See? I throw out some possible reasons that costs are deferred, and you up and disappeared on me. Was a discussion not really what you were interested in? Drive by posting is just no fun. C'mon now. I gave you something to refute.
They won't destroy themselves. We have to do it for them. Let's show people who the real pirates are. One way is to demand that the law be enforced to its full extent, to victimize as many as possible. Only then is there a chance they will wake up and finish them off. Otherwise this will drag on forever. Sue me!
Did I ever, ever say you should not get paid?? No! of course not. I'm telling you have no right to control what I possess. You're obviously not comprehending what I'm saying. In order to avoid repetition I will merely ask you to read the entire post, all of them, not just the pieces you disagree with, completely out of context as you are doing.
What truth" That you want something for nothing?
Obvious troll comment to be ignored from here on out. Take that up with those who wish to believe it. It is the copyright holders who want something for nothing. To re-sell old works, instead of creating new ones. They want to kick back, puffing on their Habanas, and watch the money roll in. I cannot describe my feeling towards them and keep my comments "workplace safe". Suffice to say they are greedy pigs.
I don't download movies or music.
Nor do I. Not interested in 'em You appear to be assuming that I do. The satellite that I pay for provides all that I desire. I put some of my paid for CDs into the computer for the sake of convenience and to avoid excess handling. As for the games, I never go more complicated than sol.exe and its equivalent on my linux partition. I liked pong, but can't find a machine, and most likely can't afford to buy it if I did. Even pacman is too much for me. Well, flight simulators are cool, but I don't have one, so out of sight, out of mind. I will not disparage bootleggers, any more than I will pot smokers. They are all within their natural rights. Copyright is a privilege that I did not, and do not authorize. As its intent comes out of the fog of distraction and FUD, you will find that privilege will be revoked.
Since copyrights have been allowed 300 years I'd bet many more works have been written than all of the tyme before that...
Only because the technology made it possible, the same technology that copyright wishes to stamp out, not due to the privilege of copyright. You have proven nothing. The bet still stands.
You're mixed up, if pirates made the rules there would be no copyrights.
You're clearly confused as to who the pirates are. You're letting the pirates define the term. That's like letting Satan define evil.
I suggest you read the Constitution of the USA. In Section 8 - Powers of Congress, you see where is says: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" It protects the interest of the creator for a limited tyme so they will create.
Pure spin to disguise the real intent that nobody would accept if they bothered to look past the pretty wrapping paper.
I'll be happy to continue this, but it is becoming difficult now that I realize you're not bothering to grasp the whole message, or even read the posts in their entirety. I will not assume that it's intentional, but it is happening. Sorry.
Does all this mean that maybe, possibly the Slashdot article could be a bit premature? That somebody is just kicking up some dust? Being contrary? Could all this be sorted out in a mud wrestling contest? I read the article. It's as clear as Mississippi mud. These plot lines are so confusing, as is any discussion involving more than two people. He said, she said. Makes for good soap opera, but I can't tell if there's a story here.
If we don't get a grip on agriculture now, it will all be a moot point soon, because we won't have oxygen to breathe.
Oh, I'm sure Exxon will be able to produce and sell it at a reasonable price. And we should show our gratitude when they do by granting them everything they desire. If not for them we will all die. Thank god for Exxon. And Cheney, too. If we make him emperor, he might let us live.
Who says you are supposed to spend full time writing? That's absurd. You do it when you feel like doing it. You write your little book, don't release to anyone before you make the transaction. Just like I'll hang on to the car until you pay up. If you want royalties, then I'm entitled to the same. Don't try to put yourself above everybody else. That would be a sure sign of arrogance. Like Tom said, Once you release it, it's no longer exclusively yours. You will get your money and you move on to the next big thing. I will not allow you to control things that I possess. It is insane to do so.
Or is it that you want free entertainment?
Totally lame distraction to discredit the truth. An easy to avoid trap which misses the target. Well, actually not. The weak minded do often fall into it despite all the warning signs. To be sure I am quite capable of entertaining myself. I can and do live without a daily injection of Hollywood drivel. I couldn't even tell you what day of the week American Idol is on. I wouldn't even know of its existence if it wasn't on the Google news front page, and I sure don't click on any of the stories. Okay, I admit it. I did once to to get a better shot of a pretty girl that was on the page. I pay 50 bucks a month for satellite and I still don't know what channel FOX is on. Your statement is nothing more than a demonstration of the weakness of your argument. It's like saying, "Oh, you're just having your period." and then leaving the room.
And I asked for proof copyrights aren't needed.
I can only do that upon its abolishment. And I am certain that I will be vindicated. I put it upon you to prove otherwise, that it would be unmitigated disaster. At worse it would be temporarily disruptive, but that would pass very quickly. So, abolish copyright and prove me wrong. I will be more than happy to accept it, and will bow down in humility. But remember, we need to match the 300 years that we suffered under these regs. The proof I already have is in the several thousands of years before copyright. For me, you will have a difficult time trying to negate that. The only thing copyright has brought us is the pretty packaging and refrigerators for the eskimos. The content is nothing but junk.
I can understand that these regulations are necessary in a mercantile society, where pirates and their merchants(fences) make the rules. I'm out to revoke the authority they have over us. You are sadly mistaken to believe that purpose of copyright is to protect the interests of the creator. It does nothing of the sort. It is a toll booth that the creators must pass through to reach the public and vice versa, and it is harmful to both. It's precisely the same way the railroads put the stranglehold on the farmers trying to get their produce to market. That would have to be the best analogy one could place on the matter. It works that way almost word for word. Or to make it simple, copyright = railroads = oil companies. The ultimate result is stagnation and bankruptcy. Precisely what most creators(and the small family farmers) suffer today.
So many incorrect assumptions I wouldn't know where to begin. You're right, copyright is useful for some. Specifically the pirates who want to keep control of everything. Society in general derives no such benefit. You're trying to block the sun for personal profit. Sorry, your gravy train has run out of track. Time to level the field. Everybody will still get paid. Unfortunately for the copyright bums, they'll have to live with the same rules as the rest of us, perish the thought! I can't imagine the horror it will bring down on humanity. We'll be back to pulling ox carts full of corpses within a week. Try not to break a nail.
Why, thank you! Good to see somebody's paying attention. I hope you don't expect me to kiss that puss before you rinse...with chlorine and lye! I don't wanna taste my own poop. That would really be gross. No dinner and movie for you!
...our post asked for an explanation and I happened to have one.
And a pretty poor one at that... Bobwahr? Your analogy might hold up if you were talking about distributing replicas* of said cattle. Otherwise, it's a bunch of hogwash! If I could produce those replicas at no or very little cost, I would still destroy your price at the market. You have no right to prohibit me from making those replicas. But thanks for trying. I'll give you an "E" for effort.
*not offspring, just in case you try to pull that one off.
There would be no absence of professional artists. I never stated that would be the case. Nor would I consider it to be desirable. The only thing that would be eliminated is the special privileges they enjoy now that nobody else can. It puts the artists into the merchant class above all others. I suppose that's to be expected in the mercantile society whose rules we live under. The current situation is even less desirable. Current law does not protect the artist. It protects the old, obsolete distributors and their method of doing business. Its other purpose is that of government censorship by corporate proxy, a very clever end-run around free speech rights with everybody saying that restrictions by private corporations is not censorship. An illogical argument when considering they use government agents to enforce their rules. Those were its intentions, and those are the results. The law is working as designed.
Sorry, I was just using a definition from the dictionary, and only one particular usage at that. However, that usage does has everything to do with written law. You would be right with other uses of the word, for instance, marijuana is not a child born out of wedlock, but it could result in one if the party gets a little out of control.:-) And by yet another usage of the word, you could correctly say that marijuana and copyright laws are illegitimate, because they are Incorrectly deduced; illogical...So now we have two things(and many others of course) that are illegitimate due to illegitimate law. *head spins*
Heh, I was comparing the climate of Norway to that of North America anywhere south of Hudson Bay, where summers are a bit longer and warmer.:-)
Dunno about 11th century, but you do have the unconditional rigth to be attributed for creative works. This rigth is non-transferable, so even if you create stuff for your employer, it still holds.
And that's so very right on. An unconditional right, and a truly natural one at that. This is a case of the government recognizing something that already exists and codifying it into law, as opposed to creating special privileges for a certain class of people at the expense of the rest.
"Nilsson was running out of breath as 10,000 Norwegians were chasing him down th..." "I object! A Swede never runs from a Norwegian."
So, are Steven King and George Lucas the only guys out there writing? I could give a damn about them. So they can work the system...That means nothing to me. If you and they want to hold back nobody's going to know, or miss it. Personally I'm more interested in a story written from the heart, not just for a quick buck and expectations of kicking back and collecting the rent. Work for hire will function just as well for the arts as it does for an auto mechanic. It's time to put an end to these special privileges.
Why would I spend so much tyme writing something if someone else could take what I wrote and make some money off it without me seeing a dime?
This, right there, is the big misconception. Nobody else will get exclusivity either. They will have no more incentive to take your work than you will to write it if your only incentive is financial.
I've heard or read a number of tymes copyrights don't hold water, yet not once has anyone proven it to me.
Reread the first sentence of my previous post, please. The bet stands. Lay your money on the table. Copyright is nothing more than a disagreeable reaction to new technology, created simply to protect industries that suddenly became outmoded. They expect guaranteed profits through force of law. Well, fine, then I want royalties for every mile you drive your car after I fix it. I won't need many customers, and I will be a millionaire.
Well, first off, neither of us can prove our points without the thing being abolished outright. I will bet you a dollar that I'm right though. And secondly, I believe there are many incentives for creating things that aren't necessarily financial. Copyright has created a situation where finance trumps all those other incentives, creating a lot of junk inventions and trashy so called "art". I would hope that argument would be laid to rest by now. It just doesn't hold water. And yet it is repeated ad nauseam in some vain attempt to force us to believe it. I can safely say that I never will.
I'm afraid, by definition, it does. However, marijuana being illegal doesn't make it immoral. I believe that's the matter being addressed here. So, on that note, it is just as correct to state that copyright infringement being illegal doesn't make it immoral either. But as with weed, some will try to convince us otherwise. Needless to say, they are wrong on both counts..So why did you say it then?
Yeah, they're way ahead of the rest of the world in lots of things. Somebody mentioned a law that protects rights of attribution for creative work that dates back to the 11th century.? Can't remember where I saw it. And they were the first from the continent to travel to America. I wonder why they didn't stick around. Must've been that unbearable heat and the long summers:-)
Don't confuse illegal with shady either. The law can be just as shady, like prohibition, for example, or DMCA... or for that matter, copyright...shady law that steals from the public disguised as "incentive".
My point is that I don't consider hydrogen and all this silly, unnecessary complexity to be viable. It's way too fragile and requires to much infrastructure, whereas the biodiesel can easily be produced locally on a relatively low budget. Its whole system is much more robust on all fronts. What's more, it's so easy to produce safely(and probably a bit bit smelly) on a more local level, it won't be necessary to store and transport huge amounts of it, stepping up the efficiency even higher. It's just not politically connected with any big moneyed lobbying group. So it appears unlikely that it will go very far unless enough local groups pick up the cause and turn their backs on this diversion. I would call this an outright scam. It's just more brightly colored magic beads. That gallium might be a little safer does not give me much comfort.
Slashdot Mirror
See? I throw out some possible reasons that costs are deferred, and you up and disappeared on me. Was a discussion not really what you were interested in? Drive by posting is just no fun. C'mon now. I gave you something to refute.
Unfortunately, he didn't get very far.
Bummer! So sad to see you reduce yourself to a simple drone. Oh well, the door is always open. I wish you the best.
so what are we all waiting for?
Godot
They won't destroy themselves. We have to do it for them. Let's show people who the real pirates are. One way is to demand that the law be enforced to its full extent, to victimize as many as possible. Only then is there a chance they will wake up and finish them off. Otherwise this will drag on forever. Sue me!
Did I ever, ever say you should not get paid?? No! of course not. I'm telling you have no right to control what I possess. You're obviously not comprehending what I'm saying. In order to avoid repetition I will merely ask you to read the entire post, all of them, not just the pieces you disagree with, completely out of context as you are doing.
What truth" That you want something for nothing?
Obvious troll comment to be ignored from here on out. Take that up with those who wish to believe it. It is the copyright holders who want something for nothing. To re-sell old works, instead of creating new ones. They want to kick back, puffing on their Habanas, and watch the money roll in. I cannot describe my feeling towards them and keep my comments "workplace safe". Suffice to say they are greedy pigs.
I don't download movies or music.
Nor do I. Not interested in 'em You appear to be assuming that I do. The satellite that I pay for provides all that I desire. I put some of my paid for CDs into the computer for the sake of convenience and to avoid excess handling. As for the games, I never go more complicated than sol.exe and its equivalent on my linux partition. I liked pong, but can't find a machine, and most likely can't afford to buy it if I did. Even pacman is too much for me. Well, flight simulators are cool, but I don't have one, so out of sight, out of mind. I will not disparage bootleggers, any more than I will pot smokers. They are all within their natural rights. Copyright is a privilege that I did not, and do not authorize. As its intent comes out of the fog of distraction and FUD, you will find that privilege will be revoked.
Since copyrights have been allowed 300 years I'd bet many more works have been written than all of the tyme before that...
Only because the technology made it possible, the same technology that copyright wishes to stamp out, not due to the privilege of copyright. You have proven nothing. The bet still stands.
You're mixed up, if pirates made the rules there would be no copyrights.
You're clearly confused as to who the pirates are. You're letting the pirates define the term. That's like letting Satan define evil.
I suggest you read the Constitution of the USA. In Section 8 - Powers of Congress, you see where is says: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" It protects the interest of the creator for a limited tyme so they will create.
Pure spin to disguise the real intent that nobody would accept if they bothered to look past the pretty wrapping paper.
I'll be happy to continue this, but it is becoming difficult now that I realize you're not bothering to grasp the whole message, or even read the posts in their entirety. I will not assume that it's intentional, but it is happening. Sorry.
Does all this mean that maybe, possibly the Slashdot article could be a bit premature? That somebody is just kicking up some dust? Being contrary? Could all this be sorted out in a mud wrestling contest? I read the article. It's as clear as Mississippi mud. These plot lines are so confusing, as is any discussion involving more than two people. He said, she said. Makes for good soap opera, but I can't tell if there's a story here.
If we don't get a grip on agriculture now, it will all be a moot point soon, because we won't have oxygen to breathe.
Oh, I'm sure Exxon will be able to produce and sell it at a reasonable price. And we should show our gratitude when they do by granting them everything they desire. If not for them we will all die. Thank god for Exxon. And Cheney, too. If we make him emperor, he might let us live.
Who says you are supposed to spend full time writing? That's absurd. You do it when you feel like doing it. You write your little book, don't release to anyone before you make the transaction. Just like I'll hang on to the car until you pay up. If you want royalties, then I'm entitled to the same. Don't try to put yourself above everybody else. That would be a sure sign of arrogance. Like Tom said, Once you release it, it's no longer exclusively yours. You will get your money and you move on to the next big thing. I will not allow you to control things that I possess. It is insane to do so.
Or is it that you want free entertainment?
Totally lame distraction to discredit the truth. An easy to avoid trap which misses the target. Well, actually not. The weak minded do often fall into it despite all the warning signs. To be sure I am quite capable of entertaining myself. I can and do live without a daily injection of Hollywood drivel. I couldn't even tell you what day of the week American Idol is on. I wouldn't even know of its existence if it wasn't on the Google news front page, and I sure don't click on any of the stories. Okay, I admit it. I did once to to get a better shot of a pretty girl that was on the page. I pay 50 bucks a month for satellite and I still don't know what channel FOX is on. Your statement is nothing more than a demonstration of the weakness of your argument. It's like saying, "Oh, you're just having your period." and then leaving the room.
And I asked for proof copyrights aren't needed.
I can only do that upon its abolishment. And I am certain that I will be vindicated. I put it upon you to prove otherwise, that it would be unmitigated disaster. At worse it would be temporarily disruptive, but that would pass very quickly. So, abolish copyright and prove me wrong. I will be more than happy to accept it, and will bow down in humility. But remember, we need to match the 300 years that we suffered under these regs. The proof I already have is in the several thousands of years before copyright. For me, you will have a difficult time trying to negate that. The only thing copyright has brought us is the pretty packaging and refrigerators for the eskimos. The content is nothing but junk.
I can understand that these regulations are necessary in a mercantile society, where pirates and their merchants(fences) make the rules. I'm out to revoke the authority they have over us. You are sadly mistaken to believe that purpose of copyright is to protect the interests of the creator. It does nothing of the sort. It is a toll booth that the creators must pass through to reach the public and vice versa, and it is harmful to both. It's precisely the same way the railroads put the stranglehold on the farmers trying to get their produce to market. That would have to be the best analogy one could place on the matter. It works that way almost word for word. Or to make it simple, copyright = railroads = oil companies. The ultimate result is stagnation and bankruptcy. Precisely what most creators(and the small family farmers) suffer today.
So many incorrect assumptions I wouldn't know where to begin. You're right, copyright is useful for some. Specifically the pirates who want to keep control of everything. Society in general derives no such benefit. You're trying to block the sun for personal profit. Sorry, your gravy train has run out of track. Time to level the field. Everybody will still get paid. Unfortunately for the copyright bums, they'll have to live with the same rules as the rest of us, perish the thought! I can't imagine the horror it will bring down on humanity. We'll be back to pulling ox carts full of corpses within a week. Try not to break a nail.
Why, thank you! Good to see somebody's paying attention. I hope you don't expect me to kiss that puss before you rinse...with chlorine and lye! I don't wanna taste my own poop. That would really be gross. No dinner and movie for you!
Gotta run, word out homes.
...our post asked for an explanation and I happened to have one.
And a pretty poor one at that... Bobwahr? Your analogy might hold up if you were talking about distributing replicas* of said cattle. Otherwise, it's a bunch of hogwash! If I could produce those replicas at no or very little cost, I would still destroy your price at the market. You have no right to prohibit me from making those replicas. But thanks for trying. I'll give you an "E" for effort.
*not offspring, just in case you try to pull that one off.
And now you know why a woman smiles on her wedding day. Or maybe you always did.
There would be no absence of professional artists. I never stated that would be the case. Nor would I consider it to be desirable. The only thing that would be eliminated is the special privileges they enjoy now that nobody else can. It puts the artists into the merchant class above all others. I suppose that's to be expected in the mercantile society whose rules we live under. The current situation is even less desirable. Current law does not protect the artist. It protects the old, obsolete distributors and their method of doing business. Its other purpose is that of government censorship by corporate proxy, a very clever end-run around free speech rights with everybody saying that restrictions by private corporations is not censorship. An illogical argument when considering they use government agents to enforce their rules. Those were its intentions, and those are the results. The law is working as designed.
Damn! Everybody responded but you, and yours is the one I was waiting for...Come back!
Sorry, I was just using a definition from the dictionary, and only one particular usage at that. However, that usage does has everything to do with written law. You would be right with other uses of the word, for instance, marijuana is not a child born out of wedlock, but it could result in one if the party gets a little out of control. :-) And by yet another usage of the word, you could correctly say that marijuana and copyright laws are illegitimate, because they are Incorrectly deduced; illogical...So now we have two things(and many others of course) that are illegitimate due to illegitimate law. *head spins*
Heh, I was comparing the climate of Norway to that of North America anywhere south of Hudson Bay, where summers are a bit longer and warmer. :-)
Dunno about 11th century, but you do have the unconditional rigth to be attributed for creative works. This rigth is non-transferable, so even if you create stuff for your employer, it still holds.
And that's so very right on. An unconditional right, and a truly natural one at that. This is a case of the government recognizing something that already exists and codifying it into law, as opposed to creating special privileges for a certain class of people at the expense of the rest.
"Nilsson was running out of breath as 10,000 Norwegians were chasing him down th..."
"I object! A Swede never runs from a Norwegian."
So, are Steven King and George Lucas the only guys out there writing? I could give a damn about them. So they can work the system...That means nothing to me. If you and they want to hold back nobody's going to know, or miss it. Personally I'm more interested in a story written from the heart, not just for a quick buck and expectations of kicking back and collecting the rent. Work for hire will function just as well for the arts as it does for an auto mechanic. It's time to put an end to these special privileges.
Why would I spend so much tyme writing something if someone else could take what I wrote and make some money off it without me seeing a dime?
This, right there, is the big misconception. Nobody else will get exclusivity either. They will have no more incentive to take your work than you will to write it if your only incentive is financial.
I've heard or read a number of tymes copyrights don't hold water, yet not once has anyone proven it to me.
Reread the first sentence of my previous post, please. The bet stands. Lay your money on the table. Copyright is nothing more than a disagreeable reaction to new technology, created simply to protect industries that suddenly became outmoded. They expect guaranteed profits through force of law. Well, fine, then I want royalties for every mile you drive your car after I fix it. I won't need many customers, and I will be a millionaire.
I got your piracy economics right here, pal!
Well, first off, neither of us can prove our points without the thing being abolished outright. I will bet you a dollar that I'm right though. And secondly, I believe there are many incentives for creating things that aren't necessarily financial. Copyright has created a situation where finance trumps all those other incentives, creating a lot of junk inventions and trashy so called "art". I would hope that argument would be laid to rest by now. It just doesn't hold water. And yet it is repeated ad nauseam in some vain attempt to force us to believe it. I can safely say that I never will.
I'm afraid, by definition, it does. However, marijuana being illegal doesn't make it immoral. I believe that's the matter being addressed here. So, on that note, it is just as correct to state that copyright infringement being illegal doesn't make it immoral either. But as with weed, some will try to convince us otherwise. Needless to say, they are wrong on both counts..So why did you say it then?
Yeah, they're way ahead of the rest of the world in lots of things. Somebody mentioned a law that protects rights of attribution for creative work that dates back to the 11th century.? Can't remember where I saw it. And they were the first from the continent to travel to America. I wonder why they didn't stick around. Must've been that unbearable heat and the long summers :-)
.. it's all about "punishment".
'Fraid not...it's all about money.
Don't confuse illegal with shady either. The law can be just as shady, like prohibition, for example, or DMCA... or for that matter, copyright...shady law that steals from the public disguised as "incentive".
My point is that I don't consider hydrogen and all this silly, unnecessary complexity to be viable. It's way too fragile and requires to much infrastructure, whereas the biodiesel can easily be produced locally on a relatively low budget. Its whole system is much more robust on all fronts. What's more, it's so easy to produce safely(and probably a bit bit smelly) on a more local level, it won't be necessary to store and transport huge amounts of it, stepping up the efficiency even higher. It's just not politically connected with any big moneyed lobbying group. So it appears unlikely that it will go very far unless enough local groups pick up the cause and turn their backs on this diversion. I would call this an outright scam. It's just more brightly colored magic beads. That gallium might be a little safer does not give me much comfort.