Actually, any changes to the constitution have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states (that is, first congress has to agree, and then the citizens of 3/4ths of the states have to), and I don't think that that's going to happen any time soon for something like removing 5th amendment rights.
There are 2 different ways to propose to amend the Constitutions but you've combined them. Article 5 is the relevant article:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Two thirds of congress can propose an amendment OR two thirds of the states' legislatures can propose to amend the Constitution.
So the police don't make you reveal your password -- they just tell you to enter it into your computer and unlock the files so they can look at them. It's no different than coming to you with a search warrant for your safe and making you unlock it.
Break my fingers, I still won't type my password for you.
I've never heard of extenders causing distortion of any sort, and I spent a lot of time asking around on various on-line fora before purchasing mine.
Quick search of photo.net for extenders distortion yields 187 results. From DIY Network: "The power of the extender is indicated on the lens. For example, a 1.5x will extend the magnification one and a half times.the down side of an extender is that it that you will need more light and there may be some additional distortion."
From the Wikipedia article: On January 2, 2008 the United States appealed the magistrate's opinion to the District Court in a sealed motion (court docket, case #: 2:06-mj-00091-wks-jjn-1). Yeah. More secrecy. How much do you want to bet G-Man claimed something related to terrorism or national security. Those are magic words that seem to be able to overcome any obstacle and instantly rally unlimited support.
But has the appeals court rule on it yet? It may still a ways off before government can get access. No matter how the appeals court rules the government may still need to way until the Supreme Court rules, if the Appeals Court let's the ruling stand they'll need to take it to the SC and if the defendant looses they can take it to the SC.
You can try encrypting all of your files but if they can gain physical access to the machine(s) in question without you knowing about it then it's a simple matter to install a keylogging device and obtain any passwords needed to decrypt your data.
However if you know what you're doing you can make it almost impossible for anyone to gain access to your home without you finding out. For instance you can moisten a hair or thread then stick it on a door placing it so that it sticks to both the door and the molding. If while you're away the door is opened the "seal" will fail and you can spot it.
What ever happened to the founding father's view that tyrany was ever vigilant and the tyrant would use any means to strip liberty away from its citizens?
Oh yeah, that isnt taught in schools:(
It, freedom from tyranny, not being taught in school may be part of the problem but another part is that those alive now haven't had to fight to preserve it. I think Thomas Jefferson hit it on the head when he suggested there should be a revolution about every 20 years. If you're born and raised under it more than likely you're going to be complacent.
I don't know what percent of the US population is imprisoned, but the US has one of the largest prison populations in the world. Hold on... According to the Department of Justice in 2004 there were "486 sentenced inmates per 100,000 U.S." According to wiki "The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world at 737 persons imprisoned per 100,000" and it references DOJ document Prisoners in 2005 [pfd].
So my email from a.co.uk email address to a colleague at a.br address is going to be searchable by the US?... We'll see what our governments have to say about that.
They can already listen to those phone call you make in the UK to Brazil, with ECHELON.
But but but it's not paper! It's electronic! So if you print your email, then the hardcopy is protected, but the electronic version is fair game. Which is exactly what Thomas Jefferson intended. If the framers wanted to protect electronic versions they would have said so.
At least some judges disagree, United States v. Boucher. And seeing as how Thomas Jefferson distrusted government I seriously doubt he'd agree either.
If you're going to do a lot of low-light shooting, you might want to look at Nikon
Seeing as I have Canon EF lenses I'm going to stick with a Canon body. Afterall once you have more than 1 or 2 lenses the lenses become the expensive part.
I've been eying the Canon f/4-5.6 100-400mm. Add that to the 1.4x extender I have and the result is equivalent to 900mm, although with a maximum aperture of f/6.6. I live in the mountains and would like to do some semi-serious wildlife photography.
I've thought of getting extenders, you're basically doubling the number of lenses you have if you get 1 extender, however they can distort photographs. One photographer I talked to said he'd never get or use one.
Yes, APS size sensors suck for wide angle shooting.
And APS sized sensors are bigger than many other sensors used. For one class I took we had to do some closeups for an assignment and I doubt that many of the digital cameras could have gotten anywhere near some of the exposures that were shot, by me and by other students. Oh and because negative film is more forgiving with exposure mistakes, we had to shoot with positive slide film, E6.
> And what is it going to do about my encryption keys?
Same thing they did in the UK: Pass a law making it illegal not to divulge them, and pass another law that says if you forget or lose the keys, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you forgot or lost the keys.
Except in the United States we have this thing called the 5th Amendment which says someone can't be forced to say or do something that will incriminate themselves. As someone up the thread pointed out a judge already ruled for a defendant, United States v. Boucher.
Has anybody actually SEEN the draft so that we can comment on it intelligently without relying on "I think the US government is bad, so I'm going to assume they're doing horrible things"?
The problem with this reasoning is that it doesn't take much effort to know that the US federal government has done bad things. It's not a matter of conjecture. The US has spied on law abiding citizens, check out MLK, done medical experiments on people without their approval, and has forcibly sterilized people. The US has also broken a number of treaties.
These guys seem to have figured it out. "it" being the give stuff away then make money on it.
I don't know them, are they a software company? I'd like to start working as a photographer RSN. Because I am on disability and poor I can't afford to buy the software that would make it easier to run a photo business, so I've thought about programming my own software. Then to generate more income I've thought of selling the software to other photographers. The only way I could be pretty sure I could make money off of it if it's open sourced is if I sale service and support. However that would mean I'd be running a software not a photography business.
There's nothing stopping you from using full-frame lenses on a camera with a smaller sensor. It works fine. The only difference is that your images are effectively magnified (technically, pre-cropped
It not only crops but it also has more noise. Two sensors with the same resolution but one being a fullframe and the other being an APS, the fullframe sensor will have less noise. Especially for low light shots at high ISOs. An APS sensor shooting at an ISO of 3200 or even 1600 can have visible artifacts whereas the same exposure with a fullframe sensor won't. Photo.net has had some good discussions on this. Here's one, "why should I use a full frame sensor'. As far as any magnification, I have telephoto lenses so it doesn't matter to me. The largest lens I have now is only 200mm but I'd like to get an 800mm lens. With it not only could I get some good close up landscape shots but I could also use it for astrophotography. And for wide angle lenses, if you have a 20mm lens you want it to be 20mm not 30. For a fisheye it's even m or extreme.
I've been considering medium format for a while. Digital backs are really expensive.
That's why I said I'd start with a film back. Even I can't afford the $8000 for the EOS 1Ds Mark III I definitely can't afford $20,000 to $30,000 for a digital back. But give it tyme and prices will drop. When Canon released the EOS 1Ds Mark II with 16MPs the suggested price was $8000. Now the Mark III's price is the same but it has more than 21MPs and is approaching the resolution of medium format digital backs. Also if I can make money as a photographer I may be able to afford a digital back, and with one I could earn more.
Hehe. I think you're really underestimating the cost of astro here. Sure, you can get some shots with an inexpensive scope and mount, but what I've seen is that people outgrow that stuff very quickly
Gadget love, or lust. I know what you mean, I too want the latest and greatest. But you don't have to buy more expensive equipment.
custom-modified DSLR that has the IR filter
Another gadget I'd love to have. "Makezine" recently had an article on IR photography. It named some old digital cameras that worked well for IR, they didn't have IR filters so all that was needed for IR photography was some ND filters. It also said how other cameras could be modified for IR.
No, I'm not. I'm just arguing that the need for copyrights is less than it was, which implies that the balance point needs to be shifted, and the extent and duration of copyright reduced.
Okay.
As for your example of starter motors, it's worth remembering that although all of those starters are patented, that just means that they've applied for and been granted a patent, not that they actually have enough innovation that their patents are valid.
The thing is is they all do basically the same thing, ie "the idea" is the same for each, to start a gasoline engine. They just implement it in different ways.
You could, but why would you, and why would I download it? And even if few people did, would it matter? Baen's books are published DRM-free, electronically, and the publisher even grants fairly liberal permission to share with friends. Why, then, is Baen doing a very successful business?
As I don't recall ever hearing of Baen before, I don't know anything about them.
That model -- trusting your consumers -- works very well for books. It probably doesn't work as well for music, but a performance model does.
From what I understand most musicians and bands make money by performing concerts and not from record sales. RIAA member companies have gamed the system so performers only get pennies on the dollar for album sales.
Don't completely discount the idea that music lovers might choose to pay for music in a more rational copyright regime
Oh, I don't. Though I'm poor I pay for all of the music I have, except for one free demo cd. I have never downloaded any music, or movies that were ripped. All of the music I have is on either tape or CDs I bought or was given as a gift in an unopened wrapping with the exception of the demo. It's the same with the movies I have.
Now you've wandered off into irrelevancy. It doesn't matter that the writer has to put food on the table -- no man is owed a livelihood. To some degree this is hairsplitting, because clearly society does want good writers to write, not flip burgers. I think it's an important hair to split, though, because once you fall into the trap of believing that society must ensure writers an income, you're just a hop, skip and a jump away from perpetual, far-reaching copyrights and draconian enforcement measures.
Oh, I agree society doesn't owe a person a livelihood, all a person is "owed" is a chance at making a living. However because the arts and sciences help society progress those who create should be given, granted, a limited monopoly on what they create so they have a reason to create. Notice I used "limited", after a reasonable period whatever it is that was created should enter the public domain. I read a suggestion from another/.er I think would work well. After a period of tyme, say 5 years or whatever, if a person wants to retain a monopoly then they should have to pay for it. They would be able to renew a copyright or patent and pay a fee based on how much money the patent generated and how long they've had the monopoly. So say a song writer earns $1000 one year for one song they have had a copyright on for 1 year, in order to keep the monopoly for another year they'd pay $100. Or a company that made $1 million of on a patent they've had for 10 years might pay $500,000 to extend the patent for another year.
Well, maybe you ought to get off your lazy ass and use it as a way to develop relationships with people who are using it and have money to give the guy who will make their problems go away, like I said in the post you replied to. You think you're entitled to get paid to sit around and do squat because you released some code? Releasing the code under liberal license is how you reassure people it's safe to get into a business relationship with you. It's like an exit strategy. You seem to think you can just skip the whole business part of things and just get money. It doesn't work that way.
If you want to stoop to demagoguery and can't, or refuse to, use reason and logic I see no reason to continue.
I shoot mostly with a DSLR (Canon Rebel XT), but I've recently acquired a 35mm film camera and a couple of decent lenses and I'm going to set up a darkroom.
All I've ever used are film cameras but I'll like to get a DSLR. I practically drool over the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, but I'm nowhere near being able to afford one. I'd be pushing my luck just getting a 5D. When I do get one I want it to have a full frame sensor so I'll get the same shots using my lenses on it as I would using them on my Rebel G film camera. I want to be able to use the same lenses for both.
I don't plan to make film photography my primary method, by any means, but I think I can learn something from shooting with film.
I want to shoot both film and digital. I'll use film where I can and digital where appropriate. I also want to get a medium format camera, perhaps a 645. At first I'll use a film back but when I can afford one I'd also get a digital back.
I have a friend who is seriously into astro, but I'm avoiding going out with him because I know I'd end up wanting to spend several thousand dollars on equipment.
You already have probably the most expensive piece of equipment, an SLR body. A couple of hundred dollars should be enough to buy a telescope and a camera mount for it. My problem is I live in a large metro area and I doubt there's any place within a 100 miles I could go to to shoot the stars.
You're right maybe. You argue both for and against copyrights. For instance when you say "I said that in order to obtain copyright protection, they should have to release the source" you're basically arguing for copyrights but when you say "See how they were able to make a living without depending on copyright? There are even more ways in today's world, and far more money available" you're arguing the opposite.
An important element of the promotion of progress in the case of copyright is that copyright specifically does not protect the ideas, only the expression. Contrast this with patents, which protect ideas, but require publication of them.
Can you show where patents protect ideas and not the expression of an idea? Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought patents only protect specific implementations of an idea. If someone else came up with a different implementation or solution than one someone else already patented they could still use their own implementation. Since I've worked on and repaired them I'll use as an example internal combustion engines, there are a number of patents used for them and some are different ways of doing the same thing. All gasoline engine vehicles, all that I know of that is, have starters no matter the make and many different companies make them, yet they are still patented. And if you look at the patent number on one starter it will be different than the numbers on a starter from a different manufacturer. They all do the same thing they just work in different ways.
I never said that creation was cheaper, and it doesn't matter to my argument whether it is or not.
Oh but it does matter. Because it is easier to duplicate something a person created than it is to create something new, there is a very reason for copyrights to exist. For instance I could scan a best seller paperback book then distribute it over the net. All it would take is a little hardware and tyme. Then once I distribute it it's easy for one of the receivers of it to distribute it more. Without copyrights I could do it legally thus possibly denying the writer of income. Meanwhile the writer still has to put food on the table.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, any changes to the constitution have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states (that is, first congress has to agree, and then the citizens of 3/4ths of the states have to), and I don't think that that's going to happen any time soon for something like removing 5th amendment rights.
There are 2 different ways to propose to amend the Constitutions but you've combined them. Article 5 is the relevant article:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Two thirds of congress can propose an amendment OR two thirds of the states' legislatures can propose to amend the Constitution.
FalconSo the police don't make you reveal your password -- they just tell you to enter it into your computer and unlock the files so they can look at them. It's no different than coming to you with a search warrant for your safe and making you unlock it.
Break my fingers, I still won't type my password for you.
FalconSean?
I'd rather Simon.
FalconI've never heard of extenders causing distortion of any sort, and I spent a lot of time asking around on various on-line fora before purchasing mine.
Quick search of photo.net for extenders distortion yields 187 results. From DIY Network: "The power of the extender is indicated on the lens. For example, a 1.5x will extend the magnification one and a half times.the down side of an extender is that it that you will need more light and there may be some additional distortion."
FalconFrom the Wikipedia article: On January 2, 2008 the United States appealed the magistrate's opinion to the District Court in a sealed motion (court docket, case #: 2:06-mj-00091-wks-jjn-1). Yeah. More secrecy. How much do you want to bet G-Man claimed something related to terrorism or national security. Those are magic words that seem to be able to overcome any obstacle and instantly rally unlimited support.
But has the appeals court rule on it yet? It may still a ways off before government can get access. No matter how the appeals court rules the government may still need to way until the Supreme Court rules, if the Appeals Court let's the ruling stand they'll need to take it to the SC and if the defendant looses they can take it to the SC.
FalconYou can try encrypting all of your files but if they can gain physical access to the machine(s) in question without you knowing about it then it's a simple matter to install a keylogging device and obtain any passwords needed to decrypt your data.
However if you know what you're doing you can make it almost impossible for anyone to gain access to your home without you finding out. For instance you can moisten a hair or thread then stick it on a door placing it so that it sticks to both the door and the molding. If while you're away the door is opened the "seal" will fail and you can spot it.
FalconWhat ever happened to the founding father's view that tyrany was ever vigilant and the tyrant would use any means to strip liberty away from its citizens?
Oh yeah, that isnt taught in schools :(
It, freedom from tyranny, not being taught in school may be part of the problem but another part is that those alive now haven't had to fight to preserve it. I think Thomas Jefferson hit it on the head when he suggested there should be a revolution about every 20 years. If you're born and raised under it more than likely you're going to be complacent.
FalconI don't know what percent of the US population is imprisoned, but the US has one of the largest prison populations in the world. Hold on... According to the Department of Justice in 2004 there were "486 sentenced inmates per 100,000 U.S." According to wiki "The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world at 737 persons imprisoned per 100,000" and it references DOJ document Prisoners in 2005 [pfd].
Falconhave you ever looked at your google web history? yikes.
Nope, it asks me to signin, and I don't have an account.
FalconSo my email from a .co.uk email address to a colleague at a .br address is going to be searchable by the US? ... We'll see what our governments have to say about that.
They can already listen to those phone call you make in the UK to Brazil, with ECHELON.
FalconBut but but it's not paper! It's electronic! So if you print your email, then the hardcopy is protected, but the electronic version is fair game. Which is exactly what Thomas Jefferson intended. If the framers wanted to protect electronic versions they would have said so.
At least some judges disagree, United States v. Boucher. And seeing as how Thomas Jefferson distrusted government I seriously doubt he'd agree either.
FalconIf you're going to do a lot of low-light shooting, you might want to look at Nikon
Seeing as I have Canon EF lenses I'm going to stick with a Canon body. Afterall once you have more than 1 or 2 lenses the lenses become the expensive part.
I've been eying the Canon f/4-5.6 100-400mm. Add that to the 1.4x extender I have and the result is equivalent to 900mm, although with a maximum aperture of f/6.6. I live in the mountains and would like to do some semi-serious wildlife photography.
I've thought of getting extenders, you're basically doubling the number of lenses you have if you get 1 extender, however they can distort photographs. One photographer I talked to said he'd never get or use one.
Yes, APS size sensors suck for wide angle shooting.
And APS sized sensors are bigger than many other sensors used. For one class I took we had to do some closeups for an assignment and I doubt that many of the digital cameras could have gotten anywhere near some of the exposures that were shot, by me and by other students. Oh and because negative film is more forgiving with exposure mistakes, we had to shoot with positive slide film, E6.
FalconGiven that you're a former soldier and geek enough to frequent /., I suspect you'll really like Baen's books.
I don't read much sci-fi, actually I haven't read much of anything for the past several years but magazines.
I should mention, BTW, that I'm a former USAF SSgt.
My dad retired from the USAF as a Sergeant, though I'm not sure what rank. However he was an aircraft mechanic.
Falcon> And what is it going to do about my encryption keys?
Same thing they did in the UK: Pass a law making it illegal not to divulge them, and pass another law that says if you forget or lose the keys, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you forgot or lost the keys.
Except in the United States we have this thing called the 5th Amendment which says someone can't be forced to say or do something that will incriminate themselves. As someone up the thread pointed out a judge already ruled for a defendant, United States v. Boucher.
FalconSo, how exactly is revealing a password any more incriminating than say, allowing police into your home -which is "standard practice"?
And you can ask the police for a warrant and if they don't have one you can tell them to get a warrant or get lost.
FalconHas anybody actually SEEN the draft so that we can comment on it intelligently without relying on "I think the US government is bad, so I'm going to assume they're doing horrible things"?
The problem with this reasoning is that it doesn't take much effort to know that the US federal government has done bad things. It's not a matter of conjecture. The US has spied on law abiding citizens, check out MLK, done medical experiments on people without their approval, and has forcibly sterilized people. The US has also broken a number of treaties.
FalconOr possibly pass legislation to make it illegal to have encryption that takes them longer than n seconds to crack - something to that effect.
How would they be able to stop it? Something can be programmed outside the US then distributed inside it.
FalconThese guys seem to have figured it out. "it" being the give stuff away then make money on it.
I don't know them, are they a software company? I'd like to start working as a photographer RSN. Because I am on disability and poor I can't afford to buy the software that would make it easier to run a photo business, so I've thought about programming my own software. Then to generate more income I've thought of selling the software to other photographers. The only way I could be pretty sure I could make money off of it if it's open sourced is if I sale service and support. However that would mean I'd be running a software not a photography business.
FalconI believe it worked for a certain Mr. Torvalds.......
It's my understanding Linus started programming Linux for his own use and not to sale it.
FalconI believe this is the cookie story you are thinking of.
Thanks.
FalconThere's nothing stopping you from using full-frame lenses on a camera with a smaller sensor. It works fine. The only difference is that your images are effectively magnified (technically, pre-cropped
It not only crops but it also has more noise. Two sensors with the same resolution but one being a fullframe and the other being an APS, the fullframe sensor will have less noise. Especially for low light shots at high ISOs. An APS sensor shooting at an ISO of 3200 or even 1600 can have visible artifacts whereas the same exposure with a fullframe sensor won't. Photo.net has had some good discussions on this. Here's one, "why should I use a full frame sensor'. As far as any magnification, I have telephoto lenses so it doesn't matter to me. The largest lens I have now is only 200mm but I'd like to get an 800mm lens. With it not only could I get some good close up landscape shots but I could also use it for astrophotography. And for wide angle lenses, if you have a 20mm lens you want it to be 20mm not 30. For a fisheye it's even m or extreme.
I've been considering medium format for a while. Digital backs are really expensive.
That's why I said I'd start with a film back. Even I can't afford the $8000 for the EOS 1Ds Mark III I definitely can't afford $20,000 to $30,000 for a digital back. But give it tyme and prices will drop. When Canon released the EOS 1Ds Mark II with 16MPs the suggested price was $8000. Now the Mark III's price is the same but it has more than 21MPs and is approaching the resolution of medium format digital backs. Also if I can make money as a photographer I may be able to afford a digital back, and with one I could earn more.
Hehe. I think you're really underestimating the cost of astro here. Sure, you can get some shots with an inexpensive scope and mount, but what I've seen is that people outgrow that stuff very quickly
Gadget love, or lust. I know what you mean, I too want the latest and greatest. But you don't have to buy more expensive equipment.
custom-modified DSLR that has the IR filter
Another gadget I'd love to have. "Makezine" recently had an article on IR photography. It named some old digital cameras that worked well for IR, they didn't have IR filters so all that was needed for IR photography was some ND filters. It also said how other cameras could be modified for IR.
Falconyou're arguing the opposite.
No, I'm not. I'm just arguing that the need for copyrights is less than it was, which implies that the balance point needs to be shifted, and the extent and duration of copyright reduced.
Okay.
As for your example of starter motors, it's worth remembering that although all of those starters are patented, that just means that they've applied for and been granted a patent, not that they actually have enough innovation that their patents are valid.
The thing is is they all do basically the same thing, ie "the idea" is the same for each, to start a gasoline engine. They just implement it in different ways.
You could, but why would you, and why would I download it? And even if few people did, would it matter? Baen's books are published DRM-free, electronically, and the publisher even grants fairly liberal permission to share with friends. Why, then, is Baen doing a very successful business?
As I don't recall ever hearing of Baen before, I don't know anything about them.
That model -- trusting your consumers -- works very well for books. It probably doesn't work as well for music, but a performance model does.
From what I understand most musicians and bands make money by performing concerts and not from record sales. RIAA member companies have gamed the system so performers only get pennies on the dollar for album sales.
Don't completely discount the idea that music lovers might choose to pay for music in a more rational copyright regime
Oh, I don't. Though I'm poor I pay for all of the music I have, except for one free demo cd. I have never downloaded any music, or movies that were ripped. All of the music I have is on either tape or CDs I bought or was given as a gift in an unopened wrapping with the exception of the demo. It's the same with the movies I have.
Now you've wandered off into irrelevancy. It doesn't matter that the writer has to put food on the table -- no man is owed a livelihood. To some degree this is hairsplitting, because clearly society does want good writers to write, not flip burgers. I think it's an important hair to split, though, because once you fall into the trap of believing that society must ensure writers an income, you're just a hop, skip and a jump away from perpetual, far-reaching copyrights and draconian enforcement measures.
Oh, I agree society doesn't owe a person a livelihood, all a person is "owed" is a chance at making a living. However because the arts and sciences help society progress those who create should be given, granted, a limited monopoly on what they create so they have a reason to create. Notice I used "limited", after a reasonable period whatever it is that was created should enter the public domain. I read a suggestion from another /.er I think would work well. After a period of tyme, say 5 years or whatever, if a person wants to retain a monopoly then they should have to pay for it. They would be able to renew a copyright or patent and pay a fee based on how much money the patent generated and how long they've had the monopoly. So say a song writer earns $1000 one year for one song they have had a copyright on for 1 year, in order to keep the monopoly for another year they'd pay $100. Or a company that made $1 million of on a patent they've had for 10 years might pay $500,000 to extend the patent for another year.
FalconWell, maybe you ought to get off your lazy ass and use it as a way to develop relationships with people who are using it and have money to give the guy who will make their problems go away, like I said in the post you replied to. You think you're entitled to get paid to sit around and do squat because you released some code? Releasing the code under liberal license is how you reassure people it's safe to get into a business relationship with you. It's like an exit strategy. You seem to think you can just skip the whole business part of things and just get money. It doesn't work that way.
If you want to stoop to demagoguery and can't, or refuse to, use reason and logic I see no reason to continue.
FalconI shoot mostly with a DSLR (Canon Rebel XT), but I've recently acquired a 35mm film camera and a couple of decent lenses and I'm going to set up a darkroom.
All I've ever used are film cameras but I'll like to get a DSLR. I practically drool over the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, but I'm nowhere near being able to afford one. I'd be pushing my luck just getting a 5D. When I do get one I want it to have a full frame sensor so I'll get the same shots using my lenses on it as I would using them on my Rebel G film camera. I want to be able to use the same lenses for both.
I don't plan to make film photography my primary method, by any means, but I think I can learn something from shooting with film.
I want to shoot both film and digital. I'll use film where I can and digital where appropriate. I also want to get a medium format camera, perhaps a 645. At first I'll use a film back but when I can afford one I'd also get a digital back.
I have a friend who is seriously into astro, but I'm avoiding going out with him because I know I'd end up wanting to spend several thousand dollars on equipment.
You already have probably the most expensive piece of equipment, an SLR body. A couple of hundred dollars should be enough to buy a telescope and a camera mount for it. My problem is I live in a large metro area and I doubt there's any place within a 100 miles I could go to to shoot the stars.
FalconYou're right maybe. You argue both for and against copyrights. For instance when you say "I said that in order to obtain copyright protection, they should have to release the source" you're basically arguing for copyrights but when you say "See how they were able to make a living without depending on copyright? There are even more ways in today's world, and far more money available" you're arguing the opposite.
An important element of the promotion of progress in the case of copyright is that copyright specifically does not protect the ideas, only the expression. Contrast this with patents, which protect ideas, but require publication of them.
Can you show where patents protect ideas and not the expression of an idea? Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought patents only protect specific implementations of an idea. If someone else came up with a different implementation or solution than one someone else already patented they could still use their own implementation. Since I've worked on and repaired them I'll use as an example internal combustion engines, there are a number of patents used for them and some are different ways of doing the same thing. All gasoline engine vehicles, all that I know of that is, have starters no matter the make and many different companies make them, yet they are still patented. And if you look at the patent number on one starter it will be different than the numbers on a starter from a different manufacturer. They all do the same thing they just work in different ways.
I never said that creation was cheaper, and it doesn't matter to my argument whether it is or not.
Oh but it does matter. Because it is easier to duplicate something a person created than it is to create something new, there is a very reason for copyrights to exist. For instance I could scan a best seller paperback book then distribute it over the net. All it would take is a little hardware and tyme. Then once I distribute it it's easy for one of the receivers of it to distribute it more. Without copyrights I could do it legally thus possibly denying the writer of income. Meanwhile the writer still has to put food on the table.
Falcon