If I got a patent in 1940, and it expired in 1960, I still owned the right to use that patent in 1940-1960. If I own a house and do not pay the property taxes, just how solid do you believe my "ownership" to be in that case?
Even if its now 2005, it does not mean I wasn't the holder of the patent in 1940-1960. You can't change the past.
With other property, you own the object. I can't take the object from you (without your permission), but I can copy it without affecting or lessening your possession in any way. The only value of intellectual "property" lies in its artificial monopoly.
If you publish or use without my permission, I have lost the exclusive right granted by the concept of intellectual property. Why buy a book from me when they can get it from you?
To what lengths are you willing to go to preserve "Intellectual Property rights"? Only more and more draconian laws and technological measures (DRM, NGSCB) are able to hold back the tide of information freedom. You're talking about restricting information here, and the obvious benefit free flow of information can bring society.
I'm ok with DRM, if its too draconian to use then I just won't enjoy the media. For me, information isn't free, if information were free then I'd have everyones credit card number by now.
Intellectual property is similar to any other sort of property, ie., ownership.
Not really. First we need to work out precisely what the supposed property is. But even then, we need to carefully look at the law to see whether the claims of ownership are justified. If the rights one holds over the 'property' are too limited, one is hardly an owner of it.
There really isn't that much argument amongst lawmakers about this when it comes to copyright, the right to publish seems to be the "property" most generally accepted. I can agree that patents aren't as clear here, but in general, the right to use the patented "invention" belongs to the inventor. Again, its a property right, "the right to use." Trademarks once again are a creation, and the rights to use the trademark belong to the creator. Obviously, creators can and do transfer these rights, but its their right to transfer, because in each case, these rights are treated as property.
Its the entire reason for the term "intellectual property", that is, the concepts involved are dealt with as property. If I produce a song, my property is the right to publish this song for life + 70 (?). If I produce a patented invention, my property is the exclusive use of this patent for a fixed term of time.
Granted, its not like me owning a rock, but if you need something as easy to perceive of as a rock, then you don't need to be considering these issues to begin with.
society of course will support mechanisms that allow for rewarding media producers
Of course, that's not even slightly accurate. Copyright and patent are not intended to reward authors or inventors. Trademarks are not intended to reward persons engaged in commerce. Trade secret law is not intended to reward their holders.
If you're going to make stuff up, debating won't be very productive;-)
Look, you can either accept what society intends with these laws, ie., allow intellectual creations into the marketplace as creations of value, or you can live on the fringe and essentially convince no one of anything. As much as I dislike stuff like the "one click patent", I can only be persuasive if I understand why these laws exist to begin with, ie., to reward the efforts of people's work. When you and RMS decide to ignore society's need to have mechanisms to encourage work in the intellectual domain, you will simply be invited to the sidelines as idealistic hippies and thats not my decision, thats just the way it is.
Intellectual property is similar to any other sort of property, ie., ownership. Its only an unnatural right if you look at programs and data as being meaningless streams of bytes. Once you realise that programs and other media like audio and video actually have a demand then you can make the leap that there is opportunity for supplying this demand. When ever there is demand that is met by a supply, you have a market. Since producing digital media is often considered a decent way to earn a living, society of course will support mechanisms that allow for rewarding media producers.
Now this market for programs and media implies that there is a product or service, and in this case the product is in the form of copies of programs and media. The big hitch is of course that the cost of production is mostly in design, ie., producing the first copy. This is of course the biggest stumbling block intellectually for folks because they neglect to consider that often this design costs money which is then often recouped via sales of the published copies.
The right to exclusively produce published copies is otherwise known as intellectual property.
By downloading the files, all they have done is ask for a file and receive it. That does not prove that it has happened before or will happen again, and that particular instance is inadmissible because the authorities coerced them into committing the act by requesting the file.
My guess here is that this event could then get presented in court to a jury, that is, one party asks another for a file and the second party transfers it despite not knowing the first party, not being the producer of the media file in the first place, nor the copyright owner, nor are there any effective or implied permissions to publish in place in any form. Looks to me to be publishing a file without permission from the copyright owner. Ie., if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc...
Its clear to me, the only way to legitimately determine that these files are being distributed is to download them and verify them. If they had not downloaded them, you'd probably be posting that "they're only filenames!!!".
My current operating theory is that "there is always a race condition."
This was born out by a recent experience at an atm machine, I entered my account information and withdrawal request, the atm did everything required of it except dispense the money. Of course my account was decreased by the amount of my withdrawal request. The last act of the atm in that transaction was to crash.
Sure, whether its an actual race condition is up to the computer science weenies, but no manner of before or after image journaling can protect integrity of the last transaction before a crash.
Its much like the joke, two guys were in a store and a third walks in with a gun drawn to rob the store and the customers, the first guy says to the second guy "heres that $20 I owe you."
Imagine if they built physical objects like buildings that way, "shucks, its not going well, lets abandon it."
Where I live, there was this bridge project (not a great big bridge but big enough) and they built from each end toward the middle only to find out the two ends of the road/bridge were on different levels to the tune of a few feet. But in the physical realm you have to correct your mistakes.
While I agree that theres a market for macs, I guess there would need to be a compelling reason for me to want one. There always seems to be a price premium on those things so mac customers are by neccesity going to be those who don't mind paying. I guess in that case, I put up with the x86's and the downsides of missing out on the mac experience. Theres certainly no drought of software for x86's and no killer mac app that compells me to buy one.
For me, I can run a crazy amount of software on an intel/amd platform, running either windows or linux. Thats particularily important for me as I'm not going to code every solution for every need that I may need.
Still, the mini looks cool, I hope to buy one (used in the far future from ebay for hopefully about $20).
I don't use Opera on Linux although when I did it was cool having a polished and speedy browser on an old potato install running enlightenment. I use it on windows though.
The Opera folks are simply good engineers and have a nag free product (ok the version I use has ads but thats ok). I'd hate to see them go because competition in the browser market is good. IE is not good enough to keep Firefox developers on their toes so having Opera around is a good thing.
I know that its everyones darling, Google, but its not any less of a privacy spilling bug. Look at everyone who jumped on gmail already. Look at the bug itself, their servers trust the email client to terminate a string.
Never trust an internet client to provide properly formatted strings. Google blew it. (Besides, they're on my bad list for screwing up the usenet archives anyways, they're turning evil.)
As mentioned in TFA, you'll be copying the partition table too, so if the destination partitions aren't the same you'll end up just like the author did, having a good boot record but erroneous partition table. Read the article for his fix (using "gpart" from his knoppix).
Slashdot Mirror
Even if its now 2005, it does not mean I wasn't the holder of the patent in 1940-1960. You can't change the past.
With other property, you own the object. I can't take the object from you (without your permission), but I can copy it without affecting or lessening your possession in any way. The only value of intellectual "property" lies in its artificial monopoly.
If you publish or use without my permission, I have lost the exclusive right granted by the concept of intellectual property. Why buy a book from me when they can get it from you?
I'm ok with DRM, if its too draconian to use then I just won't enjoy the media. For me, information isn't free, if information were free then I'd have everyones credit card number by now.
Not really. First we need to work out precisely what the supposed property is. But even then, we need to carefully look at the law to see whether the claims of ownership are justified. If the rights one holds over the 'property' are too limited, one is hardly an owner of it.
There really isn't that much argument amongst lawmakers about this when it comes to copyright, the right to publish seems to be the "property" most generally accepted. I can agree that patents aren't as clear here, but in general, the right to use the patented "invention" belongs to the inventor. Again, its a property right, "the right to use." Trademarks once again are a creation, and the rights to use the trademark belong to the creator. Obviously, creators can and do transfer these rights, but its their right to transfer, because in each case, these rights are treated as property.
Its the entire reason for the term "intellectual property", that is, the concepts involved are dealt with as property. If I produce a song, my property is the right to publish this song for life + 70 (?). If I produce a patented invention, my property is the exclusive use of this patent for a fixed term of time.
Granted, its not like me owning a rock, but if you need something as easy to perceive of as a rock, then you don't need to be considering these issues to begin with.
society of course will support mechanisms that allow for rewarding media producers
Of course, that's not even slightly accurate. Copyright and patent are not intended to reward authors or inventors. Trademarks are not intended to reward persons engaged in commerce. Trade secret law is not intended to reward their holders.
If you're going to make stuff up, debating won't be very productive ;-)
Look, you can either accept what society intends with these laws, ie., allow intellectual creations into the marketplace as creations of value, or you can live on the fringe and essentially convince no one of anything. As much as I dislike stuff like the "one click patent", I can only be persuasive if I understand why these laws exist to begin with, ie., to reward the efforts of people's work. When you and RMS decide to ignore society's need to have mechanisms to encourage work in the intellectual domain, you will simply be invited to the sidelines as idealistic hippies and thats not my decision, thats just the way it is.
Now this market for programs and media implies that there is a product or service, and in this case the product is in the form of copies of programs and media. The big hitch is of course that the cost of production is mostly in design, ie., producing the first copy. This is of course the biggest stumbling block intellectually for folks because they neglect to consider that often this design costs money which is then often recouped via sales of the published copies.
The right to exclusively produce published copies is otherwise known as intellectual property.
Other than that, your post is noted.
These jokes are like one time pads. The more you use them, the less effective they are.
and quit making those "communicator" noises as you flip open your phone and ask to be beamed up.
Islam advocates murder of Christians and Jews.
My guess here is that this event could then get presented in court to a jury, that is, one party asks another for a file and the second party transfers it despite not knowing the first party, not being the producer of the media file in the first place, nor the copyright owner, nor are there any effective or implied permissions to publish in place in any form. Looks to me to be publishing a file without permission from the copyright owner. Ie., if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc...
Its clear to me, the only way to legitimately determine that these files are being distributed is to download them and verify them. If they had not downloaded them, you'd probably be posting that "they're only filenames!!!".
This was born out by a recent experience at an atm machine, I entered my account information and withdrawal request, the atm did everything required of it except dispense the money. Of course my account was decreased by the amount of my withdrawal request. The last act of the atm in that transaction was to crash.
Sure, whether its an actual race condition is up to the computer science weenies, but no manner of before or after image journaling can protect integrity of the last transaction before a crash.
Its much like the joke, two guys were in a store and a third walks in with a gun drawn to rob the store and the customers, the first guy says to the second guy "heres that $20 I owe you."
Taking "ask slashdot" printouts to the boss amounts to a confession of sorts where I work %^)
The folks at infozip would agree. They like to say that unzip is the third most portable program in the world, next to "hello world" and c-kermit.
Where I live, there was this bridge project (not a great big bridge but big enough) and they built from each end toward the middle only to find out the two ends of the road/bridge were on different levels to the tune of a few feet. But in the physical realm you have to correct your mistakes.
I've informed my department that if we ever go XP, I'm going to be the one playing the nose-harmonica.
While I agree that theres a market for macs, I guess there would need to be a compelling reason for me to want one. There always seems to be a price premium on those things so mac customers are by neccesity going to be those who don't mind paying. I guess in that case, I put up with the x86's and the downsides of missing out on the mac experience. Theres certainly no drought of software for x86's and no killer mac app that compells me to buy one.
Still, the mini looks cool, I hope to buy one (used in the far future from ebay for hopefully about $20).
I'm looking for gpl'ed car, house and food. Hopefully my wife will have a bsd license tho.
The Opera folks are simply good engineers and have a nag free product (ok the version I use has ads but thats ok). I'd hate to see them go because competition in the browser market is good. IE is not good enough to keep Firefox developers on their toes so having Opera around is a good thing.
I know that its everyones darling, Google, but its not any less of a privacy spilling bug. Look at everyone who jumped on gmail already. Look at the bug itself, their servers trust the email client to terminate a string.
Never trust an internet client to provide properly formatted strings. Google blew it. (Besides, they're on my bad list for screwing up the usenet archives anyways, they're turning evil.)
What, you're somehow expecting corporations and governments to be non-evil?
Sort of like a wolf eyes sheep, it'd scare the heck outta me!
Better than apple articles for me :-D (dons flame suit)
As mentioned in TFA, you'll be copying the partition table too, so if the destination partitions aren't the same you'll end up just like the author did, having a good boot record but erroneous partition table. Read the article for his fix (using "gpart" from his knoppix).
so how could they stop me from running it? I could understand if it went and asked sun each time upon starting up, but I'm not sure that it does that.