Not only that, but back in the 90s, you had bands like Aerosmith making albums that they did not want to make, but the studio demanded it.
I don't have much sympathy for people who sign bad contracts. I bet they could've made it easy for themselves by simply recording some stuff they wrote 20 years earlier, but never actually recorded.
It's no longer about the artists anymore.
It shouldn't be about the artists. It should be about the art. That's one of the problems about IP. It's all: I created this. It should be: i created THIS. I don't care who makes what. If it looks, sounds, smells, tastes, feels good, I'll buy it. It doesn't matter who makes it. Of course, having a name on it makes a subsequent search a little easier. I buy something for its own value, not for the name on the cover(corner). A side note: The recording companies have always treated the artists like hell, particularly the black artists during the 20's through the 50's. Without IP, the artist will be able to make plenty of money without having to sign their souls away to some greedy publisher, even if they want or need to hire an agent to do their dirty work like advertising and arranging concert deals, etc. I just don't like to see them get special privileges that the rest of us will never see. Whether they like it or not, we're all the same and their work is no more valuable than mine or yours.
...but when he was in office he was clearly out of his depth.
I don't know. He seemed to remember his lines pretty well, and, unlike Ford, he didn't bump into the furniture. Remember that Reagan already had acting experience. He knew how to work an audience, and he obviously had better writers. All these guys are actors, but Reagan would get the Oscar for sure for "Best Acting President".
Way off topic. Is it worth it for you to take them to court on it? Can you afford to do it just on principle if nothing else? I, for one, would love to see these people get slammed into oblivion for this. Going to satellite might not help if cable providers have their fingers in that pie. Kind of like the "competition" between telcos and cable. There's so much cross investment, there might not be an escape without giving up TV altogether. The best way might be a good "old fashioned" 5 metre dish, and catch the "wild feeds". It's fun, and it's free, and sometimes unedited. You get to watch news anchors pick their nose and cuss out the help.
I most definitely believe that a person should reap the rewards of their labor, but never at the expense of others. Copyright(all IP) does just that. I just want a level playing field, and this, providing special privileges to a few over other "lesser" people, can never, ever accomplish that. Too many good inventions were(are) stuck in limbo until the IP benefits expire. Too many people are going to die because they can't afford a cure. I'm positive that we can all reap those rewards without IP. I actually believe that the reward will be much greater without it, but the idea of "Artist as King" will no longer exist, and it shouldn't. The end of that concept just means that Gary Bussey(is that one S or two?) will have to put a muffler on his Harley. In other words these guys will have to obey the rules of the road just like the rest of us. Also remeber that strict enforcement of IP laws could create a backlash against the idea of capitalism(might not be a bad thing) the likes of which we have yet to see if enough people get sick and die, or starve to death(that's a slam against Monsanto). It might make the U.S. an even bigger target since they are the biggest pusher of the concept. Understandable when you consider that, besides weapons, entertainment is just about their last business experiencing a trade surplus.
Its advisory board currently includes Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.)
After seeing this from the link, I don't feel so bad about Gore's loss in 2000. It's a delusion to think that the Dems would protect one's civil rights any better that the GOP. 51% of you all need to elect an alternative. Otherwise nothing's going change. Good luck.
I'm using it as a metaphor to demonstrate that you won't get far without going through a publisher. They control what gets on the radio, in Borders bookstores, in the movie theaters, and most concert venues, among other things. They provide (privatized)censorship services for the gov't with that control. It's one reason that the gov't wants to make sure that they stay in business. I've posted many times on the subject in the hopes that one might understand that copyright isn't what most people think it is. Other people have made much more eloquent posts along the same vein(?). I don't expect people that depend on copyright services to even begin to understand this. It's like expecting a drug addict to quit using simply because someone told them that's it's not good for them. It's like asking a(n?) H2 owner to show some repect for the enviroment.
Copyright was never designed to advance the arts. Any one that says otherwise is lying or ignorant of the facts. It was designed to force you to get a license to publish(use that new fangled printing press that was just invented). The only thing new is that now it's being used to prevent self publishing with the new tech that is now available to us all. In other words, they are still trying to force you to get a license to publish. It is a tool who's primary function is that of censorship. The gov't also needs an information gatekeeper. This is to insure that you must use a publishing middleman to be heard. The only way to get people to accept copyright was to put this "advancement of the arts and sciences" spin on it. It sad that after almost 300 years, people still beieve this. Especially will so much evidence that proves just the opposite.
It isn't the FCC's property to sell and it doesn't force vendors to address issues fast enough.
So very true. I also wonder if any of this will help us produce a wireless internet free of the ISP's stranglehold they have over access today. Of course it won't. I also believe that what is said about the spectrum being a finite resource is a lot of bull. The only thing finite about it is our knowledge. This is just an attempt to create scarcity where there is none. Why? For money and power of course. Our present knowledge of physics is running into a brick wall. I'ts becoming time to re-think our theories of matter and inertia. There's something wrong here, and I sure haven't figured out what it is, but if I find out, you all will be the first to know:)
Au contraire. The buyer(you know, the guy who spends the money?) needs to set the rules. Not the other way around. I told another guy this; I'll pay you if and when I go to see your performance, not your demos. That's what every CD on every store shelf is. It's a demo to entice us to go see you perform. At least that's the way it should be. Does the publisher pay for your demos? if not, why should I? This whole thing has caused artists to think that their creative "genius" makes them better than the rest of us, worthy of special gov't subsidies(entitlements). No way. They should work with the same rules as we do in our line of work. If you want control over your ideas, then don't express them. Once you do, they're no longer exclusively yours. Whether an idea comes from inside or outside my head makes no difference. Once I have it, I can do what I want with it. And elimination of IP laws will allow us to put all of our heads together.
Funny how I just happened to stumble onto this thread. In a recent dscussion I was having, I was provided with this:
One time Budha came upon a town and the elders of the town had a meeting with him. They asked him "We have many sages and ascetics come by and each one tells us that they hold the key to enlightenment. How can be sure you are right and others are wrong, how can we tell who to follow and who to ignore?". Budha replied. "Look into your hearts, decide what's right and wrong, stop doing what's wrong, start doing what's right and you will have found true religion."
Sounds good to me.
In case you're interested in the rest of the discussion, you can find it here. You'll have to jump back a few links to see the beginning.
I'm glad to see somebody here got it right. The printing press was the the P2P of the time, and we're still suffering from the resultant laws of those times, going on 300 years now. Prohibition didn't work. Neither does copyright. Of course that depends on you point of view. If you're dependant on the status quo, then of course you will defend it to the death. I just wish they could come up with a logical defense. Looks like I'm going to die waiting. I guess defending the indefensible is more difficult than I thought.(Can somebody check my posting history to see if I said that before? I have this vague feeling that I did, but I'm not really sure. Thank you) Note to copyright drones: On that list of 101 things to do before you die... 102. Produce a logical defense for copyright. Try to convince me that you're special and should be granted special entitlements to make a living, and why I shouldn't be granted the same for my line of work.
Copyright provides an incentive to find new ideas, since inventors can be motivated by greed...
Inventors that are motivated by greed usually don't produce very good inventions. I prefer to see inventors motivated by need(for the invention). It will produce a far superior product. We shouldn't grant special privileges to those who would invent a product who's sole purpose is to make the inventor some extra cash.(Re: Pet Rock) If one needs to wait for a patent to expire to produce a workaround, then all progess on that invention will just have to wait. If people are allowed to make improvements immediately, then everybody benefits. Check out the history of the diesel engine as an example. I contend that progress in the electronics has been grossly inhibited by IP laws.
You should. That's what copyright is. A gov't entitlement. In the belief that it will advance the sciences and creative arts. Once copyright is gone it will be proven to be a mistaken belief.
"Lots of other people at Slashdot say it a lot too...
And my argument has been backed up many times by many people. And that's just here at Slashdot. I put this here to give you a chance to re-read it. This time try to read the whole statement. What you're not hearing is that these ideas exist outside of slashdot, also. And they have existed long before slashdot, or even the internet. The internet just provides easier access to these ideas. As more people understand the real intent of copyright(all IP laws actually), our voice will only get louder.
For the record, I've NEVER heard people like you offer a valid reason why piracy or copyright violation is a good thing.
You probably have heard it. You just chose to ignore it. You should know that many publishers use piracy to move their product. It's similar to price dumping to wipe out the competition. Microsoft is a good example. If it weren't for piracy, they would be as small as Apple. In fact they probably wouldn't exist at all. Piracy is what got them the market share they enjoy today, but that still doesn't say that piracy is a good thing, but it can be good business. Adobe employs the same tactics. If copyright violation helps to get these laws off the books, then that will definitely be a good thing.
I know the ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS MAKING THE CONTENT don't ever seem to come up in these discussions, so I'm making myself known.
You have just proven my point. To you, it's all about the creator. That's what the Jesus freaks are about. They love Jesus, but they conveniently ignore his teachings. I'm here to tell you that the creation is what's important, not the creator.
...when all those comforts in their lives exist because of a system built on copyrights and trademarks.
Yes, and for now, I can only imagine how much better the system would be without copyrights or trademarks.
...you're violating my rights as a content artist?
They aren't rights. They are special privileges provided to you by the gov't.
...and I can steal any old GPL code I want and sell it as a completely new product and claim it's my own.
Without copyright that would be impossible.
Here's the part where you claim I should restrict my career to live performances.
That's what I have to do. What makes you so special? If that's the way you want it, then I want royalty payments for every mile you drive your car after I fix it. If I build your house, then I should collect some rent. It doesn't work that way for us, does it? We get paid when we do the work. Don't expect me to put your kids through college just because you provide me with a few minutes of entertainment. I'll pay you if and when I go to see you perform.
And they may never get that amazing, revolutionary album off the ground that music listeners deserved to hear but eventually didn't get to...
Under the present system of payola, etc. that's what's happening now. The publishers are controlling what gets heard under this system. They hate P2P because it's killing off the publishing middleman. P2P provides for self distribution. It has a chance to take away the control enjoyed by the privileged few. All info can be accessed by everybody, that is definitely a good thing.
Fuck you.
You wouldn't like it. My sister might be interested though...
It's late. If I think of anything else, I'll formulate a third response.
Why not produce a logical response, instead?? Hmmm? That shouldn't be so hard now, should it? Or do you prefer to judge others anonymously, without fear of retribution? Is that how you prefer to advance your argument? Fear not. I'm sure you'll get your chance. This is why I won't moderate. I prefer to discuss the issue. Heh...to each his own, I guess.
With news however, it is often not enough time to go through and check each fact.
Well then, they'll just have to hire Dan Rather, though I would prefer Capt. Janks.
Re:Welcome to capitalism
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
I prefer inefficiency to price gouging. Either way we would get the needed medicines. Or do you think that without patents nobody would do anything about the problem? I tend to think that people aren't just going to lie down and die. With or without the patents, people will do what is necessary for survival. They can cooperate and produce whatever is needed. Right now, the profit motive is producing a lot of bad medicine, and usually it's aimed at providing treatment instead of a cure. There's more profit in treatment. We have so many crazy drugs that require other drugs to counteract the first ones. Just look at the "cocktail" used to treat HIV. Very profitable indeed.
University:...jobs that are driven by tenure and seniority Business: jobs that are driven by nepetism, greed, corruption...AND tenure and seniority Which is worse?
As much as I would like hold the people responsible, I wouldn't know where to start. I think we are going to find Jimmy Hoffa before we ever find out the truth about this. This goes much deeper than any of the drivel you're going hear here. Although your last statement may appear harsh(sorry you got modded down), it's closer to the truth about the man than most people will admit. It seems that the election was decided by the very things you mention. It would be sad to think that such whackos really do outnember the rest of us. It helps me to understand why blacks and some other minorities feel so disenfranchised. Turns out that they are. They could all vote for the same thing, and they will still lose. Now we can add any reasonable person to that list. It shows that fear, uncertainty, and doubt will always win. Unless the 49% of the electorate that loses has some voice in their gov't, American style democracy is doomed, and will descend into total mayhem. What little respect the people have for their gov't then will completely disappear. Only a nationwide epiphany can possibly save them now. Otherwise the violent revolution cycle will once again repeat itself, and of course the final result will be the same as the last revolution. And also of course in the meantime there will be many more Bhopal type disasters to come.(There. I'm back on topic.). The real failure to prosecute those bastards is really our failure. We didn't demand it. We failed to put people in charge that would demand it. Same applies to the Micosoft case, the Ford Pinto, the space shuttle, 9/11...you name it. I know that only I can be responsible for my own personal misfortunes, and nobody else, no matter what. I also feel that we are all partialy responsible for what happened in Bhopal. For our species to survive we do indeed need to care for each other. This every man for himself mentality that we suffer now is unsustainable.
If you are so keen on this socialist theory that its wrong to make a buck off of your talent...
I'm not sure how you drew that comclusion. I make my bucks with my talent by performing the work. I can't make a movie of me working(even if it is entertaining) and expect to make money from it for the next 75 years, and you shouldn't be able to either. I could, conceivably use the movie as an advertisement for my next job, but that's all a copy is. It's an ad showing your talent in hopes that people will pay to see your next performance. That's the way it should be. Copyright is gov't subsidy paid for by the public. That sounds a little like socialism to me.
Then we can come over and browse your things and take them...
That tired old story doesn't apply. In other words you can't fool me with that garbage. In fact, you obviously made no attempt to understand my post. You're just saying, "But, she has a new hat."(look it up), just like the other drones.
It was elitist busybodies that created copyright. Copyright is interfering with progress.
Maybe a better way to organize ourselves is to compell society to live by the rules:...
Not by your rules I hope. Let me spell it out for you. IP laws are a gov't service to protect a few people at the expense of the rest. Truly inalienable rights do not interfere in any way with the rights of others: Life, Liberty, etc. Copyright is not an inalienable right. It's welfare actually, just like tobacco and dairy subsidies. You want the public to subsidise your work. You're just trying to cash in on your "one hit wonder", and you want world to pay rent for the next 75 years. Well, I got news for you. Your gravy train is running out of track, and I will do my part to make sure that's what happens. Since it doesn't look like these corrupt laws are going to be repealed anytime soon, maybe it's time to simply disregard them. These kind of laws can only provoke contempt for all laws. Prohibition is doing the same thing. The end result of course is mayhem.
Oh wait, that was tried and tens of millions of innocent people were slaughtered in the name of making it work.
Are you talking about capitalism, socialism, religion, or what? That makes no sense.
You can your money by actually performing to an audience. What you're trying to do is to make something once and then get paid for the same thing many times. The copies can serve as advertisement for your next performance. I repeat: I have to show up for work! You should to! I can't get a copy to perform my job. Why should you? If I want to get paid, I have to perform. It's too damn simple. Your other comments about doors and locks are just plain silly. If a door or lock was to become obsolete, it's because somebody made a better door or lock. A response about GPL has already been made. Suffice it to say that without copyright, GPL wouldn't be necessary. GPL is just a response to the copyright situation we are in.
I'm sorry if I left you with the impression that I want to abandon morality. It's not the case at all. I simply tried to state that I don't hate SCO because of their actions. Make it impossible for them to do this(change the law, or in this case eliminate some) and all will be well. I couldn't agree more to this post you made. I thought I was stating(in a wierd way) the same thing. That morality comes from within, not from the outside. This is why I find it difficult to judge others, or allow others to judge me. If SCO feels that they're doing the right thing(in their heart, if they had one), is it right for me to say otherwise? For me personally, I feel that it's wrong, but I don't harbor any feelings towards them one way or the other. I do my part by not dealing with them, and I encourage others to do likewise. If enough people do the same, they will wither and die. No hate required. I suppose that would be a moral judgement, but I like to think I'm judging the action, not the person(or entity) commiting the action. If I'm not attacking the person, he might be more likely to react positively and change his course. I would rather tell him that he is doing something bad, as opposed to saying that he IS bad.
The only thing I could possibly disagree with you is that it's not our place to judge others(I believe many religions say the same thing), but all we should do is live the moral life that you mentioned. When I can do that, SCO and all the others will simply become irrelevent, and hopefully I won't come back as a cockroach. I'm sorry if this post is lame(and repetitive), but what do you expect from somebody with 7th grade writing skills(accordong to MS Word)? I'm going to blame the catholic school I suffered through.
...take the milk from the refirgerator, and walk out without paying.
Why do you insist on using anologies that simply don't apply? This is why I call you people copyright drones. You have no logic to back up your argument, so you use old theories that have been proven false. Yet you continue to use them. It doesn't help your cause in any way. Copyright is as depicable as trickle down economics. In fact they are the same. Let a guy make millions at public expense, and maybe, just maybe he might leave a few more crumbs on the floor for the rest of us. It's a horrible concept. Under this system, the only motivation to create anything is money, little more. Under this system, people create useless stuff, and then they're spamming us at dinner time ringing my damn phone telling me "Buy my shit! C'mon godammit, buy it! If you don't buy it you're a damn thief! Buy! Buy! Buy!" It's because of IP that we have so much crap on the store shelves. Junk is being invented simply because you can find a sucker that will buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but back in the 90s, you had bands like Aerosmith making albums that they did not want to make, but the studio demanded it.
I don't have much sympathy for people who sign bad contracts. I bet they could've made it easy for themselves by simply recording some stuff they wrote 20 years earlier, but never actually recorded.
It's no longer about the artists anymore.
It shouldn't be about the artists. It should be about the art. That's one of the problems about IP. It's all: I created this. It should be: i created THIS . I don't care who makes what. If it looks, sounds, smells, tastes, feels good, I'll buy it. It doesn't matter who makes it. Of course, having a name on it makes a subsequent search a little easier. I buy something for its own value, not for the name on the cover(corner). A side note: The recording companies have always treated the artists like hell, particularly the black artists during the 20's through the 50's. Without IP, the artist will be able to make plenty of money without having to sign their souls away to some greedy publisher, even if they want or need to hire an agent to do their dirty work like advertising and arranging concert deals, etc. I just don't like to see them get special privileges that the rest of us will never see. Whether they like it or not, we're all the same and their work is no more valuable than mine or yours.
...but when he was in office he was clearly out of his depth.
I don't know. He seemed to remember his lines pretty well, and, unlike Ford, he didn't bump into the furniture. Remember that Reagan already had acting experience. He knew how to work an audience, and he obviously had better writers. All these guys are actors, but Reagan would get the Oscar for sure for "Best Acting President".
Way off topic. Is it worth it for you to take them to court on it? Can you afford to do it just on principle if nothing else? I, for one, would love to see these people get slammed into oblivion for this. Going to satellite might not help if cable providers have their fingers in that pie. Kind of like the "competition" between telcos and cable. There's so much cross investment, there might not be an escape without giving up TV altogether. The best way might be a good "old fashioned" 5 metre dish, and catch the "wild feeds". It's fun, and it's free, and sometimes unedited. You get to watch news anchors pick their nose and cuss out the help.
I most definitely believe that a person should reap the rewards of their labor, but never at the expense of others. Copyright(all IP) does just that. I just want a level playing field, and this, providing special privileges to a few over other "lesser" people, can never, ever accomplish that. Too many good inventions were(are) stuck in limbo until the IP benefits expire. Too many people are going to die because they can't afford a cure. I'm positive that we can all reap those rewards without IP. I actually believe that the reward will be much greater without it, but the idea of "Artist as King" will no longer exist, and it shouldn't. The end of that concept just means that Gary Bussey(is that one S or two?) will have to put a muffler on his Harley. In other words these guys will have to obey the rules of the road just like the rest of us. Also remeber that strict enforcement of IP laws could create a backlash against the idea of capitalism(might not be a bad thing) the likes of which we have yet to see if enough people get sick and die, or starve to death(that's a slam against Monsanto). It might make the U.S. an even bigger target since they are the biggest pusher of the concept. Understandable when you consider that, besides weapons, entertainment is just about their last business experiencing a trade surplus.
Its advisory board currently includes Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.)
After seeing this from the link, I don't feel so bad about Gore's loss in 2000. It's a delusion to think that the Dems would protect one's civil rights any better that the GOP. 51% of you all need to elect an alternative. Otherwise nothing's going change. Good luck.
I'm using it as a metaphor to demonstrate that you won't get far without going through a publisher. They control what gets on the radio, in Borders bookstores, in the movie theaters, and most concert venues, among other things. They provide (privatized)censorship services for the gov't with that control. It's one reason that the gov't wants to make sure that they stay in business. I've posted many times on the subject in the hopes that one might understand that copyright isn't what most people think it is. Other people have made much more eloquent posts along the same vein(?). I don't expect people that depend on copyright services to even begin to understand this. It's like expecting a drug addict to quit using simply because someone told them that's it's not good for them. It's like asking a(n?) H2 owner to show some repect for the enviroment.
Copyright was never designed to advance the arts. Any one that says otherwise is lying or ignorant of the facts. It was designed to force you to get a license to publish(use that new fangled printing press that was just invented). The only thing new is that now it's being used to prevent self publishing with the new tech that is now available to us all. In other words, they are still trying to force you to get a license to publish. It is a tool who's primary function is that of censorship. The gov't also needs an information gatekeeper. This is to insure that you must use a publishing middleman to be heard. The only way to get people to accept copyright was to put this "advancement of the arts and sciences" spin on it. It sad that after almost 300 years, people still beieve this. Especially will so much evidence that proves just the opposite.
It isn't the FCC's property to sell and it doesn't force vendors to address issues fast enough.
:)
So very true. I also wonder if any of this will help us produce a wireless internet free of the ISP's stranglehold they have over access today. Of course it won't. I also believe that what is said about the spectrum being a finite resource is a lot of bull. The only thing finite about it is our knowledge. This is just an attempt to create scarcity where there is none. Why? For money and power of course. Our present knowledge of physics is running into a brick wall. I'ts becoming time to re-think our theories of matter and inertia. There's something wrong here, and I sure haven't figured out what it is, but if I find out, you all will be the first to know
Au contraire. The buyer(you know, the guy who spends the money?) needs to set the rules. Not the other way around. I told another guy this; I'll pay you if and when I go to see your performance, not your demos. That's what every CD on every store shelf is. It's a demo to entice us to go see you perform. At least that's the way it should be. Does the publisher pay for your demos? if not, why should I? This whole thing has caused artists to think that their creative "genius" makes them better than the rest of us, worthy of special gov't subsidies(entitlements). No way. They should work with the same rules as we do in our line of work. If you want control over your ideas, then don't express them. Once you do, they're no longer exclusively yours. Whether an idea comes from inside or outside my head makes no difference. Once I have it, I can do what I want with it. And elimination of IP laws will allow us to put all of our heads together.
Ok...Would you believe...Buster Crabbe?
John Wayne is dead
:-)
George Reeve is dead
Buster Keaton is dead
Johnny Weissmuller is dead
These guys were the primary action heroes while I was growing up. There. Now you can feel young again
...then who ultimately determines what is right?
Funny how I just happened to stumble onto this thread. In a recent dscussion I was having, I was provided with this:
One time Budha came upon a town and the elders of the town had a meeting with him. They asked him "We have many sages and ascetics come by and each one tells us that they hold the key to enlightenment. How can be sure you are right and others are wrong, how can we tell who to follow and who to ignore?". Budha replied. "Look into your hearts, decide what's right and wrong, stop doing what's wrong, start doing what's right and you will have found true religion."
Sounds good to me.
In case you're interested in the rest of the discussion, you can find it here. You'll have to jump back a few links to see the beginning.
a couple of billion to first guy that can fix the Hubble Telescope.
I'm glad to see somebody here got it right. The printing press was the the P2P of the time, and we're still suffering from the resultant laws of those times, going on 300 years now. Prohibition didn't work. Neither does copyright. Of course that depends on you point of view. If you're dependant on the status quo, then of course you will defend it to the death. I just wish they could come up with a logical defense. Looks like I'm going to die waiting. I guess defending the indefensible is more difficult than I thought.(Can somebody check my posting history to see if I said that before? I have this vague feeling that I did, but I'm not really sure. Thank you)
Note to copyright drones:
On that list of 101 things to do before you die...
102. Produce a logical defense for copyright. Try to convince me that you're special and should be granted special entitlements to make a living, and why I shouldn't be granted the same for my line of work.
Copyright provides an incentive to find new ideas, since inventors can be motivated by greed...
Inventors that are motivated by greed usually don't produce very good inventions. I prefer to see inventors motivated by need(for the invention). It will produce a far superior product. We shouldn't grant special privileges to those who would invent a product who's sole purpose is to make the inventor some extra cash.(Re: Pet Rock) If one needs to wait for a patent to expire to produce a workaround, then all progess on that invention will just have to wait. If people are allowed to make improvements immediately, then everybody benefits. Check out the history of the diesel engine as an example. I contend that progress in the electronics has been grossly inhibited by IP laws.
Second response:
...when all those comforts in their lives exist because of a system built on copyrights and trademarks.
...you're violating my rights as a content artist?
...and I can steal any old GPL code I want and sell it as a completely new product and claim it's my own.
I don't get this whiny sense of entitlement...
You should. That's what copyright is. A gov't entitlement. In the belief that it will advance the sciences and creative arts. Once copyright is gone it will be proven to be a mistaken belief.
"Lots of other people at Slashdot say it a lot too...
And my argument has been backed up many times by many people. And that's just here at Slashdot. I put this here to give you a chance to re-read it. This time try to read the whole statement. What you're not hearing is that these ideas exist outside of slashdot, also. And they have existed long before slashdot, or even the internet. The internet just provides easier access to these ideas. As more people understand the real intent of copyright(all IP laws actually), our voice will only get louder.
For the record, I've NEVER heard people like you offer a valid reason why piracy or copyright violation is a good thing.
You probably have heard it. You just chose to ignore it. You should know that many publishers use piracy to move their product. It's similar to price dumping to wipe out the competition. Microsoft is a good example. If it weren't for piracy, they would be as small as Apple. In fact they probably wouldn't exist at all. Piracy is what got them the market share they enjoy today, but that still doesn't say that piracy is a good thing, but it can be good business. Adobe employs the same tactics. If copyright violation helps to get these laws off the books, then that will definitely be a good thing.
I know the ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS MAKING THE CONTENT don't ever seem to come up in these discussions, so I'm making myself known.
You have just proven my point. To you, it's all about the creator. That's what the Jesus freaks are about. They love Jesus, but they conveniently ignore his teachings. I'm here to tell you that the creation is what's important, not the creator.
Yes, and for now, I can only imagine how much better the system would be without copyrights or trademarks.
They aren't rights. They are special privileges provided to you by the gov't.
Without copyright that would be impossible.
Here's the part where you claim I should restrict my career to live performances.
That's what I have to do. What makes you so special? If that's the way you want it, then I want royalty payments for every mile you drive your car after I fix it. If I build your house, then I should collect some rent. It doesn't work that way for us, does it? We get paid when we do the work. Don't expect me to put your kids through college just because you provide me with a few minutes of entertainment. I'll pay you if and when I go to see you perform.
And they may never get that amazing, revolutionary album off the ground that music listeners deserved to hear but eventually didn't get to...
Under the present system of payola, etc. that's what's happening now. The publishers are controlling what gets heard under this system. They hate P2P because it's killing off the publishing middleman. P2P provides for self distribution. It has a chance to take away the control enjoyed by the privileged few. All info can be accessed by everybody, that is definitely a good thing.
Fuck you.
You wouldn't like it. My sister might be interested though...
It's late. If I think of anything else, I'll formulate a third response.
I wish I could mod up.
Why not produce a logical response, instead?? Hmmm? That shouldn't be so hard now, should it? Or do you prefer to judge others anonymously, without fear of retribution? Is that how you prefer to advance your argument? Fear not. I'm sure you'll get your chance. This is why I won't moderate. I prefer to discuss the issue. Heh...to each his own, I guess.
With news however, it is often not enough time to go through and check each fact.
Well then, they'll just have to hire Dan Rather, though I would prefer Capt. Janks.
I prefer inefficiency to price gouging. Either way we would get the needed medicines. Or do you think that without patents nobody would do anything about the problem? I tend to think that people aren't just going to lie down and die. With or without the patents, people will do what is necessary for survival. They can cooperate and produce whatever is needed. Right now, the profit motive is producing a lot of bad medicine, and usually it's aimed at providing treatment instead of a cure. There's more profit in treatment. We have so many crazy drugs that require other drugs to counteract the first ones. Just look at the "cocktail" used to treat HIV. Very profitable indeed.
...jobs that are driven by tenure and seniority
University:
Business: jobs that are driven by nepetism, greed, corruption...AND tenure and seniority
Which is worse?
As much as I would like hold the people responsible, I wouldn't know where to start. I think we are going to find Jimmy Hoffa before we ever find out the truth about this. This goes much deeper than any of the drivel you're going hear here.
Although your last statement may appear harsh(sorry you got modded down), it's closer to the truth about the man than most people will admit. It seems that the election was decided by the very things you mention. It would be sad to think that such whackos really do outnember the rest of us. It helps me to understand why blacks and some other minorities feel so disenfranchised. Turns out that they are. They could all vote for the same thing, and they will still lose. Now we can add any reasonable person to that list. It shows that fear, uncertainty, and doubt will always win. Unless the 49% of the electorate that loses has some voice in their gov't, American style democracy is doomed, and will descend into total mayhem. What little respect the people have for their gov't then will completely disappear. Only a nationwide epiphany can possibly save them now. Otherwise the violent revolution cycle will once again repeat itself, and of course the final result will be the same as the last revolution. And also of course in the meantime there will be many more Bhopal type disasters to come.(There. I'm back on topic.). The real failure to prosecute those bastards is really our failure. We didn't demand it. We failed to put people in charge that would demand it. Same applies to the Micosoft case, the Ford Pinto, the space shuttle, 9/11...you name it. I know that only I can be responsible for my own personal misfortunes, and nobody else, no matter what. I also feel that we are all partialy responsible for what happened in Bhopal. For our species to survive we do indeed need to care for each other. This every man for himself mentality that we suffer now is unsustainable.
If you are so keen on this socialist theory that its wrong to make a buck off of your talent...
I'm not sure how you drew that comclusion. I make my bucks with my talent by performing the work. I can't make a movie of me working(even if it is entertaining) and expect to make money from it for the next 75 years, and you shouldn't be able to either. I could, conceivably use the movie as an advertisement for my next job, but that's all a copy is. It's an ad showing your talent in hopes that people will pay to see your next performance. That's the way it should be. Copyright is gov't subsidy paid for by the public. That sounds a little like socialism to me.
Then we can come over and browse your things and take them...
That tired old story doesn't apply. In other words you can't fool me with that garbage. In fact, you obviously made no attempt to understand my post. You're just saying, "But, she has a new hat."(look it up), just like the other drones.
It was elitist busybodies that created copyright. Copyright is interfering with progress.
Maybe a better way to organize ourselves is to compell society to live by the rules:...
Not by your rules I hope. Let me spell it out for you. IP laws are a gov't service to protect a few people at the expense of the rest. Truly inalienable rights do not interfere in any way with the rights of others: Life, Liberty, etc. Copyright is not an inalienable right. It's welfare actually, just like tobacco and dairy subsidies. You want the public to subsidise your work. You're just trying to cash in on your "one hit wonder", and you want world to pay rent for the next 75 years. Well, I got news for you. Your gravy train is running out of track, and I will do my part to make sure that's what happens. Since it doesn't look like these corrupt laws are going to be repealed anytime soon, maybe it's time to simply disregard them. These kind of laws can only provoke contempt for all laws. Prohibition is doing the same thing. The end result of course is mayhem.
Oh wait, that was tried and tens of millions of innocent people were slaughtered in the name of making it work.
Are you talking about capitalism, socialism, religion, or what? That makes no sense.
You can your money by actually performing to an audience. What you're trying to do is to make something once and then get paid for the same thing many times. The copies can serve as advertisement for your next performance. I repeat: I have to show up for work! You should to! I can't get a copy to perform my job. Why should you? If I want to get paid, I have to perform. It's too damn simple. Your other comments about doors and locks are just plain silly. If a door or lock was to become obsolete, it's because somebody made a better door or lock. A response about GPL has already been made. Suffice it to say that without copyright, GPL wouldn't be necessary. GPL is just a response to the copyright situation we are in.
I'm sorry if I left you with the impression that I want to abandon morality. It's not the case at all. I simply tried to state that I don't hate SCO because of their actions. Make it impossible for them to do this(change the law, or in this case eliminate some) and all will be well. I couldn't agree more to this post you made. I thought I was stating(in a wierd way) the same thing. That morality comes from within, not from the outside. This is why I find it difficult to judge others, or allow others to judge me. If SCO feels that they're doing the right thing(in their heart, if they had one), is it right for me to say otherwise? For me personally, I feel that it's wrong, but I don't harbor any feelings towards them one way or the other. I do my part by not dealing with them, and I encourage others to do likewise. If enough people do the same, they will wither and die. No hate required. I suppose that would be a moral judgement, but I like to think I'm judging the action, not the person(or entity) commiting the action. If I'm not attacking the person, he might be more likely to react positively and change his course. I would rather tell him that he is doing something bad, as opposed to saying that he IS bad.
The only thing I could possibly disagree with you is that it's not our place to judge others(I believe many religions say the same thing), but all we should do is live the moral life that you mentioned. When I can do that, SCO and all the others will simply become irrelevent, and hopefully I won't come back as a cockroach.
I'm sorry if this post is lame(and repetitive), but what do you expect from somebody with 7th grade writing skills(accordong to MS Word)? I'm going to blame the catholic school I suffered through.
...take the milk from the refirgerator, and walk out without paying.
Why do you insist on using anologies that simply don't apply? This is why I call you people copyright drones. You have no logic to back up your argument, so you use old theories that have been proven false. Yet you continue to use them. It doesn't help your cause in any way. Copyright is as depicable as trickle down economics. In fact they are the same. Let a guy make millions at public expense, and maybe, just maybe he might leave a few more crumbs on the floor for the rest of us. It's a horrible concept. Under this system, the only motivation to create anything is money, little more. Under this system, people create useless stuff, and then they're spamming us at dinner time ringing my damn phone telling me "Buy my shit! C'mon godammit, buy it! If you don't buy it you're a damn thief! Buy! Buy! Buy!" It's because of IP that we have so much crap on the store shelves. Junk is being invented simply because you can find a sucker that will buy it.