I can't speak for English copyright law, but I feel like spouting off a bit about American copyright law for fun. For all these points, assume Stonehenge is in the US instead of England.
1. Architectural works can be copyrighted. 2. I wonder if the merger doctrine would prevent any copyright claim on Stonehenge (ignoring the expiration of the copyright) since the entirety of the work was (if I'm not mistaken) for calendrical purposes. 3. In the US, it would be possible for the conservators/owners to stipulate that no one may approach Stonehenge without agreeing to some terms, one of which would be "no commercial photography." This would be a valid license.
First, the obvious conclusion of your argument is that we should never send anything into space because we will always be able to overtake it 20 years later.
Second, you ignore the benefits of the first 20 years of using the thing (i.e., knowing things 20 years earlier than we otherwise would have).
Third, building the initial improves our ability to build a successor. Without building one now, the one we build 20 years from now might be ten years behind where it otherwise could have been. We might as well not build anything we can send into space until we've got FTL travel down cold.
You should be modded -1,000,000 idiotic for that. Are you for real?
Someone needs to tell all the new bands forming every day across the US whom I can listen to by virtue of having this thing called the Internet. There are tons of bands/individuals in the US that make frigging raps about Star Wars, let alone instrumental composers, rock groups, etc.!
Yeah, and there has been no indication that any Slashdot poster with "Pharm" as a moniker suffix is a mass murderer, but that sentence left out the word yet. I think you should be banned to protect us all.
It would have been surreal and fantastical instead of just static footage of New Zealand plains.
*criticizes movie that comprised static footage of New Zealand plains that was sourced from a book that is 75% static description of English plains.*;)
So why is it fairer to insist the cheap books stay in one community, making someone elsewhere pay more?
The comments I've seen here have been addressing this from a utilitarian point of view (stores will close), not from a fairness inquiry (wah wah waaah).
Unless a number of customers will stop going to the used bookstore because they know they'll never find a hidden treasure anymore.
That's half the reason I started going to Half-Priced Books years ago. It's a quarter of the reason I still go. And I already know that HPB has the infrastructure to appropriately price the books, too!
I'm waiting for the parallax multiverse TV, that lets me view Greedo and Han both shooting first while Max Rebo jams in Jabba's skiff and is simultaneously alive and dead.
Where I'm from, the tickets are 7.50 and 15. So yeah, if the domestic gross of Avatar was $749,766,139, adjusting for a doubling of ticket prices means it otherwise would have made less than $380M domestically.
I've read the first few pages of the PDF, and the paper, while presenting a few interesting tidbits about mathematical research (e.g., a semiring where.(9).(9)=1, "so long as the number system has not been specified explicitly, the students' hunch . . . can be justified in a rigorous fashion." It is true that in a number system other than the field of real numbers (which, of course, includes the completeness axiom),.(9) may be not equal to 1. However, there are a number of other things students deal with at the same time that require that \mathbb{R} be the field/metric space/algebraic structure under study. One of the obvious ones is that 1/3+2/3=1 when, in fact, without the completeness axiom (and other things that necessarily make.(9)=1 in \mathbb{R}), we would have.(3)+.(6) and have no way of actually showing this equals 1.
So the paper is interesting for its idea that the reason students don't understand.(9)=1 is because they're not taught about Cauchy sequences, fields, limits, and the axiomatic structure underlying \mathbb{R}. However, it does make a few weird statements in its discussion.
And, in my opinion, students don't understand.(9)=1 simply because they refuse to understand the simple fact that "if something is proven true, then it is true no matter what you think to the contrary [unless you reject the axioms, and you should be prepared for the consequences if you do]." When I learned the x=.(9); 10x=9.(9); 9x=9; x=1 proof when I was in elementary school, my reaction was "holy crap that's awesome."
The problem, I think, is willingness to trust mathematical proofs over base intuition.
It's not just Hollywood nonsense. Cops actually act like this.
The fathers of two of my good friends growing up were cops. I grew up knowing a lot of cops. This was in the 80s-90s. Not a single copy I knew (but one sheriff) was at all like this. They were all good dudes.
This "all cops are power hungry maniacs" meme looks ridiculous to anyone who doesn't live in NYC/LA/Detroit/Chicago and actually knows some.
It's clear as day that you are responding to the fact that he (jokingly) asserted that not everyone may have heard of her.
I guess we interpret his joke differently. You read it as him saying certain people have never heard of her. I read it as him saying that any person reading the post will not have heard of her (i.e., that no one has).
No one asserted anything about fame.
Whether someone has heard of a person is generally positively correlated with famousness. So it's definitely within the scope of reasonable conversation.
You have, of course, ignored the fact that I was responding to the assertion that Dido is not famous, not that everyone is heard of her.
So while you have brilliantly demonstrated how it is possible for someone not to know who she is, you have not demonstrated that she is categorically unknown, as the poster I responded to (jokingly) asserted.
"a singer you've never heard of" You've gotta be trolling. 21 million copies sold of her debut album, MTV Music awards, BRIT awards, Grammy nominated, #98 best selling of the 21st century, duet with Eminem, music featured in a big movie, song the opening theme of a US TV show, haircut named after her, sold-out world tours...
I mean, I can only name like three or four of her songs from the early 2000s, but "a singer you've never heard of"?! Come on!
I will never understand why westerners are so supportive of corporatist removal of our rights to own outright and modify our stuff as customers and human beings.
At least in the US, nearly everyone is brought up to believe they can become incredibly wealthy one day if they just work hard enough. This is why so many middle middle class people support low taxes for the superrich: they parrot arguments about job creation via investment and how it's "just not fair, it's their money blahblah," but it's really because they're thinking "Goddamn, when I get rich, I don't want to have 10M of my 20M taken away!"
I disagree with this: destroying utility of the airwaves.
You can disagree with it all you want, but as I've already demonstrated, it has happened before and it is currently happening again.
I assume you believe the government has a responsibility of enforcing property rights in real estate, so why not property rights in something like this?
it would be their headache - their investment
In the case I have described, the headache >>>>>>>>>> any investment because it becomes impossible to broadcast. Period.
So you've cooked up a "solution" where there are no radio stations. The market has found the optimal solution! Thank God we didn't have the FCC, or we might not have been allowed to say "fuck" at 10am!
I'd also like to point out that in the Hoover administration, government regulation became necessary for the very thing I described earlier: radio stations in an almost completely unregulated market began interfering with each other and destroying social utility of the airwaves.
I don't see a problem in this at all beyond your assumption that some one particular channel will have radio signal stronger than yours.
It's not an assumption. It's literally happening as we speak and has been covered repeatedly on Slashdot over the past decade: companies want to do Internet over power lines, but doing so would screw over HAM radio.
So this isn't a theoretical assumption. This is empirical.
You also assume markets operate as rational actors. I think the past two years have demonstrated this is categorically untrue. There's also the problem of negative externalities that your chosen position chooses to ignore. I just wanted to bring that up, but I'm hoping it doesn't steal focus from the thrust of our discussion, which is that I think deregulation of airwaves would destroy their utility, while you think the market would function just fine. I'm suggesting current conditions indicate that the market categorically does not "work fine" without regulation.
Whenever a small guy starts transmitting on a certain frequency, Clear Channel blasts them out of the water with a more high powered transmitter on the same frequency. That's how they do it.
In fact the more interesting question is this: how can anybody claim ownership of radio waves at all?
Which is exactly why I've been referring to the tragedy of the commons. "Commons" meaning "everyone owns it." Or, to put in language you prefer, "no one owns it."
I don't believe this lock onto radio waves by any entity serves a good purpose
Jesus, did you even read the Tragedy of the Commons link I provided? It explains exactly why, in practice as well as in theory, unrestrained free market use of something shared among all people cannot possibly work.
FCC is not better doing any of it than any company would
Except that I can actually listen to radio stations. Without government interference, I wouldn't be able to, as I've explained above.
the question really is why should one entity own the right dictate to everybody how one resource is used
Because the alternative is utter destruction of the resource to the point where no one can use it.
Sell the assets channel by channel to separate owners and let the market figure it out.
I already explained why this doesn't work, too: suppose I own 103.1 FM, or something functionally equivalent without using the concept of legal ownership.
I use it. Now you build a bigger transmitter and transmit on 103.1. No one can listen to my station anymore.
The only way to prevent this is for the government to get involved by making it illegal to broadcast on a frequency without its permission. In effect, enforcing something like property rights on a common resource.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for English copyright law, but I feel like spouting off a bit about American copyright law for fun. For all these points, assume Stonehenge is in the US instead of England.
1. Architectural works can be copyrighted.
2. I wonder if the merger doctrine would prevent any copyright claim on Stonehenge (ignoring the expiration of the copyright) since the entirety of the work was (if I'm not mistaken) for calendrical purposes.
3. In the US, it would be possible for the conservators/owners to stipulate that no one may approach Stonehenge without agreeing to some terms, one of which would be "no commercial photography." This would be a valid license.
This would be a funnier joke if there were even a single person in the world afraid of Jimmy Carter.
First, the obvious conclusion of your argument is that we should never send anything into space because we will always be able to overtake it 20 years later.
Second, you ignore the benefits of the first 20 years of using the thing (i.e., knowing things 20 years earlier than we otherwise would have).
Third, building the initial improves our ability to build a successor. Without building one now, the one we build 20 years from now might be ten years behind where it otherwise could have been. We might as well not build anything we can send into space until we've got FTL travel down cold.
I dunno, man, I think my problem would be the 1973 fashion.
You should be modded -1,000,000 idiotic for that. Are you for real?
Someone needs to tell all the new bands forming every day across the US whom I can listen to by virtue of having this thing called the Internet. There are tons of bands/individuals in the US that make frigging raps about Star Wars, let alone instrumental composers, rock groups, etc.!
Just wanted to stop by and award you a gold medal for being the first Slashdot post in 2010 I've seen use "to beg the question" properly.
Yeah, and there has been no indication that any Slashdot poster with "Pharm" as a moniker suffix is a mass murderer, but that sentence left out the word yet. I think you should be banned to protect us all.
To be fair, that "sin" is an equivalence class within the set of all possible actions is axiomatic in Protestant sects.
I don't think I've ever heard Tim Curry speak with RP.
*criticizes movie that comprised static footage of New Zealand plains that was sourced from a book that is 75% static description of English plains.* ;)
The comments I've seen here have been addressing this from a utilitarian point of view (stores will close), not from a fairness inquiry (wah wah waaah).
Unless a number of customers will stop going to the used bookstore because they know they'll never find a hidden treasure anymore.
That's half the reason I started going to Half-Priced Books years ago. It's a quarter of the reason I still go. And I already know that HPB has the infrastructure to appropriately price the books, too!
I'm waiting for the parallax multiverse TV, that lets me view Greedo and Han both shooting first while Max Rebo jams in Jabba's skiff and is simultaneously alive and dead.
Where I'm from, the tickets are 7.50 and 15. So yeah, if the domestic gross of Avatar was $749,766,139, adjusting for a doubling of ticket prices means it otherwise would have made less than $380M domestically.
Avatar isn't even in the top 10 most tickets sold: GWTW, ANH, Sound of Music, ET, 10 Commandments,Titanic, Jaws, Zhivago, Exorcist, Snow White, 101 Dalmations, ESB, Ben Hur, and then Avatar. So it looks like the primary reason it became number 1 in gross is ticket prices.
I've read the first few pages of the PDF, and the paper, while presenting a few interesting tidbits about mathematical research (e.g., a semiring where .(9).(9)=1, "so long as the number system has not been specified explicitly, the students' hunch . . . can be justified in a rigorous fashion." It is true that in a number system other than the field of real numbers (which, of course, includes the completeness axiom), .(9) may be not equal to 1. However, there are a number of other things students deal with at the same time that require that \mathbb{R} be the field/metric space/algebraic structure under study. One of the obvious ones is that 1/3+2/3=1 when, in fact, without the completeness axiom (and other things that necessarily make .(9)=1 in \mathbb{R}), we would have .(3)+.(6) and have no way of actually showing this equals 1.
So the paper is interesting for its idea that the reason students don't understand .(9)=1 is because they're not taught about Cauchy sequences, fields, limits, and the axiomatic structure underlying \mathbb{R}. However, it does make a few weird statements in its discussion.
And, in my opinion, students don't understand .(9)=1 simply because they refuse to understand the simple fact that "if something is proven true, then it is true no matter what you think to the contrary [unless you reject the axioms, and you should be prepared for the consequences if you do]." When I learned the x=.(9); 10x=9.(9); 9x=9; x=1 proof when I was in elementary school, my reaction was "holy crap that's awesome."
The problem, I think, is willingness to trust mathematical proofs over base intuition.
The fathers of two of my good friends growing up were cops. I grew up knowing a lot of cops. This was in the 80s-90s. Not a single copy I knew (but one sheriff) was at all like this. They were all good dudes.
This "all cops are power hungry maniacs" meme looks ridiculous to anyone who doesn't live in NYC/LA/Detroit/Chicago and actually knows some.
I guess we interpret his joke differently. You read it as him saying certain people have never heard of her. I read it as him saying that any person reading the post will not have heard of her (i.e., that no one has).
Whether someone has heard of a person is generally positively correlated with famousness. So it's definitely within the scope of reasonable conversation.
You have, of course, ignored the fact that I was responding to the assertion that Dido is not famous, not that everyone is heard of her.
So while you have brilliantly demonstrated how it is possible for someone not to know who she is, you have not demonstrated that she is categorically unknown, as the poster I responded to (jokingly) asserted.
"a singer you've never heard of"
You've gotta be trolling. 21 million copies sold of her debut album, MTV Music awards, BRIT awards, Grammy nominated, #98 best selling of the 21st century, duet with Eminem, music featured in a big movie, song the opening theme of a US TV show, haircut named after her, sold-out world tours...
I mean, I can only name like three or four of her songs from the early 2000s, but "a singer you've never heard of"?! Come on!
So just create a bigger fist with which to crush more systems.
At least in the US, nearly everyone is brought up to believe they can become incredibly wealthy one day if they just work hard enough. This is why so many middle middle class people support low taxes for the superrich: they parrot arguments about job creation via investment and how it's "just not fair, it's their money blahblah," but it's really because they're thinking "Goddamn, when I get rich, I don't want to have 10M of my 20M taken away!"
You can disagree with it all you want, but as I've already demonstrated, it has happened before and it is currently happening again.
I assume you believe the government has a responsibility of enforcing property rights in real estate, so why not property rights in something like this?
In the case I have described, the headache >>>>>>>>>> any investment because it becomes impossible to broadcast. Period.
So you've cooked up a "solution" where there are no radio stations. The market has found the optimal solution! Thank God we didn't have the FCC, or we might not have been allowed to say "fuck" at 10am!
I'd also like to point out that in the Hoover administration, government regulation became necessary for the very thing I described earlier: radio stations in an almost completely unregulated market began interfering with each other and destroying social utility of the airwaves.
A textbook example of the tragedy of the commons.
It's not an assumption. It's literally happening as we speak and has been covered repeatedly on Slashdot over the past decade: companies want to do Internet over power lines, but doing so would screw over HAM radio.
So this isn't a theoretical assumption. This is empirical.
You also assume markets operate as rational actors. I think the past two years have demonstrated this is categorically untrue. There's also the problem of negative externalities that your chosen position chooses to ignore. I just wanted to bring that up, but I'm hoping it doesn't steal focus from the thrust of our discussion, which is that I think deregulation of airwaves would destroy their utility, while you think the market would function just fine. I'm suggesting current conditions indicate that the market categorically does not "work fine" without regulation.
Whenever a small guy starts transmitting on a certain frequency, Clear Channel blasts them out of the water with a more high powered transmitter on the same frequency. That's how they do it.
Which is exactly why I've been referring to the tragedy of the commons. "Commons" meaning "everyone owns it." Or, to put in language you prefer, "no one owns it."
Jesus, did you even read the Tragedy of the Commons link I provided? It explains exactly why, in practice as well as in theory, unrestrained free market use of something shared among all people cannot possibly work.
Except that I can actually listen to radio stations. Without government interference, I wouldn't be able to, as I've explained above.
Because the alternative is utter destruction of the resource to the point where no one can use it.
I already explained why this doesn't work, too: suppose I own 103.1 FM, or something functionally equivalent without using the concept of legal ownership.
I use it. Now you build a bigger transmitter and transmit on 103.1. No one can listen to my station anymore.
The only way to prevent this is for the government to get involved by making it illegal to broadcast on a frequency without its permission. In effect, enforcing something like property rights on a common resource.