Germany is soon becoming a screwed up democracy like the USA.
More like a repeat of the '20s and '30s. I'm sure some find the whole thing rather nostalgic.
Too bad the politicians slept in class.
They are beholden to weapons manufacturers and dealers. "Terrorists" are their best customers. And probably pay cash, so everything's off the books. Politicians and Wall Street hoodlums are wide awake and laughing all the way to the bank. The only thing they are fighting is a recession in the arms trade. That's why the urge to get places like Libya back on the clientlist.
It sure is funny to hear pro-copyrighters talking about entitlements, because that's exactly what they demand through copyright law. Special privileges because they feel their work is special. Above all others. Creativity is not a rare gift. It is a learned trade. It's no different than anything else. When I regularly engage in creative activities, I become more creative. So screw all that. You deserve nothing that anybody else can't have. And I tend to appeal to the one founding father who briefly made arguments against such entitlements, Thomas Jefferson. His was most logical. Like you said, "Respect is not just deserved. It is earned." Well, hear hear! I couldn't agree more. That little jewel applies equally to the creative trades as it does to any other trade. And the exact same rules should apply. I can learn to write music, too, but I have better things to do with my time, so I'll happily pay someone to perform music for me. I will pay for the service of the performance. But I won't be told what I can do with my recordings of his performance any more that I would expect to get paid for distribution of a movie of me changing somebody's oil. Copyright is not made any more valid simply because the market will bear it. It only means that people believe what they are told whether it's true or not. They believe it because it comes from an authority, not because it's a fact based on any truth.
Because we want those people writing and singing and directing for us, and not spending their time begging for money or working at Wal-Mart.
Then, by all means, pay them for it. I never said you shouldn't. Everybody is entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
I don't pay a lot, because there's lots of competition, and there's a limit to how much that service is worth to me. Supply and demand.
Same would go for the creative arts if not for the artificial shortages created by copyright and all other IP law. I can reduce the competition amongst mechanics, too, by creating or demanding all sorts of restrictive rules as to who can practice the art
But do I have even more respect for my doctor, who's undergone nearly a decade of advanced study and training and sweated bullets to get his degree? You better believe it.
Well, I for one, have more respect for a good mechanic than a bad doctor. How he got his license means nothing to me. It's about the quality of his performance and the love he has for his work, which usually go hand in hand.
Actually, you're probably not dumb, nor unskilled (nor a mechanic).
Jeeze. Such things are just as goofy as the restrictions coming out of "regular" copyright. If you don't like what they're doing start an alternative and forget about them. Otherwise take your money, and with all due respect, STFU. If they have no claim to exclusivity(which can only affect the signatories anyway), then ignore it, and use the material as you see fit. What difference does it make if somebody makes money with it if nobody can stop you from using or modifying or distributing it the way you like? That's what makes public domain the most desirable option. No lawyers, no judges, no 50 kilobyte licenses, just full access for everybody. If a commercial work contains public domain info, then that info is still in the public domain, and nobody can claim a monopoly over it. And I will go so far as to say that nobody can claim a monopoly on how the material is accessed, manipulated, laid out, etc. Public domain shall remain totally and completely public, to the advantage of no-one. Otherwise what's stated in the contract and ONLY in the SIGNED contract between the buyer and the seller should be the rule of the day. Nobody else has any obligations. This mad craving for control is spread around pretty evenly, even amongst those who consider themselves more "liberated". Makes you all sound like a bunch of hypocrites. Or even snobs. Phooey!
Other than the fact that there are millions of mechanics out there doing exactly the same identical, relatively unskilled work, and that the "service" you performed took five minutes...
Ahhh, the arrogance of the "artiest", alive and well it is. Yes, the little minions who clean your toilet don't deserve such special privileges reserved only for those of creative genius. You shall walk on rose petals.
The current system enables millions of creative people to create a ton of work...
And denies millions of more that are just as worthy. Your belief that copyright exists for the benefit of "creative people" is flawed. It exists now and has always existed to protect the old from the new. Now it needs a stake through the heart. The free ride is over. The overwhelming greed has exposed its true intent for what it is. It is a gate, a toll-road between the creator and the public, paid for by both to a middleman who now benefits neither. It is the railway monopoly between the farmer and the market. It is the oil cartels between the crude and your gas tank. Their common link is the heavy government protections and subsidies. Privileges designed to create and control a business.
If you want to write books, put out samples and see if people will pay you to write more. You will get paid for writing, not distribution fees. If you want somebody else to manage it, that will be between you and him/her. For a steady stream of writing, you will receive a stream of income. Just like us dumb, unskilled mek-uh-nics. And furthermore, any Jiffylube that can get you in and out in five minutes would definitely be worth your continued patronage and a nice bottle of brandy every Christmas... at least.
Well see? Don't complain about DMCA. It goes with the territory. That's part of my point. You want copyright? Well then, You gotta carry the baggage that comes along with it. All this nonsense with that and all the extensions, etc, etc, etc, is part of the show. It's a matched set, baby. It's evolution at work. It can't go any other way. That's what nature is alllll about. Follow through on the thought, and maybe you might understand where I'm coming from. Sorry...
Don't worry about the preview crap. The buttons are too close together anyway. But if they were any farther apart, I would be complaining about having to move the stupid mouse so far across the screen. Damn! "Tab" key maybe?
I'm not saying motivation will not exist without copyright, but that it will be severely reduced.
It would be different. That does not have to mean reduced.
Without copyright the only profit possible on an intangible work is one of personal gratification, and the quality and quantity of works created would be reflective of that.
To me, it would be better. Right now we get pretty shabby and sometimes dangerous products because of copyright. The profit motive does not necessarily provide for high quality. Especially these days where long term thinking is the exception rather than the rule. "Knock it out, take the money and run"
The hobbyist usually has to reinvent the wheel to get around a copyright, so yes, that would reduce the quality. We are seeing the damage that copyright is doing. OSS is becoming a tangled mess of licenses, such that it's just not worth dealing with from a business standpoint, unless I operate a corporate law firm. And I still insist that you have it backwards in regard to its original intent. It's a redux of Britain's Red Flag law. It's time for something completely different.
In the HOPE that the market will reward them for their efforts.
It's time to find another way besides the prohibition against distribution. And no, you don't have to wait for the work to be completed before you get paid, so the analogy you put forth is incorrect. However applying my analogy to copyright would mean that I should receive a royalty payment for 75 years after I change your oil. I could retire after five years of work. I can dig that.
Before there was copyright, people were motivated to create something out of need for the creation. So motivation will not go away without copyright. Copyright is a government protected monopoly. It has two specific purposes. One, to protect established industries from competition and new technology(the printing press being the original sinner). It creates a gatekeeper who assures that only approved works are produced and distributed. The lack of diversity in mass media is a good example of how this works. And two, to silence the critics of said industries and their methods of doing business. With everybody saying that "only the government practices censorship", it provides that government deniability. That a creator may benefit in some way is quite secondary and is in no way part of its intent, other than PR value, and to get said creator to go along. Placing an artificial value on property, physical or otherwise, serves only those with enough resources to acquire that property, denying access to all others. Yes, people are greedy. Copyright and all its extensions are a result of that greed. It is a prohibition similar to that against drugs whose only purpose is to increase profit margins for the sole benefit of those who make the law. Without copyright creation will become a community effort, where developmental costs are distributed, the way they are now through purchase, and in which the entire community will benefit. It would cease to be the trickle down business it is today. It is saying, let's grant these giant companies unearned rights so that they might leave a few crumbs for the rest of us. It serves to create a hierarchal order of the creative "high priests" or mystics to rule over the rest. On a side note, the reason your ISP limits uploads is strictly to limit self publishing. Under your belief system about copyright, freeware and OSS cannot exist. So, maybe not everybody is so greedy after all. Copyrights placed on those programs are defensive in that they prevent others from using the law to acquire exclusivity. Though I still believe that placing it in the public domain would serve the same purpose. And that would help put an end to the licensing madness we are all bearing on our shoulders. To mangle a famous quote by a famous person, sharing your knowledge won't make you any dumber.
The water is poisoned and the baby is the devil incarnate. Out it goes. All of it. The business model for the author will be different, not necessarily less profitable. Publishing companies are no longer needed, as self distribution is now within anybody's reach. You are making the same argument that was made against the printing press because of its threat to the writers guild, or for that matter the argument against the video recorder. The idea that copyright promotes the flow of creativity is completely off base. It is pure spin. It only promotes speculation and hoarding and enables censorship. It completely perverts the motivations behind any creativity. All work is built on another's. Copyright can only impede that process. It has set us back possibly 50-100 years. It is based on animal territorialism. It is irrational for sentient beings to maintain such a system.
...but abolishing it just ignores the good it does simply because the RIAA and MPAA abuse it.
Without the exclusivity provided by the copyright privileges they enjoy now, they would cease to exist. Their undue influence would evaporate.
Paying people for services, i.e. only when they perform the work doesn't work for most of the industries that use copyright most.
That would be correct. And I say let those industries die off. Good riddance to them. Other model will replace them. That would be a good thing.
Now, having said that, I repeat my willingness to compromise my beliefs with the reinstatement of the original duration of 14-17 year duration of the copyright for the time being as an exploratory measure. And no "grandfathering" older works. Anything else is unacceptable.
Past performance is a poor indicator of the future. It's a throw of the dice. We should demand that ALL vendors of protected software put the code into escrow, and, as long as copyright remains on the books, we should codify a fixed set of circumstances(such as response time from the vendor. Three days sounds good to me to prevent "hostage taking") when a program becomes abandonware. The real solution of course is to abolish copyright and tell people they will get paid for performing work and not simply squatting on information and collecting the rent. It's an equal rights issue to us who actually have to live under those conditions.
Well...Maybe they made some improvements over the G4(where I did have to google for instructions), where you had to remove very many tiny screws on the top and bottom of different lengths that you need to remember where they went, remove the RF shielding that's underneath some tabs and on top of others, separate wiring with the high risk of breaking them...as opposed to my Toshiba and every other PC laptop I've removed hard drives from where I remove one simple phillips head screw and slide out the tray and then remove the normal four phillips head screws to separate the hard drive out. It should never be more complicated than that.
iMacs were even worse. And the Mini? Have some paint spatulas and glue ready. Every bit as insane as iPod battery replacement. Fashion is nice, but not at the expense of accessibility.
When they cut him down from a manly 12 inches to 8 1/2 in '77 and then really destroyed his self esteem when he was cut down to 3 3/4! Oh! The humanity!
Well, of course. They have big, giant portfolios on life support. They'll be for anyrthing that might help cool down the call for complete abolishment. Where's Dr. Kevorkian? Time for some youth in Asia.
That can be merely copied to your drive(ala Mac) or even run from a thumb drive. That includes, but not limited to, Seamonkey, Filezilla, Audacity, Miranda, VirtualDub, TightVNC, Exact Audio Copy, Slax (or probably any liveCD). I generally try to avoid anything that actually requires installation, especially anything that places or replaces files anywhere in the system(Windows) directory. I don't care if I have duplicate dll's. I just want the convenience of being able to toss the program into the trash if I no longer need it.
How in the world in this day and age can a president blatantly violate the constitution and remain completely unchallenged?
You would have to ask the people that voted for him...twice. Same goes with congress. We still have the opportunity to vote them out of office if we so choose. If we continue to let them stay in much longer, we may lose that chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Germany is soon becoming a screwed up democracy like the USA.
More like a repeat of the '20s and '30s. I'm sure some find the whole thing rather nostalgic.
Too bad the politicians slept in class.
They are beholden to weapons manufacturers and dealers. "Terrorists" are their best customers. And probably pay cash, so everything's off the books. Politicians and Wall Street hoodlums are wide awake and laughing all the way to the bank. The only thing they are fighting is a recession in the arms trade. That's why the urge to get places like Libya back on the client list.
Answering both posts:
:-) Uh, Okay...
It sure is funny to hear pro-copyrighters talking about entitlements, because that's exactly what they demand through copyright law. Special privileges because they feel their work is special. Above all others. Creativity is not a rare gift. It is a learned trade. It's no different than anything else. When I regularly engage in creative activities, I become more creative. So screw all that. You deserve nothing that anybody else can't have. And I tend to appeal to the one founding father who briefly made arguments against such entitlements, Thomas Jefferson. His was most logical. Like you said, "Respect is not just deserved. It is earned." Well, hear hear! I couldn't agree more. That little jewel applies equally to the creative trades as it does to any other trade. And the exact same rules should apply. I can learn to write music, too, but I have better things to do with my time, so I'll happily pay someone to perform music for me. I will pay for the service of the performance. But I won't be told what I can do with my recordings of his performance any more that I would expect to get paid for distribution of a movie of me changing somebody's oil. Copyright is not made any more valid simply because the market will bear it. It only means that people believe what they are told whether it's true or not. They believe it because it comes from an authority, not because it's a fact based on any truth.
Because we want those people writing and singing and directing for us, and not spending their time begging for money or working at Wal-Mart.
Then, by all means, pay them for it. I never said you shouldn't. Everybody is entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
I don't pay a lot, because there's lots of competition, and there's a limit to how much that service is worth to me. Supply and demand.
Same would go for the creative arts if not for the artificial shortages created by copyright and all other IP law. I can reduce the competition amongst mechanics, too, by creating or demanding all sorts of restrictive rules as to who can practice the art
But do I have even more respect for my doctor, who's undergone nearly a decade of advanced study and training and sweated bullets to get his degree? You better believe it.
Well, I for one, have more respect for a good mechanic than a bad doctor. How he got his license means nothing to me. It's about the quality of his performance and the love he has for his work, which usually go hand in hand.
Actually, you're probably not dumb, nor unskilled (nor a mechanic).
Jeeze. Such things are just as goofy as the restrictions coming out of "regular" copyright. If you don't like what they're doing start an alternative and forget about them. Otherwise take your money, and with all due respect, STFU. If they have no claim to exclusivity(which can only affect the signatories anyway), then ignore it, and use the material as you see fit. What difference does it make if somebody makes money with it if nobody can stop you from using or modifying or distributing it the way you like? That's what makes public domain the most desirable option. No lawyers, no judges, no 50 kilobyte licenses, just full access for everybody. If a commercial work contains public domain info, then that info is still in the public domain, and nobody can claim a monopoly over it. And I will go so far as to say that nobody can claim a monopoly on how the material is accessed, manipulated, laid out, etc. Public domain shall remain totally and completely public, to the advantage of no-one. Otherwise what's stated in the contract and ONLY in the SIGNED contract between the buyer and the seller should be the rule of the day. Nobody else has any obligations. This mad craving for control is spread around pretty evenly, even amongst those who consider themselves more "liberated". Makes you all sound like a bunch of hypocrites. Or even snobs. Phooey!
Other than the fact that there are millions of mechanics out there doing exactly the same identical, relatively unskilled work, and that the "service" you performed took five minutes...
Ahhh, the arrogance of the "artiest", alive and well it is. Yes, the little minions who clean your toilet don't deserve such special privileges reserved only for those of creative genius. You shall walk on rose petals.
The current system enables millions of creative people to create a ton of work...
And denies millions of more that are just as worthy. Your belief that copyright exists for the benefit of "creative people" is flawed. It exists now and has always existed to protect the old from the new. Now it needs a stake through the heart. The free ride is over. The overwhelming greed has exposed its true intent for what it is. It is a gate, a toll-road between the creator and the public, paid for by both to a middleman who now benefits neither. It is the railway monopoly between the farmer and the market. It is the oil cartels between the crude and your gas tank. Their common link is the heavy government protections and subsidies. Privileges designed to create and control a business.
If you want to write books, put out samples and see if people will pay you to write more. You will get paid for writing, not distribution fees. If you want somebody else to manage it, that will be between you and him/her. For a steady stream of writing, you will receive a stream of income. Just like us dumb, unskilled mek-uh-nics. And furthermore, any Jiffylube that can get you in and out in five minutes would definitely be worth your continued patronage and a nice bottle of brandy every Christmas... at least.
Well see? Don't complain about DMCA. It goes with the territory. That's part of my point. You want copyright? Well then, You gotta carry the baggage that comes along with it. All this nonsense with that and all the extensions, etc, etc, etc, is part of the show. It's a matched set, baby. It's evolution at work. It can't go any other way. That's what nature is alllll about. Follow through on the thought, and maybe you might understand where I'm coming from. Sorry...
Don't worry about the preview crap. The buttons are too close together anyway. But if they were any farther apart, I would be complaining about having to move the stupid mouse so far across the screen. Damn! "Tab" key maybe?
You're analogy doesn't work because you actually had to do something in order to change that oil...
...you performed a service.
:-) And with the application of IP law, I could prohibit anyone from changing their own oil. Break the seal on the plug, go to jail.
??? So, creating a work is doing nothing? okay...
And due to copyright, the performing arts has become just that. A service
Better be prepared to be doing your own oil changes.
Always did
I'm not saying motivation will not exist without copyright, but that it will be severely reduced.
It would be different. That does not have to mean reduced.
Without copyright the only profit possible on an intangible work is one of personal gratification, and the quality and quantity of works created would be reflective of that.
To me, it would be better. Right now we get pretty shabby and sometimes dangerous products because of copyright. The profit motive does not necessarily provide for high quality. Especially these days where long term thinking is the exception rather than the rule. "Knock it out, take the money and run"
The hobbyist usually has to reinvent the wheel to get around a copyright, so yes, that would reduce the quality. We are seeing the damage that copyright is doing. OSS is becoming a tangled mess of licenses, such that it's just not worth dealing with from a business standpoint, unless I operate a corporate law firm. And I still insist that you have it backwards in regard to its original intent. It's a redux of Britain's Red Flag law. It's time for something completely different.
In the HOPE that the market will reward them for their efforts.
It's time to find another way besides the prohibition against distribution. And no, you don't have to wait for the work to be completed before you get paid, so the analogy you put forth is incorrect. However applying my analogy to copyright would mean that I should receive a royalty payment for 75 years after I change your oil. I could retire after five years of work. I can dig that.
Before there was copyright, people were motivated to create something out of need for the creation. So motivation will not go away without copyright. Copyright is a government protected monopoly. It has two specific purposes. One, to protect established industries from competition and new technology(the printing press being the original sinner). It creates a gatekeeper who assures that only approved works are produced and distributed. The lack of diversity in mass media is a good example of how this works. And two, to silence the critics of said industries and their methods of doing business. With everybody saying that "only the government practices censorship", it provides that government deniability. That a creator may benefit in some way is quite secondary and is in no way part of its intent, other than PR value, and to get said creator to go along. Placing an artificial value on property, physical or otherwise, serves only those with enough resources to acquire that property, denying access to all others. Yes, people are greedy. Copyright and all its extensions are a result of that greed. It is a prohibition similar to that against drugs whose only purpose is to increase profit margins for the sole benefit of those who make the law. Without copyright creation will become a community effort, where developmental costs are distributed, the way they are now through purchase, and in which the entire community will benefit. It would cease to be the trickle down business it is today. It is saying, let's grant these giant companies unearned rights so that they might leave a few crumbs for the rest of us. It serves to create a hierarchal order of the creative "high priests" or mystics to rule over the rest. On a side note, the reason your ISP limits uploads is strictly to limit self publishing. Under your belief system about copyright, freeware and OSS cannot exist. So, maybe not everybody is so greedy after all. Copyrights placed on those programs are defensive in that they prevent others from using the law to acquire exclusivity. Though I still believe that placing it in the public domain would serve the same purpose. And that would help put an end to the licensing madness we are all bearing on our shoulders. To mangle a famous quote by a famous person, sharing your knowledge won't make you any dumber.
I'm going to send him another bag. Hopefully it will work this time.
The water is poisoned and the baby is the devil incarnate. Out it goes. All of it. The business model for the author will be different, not necessarily less profitable. Publishing companies are no longer needed, as self distribution is now within anybody's reach. You are making the same argument that was made against the printing press because of its threat to the writers guild, or for that matter the argument against the video recorder. The idea that copyright promotes the flow of creativity is completely off base. It is pure spin. It only promotes speculation and hoarding and enables censorship. It completely perverts the motivations behind any creativity. All work is built on another's. Copyright can only impede that process. It has set us back possibly 50-100 years. It is based on animal territorialism. It is irrational for sentient beings to maintain such a system.
...but abolishing it just ignores the good it does simply because the RIAA and MPAA abuse it.
Without the exclusivity provided by the copyright privileges they enjoy now, they would cease to exist. Their undue influence would evaporate.
Paying people for services, i.e. only when they perform the work doesn't work for most of the industries that use copyright most.
That would be correct. And I say let those industries die off. Good riddance to them. Other model will replace them. That would be a good thing.
Now, having said that, I repeat my willingness to compromise my beliefs with the reinstatement of the original duration of 14-17 year duration of the copyright for the time being as an exploratory measure. And no "grandfathering" older works. Anything else is unacceptable.
Past performance is a poor indicator of the future. It's a throw of the dice. We should demand that ALL vendors of protected software put the code into escrow, and, as long as copyright remains on the books, we should codify a fixed set of circumstances(such as response time from the vendor. Three days sounds good to me to prevent "hostage taking") when a program becomes abandonware. The real solution of course is to abolish copyright and tell people they will get paid for performing work and not simply squatting on information and collecting the rent. It's an equal rights issue to us who actually have to live under those conditions.
Well...Maybe they made some improvements over the G4(where I did have to google for instructions), where you had to remove very many tiny screws on the top and bottom of different lengths that you need to remember where they went, remove the RF shielding that's underneath some tabs and on top of others, separate wiring with the high risk of breaking them...as opposed to my Toshiba and every other PC laptop I've removed hard drives from where I remove one simple phillips head screw and slide out the tray and then remove the normal four phillips head screws to separate the hard drive out. It should never be more complicated than that.
iMacs were even worse. And the Mini? Have some paint spatulas and glue ready. Every bit as insane as iPod battery replacement. Fashion is nice, but not at the expense of accessibility.
I have my popcorn ready.
I wouldn't advise it. Stick to pretzels.
...but for laptops, I go apple.
Pray you don't have to replace the hard drive. It's a fatal flaw.
Microsoft are just a company that sells misery...
And misery loves company. I know only one socially acceptable solution. Buyer beware.
Well, since they aren't getting one bit of real information from me, and I save my mail and stuff locally, should I care?
Besides, the implantation might trigger the explosive growth of a colony of cells.
And there's a chance that it could be malignant
When they cut him down from a manly 12 inches to 8 1/2 in '77 and then really destroyed his self esteem when he was cut down to 3 3/4! Oh! The humanity!
Well, of course. They have big, giant portfolios on life support. They'll be for anyrthing that might help cool down the call for complete abolishment. Where's Dr. Kevorkian? Time for some youth in Asia.
Yeah, the Pacific is much more pleasant :-)
Let's hope it's applied to voting in general. It might help to reduce the effects of money on the electorate and of lobbying in congress.
That can be merely copied to your drive(ala Mac) or even run from a thumb drive. That includes, but not limited to, Seamonkey, Filezilla, Audacity, Miranda, VirtualDub, TightVNC, Exact Audio Copy, Slax (or probably any liveCD). I generally try to avoid anything that actually requires installation, especially anything that places or replaces files anywhere in the system(Windows) directory. I don't care if I have duplicate dll's. I just want the convenience of being able to toss the program into the trash if I no longer need it.
Maybe we should call it data trawling. Just throw out a big, wide net and see what you catch.
How in the world in this day and age can a president blatantly violate the constitution and remain completely unchallenged?
You would have to ask the people that voted for him...twice. Same goes with congress. We still have the opportunity to vote them out of office if we so choose. If we continue to let them stay in much longer, we may lose that chance.