Pump it in from the ocean. Or, as I said in the original, grow it in the ocean. Also, we now know that transportation of fresh water(or anything else) no longer really has any technical issues. Inadequate distribution of all our resources is strictly economic and/or political in nature.
Hate to break it to you, but the 4th Amendment only applies to the government itself trying to search/seize you.
I understand this is ongoing policy, but I think it's wrong to use government facilities to get around(violate) the law just because it's a "civil" case. It's truly amazing that the IRS can hide behind civil law when taking your property because the constitution doesn't permit it. And now we let private organizations do the same thing in the name of "discovery". Man! the Mexican government has more respect for private property. We must apply the constitution equally to all matters before the court. That's what equal protection is supposed to mean.
But ethanol is such a poor fuel compared to biodiesel I am amazed it gets the attention it does.
There's no technical reason for it. It is pure politics and the media exploiting(mocking) the anger with the petroleum companies. And it's putting more rainforests at risk. I don't what it does to the soil. I'm sure it will make Monsanto rich. As long as we continue using our present day jalopies, biodiesel is the one true fuel for rapid oxidation. And for the best bang for the buck(best yield per acre), algae is the way to go(about half way down the page). Heck you can grow the stuff in(on) the ocean. No need to use up valuable real estate, but in case you want to anyway, "More recent studies using a species of algae with up to 50% oil content have concluded that only 28,000 km or 0.3% of the land area of the US could be utilized to produce enough biodiesel to replace all transportation fuel the country currently utilizes. Furthermore, otherwise unused desert land (which receives high solar radiation) could be most effective for growing the algae, and the algae could utilize farm waste and excess CO2 from factories to help speed the growth of the algae."
The performance is in the writing, not the distribution. You will be paid to write a story. Make the arrangements beforehand before releasing what you have written to anybody, anywhere, because once you do, that's it. It no longer exclusively belongs to anybody. Then move on to the next one.
But publishing companies were invented when the means of publication and distribution were much, much more expensive.
And we no longer need them for that function. There's nothing wrong with using them as one stop marketing agents if they're up to the task. But there is no longer any need to sign over any rights since you're just paying a lawyer to give away something that doesn't exist. Ownership. Note, I didn't say authorship. That exists forever.
It just gives authors the right to set limitations on their work.
The only real rights are that of authorship. There are no other rights. The work was performed when he wrote the book. He can use his agent to work out the payment plan ahead of time. He has no right to dictate what I can do with my copy once it's out. He will have been paid,and that's the end of it.
Did you really write this entire thing without ever once stopping to think that not all art is performance art?
All work is a performance. I perform work on your car. That's when I get paid. You perform work on a play, screen or otherwise. That's when you get paid. Work as a studio musician. That's when you get paid. A mechanical reproduction by a machine is not a performance. The only person that should get paid there is the operator. I don't think you should get paid for selling copies(or something I can get without your help). You should get paid for writing books, or music, whatever. If I like what I see, I'll be more than happy to pay you to get another performance. But I won't give you money for work that has already been done and you are no longer performing. That's the way it works in my line of business. I don't believe anybody should receive special treatment.
I believe you know what I'm getting at:-) And these people are worse than spammers by a long shot They know exactly what they're doing. It's purely a roll of the dice to them with very little cost when they lose. And there is no part of "discovery" that should involve me unless charges are filed. That would be my right to live free from harassment. Even though it's now a sad joke, there is a law to protect me from that. And failure by those in authority to enforce it should also be an imprisonable* offense. I don't care if it's a civil suit. If it's handled and authorized by a judge in a public courtroom then the government is involved and the law of the land should apply. This a "separation of powers" that shouldn't exist. This whole "civil suit" thing is designed to give more power to business than it does to the government by creating the lower standards of innocence and creating an end run around written law. It's how the IRS conducts its harassment campaigns. It uses civil law to seize property.
*note that this is directed at those types who believe more jail time will solve all of society's problems or who are expecting big dividends from the law enforcement sector. I personally don't believe in subjecting anybody to that kind of horror.
No-one is calling for the abolition of copyright law.
Yes, I am. Read the grandparent. The only suitable solution is complete abolishment outside regulations against plagiarism. I've already stated the reasons why over the last several years and have repeated some here. The law isn't what people think it is, yet they continue to ignore that fact. It must die a swift death.
Not merely disbarred. I want to see perjury charges filed. If we're going to imprison spammers, then these guys should get the chair, and their assets donated to the victims of their crimes.
...owning a high speed "printing press" in their homes
Which makes copyright even MORE abhorrent. This what copyright was intended to stop when the first printing press came out. Only the "authorized" should have access to such a dangerous tool.
The problem isn't that copyright protects the Authors, which was the intent...
That was NOT the intent! This is where everybody is so confused. That was its stated intent, far from what it really is. Its intent was to protect established publishers of the time when the printing press was making their work obsolete. Its intent was to restrict access to a press, much like the Russians' attempt to restrict access to a photocopy machine during the "communist" days to try to silence the critics. You all really need to get this "promote the arts and sciences" thing out of your heads. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The real solution is to limit all IP law to the subject of plagiarism. Seems pretty simple. Attribution is forever and non transferable. Of course the publishing houses want more, so, ever since the writers guild started crying about the printing press, we get law that purports to "promote the sciences and the arts", but actually does exactly the opposite. And it turns out the law was merely meant to control what can be printed. Can't have any subversives spewing their bile, you know. Once you understand the true nature and intent of these laws, you too, will know that nothing less than a complete repeal will change anything for the better. You would especially understand if you were sick and can't afford any medicine. Natural, safe medicine that would be available if not for the law. A perfect example of how scarcity is created artificially. Of course information in general is another perfect example of how the law creates a group of "have-nots". But hey, it's all good. This is how this economic system functions. No money can flow if everybody can get what they need without going to BIGCO. Scarcity is the pump that creates and maintains that flow. To make money from our abundance of information, we must make it scarce. Just as if one wishes to make huge profits from marijuana, they make it illegal. No real difference. Both are a prohibition against unauthorized distribution, and they are both serving their intended purpose very well.
There are other ways to make money from your work without monopolizing the distribution. In fact that's where the money is supposed to be made, in the performance of work, not the distribution of reproductions. Those should only serve to convince people to buy your next work. I don't care about publishers and distributors. They're just ripping off the creators like the railroad monopolies did to the farmers, and they can all rot. There are other alternatives now. Use them instead of clinging to businesses that no longer have a purpose. Distribution of information is now a trivial matter. We shouldn't let outdated laws get in the way of progress. The publisher's teat is running dry. They are a fifth wheel trying to put more laws on the books to maintain the artists' dependence on them. This is all that copyright is about. It has nothing to do with protecting the artists' rights. It's about protecting the distributors' profits. It is delusional to believe otherwise. This gravy is coming to the end of the track.
...full-time artists of any kind ever again.
So what? Why should I subsidize a full time artist with corrupt law that only promotes hoarding and speculation? That's like tobacco or oil subsidies. They can get paid when they perform. I'll repeat it for you, a recording of me eating a steak does not fill my stomach. There is no reason a reproduction of work already performed should fill your wallet. Make your contract, perform the work, get paid, and walk away. That's all you or anybody else is entitled to.
Aw, Man! FTA: "Current lens choices don't simply include different levels of shading, but also different colors, such as yellow lenses, said to enhance contrasts and improve depth perception, or rose-colored glasses, which brighten low-light scenes."
The rose-colored ones will also brighten dark times.
Too bad they don't have a "slow as molasses" examination procedure where they perform all the paperwork and check for prior art for you financed by the application fee. Kinda like a patent "public defense attorney" for us poor folk.
"Applicants' submissions enjoy a presumption of patentability" says the patent office.
From what I've been reading in the news these days, it seems like that's how they've operating all along.
Applicants are also responsible for disclosing any prior art."
Oh, that's rich. Another lead balloon that one is. Maybe if a perjury charge goes along the revocation of the patent if they get caught failing to do so.
To bad you Yanks pissed away freedom and principle...
I don't believe you can piss away something you never really had. But the set on the "freedom and principle" TV show* is looking a little tattered and could use some new paint.
*That would be Jerry Falwell, or Cheaters, not sure which
Eats up too much bandwidth. Really nasty on dial-up. If you pay per byte or if your ISP has download limits before they charge extra, you're being robbed. I had to block them here because the main page wouldn't download before the ads, and sometimes the ad page wouldn't respond. There are plenty of reasons not to like ads, especially when they get obnoxious and interfere with what you're trying to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Pump it in from the ocean. Or, as I said in the original, grow it in the ocean. Also, we now know that transportation of fresh water(or anything else) no longer really has any technical issues. Inadequate distribution of all our resources is strictly economic and/or political in nature.
Hate to break it to you, but the 4th Amendment only applies to the government itself trying to search/seize you.
I understand this is ongoing policy, but I think it's wrong to use government facilities to get around(violate) the law just because it's a "civil" case. It's truly amazing that the IRS can hide behind civil law when taking your property because the constitution doesn't permit it. And now we let private organizations do the same thing in the name of "discovery". Man! the Mexican government has more respect for private property. We must apply the constitution equally to all matters before the court. That's what equal protection is supposed to mean.
Not everywhere is like the land of the plenty were the supermarkets are stocked with food.
Yeah, well it would be if everybody would stop shooting at each other for a second.
But ethanol is such a poor fuel compared to biodiesel I am amazed it gets the attention it does.
There's no technical reason for it. It is pure politics and the media exploiting(mocking) the anger with the petroleum companies. And it's putting more rainforests at risk. I don't what it does to the soil. I'm sure it will make Monsanto rich. As long as we continue using our present day jalopies, biodiesel is the one true fuel for rapid oxidation. And for the best bang for the buck(best yield per acre), algae is the way to go(about half way down the page). Heck you can grow the stuff in(on) the ocean. No need to use up valuable real estate, but in case you want to anyway, "More recent studies using a species of algae with up to 50% oil content have concluded that only 28,000 km or 0.3% of the land area of the US could be utilized to produce enough biodiesel to replace all transportation fuel the country currently utilizes. Furthermore, otherwise unused desert land (which receives high solar radiation) could be most effective for growing the algae, and the algae could utilize farm waste and excess CO2 from factories to help speed the growth of the algae."
The performance is in the writing, not the distribution. You will be paid to write a story. Make the arrangements beforehand before releasing what you have written to anybody, anywhere, because once you do, that's it. It no longer exclusively belongs to anybody. Then move on to the next one.
But publishing companies were invented when the means of publication and distribution were much, much more expensive.
And we no longer need them for that function. There's nothing wrong with using them as one stop marketing agents if they're up to the task. But there is no longer any need to sign over any rights since you're just paying a lawyer to give away something that doesn't exist. Ownership. Note, I didn't say authorship. That exists forever.
It just gives authors the right to set limitations on their work.
The only real rights are that of authorship. There are no other rights. The work was performed when he wrote the book. He can use his agent to work out the payment plan ahead of time. He has no right to dictate what I can do with my copy once it's out. He will have been paid,and that's the end of it.
Did you really write this entire thing without ever once stopping to think that not all art is performance art?
All work is a performance. I perform work on your car. That's when I get paid. You perform work on a play, screen or otherwise. That's when you get paid. Work as a studio musician. That's when you get paid. A mechanical reproduction by a machine is not a performance. The only person that should get paid there is the operator. I don't think you should get paid for selling copies(or something I can get without your help). You should get paid for writing books, or music, whatever. If I like what I see, I'll be more than happy to pay you to get another performance. But I won't give you money for work that has already been done and you are no longer performing. That's the way it works in my line of business. I don't believe anybody should receive special treatment.
I believe you know what I'm getting at :-) And these people are worse than spammers by a long shot They know exactly what they're doing. It's purely a roll of the dice to them with very little cost when they lose. And there is no part of "discovery" that should involve me unless charges are filed. That would be my right to live free from harassment. Even though it's now a sad joke, there is a law to protect me from that. And failure by those in authority to enforce it should also be an imprisonable* offense. I don't care if it's a civil suit. If it's handled and authorized by a judge in a public courtroom then the government is involved and the law of the land should apply. This a "separation of powers" that shouldn't exist. This whole "civil suit" thing is designed to give more power to business than it does to the government by creating the lower standards of innocence and creating an end run around written law. It's how the IRS conducts its harassment campaigns. It uses civil law to seize property.
*note that this is directed at those types who believe more jail time will solve all of society's problems or who are expecting big dividends from the law enforcement sector. I personally don't believe in subjecting anybody to that kind of horror.
No-one is calling for the abolition of copyright law.
Yes, I am. Read the grandparent. The only suitable solution is complete abolishment outside regulations against plagiarism. I've already stated the reasons why over the last several years and have repeated some here. The law isn't what people think it is, yet they continue to ignore that fact. It must die a swift death.
Yeah distribution costs were a bit of a bear back then. Too bad they didn't have Ticketmaster to arrange all the concerts.
Not merely disbarred. I want to see perjury charges filed. If we're going to imprison spammers, then these guys should get the chair, and their assets donated to the victims of their crimes.
...owning a high speed "printing press" in their homes
Which makes copyright even MORE abhorrent. This what copyright was intended to stop when the first printing press came out. Only the "authorized" should have access to such a dangerous tool.
The problem isn't that copyright protects the Authors, which was the intent...
That was NOT the intent! This is where everybody is so confused. That was its stated intent, far from what it really is. Its intent was to protect established publishers of the time when the printing press was making their work obsolete. Its intent was to restrict access to a press, much like the Russians' attempt to restrict access to a photocopy machine during the "communist" days to try to silence the critics. You all really need to get this "promote the arts and sciences" thing out of your heads. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Score:-1, Troll
You misspelled True. And telling the truth should get positive points. Or is politically correct the only way?
The real solution is to limit all IP law to the subject of plagiarism. Seems pretty simple. Attribution is forever and non transferable. Of course the publishing houses want more, so, ever since the writers guild started crying about the printing press, we get law that purports to "promote the sciences and the arts", but actually does exactly the opposite. And it turns out the law was merely meant to control what can be printed. Can't have any subversives spewing their bile, you know. Once you understand the true nature and intent of these laws, you too, will know that nothing less than a complete repeal will change anything for the better. You would especially understand if you were sick and can't afford any medicine. Natural, safe medicine that would be available if not for the law. A perfect example of how scarcity is created artificially. Of course information in general is another perfect example of how the law creates a group of "have-nots". But hey, it's all good. This is how this economic system functions. No money can flow if everybody can get what they need without going to BIGCO. Scarcity is the pump that creates and maintains that flow. To make money from our abundance of information, we must make it scarce. Just as if one wishes to make huge profits from marijuana, they make it illegal. No real difference. Both are a prohibition against unauthorized distribution, and they are both serving their intended purpose very well.
There are other ways to make money from your work without monopolizing the distribution. In fact that's where the money is supposed to be made, in the performance of work, not the distribution of reproductions. Those should only serve to convince people to buy your next work. I don't care about publishers and distributors. They're just ripping off the creators like the railroad monopolies did to the farmers, and they can all rot. There are other alternatives now. Use them instead of clinging to businesses that no longer have a purpose. Distribution of information is now a trivial matter. We shouldn't let outdated laws get in the way of progress. The publisher's teat is running dry. They are a fifth wheel trying to put more laws on the books to maintain the artists' dependence on them. This is all that copyright is about. It has nothing to do with protecting the artists' rights. It's about protecting the distributors' profits. It is delusional to believe otherwise. This gravy is coming to the end of the track.
...full-time artists of any kind ever again.
So what? Why should I subsidize a full time artist with corrupt law that only promotes hoarding and speculation? That's like tobacco or oil subsidies. They can get paid when they perform. I'll repeat it for you, a recording of me eating a steak does not fill my stomach. There is no reason a reproduction of work already performed should fill your wallet. Make your contract, perform the work, get paid, and walk away. That's all you or anybody else is entitled to.
If there's one thing you can say for Google, they know how to stand up for sane copyright law.
There will be no sanity until it is abolished.
I just can't wait to see when Disney loses rights to their very early stuff, that will be a laugh and a half.
That won't happen. They will ask for and receive extension after extension.
No rose colored glasses?
Aw, Man! FTA: "Current lens choices don't simply include different levels of shading, but also different colors, such as yellow lenses, said to enhance contrasts and improve depth perception, or rose-colored glasses, which brighten low-light scenes."
The rose-colored ones will also brighten dark times.
Too bad they don't have a "slow as molasses" examination procedure where they perform all the paperwork and check for prior art for you financed by the application fee. Kinda like a patent "public defense attorney" for us poor folk.
This unfortunate fellow was a product of the poor public education system present in the late 20th to 21st centuries within the United States.
:-)
But I'm a great dancer and really fun to be with
The name of the game is "sales", not "cure". Old product no longer works? We have "New and Improved". Makes a great gift.
"Applicants' submissions enjoy a presumption of patentability" says the patent office.
From what I've been reading in the news these days, it seems like that's how they've operating all along.
Applicants are also responsible for disclosing any prior art."
Oh, that's rich. Another lead balloon that one is. Maybe if a perjury charge goes along the revocation of the patent if they get caught failing to do so.
To bad you Yanks pissed away freedom and principle...
I don't believe you can piss away something you never really had. But the set on the "freedom and principle" TV show* is looking a little tattered and could use some new paint.
*That would be Jerry Falwell, or Cheaters, not sure which
Doubleclick will require access to your machine if you want to download updates, just like WGA.
...unless you hate advertising for some reason.
Eats up too much bandwidth. Really nasty on dial-up. If you pay per byte or if your ISP has download limits before they charge extra, you're being robbed. I had to block them here because the main page wouldn't download before the ads, and sometimes the ad page wouldn't respond. There are plenty of reasons not to like ads, especially when they get obnoxious and interfere with what you're trying to do.
They're living on a ranch in Montana now.
"Gonna be a dental floss tycoon"