You actually believe there's no benefit whatsoever to copyright?
Even I can see the benefits to copyright. What most people are confused about is WHO benefits from copyright. I, and maybe a few others understand that copyright is for the benefit of established distribution channels. Nothing else. It's that simple. The spin about "protecting the artist" is nothing more than a smokescreen. It is there to keep the public from understanding that it is a franchised monopoly, like the phone service was(still is, actually), cable, internet, etc. Copyright regulates who gets to distribute information, and creates a nice black market like any other prohibition. Which is actually controlled by the industry itself...until the damn internet and its P2P came along, and started blowing its cover. They are seriously trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle.
What we need is a war on copyright. That's your REAL piracy, right there. The only legitimate issue is plagiarism. Everything else is no different from the old railroad monopolies maintaining their turf. It is pure robbery.
So put down your keyboard and pick up a gun We're gonna have a whole lotta fun And it's one, two, three What are we fightin' for Don't ask me I don't give a damn Next stop is Disneyland And it's five, six, seven Open up them big steel gates Aint no time to wonder why WHOOPIE! we're all gonna buy...
Not all corporations, just the ones that engage in criminal actions. And I do believe the mid-level guy should "hang" also along with the officers. The slap on the wrists they receive now is a sad joke, and it's on us. It is we who have to reclaim our authority. We must dictate the conditions of the sale. We should do it consciously with our currency. But since a tiny minority control the majority of the money, we must use other methods to set the rules. One would be to vote for a government more sympathetic toward the citizenry as opposed to big business.
Yet another reason to invoke the corporate death penalty. We must demand revocation of corporate charters if we are ever to see a turnaround. We give them this authority. Time to it back, or progress will remain up against a brick wall, and groups like Viacom will own exclusive access to all sensory inputs...if Microsoft didn't get there first.
If there is to be any conviction for perjury in this case, it will be some some poor, mid-level bastard who was convinced he was doing the "right thing" who will take the fall. The people who arrange all this will walk away very rich indeed.
And without the word "money"(which is required for "justice" to mean anything at all), you just might be declared guilty on that weak, or even completely false evidence.
OK, so copyright is intended to motivate creativity.
Oh jeeze! It is not! It is intended to protect established distribution channels. That's ALL that it is for. nothing else. The only law that there is to protect the creators are those against plagiarism "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." Note the second "and" in there. It is all important. Because to me, there is no such thing as "unauthorized use". So it has to include the part about false representation. It is something that is not transferable in any way, and it lasts forever. And that there is the key, and the ONLY thing that any IP law should apply to. IP law exists to protect business, not to motivate creativity. Creativity is properly motivated by necessity and curiosity.
The weatherman is legitimate when it comes to tornado warnings.
Why only then?
Email me and I'll tell you...
Send the info, and a sample, if possible, to me@fake.com I'll take it over to the bar...I mean lab, and have it checked out.
But now you see that I won't spend much time on your idea, not because it's you, but because there will be no evidence to back it up. I would be disparaging the message, and possibly you for wasting your time thinking that I would fall for it.
Then ignore the fact that it came from Geenpeace. Ignore them altogether. Then go out and check up on the info. If it's true, then act upon it. If it's not then ignore it and move on. Greenpeace may be crying wolf, but sometimes they get it right, and we don't want to ignore them then. So see the info, and have your secretary check it out the moment she gets done chatting on the IM.
Greenpeace has a history of ignoring science for their own publicity and benefit.
Yes, and so do the company and government "scientists". You can find fault with all the messengers. It's best to look at the message and go from there. The attention to the messenger is far too often political. It's like attacking the victim in a rape trail. Attacking the messenger is nothing more than a matter of convenience for the lazy who don't want to be bothered with anything that might conflict with their set beliefs. And "loving" the messenger excessively, again while ignoring the message, creates a whole 'nother set of problems. Base your actions on the word, not the person.
Slashdot Mirror
You actually believe there's no benefit whatsoever to copyright?
Even I can see the benefits to copyright. What most people are confused about is WHO benefits from copyright. I, and maybe a few others understand that copyright is for the benefit of established distribution channels. Nothing else. It's that simple. The spin about "protecting the artist" is nothing more than a smokescreen. It is there to keep the public from understanding that it is a franchised monopoly, like the phone service was(still is, actually), cable, internet, etc. Copyright regulates who gets to distribute information, and creates a nice black market like any other prohibition. Which is actually controlled by the industry itself...until the damn internet and its P2P came along, and started blowing its cover. They are seriously trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle.
The call to arms from the privileged elite.
Yeah. Just like the old days. Kinda makes me nostalgic.
See? It's working already. That's what they want you to think.
A computer to control our thoughts.
What we need is a war on copyright. That's your REAL piracy, right there. The only legitimate issue is plagiarism. Everything else is no different from the old railroad monopolies maintaining their turf. It is pure robbery.
So put down your keyboard and pick up a gun
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun
And it's one, two, three
What are we fightin' for
Don't ask me I don't give a damn
Next stop is Disneyland
And it's five, six, seven
Open up them big steel gates
Aint no time to wonder why
WHOOPIE! we're all gonna buy...
We're talking about the RIAA. So it would have to be a Frank Stallone album
"What are you saaaying??"
It is worth having it is it free but not worth it if you have to pay!
:-)
That's how the junk collector makes his money
and the government won't need to require it. Win-win...uh, for somebody...
Not all corporations, just the ones that engage in criminal actions. And I do believe the mid-level guy should "hang" also along with the officers. The slap on the wrists they receive now is a sad joke, and it's on us. It is we who have to reclaim our authority. We must dictate the conditions of the sale. We should do it consciously with our currency. But since a tiny minority control the majority of the money, we must use other methods to set the rules. One would be to vote for a government more sympathetic toward the citizenry as opposed to big business.
Why get Windows when you can Linux installed for only $699? You (censored)-smoking tea(censored)
Yeah, but they're gonna have big trouble with the Y2K12 bug.
It's funny.
What are you sayin'?
Yet another reason to invoke the corporate death penalty. We must demand revocation of corporate charters if we are ever to see a turnaround. We give them this authority. Time to it back, or progress will remain up against a brick wall, and groups like Viacom will own exclusive access to all sensory inputs...if Microsoft didn't get there first.
If there is to be any conviction for perjury in this case, it will be some some poor, mid-level bastard who was convinced he was doing the "right thing" who will take the fall. The people who arrange all this will walk away very rich indeed.
Hmm, I thought it would have been Married with Children
They knew the risks when they strapped in.
"I say, let them crash"
just wrap the file in a zip archive or similar?
That's why we have the word "justice"...
And without the word "money"(which is required for "justice" to mean anything at all), you just might be declared guilty on that weak, or even completely false evidence.
OK, so copyright is intended to motivate creativity.
Oh jeeze! It is not! It is intended to protect established distribution channels. That's ALL that it is for. nothing else. The only law that there is to protect the creators are those against plagiarism "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." Note the second "and" in there. It is all important. Because to me, there is no such thing as "unauthorized use". So it has to include the part about false representation. It is something that is not transferable in any way, and it lasts forever. And that there is the key, and the ONLY thing that any IP law should apply to. IP law exists to protect business, not to motivate creativity. Creativity is properly motivated by necessity and curiosity.
The weatherman is legitimate when it comes to tornado warnings.
Why only then?
Email me and I'll tell you...
Send the info, and a sample, if possible, to me@fake.com I'll take it over to the bar...I mean lab, and have it checked out.
But now you see that I won't spend much time on your idea, not because it's you, but because there will be no evidence to back it up. I would be disparaging the message, and possibly you for wasting your time thinking that I would fall for it.
Precisely. You are evaluating the warnings. That's all I'm saying.
By then it will be too late. The weatherman is almost always wrong. Are you going to ignore the tornado warnings?
Then ignore the fact that it came from Geenpeace. Ignore them altogether. Then go out and check up on the info. If it's true, then act upon it. If it's not then ignore it and move on. Greenpeace may be crying wolf, but sometimes they get it right, and we don't want to ignore them then. So see the info, and have your secretary check it out the moment she gets done chatting on the IM.
Greenpeace has a history of ignoring science for their own publicity and benefit.
Yes, and so do the company and government "scientists". You can find fault with all the messengers. It's best to look at the message and go from there. The attention to the messenger is far too often political. It's like attacking the victim in a rape trail. Attacking the messenger is nothing more than a matter of convenience for the lazy who don't want to be bothered with anything that might conflict with their set beliefs. And "loving" the messenger excessively, again while ignoring the message, creates a whole 'nother set of problems. Base your actions on the word, not the person.
Anyone? I wish... Lots of folks think that some people just need killin'.