(Previously on Slashdot...) Clever turns of phrase seem to be about 90% of the anti-copyright toolkit.
You spoke volumes...
...and "clever turns of phrase" came from the parent poster.
I'm fully aware of that. I took my cue from your response. I'm really not a very clever person. So clever turns of phrase are not my forte. The brain is feeble, so I speak from the soul.
"I want, I want, I want" doesn't exactly inspire sympathies.
Now that's what I would call a clever distraction:-)
Somebody hasn't been comprehending my posts on the subject very well. I've covered all the legal aspects you speak of. And my suggestion of everything being in the public domain covers the moral aspects. However, I don't believe in "must share" any more than I do in "can't share". They are both unacceptable, and for the same reasons. I believe I've been very consistent on this. These things have been answered, partially by me, many, many times. And there are plenty who have answered in the same way. No offense, but it appears you haven't been paying attention. No license is the best license. They can share if they wish, and don't share if they don't wish. And they have no right to complain if somebody else shares it for them. That's what public domain is all about. You can only keep it out of public domain if you keep it entirely to yourself and don't tell anyone about it. The moment you do, it's free for all. And if you do keep it completely to yourself, more than likely somebody else will come up with the same thing or similar, and they might share it. When there's no chance of profit or other advantage from exclusivity, the chances of it being shared openly are much greater. There be no incentive to keep it to yourself. You would gain nothing by it. This is why the pro-copyrighters have it so backwards. Their point of view is that of the bean counting economists. They completely fail to see other motivations for what we do. To them only the profit motive is what brings progress. It is a 19th century railroad tycoon way of thinking. They are loons. And most them are very greedy trying to cash in. They're getting nervous that the easy money might start to dry up as more people become aware of the law's true intent. So now they're on the attack, disparaging abolition as complete lunacy, among other things to confuse the public. What I shall not do is to claim somebody else's work as my own. That would indeed be wrong on all counts. I'm a tiny bit confused by your post. It seems that we agree on some things here, but I'm not really sure which way you're leaning. When it comes to information, I'm a complete anarchist. Keep it or share it, it doesn't matter. But absolutely nobody has a right to control it once it's out. It must flow completely unimpeded by arbitrary restrictions. In the absence of copyright law, the GPL would be just that.
My beef with the whole movement is that I haven't seen a cogent argument yet.
My point exactly. All we get is the standard, tiresome, totally invalid argument about "incentive". And it's a bunch of hooey. Since they refuse to see the hypocrisy, it becomes virtually impossible to use any kind of logic on the matter. It has no place in a world that works on greed and corruption. To all those who say we are better with copyright, I say, Prove it! Take it away for 300 years and see what happens. I'll bet 10 to 1 that progress will step up exponentially. We done things your way, now let's try something different that has a very good chance of working. The current environment is enslaving us to a system that is set up to protect the privileged few. I'm not the first, nor the only, and certainly won't be the last that sees through the facade. There is no reasoned opposition. It is about protecting vested interests. And society in general is not that vested interest. It's a cartel of phony, baloney economists that are doing this. And they are far from reasonable. They don't have to be with the advantage and authority that we give them. They dictate and you accept without question simply because they might have a piece of paper that says that they are smarter than the rest of us. Or they have a gun. But they don't have reason on their side at all. Not a bit of it. The child you speak of is those who say, "Mine! You can't play with it!". That's the selfish little child that is making today's rules that we live under. We need to take away their BB gun before they put another eye out.
90% of all human energy is used to erect and maintain barriers, fences, walls, borders of every kind imaginable and more. It's the ultimate in selfishness. I'm going to devote my energy to tearing them down. I don't care if it's losing battle. It has to be done , and somebody has to do it. I believe the saying goes, in the defense of freedom, there are no extremes.
You still aren't getting it! Without copyright there can be no restrictive licenses in either direction. There would be no "can't share/must share" rules. GPL will be absolutely superfluous, which is fine. Everything goes into public domain once it is released, and it will be released if it is to be used at all. So there will be much less of the hoarding you see today. We have the security of knowing that more than one person can come up with similar ideas. Amongst those people, some are more than willing to share, and the rest can do whatever they want. Everybody will be better off, except the greedy ones who always want more for themselves exclusively, seeking unfair advantage over the rest by putting a gun to our heads while saying, "don't touch this".
Yes well, that's because we can't use big business and guns to enforce an opinion like the pro copyright crowd can. The minute a balance of power is restored, the "clever turns of phrase" can be thrown out the window. First we need to turn the guns the other direction, by the use of "clever turns of phrase" if needed,, the same "clever turns of phrase" that put copyright into law in the first place, because reason and logic certainly had nothing to do with it. Then we can see how clever the other side becomes when they are reduced to pleading to the authorities for mercy. With a level playing field, it will much easier to prove how wrong copyright is. Without the weaponry to back us up, all we have are "clever turns of phrase" as you like to call it in your little put down there. Early abolitionists of slavery had to put up with the same kind of attitude as the anti-copyright/prohibition* people do now. You are defending an indefensible institution. Count your blessings(and your money while you're at it) that there really is no such thing as justice in this life. There is only law. And another thing, all your freedoms you enjoy today came about by wishful thing, backed up with a little muscle. Lord help you if everybody acquires the same amount of muscle. It would interesting to see how you are without the present advantage you have over the opposition. So easy for you now while speaking from the ivory tower looking down upon the rest. Might makes right.
*those who speak up for legalization are dealing with the same kind of disparagement.
Goes to show how backward it is. It's the only thing that actually matters. Oh well...Just means the law has nothing to do with protecting the creator and it's all about protecting the business.
...they would benefit from throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
That's not a baby. Somebody threw a turd in there almost 300 years ago. It would be advisable to throw it out, instead of trying to wash and polish it. Underneath the veneer it's still a turd.
RICO laws were not intended for this type of thing
You're right. It was intended to harass people for drug possession. Get caught with a roach in the ashtray, and the sheriff gets to keep your new Suburban, and maybe your house.
Yeah, a great big hollow one, with windows(the glass ones) and all. My rock has indoor plumbing, satellite TV, broadband, and it's very hurricane resistant. It's a very comfortable rock. It even keeps tigers away. Wanna buy it?
Unfortunately the market is sustaining those those prices. We should all know the routine by now. Do your best to ignore them, and they'll come crying for your business. We set the price, they don't.
Has anyone tried to challenge their constitutionality?
Don't know how they can. Copyright is still limited, even if they extend it a thousand years...As long as there exists a cut off date, their butts are covered.
It's not, because a song is not a physical thing. That's pretty basic.
No, the concept holds up just fine for the physical and the non-physical. It sees no difference there because there is none. The concept of me sitting back and "collecting the rent" while somebody used what I fixed or created is what I talking about. If you can collect royalties for your work, then I'm entitled the same for mine. *Si tu fumas, yo puedo fumar tanbien*
Remember that if you abolish copyright there is no concept of derived work.
Most all works are "derived" works, even when the creator isn't aware of it. Another responder pointed me to this, which just opened up a whole new can of worms for me, but it also puts another nail in the coffin for restrictions against distribution, and now I have to resolve the plagiarism thing all over again. Because we are basing law on what the link says is a "matter of opinion". And law should be based on hard facts.
When I write a song, how can I tell whether I am the rightful author or I am unintentionally plagiarizing an existing copyrighted work? As seen in Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (SDNY 1976), the damages for even unintentional infringement can be high enough to bankrupt an indie artist. "My Sweet Lord" on Wikipedia gives more background.
I'm very familiar with those, and it only makes my case stronger that more than one person can come up with the same idea. The law protects the first, or the richest(the guy with the most lawyers) and screws the rest. In those cases plagiarism does indeed become a sticky wicket. The present law does absolutely nothing to resolve that. For now let's get the distribution issue out of the way, and see if the plagiarism doesn't sort itself out, because there will be laws against that, which I do support. If it boils down to intent, then there had better be irrefutable evidence of it. Mind reading is not an exact science yet.
That first link brings up a very interesting point. It could prove that nothing is new. Everything is prior art. I have no idea if what I write down are my own thoughts or some thing I saw 30 years ago. You may have just made a case against laws prohibiting plagiarism. It sure holds up well against copyrights, patents, and the subject of distribution. Strange that we can make a person's life an insufferable hell based on matters of opinion, as the link ultimately calls it.
Your original question carries the opinion that I will have less without copyright, and I'm saying that is an erroneous position.
With no copyright we will have far less source code to work with.
You'll never know until you try, and the tiresome, inaccurate boilerplate arguments carry no weight and will be proven false if you ever decide to give it a shot. As I said there are plenty of others with the same thoughts on the matter who are making a better argument than I am. Seek them out. If I had bothered to bookmark them I would paste the links, but to tell the truth, I'm not really interested anymore. I got the gist of the message without getting bogged down in all the gory details, and that's good enough for me. Or as I said, if the status quo suits you fine, then don't.
Everything will have to be reverse engineered, which is a very sub-optimal situation.
Better than what we have now with rules prohibiting that and DMCA, etc. Reverse engineering and/or disassembly will get you pretty darn close to the source, since anything that prohibits that no longer carries the force of law. In fact it would probably create a whole new industry right there. You seem to think that everybody will try to hide their code. That is not the case. With many people who come up with similar ideas, some of them are more than happy to share. And they will benefit more than those who don't. And just to solidify the whole thing, NDAs should be rendered invalid as an unwarranted restriction of free speech rights. It's all about exclusivity, and I'm against it. Time to level the playing field. No more special privileges. I get paid when I make the proper arrangements and perform my work, so should everybody else.
Yep, sure did. It means you don't know what the hell your talking about. Now get back into the corral to get yourself sheared, make sure your tires are properly inflated, and have a nice day. Y'all come back now, hea?
Slashdot Mirror
Has anybody hinted at putting limits on the spy chief?
War czar for president
Second reply. So sorry...
...and "clever turns of phrase" came from the parent poster.
:-)
I haven't spoken to my feelings on the matter...
(Previously on Slashdot...) Clever turns of phrase seem to be about 90% of the anti-copyright toolkit.
You spoke volumes...
I'm fully aware of that. I took my cue from your response. I'm really not a very clever person. So clever turns of phrase are not my forte. The brain is feeble, so I speak from the soul.
"I want, I want, I want" doesn't exactly inspire sympathies.
Now that's what I would call a clever distraction
Somebody hasn't been comprehending my posts on the subject very well. I've covered all the legal aspects you speak of. And my suggestion of everything being in the public domain covers the moral aspects. However, I don't believe in "must share" any more than I do in "can't share". They are both unacceptable, and for the same reasons. I believe I've been very consistent on this. These things have been answered, partially by me, many, many times. And there are plenty who have answered in the same way. No offense, but it appears you haven't been paying attention. No license is the best license. They can share if they wish, and don't share if they don't wish. And they have no right to complain if somebody else shares it for them. That's what public domain is all about. You can only keep it out of public domain if you keep it entirely to yourself and don't tell anyone about it. The moment you do, it's free for all. And if you do keep it completely to yourself, more than likely somebody else will come up with the same thing or similar, and they might share it. When there's no chance of profit or other advantage from exclusivity, the chances of it being shared openly are much greater. There be no incentive to keep it to yourself. You would gain nothing by it. This is why the pro-copyrighters have it so backwards. Their point of view is that of the bean counting economists. They completely fail to see other motivations for what we do. To them only the profit motive is what brings progress. It is a 19th century railroad tycoon way of thinking. They are loons. And most them are very greedy trying to cash in. They're getting nervous that the easy money might start to dry up as more people become aware of the law's true intent. So now they're on the attack, disparaging abolition as complete lunacy, among other things to confuse the public. What I shall not do is to claim somebody else's work as my own. That would indeed be wrong on all counts. I'm a tiny bit confused by your post. It seems that we agree on some things here, but I'm not really sure which way you're leaning. When it comes to information, I'm a complete anarchist. Keep it or share it, it doesn't matter. But absolutely nobody has a right to control it once it's out. It must flow completely unimpeded by arbitrary restrictions. In the absence of copyright law, the GPL would be just that.
The research didn't link anything...
Maybe because it's...missing?
They can sue us, but we can't sue them. That's nice...
I claim this
...but have legislation preventing the solutions from being released to the general public.
Yep, right here
My beef with the whole movement is that I haven't seen a cogent argument yet.
My point exactly. All we get is the standard, tiresome, totally invalid argument about "incentive". And it's a bunch of hooey. Since they refuse to see the hypocrisy, it becomes virtually impossible to use any kind of logic on the matter. It has no place in a world that works on greed and corruption. To all those who say we are better with copyright, I say, Prove it! Take it away for 300 years and see what happens. I'll bet 10 to 1 that progress will step up exponentially. We done things your way, now let's try something different that has a very good chance of working. The current environment is enslaving us to a system that is set up to protect the privileged few. I'm not the first, nor the only, and certainly won't be the last that sees through the facade. There is no reasoned opposition. It is about protecting vested interests. And society in general is not that vested interest. It's a cartel of phony, baloney economists that are doing this. And they are far from reasonable. They don't have to be with the advantage and authority that we give them. They dictate and you accept without question simply because they might have a piece of paper that says that they are smarter than the rest of us. Or they have a gun. But they don't have reason on their side at all. Not a bit of it. The child you speak of is those who say, "Mine! You can't play with it!". That's the selfish little child that is making today's rules that we live under. We need to take away their BB gun before they put another eye out.
90% of all human energy is used to erect and maintain barriers, fences, walls, borders of every kind imaginable and more. It's the ultimate in selfishness. I'm going to devote my energy to tearing them down. I don't care if it's losing battle. It has to be done , and somebody has to do it. I believe the saying goes, in the defense of freedom, there are no extremes.
That's a good way to avoid being labeled a terrorist for drawing the "wrong" kind of map that might resemble a school or government installation.
You still aren't getting it! Without copyright there can be no restrictive licenses in either direction. There would be no "can't share/must share" rules. GPL will be absolutely superfluous, which is fine. Everything goes into public domain once it is released, and it will be released if it is to be used at all. So there will be much less of the hoarding you see today. We have the security of knowing that more than one person can come up with similar ideas. Amongst those people, some are more than willing to share, and the rest can do whatever they want. Everybody will be better off, except the greedy ones who always want more for themselves exclusively, seeking unfair advantage over the rest by putting a gun to our heads while saying, "don't touch this".
Yes well, that's because we can't use big business and guns to enforce an opinion like the pro copyright crowd can. The minute a balance of power is restored, the "clever turns of phrase" can be thrown out the window. First we need to turn the guns the other direction, by the use of "clever turns of phrase" if needed,, the same "clever turns of phrase" that put copyright into law in the first place, because reason and logic certainly had nothing to do with it. Then we can see how clever the other side becomes when they are reduced to pleading to the authorities for mercy. With a level playing field, it will much easier to prove how wrong copyright is. Without the weaponry to back us up, all we have are "clever turns of phrase" as you like to call it in your little put down there. Early abolitionists of slavery had to put up with the same kind of attitude as the anti-copyright/prohibition* people do now. You are defending an indefensible institution. Count your blessings(and your money while you're at it) that there really is no such thing as justice in this life. There is only law. And another thing, all your freedoms you enjoy today came about by wishful thing, backed up with a little muscle. Lord help you if everybody acquires the same amount of muscle. It would interesting to see how you are without the present advantage you have over the opposition. So easy for you now while speaking from the ivory tower looking down upon the rest. Might makes right.
*those who speak up for legalization are dealing with the same kind of disparagement.
Goes to show how backward it is. It's the only thing that actually matters. Oh well...Just means the law has nothing to do with protecting the creator and it's all about protecting the business.
Oh jeeze, I promised myself I would stay away from this. Must be an addiction...
I don't want someone putting my picture up on their website and saying someone else took the photo.
That would be plagiarism. An entirely different animal. Copyright is a distribution issue. Something which nobody has a right to control.
...they would benefit from throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
That's not a baby. Somebody threw a turd in there almost 300 years ago. It would be advisable to throw it out, instead of trying to wash and polish it. Underneath the veneer it's still a turd.
Have fun, y'all.
Bueno... la idea es esa
Harder baby...all night long. Punish me...Oh, yeah..Whip me!... That feels so good. More! More! Uh-Uh-UH AAAAH! OH LORDY! Oooohh....Yeeah.......Got a cigarette?
American Masochism is becoming a real turn on for me. It's definitely more entertaining than watching the Filipinos whip their own backs.
RICO laws were not intended for this type of thing
You're right. It was intended to harass people for drug possession. Get caught with a roach in the ashtray, and the sheriff gets to keep your new Suburban, and maybe your house.
...or do you live under a rock?
Yeah, a great big hollow one, with windows(the glass ones) and all. My rock has indoor plumbing, satellite TV, broadband, and it's very hurricane resistant. It's a very comfortable rock. It even keeps tigers away. Wanna buy it?
...but the price never goes down!
Unfortunately the market is sustaining those those prices. We should all know the routine by now. Do your best to ignore them, and they'll come crying for your business. We set the price, they don't.
Has anyone tried to challenge their constitutionality?
Don't know how they can. Copyright is still limited, even if they extend it a thousand years...As long as there exists a cut off date, their butts are covered.
It's not, because a song is not a physical thing. That's pretty basic.
No, the concept holds up just fine for the physical and the non-physical. It sees no difference there because there is none. The concept of me sitting back and "collecting the rent" while somebody used what I fixed or created is what I talking about. If you can collect royalties for your work, then I'm entitled the same for mine. *Si tu fumas, yo puedo fumar tanbien*
Remember that if you abolish copyright there is no concept of derived work.
Most all works are "derived" works, even when the creator isn't aware of it. Another responder pointed me to this, which just opened up a whole new can of worms for me, but it also puts another nail in the coffin for restrictions against distribution, and now I have to resolve the plagiarism thing all over again. Because we are basing law on what the link says is a "matter of opinion". And law should be based on hard facts.
When I write a song, how can I tell whether I am the rightful author or I am unintentionally plagiarizing an existing copyrighted work? As seen in Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (SDNY 1976), the damages for even unintentional infringement can be high enough to bankrupt an indie artist. "My Sweet Lord" on Wikipedia gives more background.
I'm very familiar with those, and it only makes my case stronger that more than one person can come up with the same idea. The law protects the first, or the richest(the guy with the most lawyers) and screws the rest. In those cases plagiarism does indeed become a sticky wicket. The present law does absolutely nothing to resolve that. For now let's get the distribution issue out of the way, and see if the plagiarism doesn't sort itself out, because there will be laws against that, which I do support. If it boils down to intent, then there had better be irrefutable evidence of it. Mind reading is not an exact science yet.
That first link brings up a very interesting point. It could prove that nothing is new. Everything is prior art. I have no idea if what I write down are my own thoughts or some thing I saw 30 years ago. You may have just made a case against laws prohibiting plagiarism. It sure holds up well against copyrights, patents, and the subject of distribution. Strange that we can make a person's life an insufferable hell based on matters of opinion, as the link ultimately calls it.
Your original question carries the opinion that I will have less without copyright, and I'm saying that is an erroneous position.
With no copyright we will have far less source code to work with.
You'll never know until you try, and the tiresome, inaccurate boilerplate arguments carry no weight and will be proven false if you ever decide to give it a shot. As I said there are plenty of others with the same thoughts on the matter who are making a better argument than I am. Seek them out. If I had bothered to bookmark them I would paste the links, but to tell the truth, I'm not really interested anymore. I got the gist of the message without getting bogged down in all the gory details, and that's good enough for me. Or as I said, if the status quo suits you fine, then don't.
Everything will have to be reverse engineered, which is a very sub-optimal situation.
Better than what we have now with rules prohibiting that and DMCA, etc. Reverse engineering and/or disassembly will get you pretty darn close to the source, since anything that prohibits that no longer carries the force of law. In fact it would probably create a whole new industry right there. You seem to think that everybody will try to hide their code. That is not the case. With many people who come up with similar ideas, some of them are more than happy to share. And they will benefit more than those who don't. And just to solidify the whole thing, NDAs should be rendered invalid as an unwarranted restriction of free speech rights. It's all about exclusivity, and I'm against it. Time to level the playing field. No more special privileges. I get paid when I make the proper arrangements and perform my work, so should everybody else.
Yep, sure did. It means you don't know what the hell your talking about. Now get back into the corral to get yourself sheared, make sure your tires are properly inflated, and have a nice day. Y'all come back now, hea?