"Flaw #1 was including unfree societies on a equal basis."
Well, since your #2 already includes and goes beyond this point (because it doesn't matter if they are free or not, they shouldn't be treated equal anyway), your point 1 is irrelevant.
"Flaw #2 was the idiotic notion that all nations are equal."
Ah yes, because, according to the USA some countries are more equal then others. Especially those that do the bidding of the USA. If you do not subscribe to the notion of 'equal' sovereignty of countries, it means you consider some countries less sovereign, or at least have less rights, then others. Now, who will decide which one is less? Why, the USA wouldn't want *others* to decide, because they stand a good chance of giving less rights to the USA. Hmm...could it possibly be that the US would want to decide who's equal and who isn't? But some countries might object...but should you care? According to the above principles, not if they can afford to ignore them. Thus, in essence, it would boil down to 'might = right'.
An institution like the UN which would subbscribe to such notions would carry even far less weight then the current UN does.
"While the Security Council was a partial attempt to correct for this flaw, in practice it has only meant inaction due to the veto in the hands of the opponents of every principle the UN, in theory at least, professes."
You mean, a veto like the USA has?;-)
Why...how ironic, the vetos provided make it exactly so as you describe and demand: that some countries are 'more equal' then others. But because even there some *other* countries use it as well, it's no good?
I see... so basically, the only country which should be more equal then others is the USA?
"No, as far as I understand it, the US maintains that it is a sovereign nation which does not require authorization from the UN to act."
And , by the some token (and logic) any other country can maintain it is a sovereign nation, which does not require authorization from the UN to act - even if that 'act' is an invasion of another sovereign country.
So, in fact, you are claiming that might = right?
Strange, the purpose of the UN was exactly to avoid this reasoning between countries, I thought.
But basically, it follows that, if China becomes a superpower in 20 years, and the USA has become weaker, it would be ok for china to invade the USA, and the UN should just let it happen and say nothing about it?
I mean, China is a sovereign country, no? Thus, it's not bound by the UN, correct? Thus, if it disagrees with the UN 'now and then', and decides to invade the USA or another country, that would be in full accordance with your reasoning, not?
Well, if one subscribes to that sort of viewpoint and reasoning, then why bother making international rules anyway? You are entitled to break them anyway when it fits you, apparently.
"34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."
All your above quoting does nothing to change the fact that it is the *UN* that 'decides', and the UN which has to determine the 'further steps'. It *nowhere* says a member state is automatically and unilaterally allowed to invade Iraq, as the parent poster said.
Thus, it was for the UN to decide, not for the US... a difference that many USA-citizens don't seem to realise. And, as we all know, the UN (as determined by the vast majority of its members) did NOT agree with an invasion. Thus, trying to portray as if the USA did what the UN had ordained, while the UN itself was of a totally other opinion, just shows how arogant the US really is. The UN is *not* the US, and doesn't have to do what the US thinks it should do, and when the UN does not do what you want, don't pretend that you are still doing something in accordance with the UN.
I've read his 'singularity' theory before, and I think it's fundamentally flawed. *Nothing* can uphold an exponential grow-curve, I think this has been established more then once; it's like claiming a perpetuum mobile exists. Well, it doesn't.
Futurologists *always* make the same mistake; they start from the current technologies, and then extrapolate this into the future...which is a sure way to get it completely wrong most of the time. I have given some analysis and criticism (see Gazing the Future) of this typical 'futurology'-tendency before.
Sure, for obvious technologies and the near future, extrapolation can and does work, and is quite often pretty good at it. But, truth be told; it's not what is known today that really changes the future, it's those things that *are not known*. If you go back and look at futurologists of the 60ies making predictions of how the world will look today, then you'll notice they have been over-optimistic in many area's, and most notable, they *COMPLETELY* missed those technologies that really had the most (or most widely applied) influence on modern society. Oh yes, you will see space-tourism...but todays space-tourism of millionaires paying 20 million wasn't the picture they presented. And they 'predicted' many things, which did - at least to some (mostly minor) degree - get developed today. But...where in all those predictions do you find the PC, the cellurar phone, the Internet, etc? Back in the 60ies, no one could even *imagine* such things, and in fact, no futurologist ever can, and that's why they always suck at predicting how the technology, let alone the future will look, or what will happen.
As for this 'singularity'; ah well, we've been hearing the 'longelivity' mantra for decennia, if not longer, and I suspect the '300+' age will still be hundreds of years away past his 'singularity' point. If that point will ever happen, because, apart from unforseen events (a metorite could strike and the human race could be wiped out tommorow, after all), it is inhertently impossible to keep expanding at an exponantial rate, because, even if there isn't another dark-age period (something he conveniently leaves out in his theory of always expanding knowledge, but, in fact, if his proclaimed continuous increase would have hold true from the roman times on, we would be *way* ahead of where we are today - how does this fit his hypothesis?), it sooner or later would still crawl to a more moderate rate, because of sociological, economical and other problems. The most aparent thing to happen, for instance, is a lack of sufficient energy (technology needs energy, after all). We already have an increasing problem with having enough energy to sustain our western civilisation today, after all, and this will only augment; our craving for energy always gets worse, but the energy production isn't following. And sure, we'll find some solutions, like fusion-reactors, eventually; but the increase of energy will never be exponential, and thus, neither will technology on itself, or our scientific and technological progress as a whole.
"I've seen my neighbors kids come over with CD's of burned software that they got "for free" from Kazaa. They put me at risk that way. I don't want that crap installed on my computer so I can be their next target and example."
You know what? Maybe you should snitch on those kids, and turn them over to the *IAA and police as the 'little criminals' they are! If you are sycophant enough, maybe you'll even get payed by the *IAA for snitching on your neighbours (and their kids). People in facist states have done that before, sometimes with considerable succes!
Surely you will put your conscience at ease, knowing it's for the brats' own good; thanks to you, they will know that they are stealing the bread between the artists' teeth every time they download a song!
As many, I started with civ1, which was a nice game, for its time. I simply adored civ2, which I have played over and over again, and it continues - even today - to be a game I (re)play now and then. This may seem as no big deal, until one realises I have *never* felt an urge to repeatedly play a game several times; mostly I play it once through, and I'm rather bored by it, be it an RPG, a first-person-shooter, or a strategic oriented game - which usually I like the most and on average I play 3-4 times. After a while, *no* game can hold my interest I've noticed, the notable exeption being civ2.
Alas...when civ3 came out, it didn't do it for me. Despite the poor graphics compared to civ3, I still prefer civ2. It's not easy to put the finger on the the reason why, but I suspect it's because civ3 has become a bit *too* complex. It's all very nice to have borders of influence, and insurgents in cities, and elaborate negotiation...but, somehow, I find civ2 is just easier and more fun to play. Sometimes, one just wants to 'go for it', without all the extra complexity. Now, will it be possible to play Civ4 in a 'easy' mode, which makes it more simple and user-friendly according to the lines (and rules) of civ2? I really think such a 'easy' setting would be greatly appreciated by those who want less complexity, and more simple, user-friendly gameplay. Alternatively, will you place the civ2 game (and engine) under the GPL or similar licence, so people might freely hack and expand on that?
"Copyright doesn't put things into the public domain, it takes things out of it."
I wasn't arguing that copyright on itself was created to make sure it came into the public domain (obviously, if copyright didn't exist, everything would be in the public domain), I was arguing that the fact they made it for *a limited time* was meant to make sure it came into the public domain.
"First of all, it's not my argument."
I understand. If I use "you", it's never you personal, rather 'you' as the 'other party' within a diametrically oposed argument or viewpoint (even if that's only in appearance).
"In the first, you're using it to modify the length of time of the copyright. In the second, you're using it to modify the amount of "scientific progress". "
Well, could be I didn't explain it too well; I'm not native english. I would say the 'amount of scientific progress' you claim I was making could be viewed as such, if one agrees that the longer scientific progress is stimulated (aparently by copyright, when following the reasoning), the longer that progress can continue, and thus the more progress will be made. Viewed in that light, it doesn't seem an unreasonable claim to be made. (And, in effect, many IP-proponents claims just that).
" So why have copyright at all?"
Well, indeed, why?
Sometimes it is impossible to know. And sometimes it is. Why does Disney&co want to extend their copyrights always further? Because every company wants a monopoly, because a monopoly is a cash-cow. Nervermind that they wouldn't have gotten where they are today, if they had had unlimited copyrights when the brothers Grimm lived. So, it's rather ironic: they try to abolish that (=the limited time-restriction), which made them great in the the first place.
But such is the power of money.
I guess when the Founding Fathers did what they did, some of them may be lobbied, and/or some thought it was more fair for the authors, and/or some actually believed that it would stimulate progres or new works if authors had a limited monopoly, etc.
"So, by your argument, if copyright were indefinite, all scientific progress would cease?"
Copyright is not the only IP-law, and even not the most dangerous one (patents beat that easily). But, rest assured, I remain consistent. So, yes, my argument is, if *all* IP-rights would remain valid *indefinately* (and they are rigorously pursued in the legal arena), then, ultimately, scientific progress would stop.
"But then again, what was the average lifespan 200 years ago?"
Whatever it was, in comparison with the current lifespan it wouldn't amount to 'death of the author +50 years', now, would it?;-)
"The theory was that the benefits of copyright outweigh the detriments when they are secured for limited times, but that the benefits do not outweigh the detriments when they are secured for unlimited times."
And why would that be, if it was not intended to go into the public domain, after that limited time? If your reasoning is that copyright promotes scientific (etc.) progress, then unlimited copyright would promote science unlimited, thus there would be no drawbacks.
The drawback lies herein, that the fullest potential of 'scientific progress' is done when it is in the public domain, because then everyone can use the idea/story/program etc. and build upon it unrestricted. Thus 'to promote the arts and scientific progress' already implies that it should become public domain.
As you correctly note, there are some benefits, especially for the original author, to provide a limited copyright-time, as -at least according to current dogmatic theory - this makes it possible for the author to live of his work and thus have an incentive to create other works as a consequence.
Nobody doubted, when the founding fathers set their mind to it, that after 14 years (+ a possible extension for another 14 years) those copyrighted works would become public domain. Acting as if this isn't true is a bit silly.
"However, I suspect that if vital resources (food, water, energy, land) become scarce, we will see a resurgence of violence as people resort to their basic urges in an effort to gain their basic necessities."
Contrary to the opinionated and rather vague claims the other poster said, I think you may well have a valid argument.
If the technology is the drive for prosperity, and prosperity for peace, then, seen the likelyhood of continued technological develoment (barren a second dark age-period), one would be inclined to think peace also will continue to improve.
But, I agree with your assessement that violence, battles and wars would increase again, if people were forced to get back to basic survival (though, not to the fullest; I think we'll never completely regress to the point of the dark ages, say, where we burned 'witches').
Probably because there still are moderators with some good common sense to realise when they see something insightful or not.;-)
"They've been able to adjust their thinking because, quite frankly, they've had others to fight their wars for them if necessary."
Give me one example where two EU countries went to war (or let others wage war to another EU country) in the last 25 years. Note that I didn't say they don't support any wars anywhere in the world. But you can't run before you can walk, and at least they are not warmongering among themselves anymore, like they did for the past 2000 years. If this is not an accomplishement that isn't worthwhile, then nothing is.
"War is instinctual."
Not in the biological sense of 'instinct'. At most one could make a case for the 'fight or run' reflex being instinctive. But regardless: human beings are not merely automatons reacting to instincts, so, even if what you say were true, it doesn't mean we 'instinctively' have or will go to war.
"But the nature of man's social interaction makes war an unfortunate reality, that all the pie-in-the-sky-thinking can't refute."
That's one sided. 'Control' lies in the human nature, sure, but so does 'cooperation'. The nature of man's social interaction is not, or at least not only, defined by 'instinctive' forms of aggression, and thus, we have a choice between more then one attitude that we use in social interactions.
For sure, I don't see wars going away soon, but neither do I see it as 'inevitable' for all times and purposes. Yes, there might be huge changes and upheaval in the future, and if societies crumbled and it were back to basic surviving of clans or tribes, no doubt wars and battles would be fought again. But the EU also shows we can climb out of it, if we really put our minds to it.
One can call that 'peacenik-talk', but one can not deny we have continiously progressed towards a less violent society. For thousands of years, slavery was deemed acceptable and even common; now it is not. For centuries, nobody lay awake about childlabour; or to trial children (including executing) as adults; now we do. There are so many issues in regard to cruelty and violence, that we, in modern society, do not condone anymore, which was broadly accepted in most parts of the world in the past millenia.
So, is this only a thin sugar-coated layer on our 'instinctive' agressive impulses, as you seem to think? Or is it a more profound change in attitude? Only time will tell, but, as yet, things seem to improve steadily, in this respect. (But, ofcourse, it's far from finished, seen all the violence and warmongering in the world.) As I said, maybe we'll never completely get rid of our basic agressive tendencies - I'm not even sure it would be a good thing. But I *am* hopeful the more destructive expressions of it (like wars) will diminish in time, and things will continue to get better in this respect.
"Human beings have taken war to every other realm we've ever explored[...]"
Well, ermm...maybe it's time we changed with this attitude?
This reasoning is pretty self-fulfilling, after all: why should one resist war, if it's deemed to be 'normal' and a great way of doing 'meta-science'? The acceptance of the unavoidability of war, makes war more likely.
Ultimately, the world is what you make it, nothing more, nothing less. And sure, agression is part of human nature, but that doesn't mean we should not limit it's effects, nor that we have to accept all it's expressions (we don't do that in our society neither, after all).
Is this naive and doomed? I wonder. Part of me seems to agree with you: it's so well entrenched in us humans, it will be difficult to actually abolish it completely. Another part thinks that maybe it's not all that bleak after all. Our societies, at least in the West, have increasingly become 'soft' in this respect. Where people used to be not much bothered by killing anymals for pleasure, now we do. Let alone we would still condone mass-murder on civilians (ok, the usa still does it in some sense, but it's rather 'collateral damage'; they don't go out of their way to actually shoot civilians.) In the middle ages, they had no problems killing out whole villages, including all children, and being proud of that. These days, at least in western societies, that would be deemed unacceptable.
And, look at Europe. for gods' sake, this has been the battleground for the most vicious battles and wars during ages and ages. every goddamn king and country has fought numerous times with eachother, and there wasn't a year without some war being waged somewhere in europe - sometimes lasting decennia. And we've got two worldwars too. But...things seem to have changed; we don't subscribe to the idea that war is inevitable, anymore. We actually unify peacefully, instead of emperialistically. No wars are fought (well, within the EU, at least), and political and economical ties make it increasingly unlikely there ever will be another major war in Europe. (Well, you never know what the future might bring, but it DOES become increasingly unlikely if one extrapolates the currenjt trend). In short, diplomacy replaced warmongering. And if that succeeds here, in such a formerly war-prone continent, then it can succeed everywhere.
"If that is allowed it legalises copyright infringement over P2P. Most P2P apps only allows you to download snippets at a time."
The courts don't all make the verdict of illegality when downloading (see the courts in France, for instance), let alone that they do it for downloading snippets. It's mainly uploading that is illegal in almost all western countries; but there too, all actual cases thusfar is for uploading songs, not snippets of song. Though, even then it would be for private use, and depending on the country, this may or may not fall under 'fair use'. In any case, as other posters already point out, under USA law, google has a good chance, since it falls under at least one, and probably more points that are needed to fall under fair use.
"but they would be scanning the books to make them electronic - the act of photocopying an entire book rather than a couple of pages breaches EU copyright law, and the act of OCRing it would be treated the same way."
That could be true. Copying pages from books on copy-machines in libraries are not deemed illegal, however, since we already pay a fee for it on blanc carriers. Could be that copying the whole book falls beyond the scope permitted, though.
"And advertising companies can't just use other people's copyrighted work for commercial gain under the guise of "fair use"."
Yes, they can, if they only use snippets. There is already an established tradition; you have numerous books which have quotes or exerpts from other books; this falls within fair use, yet those books are sold for profit none the less.
The only point of concern is if copying the whole book would fall under fair use, even if only parts are shown to users, and if it's copied in cache, or on permanent carriers (at least in EU law).
Anway, since it involves the USA, no doubt we'll have to wait untill some day the supreme court makes a decision, no doubt.;-)
No, they quote only a small snippet of it, falling under fair use. You've said as much yourself.
they *copy* the entire book in their cache...but then again, if that is illegal, then all websearchengines are infringing, and, in fact, all ISPs that use cache... for it will all contain copyrighted material which has been copies without the 'consent' of the copyrightholder.
Such a notion would be absurd. Not that that stopped some EU MEPs from trying, but luckily common sense prevailed, and it was not deemed illegal to cache copyrighted works.
I don't know how things are in the USa, but one could hope they show the same sense.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the *IAAs are fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music, as they always proclaim it is. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
I fully concur with your sentiment. Only, seen the fact I've experienced +21 year-olds to act as complete asses in theatres too, I'd rather absolutely forbid anyone under 30 from entering the building.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
"Look at them denying us the use of their airspace to go after terrorists."
Let's say we'll let you use our airspace when you let us use yours.
What you say? That things would remain the same?...well, now...
"Well i never trusted the rest of the world much either."
That's the spirit!
(yes, this was sarcasm too)
"Flaw #1 was including unfree societies on a equal basis."
;-)
Well, since your #2 already includes and goes beyond this point (because it doesn't matter if they are free or not, they shouldn't be treated equal anyway), your point 1 is irrelevant.
"Flaw #2 was the idiotic notion that all nations are equal."
Ah yes, because, according to the USA some countries are more equal then others. Especially those that do the bidding of the USA. If you do not subscribe to the notion of 'equal' sovereignty of countries, it means you consider some countries less sovereign, or at least have less rights, then others. Now, who will decide which one is less? Why, the USA wouldn't want *others* to decide, because they stand a good chance of giving less rights to the USA. Hmm...could it possibly be that the US would want to decide who's equal and who isn't? But some countries might object...but should you care? According to the above principles, not if they can afford to ignore them. Thus, in essence, it would boil down to 'might = right'.
An institution like the UN which would subbscribe to such notions would carry even far less weight then the current UN does.
"While the Security Council was a partial attempt to correct for this flaw, in practice it has only meant inaction due to the veto in the hands of the opponents of every principle the UN, in theory at least, professes."
You mean, a veto like the USA has?
Why...how ironic, the vetos provided make it exactly so as you describe and demand: that some countries are 'more equal' then others. But because even there some *other* countries use it as well, it's no good?
I see... so basically, the only country which should be more equal then others is the USA?
Well, well...how surprising.
"No, as far as I understand it, the US maintains that it is a sovereign nation which does not require authorization from the UN to act."
And , by the some token (and logic) any other country can maintain it is a sovereign nation, which does not require authorization from the UN to act - even if that 'act' is an invasion of another sovereign country.
So, in fact, you are claiming that might = right?
Strange, the purpose of the UN was exactly to avoid this reasoning between countries, I thought.
But basically, it follows that, if China becomes a superpower in 20 years, and the USA has become weaker, it would be ok for china to invade the USA, and the UN should just let it happen and say nothing about it?
I mean, China is a sovereign country, no? Thus, it's not bound by the UN, correct? Thus, if it disagrees with the UN 'now and then', and decides to invade the USA or another country, that would be in full accordance with your reasoning, not?
Well, if one subscribes to that sort of viewpoint and reasoning, then why bother making international rules anyway? You are entitled to break them anyway when it fits you, apparently.
"34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."
All your above quoting does nothing to change the fact that it is the *UN* that 'decides', and the UN which has to determine the 'further steps'. It *nowhere* says a member state is automatically and unilaterally allowed to invade Iraq, as the parent poster said.
Thus, it was for the UN to decide, not for the US... a difference that many USA-citizens don't seem to realise. And, as we all know, the UN (as determined by the vast majority of its members) did NOT agree with an invasion. Thus, trying to portray as if the USA did what the UN had ordained, while the UN itself was of a totally other opinion, just shows how arogant the US really is. The UN is *not* the US, and doesn't have to do what the US thinks it should do, and when the UN does not do what you want, don't pretend that you are still doing something in accordance with the UN.
"So I'm a dorky 30-something with a DS. I don't care."
Well, on the bright side; your geek licence is not in danger of being revoked.
I've read his 'singularity' theory before, and I think it's fundamentally flawed. *Nothing* can uphold an exponential grow-curve, I think this has been established more then once; it's like claiming a perpetuum mobile exists. Well, it doesn't.
Futurologists *always* make the same mistake; they start from the current technologies, and then extrapolate this into the future...which is a sure way to get it completely wrong most of the time. I have given some analysis and criticism (see Gazing the Future) of this typical 'futurology'-tendency before.
Sure, for obvious technologies and the near future, extrapolation can and does work, and is quite often pretty good at it. But, truth be told; it's not what is known today that really changes the future, it's those things that *are not known*. If you go back and look at futurologists of the 60ies making predictions of how the world will look today, then you'll notice they have been over-optimistic in many area's, and most notable, they *COMPLETELY* missed those technologies that really had the most (or most widely applied) influence on modern society. Oh yes, you will see space-tourism...but todays space-tourism of millionaires paying 20 million wasn't the picture they presented. And they 'predicted' many things, which did - at least to some (mostly minor) degree - get developed today. But...where in all those predictions do you find the PC, the cellurar phone, the Internet, etc? Back in the 60ies, no one could even *imagine* such things, and in fact, no futurologist ever can, and that's why they always suck at predicting how the technology, let alone the future will look, or what will happen.
As for this 'singularity'; ah well, we've been hearing the 'longelivity' mantra for decennia, if not longer, and I suspect the '300+' age will still be hundreds of years away past his 'singularity' point. If that point will ever happen, because, apart from unforseen events (a metorite could strike and the human race could be wiped out tommorow, after all), it is inhertently impossible to keep expanding at an exponantial rate, because, even if there isn't another dark-age period (something he conveniently leaves out in his theory of always expanding knowledge, but, in fact, if his proclaimed continuous increase would have hold true from the roman times on, we would be *way* ahead of where we are today - how does this fit his hypothesis?), it sooner or later would still crawl to a more moderate rate, because of sociological, economical and other problems. The most aparent thing to happen, for instance, is a lack of sufficient energy (technology needs energy, after all). We already have an increasing problem with having enough energy to sustain our western civilisation today, after all, and this will only augment; our craving for energy always gets worse, but the energy production isn't following. And sure, we'll find some solutions, like fusion-reactors, eventually; but the increase of energy will never be exponential, and thus, neither will technology on itself, or our scientific and technological progress as a whole.
Specs are crap?
;-)
I guess that's why the Freenetproject never had good specs!
And it pretty much seems a worthwile pursuit, seen the current almost-specless development of the 0.7 version.
Ok, the start was there, but it doesn't seem to get any further, even after several months.
"I've seen my neighbors kids come over with CD's of burned software that they got "for free" from Kazaa. They put me at risk that way. I don't want that crap installed on my computer so I can be their next target and example."
You know what? Maybe you should snitch on those kids, and turn them over to the *IAA and police as the 'little criminals' they are! If you are sycophant enough, maybe you'll even get payed by the *IAA for snitching on your neighbours (and their kids). People in facist states have done that before, sometimes with considerable succes!
Surely you will put your conscience at ease, knowing it's for the brats' own good; thanks to you, they will know that they are stealing the bread between the artists' teeth every time they download a song!
I'll note in my blog I received a 'wow' from an Anonymous Coward.
;-)
Well...ok; I won't. But rest assured I said equally 'wow' to it!
As many, I started with civ1, which was a nice game, for its time. I simply adored civ2, which I have played over and over again, and it continues - even today - to be a game I (re)play now and then. This may seem as no big deal, until one realises I have *never* felt an urge to repeatedly play a game several times; mostly I play it once through, and I'm rather bored by it, be it an RPG, a first-person-shooter, or a strategic oriented game - which usually I like the most and on average I play 3-4 times. After a while, *no* game can hold my interest I've noticed, the notable exeption being civ2.
Alas...when civ3 came out, it didn't do it for me. Despite the poor graphics compared to civ3, I still prefer civ2. It's not easy to put the finger on the the reason why, but I suspect it's because civ3 has become a bit *too* complex. It's all very nice to have borders of influence, and insurgents in cities, and elaborate negotiation...but, somehow, I find civ2 is just easier and more fun to play. Sometimes, one just wants to 'go for it', without all the extra complexity. Now, will it be possible to play Civ4 in a 'easy' mode, which makes it more simple and user-friendly according to the lines (and rules) of civ2? I really think such a 'easy' setting would be greatly appreciated by those who want less complexity, and more simple, user-friendly gameplay.
Alternatively, will you place the civ2 game (and engine) under the GPL or similar licence, so people might freely hack and expand on that?
We might be misunderstanding eachother.
;-)
"Copyright doesn't put things into the public domain, it takes things out of it."
I wasn't arguing that copyright on itself was created to make sure it came into the public domain (obviously, if copyright didn't exist, everything would be in the public domain), I was arguing that the fact they made it for *a limited time* was meant to make sure it came into the public domain.
"First of all, it's not my argument."
I understand. If I use "you", it's never you personal, rather 'you' as the 'other party' within a diametrically oposed argument or viewpoint (even if that's only in appearance).
"In the first, you're using it to modify the length of time of the copyright. In the second, you're using it to modify the amount of "scientific progress". "
Well, could be I didn't explain it too well; I'm not native english. I would say the 'amount of scientific progress' you claim I was making could be viewed as such, if one agrees that the longer scientific progress is stimulated (aparently by copyright, when following the reasoning), the longer that progress can continue, and thus the more progress will be made. Viewed in that light, it doesn't seem an unreasonable claim to be made. (And, in effect, many IP-proponents claims just that).
" So why have copyright at all?"
Well, indeed, why?
Sometimes it is impossible to know. And sometimes it is. Why does Disney&co want to extend their copyrights always further? Because every company wants a monopoly, because a monopoly is a cash-cow. Nervermind that they wouldn't have gotten where they are today, if they had had unlimited copyrights when the brothers Grimm lived. So, it's rather ironic: they try to abolish that (=the limited time-restriction), which made them great in the the first place.
But such is the power of money.
I guess when the Founding Fathers did what they did, some of them may be lobbied, and/or some thought it was more fair for the authors, and/or some actually believed that it would stimulate progres or new works if authors had a limited monopoly, etc.
"So, by your argument, if copyright were indefinite, all scientific progress would cease?"
Copyright is not the only IP-law, and even not the most dangerous one (patents beat that easily). But, rest assured, I remain consistent. So, yes, my argument is, if *all* IP-rights would remain valid *indefinately* (and they are rigorously pursued in the legal arena), then, ultimately, scientific progress would stop.
"But then again, what was the average lifespan 200 years ago?"
Whatever it was, in comparison with the current lifespan it wouldn't amount to 'death of the author +50 years', now, would it?
In my view, freedom *is* an absolute...it's only that two diametrically opposed absolutes cancel eachother out. ;-)
"The theory was that the benefits of copyright outweigh the detriments when they are secured for limited times, but that the benefits do not outweigh the detriments when they are secured for unlimited times."
And why would that be, if it was not intended to go into the public domain, after that limited time? If your reasoning is that copyright promotes scientific (etc.) progress, then unlimited copyright would promote science unlimited, thus there would be no drawbacks.
The drawback lies herein, that the fullest potential of 'scientific progress' is done when it is in the public domain, because then everyone can use the idea/story/program etc. and build upon it unrestricted. Thus 'to promote the arts and scientific progress' already implies that it should become public domain.
As you correctly note, there are some benefits, especially for the original author, to provide a limited copyright-time, as -at least according to current dogmatic theory - this makes it possible for the author to live of his work and thus have an incentive to create other works as a consequence.
Nobody doubted, when the founding fathers set their mind to it, that after 14 years (+ a possible extension for another 14 years) those copyrighted works would become public domain. Acting as if this isn't true is a bit silly.
"However, I suspect that if vital resources (food, water, energy, land) become scarce, we will see a resurgence of violence as people resort to their basic urges in an effort to gain their basic necessities."
Contrary to the opinionated and rather vague claims the other poster said, I think you may well have a valid argument.
If the technology is the drive for prosperity, and prosperity for peace, then, seen the likelyhood of continued technological develoment (barren a second dark age-period), one would be inclined to think peace also will continue to improve.
But, I agree with your assessement that violence, battles and wars would increase again, if people were forced to get back to basic survival (though, not to the fullest; I think we'll never completely regress to the point of the dark ages, say, where we burned 'witches').
"How does this crap get modded insightful."
;-)
Probably because there still are moderators with some good common sense to realise when they see something insightful or not.
"They've been able to adjust their thinking because, quite frankly, they've had others to fight their wars for them if necessary."
Give me one example where two EU countries went to war (or let others wage war to another EU country) in the last 25 years. Note that I didn't say they don't support any wars anywhere in the world. But you can't run before you can walk, and at least they are not warmongering among themselves anymore, like they did for the past 2000 years. If this is not an accomplishement that isn't worthwhile, then nothing is.
"War is instinctual."
Not in the biological sense of 'instinct'. At most one could make a case for the 'fight or run' reflex being instinctive. But regardless: human beings are not merely automatons reacting to instincts, so, even if what you say were true, it doesn't mean we 'instinctively' have or will go to war.
"But the nature of man's social interaction makes war an unfortunate reality, that all the pie-in-the-sky-thinking can't refute."
That's one sided. 'Control' lies in the human nature, sure, but so does 'cooperation'. The nature of man's social interaction is not, or at least not only, defined by 'instinctive' forms of aggression, and thus, we have a choice between more then one attitude that we use in social interactions.
For sure, I don't see wars going away soon, but neither do I see it as 'inevitable' for all times and purposes. Yes, there might be huge changes and upheaval in the future, and if societies crumbled and it were back to basic surviving of clans or tribes, no doubt wars and battles would be fought again. But the EU also shows we can climb out of it, if we really put our minds to it.
One can call that 'peacenik-talk', but one can not deny we have continiously progressed towards a less violent society. For thousands of years, slavery was deemed acceptable and even common; now it is not. For centuries, nobody lay awake about childlabour; or to trial children (including executing) as adults; now we do. There are so many issues in regard to cruelty and violence, that we, in modern society, do not condone anymore, which was broadly accepted in most parts of the world in the past millenia.
So, is this only a thin sugar-coated layer on our 'instinctive' agressive impulses, as you seem to think? Or is it a more profound change in attitude? Only time will tell, but, as yet, things seem to improve steadily, in this respect. (But, ofcourse, it's far from finished, seen all the violence and warmongering in the world.) As I said, maybe we'll never completely get rid of our basic agressive tendencies - I'm not even sure it would be a good thing. But I *am* hopeful the more destructive expressions of it (like wars) will diminish in time, and things will continue to get better in this respect.
Are you a republican, or what? That deserved a +1 funny! Where *is* your sense of humor?
Suddenly, when it's a political joke about bush, some dudes become all tight-assed.
"Everything is a weapon." he said, and then he went on to declare some empty metal barrels were Weapons of Mass Destruction.
"Human beings have taken war to every other realm we've ever explored[...]"
Well, ermm...maybe it's time we changed with this attitude?
This reasoning is pretty self-fulfilling, after all: why should one resist war, if it's deemed to be 'normal' and a great way of doing 'meta-science'? The acceptance of the unavoidability of war, makes war more likely.
Ultimately, the world is what you make it, nothing more, nothing less. And sure, agression is part of human nature, but that doesn't mean we should not limit it's effects, nor that we have to accept all it's expressions (we don't do that in our society neither, after all).
Is this naive and doomed? I wonder. Part of me seems to agree with you: it's so well entrenched in us humans, it will be difficult to actually abolish it completely. Another part thinks that maybe it's not all that bleak after all. Our societies, at least in the West, have increasingly become 'soft' in this respect. Where people used to be not much bothered by killing anymals for pleasure, now we do. Let alone we would still condone mass-murder on civilians (ok, the usa still does it in some sense, but it's rather 'collateral damage'; they don't go out of their way to actually shoot civilians.) In the middle ages, they had no problems killing out whole villages, including all children, and being proud of that. These days, at least in western societies, that would be deemed unacceptable.
And, look at Europe. for gods' sake, this has been the battleground for the most vicious battles and wars during ages and ages. every goddamn king and country has fought numerous times with eachother, and there wasn't a year without some war being waged somewhere in europe - sometimes lasting decennia. And we've got two worldwars too. But...things seem to have changed; we don't subscribe to the idea that war is inevitable, anymore. We actually unify peacefully, instead of emperialistically. No wars are fought (well, within the EU, at least), and political and economical ties make it increasingly unlikely there ever will be another major war in Europe. (Well, you never know what the future might bring, but it DOES become increasingly unlikely if one extrapolates the currenjt trend). In short, diplomacy replaced warmongering. And if that succeeds here, in such a formerly war-prone continent, then it can succeed everywhere.
"By the way, what's with all the people complaining about how the site looks? I'm using Lynx and it looks totally normal to me."
;-)
Well, that says it all, doesn't it? I mean; it looks normal in Lynx! What more proof of the highly skewed and distorted layout do you need?
"If that is allowed it legalises copyright infringement over P2P. Most P2P apps only allows you to download snippets at a time."
;-)
The courts don't all make the verdict of illegality when downloading (see the courts in France, for instance), let alone that they do it for downloading snippets. It's mainly uploading that is illegal in almost all western countries; but there too, all actual cases thusfar is for uploading songs, not snippets of song. Though, even then it would be for private use, and depending on the country, this may or may not fall under 'fair use'. In any case, as other posters already point out, under USA law, google has a good chance, since it falls under at least one, and probably more points that are needed to fall under fair use.
"but they would be scanning the books to make them electronic - the act of photocopying an entire book rather than a couple of pages breaches EU copyright law, and the act of OCRing it would be treated the same way."
That could be true. Copying pages from books on copy-machines in libraries are not deemed illegal, however, since we already pay a fee for it on blanc carriers. Could be that copying the whole book falls beyond the scope permitted, though.
"And advertising companies can't just use other people's copyrighted work for commercial gain under the guise of "fair use"."
Yes, they can, if they only use snippets. There is already an established tradition; you have numerous books which have quotes or exerpts from other books; this falls within fair use, yet those books are sold for profit none the less.
The only point of concern is if copying the whole book would fall under fair use, even if only parts are shown to users, and if it's copied in cache, or on permanent carriers (at least in EU law).
Anway, since it involves the USA, no doubt we'll have to wait untill some day the supreme court makes a decision, no doubt.
"Quoting an entire book is not fair use."
No, they quote only a small snippet of it, falling under fair use. You've said as much yourself.
they *copy* the entire book in their cache...but then again, if that is illegal, then all websearchengines are infringing, and, in fact, all ISPs that use cache... for it will all contain copyrighted material which has been copies without the 'consent' of the copyrightholder.
Such a notion would be absurd. Not that that stopped some EU MEPs from trying, but luckily common sense prevailed, and it was not deemed illegal to cache copyrighted works.
I don't know how things are in the USa, but one could hope they show the same sense.
It's... a glitch in the Matrix.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the *IAAs are fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music, as they always proclaim it is. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
I fully concur with your sentiment. Only, seen the fact I've experienced +21 year-olds to act as complete asses in theatres too, I'd rather absolutely forbid anyone under 30 from entering the building. ;-)
Sounds elitist?