Sure. I'll agree with that. But is that the version "most Americans" consider the literal Word of God? I doubt it because most probably haven't read it. They consider their version the literal Word of God, which is the whole point of my beef with the poster's point: he on his high horse by saying that 40% of Americans believe the Bible to be the Word of God and that it has more weight than science. But if you actually looked at it, 5% probably think its the Hebrew version, 25% think King James, and 10% think NIV. How can "40%" think the Bible is the "literal Word of God" if they can't agree which version is the literal one? Yet science is the one in question. riiiiiiiight.
Actually, I speak french fluently and german passably. The point is: how can you have the literal Word of God when its been translated so many times that no one knows what the original divine version was? The grandparent was saying that the Bible is the Word of God and my questions is: which version?
Responding to myself, I got it to work by re-installing XP, installing the drivers, then installing service packs. Works great (though the scound on the AIW is screwed up in the TV application - cackly and sputtery).
I haven't upgraed to SP2 since I don't need a firewall (have one upstream) and I don't need a virus scanner (I read my mail on my Mac and don't download stuff off the net).
I just installed XP on a new system last night with the above mobo and video card. I'm getting odd behavior with the nForce2 audio drivers, i.e., no conflicts in Device Manager but "No audio device" in the mixer) but I don't know if the conflict was pre- or post-SP2 install since I went from vanilla XP all the way through to SP2. Just wondering if anyone has similar experience. There seemed to be intermittent problems back in May 2003 with this combo, but I have yet to see posts on the net stating anyone has resolved this. Anyone? The mobo is in a Shuttle SN41G2V2.
Also, it would be really helpful if someone explained the order you install drivers/service packs. Is it fresh install --> drivers that came with mobo --> service pack or fresh install --> service pack --> drivers that came with mobo? Or does it just come down to "which ever has the latest date."
Except what the whole point of this article actually has nothing to do with getting a patent to begin with. It is that companies with gobs of money are paying inventors/small companies to assign their rights to the big company.
Inventor gets paid for selling his patent for X to Microsoft. Now whether X is a patent for an artificial brain or a triple-click on a mouse has nothing to do with the fact that MS now has one more patent in their arsenal. What is another choice? Ban people from assigning their patents? How then will the people that file them make money and what is their incentive to file the patent, thus disclosing it to the world? There isn't one and they'd be better off using it as a trade secret. Or, as the argument goes, if companies did not have clauses in their employment contracts stating that everything done on company time was property of the company (i.e., an agreement to assign all IP rights), then the inventors would walk out the door with millions of dollars in R&D to go to the competitor. Please propose a better solution given the real focus of the article.
Huh? How does the UCC not apply to software you buy at a store?? It's a moveable good.
As for your whole argument about the warranty being inside a box, why don't you read ProCD v. Zeidenberg a case we read in MY contracts class. Though it deals with EULAs instead of warranties, it held that software manufacturers do not have to place the terms on the outside of the box because it would effectively replace any advertising on the box.
"But why would Wisconsin fetter the parties' choice in this way? Vendors can put the entire terms of a contract on the outside of a box only by using microscopic type, removing other information that buyers might find more useful (such as what the software does, and on which computers it works), or both." ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3D 1447 (7th Cir., June 20, 1996)
Maybe you should educate yourself, and pay more attention in class.
nah, my beef is just that I think you should start in edit mode and occasionally execute commands. The bulk of your time should be spent doing something useful like writing, not spent avoiding the escape key.
vi: Hi. I'm a text editor. I do all sort of great things. Oh, you want to edit text? Gotta get into a special mode for that. And don't hit ESC, because that will knock me out of text editing mode.
Sorry, that is just idiocy. Emacs, as bloated as it is, is a text editor with special commands. Vi is a series of special commands with a text editor. If I run a text editor, the first thing I should be able to do is write some text, not guess which key allows me to insert text. i? a? dumb.
I never said this. I said copyright extensions were the much lesser of two evils, the other evil being the extent of the criminalization of infringement
Me: Downloading serves as a convenient excuse for current legislation.
No, this was MY original post which you refuted saying downloading does not affect how congress votes on copyright issues.
The Founding Fathers were a bunch of racist, sexist, agrarian, dead white guys who knew squat, which is a good reason to get rid of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I never said this either. I said that basing a decision solely on what the founding fathers initially decreed was not a decision made intelligently given the other things the founders believed, social norms of the period not being an excuse. Had you presented the argument you did in this post about copyright being a fair balance to start with, then I would have given your argument more credit. Instead you invoked the name of the Fathers and left it at that.
However, you have previously stated that the length of copyright protection doesn't matter.
No, I said it was the much lesser of the two evils.
I find it hard to believe you can't see that copyright was a bargain and a balance between two sides with opposing wishes.
I _do_ see it as a bargain. A bargain that can be extended if the extending party gives up rights. But that's not what is happening, extensions aside. The **AA is currently taking the deal we have, which to concede your point slightly, is already less fair than it was (i.e., copyright has already been extended), and they are making bigger grabs at how they can punish us, which, to me, is worse than extending the copyright. *shrug* I think we just fundamentally disagree on which way they are screwing us (both) is worse.
Wait till the iPod has 802.11g built-in. My guess is that would solve the problem in a pretty ridiculously awesome way, provided they upped the battery life again (802.11g sucking down power for extended period of time can't be good, no matter how efficient it is).
me: downloading is bad. It gives the RIAA leverage when they lobby for voting support in Congress. People shouldn't download
you: downloading has nothing to do with it. The RIAA has already bought every person in Congress and the real evil is the duration of time that they have extended copyright to.
A) Am I wrong that these are our stances? B) No troll, just a fundamental disagreement about what is the bigger evil: the severity of the punishment or the length of time that a punishment, any punishment, can be enforced.
trolling? no. Fanning your flames? yes because I think your fundamental point, as outlined above, is wrong. I truly believe duration increases are not as bad as the punishments being legislated.
Two points: 1) I buy my CDs at Best Buy. $9.99 is imposible to beat. (yes, i have mainstream taste). 2) Unconscionable means "holy crap that is f'ing evil! You shouldn't be allowed to get away with that!" e.g., knocking over a grandmother on her blindside, coming around to the front to help her up and lifting her wallet out of her purse as you do it is unconscionable.
Again, they don't need to buy more than one or two in each house who will sponsor legislation, like Bono or Hollings. That is how the DMCA and similar legislation was passed
No, this is how legislation gets drafted. The fact that they can point to people ruining their profits through downloading is how it gets passed by many many votes.
Let me propose a couple scenarios: assume copyright was extended to 100 years, but there were no teeth to any of the enforcement laws. Basically if you copied, you would get sent an email, maybe. Would there really be a problem? No, becuase nothing would happen if you trampled the owner's rights and society would basically benefit. Now consider if copyright was for the original 14 years, but if you infringed or used it improperly, you were thrown in a cell with Bubba and you were wearing a prom dress. Would there be a problem? Yes. Society would be so afraid that the onwer would have their monopoly like Congress originally stated so many moons ago. Would the public benefit? Not until the 14 years were up.
Sorry, I just don't find the injustice in the duration of copyright. It's not great, but I just don't see it as the big deal you do. That legislation like the DMCA is passed that prevents people from potential fair uses, or at least scares people away from doing things like encryption research, is a much bigger deal, regardless of a copyright's duration. And for that you need Congressmen to vote. Drafting is step one, but getting buy-in is a much bigger matter.
I can't believe you wrote that.
I'm singled-mided? If you took 2 seconds to read what I was saying, you would see I was giving an EXAMPLE of what YOU COULD HAVE SAID that would have been a better argument than your original "The Founding Fathers did it." I didn't even say it was my opinion or that I agreed with it. Try to focus less on proving me wrong and more on making your case.
There's also the protection from unreasonable search
Trying riding the T in Boston during the DNC. The Fourth Amendment is gone, my friend. You can and will be searched, and if you object and do not leave, you will be arrested. And a federal judge ruled it reasonable.
Sorry, if mickey mouse is public domain tomorrow or twenty years from now really doesn't matter. Like you said, copying happens. What is atrocious is the legislation passed to criminalize those that copy during the defined period. Do you honestly think that if all of a sudden copyright length was returned to the original 14 years, yet we retained the DMCA and 18 USC 2519, we would live in some copyright paradise? If so man, pass th Kool-aid, because I want some.
-truth
P.S. I played the race card not because I was trying to demonize you at all or avoid the issue. I was pointing out how weak your "the founding fathers did it argument" was.
I'll cut you some slack for the mix up about downloading. While I stand by my point that what you wrote can easily be construed as you admitting you've downloaded copyrighted content and that you will continue to do so, I also see how you are simply asserting you've paid the **AA for things that you think should be in the public domain. Happy? That said...
The downloading thing is so firmly entrenched in your thinking that you read what you expect to see. I said downloading does not give them any more leverage with Congress. The xxAA have already purchased that. It's so obvious that even some mainstream computer magazines have started referring to one senator as Fritz Hollings (D-Disney).
Sorry, but they haven't bought every Senator or Congressmen. But for the ones they haven't, if they can point to downloading, and they do, they will gain sympathy. To say downloading doesn't lend credence to their ridiculous argument is naive. And I know people refer to Hollings as Senator Disney. Hell, I've called him that in other posts here. That doesn't mean they've bought them all.
And digital reproduction is EXACTLY the problem. That's why taping was determined to be fair use: because the quality degrades with each generation of tape. Now that a copy I make for you is as good a quality as the one your make for your friend who makes one for his friend who makes one for her friend ad infinitum plus the fact I can reach frigging Japan in the blink of an eye thanks to the internet, the **AA and their Congressmen are even more scared and are trying even harder to pass legislation like the copyright extensions and criminalizaton statutes. And as long as they have the priacy scapegoat, Congressmen will buy it and judges will enforce it.
Sure, throw some implications of racism and misogynism in as well
Aw c'mon. Of course I played the race card. Your justification for following the original copyright statute was that the Founders came up with it. Give me something a little more solid than that. Something like: the value of a catalog decreases after 30 years to the point where extending the copyright hurts the public more than helps it. The copyright and patent provisions were put in the Constitution to benefit the public. Other than the beatles and elvis catalogs, no other group of works has had a life-span monetarily beyond 30 years (citation). C'mon man, try a little harder than "The Founders did it."
Did I mention that you are a brainwashed tool of the robber barons?
This is the best part of it all. Have I once said the **AA is right? Have I once said "copyright, in its current form and duration is correct?" No. I haven't. I've said, all along, "people shouldn't download stuff they aren't willing to pay for." You however have turned this into a crusade to edumacate me on the wisdom of the founding fathers and my own corporate puppetry. I hope to god you aren't a teacher or a parent. Though with your single-mindedness, I wouldn't be surprised if you were George Bush. Well I would, actually. Your grammar is much better.
Not great I imagine. I was offered a position at their old competitor Daily Radar. 50k as a webmaster, in San Francisco. Not too bad considering I would occasionally be able to do game reviews, but 50k in SF ain't a lot, and that was in 2000. I imagine there is no competition. I mean, who many people want to play games all day?/sarcasm
Let's take a look at the context. You quoted me as saying:
Downloading stuff HELPS THEM by giving them congressional leverage.
You responded with: Wrong (It sounds like, given my quote, you are saying downloading stuff doesn't help them. Downloading is what you are responding to.). Paying them for stuff that should be in the public domain (and I admit to being guilty) gives them tons of money to buy more Congresscritters and all the legislation they want. (Sure, I follow here that you don't want to pay them for stuff that you think should be in the public domain and that you've downloaded stuff before). I've been aiding and abetting the enemy with money (You've bought stuff in the past), but in response to this new tack, I'm going to reduce their income. (Downloading was the theme of what you quoted, and you stated that you've done it before. You have paid for stuff in the past BUT not anymore. It's completely reasonable for me to assume you intend to download stuff)
Congress originally provided a copyright for 14 years which could be extended to 28 years by request.
That is great and dandy, but like I said, since you never gave a frame of reference for what you thought should be in the public domain, like I said, I didn't know if you were referring to Mickey, the Beatles, or an album released yesterday. If I didn't know what your were referring to when you claimed that the **AA is getting money for what should be public domain. But I am sure when you download things, you only download the ones older that 28 years since you still respect the original copyright provisions.
But bully for you for thinking that we should follow Congress's original thoughts on Copyright. I guess I understand how a law proposed over 200 years ago should stand the test of time without alteration since they had to worry about digital reproduction and what-not back then. They got that slavery thing right too. And that women-can't-vote thing. Man, if only we still listened to a bunch of rich, white, slave-owners, at least we could download songs from 1976.
The fact that I'm going to reduce my purchases of DVDs and do without is unlawful and criminal?
Let's back up. If you're going to stop buying stuff, that's one thing, and, duh, is completely ok. That's how a capitalist economy works: people don't buy what you're selling if it isn't worth it to them. The whole point of my original post was "if you're not going to buy it, don't pirate it." It sounded like you were saying "well I don't agree with **AA prices so I'm going to pirate their stuff," which is illegal. If you're going to stop buying stuff, that's one thing. If you're going to pirate it because you feel you have a right to other people's IP, well then you're the brainwashed one, my friend and need to pick up a copy of 18 USC 2319.
It should be as it was originally written by Congress -- not the ever-extended and nearly eternal copyright of today. Read a history book.
Yet you still didn't answer my question. What should be in the public domain? Mickey Mouse, which is near the end of his copyright lifespan? Maybe. There's an argument for that. The Beatles catalog (as another poster suggested)? Well they're not all dead yet and Congress originally said life-of-author, so the fact their not still a band shouldn't matter. The latest Britney Spears album? Sorry, as crappy as it may be, if you want it, you gotta pay wal-mart/used CD store/what your sucker friend who already bought it is willing to sell it for. If you just download it, you're infringing, by any of Congress's standards, today or 50 years ago.
Please describe "moderate success." I have the g3 700 MHz ibook too and I've been thinking about YDL for a while now. How much faster is it, how is MOL on it, etc.? Thanks in advance
You buy stuff; erego you are a consumer. You buy CDs, DVDs, etc. You are a consumer. When you buy shoes, clothes, computers, you are taking those objects out of the market place. You have "consumed" them. Sorry if my colloquial speaking eluded you.
Paying them for stuff that should be in the public domain
Please, tell me what should be in the public domain. This is the second time I've seen this asserted and I want to know what you think should pull the public domain trigger.
I've been aiding and abetting the enemy with money, but in response to this new tack, I'm going to reduce their income.
Well enjoy the lawsuit because until Congress says otherwise, what you're doing is unlawful, civily and potentially criminally. I stand by my original point. If you do not download **AA material, they have nothing but their broken business model to blame for not making money. When people download their lawfully copyrighted works, whether you think they should be copyrighted or not, it allws the **AA to turn around and cry to Congress, "Look, Mr. Congressmen, how those evil internet pirates are hurting our business." Remove the piracy, remove the excuse. They go belly up and what will congress do, but shrug?
Ha ha ha! In almost every scenario you described, someone already paid what the owner set.
But here, in reality, I can go download something for free, at a cost not set by the owners
Yeah, this is called copyright infringement and it is illegal
Or, heck, even buy it used
owner's price paid in the original first sale
Or on sale
Owner's price paid by wal-mart, best buy, etc. The price you pay when you buy something is the total cost of getting it into your hands. The owner's price to wal-mart, etc is probably half what you would pay MSRP, so even buying it on sale pays the owner's price
Or find a CD on the ground
Unless it was stolen from a store, that CD got on the ground after someone paid the owner.
It used to be that way, now it isnt.
No, it still is that way, you just have no concept of how the world and commerce in general really works.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. I'll agree with that. But is that the version "most Americans" consider the literal Word of God? I doubt it because most probably haven't read it. They consider their version the literal Word of God, which is the whole point of my beef with the poster's point: he on his high horse by saying that 40% of Americans believe the Bible to be the Word of God and that it has more weight than science. But if you actually looked at it, 5% probably think its the Hebrew version, 25% think King James, and 10% think NIV. How can "40%" think the Bible is the "literal Word of God" if they can't agree which version is the literal one? Yet science is the one in question. riiiiiiiight.
Actually, I speak french fluently and german passably. The point is: how can you have the literal Word of God when its been translated so many times that no one knows what the original divine version was? The grandparent was saying that the Bible is the Word of God and my questions is: which version?
like here
here
and here
No thanks, I'll deal with the memory issue easier than I will a slow-ass pda.
I haven't upgraed to SP2 since I don't need a firewall (have one upstream) and I don't need a virus scanner (I read my mail on my Mac and don't download stuff off the net).
-truth
Also, it would be really helpful if someone explained the order you install drivers/service packs. Is it fresh install --> drivers that came with mobo --> service pack or fresh install --> service pack --> drivers that came with mobo? Or does it just come down to "which ever has the latest date."
Thanks in advance,
-truth
Inventor gets paid for selling his patent for X to Microsoft. Now whether X is a patent for an artificial brain or a triple-click on a mouse has nothing to do with the fact that MS now has one more patent in their arsenal. What is another choice? Ban people from assigning their patents? How then will the people that file them make money and what is their incentive to file the patent, thus disclosing it to the world? There isn't one and they'd be better off using it as a trade secret. Or, as the argument goes, if companies did not have clauses in their employment contracts stating that everything done on company time was property of the company (i.e., an agreement to assign all IP rights), then the inventors would walk out the door with millions of dollars in R&D to go to the competitor. Please propose a better solution given the real focus of the article.
-truth
As for your whole argument about the warranty being inside a box, why don't you read ProCD v. Zeidenberg a case we read in MY contracts class. Though it deals with EULAs instead of warranties, it held that software manufacturers do not have to place the terms on the outside of the box because it would effectively replace any advertising on the box.
"But why would Wisconsin fetter the parties' choice in this way? Vendors can put the entire terms of a contract on the outside of a box only by using microscopic type, removing other information that buyers might find more useful (such as what the software does, and on which computers it works), or both." ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3D 1447 (7th Cir., June 20, 1996)
Maybe you should educate yourself, and pay more attention in class.-truth
Umm, hello? That's what the footpedals are for. geez, n00b.
-truth
nah, my beef is just that I think you should start in edit mode and occasionally execute commands. The bulk of your time should be spent doing something useful like writing, not spent avoiding the escape key.
*spits in hand and shakes* agreed.
Sorry, that is just idiocy. Emacs, as bloated as it is, is a text editor with special commands. Vi is a series of special commands with a text editor. If I run a text editor, the first thing I should be able to do is write some text, not guess which key allows me to insert text. i? a? dumb.
-truth
and perpetual copyright protection is fine.
I never said this. I said copyright extensions were the much lesser of two evils, the other evil being the extent of the criminalization of infringement
Me: Downloading serves as a convenient excuse for current legislation.
No, this was MY original post which you refuted saying downloading does not affect how congress votes on copyright issues.
The Founding Fathers were a bunch of racist, sexist, agrarian, dead white guys who knew squat, which is a good reason to get rid of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I never said this either. I said that basing a decision solely on what the founding fathers initially decreed was not a decision made intelligently given the other things the founders believed, social norms of the period not being an excuse. Had you presented the argument you did in this post about copyright being a fair balance to start with, then I would have given your argument more credit. Instead you invoked the name of the Fathers and left it at that.
However, you have previously stated that the length of copyright protection doesn't matter.
No, I said it was the much lesser of the two evils.
I find it hard to believe you can't see that copyright was a bargain and a balance between two sides with opposing wishes.
I _do_ see it as a bargain. A bargain that can be extended if the extending party gives up rights. But that's not what is happening, extensions aside. The **AA is currently taking the deal we have, which to concede your point slightly, is already less fair than it was (i.e., copyright has already been extended), and they are making bigger grabs at how they can punish us, which, to me, is worse than extending the copyright. *shrug* I think we just fundamentally disagree on which way they are screwing us (both) is worse.
-truth
-truth
me: downloading is bad. It gives the RIAA leverage when they lobby for voting support in Congress. People shouldn't download
you: downloading has nothing to do with it. The RIAA has already bought every person in Congress and the real evil is the duration of time that they have extended copyright to.
A) Am I wrong that these are our stances?
B) No troll, just a fundamental disagreement about what is the bigger evil: the severity of the punishment or the length of time that a punishment, any punishment, can be enforced.
trolling? no. Fanning your flames? yes because I think your fundamental point, as outlined above, is wrong. I truly believe duration increases are not as bad as the punishments being legislated.
-truth
1) I buy my CDs at Best Buy. $9.99 is imposible to beat. (yes, i have mainstream taste).
2) Unconscionable means "holy crap that is f'ing evil! You shouldn't be allowed to get away with that!" e.g., knocking over a grandmother on her blindside, coming around to the front to help her up and lifting her wallet out of her purse as you do it is unconscionable.
-truth
-truth
No, this is how legislation gets drafted. The fact that they can point to people ruining their profits through downloading is how it gets passed by many many votes.
Let me propose a couple scenarios: assume copyright was extended to 100 years, but there were no teeth to any of the enforcement laws. Basically if you copied, you would get sent an email, maybe. Would there really be a problem? No, becuase nothing would happen if you trampled the owner's rights and society would basically benefit. Now consider if copyright was for the original 14 years, but if you infringed or used it improperly, you were thrown in a cell with Bubba and you were wearing a prom dress. Would there be a problem? Yes. Society would be so afraid that the onwer would have their monopoly like Congress originally stated so many moons ago. Would the public benefit? Not until the 14 years were up.
Sorry, I just don't find the injustice in the duration of copyright. It's not great, but I just don't see it as the big deal you do. That legislation like the DMCA is passed that prevents people from potential fair uses, or at least scares people away from doing things like encryption research, is a much bigger deal, regardless of a copyright's duration. And for that you need Congressmen to vote. Drafting is step one, but getting buy-in is a much bigger matter.
I can't believe you wrote that.
I'm singled-mided? If you took 2 seconds to read what I was saying, you would see I was giving an EXAMPLE of what YOU COULD HAVE SAID that would have been a better argument than your original "The Founding Fathers did it." I didn't even say it was my opinion or that I agreed with it. Try to focus less on proving me wrong and more on making your case.
There's also the protection from unreasonable search
Trying riding the T in Boston during the DNC. The Fourth Amendment is gone, my friend. You can and will be searched, and if you object and do not leave, you will be arrested. And a federal judge ruled it reasonable.
Sorry, if mickey mouse is public domain tomorrow or twenty years from now really doesn't matter. Like you said, copying happens. What is atrocious is the legislation passed to criminalize those that copy during the defined period. Do you honestly think that if all of a sudden copyright length was returned to the original 14 years, yet we retained the DMCA and 18 USC 2519, we would live in some copyright paradise? If so man, pass th Kool-aid, because I want some.
-truth
P.S. I played the race card not because I was trying to demonize you at all or avoid the issue. I was pointing out how weak your "the founding fathers did it argument" was.
-truth
The downloading thing is so firmly entrenched in your thinking that you read what you expect to see. I said downloading does not give them any more leverage with Congress. The xxAA have already purchased that. It's so obvious that even some mainstream computer magazines have started referring to one senator as Fritz Hollings (D-Disney).
Sorry, but they haven't bought every Senator or Congressmen. But for the ones they haven't, if they can point to downloading, and they do, they will gain sympathy. To say downloading doesn't lend credence to their ridiculous argument is naive. And I know people refer to Hollings as Senator Disney. Hell, I've called him that in other posts here. That doesn't mean they've bought them all.
And digital reproduction is EXACTLY the problem. That's why taping was determined to be fair use: because the quality degrades with each generation of tape. Now that a copy I make for you is as good a quality as the one your make for your friend who makes one for his friend who makes one for her friend ad infinitum plus the fact I can reach frigging Japan in the blink of an eye thanks to the internet, the **AA and their Congressmen are even more scared and are trying even harder to pass legislation like the copyright extensions and criminalizaton statutes. And as long as they have the priacy scapegoat, Congressmen will buy it and judges will enforce it.
Sure, throw some implications of racism and misogynism in as well
Aw c'mon. Of course I played the race card. Your justification for following the original copyright statute was that the Founders came up with it. Give me something a little more solid than that. Something like: the value of a catalog decreases after 30 years to the point where extending the copyright hurts the public more than helps it. The copyright and patent provisions were put in the Constitution to benefit the public. Other than the beatles and elvis catalogs, no other group of works has had a life-span monetarily beyond 30 years (citation). C'mon man, try a little harder than "The Founders did it."
Did I mention that you are a brainwashed tool of the robber barons?
This is the best part of it all. Have I once said the **AA is right? Have I once said "copyright, in its current form and duration is correct?" No. I haven't. I've said, all along, "people shouldn't download stuff they aren't willing to pay for." You however have turned this into a crusade to edumacate me on the wisdom of the founding fathers and my own corporate puppetry. I hope to god you aren't a teacher or a parent. Though with your single-mindedness, I wouldn't be surprised if you were George Bush. Well I would, actually. Your grammar is much better.
-truth
-truth
Let's take a look at the context. You quoted me as saying:
Downloading stuff HELPS THEM by giving them congressional leverage.
You responded with: Wrong (It sounds like, given my quote, you are saying downloading stuff doesn't help them. Downloading is what you are responding to.). Paying them for stuff that should be in the public domain (and I admit to being guilty) gives them tons of money to buy more Congresscritters and all the legislation they want. (Sure, I follow here that you don't want to pay them for stuff that you think should be in the public domain and that you've downloaded stuff before). I've been aiding and abetting the enemy with money (You've bought stuff in the past), but in response to this new tack, I'm going to reduce their income. (Downloading was the theme of what you quoted, and you stated that you've done it before. You have paid for stuff in the past BUT not anymore. It's completely reasonable for me to assume you intend to download stuff)
Congress originally provided a copyright for 14 years which could be extended to 28 years by request.
That is great and dandy, but like I said, since you never gave a frame of reference for what you thought should be in the public domain, like I said, I didn't know if you were referring to Mickey, the Beatles, or an album released yesterday. If I didn't know what your were referring to when you claimed that the **AA is getting money for what should be public domain. But I am sure when you download things, you only download the ones older that 28 years since you still respect the original copyright provisions.
But bully for you for thinking that we should follow Congress's original thoughts on Copyright. I guess I understand how a law proposed over 200 years ago should stand the test of time without alteration since they had to worry about digital reproduction and what-not back then. They got that slavery thing right too. And that women-can't-vote thing. Man, if only we still listened to a bunch of rich, white, slave-owners, at least we could download songs from 1976.
-truth
Let's back up. If you're going to stop buying stuff, that's one thing, and, duh, is completely ok. That's how a capitalist economy works: people don't buy what you're selling if it isn't worth it to them. The whole point of my original post was "if you're not going to buy it, don't pirate it." It sounded like you were saying "well I don't agree with **AA prices so I'm going to pirate their stuff," which is illegal. If you're going to stop buying stuff, that's one thing. If you're going to pirate it because you feel you have a right to other people's IP, well then you're the brainwashed one, my friend and need to pick up a copy of 18 USC 2319.
It should be as it was originally written by Congress -- not the ever-extended and nearly eternal copyright of today. Read a history book.
Yet you still didn't answer my question. What should be in the public domain? Mickey Mouse, which is near the end of his copyright lifespan? Maybe. There's an argument for that. The Beatles catalog (as another poster suggested)? Well they're not all dead yet and Congress originally said life-of-author, so the fact their not still a band shouldn't matter. The latest Britney Spears album? Sorry, as crappy as it may be, if you want it, you gotta pay wal-mart/used CD store/what your sucker friend who already bought it is willing to sell it for. If you just download it, you're infringing, by any of Congress's standards, today or 50 years ago.
-truth
-truth
You buy stuff; erego you are a consumer. You buy CDs, DVDs, etc. You are a consumer. When you buy shoes, clothes, computers, you are taking those objects out of the market place. You have "consumed" them. Sorry if my colloquial speaking eluded you.
Paying them for stuff that should be in the public domain
Please, tell me what should be in the public domain. This is the second time I've seen this asserted and I want to know what you think should pull the public domain trigger.
I've been aiding and abetting the enemy with money, but in response to this new tack, I'm going to reduce their income.
Well enjoy the lawsuit because until Congress says otherwise, what you're doing is unlawful, civily and potentially criminally. I stand by my original point. If you do not download **AA material, they have nothing but their broken business model to blame for not making money. When people download their lawfully copyrighted works, whether you think they should be copyrighted or not, it allws the **AA to turn around and cry to Congress, "Look, Mr. Congressmen, how those evil internet pirates are hurting our business." Remove the piracy, remove the excuse. They go belly up and what will congress do, but shrug?
-truth
But here, in reality, I can go download something for free, at a cost not set by the owners
Yeah, this is called copyright infringement and it is illegal
Or, heck, even buy it used
owner's price paid in the original first sale
Or on sale
Owner's price paid by wal-mart, best buy, etc. The price you pay when you buy something is the total cost of getting it into your hands. The owner's price to wal-mart, etc is probably half what you would pay MSRP, so even buying it on sale pays the owner's price
Or find a CD on the ground
Unless it was stolen from a store, that CD got on the ground after someone paid the owner.
It used to be that way, now it isnt.
No, it still is that way, you just have no concept of how the world and commerce in general really works.
-truth