Would you explain "jumpers?" I know computer jumper's, i know jumpers as applied to people, and I think I know of a drug that has a nickname called Jumper (and there is always jumper cables):)
I think your argument is saying that if the software is out for public use then more innovation will happen. But most people copying the works are not doing so to innovate it, they are doing so to use it. They want it for free. Yes we can say "total originality" is a myth but that is a purest mindset. Since any kind of invention would take some form of communication - the originality is lost right there; but that is extreme. If someone creates a product they should be able to choose how it is distributed. Again, if you the consumer do not agree you do not have to buy it and the IP holders will suffer with their wallets. Think about it, how many people will pay $50.00 for a program when they can have it for free?
IP law is a compromise (like most law) - it is there to help protect the IP holder, just like there are consumer laws to help protect the consumer.
This debate is tiring, nothing against you, I have just had too many posts./. tends to be a place that supports giving software away for free and it is the one aspect i totally disagree with since I realize that people put in time, money and effort into creating products. They deserve to be compensated for their works and they deserve the ability to judge how that work is distributed including penalties to people who receive illegitimate copies.
is that all it says? It doesn't acknowledge non-tangible property directly, which also doesn't mean it is disagreeing.
In fact that is a poor definition (particularly the word: "thing"). Someone could argue that information is a "thing".
THough the third portion sounds like it backs up the copyrights since the law does define rules about non-tangible property.
you know i had to go to that site JUST because it had brittney spears in the address and damn it even had her picture with drawings around her firm succulent...wait stop where is my jacket when I need one..dammit and wearing khakis too
My statement still stands that going into becoming famous, you know what you are getting into. You wave your right to complaint by choosing the field. It's like saying "I entered the army, but it's not fair that I could die!"
While agree if someone enters the army willingly they knowingly took on the potential risks. People who say "what do you mean i have to go to war?"
Now if a public figure said "what do you mean people are going to try and embarass me" I would laugh at them. That still doesn't make it right and it should not be something that we tolerate as "oh well it's the nature of the beast" because it serves no purpose other then defame people (even if the law makes it hard as hell to punish those people).
Now without reading the legal case I am pretty sure the judges intended it to protect the media in a way so they would not be hampered in an obscene way. While it is insanely hard to prove malice that does not mean the judges (or society) is saying that public figures should get screwed.
Except they don't really give a rats ass about the star in a Ferrari, what they want to do is find anything and everything they can that will sell news --- so what sells news? scandals. Oh and you may think that having your picture taken is no big deal - but when the cameras are in your face everytime you step out your door you will disagree. Imagine being scrutinzed 24/7. Imagine how embarassing (and annoying) it would be to find your name in the tabloids saying that you cheated on your wife because you happend to go to dinner with your cousin.
Now lets recap the article:
1)The ruling was geared towards "public officials" not anyone in the public
2)It only protects the writers/speakers of the false comment if there was no malice. Meaning - if the person KNEW it was a lie and they still published there is underlying malice.
3)The ruling protects the press.
We were talking about stars - not public officials - so I am not that wrong.
I forget what I have now, but I have used Ritek a number of times. I can't say I have had any problems with discs in a long time and since this error also happens on store bought movies then it is the fault of the player.
No matter what the speed limit is, if someone can go faster they will. When I was young the speed limit on interstates in PA was 55...people were complaining that it was too slow so it became 65...and people still continue to break it. Maybe it should be 150?
And why are you copying the material? To make a legitimate back-up? Or are you trying to give it to your friends? (rhetorical question). In all honesty, you know, I know and so does everyone else here know that most of the copying is going on to give to friends, family or just plain ole distribute. If we didn't have this level of corruption - meaning we were truely just backing things up - then the companies would not care if you copied their software.
Really? So games like Halo 2 cost nothing to produce?
Now your sig (the first part) is cute in theory, it is not reality. Since the rest of the business world operates on profit - so should the software world. Stop trying to get things for free.
No, to recoup your costs, you need to make at least a million dollars in profit; there's no law forcing you to sell sweaters to do this.
Good god whats wrong with you? Are you trying to think of every off the wall inane reason? At least try and stay within reason. I hate when people come up with assinine reasons to try and make a point.
The rest of your message will be ignored on the basis that you are being stupid.
I have to agree with the things you are saying. The system is flawed and it needs to be fixed not removed. We need more competant people in the patent office.
Because nobody is saying "I had that idea first, now you're not allowed to think of it wouthout paying me!".
What they are saying is, someone had the idea first and protected their material. If you want to utilize their idea then you gotta agree to their terms. This has been going on for many years, it is nothing new.
Now the copyright system might be flawed, but that just means it needs to be fixed (similar to patents and such things as the one-click patent). And in all honesty, we are talking about things that are being utilized i.e. movies, music, software, so lets not span into the extreme left-wing viewpoints.
Lets say that sweater has some interesting effect to it. Researching this effect cost me 1 million dollars and two years of time. Now I want to sell this sweater. To recoup my costs and make a profit I need to sell this sweater at $50/sweater. However, we now have technology that will let other people replicate my sweater exactly for for little or no cost. Now people will utilize this new method (can you blame them) and I am screwed out of recouping 1 million dollars and two years of invested time. This is wrong. Just because the technology is there does not mean it should be used --- or do you think nuclear bombs should be used just becase we have the technology.
Wake up man! The constitution does not protect your right to claim other peoples works for yourself. In fact promoting the progress of science and useful arts will happen when people get compensated for their works which means someone has to pay for it. That won't happen if it can be taken for free.
Next time your boss goes to pay you - why don't you tell him to keep the paycheck. It will help promote the progress of science and useful arts.
Why do you call it an artificial market? Because there is no physical store? The market is there - the people make the market not its location. You can have a mall - and call it a market - without people it is just a big building full of stuff.
Your last paragraph puzzles me...it seems to imply that I do NOT think people should be compensated for their ideas and the millions they have invested...I have never argued that point before so I do not know why you are asking me this question. Unless I am misreading your statement, so I ask that you would rephrase it.
A rose by any other name is still a rose. I think then the argument is over the name... People hate assigning the word property to non-tangeable products. But why can't property be applied to non-tangeable products.
According to dictionary.com Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
IP is not physical property, but it is as real as money. Why is it so hard to apply the same thought process we do about money to copyrightable material? That hundred dollar bill is a piece of paper worth less then a penny, but we assign it a great value. You say that because something is not tangeable it is not property? I have some money in the bank - not tangeable at the moment...is that not my property?
Why can't criminal law on theft of tangible property be applied to non-tangible? Because we say so? Because the old laws do not support it? Since when do people in the tech industry, one of the fastest changing industries if not the fastest, resist change to old ideas?
Price fixing and other collusions are illegal and should not be used as an argument against copyright. Price fixing & collusions should be addressed in separate issues. Copyright imho is a valuable thing to help protect copyright holders and to encourage people to make more copyrighted material. The fact that one company can buy someone elses copyright is irrelevant - if you want to sell it sell it, if you want to license it license it...your choice and you will suffer the benefits and penalties.
I think it is insane for someone to spend 25 grand on buying a virtual island. But apparantly this person is going to be selling prime-time virtual real-estate on this island. People apparantly want it, and are paying for it. So we are all insane. The copyright laws are there to protect people who invest this time and money. With this protection companies have motiviation to make more, and as I said in a previous post - how many open source games out there that are in the top 10 gaming lists? Hell top 100.
Times change, and maybe it wasn't so important back then (or at least people didn't realize it) but in this day and age intangeable works can be worth millions (i.e. the process to make a drug, someones music, etc.)
I find it odd that most (i assume) people on here, who work for an industry with lots of intangeable works would give it such little value when we know it does SO much.
Nobody (i assume) put a gun to her head. She signed a contract, though, so it is her fault. It is not like she can't create new music. And its not like she can't perform her old music - she just has to give a cut to her contract holders I assume...then again, they dished out money to try and get her going. She may not have made it big, but they didn't profit big. They, in essence, bought her material. No longer her material and she did it by her own choice.
People are sane and morally decent and break the speed limit every day...does that mean we should not have a speed limit?
In the end the artists can setup a website, they can go to Amazon, and they can produce their own CDs and they can even advertise themselves. There are many options for artists - but apparantly they are working with the RIAA/MPAA because this is working better for them.
I am not saying the RIAA/MPAA are angels - they sin like everyone else..what I am saying it should be the IP holders choice - not somebody elses. So when you invest your time and money in creating some work - if you want give it out or sell it, restrict it or don't restrict it...but YOU should have the choice.
Sort of like the pro-choice/anti-abortion folk...I am not pro-abortion I am pro-choice:)
Your points are insightful, but a bit dated? Remember, technologies have changed - centuries ago we were not able to make these recordings and replay them (you only had music sheets), so I do not think it is a fair comparison.
When you copy a work from an artist and e-mail it to your friend. You are giving your friend an exact replica (in whole or in part) of the music. The RIAA should be upset- you gave away their investment. Now lets say you take a song that is published by a band, but then you remake it (as many bands do) then you wish to send that remake to your friend. Well I am not too sure about the law on this end, but I believe you can send this to your friend without any problem. But you are not doing that, you are sending someone elses exact work in essence a copy of their first performance.
Honestly I am not sure, I never thought of that, but I can look into it. It seems to do it only once (sometimes, but rarely, twice) in any given play of a movie.
I should have specified, its not that I can't connect different components of different brands its just you get better quality if staying within the same brand. Sort of similar to keeping the same wireless router with the wireless nic card. Each company has something proprietary to their system, and while it does convert over, if the conversion is not needed you get better quality.
I helped set this system up in my office a few months ago. It is pretty nice - though I don't think it is quite as good as my Bose set. but still for the price it is very nice. We have it attached to a big ass plasma screen which is connected to a computer (used for presentations of all sorts)
Slashdot Mirror
So I can run four instances of CS and p0wn3d everyone in my single player, multi-character clan.
Viva la VM-Ware
Would you explain "jumpers?" I know computer jumper's, i know jumpers as applied to people, and I think I know of a drug that has a nickname called Jumper (and there is always jumper cables) :)
/. tends to be a place that supports giving software away for free and it is the one aspect i totally disagree with since I realize that people put in time, money and effort into creating products. They deserve to be compensated for their works and they deserve the ability to judge how that work is distributed including penalties to people who receive illegitimate copies.
I think your argument is saying that if the software is out for public use then more innovation will happen. But most people copying the works are not doing so to innovate it, they are doing so to use it. They want it for free. Yes we can say "total originality" is a myth but that is a purest mindset. Since any kind of invention would take some form of communication - the originality is lost right there; but that is extreme. If someone creates a product they should be able to choose how it is distributed. Again, if you the consumer do not agree you do not have to buy it and the IP holders will suffer with their wallets. Think about it, how many people will pay $50.00 for a program when they can have it for free?
IP law is a compromise (like most law) - it is there to help protect the IP holder, just like there are consumer laws to help protect the consumer.
This debate is tiring, nothing against you, I have just had too many posts.
is that all it says? It doesn't acknowledge non-tangible property directly, which also doesn't mean it is disagreeing.
In fact that is a poor definition (particularly the word: "thing"). Someone could argue that information is a "thing".
THough the third portion sounds like it backs up the copyrights since the law does define rules about non-tangible property.
you know i had to go to that site JUST because it had brittney spears in the address and damn it even had her picture with drawings around her firm succulent...wait stop where is my jacket when I need one..dammit and wearing khakis too
Oh you will be some sharks bitch in prison, not a real shark, but this one likes to bite too (I hear the crabs also bite).
My statement still stands that going into becoming famous, you know what you are getting into. You wave your right to complaint by choosing the field. It's like saying "I entered the army, but it's not fair that I could die!"
While agree if someone enters the army willingly they knowingly took on the potential risks. People who say "what do you mean i have to go to war?"
Now if a public figure said "what do you mean people are going to try and embarass me" I would laugh at them. That still doesn't make it right and it should not be something that we tolerate as "oh well it's the nature of the beast" because it serves no purpose other then defame people (even if the law makes it hard as hell to punish those people).
Now without reading the legal case I am pretty sure the judges intended it to protect the media in a way so they would not be hampered in an obscene way. While it is insanely hard to prove malice that does not mean the judges (or society) is saying that public figures should get screwed.
Except they don't really give a rats ass about the star in a Ferrari, what they want to do is find anything and everything they can that will sell news --- so what sells news? scandals. Oh and you may think that having your picture taken is no big deal - but when the cameras are in your face everytime you step out your door you will disagree. Imagine being scrutinzed 24/7. Imagine how embarassing (and annoying) it would be to find your name in the tabloids saying that you cheated on your wife because you happend to go to dinner with your cousin.
Now lets recap the article:
1)The ruling was geared towards "public officials" not anyone in the public
2)It only protects the writers/speakers of the false comment if there was no malice. Meaning - if the person KNEW it was a lie and they still published there is underlying malice.
3)The ruling protects the press.
We were talking about stars - not public officials - so I am not that wrong.
I forget what I have now, but I have used Ritek a number of times. I can't say I have had any problems with discs in a long time and since this error also happens on store bought movies then it is the fault of the player.
No matter what the speed limit is, if someone can go faster they will. When I was young the speed limit on interstates in PA was 55...people were complaining that it was too slow so it became 65...and people still continue to break it. Maybe it should be 150?
And why are you copying the material? To make a legitimate back-up? Or are you trying to give it to your friends? (rhetorical question). In all honesty, you know, I know and so does everyone else here know that most of the copying is going on to give to friends, family or just plain ole distribute. If we didn't have this level of corruption - meaning we were truely just backing things up - then the companies would not care if you copied their software.
Really? So games like Halo 2 cost nothing to produce?
Now your sig (the first part) is cute in theory, it is not reality. Since the rest of the business world operates on profit - so should the software world. Stop trying to get things for free.
No, to recoup your costs, you need to make at least a million dollars in profit; there's no law forcing you to sell sweaters to do this.
Good god whats wrong with you? Are you trying to think of every off the wall inane reason? At least try and stay within reason. I hate when people come up with assinine reasons to try and make a point.
The rest of your message will be ignored on the basis that you are being stupid.
I have to agree with the things you are saying. The system is flawed and it needs to be fixed not removed. We need more competant people in the patent office.
Because nobody is saying "I had that idea first, now you're not allowed to think of it wouthout paying me!".
What they are saying is, someone had the idea first and protected their material. If you want to utilize their idea then you gotta agree to their terms. This has been going on for many years, it is nothing new.
Now the copyright system might be flawed, but that just means it needs to be fixed (similar to patents and such things as the one-click patent). And in all honesty, we are talking about things that are being utilized i.e. movies, music, software, so lets not span into the extreme left-wing viewpoints.
Lets say that sweater has some interesting effect to it. Researching this effect cost me 1 million dollars and two years of time. Now I want to sell this sweater. To recoup my costs and make a profit I need to sell this sweater at $50/sweater. However, we now have technology that will let other people replicate my sweater exactly for for little or no cost. Now people will utilize this new method (can you blame them) and I am screwed out of recouping 1 million dollars and two years of invested time. This is wrong. Just because the technology is there does not mean it should be used --- or do you think nuclear bombs should be used just becase we have the technology.
Wake up man! The constitution does not protect your right to claim other peoples works for yourself. In fact promoting the progress of science and useful arts will happen when people get compensated for their works which means someone has to pay for it. That won't happen if it can be taken for free.
Next time your boss goes to pay you - why don't you tell him to keep the paycheck. It will help promote the progress of science and useful arts.
People I would trust to give me valid advice (my brother) who worked in the industry
Why do you call it an artificial market? Because there is no physical store? The market is there - the people make the market not its location. You can have a mall - and call it a market - without people it is just a big building full of stuff.
Your last paragraph puzzles me...it seems to imply that I do NOT think people should be compensated for their ideas and the millions they have invested...I have never argued that point before so I do not know why you are asking me this question. Unless I am misreading your statement, so I ask that you would rephrase it.
A rose by any other name is still a rose. I think then the argument is over the name... People hate assigning the word property to non-tangeable products. But why can't property be applied to non-tangeable products.
According to dictionary.com
Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
IP is not physical property, but it is as real as money. Why is it so hard to apply the same thought process we do about money to copyrightable material? That hundred dollar bill is a piece of paper worth less then a penny, but we assign it a great value. You say that because something is not tangeable it is not property? I have some money in the bank - not tangeable at the moment...is that not my property?
Why can't criminal law on theft of tangible property be applied to non-tangible? Because we say so? Because the old laws do not support it? Since when do people in the tech industry, one of the fastest changing industries if not the fastest, resist change to old ideas?
Price fixing and other collusions are illegal and should not be used as an argument against copyright. Price fixing & collusions should be addressed in separate issues. Copyright imho is a valuable thing to help protect copyright holders and to encourage people to make more copyrighted material. The fact that one company can buy someone elses copyright is irrelevant - if you want to sell it sell it, if you want to license it license it...your choice and you will suffer the benefits and penalties.
I think it is insane for someone to spend 25 grand on buying a virtual island. But apparantly this person is going to be selling prime-time virtual real-estate on this island. People apparantly want it, and are paying for it. So we are all insane. The copyright laws are there to protect people who invest this time and money. With this protection companies have motiviation to make more, and as I said in a previous post - how many open source games out there that are in the top 10 gaming lists? Hell top 100.
Times change, and maybe it wasn't so important back then (or at least people didn't realize it) but in this day and age intangeable works can be worth millions (i.e. the process to make a drug, someones music, etc.)
I find it odd that most (i assume) people on here, who work for an industry with lots of intangeable works would give it such little value when we know it does SO much.
Nobody (i assume) put a gun to her head. She signed a contract, though, so it is her fault. It is not like she can't create new music. And its not like she can't perform her old music - she just has to give a cut to her contract holders I assume...then again, they dished out money to try and get her going. She may not have made it big, but they didn't profit big. They, in essence, bought her material. No longer her material and she did it by her own choice.
People are sane and morally decent and break the speed limit every day...does that mean we should not have a speed limit?
:)
In the end the artists can setup a website, they can go to Amazon, and they can produce their own CDs and they can even advertise themselves. There are many options for artists - but apparantly they are working with the RIAA/MPAA because this is working better for them.
I am not saying the RIAA/MPAA are angels - they sin like everyone else..what I am saying it should be the IP holders choice - not somebody elses. So when you invest your time and money in creating some work - if you want give it out or sell it, restrict it or don't restrict it...but YOU should have the choice.
Sort of like the pro-choice/anti-abortion folk...I am not pro-abortion I am pro-choice
Your points are insightful, but a bit dated? Remember, technologies have changed - centuries ago we were not able to make these recordings and replay them (you only had music sheets), so I do not think it is a fair comparison.
When you copy a work from an artist and e-mail it to your friend. You are giving your friend an exact replica (in whole or in part) of the music. The RIAA should be upset- you gave away their investment. Now lets say you take a song that is published by a band, but then you remake it (as many bands do) then you wish to send that remake to your friend. Well I am not too sure about the law on this end, but I believe you can send this to your friend without any problem. But you are not doing that, you are sending someone elses exact work in essence a copy of their first performance.
Honestly I am not sure, I never thought of that, but I can look into it. It seems to do it only once (sometimes, but rarely, twice) in any given play of a movie.
I should have specified, its not that I can't connect different components of different brands its just you get better quality if staying within the same brand. Sort of similar to keeping the same wireless router with the wireless nic card. Each company has something proprietary to their system, and while it does convert over, if the conversion is not needed you get better quality.
I helped set this system up in my office a few months ago. It is pretty nice - though I don't think it is quite as good as my Bose set. but still for the price it is very nice. We have it attached to a big ass plasma screen which is connected to a computer (used for presentations of all sorts)