Stick it in a breeder reactor and you not only get more fuel you can stick into the first reactor
Do you really think reprocessing nuclear waste is a solution to the waste? Not even the French, who have done the most research on this, has been able to get reprocessed fuel without generatiing extremely hot radioactive, and toxic, waste. A few months ago IEEE's "Spectrum" had an article on this, Nuclear Wasteland.
No, the problem with waste is that a chain of political idiots and their energy department appointees
As the above article states, your suggestion is only a pipedream, it is not currently feasible.
the problem with waste is that a chain of political idiots and their energy department appointees (every president since Carter, inclusive)
Carter, who did his post-graduate work studying nuclear physics? Who also was a command officer on a nuclear submarine?
Second, a five year moratorium on biofuels is not what is needed. A permanent moratorium on growing plants in soil as a biofuel feedstock is what we need.
Don't try to put yourself above everybody else. That would be a sure sign of arrogance. Like Tom said, Once you release it, it's no longer exclusively yours. You will get your money and you move on to the next big thing. I will not allow you to control things that I possess. It is insane to do so.
Are you a programmer? If so do you write closed or open source software? If closed do you allow anyone to copy your software and hand them out? If not you're arrogant too. As a writer I have as much right to be paid as programmers have. Now, if you want to write open source software and allow others to do what they want with it then that's your choice, just don't say everyone has to follow your example. Doing so is ARROGANCE.
Totally lame distraction to discredit the truth.
What truth" That you want something for nothing?
I can and do live without a daily injection of Hollywood drivel I couldn't even tell you what day of the week American Idol is on.
Neither could I. The only tv station my tv has been on for more than a year, it's been more than I year since I changed stations, is CNN. It's also been more than a year since I went to the movie theater. The only movies I've watched in that tyme are movies I bought on tape or dvd, or in the case of tape, movies I recorded more than 10 years ago. I don't download movies or music. I don't even play either on my computer. Nor do I have any pirated games on my PC. The only games I have on it are the games that came with the computer.
Your statement is nothing more than a demonstration of the weakness of your argument. It's like saying, "Oh, you're just having your period." and then leaving the room.
Not as weak as yours. I have tried to explain my position reasonably but all you do is offer drivel such as "Oh, you're just having your period." and then leaving the room."
So, abolish copyright and prove me wrong. I will be more than happy to accept it, and will bow down in humility. But remember, we need to match the 300 years that we suffered under these regs. The proof I already have is in the several thousands of years before copyright.
And how many of those works have been copyrighted? Since copyrights have been allowed 300 years I'd bet many more works have been written than all of the tyme before that. Go into any bookstore whether it's Barnes and Noble, Borders, or a small locally owned bookstore and you should be able to find thousands of books published in the past few years alone. Sure technology has made it easier and faster but you still could of gone into any bookstore or library 20 years ago and found a large selection of books. I know because I've been buying books for more than 25 years and was checking out books from the library for 40 years or more.
For me, you will have a difficult time trying to negate that.
Already negated, see above.
can understand that these regulations are necessary in a mercantile society, where pirates and their merchants(fences) make the rules.
You're mixed up, if pirates made the rules there would be no copyrights. Afterall they're breaking copyright.
You are sadly mistaken to believe that purpose of copyright is to protect the interests of the creator.
I suggest you read the Constitution of the USA. In Section 8 - Powers of Congress, you see where is says: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" It protects the interest of the creator for a limited tyme so they will create.
It does nothing of the sort. It is a toll booth that the creators must pass through to reach the public and vice versa, and it is harmful to both.
I call BS! If this were true then FOOS would never exist.
That's the problem isn't it. The megacorps are claiming that they are indeed being harmed by piracy. Your changes to the law would do nothing to improve this.
You're right, ending the War on Drugs would not change the corporate aristocracy's claim of piracy harming them. Then again I didn't say it would.
You're right, I am biased. I want to get paid for work I do. And I bet you do too.
anecdotal argument ("I didn't write a book because I couldn't figure out how to make money doing it")
Can you please show me where I said that? No you can't because I didn't. Fact is is you're putting words in my mouth I didn't say.
I make a decent living writing software. I'm not getting paid because of copyright (since I'm selling my services as a developer, not the software itself), and the company isn't getting value from my service because of copyright (they get the value from actually using the software I created for them).
It seems highly counterintuitive that a mechanism like copyright (which at its most fundamental is a mechanism that discourages the free expression of ideas)
Copyright is NOT a mechanism to discourage free expression. Copyright simply makes it possible for a writer to receive compensation for thier work without someone else stealing, infringing, from them. Everyone is still free to express whatever they want, they just can't steal someone elses' expression.
A lot of copyright proponents even mistakenly think that IP has something to do with free-market capitalism.
Some may but this one doesn't. As for freemarket capitalism, copyrights, IP, and patents have nothing to do with it. Actually the father of capitalism Adam Smith was opposed to copyrights and patents. Though I support a freemarket, this is one area I disagree with him. I support copyrights and patents but not IP. However seeing as how copyrights and patents are there to encourage progress I would have thier term be shorter than they are. I would have them last several years at most. I bet you don't work for free and I don't see any reason a writer or other artist should be expected to do so either.
Before you go around enforcing a bunch of laws that override personal property rights, you'd better make darn sure you're going to get a societal payback that makes that violation worthwhile
Now only if you would apply this to the arts. If I write something it is my property, however you would allow anyone to steal, er infringe on my work, what I wrote by getting rid of copyrights.
Why would I spend so much tyme writing something if someone else could take what I wrote and make some money off it without me seeing a dime?
Mostly because that would be very unlikely to happen. The only real way this could be achieved was if either you refused to market the product yourself and so left it all for someone else to profit from or else if someone else successfully managed to convince the world that it is actually they and not you who wrote the work. Copyright doesn't really do much to protect you from either of those situations.
It appears you don't know how much it costs for a person to selfpublish then get wide distribution of it. That's where publishing companies come in, they have the means and resources to print and distribute. Without copyrights a publisher could just take what was submitted and publish it without paying the writer. With copyrights writers can sue for and receive recompense for infringment. Afterall what do you think the Business Software Alliance does?
Given the choice, I would tend to buy e.g. a book from its original author, for a variety of reasons
And how would you know who the orginal author is? At least if a writer registers a copyright it is registered to them.
So, in short, you didn't create anything under copyright,
Actually I did write and it was copyrighted. As soon as I write something it is copyrighted. In order to get compensation for copyright infringment you have to register it but it's still copyrighted as soon as it's written. As for not having created anything, I did create, write. I had a draft of an article and sent an editor a proposal for the article with a synopsis of it. The editor wanted an article that focused on a specific part of what I wrote. I was writing it when I had an accident which ended my writing, I couldn't every well write while in a coma.
but you wouldn't had created anything without copyright either
Though I did write for publication, I also have written without ever thinking of publishing what I wrote. I used to write poems a lot as well as short stories. As a member of different writers groups I used to write and share with others in these groups as have others in them. While I don't write anymore I do take photographs and am hoping to start working as a photographer.
The "proof" is in the fact that people were producing works of art for most of human history
And those artists were still getting paid. The ancient Greeks paid their performers, or singers and actors. Many performances were actually religious in nature and the wealthy paid for those performances.
remuneration was usually not the driving incentive in their doing so
Yeap, as I said above much of the art was religious in nature. Those statues were of the gods and goddesses.
but your comment that you wouldn't even consider writing a book without the prospect of making money from it seems to support it.
You're right, I wouldn't spend the tyme writing if I knew I would not get paid but someone else could be. I do have other loves or interests, some of which will if not make money for me will save me some. Such as gardening, before going online I spent a couple of hours working on my garden. I also like bike riding, hiking, practicing martial arts, photography, rollerblading, and scuba diving. Previously I asked why anyone would work full time to do something when they aren't getting paid for it, what I didn't say is that there are some who may only be able to work in the arts, or maybe some other area that some only think of as a hobby. For instance because of an injury, I am a survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, the only thing I think I may be able to make a living at is photography. At the tyme of my accident I was a student majoring in Computer Engineering, it is seriously doubtful I could ever be able to do it now. Heck, I went back to college as soon as I could and realized I had to take some classes over again. Well programming was some of those classes, and when repeating them I found out they were a struggle for me when before they were easy. So now, unless I have some rich patron, or the government pays (and I hate social programs from big government!!!), I loose that ability to make a living in photography if just anyone can come along and steal my work. And today's tech makes it even easier to steal, this article is about piracy afterall. While I'm not a pro photographer, there is an association of photographers I plan on joining which I'm hoping I will be able to get some photography work through.
I can't help feeling if there were more people in it for the love and less in it for the money, we might all enjoy generally better standards in art.
By who's standards? What's one person's art is another's trash. Going back to those statues of the Greek god(dess)es, some think they are beautiful works of arts whereas others may think they it's devil worship or pornography.
Personally I'm more interested in a story written from the heart, not just for a quick buck and expectations of kicking back and collecting the rent.
I want stories from the heart too but even writers have to eat. Why in the world should anyone spend work full time writing while they need a fulltime job to pay the rent and to put food on the table? Or is it that you want free entertainment?
Reread the first sentence of my previous post, please. The bet stands
A bet is not proof. And I asked for proof copyrights aren't needed.
They expect guaranteed profits through force of law.
No they don't. They, being writers and other artists, expect to be able to make a living by their craft. It's no difference between them and an engineer working for pay as well. Or a doctor, programmer, or chef.
then I want royalties for every mile you drive your car after I fix it.
I already bought and paid for my car as well as paid for what repiars I did not do myself. And yes, I have worked my my own as well as others' vehicles. I've replaced brakes as well as rebuilt engines and transmissions and did body work. A better analogue would be a subscription for software, when you pay for each use not for a license to use the software.
I would hope that argument would be laid to rest by now. It just doesn't hold water. And yet it is repeated ad nauseam in some vain attempt to force us to believe it. I can safely say that I never will.
Where does this argument about copyrights not holding water, come from? Do you really think so many books, magazines, and movies would be created if there was no copyright? Can you offer proof Steven King would of written books if he couldn't get a copyright? Or George Lucas still would have made "Star Wars"? A long tyme ago I used to write. I was in the process of writing a book and some articles a magazine editor was interested in printing when an accident ended it, seeing as I was in a coma I couldn't write. However I never would of tried to write anything for publication if I knew I couldn't copyright it. Why would I spend so much tyme writing something if someone else could take what I wrote and make some money off it without me seeing a dime?
I've heard or read a number of tymes copyrights don't hold water, yet not once has anyone proven it to me.
The answer is to bring the law back in line with what the populace believes is moral.
What the majority believes is moral may in fact be the Tyranny of the majority. The answer therefore is not what the majority thinks but instead is to get rid of all laws making it a crime when no on one other than the actor is harmed, for instance when Prohibition was repealed. A good step today would be to stop this fake War on Drugs and make those drugs legal aqain.
The law can be just as shady, like prohibition, for example, or DMCA... or for that matter, copyright...shady law that steals from the public disguised as "incentive".
Prohibition was and the DMCA is bad, but copyright itself is not bad. The only bad thing about copyrights as it stands now is that the copyright term is way too long. By giving writers and artists a limited monopoly on what they create gives them an incentive to create. If there is no incentive, financial, to create then many things won't be created, which is a greater theft to the public. Many people won't spend years of thier life creating something if they know they won't be able to feed their family while working on it.
Okay, this seems kinda bullshit to me... Why are we trying to prove that piracy, an illegal act, is somehow "good"?...
The human power of rationalization is quite strong indeed; no one is stupid enough to think that piracy is legal, and obviously people feel bad about it, so they try and make up stories saying how they're actually helping people by doing it. Yes, there are definitely valid points that need to be examined, as I said before, but still, it's illegal, and everyone knows it, so stop trying to justify it.
In case you don't know this, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, where this article came from, is very much a pro business and capitalism libertarian organization and they don't generally like theft, infringment, or other crimes robbing people. There is no way in which they would justify piracy. In this particular case they are simply arguing small scale piracy may help a business that is seeing it's product(s) pirated.
the kid rec'd an unsigned email. the email never uses the word lawsuit.
Accept the email he received does say they have contacted their lawyer. Why in the world would they contact a lawyer unless they were thinking of suing?
Gateway sends out replacements on pretty much a "no questions asked" basis
Maybe it's different with organizations, business, or other institutions but I've bought 2 laptops from Gateway and everytime I've had to call tech support, which I had to do a lot, the first question I'd be asked after giving the rep the serial number of the PC was "has anything been installed?" If the answer was yes then I'd be told I had to reinstall Windows but nothing else and see if I still had a problem. With some things they as relatively quick, one of the tymes I called the hdd died and I got a replacement dropped off 2 days later. Another tyme though, a few days before one year went by after I bought it, the motherboard died. While a box was dropped off the next day for me to sent it to the repair center, I was without the PC for 4 weeks. A week after I sent it in I called to see what the status on it was. I was told it was just delivered back to me. I lived along, was at home, and did not get anything. After going through calls between them and the shipping company Gateway decided to send a new PC as a replacement. I thought "great, I'll get a new PC". A week later, after not hearing anything, I called back and asked where my new PC was. I was told they couldn't send it yet as there was a part needed that wasn't in stock. Same story the third week. Finally after 4 weeks I got the replacement.
the HP Media Center PC I bought for my wife is damn soild really. So has every other HP PC I've owned over the many years.
On the first and only HP PC I've bought both the motherboard and the hdd died in less than a year after I bought it new. Now, I used to love their calculators, I've still got my 15C which I've had for about 20 years.
it's already outlasted an apple laptop a friend bought at about the same time.
I've bought 4 new, well really 3 and a factory remanufactered one, Windows PCs and of them only one did not have any hardware troubles in the first year I had them. On the other hand I've also bought 2 used Macs and they both lasted longer than the PCs did. The first Mac I got was an SE30 in 1992. It lasted without problems until 2000, when the floppy drive died. The second's a Powermac 7300/200 I got in 2000, a few months after the the first one died. It lasted until early 2006 when it refused to bootup. The first one I used for 8 years and the second for 6 years.
Because of my experiences with Macs and PCs, and because MS wants to treat it's customers like criminals, I've decided to switch entirely to Linux and Macs. Several months ago I got a new PC with Linux preinstalled, which I'll setup as a server, and for a laptop I plan on getting a Macbook Pro. Unless and until MS gets rid of it's requirements for Activation and the spyware if I can at all avoid it I will never again buy anything with Windows on it. Nor will I get Office.
Slashdot Mirror
Stick it in a breeder reactor and you not only get more fuel you can stick into the first reactor
Do you really think reprocessing nuclear waste is a solution to the waste? Not even the French, who have done the most research on this, has been able to get reprocessed fuel without generatiing extremely hot radioactive, and toxic, waste. A few months ago IEEE's "Spectrum" had an article on this, Nuclear Wasteland .
No, the problem with waste is that a chain of political idiots and their energy department appointees
As the above article states, your suggestion is only a pipedream, it is not currently feasible.
the problem with waste is that a chain of political idiots and their energy department appointees (every president since Carter, inclusive)
Carter, who did his post-graduate work studying nuclear physics? Who also was a command officer on a nuclear submarine?
FalconYou mean fusion power plants ? Because trading oil dependence for uranium dependence leads nowhere.
That's fission not fusion that uses uranium.
Falconall the H is produced by means of Solar power
Solar isn't the only way to produce hydrogen. A Three-Step Microbial Hydrogen-Producing System shows promise in viably producing hydrogen. There's also Iceland's method of hydrogen generation, though there's not many places that can use it's method, Iceland uses their volcano. Algae can also produce biofuels: Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae.
FalconSecond, a five year moratorium on biofuels is not what is needed. A permanent moratorium on growing plants in soil as a biofuel feedstock is what we need.
Why?
FalconDon't try to put yourself above everybody else. That would be a sure sign of arrogance. Like Tom said, Once you release it, it's no longer exclusively yours. You will get your money and you move on to the next big thing. I will not allow you to control things that I possess. It is insane to do so.
Are you a programmer? If so do you write closed or open source software? If closed do you allow anyone to copy your software and hand them out? If not you're arrogant too. As a writer I have as much right to be paid as programmers have. Now, if you want to write open source software and allow others to do what they want with it then that's your choice, just don't say everyone has to follow your example. Doing so is ARROGANCE.
Totally lame distraction to discredit the truth.
What truth" That you want something for nothing?
I can and do live without a daily injection of Hollywood drivel I couldn't even tell you what day of the week American Idol is on.
Neither could I. The only tv station my tv has been on for more than a year, it's been more than I year since I changed stations, is CNN. It's also been more than a year since I went to the movie theater. The only movies I've watched in that tyme are movies I bought on tape or dvd, or in the case of tape, movies I recorded more than 10 years ago. I don't download movies or music. I don't even play either on my computer. Nor do I have any pirated games on my PC. The only games I have on it are the games that came with the computer.
Your statement is nothing more than a demonstration of the weakness of your argument. It's like saying, "Oh, you're just having your period." and then leaving the room.
Not as weak as yours. I have tried to explain my position reasonably but all you do is offer drivel such as "Oh, you're just having your period." and then leaving the room."
So, abolish copyright and prove me wrong. I will be more than happy to accept it, and will bow down in humility. But remember, we need to match the 300 years that we suffered under these regs. The proof I already have is in the several thousands of years before copyright.
And how many of those works have been copyrighted? Since copyrights have been allowed 300 years I'd bet many more works have been written than all of the tyme before that. Go into any bookstore whether it's Barnes and Noble, Borders, or a small locally owned bookstore and you should be able to find thousands of books published in the past few years alone. Sure technology has made it easier and faster but you still could of gone into any bookstore or library 20 years ago and found a large selection of books. I know because I've been buying books for more than 25 years and was checking out books from the library for 40 years or more.
For me, you will have a difficult time trying to negate that.
Already negated, see above.
can understand that these regulations are necessary in a mercantile society, where pirates and their merchants(fences) make the rules.
You're mixed up, if pirates made the rules there would be no copyrights. Afterall they're breaking copyright.
You are sadly mistaken to believe that purpose of copyright is to protect the interests of the creator.
I suggest you read the Constitution of the USA. In Section 8 - Powers of Congress, you see where is says: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" It protects the interest of the creator for a limited tyme so they will create.
It does nothing of the sort. It is a toll booth that the creators must pass through to reach the public and vice versa, and it is harmful to both.
I call BS! If this were true then FOOS would never exist.
FalconBut then they'd have to open trade with Cuba (sugar cane) and that doesn't get you those sweet, sweet (excuse the pun) FL votes.
You might loose some FL voters but you'd gain others. I and other Floridians like me wanted to open trade with Cuba.
Falconchanges
Yeap, allow sugar cane from Cuba and Brazil to be imported. Then you'll see big changes. However US sugarcane farmers would go apeshit.
FalconThat's the problem isn't it. The megacorps are claiming that they are indeed being harmed by piracy. Your changes to the law would do nothing to improve this.
You're right, ending the War on Drugs would not change the corporate aristocracy's claim of piracy harming them. Then again I didn't say it would.
FalconDoes anyone else find the idea of a wikipedia article about the tyranny of the majority somewhat ironic?
Yeap, it is ironic.
FalconYou've got a pretty obvious bias
You're right, I am biased. I want to get paid for work I do. And I bet you do too.
anecdotal argument ("I didn't write a book because I couldn't figure out how to make money doing it")
Can you please show me where I said that? No you can't because I didn't. Fact is is you're putting words in my mouth I didn't say.
I make a decent living writing software. I'm not getting paid because of copyright (since I'm selling my services as a developer, not the software itself), and the company isn't getting value from my service because of copyright (they get the value from actually using the software I created for them).
And what do you think the BSA, Business Software Alliance does? It goes after copyright infringers!
It seems highly counterintuitive that a mechanism like copyright (which at its most fundamental is a mechanism that discourages the free expression of ideas)
Copyright is NOT a mechanism to discourage free expression. Copyright simply makes it possible for a writer to receive compensation for thier work without someone else stealing, infringing, from them. Everyone is still free to express whatever they want, they just can't steal someone elses' expression.
A lot of copyright proponents even mistakenly think that IP has something to do with free-market capitalism.
Some may but this one doesn't. As for freemarket capitalism, copyrights, IP, and patents have nothing to do with it. Actually the father of capitalism Adam Smith was opposed to copyrights and patents. Though I support a freemarket, this is one area I disagree with him. I support copyrights and patents but not IP. However seeing as how copyrights and patents are there to encourage progress I would have thier term be shorter than they are. I would have them last several years at most. I bet you don't work for free and I don't see any reason a writer or other artist should be expected to do so either.
Before you go around enforcing a bunch of laws that override personal property rights, you'd better make darn sure you're going to get a societal payback that makes that violation worthwhile
Now only if you would apply this to the arts. If I write something it is my property, however you would allow anyone to steal, er infringe on my work, what I wrote by getting rid of copyrights.
FalconWhy would I spend so much tyme writing something if someone else could take what I wrote and make some money off it without me seeing a dime?
Mostly because that would be very unlikely to happen. The only real way this could be achieved was if either you refused to market the product yourself and so left it all for someone else to profit from or else if someone else successfully managed to convince the world that it is actually they and not you who wrote the work. Copyright doesn't really do much to protect you from either of those situations.
It appears you don't know how much it costs for a person to selfpublish then get wide distribution of it. That's where publishing companies come in, they have the means and resources to print and distribute. Without copyrights a publisher could just take what was submitted and publish it without paying the writer. With copyrights writers can sue for and receive recompense for infringment. Afterall what do you think the Business Software Alliance does?
Given the choice, I would tend to buy e.g. a book from its original author, for a variety of reasons
And how would you know who the orginal author is? At least if a writer registers a copyright it is registered to them.
FalconSo, in short, you didn't create anything under copyright,
Actually I did write and it was copyrighted. As soon as I write something it is copyrighted. In order to get compensation for copyright infringment you have to register it but it's still copyrighted as soon as it's written. As for not having created anything, I did create, write. I had a draft of an article and sent an editor a proposal for the article with a synopsis of it. The editor wanted an article that focused on a specific part of what I wrote. I was writing it when I had an accident which ended my writing, I couldn't every well write while in a coma.
but you wouldn't had created anything without copyright either
Though I did write for publication, I also have written without ever thinking of publishing what I wrote. I used to write poems a lot as well as short stories. As a member of different writers groups I used to write and share with others in these groups as have others in them. While I don't write anymore I do take photographs and am hoping to start working as a photographer.
FalconThe "proof" is in the fact that people were producing works of art for most of human history
And those artists were still getting paid. The ancient Greeks paid their performers, or singers and actors. Many performances were actually religious in nature and the wealthy paid for those performances.
remuneration was usually not the driving incentive in their doing so
Yeap, as I said above much of the art was religious in nature. Those statues were of the gods and goddesses.
but your comment that you wouldn't even consider writing a book without the prospect of making money from it seems to support it.
You're right, I wouldn't spend the tyme writing if I knew I would not get paid but someone else could be. I do have other loves or interests, some of which will if not make money for me will save me some. Such as gardening, before going online I spent a couple of hours working on my garden. I also like bike riding, hiking, practicing martial arts, photography, rollerblading, and scuba diving. Previously I asked why anyone would work full time to do something when they aren't getting paid for it, what I didn't say is that there are some who may only be able to work in the arts, or maybe some other area that some only think of as a hobby. For instance because of an injury, I am a survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, the only thing I think I may be able to make a living at is photography. At the tyme of my accident I was a student majoring in Computer Engineering, it is seriously doubtful I could ever be able to do it now. Heck, I went back to college as soon as I could and realized I had to take some classes over again. Well programming was some of those classes, and when repeating them I found out they were a struggle for me when before they were easy. So now, unless I have some rich patron, or the government pays (and I hate social programs from big government!!!), I loose that ability to make a living in photography if just anyone can come along and steal my work. And today's tech makes it even easier to steal, this article is about piracy afterall. While I'm not a pro photographer, there is an association of photographers I plan on joining which I'm hoping I will be able to get some photography work through.
I can't help feeling if there were more people in it for the love and less in it for the money, we might all enjoy generally better standards in art.
By who's standards? What's one person's art is another's trash. Going back to those statues of the Greek god(dess)es, some think they are beautiful works of arts whereas others may think they it's devil worship or pornography.
FalconPersonally I'm more interested in a story written from the heart, not just for a quick buck and expectations of kicking back and collecting the rent.
I want stories from the heart too but even writers have to eat. Why in the world should anyone spend work full time writing while they need a fulltime job to pay the rent and to put food on the table? Or is it that you want free entertainment?
Reread the first sentence of my previous post, please. The bet stands
A bet is not proof. And I asked for proof copyrights aren't needed.
They expect guaranteed profits through force of law.
No they don't. They, being writers and other artists, expect to be able to make a living by their craft. It's no difference between them and an engineer working for pay as well. Or a doctor, programmer, or chef.
then I want royalties for every mile you drive your car after I fix it.
I already bought and paid for my car as well as paid for what repiars I did not do myself. And yes, I have worked my my own as well as others' vehicles. I've replaced brakes as well as rebuilt engines and transmissions and did body work. A better analogue would be a subscription for software, when you pay for each use not for a license to use the software.
FalconI would hope that argument would be laid to rest by now. It just doesn't hold water. And yet it is repeated ad nauseam in some vain attempt to force us to believe it. I can safely say that I never will.
Where does this argument about copyrights not holding water, come from? Do you really think so many books, magazines, and movies would be created if there was no copyright? Can you offer proof Steven King would of written books if he couldn't get a copyright? Or George Lucas still would have made "Star Wars"? A long tyme ago I used to write. I was in the process of writing a book and some articles a magazine editor was interested in printing when an accident ended it, seeing as I was in a coma I couldn't write. However I never would of tried to write anything for publication if I knew I couldn't copyright it. Why would I spend so much tyme writing something if someone else could take what I wrote and make some money off it without me seeing a dime?
I've heard or read a number of tymes copyrights don't hold water, yet not once has anyone proven it to me.
FalconThe answer is to bring the law back in line with what the populace believes is moral.
What the majority believes is moral may in fact be the Tyranny of the majority. The answer therefore is not what the majority thinks but instead is to get rid of all laws making it a crime when no on one other than the actor is harmed, for instance when Prohibition was repealed. A good step today would be to stop this fake War on Drugs and make those drugs legal aqain.
FalconThe law can be just as shady, like prohibition, for example, or DMCA... or for that matter, copyright...shady law that steals from the public disguised as "incentive".
Prohibition was and the DMCA is bad, but copyright itself is not bad. The only bad thing about copyrights as it stands now is that the copyright term is way too long. By giving writers and artists a limited monopoly on what they create gives them an incentive to create. If there is no incentive, financial, to create then many things won't be created, which is a greater theft to the public. Many people won't spend years of thier life creating something if they know they won't be able to feed their family while working on it.
FalconOkay, this seems kinda bullshit to me... Why are we trying to prove that piracy, an illegal act, is somehow "good"?...
The human power of rationalization is quite strong indeed; no one is stupid enough to think that piracy is legal, and obviously people feel bad about it, so they try and make up stories saying how they're actually helping people by doing it. Yes, there are definitely valid points that need to be examined, as I said before, but still, it's illegal, and everyone knows it, so stop trying to justify it.
In case you don't know this, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, where this article came from, is very much a pro business and capitalism libertarian organization and they don't generally like theft, infringment, or other crimes robbing people. There is no way in which they would justify piracy. In this particular case they are simply arguing small scale piracy may help a business that is seeing it's product(s) pirated.
Falconthe kid rec'd an unsigned email. the email never uses the word lawsuit.
Accept the email he received does say they have contacted their lawyer. Why in the world would they contact a lawyer unless they were thinking of suing?
FalconIt's really too bad the blogger is taking this so personally, continuing to blog about it, and cannot spell.
It is personal and he's letting others know about it. Now see if you can write your post in Romanian with the correct spelling, and grammer.
FalconJust ask the Chileans who remember what happened in 73.
Ah, Chile's September 11.
FalconYour laws do not apply outside your borders.
The current US admin certainly seems to think US laws apply everywhere, er make that their idea of what the law should be.
FalconGateway sends out replacements on pretty much a "no questions asked" basis
Maybe it's different with organizations, business, or other institutions but I've bought 2 laptops from Gateway and everytime I've had to call tech support, which I had to do a lot, the first question I'd be asked after giving the rep the serial number of the PC was "has anything been installed?" If the answer was yes then I'd be told I had to reinstall Windows but nothing else and see if I still had a problem. With some things they as relatively quick, one of the tymes I called the hdd died and I got a replacement dropped off 2 days later. Another tyme though, a few days before one year went by after I bought it, the motherboard died. While a box was dropped off the next day for me to sent it to the repair center, I was without the PC for 4 weeks. A week after I sent it in I called to see what the status on it was. I was told it was just delivered back to me. I lived along, was at home, and did not get anything. After going through calls between them and the shipping company Gateway decided to send a new PC as a replacement. I thought "great, I'll get a new PC". A week later, after not hearing anything, I called back and asked where my new PC was. I was told they couldn't send it yet as there was a part needed that wasn't in stock. Same story the third week. Finally after 4 weeks I got the replacement.
Falconthe HP Media Center PC I bought for my wife is damn soild really. So has every other HP PC I've owned over the many years.
On the first and only HP PC I've bought both the motherboard and the hdd died in less than a year after I bought it new. Now, I used to love their calculators, I've still got my 15C which I've had for about 20 years.
Falconit's already outlasted an apple laptop a friend bought at about the same time.
I've bought 4 new, well really 3 and a factory remanufactered one, Windows PCs and of them only one did not have any hardware troubles in the first year I had them. On the other hand I've also bought 2 used Macs and they both lasted longer than the PCs did. The first Mac I got was an SE30 in 1992. It lasted without problems until 2000, when the floppy drive died. The second's a Powermac 7300/200 I got in 2000, a few months after the the first one died. It lasted until early 2006 when it refused to bootup. The first one I used for 8 years and the second for 6 years.
Because of my experiences with Macs and PCs, and because MS wants to treat it's customers like criminals, I've decided to switch entirely to Linux and Macs. Several months ago I got a new PC with Linux preinstalled, which I'll setup as a server, and for a laptop I plan on getting a Macbook Pro. Unless and until MS gets rid of it's requirements for Activation and the spyware if I can at all avoid it I will never again buy anything with Windows on it. Nor will I get Office.
Falcon