the internet or mp3s, and they won't stop any time soon.
And "mix tapes" are illegal, as illegal as P2P, but smaller scale, so the record companies actually encouraged it. Legal is if you sit there and witness the private (not public) mixing and it isn't recorded. I have a CD "for promotional use only" somewhere laying around, I don't even remember what it is. But I could mix that, or play it publicly without licensing issues. Won it in a radio contest.
You forgot the most important way to profit - the way which can't be eliminated no matter what you do: Getting free stuff. So long as people can give a copy of their movie/software/music to their friends, thus enriching their friends at no expense to themselves, piracy will continue. They did it with mix tapes and VHS long before the internet or mp3s, and they won't stop any time soon.
And "mix tapes" are illegal, as illegal as P2P, but smaller scale, so the record companies actually encouraged it. Legal is if you sit there and witness the private (not public) mixing and it isn't recorded.
I have a CD "for promotional use only" somewhere laying around, I don't even remember what it is. But I could mix that, or play it publicly without licensing issues. Won it in a radio contest. Short of some fringe cases like that, there isn't much you can do with your media that's legal.
Probably because they wouldn't work, even if at the "proper" frequency.
So it's immoral to look over someone's shoulder? I should pay for my own paper, and the guy at work whose paper I'm reading is Kim Dotcom, enabling copyright infringement world-wide, and I'm some worthless paper hacker who should be in jail?
Non-destructive use of already-made product doesn't seem to be morally wrong, unless you say "on a computer" and people can't use basic logic anymore.
I didn't realize that the Dentist who buys magazines is colluding with patients to devalue magazines everywhere.
When did I ever "advocate" running red lights?
But taking what does not belong to you is generally understood by almost every English speaker as theft - whether the theft is of a tangible item, the opportunity to economically exploit something you created, or even a person's freedom.
Again, not law. Since you are talking things with legal repercussions, it's easier to use the "official" definitions. Stealing a car to joyride in it, until it's out of gas, then abandon it isn't "theft" Which is why there's generally a separate law for it (GTA, from the game ;). Same with theft of a service. Breaking (or sneaking) into a movie theater to watch a movie isn't "theft" so they invented a new term "theft of a service" (previously a form of trespass, but kicking them out is the only thing you can do with a first offender). But theft requires the intent to deprive the "owner" of the item. Copyright violations don't deprive the copyright owner of the item in question, so they can't be theft. But as you say you are not a lawyer and reject any definitions you don't like, regardless of what reality says.
Because it's "stealing" like students writing down teacher's notes from the chalkboard.
Then how is it relevant? I had a conviction for "speeding" for 35 mph in a 55 mph zone in Texas when all traffic laws were misdemeanors (they've since been switched to administrative non-crime infractions). So how is it relevant in *any* discussion to refer to me as a convicted criminal? Perhaps if I were to get sued in Texas for my part in a traffic crash, but certainly not for a copyright discussion. The fact that it's brought up implies some relevance, or else the speaker is a douche.
And do they count if his record is officially cleaned of some of them? He had the earlier ones sealed.
First, no artist was *ever* forced to go through the big labels.
You sound like the people defending Ticketmaster. There was an act that couldn't get venues or insurance unless they paid the Ticketmaster Tax. They weren't "forced" to use Ticketmaster, they just weren't able to tour without them. I used to go to the UA theater when I was a kid (the theater is long gone, and I think they left the theater owning business) but yes, they would *only* show big label sanctioned movies.
There's a reason why Robert Rodriguez had to sell the rights to the completed movie El Mariachi to get it shown in a theater. The contracts blocked access to anyone but the big labels. I'm sure there were a handfull of theaters that were dollar theaters or the like that could show it, but they don't even if they "can". Instead, it gets bought and re-mastered for millions (for a sub $100k movie), and shows for a loss after making more than 10x the production cost of the movie (mostly lost to "sound" and "marketing").
Yeah, you aren't "forced" to go through a big label, but you'll never get your movie shown in the US unless you sell the rights to them or pay them millions for approval.
Yes, and the copyright model is also optional. If you want to create something and give it away, copyright doesn't get in your way. It says, "More power to you." The open source dreamers and the copyright fanatics can and do coexist.
So explain how giving away with copyright works? Someone takes your work. Changes it slightly, copyrights it, then sues you for copying them. The dreamers can't coexist with copyright unless they use copyright. Not copying something gives you no benefit, and additional liability.
I thought most of them worked well. People paid for the item when they could download it for free. I've never seen a choose-your-own-price where you agree to some payment (pre-authorizing a valid card to ensure it can work, like a one-clock service) then ask you to provide a number once you've had it for a month. Though shareware worked like that for years, and managed to survive. If it doesn't work, how do you explain shareware and freeware?
14 years, extendable by another 14 on application, provided the author/creator was human (not a corporation) and didn't assign copyright to a corporation in the first 14 years (except for self or family owned corporations).
Though I prefer something more silly like $0.01 for a month of copyright, doubling every month. Under $100 for a year of copyright. More than the sum of human wealth for 10 years.
I'm a programmer - I'd be upset if my Boss told me he was taking the code I wrote, but not paying me. And then told me it wasn't stealing, because I still had the source on my hard drive. So I understand if content providers don't see the difference between piracy and theft - I don't.
That's not "theft" that's slavery (or a civil contract braech). You have a contract to exchange work for money. If your boss changes that to work for free, that's slavery (or an internship). It's still not theft. Theft is when he pays you, then breaks into your bank account while you are asleep and takes the money back out. Good thing you are a programmer, you'd make a horrible lawyer.
Besides, this isn't a scooter,
That says it all.
The title says "scooter". The summary says "scooter". The article says "scooter". But you disagree with everyone and use unique definitions for all words. No real point when you either don't know Engish, or are being argumentative for the sake of arguing.