Most small planes don't have enought power to lift off with full seats and tanks. They could if you can use the runway at Edward's Air Force base, maybe. You'll need a second plane to carry all that other equipment.
I prefer Slashdot. The comments here are much more interesting. Google isn't interactive enough for me. I'm more interested in how much all of you might be aware of what was posted. Some people(mods) thought is must be really whack, but that's cool. I thought this was funnier.
if a similar idea could be used to save a sinking boat. Instead of a parchute obviosly, you could use huge balloons. It could at least slow down the sinking to give time to get into a life boat or raft.
I hope your case is the rule not the exception. However, you did remind me of an 18 year old Mac Plus that still runs just fine. It usually sits buried under the clothes in the closet, but it fires right up when needed. I can't remember if the hard drive was ever replaced. My toshiba laptop is 7 years old and running great. The CD-ROM went blind, however, but that's it. For me, the problem is the humidity and salt in the air. Many boxes here barely survive two years. They need to be sealed as tight as the hard drive. Highly unlikely considering the heat coming from these beasts(all waste). A specialized device can be hermetically sealed and effectively protected from some of the worst elements and run for years virtually unattended with no more power than that required to run the device itself. Pioneer and Voyager for example? Are far as I know they're still transmitting. Our computers requires all sorts of support devices like ventilation, air conditioning, occasional cleaing, etc. Just look at all the redundancy you need to assure the most reliable system you can afford. A basic office PC could be reduced an imbedded system with an office suite and basic networking services, nothing more. It could require so little power that you could literaly seal it up in epoxy, with things like inductive or wireless ports for printers, monitors, etc.
I would prefer not to have to worry about replication every few years or even decades, no matter how accurate. It's still more likely to suffer from that old game of "telephone", eventually subject to someone's interpretation(Ooops...kind of like the Bible? Note:Any replies to the "Bible" comment will be considered offtopic...To me anyway. I'm talking about accurate long term, low maintenace archiving of records. I'm using the Bible as a convenient analogy of what can go wrong as records are translated into differnet formats(ie:languages) over time.) "Old" media has a proven record of extremely low mainrenace over hundreds or even thousands of years. Unless there's someone to maintain our records, they could be gone in less than two generations. Plus all this high tech requires a lot of energy just to run. What it does provide is convenience, but for true archiving that requires so little effort there's nothing like low tech.
Present day PC's are too finickey, and networks are too unsreliable. When we can have a machine that will operate for ten years or more, like a TV or microwave, without having to call support or your geeky nephew, or having to upgrade every year or so, then we can say they are ready for prime time. Is there anybody out there with a ten year old computer operating with its original OS and hard drive that was formatted only once...when it was new? Part of the problem is the desired flexibility. Specialized devices do one or two things really well for a long time without any maintenance. A PC is your perverbial(sp) "jack of all trades, master of none", needing constant attention. They also tend to put you into upgrade madness everytime you buy a new camera or music player to plug into it. They are fun to tinker with. That's why I have one. It's the crystal radio of our time. Well your time really. I used to mess with radio before I got a computer. I'm a sucker for high tech, no matter how useless.
Better read it quick. Unless it's made out of glass and gold, the medium won't last very long. For biographies and other archiving, you better stick to paper, film, or vinyl. Maybe soon we will have digital devices that will last 75 years or more, but it's not here yet.
I'll grant you this. No matter how wrong you are, no matter how erroneous your statements, you hold your ground. I bet if you were caught on camera robbing a bank, you would stand in front of the jury, and with a perfectly straight face, say, "That's not me." despite all the evidence, despite all the facts. You would still be found guilty, but you would never admit to doing anything. I have to say that's a good trait, but it still doesn't make you right. A response to the thing about the farmer would be interesting, however. You have shown to be as guilty of what you are accusing me of. You have stated your beliefs without presenting a single fact. If that's what makes you happy, you go on clinging to those beliefs.
You spell it out much better than I could ever hope to. I just saw the ISP that you use everyday as a big weak spot in all anonymizer services, and I was looking for an alternative. Please don't take that as an accusation or attack against Tor A way to connect through various...nodes if you will. Neural net?
The only recourse is that the method finds *a lot* of participients.
This is what I was hoping to see, but if it came to a fighting war, I would consider it best to shut down, go home, forget about the damn computer, do the Gandhi thing, and not cooperate in any way with the authorities. Easy to talk about...Hard to practice, especially in the frozen north. I think it's best to let them have the planet, but they won't have me. I need a way to take away their will to fight us. So I guess I'm grabbing at straws. I sure hope there's beer at the other end:-)
I'm not sure China is the worst. I believe Burma(Myanmar?) had or has a law stipulating a 15 year sentence for anyone operating an un registered(with the gov't) computer. If we ever let it get that bad, it's time to give it up.
The only people who argue that there shouldn't be copyrights are people who want something for nothing, don't create anything themselves, and don't have the intelligence to see that much of the creativity they enjoy consuming (for free) wouldn't exist without copyright law.
Just like so many others, You have it completely backwards. It's copyright holders who are looking for, and getting the freebies. Take from the pubic domain and keep it for themselves. Without copyright there would be much more to enjoy, and there would be some real variety from a real variety of sources not tied to publishing middle men. Software patents are no different from copyright. They both stifle innovation and collaboration.
Well, if it is so bloody well understood, why haven't you bothered to spell it out here?
It would be like trying to explain why water is wet, or why fire is hot. I can understand lots of things in nature, but I don't have the words to describe them. How do you describe light and dark to a blind man? Only with metaphors. Some of the simplest things are indescribable. Maybe that could be why you are unable to explain your position. It wouldn't help you much anyway since it's misguided. Your assumed rights apply to your copy not mine. I understand your position perfectly well. That's how I know you are wrong. If a farmer grows corn and sells some to me, would you assert that I must always buy my corn from that farmer and not be allowed to grow my own from the seeds of the corn I bought from him? Or sell the corn to someone else? He tilled the soil, planted the corn, spent money on water and fertilizer. The corn arose from his work. What rights does he have over the corn he sold to me? Only through copyright can you assert any rights over the work. There are no other rights. Whether you know it or not, you are basing your entire argument on copyright. It's all you got. I get paid for my work, and everbody is free to do what they want with it, and I move on to the next job. My finished work is in the public domain as far as I'm concerned. Nobody has exclusive rights to my work. I don't care if someone tries to claim exclusive rights. They wouldn't get it if I or someone else performed the same work for the next guy. All work is in the public domain. That is its natural state. You seem to be confusing that with eminent domain where the gov't can take your property. Nature recognizes public domain. Gov't law dictates eminent domain. In fact copyright is a "knockoff" of eminent domain, where the gov't takes a work from public domain and grants temporary custody to the first guy who registers it, not necessarily the first guy that discovered it.
I've read Lessig. Like you, he fails to explain how ownership and rights of an object are acquired by others without the consent of the person who created it.
He doesn't have to. It's already understood. For him to spell it out would merely be redundant. It's already understood that copyright is artificial, and that copies of your work that are not in your possesion are not yours. The copies, in their entirety, belongs to the person possessing it. You are trying to extend property rights to something you don't possess. I can only wish you luck in your endeavor. Eventually, if you live long enough, you will realize how mistaken you are.
Ok. I read it. My question still is, what do you do if your ISP restricts anything you upload to clear text? If they find anything at all that they might not be able to decipher, they'll just bounce it back at you or drop the info. And as discussed here, there's the matter of end points and directory servers. The nature of this system is very easy to comprehend, and to compromise, at least to me anyway. I had these kinds of ideas swirling around in my head long before I ever read about them. It reminds me of spread spectrum technology, only here it's applied to IP hops. My idea could go a little further by constantly changing you own IP address, kind of like what happens when you disconnect and reconnect to you ISP. I never claimed to be very good at expressing my ideas, so I need all of you to fill in the obvious gaps. I was aware of these things before I posted the first comment. At this point I still believe what I am looking for can only be achieved through wireless, without the internet providers turning you over at the drop of a hat. With wireless you can pick up and run off the moment you become suspicious of anything wrong. Think of it as mobile SCUD internet. I'm sure it can't provide absolute security, but I'm convinced it's best option to work towards.
I hope you're not advocating the outlawing of gloves because of that. My point is that anonymity, among others things, is too important to give up simply because someone might use it for nefarious puposes. I'm not advocating that we should make it easy to hurt other people, but I will resist the attempt to prohibit the use of something simply because it could hurt somebody, even if it has no immediately apparent useful purpose. One should be punished for the harm they cause, not for the tools they use.
I think my neighbour probably got burgled deliberately so he could claim the insurance. The cash would come in useful this close to Christmas.
Please don't think that it doesn't happen. Insurance fraud is big business. You could be surrounded by coke head neighbors who happen to be very descrete about their habits. You don't know if your living next door to another Jeffrey Dahmer. You won't know until he makes a mistake and gets caught. Your statement, even if it was sarcastic, could very well be true. None of us know each as well as we would like to think.
As for NDA's. There's no such thing as an absolute NDA. Possibly harmful actions by a company should be exposed. I'm not applying that to this case. I just need to point out that there are exceptions.
...I don't believe the "public domain" exists naturally. It is a construction mandated by law...
You have it completely reversed. Since you are basing your argument on such backwards assumptions, there seems to be nothing more to say to you specifically about it. You're trying to build an upside down pyramid. That's a fairly precarious position to be in, and I would advise you not to stand too close to it. Your argument is like an M.C Escher painting. It's very nice looking, but it can't exist in this physical universe.
If you believe you have the right to copy my book even if I have specifically withheld that right from you, where do you acquire that right?
Apparently from the same place that you acquire your claimed rights. I do in fact have the right to copy anything I own no matter where it came from. That is a natural right. It seems we just came back to the old back and forth. Without copyright, you have no rights what so ever over anything that's not in your possession. It doesn't matter if you made it or not. Your claim that a work does not enter public domain is false. If you fail to copyright something and somebody else does, it will be up to you to prove that in fact you may be the original creator. If you fail to prove that, you lose. If nobody copyrights it, it is in fact in the public domain. You simply have no rights to give or sell. Your claims are baseless. At this point I need a second or possibly even a third opinion. You're not making your case. I have nature and possibly Lessig, among others on my side.
So if you don't place your book under copyright, it will never enter the public domain? If you sell a copy without placing it under copyright, because you might not agree to its terms, do you believe you have the authority over it forever? Under the peresnt system, if you don't copyright your work, somebody else might. Then you will lose all rights to it entirely. It won't matter if you wrote it. Somebody just copyrighted it, and you will lose all rights. This has happened. Check it out for yourself. The rights you are speaking of apply to physical property only, and then only that physical property in your possession. IP is another thing entirely. In fact IP doesn't exist. You can't own any intellect that exists outside your own head. You can own your personal materialization(pysical property) of that intellect, but the intellect itself cannot be owned exclusively once it is expressed by word or otherwise. I have a right to use that expressed intellect as I see fit. The same applies if I acquire a physical manifestion of that intellect through purchase or gift. Again, only through a signed agreement could you maintain any control over it. It appears that you aren't interested in recognizing that difference.
I'm going to say it here also. All IP starts in the public domain. All ideas already exist. They aren't created. They are discovered. If you are the first to discover it, the gov't will grant you temporary custody of that IP when you register it, not before. No other rights exist, inplied or otherwise. After that time expires, it goes back into public domain where it really came from. I'm looking all over for your comments relating to that because it's very relevent to the discussion. Can you please refer me to any comments you made in that context, or do I have to assume you don't have an answer?
You never answered my question in the other discussion. What happens to your work after it returns to the pubic domain? Do you think that happens because you agree to it? All IP is born into the public domain. The gov't takes it from public domain and grants you temporary exclusive control over it. When that time is up, it reverts back to the public domain. What rights do you claim after that happens?? Refer back back to our last discussion, specifically my last post( the one you haven't replied to yet) there as a refresher. Your assertions imply that you have a right to control it forever. Only natural rights last forever. The gov't is not recognizing your rights(because there are none). It is granting you a temporary entitlement.
Can you imagine human history without being able to use other people's good ideas?
That's exactly what has been happening for the last 300 years. Funny that you bring up the steam engine. Robert Fulton pulled just those kinds of stunts with his patents. The diesel engine suffered the same fate until its patents expired. The Wright Brothers and Glenn Curtis had quite a spat while developing their respective flying machines. Anyone who believes that IP law encourages innovation is sadly mistaken. The comments posted here should show that in spades. We need to remember that IP law was really designed from the beginning to restrict the common man's access to "high" technology. Anything else put forth by the drones is false and nothing more than a distraction from their desire to maintain their power.
It should be the spirit of everything we do. Only good can come from it. The present IP structure we suffer from is impeding progress exactly because this kind of collaboration is difficult, if not impossible. The result is inferior, scarce, and over priced products. This very question should explain why IP law doesn't work. Open collaboration in the public domain is the only way to do anything.
I don't believe you read the entire post. Basically, I do believe that when you sign an NDA, you shouldn't violate it. Hence the last sentence of my post showing a perfectly valid exception. However, in this case, we have no idea if any NDA was involved yet. For this guy's sake, I hope he kept his name far away from his posts. If he did sign an NDA and gets caught, you won't hear me trying to defend him, but I am for anonymity no matter what, and I will defend that the best I can. The people arguing against it have no moral high ground. As I stated in another post here, this whole thing could be free advertisement for Apple's upcoming product. Pretty convenient this close to Christmas. It can only help iPod sales.
Slashdot Mirror
Most small planes don't have enought power to lift off with full seats and tanks. They could if you can use the runway at Edward's Air Force base, maybe. You'll need a second plane to carry all that other equipment.
Next time you "wonder", why not use Google ?
I prefer Slashdot. The comments here are much more interesting. Google isn't interactive enough for me. I'm more interested in how much all of you might be aware of what was posted. Some people(mods) thought is must be really whack, but that's cool. I thought this was funnier.
if a similar idea could be used to save a sinking boat. Instead of a parchute obviosly, you could use huge balloons. It could at least slow down the sinking to give time to get into a life boat or raft.
The first thing to teach them is to never jump out of a good airplane.
I hope your case is the rule not the exception. However, you did remind me of an 18 year old Mac Plus that still runs just fine. It usually sits buried under the clothes in the closet, but it fires right up when needed. I can't remember if the hard drive was ever replaced. My toshiba laptop is 7 years old and running great. The CD-ROM went blind, however, but that's it. For me, the problem is the humidity and salt in the air. Many boxes here barely survive two years. They need to be sealed as tight as the hard drive. Highly unlikely considering the heat coming from these beasts(all waste). A specialized device can be hermetically sealed and effectively protected from some of the worst elements and run for years virtually unattended with no more power than that required to run the device itself. Pioneer and Voyager for example? Are far as I know they're still transmitting. Our computers requires all sorts of support devices like ventilation, air conditioning, occasional cleaing, etc. Just look at all the redundancy you need to assure the most reliable system you can afford. A basic office PC could be reduced an imbedded system with an office suite and basic networking services, nothing more. It could require so little power that you could literaly seal it up in epoxy, with things like inductive or wireless ports for printers, monitors, etc.
I would prefer not to have to worry about replication every few years or even decades, no matter how accurate. It's still more likely to suffer from that old game of "telephone", eventually subject to someone's interpretation(Ooops...kind of like the Bible? Note:Any replies to the "Bible" comment will be considered offtopic...To me anyway. I'm talking about accurate long term, low maintenace archiving of records. I'm using the Bible as a convenient analogy of what can go wrong as records are translated into differnet formats(ie:languages) over time.) "Old" media has a proven record of extremely low mainrenace over hundreds or even thousands of years. Unless there's someone to maintain our records, they could be gone in less than two generations. Plus all this high tech requires a lot of energy just to run. What it does provide is convenience, but for true archiving that requires so little effort there's nothing like low tech.
Present day PC's are too finickey, and networks are too unsreliable. When we can have a machine that will operate for ten years or more, like a TV or microwave, without having to call support or your geeky nephew, or having to upgrade every year or so, then we can say they are ready for prime time. Is there anybody out there with a ten year old computer operating with its original OS and hard drive that was formatted only once...when it was new? Part of the problem is the desired flexibility. Specialized devices do one or two things really well for a long time without any maintenance. A PC is your perverbial(sp) "jack of all trades, master of none", needing constant attention. They also tend to put you into upgrade madness everytime you buy a new camera or music player to plug into it. They are fun to tinker with. That's why I have one. It's the crystal radio of our time. Well your time really. I used to mess with radio before I got a computer. I'm a sucker for high tech, no matter how useless.
I guess this will be good for biographies.
Better read it quick. Unless it's made out of glass and gold, the medium won't last very long. For biographies and other archiving, you better stick to paper, film, or vinyl. Maybe soon we will have digital devices that will last 75 years or more, but it's not here yet.
I'll grant you this. No matter how wrong you are, no matter how erroneous your statements, you hold your ground. I bet if you were caught on camera robbing a bank, you would stand in front of the jury, and with a perfectly straight face, say, "That's not me." despite all the evidence, despite all the facts. You would still be found guilty, but you would never admit to doing anything. I have to say that's a good trait, but it still doesn't make you right. A response to the thing about the farmer would be interesting, however. You have shown to be as guilty of what you are accusing me of. You have stated your beliefs without presenting a single fact. If that's what makes you happy, you go on clinging to those beliefs.
You spell it out much better than I could ever hope to. I just saw the ISP that you use everyday as a big weak spot in all anonymizer services, and I was looking for an alternative. Please don't take that as an accusation or attack against Tor A way to connect through various...nodes if you will. Neural net?
:-)
The only recourse is that the method finds *a lot* of participients.
This is what I was hoping to see, but if it came to a fighting war, I would consider it best to shut down, go home, forget about the damn computer, do the Gandhi thing, and not cooperate in any way with the authorities. Easy to talk about...Hard to practice, especially in the frozen north. I think it's best to let them have the planet, but they won't have me. I need a way to take away their will to fight us. So I guess I'm grabbing at straws. I sure hope there's beer at the other end
I'm not sure China is the worst. I believe Burma(Myanmar?) had or has a law stipulating a 15 year sentence for anyone operating an un registered(with the gov't) computer. If we ever let it get that bad, it's time to give it up.
Your sig is right on...
The only people who argue that there shouldn't be copyrights are people who want something for nothing, don't create anything themselves, and don't have the intelligence to see that much of the creativity they enjoy consuming (for free) wouldn't exist without copyright law.
Just like so many others, You have it completely backwards. It's copyright holders who are looking for, and getting the freebies. Take from the pubic domain and keep it for themselves. Without copyright there would be much more to enjoy, and there would be some real variety from a real variety of sources not tied to publishing middle men. Software patents are no different from copyright. They both stifle innovation and collaboration.
>> Public domain always existed.
No. It is a legal status created by copyright law.
That would be eminent domain. An entirely different animal.
Well, if it is so bloody well understood, why haven't you bothered to spell it out here?
It would be like trying to explain why water is wet, or why fire is hot. I can understand lots of things in nature, but I don't have the words to describe them. How do you describe light and dark to a blind man? Only with metaphors. Some of the simplest things are indescribable. Maybe that could be why you are unable to explain your position. It wouldn't help you much anyway since it's misguided. Your assumed rights apply to your copy not mine. I understand your position perfectly well. That's how I know you are wrong. If a farmer grows corn and sells some to me, would you assert that I must always buy my corn from that farmer and not be allowed to grow my own from the seeds of the corn I bought from him? Or sell the corn to someone else? He tilled the soil, planted the corn, spent money on water and fertilizer. The corn arose from his work. What rights does he have over the corn he sold to me? Only through copyright can you assert any rights over the work. There are no other rights. Whether you know it or not, you are basing your entire argument on copyright. It's all you got. I get paid for my work, and everbody is free to do what they want with it, and I move on to the next job. My finished work is in the public domain as far as I'm concerned. Nobody has exclusive rights to my work. I don't care if someone tries to claim exclusive rights. They wouldn't get it if I or someone else performed the same work for the next guy. All work is in the public domain. That is its natural state. You seem to be confusing that with eminent domain where the gov't can take your property. Nature recognizes public domain. Gov't law dictates eminent domain. In fact copyright is a "knockoff" of eminent domain, where the gov't takes a work from public domain and grants temporary custody to the first guy who registers it, not necessarily the first guy that discovered it.
I've read Lessig. Like you, he fails to explain how ownership and rights of an object are acquired by others without the consent of the person who created it.
He doesn't have to. It's already understood. For him to spell it out would merely be redundant. It's already understood that copyright is artificial, and that copies of your work that are not in your possesion are not yours. The copies, in their entirety, belongs to the person possessing it. You are trying to extend property rights to something you don't possess. I can only wish you luck in your endeavor. Eventually, if you live long enough, you will realize how mistaken you are.
More rhetoric, no substance.
Heh. My thoughts exactly. The law created copyright. Public domain always existed. It's a natural state. No law, no copyright.
My house and my furniture do not pass into a public domain after a specified period of time.
That's because those things are yours and in your possession, and you have the only copy so to speak. So that analogy does not apply.
Ok. I read it. My question still is, what do you do if your ISP restricts anything you upload to clear text? If they find anything at all that they might not be able to decipher, they'll just bounce it back at you or drop the info. And as discussed here, there's the matter of end points and directory servers. The nature of this system is very easy to comprehend, and to compromise, at least to me anyway. I had these kinds of ideas swirling around in my head long before I ever read about them. It reminds me of spread spectrum technology, only here it's applied to IP hops. My idea could go a little further by constantly changing you own IP address, kind of like what happens when you disconnect and reconnect to you ISP. I never claimed to be very good at expressing my ideas, so I need all of you to fill in the obvious gaps. I was aware of these things before I posted the first comment. At this point I still believe what I am looking for can only be achieved through wireless, without the internet providers turning you over at the drop of a hat. With wireless you can pick up and run off the moment you become suspicious of anything wrong. Think of it as mobile SCUD internet. I'm sure it can't provide absolute security, but I'm convinced it's best option to work towards.
I hope you're not advocating the outlawing of gloves because of that. My point is that anonymity, among others things, is too important to give up simply because someone might use it for nefarious puposes. I'm not advocating that we should make it easy to hurt other people, but I will resist the attempt to prohibit the use of something simply because it could hurt somebody, even if it has no immediately apparent useful purpose. One should be punished for the harm they cause, not for the tools they use.
I think my neighbour probably got burgled deliberately so he could claim the insurance. The cash would come in useful this close to Christmas.
Please don't think that it doesn't happen. Insurance fraud is big business. You could be surrounded by coke head neighbors who happen to be very descrete about their habits. You don't know if your living next door to another Jeffrey Dahmer. You won't know until he makes a mistake and gets caught. Your statement, even if it was sarcastic, could very well be true. None of us know each as well as we would like to think.
As for NDA's. There's no such thing as an absolute NDA. Possibly harmful actions by a company should be exposed. I'm not applying that to this case. I just need to point out that there are exceptions.
...I don't believe the "public domain" exists naturally. It is a construction mandated by law...
You have it completely reversed. Since you are basing your argument on such backwards assumptions, there seems to be nothing more to say to you specifically about it. You're trying to build an upside down pyramid. That's a fairly precarious position to be in, and I would advise you not to stand too close to it. Your argument is like an M.C Escher painting. It's very nice looking, but it can't exist in this physical universe.
If you believe you have the right to copy my book even if I have specifically withheld that right from you, where do you acquire that right?
Apparently from the same place that you acquire your claimed rights. I do in fact have the right to copy anything I own no matter where it came from. That is a natural right. It seems we just came back to the old back and forth. Without copyright, you have no rights what so ever over anything that's not in your possession. It doesn't matter if you made it or not. Your claim that a work does not enter public domain is false. If you fail to copyright something and somebody else does, it will be up to you to prove that in fact you may be the original creator. If you fail to prove that, you lose. If nobody copyrights it, it is in fact in the public domain. You simply have no rights to give or sell. Your claims are baseless. At this point I need a second or possibly even a third opinion. You're not making your case. I have nature and possibly Lessig, among others on my side.
So if you don't place your book under copyright, it will never enter the public domain? If you sell a copy without placing it under copyright, because you might not agree to its terms, do you believe you have the authority over it forever? Under the peresnt system, if you don't copyright your work, somebody else might. Then you will lose all rights to it entirely. It won't matter if you wrote it. Somebody just copyrighted it, and you will lose all rights. This has happened. Check it out for yourself. The rights you are speaking of apply to physical property only, and then only that physical property in your possession. IP is another thing entirely. In fact IP doesn't exist. You can't own any intellect that exists outside your own head. You can own your personal materialization(pysical property) of that intellect, but the intellect itself cannot be owned exclusively once it is expressed by word or otherwise. I have a right to use that expressed intellect as I see fit. The same applies if I acquire a physical manifestion of that intellect through purchase or gift. Again, only through a signed agreement could you maintain any control over it. It appears that you aren't interested in recognizing that difference.
I'm going to say it here also. All IP starts in the public domain. All ideas already exist. They aren't created. They are discovered. If you are the first to discover it, the gov't will grant you temporary custody of that IP when you register it, not before. No other rights exist, inplied or otherwise. After that time expires, it goes back into public domain where it really came from. I'm looking all over for your comments relating to that because it's very relevent to the discussion. Can you please refer me to any comments you made in that context, or do I have to assume you don't have an answer?
You never answered my question in the other discussion. What happens to your work after it returns to the pubic domain? Do you think that happens because you agree to it? All IP is born into the public domain. The gov't takes it from public domain and grants you temporary exclusive control over it. When that time is up, it reverts back to the public domain. What rights do you claim after that happens?? Refer back back to our last discussion, specifically my last post( the one you haven't replied to yet) there as a refresher. Your assertions imply that you have a right to control it forever. Only natural rights last forever. The gov't is not recognizing your rights(because there are none). It is granting you a temporary entitlement.
Can you imagine human history without being able to use other people's good ideas?
That's exactly what has been happening for the last 300 years. Funny that you bring up the steam engine. Robert Fulton pulled just those kinds of stunts with his patents. The diesel engine suffered the same fate until its patents expired. The Wright Brothers and Glenn Curtis had quite a spat while developing their respective flying machines. Anyone who believes that IP law encourages innovation is sadly mistaken. The comments posted here should show that in spades. We need to remember that IP law was really designed from the beginning to restrict the common man's access to "high" technology. Anything else put forth by the drones is false and nothing more than a distraction from their desire to maintain their power.
It should be the spirit of everything we do. Only good can come from it. The present IP structure we suffer from is impeding progress exactly because this kind of collaboration is difficult, if not impossible. The result is inferior, scarce, and over priced products. This very question should explain why IP law doesn't work. Open collaboration in the public domain is the only way to do anything.
I don't believe you read the entire post. Basically, I do believe that when you sign an NDA, you shouldn't violate it. Hence the last sentence of my post showing a perfectly valid exception. However, in this case, we have no idea if any NDA was involved yet. For this guy's sake, I hope he kept his name far away from his posts. If he did sign an NDA and gets caught, you won't hear me trying to defend him, but I am for anonymity no matter what, and I will defend that the best I can. The people arguing against it have no moral high ground. As I stated in another post here, this whole thing could be free advertisement for Apple's upcoming product. Pretty convenient this close to Christmas. It can only help iPod sales.