It would be a shame if the voters fell for that trick. After all, it's the voters that does the replacing. Unless the rules have changed somehow. I would hope that they would vote against anybody being sponsered by Microsoft. Be sure to check the list of "contributors" very carefully.
Am I concerned about Walmart selling products from China? No. I'm nore concerned about not wasting my money. Emphasis mine. Sure says it all.
Looks like your rant on China was meaningless and hypocritical. I'm sure they appreciate that. I hope you never need their help to get you out of a tight spot. See ya on the next thread.
This has been my point all along. I thought I spelled that out pretty well. Apparently not. Again, this is why I don't blame gov't and corps for what ever happens. My problem is with people who refuse to accept that and continue to complain about government this and big corporations that, and then re-elect the same people, or buy from the giant corps that caused the percieved problem in the first place. We have DMCA, TSA, the Patriot Act, Microsoft, Walmart, etc, etc, etc. because that's what the majority wants. Nobody forced them into it. They could have voted out the incumbents if they don't like what they do. Part of the problem is that most people vote on local issues and are not seeing the big national/world issues that are also effected by the people they vote for. Dan Rostenkowski(sp) is an excelent example of this. The people of Chicago loved him, but he sure did a job on the tax system as chairman of Ways and Means. We have the power to change it if we want to. I'm cool with that. I just keep my distance and hope that they keep theirs
We all have our own lives to lead and our own problems to solve. I've found that worrying about government isn't high on most folks todo lists.
Precisely, and so that's the gov't we have today. Democracy is not exactly low maintenace. If you don't want your gov't to become abusive, then you have to keep a close eye on it. That the gov't and corps take advantage of our inattention is not their fault. It's perfectly natural. I'm not the one demanding that the gov't "does something". You(editorially speaking) are. I'm saying that if you don't like the way your gov't operates, then elect some people that will conform to your wishes. The majority has done that. A privately operated blog and the private idividuals that pay for it should not have to pay the price for our own inadequacies. These people are not manufacturing weapons or deadly chemicals. They're providing information(more correctly, an opinion. Personally I don't care whose opinion. I take it on its face value. It doesn't matter who says it. I'm interested in the message, not the messenger. Even Goering came up with a few beauties. It doesn't diminish the message.). How we act on that info is not their responsibility, or their problem. To say otherwise doesn't speak well of human intellect.
Sounds like you've got a problem getting along with the world as it is.
I'm doing just fine in my little corner. The weather's great, and so are the locals. Politically we are much worse off than you guys. I'm living with that just fine. When they complain about their gov't, I tell them the same thing I'm saying here. They accept it, even if they don't do anything about it. We all get along great. I noticed that they don't always get along with each other, even within the same family. Hmmm, just goes to show how much alike we ALL really are. The beer kinda sucks, but that's for another thread. Let me ask you something. I'm aware that you don't look too kindly on the Chinese gov't. My question is, Do you check the label of everything that you buy to see where it's made? Do you shop at Walmart? Everyday there is a larger chance that what you buy was made or assembled in China. Check out the innards of your computer. I checked mine. I see lots of stuff in there that come from China. In fact, almost all of it. So, if you do buy those things, what does that say about you when you yell from the mountain top that the Chinese gov't is evil? If you buy those things you are supporting that gov't. I'm not sure how you feel about that, but I see a tiny conflict there. Do you? If so, then how are you resolving it?
I firmly believe that the gov't operates with the full consent of the majority. Otherwise we would see a higher turnover in congress, and more third and forth party congresspersons(people?). I can't sympathize with people who won't use the power they say they have in a democracy. If people are aware that the news media is being bribed, the people themselves have to voice that to the media, and the media should lose credibility if they don't respond appropriately. If people keep on listening to and believing a corrupt media, you can hardly expect me to sympathize. It's up to you and me to show them that the gov't represents big business and not us. If they refuse to believe us, then I won't blame the gov't for that. The people have decided, and I will continue to assume that the gov't does indeed represent the majority. I don't believe in majority rule for all the obvious reasons, but we're not ready for the next step. However, the gov't must act according their wishes, no matter how brainwashed they might be for whatever reason, and they are doing just that. My contempt arises from the people's refusal yo wake up from their slumber, and actually try to use their vote to fix the problem. It's easier than it appears. What most people are doing is relying on whatever is spoon fed to them. They refuse to check alternative sources of info. They are fairly comfortable with things the way they are, and they don't want to rock the boat. That leaves the rest of us holding the bag. I do find that contemptable.
Sounds like you're OK with businesses bribing the news media to create propaganda.
Believe me, I'm not ok with it, but the majority apparently is. The numbers spell it out pretty clearly. It's up to us to re-program ourselves. I don't expect anybody, least of all the gov't, to help us there. The gov't and corps are the main beneficiaries(sp) of the status quo. We're on our own here, and only we can save ourselves, as depressing as that may be. If we want help from the gov't, it's up to us to elect people that will do that, and not to re-elect them when they fail. There's simply no other way that I can see, without resorting to violence.
Actually studies are showing that brain structure/chemistry IS affected by your eviroment. This is why blind people have more sensitive hearing or touch for example. Both genetics and enviroment are very important factors in our developement. The brain is very malleable, and your surrounding play a big part of the "shape" it takes.
The only thing that could be considered more fair than democracy is no government at all.
Damn, I wish I caught that earlier. You couldn't be more correct. Thanks for sharing that. I couldn't agree more. I would definitely like to see a world of rules without rulers. Where regulation exists naturally, not because somebody with a gun says so. Kinda wish you didn't cut off the discussion.
Ok. I guess my question should be, are they somehow registered as such? Do they have any special tax status? Are they publicly funded in any way? If that is so, then I absolutely agree. Every penny should be publicly accounted for. If they are simply a bunch of guys with money to burn, how they spend it shouldn't be any of my business, unless I have some personal vested interest in them. If they are causing real problems, then we should call them on it. I have no problem using the gov't as a stick to put them down in such a case.
But, you can require organization to go public with payments to bloggers only to leave open a huge loophole that permits officers and representatives of those organizations to make the same payments, for the same purposes, in the guise of "individuals".
It sounds like the present day problem we have with soft money, only in reverse? It may be difficult to prove, but doing what you said there might require a bit of fraud. If we pay close attention to what's happening, we should be able to keep that in check without any help from the gov't. As a matter of fact, who's calling for this? The public? Maybe a small noisy group, but I haven't seen any op-eds on the matter outside the extremists papers. They are giving the public a chance to comment, but I don't know how it's being presented. Too lazy to check, I guess. Trying to read through all that crap just puts me to sleep. Unless somebody is causing physical harm to the planet or the rest of us, or there is public money is involved, my attitude is pretty much, "Back off. We'll take care of it." I forgot which movie it was...There was a married couple in a fierce argument when a third person(probably their counceler(sp) tried to intervene. They both turn to the person, and in perfect unison, yell, "SHUT UP!"...well, you get the point.
Requiring that payments to bloggers be made public doesn't infringe anyone's free speech rights.
Except the guy who is giving the money. If he has to report that, he may be reluctant to do so. To me, that is an infringement, however small.
What I really don't like about this is that we are asking "daddy" gov't to watch over everything we do so we can remain in our slumber. These are just one of those things I think we are capable of handling ourselves. Unfortunately, many people want everything done for them. We seem to be trying to achieve "freedom from choice. If you remember how people were complaining about high credit card interests rates during the late 70's, they were demanding tha the gov't do something. What they would refuse to do is quit using the damn card. This was a pefect example of the people let their power slip right through their hands. I see the same concept happening here. I want to see us use the power we have before we go crying to somebody to rescue us.
Did I say individuals giving money to organizations should be required to report the gift?
From another post:I am suggesting that political contributions to bloggers be made public, i.e., by the person or organziation making the contribution. Emphasis mine.
Does not "the person" kind of mean "individual"? Contribution could be considered a "gift". "Political contributions" can be twisted to mean many things. If you're seeking a tax deduction, then of course all bet are off, and you should identify your intentions. See bold print below.
Moveon is not a blog or a blogger.
Forum...blog...forum. To me the difference is insignificant. I suppose a blog is the site owner's comments, and a forum involves everyone else. Either way, unless official candidates for office or tax exempt orgs are involved, the gov't has no place here. Public displays of a private person's opinions, no matter what influence they may be under, are just that, a private person's comments, and the gov't should just stay away. We can do our own investigations, thank you. We don't need gov't meddling. What they're really trying to do here is identify and mark "undesirables". The spin they put on it just tries to make it look like they're doing the right thing. Besides, if the president(no matter who he is) can keep things like his energy commitees(people who set public policy) private, we should be permitted the same "privilege".
I understand your sentiment here, and basically I agree, but we must limit this to publicly funded orgs, or ones that actually set policy.
Are you saying that I should required to report any donations I might make to moveon.org or similar site? Good way to start a which hunt. Unless I'm running for public office or donating to an officially recognized candidate, I shouldn't have to report where any of my money goes except to the IRS, and that's only if I wish to deduct it from my taxes.
Would that be the people whose voice you are choosing to ignore?
Yep, the very same people whose ignorance you choose to exploit.
I don't know what truth you're talking about...
More likely it's the truth that you choose to ignore. Some of the dirty little secrets about IP: 1) It encourages hoarding like the kind you're seeing with the massive patent portfolios being built up by IBM, Microsoft, etc. They aren't creating anything. They're simply buying up other people's IP. This leads to number... 2) Speculation. This is in order to create a scarcity where, in nature, none would exist. It encourages people to sit on their IP and wait for a suitably high price. This obviously should not be allowed. It does absolutely nothing for human progress, and that's why we're supposed to have IP in the first place. That's what the spin is anyway. 3) It inhibits cooperation and collaboration. People aren't allowed to build upon and possibly improve the works of others to come out with a better product. History is full of this. My personal favorite examples are the diesel engine and Fulton's steam engine. Others have shown me that FM radio suffered a similar fate. All progress in these instances was brought to a grinding halt until the IP rights expired. This happens a lot more often than you would probably like to admit. Then we get to the best kept secret of all... 4) Censorship. Here's where you get to the root of it all. Copyright was created as a reaction to the printing press. The spin being about the creators getting ripped off by the "pirates". While plagiarism may have been an issue, the REAL reason for the institution of copyright was to silence the critics of the governments and to protect the interests entrenched businesses like the writer's guild. This was done by restricting the right to access a printing press. A present day example might be how Scientology uses copyright to silence its critics. The American government uses it as censorship proxy, using the corporation as the enforcement tool. They can avoid first amendment issues. Because we all know that only governments can censor, right? It has been working beautifully up until now, and it's still working. This may be the least understood aspect of copyright. The "innovation" spin is still extremely effective. In reality it's pure FUD. And of course it's false for the above reasons and many more.
Not only that, but the products created by Monsanto increase the availability of food, while simultaneously reducing the environmental impact of farming.
That sounds like something straight out of one of their brochures. If you actually believe that, then go check out the famous bridge I have for sale. Reducing the environmental impact?? That almost made me blow my milk out through my nose. These people make some of the worst pollutants on the planet. And all their junk is unnecessary. Good farming practices and a little less war are all we need to produce enough food for everybody two times over. If you think that their patents are friendly, I would definitely hate to see the enemy.
Well, I do know that our economy is becoming more and more information related, which means that the future of our (capitalist) economy is intellectual property.
All the more reason to put it into the hands of "friends and family", eh? Let's make it even scarcer so we can move mo money. A system that depends on false scarcities does not deserve to survive. It's dependant on maintaining a certain level of poverty in order to motivate people to do your bidding. As long as you remain on the right side of that equation everything is just okey-dokey, isn't it?
What's wrong with actually selling the rights to intellectual property?
Because it's not yours to sell. It's no different than taking land from the indians, and selling that. That owner will them claim his "god given right" to that property, and because the government took it and sold it, they will agree. Hey, i
It's appalling to me that short-sighted individuals such as yourself believe they have a god-given right the the works produced by others.
It's appalling to me that short-sighted individuals such as yourself believe they have a god-given right to anything. All your property rights come from the generosity of the people you live with(society,gov't). Physical and intellectual(imaginary). You'd best remember that while you greedy bastards are trying to make your next IP land grab with extensions and DRM and whatnot. We could vote it all away when the public wakes up to your thievery. So you better be damn grateful for what you have now.
In a democracy we must accept the will of the majority...
Yeah right. To hell with the other 49%. They're a bunch of losers. Maybe, someday, you will realize that dictatorship by the majority is only a less effecient version of a dictatorship by one. My voter tirades not withstanding. And remember, copyright law never came up for a vote. Something to think about. So you don't know if the majority approves or not. Many people also think that the bill of rights goes too far, and should be at least modified, if not repealed all together. They might become the majority soon. They might feel the same about copyright.
I think most people you ask will agree that copyright and patents must be protected.
Not when they know the truth they won't.
I think it's safe to say that whoever replaces them will want copyright guarantee as well.
Yeah, and if they try to pull the same stunts as the previous ones, we'll do the same to them.
That's an interesting way to look at it. Are you referring to the way the government protects copyright, because that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Looks like Monsanto and their ilk are your friends.
Would you be happier of none of those works existed at all?
So then, you're just another drone that thinks that's how things would be without IP law. Read up a little on that paper that was written up a few months ago about various business models for the entertainment industry. Only one model is acceptable. That's the one that promotes "ancillary products and services". The rest are just more of the same.
If being digital means making it more difficult to archive the info, then where's the advantage of going digital? Of course it's for the ease of access, but it does nothing for long term durability. All data lasts forever. It's the medium that it's stored on that doesn't. Analog or digital. There's a bit of a conflict here. You can have accessability or low maintenance long term storage. So you need digital for one and stone tablets for the other. You're(editorially speaking) making things difficult(archiving) to make things easy(access, convenience). That's a little like waking up to take a sleeping pill. Another problem of copying to new media every year or so is the not so remote possibility of data corruption. Somebody will add a bit here, drop a bit there. Pretty soon the data no longer resembles the original. Even digital is not completely error free, and error correction can screw things up pretty good after 1,000 or 10,000 generations of backups.
last thousands of years. Paper can last thousands of years. Film? al least a hundred years. Vinyl, so far about 80 or 90 years. It seems that every new medium we come up with has a shorter lifespan than the previous. Doesn't seem right, does it? Digital should last at least as long as vinyl. CD's made of glass and gold are the only materials that can provide suitable durability. Good luck finding a player a thousand years later. Actually the constant changes in technology make digital archiving impractical. You have to re-archive averything to keep up with the tech. You only need daylight to read stone and paper, and you can play your vinyl on a potter's wheel if you have to. Neither requires electricity. That by itself gives it a huge advantage over digital.
I don't know what makes you think that you have to right to use copyrighted material however you please.
If copyright was determined by the public as to how long it should last or how it is to be enforced, then I could probably, almost accept it. However, copyright law is determined by a few very powerful individuals and corporations, bought and paid for, and deserves nothing but contempt. Laws that protect a few people over others should be disregarded and spat upon.
What these people are doing is actually ruining their cause by slowing industry acceptance digital technology and online distribution.
We shouldn't care what present day industry thinks of any of this. If they lose their monopolies, and fold today, the whole world would be better off. There are tons of people ready to replace them.
That's how you do things in a capitalist system.
To bad we don't live under a capitalist system. We live under a series of gov't protected monopolies. And who is to say it would be a bad thing if all of that collapsed today also. I have no vested interest in it. It wouldn't bother me in the least.
Copyright enforcement is the legal basis that makes the GPL stick.
Copyright enforcement is what makes the GPL necessary. Without the copyright, why would we need GPL? All code would be available to everybody. Nobody can claim it for themselves exclusively. GPL is like the Judo of copyright. It uses its(copyright) own force against it. When that force dies, the GPL can peacefully die with it. It will have accomplished its goal.
It really means that we have to follow, but we have no voice when it comes to changing the laws.
I guess that means your votes don't mean anything anymore. It doesn't matter what treaties the gov't signed. I tend to believe that your vote has more force than any international treaty. That is if you believe in your democracy. Otherwise we should start paying taxes to the arbitor of the treaties, and dissolve the gov't.
This is why I want people to negotiate their net price. I don't care about how much workman's comp or other insurance a company pays. Why should I care about withholding? Like you say, I never see the money. As far as I'm concerned, I never made that money. I only care about the amount on the actual check presented to me. That's what I am negotiating for. I'm not interested in company expenses. I am negotiating my price, not company costs. Taxes are jusy another expense to be added to the final price. I also feel that if a company wants the benefit of being a corporation, dealing with the beurocracy(sp) should be part of the price.
It really doesn't matter who forks over the cash; the burden will be shared.
That part is fine, but let them do the paperwork. The market will do its job setting the final price. If the market thinks taxes are too high, well, that's why we have elections. The real issue is not the money per se. It's the added paperwork a simple employee deals with that should be eliminated. Either way, in this case the money should be collected locally. It seem to be the simplest way to do things.
should pay the tax. The programmer should only have to be concerned what he nets. The company is in New York. They make the profit from the programmer's work. If the state wants to skim some of the action everytime money changes hands, they need to go to the entity that resides in that state. Any problem with that?
Hello moderator: I figured you would pull that stunt. Read the the very first sentence of TMFA, you fool! Then try to make the feeblest effort to understand. Someone needs to watch the watchers.
Once you start getting free internet service for putting up with spam, come see me.
Ever hear of juno? I don't know if they still exist, but that's precisely how they gave away their service. I put up with their ads on the pages and a little spam. That's what hotmail or yahoo is for.
...that use real addresses that I can opt out of when I no longer wish to see their specials.
By then your info has been sold to every other spammer on the block. I hope you don't believe their "privacy" policy.
Indeed, many legal observers say the high court is likely to leave the law largely as is and if it wants a different outcome, to ask Congress to change the copyright law.
If we want a good outcome, it will be up to us to change Congress. Start with that "Utah Senator guy".
However, considering that the government requires that they have information about it's citizens, they've taken the choice out of our hands. Do you understand that?
I don't think you read the first two sentences: This is a democratic republic. We are the government.
So...exactly what choice have they taken? You can still vote, right? You seem to forget that the majority of the people that voted gave their full consent to all this. If you don't believe me, take a little tour a bit deeper into the bowels of Slashdot. There you will find plenty of people that think that the gov't should take away even more of your rights. That they might be brainwashed doesn't change much. As human beings, I like to believe that we are re-programable. If not, then we really aren't as intelligent as we would like to think, are we?
Slashdot Mirror
You don't deal directly with the bureaucrats. The people you vote for do. If you don't like their choice, vote them out.
It would be a shame if the voters fell for that trick. After all, it's the voters that does the replacing. Unless the rules have changed somehow. I would hope that they would vote against anybody being sponsered by Microsoft. Be sure to check the list of "contributors" very carefully.
Well, it's clear you're not listening then.
Am I concerned about Walmart selling products from China? No. I'm nore concerned about not wasting my money. Emphasis mine. Sure says it all.
Looks like your rant on China was meaningless and hypocritical. I'm sure they appreciate that. I hope you never need their help to get you out of a tight spot. See ya on the next thread.
You get what you vote for.
This has been my point all along. I thought I spelled that out pretty well. Apparently not. Again, this is why I don't blame gov't and corps for what ever happens. My problem is with people who refuse to accept that and continue to complain about government this and big corporations that, and then re-elect the same people, or buy from the giant corps that caused the percieved problem in the first place. We have DMCA, TSA, the Patriot Act, Microsoft, Walmart, etc, etc, etc. because that's what the majority wants. Nobody forced them into it. They could have voted out the incumbents if they don't like what they do. Part of the problem is that most people vote on local issues and are not seeing the big national/world issues that are also effected by the people they vote for. Dan Rostenkowski(sp) is an excelent example of this. The people of Chicago loved him, but he sure did a job on the tax system as chairman of Ways and Means. We have the power to change it if we want to. I'm cool with that. I just keep my distance and hope that they keep theirs
We all have our own lives to lead and our own problems to solve. I've found that worrying about government isn't high on most folks todo lists.
Precisely, and so that's the gov't we have today. Democracy is not exactly low maintenace. If you don't want your gov't to become abusive, then you have to keep a close eye on it. That the gov't and corps take advantage of our inattention is not their fault. It's perfectly natural. I'm not the one demanding that the gov't "does something". You(editorially speaking) are. I'm saying that if you don't like the way your gov't operates, then elect some people that will conform to your wishes. The majority has done that. A privately operated blog and the private idividuals that pay for it should not have to pay the price for our own inadequacies. These people are not manufacturing weapons or deadly chemicals. They're providing information(more correctly, an opinion. Personally I don't care whose opinion. I take it on its face value. It doesn't matter who says it. I'm interested in the message, not the messenger. Even Goering came up with a few beauties. It doesn't diminish the message.). How we act on that info is not their responsibility, or their problem. To say otherwise doesn't speak well of human intellect.
Sounds like you've got a problem getting along with the world as it is.
I'm doing just fine in my little corner. The weather's great, and so are the locals. Politically we are much worse off than you guys. I'm living with that just fine. When they complain about their gov't, I tell them the same thing I'm saying here. They accept it, even if they don't do anything about it. We all get along great. I noticed that they don't always get along with each other, even within the same family. Hmmm, just goes to show how much alike we ALL really are. The beer kinda sucks, but that's for another thread.
Let me ask you something. I'm aware that you don't look too kindly on the Chinese gov't. My question is, Do you check the label of everything that you buy to see where it's made? Do you shop at Walmart? Everyday there is a larger chance that what you buy was made or assembled in China. Check out the innards of your computer. I checked mine. I see lots of stuff in there that come from China. In fact, almost all of it. So, if you do buy those things, what does that say about you when you yell from the mountain top that the Chinese gov't is evil? If you buy those things you are supporting that gov't. I'm not sure how you feel about that, but I see a tiny conflict there. Do you? If so, then how are you resolving it?
I firmly believe that the gov't operates with the full consent of the majority. Otherwise we would see a higher turnover in congress, and more third and forth party congresspersons(people?). I can't sympathize with people who won't use the power they say they have in a democracy. If people are aware that the news media is being bribed, the people themselves have to voice that to the media, and the media should lose credibility if they don't respond appropriately. If people keep on listening to and believing a corrupt media, you can hardly expect me to sympathize. It's up to you and me to show them that the gov't represents big business and not us. If they refuse to believe us, then I won't blame the gov't for that. The people have decided, and I will continue to assume that the gov't does indeed represent the majority. I don't believe in majority rule for all the obvious reasons, but we're not ready for the next step. However, the gov't must act according their wishes, no matter how brainwashed they might be for whatever reason, and they are doing just that. My contempt arises from the people's refusal yo wake up from their slumber, and actually try to use their vote to fix the problem. It's easier than it appears. What most people are doing is relying on whatever is spoon fed to them. They refuse to check alternative sources of info. They are fairly comfortable with things the way they are, and they don't want to rock the boat. That leaves the rest of us holding the bag. I do find that contemptable.
Sounds like you're OK with businesses bribing the news media to create propaganda.
Believe me, I'm not ok with it, but the majority apparently is. The numbers spell it out pretty clearly. It's up to us to re-program ourselves. I don't expect anybody, least of all the gov't, to help us there. The gov't and corps are the main beneficiaries(sp) of the status quo. We're on our own here, and only we can save ourselves, as depressing as that may be. If we want help from the gov't, it's up to us to elect people that will do that, and not to re-elect them when they fail. There's simply no other way that I can see, without resorting to violence.
Actually studies are showing that brain structure/chemistry IS affected by your eviroment. This is why blind people have more sensitive hearing or touch for example. Both genetics and enviroment are very important factors in our developement. The brain is very malleable, and your surrounding play a big part of the "shape" it takes.
The only thing that could be considered more fair than democracy is no government at all.
Damn, I wish I caught that earlier. You couldn't be more correct. Thanks for sharing that. I couldn't agree more. I would definitely like to see a world of rules without rulers. Where regulation exists naturally, not because somebody with a gun says so. Kinda wish you didn't cut off the discussion.
It is a poltical organization.
Ok. I guess my question should be, are they somehow registered as such? Do they have any special tax status? Are they publicly funded in any way? If that is so, then I absolutely agree. Every penny should be publicly accounted for. If they are simply a bunch of guys with money to burn, how they spend it shouldn't be any of my business, unless I have some personal vested interest in them. If they are causing real problems, then we should call them on it. I have no problem using the gov't as a stick to put them down in such a case.
But, you can require organization to go public with payments to bloggers only to leave open a huge loophole that permits officers and representatives of those organizations to make the same payments, for the same purposes, in the guise of "individuals".
It sounds like the present day problem we have with soft money, only in reverse? It may be difficult to prove, but doing what you said there might require a bit of fraud. If we pay close attention to what's happening, we should be able to keep that in check without any help from the gov't. As a matter of fact, who's calling for this? The public? Maybe a small noisy group, but I haven't seen any op-eds on the matter outside the extremists papers. They are giving the public a chance to comment, but I don't know how it's being presented. Too lazy to check, I guess. Trying to read through all that crap just puts me to sleep. Unless somebody is causing physical harm to the planet or the rest of us, or there is public money is involved, my attitude is pretty much, "Back off. We'll take care of it." I forgot which movie it was...There was a married couple in a fierce argument when a third person(probably their counceler(sp) tried to intervene. They both turn to the person, and in perfect unison, yell, "SHUT UP!"...well, you get the point.
Requiring that payments to bloggers be made public doesn't infringe anyone's free speech rights.
Except the guy who is giving the money. If he has to report that, he may be reluctant to do so. To me, that is an infringement, however small.
What I really don't like about this is that we are asking "daddy" gov't to watch over everything we do so we can remain in our slumber. These are just one of those things I think we are capable of handling ourselves. Unfortunately, many people want everything done for them. We seem to be trying to achieve "freedom from choice. If you remember how people were complaining about high credit card interests rates during the late 70's, they were demanding tha the gov't do something. What they would refuse to do is quit using the damn card. This was a pefect example of the people let their power slip right through their hands. I see the same concept happening here. I want to see us use the power we have before we go crying to somebody to rescue us.
Did I say individuals giving money to organizations should be required to report the gift?
From another post:I am suggesting that political contributions to bloggers be made public, i.e., by the person or organziation making the contribution. Emphasis mine.
Does not "the person" kind of mean "individual"? Contribution could be considered a "gift". "Political contributions" can be twisted to mean many things. If you're seeking a tax deduction, then of course all bet are off, and you should identify your intentions. See bold print below.
Moveon is not a blog or a blogger.
Forum...blog...forum. To me the difference is insignificant. I suppose a blog is the site owner's comments, and a forum involves everyone else. Either way, unless official candidates for office or tax exempt orgs are involved, the gov't has no place here. Public displays of a private person's opinions, no matter what influence they may be under, are just that, a private person's comments, and the gov't should just stay away. We can do our own investigations, thank you. We don't need gov't meddling. What they're really trying to do here is identify and mark "undesirables". The spin they put on it just tries to make it look like they're doing the right thing. Besides, if the president(no matter who he is) can keep things like his energy commitees(people who set public policy) private, we should be permitted the same "privilege".
I understand your sentiment here, and basically I agree, but we must limit this to publicly funded orgs, or ones that actually set policy.
Are you saying that I should required to report any donations I might make to moveon.org or similar site? Good way to start a which hunt. Unless I'm running for public office or donating to an officially recognized candidate, I shouldn't have to report where any of my money goes except to the IRS, and that's only if I wish to deduct it from my taxes.
Would that be the people whose voice you are choosing to ignore?
Yep, the very same people whose ignorance you choose to exploit.
I don't know what truth you're talking about...
More likely it's the truth that you choose to ignore. Some of the dirty little secrets about IP:
1) It encourages hoarding like the kind you're seeing with the massive patent portfolios being built up by IBM, Microsoft, etc. They aren't creating anything. They're simply buying up other people's IP. This leads to number...
2) Speculation. This is in order to create a scarcity where, in nature, none would exist. It encourages people to sit on their IP and wait for a suitably high price. This obviously should not be allowed. It does absolutely nothing for human progress, and that's why we're supposed to have IP in the first place. That's what the spin is anyway.
3) It inhibits cooperation and collaboration. People aren't allowed to build upon and possibly improve the works of others to come out with a better product. History is full of this. My personal favorite examples are the diesel engine and Fulton's steam engine. Others have shown me that FM radio suffered a similar fate. All progress in these instances was brought to a grinding halt until the IP rights expired. This happens a lot more often than you would probably like to admit. Then we get to the best kept secret of all...
4) Censorship. Here's where you get to the root of it all. Copyright was created as a reaction to the printing press. The spin being about the creators getting ripped off by the "pirates". While plagiarism may have been an issue, the REAL reason for the institution of copyright was to silence the critics of the governments and to protect the interests entrenched businesses like the writer's guild. This was done by restricting the right to access a printing press. A present day example might be how Scientology uses copyright to silence its critics. The American government uses it as censorship proxy, using the corporation as the enforcement tool. They can avoid first amendment issues. Because we all know that only governments can censor, right? It has been working beautifully up until now, and it's still working. This may be the least understood aspect of copyright. The "innovation" spin is still extremely effective. In reality it's pure FUD. And of course it's false for the above reasons and many more.
Not only that, but the products created by Monsanto increase the availability of food, while simultaneously reducing the environmental impact of farming.
That sounds like something straight out of one of their brochures. If you actually believe that, then go check out the famous bridge I have for sale. Reducing the environmental impact?? That almost made me blow my milk out through my nose. These people make some of the worst pollutants on the planet. And all their junk is unnecessary. Good farming practices and a little less war are all we need to produce enough food for everybody two times over. If you think that their patents are friendly, I would definitely hate to see the enemy.
Well, I do know that our economy is becoming more and more information related, which means that the future of our (capitalist) economy is intellectual property.
All the more reason to put it into the hands of "friends and family", eh? Let's make it even scarcer so we can move mo money. A system that depends on false scarcities does not deserve to survive. It's dependant on maintaining a certain level of poverty in order to motivate people to do your bidding. As long as you remain on the right side of that equation everything is just okey-dokey, isn't it?
What's wrong with actually selling the rights to intellectual property?
Because it's not yours to sell. It's no different than taking land from the indians, and selling that. That owner will them claim his "god given right" to that property, and because the government took it and sold it, they will agree. Hey, i
Yep, it's definatelly a dupe
It's appalling to me that short-sighted individuals such as yourself believe they have a god-given right the the works produced by others.
:-)
It's appalling to me that short-sighted individuals such as yourself believe they have a god-given right to anything. All your property rights come from the generosity of the people you live with(society,gov't). Physical and intellectual(imaginary). You'd best remember that while you greedy bastards are trying to make your next IP land grab with extensions and DRM and whatnot. We could vote it all away when the public wakes up to your thievery. So you better be damn grateful for what you have now.
In a democracy we must accept the will of the majority...
Yeah right. To hell with the other 49%. They're a bunch of losers. Maybe, someday, you will realize that dictatorship by the majority is only a less effecient version of a dictatorship by one. My voter tirades not withstanding. And remember, copyright law never came up for a vote. Something to think about. So you don't know if the majority approves or not. Many people also think that the bill of rights goes too far, and should be at least modified, if not repealed all together. They might become the majority soon. They might feel the same about copyright.
I think most people you ask will agree that copyright and patents must be protected.
Not when they know the truth they won't.
I think it's safe to say that whoever replaces them will want copyright guarantee as well.
Yeah, and if they try to pull the same stunts as the previous ones, we'll do the same to them.
That's an interesting way to look at it. Are you referring to the way the government protects copyright, because that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Looks like Monsanto and their ilk are your friends.
Would you be happier of none of those works existed at all?
So then, you're just another drone that thinks that's how things would be without IP law. Read up a little on that paper that was written up a few months ago about various business models for the entertainment industry. Only one model is acceptable. That's the one that promotes "ancillary products and services". The rest are just more of the same.
Then don't buy them! Asshole.
I don't! You beautiful, wonderful person, you
If being digital means making it more difficult to archive the info, then where's the advantage of going digital? Of course it's for the ease of access, but it does nothing for long term durability. All data lasts forever. It's the medium that it's stored on that doesn't. Analog or digital. There's a bit of a conflict here. You can have accessability or low maintenance long term storage. So you need digital for one and stone tablets for the other. You're(editorially speaking) making things difficult(archiving) to make things easy(access, convenience). That's a little like waking up to take a sleeping pill. Another problem of copying to new media every year or so is the not so remote possibility of data corruption. Somebody will add a bit here, drop a bit there. Pretty soon the data no longer resembles the original. Even digital is not completely error free, and error correction can screw things up pretty good after 1,000 or 10,000 generations of backups.
last thousands of years. Paper can last thousands of years. Film? al least a hundred years. Vinyl, so far about 80 or 90 years. It seems that every new medium we come up with has a shorter lifespan than the previous. Doesn't seem right, does it? Digital should last at least as long as vinyl. CD's made of glass and gold are the only materials that can provide suitable durability. Good luck finding a player a thousand years later. Actually the constant changes in technology make digital archiving impractical. You have to re-archive averything to keep up with the tech. You only need daylight to read stone and paper, and you can play your vinyl on a potter's wheel if you have to. Neither requires electricity. That by itself gives it a huge advantage over digital.
I don't know what makes you think that you have to right to use copyrighted material however you please.
If copyright was determined by the public as to how long it should last or how it is to be enforced, then I could probably, almost accept it. However, copyright law is determined by a few very powerful individuals and corporations, bought and paid for, and deserves nothing but contempt. Laws that protect a few people over others should be disregarded and spat upon.
What these people are doing is actually ruining their cause by slowing industry acceptance digital technology and online distribution.
We shouldn't care what present day industry thinks of any of this. If they lose their monopolies, and fold today, the whole world would be better off. There are tons of people ready to replace them.
That's how you do things in a capitalist system.
To bad we don't live under a capitalist system. We live under a series of gov't protected monopolies. And who is to say it would be a bad thing if all of that collapsed today also. I have no vested interest in it. It wouldn't bother me in the least.
Copyright enforcement is the legal basis that makes the GPL stick.
Copyright enforcement is what makes the GPL necessary. Without the copyright, why would we need GPL? All code would be available to everybody. Nobody can claim it for themselves exclusively. GPL is like the Judo of copyright. It uses its(copyright) own force against it. When that force dies, the GPL can peacefully die with it. It will have accomplished its goal.
It really means that we have to follow, but we have no voice when it comes to changing the laws.
I guess that means your votes don't mean anything anymore. It doesn't matter what treaties the gov't signed. I tend to believe that your vote has more force than any international treaty. That is if you believe in your democracy. Otherwise we should start paying taxes to the arbitor of the treaties, and dissolve the gov't.
This is why I want people to negotiate their net price. I don't care about how much workman's comp or other insurance a company pays. Why should I care about withholding? Like you say, I never see the money. As far as I'm concerned, I never made that money. I only care about the amount on the actual check presented to me. That's what I am negotiating for. I'm not interested in company expenses. I am negotiating my price, not company costs. Taxes are jusy another expense to be added to the final price. I also feel that if a company wants the benefit of being a corporation, dealing with the beurocracy(sp) should be part of the price.
It really doesn't matter who forks over the cash; the burden will be shared.
That part is fine, but let them do the paperwork. The market will do its job setting the final price. If the market thinks taxes are too high, well, that's why we have elections. The real issue is not the money per se. It's the added paperwork a simple employee deals with that should be eliminated. Either way, in this case the money should be collected locally. It seem to be the simplest way to do things.
should pay the tax. The programmer should only have to be concerned what he nets. The company is in New York. They make the profit from the programmer's work. If the state wants to skim some of the action everytime money changes hands, they need to go to the entity that resides in that state. Any problem with that?
Hello moderator:
I figured you would pull that stunt. Read the the very first sentence of TMFA, you fool! Then try to make the feeblest effort to understand. Someone needs to watch the watchers.
Once you start getting free internet service for putting up with spam, come see me.
...that use real addresses that I can opt out of when I no longer wish to see their specials.
Ever hear of juno? I don't know if they still exist, but that's precisely how they gave away their service. I put up with their ads on the pages and a little spam. That's what hotmail or yahoo is for.
By then your info has been sold to every other spammer on the block. I hope you don't believe their "privacy" policy.
Liliana Villarreal need a bachelor's and two master's degrees to work on a suitcase?
Because somebody changed the combination.
Indeed, many legal observers say the high court is likely to leave the law largely as is and if it wants a different outcome, to ask Congress to change the copyright law.
If we want a good outcome, it will be up to us to change Congress. Start with that "Utah Senator guy".
However, considering that the government requires that they have information about it's citizens, they've taken the choice out of our hands. Do you understand that?
I don't think you read the first two sentences: This is a democratic republic. We are the government.
So...exactly what choice have they taken? You can still vote, right? You seem to forget that the majority of the people that voted gave their full consent to all this. If you don't believe me, take a little tour a bit deeper into the bowels of Slashdot. There you will find plenty of people that think that the gov't should take away even more of your rights. That they might be brainwashed doesn't change much. As human beings, I like to believe that we are re-programable. If not, then we really aren't as intelligent as we would like to think, are we?