Karma be damned. I'm going into full insult mode now. It is quite clear that you are trying so hard to cash in on the status quo, that you are unable to make objective statements about the situation. I re-read the thread you linked to, and I stand by every word of it. Proudly I might add. You are simply supporting a corrupt industry because you hope to benefit from it someday.
Cast me as Halliburtan, but you're the thug.
So, potential copyright infringers are worse than corporate killers? You are so warped by your own greed.
...but the fact remains that many of the artists have slept in vans, eaten Mac and Cheese three meals a day, and worked very hard to make the music.
That's because they were dependant a very monopolistic and very corrupt industry to distribute their work. They and their customers need to realize that they no longer need to sell their souls to publish. It's all just a mouse click away now. The industry is very afraid of this and is only trying to protect itself. People of Utah, please don't re-elect Hatch.
Suing is one thing. Jail is quite another. Current copyright law protects the industry at the expense of the artist, and is worthy of nothing but contempt. As long as these kinds of laws remain on the books, all law becomes contemptable.
The prison industry needs more "customers" to make a profit. They need the prisons to be full, and then they can build and fill more prisons. They could be behind this as much as the entertainment industry. After they put enough geeks in jail, America might not need to outsource their IT jobs overseas anymore. It doesn't matter if the crime is petty or not. Just fill the jail.
Television, like any other medium, only shows you what you want to see.
If that were true, I would have seen BOTH boobs.
But the television didn't bring home the horrors of the North Vietnamese government to the homes of the American people...
It didn't show the abuses by the South Vietnamese, either. I think if tv had access to North Vietnam, they would've shown all the abuse you'd want to see.
He lost because he stupid campaign manager blew all that money...
Let's not fool ourselves here. Thanks to the tee-vee, The election has become a beauty contest. Draw your own conclusion from that. Also, he wasn't above playing the same stupid games as the others. He sealed his rocords as governor of his state, telling the other candidates (probably Bush), "Show me yours, and I'll show you mine." We are hyping him up because he ran for president "using the internet". That's the same mentality as "But Malibu Stacy has a new hat", so, of course whatever message he may have had is lost.
give NASA credit for keeping their servers up during that. That, or not too many of you guys were watching. I sure wish they put a camera on the thing, though.
I would love to see people actually vote out the incumbants, just to see how the gov't would react. They voted in a medical marijuana bill in California. You are aware how the gov't dealt with that, right? Something tells me that they wouldn't think too kindly on people voting for real change. The Americans can maintain their illusion of freedom as long as they don't actually excersize it.
The Internet has brought world news into the American household. Before, we only had the local media and a handful of cable news networks. It has already started influencing how the American people view politics, and elevated their level of interaction with it.
Yet, they still put a sociopath in the white house...
Re:Does fair use widely exist anymore?
on
Free Culture
·
· Score: 1
Though fair use is a very strong issue, it's not THE issue as I see it. The media folks only have IP because they were able to con the creators into selling their rights to them. They are doing what they can to prevent creators from understanding that they (creators) don't need these companies to distribute their work for them anymore, thus they (creators) can distribute AND keep their rights (as provided by the gov't). The media conglomerates are the "buggy whip" manufacturers of today, and are thus obsolete.
...this question sets up a false dichotomy, which presupposes that fileswappers help innovation.
If they are able to help eliminate bad copyright law, they would indeed help innovation. If nothing else, they can show that creators don't have to give up their gov't given rights to distribute their work. We still need to remember that copyright is NOT a natural right. It's a service provided by gov't to promote...
...they need to come up with a better victim class than Kazaa users...
I'm pretty sure the "Lessig crowd" understands that the real victims are the public at large and more importantly the creators who have had to sell their soul and give up all rights to get their work published. The current copyright laws were "hand made" to protect publishers at the expense of the creators, and really do need a complete teardown and rebuild. Anybody that wants to maintain the status quo is either very naive (believing the FUD coming from the publishers), or has a lot of stock in companies like Disney and don't want to see their gravy train get de-railed. And yes, the "filesharing pirates" can be a cornerstone of a new worldwide cooperation, and they can show that contempt for bad laws is not necessarily a bad thing. The bad thing is when these bad laws breed contempt for the good ones.
Probably being done at the behest of the publishing industry. They don't want to see their business model wiped out by a bunch of "do it yourselfers". A lot of tools in any business are priced artificially high to keep out "undesirables". They assume that you're going to make money with their tools, and want you to pay the profits up front. It keeps people from understanding how cheap and easy publishing can be.
Like all products in a capitalist society, the value depends on its scarcity, not its actual quality. The value of Adobe's other products would be diminished if this was available in any great abundance.
Let me re-word that. If there were copies of works contained in a museum, they couldn't nor would be interested in stopping online sharing of these works? It seems that the museum is charging or "requesting a donation" for you to see the original and probably could care less about all the copies out there in the world. Kind of like the way a band makes its money in concert(the original) and may or may not care about the copies of their music (except to get more copies out to be heard).
I prefer the terms "creator" and "publisher". Most of the copyright battles have been between these two groups, and anytime the creators acquired any rights at all, the publishers went nuts. Now the whole publishing business model was made irrelevent by the net and other digital this an' that. They still have a purpose in niche markets, but on the whole, they are no longer necessary. Why should a creator pay a publisher when all he has to do is distribute on the net, and let the customer print his own copy? Well, obviously, the publishers don't like this and are trying to bend the law in their favor in order to sustain their obsolete business. The are using the creators as their posterboy in this battle in the same way a mother sends her kid to the street to do her begging for her in order to get sympathy from the public. The publishers could care less about the creators after the contact is signed. They're trying to protect their business, nothing more. There is nothing honorable in what their doing. Publishers no longer need nor deserve copright protection. If copyright is to exist at all, it should protect the creators. Publishers need to look for another way to make their money.
I got off on a tangent there with this. Basically, yous takes your chances like anything else. No guarantees. My point is this. The gov't is "nice" enough to offer this service to protect IP. The service should be paid for by the users. If you want copyright, go out and buy the protection that the gov't offers. It's not a "right". It's a service. You have to buy a license for your car. There's no reason to treat this any differently.
Unfortunately the value of ideas is difficult to quantify, but it appears that our difference of opinion lies in how valuable we perceive ideas to be.
I consider the value of my ideas by the number of people using them. If nobody can use them, it's obvious they have absolutely no value. I would feel as if I made no contribution to anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Karma be damned. I'm going into full insult mode now. It is quite clear that you are trying so hard to cash in on the status quo, that you are unable to make objective statements about the situation. I re-read the thread you linked to, and I stand by every word of it. Proudly I might add. You are simply supporting a corrupt industry because you hope to benefit from it someday.
Cast me as Halliburtan, but you're the thug.
So, potential copyright infringers are worse than corporate killers? You are so warped by your own greed.
...but the fact remains that many of the artists have slept in vans, eaten Mac and Cheese three meals a day, and worked very hard to make the music.
That's because they were dependant a very monopolistic and very corrupt industry to distribute their work. They and their customers need to realize that they no longer need to sell their souls to publish. It's all just a mouse click away now. The industry is very afraid of this and is only trying to protect itself. People of Utah, please don't re-elect Hatch.
Suing is one thing. Jail is quite another. Current copyright law protects the industry at the expense of the artist, and is worthy of nothing but contempt. As long as these kinds of laws remain on the books, all law becomes contemptable.
The prison industry needs more "customers" to make a profit. They need the prisons to be full, and then they can build and fill more prisons. They could be behind this as much as the entertainment industry. After they put enough geeks in jail, America might not need to outsource their IT jobs overseas anymore. It doesn't matter if the crime is petty or not. Just fill the jail.
You seem to be confusing slashdot readers with slashdot management/owners(?).
Television, like any other medium, only shows you what you want to see.
If that were true, I would have seen BOTH boobs.
But the television didn't bring home the horrors of the North Vietnamese government to the homes of the American people...
It didn't show the abuses by the South Vietnamese, either. I think if tv had access to North Vietnam, they would've shown all the abuse you'd want to see.
He lost because he stupid campaign manager blew all that money...
Let's not fool ourselves here. Thanks to the tee-vee, The election has become a beauty contest. Draw your own conclusion from that. Also, he wasn't above playing the same stupid games as the others. He sealed his rocords as governor of his state, telling the other candidates (probably Bush), "Show me yours, and I'll show you mine." We are hyping him up because he ran for president "using the internet". That's the same mentality as "But Malibu Stacy has a new hat", so, of course whatever message he may have had is lost.
give NASA credit for keeping their servers up during that. That, or not too many of you guys were watching. I sure wish they put a camera on the thing, though.
I would love to see people actually vote out the incumbants, just to see how the gov't would react. They voted in a medical marijuana bill in California. You are aware how the gov't dealt with that, right? Something tells me that they wouldn't think too kindly on people voting for real change. The Americans can maintain their illusion of freedom as long as they don't actually excersize it.
The Internet has brought world news into the American household. Before, we only had the local media and a handful of cable news networks. It has already started influencing how the American people view politics, and elevated their level of interaction with it.
Yet, they still put a sociopath in the white house...
Also, they are a must-have for any Bond villain.
But the helicopter can be submerged only once.
Though fair use is a very strong issue, it's not THE issue as I see it. The media folks only have IP because they were able to con the creators into selling their rights to them. They are doing what they can to prevent creators from understanding that they (creators) don't need these companies to distribute their work for them anymore, thus they (creators) can distribute AND keep their rights (as provided by the gov't). The media conglomerates are the "buggy whip" manufacturers of today, and are thus obsolete.
...this question sets up a false dichotomy, which presupposes that fileswappers help innovation.
If they are able to help eliminate bad copyright law, they would indeed help innovation. If nothing else, they can show that creators don't have to give up their gov't given rights to distribute their work. We still need to remember that copyright is NOT a natural right. It's a service provided by gov't to promote...
...they need to come up with a better victim class than Kazaa users...
I'm pretty sure the "Lessig crowd" understands that the real victims are the public at large and more importantly the creators who have had to sell their soul and give up all rights to get their work published. The current copyright laws were "hand made" to protect publishers at the expense of the creators, and really do need a complete teardown and rebuild. Anybody that wants to maintain the status quo is either very naive (believing the FUD coming from the publishers), or has a lot of stock in companies like Disney and don't want to see their gravy train get de-railed. And yes, the "filesharing pirates" can be a cornerstone of a new worldwide cooperation, and they can show that contempt for bad laws is not necessarily a bad thing. The bad thing is when these bad laws breed contempt for the good ones.
Maybe they're preparing to do what that guy in Utah is doing and become a lawsuit company.
world wide blackout?
Probably being done at the behest of the publishing industry. They don't want to see their business model wiped out by a bunch of "do it yourselfers". A lot of tools in any business are priced artificially high to keep out "undesirables". They assume that you're going to make money with their tools, and want you to pay the profits up front. It keeps people from understanding how cheap and easy publishing can be.
Like all products in a capitalist society, the value depends on its scarcity, not its actual quality. The value of Adobe's other products would be diminished if this was available in any great abundance.
Let me re-word that. If there were copies of works contained in a museum, they couldn't nor would be interested in stopping online sharing of these works? It seems that the museum is charging or "requesting a donation" for you to see the original and probably could care less about all the copies out there in the world. Kind of like the way a band makes its money in concert(the original) and may or may not care about the copies of their music (except to get more copies out to be heard).
I think you're confusing "artists" with "owners".
I prefer the terms "creator" and "publisher". Most of the copyright battles have been between these two groups, and anytime the creators acquired any rights at all, the publishers went nuts. Now the whole publishing business model was made irrelevent by the net and other digital this an' that. They still have a purpose in niche markets, but on the whole, they are no longer necessary. Why should a creator pay a publisher when all he has to do is distribute on the net, and let the customer print his own copy? Well, obviously, the publishers don't like this and are trying to bend the law in their favor in order to sustain their obsolete business. The are using the creators as their posterboy in this battle in the same way a mother sends her kid to the street to do her begging for her in order to get sympathy from the public. The publishers could care less about the creators after the contact is signed. They're trying to protect their business, nothing more. There is nothing honorable in what their doing. Publishers no longer need nor deserve copright protection. If copyright is to exist at all, it should protect the creators. Publishers need to look for another way to make their money.
...yet they get to charge admission.
Yes, but do they prohibit you from taking pictures and putting them on the net?
Imagine having a small piece...
Now imagine running a store.
Now imagine the response...
Now imagine a beowolf clust...hmmm...that doesn't work here. Does it? Nevermind...Bitch.
Looks like it's time to do like Gandhi, and wear only homespun clothing.
I got off on a tangent there with this. Basically, yous takes your chances like anything else. No guarantees. My point is this. The gov't is "nice" enough to offer this service to protect IP. The service should be paid for by the users. If you want copyright, go out and buy the protection that the gov't offers. It's not a "right". It's a service. You have to buy a license for your car. There's no reason to treat this any differently.
Unfortunately the value of ideas is difficult to quantify, but it appears that our difference of opinion lies in how valuable we perceive ideas to be.
I consider the value of my ideas by the number of people using them. If nobody can use them, it's obvious they have absolutely no value. I would feel as if I made no contribution to anyone.