Back under the bridge, troll. It would be REAL smart for someone to distribute kiddie porn via bittorrent, given that you have to do it through a CENTRAL WEBSITE.
But cop-killers are at the top of the heap, and are looked up to. They don't take kindly to -some- types of f'ed up behavior, and very kindly to others. Please don't make it out as though jailhouse beatings and rape are meted out according to the severity of the prisoner's crime-they're generally meted out according to opportunity and physical strength, or lack thereof.
If this is happening, would be nice both to see some evidence of it, and know what companies are doing it (and which are not), do you have any listings of such information?
I can't wait to download normal music that normal people actually want from the five major US record labels!
That's a rather narrow definition of "normal". Care to elaborate on how those who like indie bands are somehow "abnormal", while those who like mainstream stuff are "normal"? Does this include the guy who has 5 noserings and listens to Limp Bizkit? Is he "normal"?
MP3tunes will use a service or tool called "MP3beamer", which Robertson said would reconcile the need to store music in a centralized file store with the ability to play back the music anywhere, on any device. He declined to comment further.
(From TFA, for those who didn't R it)
If this service stores music somewhere you must somehow log into, and does not -upload to you- a DRM-free MP3, this service is NOT free of DRM, just using a different version of it.
Have you ever heard the expression "They KILLED the other team out there today"? Does that mean that a mass murder occurred on a football field, or is it simply a figure of speech?
Similarly, "steal" can be used as such a figure of speech. Weren't you ever about to say something, which someone else came up with and said the exact same thing, and said "Man, that guy stole my line!" Is he genuinely guilty of theft, just because your use of that word is a common colloquialism?
The danger here is that it could be seen that copyright infringement -is- theft. It is not. It's copyright infringement. It might be argued that "piracy" is a proper term for this as well if it is done for profit, but theft, quite simply, is not. Theft means to take a tangible good or sum of money from another person without their permission. It does not mean to make a copy of something.
Use of a word over and over in a certain way might create a -slang- expression for that word, but it doesn't change the -real- meaning of a word, any more then using the seemingly popular expression "my dog" for a friend will turn them into a four-legged canine. Similarly, calling copyright infringement theft over and over does not make it so. But it can result in inaccurate -perceptions- that it is, and that's why grandparent objects (correctly) to the mischaracterization of fansubbing.
WRONG with that? I love that marketing strategy, because I know about it!
Company X offers loss leader/free bait. Take loss leader/free bait. Ignore upsell treatment because company Y offers what's being upsold as loss leader/free bait in an attempt to sell you what you're getting cheap/free from company X.
Rinse, repeat. You'll wind up paying very little or nothing for both sides of the equation.
I think a lot of people confuse loss-leader marketing (legal and perfectly ethical) with bait-and-switch marketing (illegal and definitely unethical). Loss-leader marketing generally involves offering something offered below cost or for free as a "sample" of a company's offerings, or to familiarize people with the company and upsell them some of their more expensive (and profitable) products/services. As stated above, those who "bargain-hunt" often seek out such offers. This is really no different then a supermarket giving out free samples.
On the other hand, bait-and-switch is effectively false advertising of something you never intended to offer. When someone asks after the offer, you tell them that that offer is "out of stock" or "no longer available". But we DO have...Or you advertise that "Yes, that's available, but we only offer it bundled with..."
This type of marketing is considered false advertising, and is unethical and illegal. If you advertise something, you must be willing and able to provide it as advertised. Loss leaders fulfill this requirement, bait-and-switch does not.
In Google's case, what they are advertising (cheap domain registration, free mail service, etc.) is exactly what they're offering and providing, so they're not doing a thing wrong.
Can happen. Doesn't specifically mean it -will-, but the technology exists, and the stupidity exists for most people to accept it. And orphan work has -long- since been an issue, even before the Internet.
Re:Online authentication unavailable for one night
on
Steam Users Steamed
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Didn't buy it. Don't even have a cracked copy, I don't like that game. It cracked nicely for a couple friends, though. The cracked copies are working perfectly, even right now, unlike the legitimate copies, which both of them bought. The legit copies, on the other hand, only worked intermittently, even in "offline" mode.
People -will- crack games. No matter what any software company does. The only question the software company needs to ask themselves is-how appealing do you want to make the cracks? The more you encumber your legitimate users with "authentication", the more of them you drive to cracked copies with that garbage removed.
Well, a couple of friends of mine have had all kinds of issues with their legally purchased copy of Halflife 2. Personally, I played a friend's copy, and didn't like it, so I didn't even bother getting a cracked copy.
However, both of them have had Steam issues over and over again. Eventually, I got them both cracked copies, which work flawlessly. (Even for online play on uncracked servers, interestingly). I can guarantee you two things: One, they will never purchase another Valve/Steam game. And two, I will be getting them both cracks when HL3 (or whatever else) comes out next. Great way to discourage piracy, Valve. You've made sure that your paying customers have to deal with your shortcomings, while cracked copies get around them and work all the time.
When "trusted computing" becomes a reality, said "lunatic" might not be too far from the truth. And if such technology is invented, it'll be illegal (read: illegal, jail-time, not illegal, 1 in 100000 chance of getting sued) to break it.
Might want to have a look at where your reality's heading. "Orphan works" are all too real, there was an article posted quite recently here.
Who's "entitled" to anything? You're not "entitled" even to read this post. But since I'm choosing to offer it to the public, the public NOW has the right to read it. Of course, if you put a gun to my head and told me to get to writing, that'd be wrong.
You are also entitled, if you like, to quote it, paraphrase it, reuse it, post it somewhere else, argue with it, criticize it, expand upon it, contrast with it...that is the benefit of having work available to the public. It is not just about being "entitled to the pleasure", it is about those who cannot afford royalties being able to use the work to improve upon and create further using the base of the original creation. It is also about such future creators being able to do so while the initial work is still relevant and timely.
Asking that works be locked down for (literally) over a century after their creation, except to be allowed limited use at the whim of their creator (or more likely, a corporation, music label, publishing house, etc.), at a price they set arbitrarily and without limitation. And this may be done for such a long time that, at the expiration of copyright, most works will have long outlived their usefulness or relevance. (What do you think public-domain access to Windows 98 is going to mean in 100-150 years? Right-nothing.)
What I propose is a compromise. Give the creators their monopoly, if that's how it must be. But not for more then a couple of years. That's plenty of time to make money off the work if it's worthwhile. (Likely, it's not enough time to get rich, nor -should- it be. Everyone else makes a LIVING for doing a good job, not a killing.) Same with patents-tangible, real devices only (not on algorithms, math equations, etc.), and much shorter time. Both copyrights and patents should have mandatory registration (with protection under a "copyright/patent pending" type arrangement while registration is being processed.) Registration should be free and available online, so that no one can yowl and so that it doesn't favor corporations. If a creator doesn't care enough about his work to take a couple of minutes registering it, the law should not waste effort to protect it.
The patent process, especially, also needs to be made more stringent, especially in granting patents only in cases where the new invention is clearly novel, no prior art exists or has even been considered, and the idea is stunningly brilliant and absolutely not obvious. (As opposed to "obvious but just not quite made workable before.")
This would be a far more balanced approach then the current system, and would ensure that relevant, timely work enters the public domain, not just century-old relics. It would be a benefit to the public and to creators both, in the end. To the public, by giving them a rich library of public-domain works to view and select from, and to creators, by giving them a rich library of public-domain works to improve, expand upon, and draw ideas from.
Your idea, once you voluntarily choose to expose it to the public, belongs to the public, and if you're going to be allowed to flaunt that natural truth and withhold exclusive rights, we better be talking about for a couple of years, not a couple of centuries.
Is it so much to ask that those who wish to make their living creating, I don't know, CONTINUE doing their job (creating) rather then do it once, sit back, and collect the money?
Mickey Mouse enters the public domain. This does not -prohibit- Disney from ever making money off the character again. This simply means that others can make use too, enriching the public domain. And if Disney wants something else with exclusive control for a few years, they have to create again.
If you're going to quote me, mind doing it properly?
If this had gone to trial, chances are, he'd be in jail now!
Right so far.
Because the evidence is so flimsy! In fact, nonexistent!
Replace "because" with "in spite of the fact that", and we're good.
And people are exonerated every day! And apparently, I think 'exonerated' means 'found guilty,' when in fact it means the precise opposite.
"Exonerated", in this context, means to later be proven innocent even though you were convicted at trial. If juries would not convict when doubt still existed, exonerations would very, very rarely happen. Instead, they often convict based on circumstantial evidence ("it looks like he did it") rather than ("He for sure did it.")
If you should ever find yourself on a jury. Chances are, had this gone to trial, he would've been convicted, and be in jail right now.
All the evidence is circumstantial and really pretty flimsy. The dog circling to the front door? Well of course he's going to detect that the family was in their own yard. While from movies we get these impressions of "superdogs" that do police work, in reality, such dogs are quite prone to make mistakes.
So his club card (not, apparently, his credit card-examine what's NOT said. The credit card would've been far stronger evidence. Had he used that, they would've worried about getting evidence from that and not even been concerned with the club card.) was used to make the purchases. So what? I signed up for my club card with bogus information. Sometimes, I forget the card, and I have no idea what BS phone number I put down, so I use my boss's phone #. He must have one of those cards, it always works. But I've certainly never been asked to verify my identity when doing so.
The real moral of this story-cops and prosecutors are often overzealous. When you are on a jury, do not ask yourself "Does it look like this guy did it?" Ask yourself instead "Has it been proven to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this person did it? Would I stake x years of my life on the fact that this guy did it?" Because you are staking years of someone's life on your decision. If you cannot say "I am sure"-even if you can say "I'm almost sure"-the vote is not guilty. Even if the other 11 say otherwise. Stick it out and hang the jury if you have to, but do NOT condemn a person guilty unless you are ABSOLUTELY sure. People are exonerated every day because some jury thought "probably did it" equated to "for-sure did it."
Artists and such could follow such an open-source model. The FSF might be against that, but I don't work for them, and I have no problem with that concept.
Also, artists could be paid based on number of downloads. If a million dollars are available, and my song is downloaded 999,999 times to your 1 time of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, I get the 999k and change, and you get a buck. It is possible to get pretty accurate statistics through random sampling, ask TV about Nielsen ratings. Networks can also be sampled more widely. Not perfect, but very close (and really, the imperfections would amount to no more then current clerical errors on cue sheets). As to where the money would come from, it would come from a "pool" from the flat rates paid, or under collective license model, under a tax on (media/bandwidth/CD burners/take your pick). That pool would be divided according to popularity (so no, your version of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star does -not- weigh in equally with Nickelback's new single. Unless you get the same number of downloads.)
And of course, artists would still be able to perform live. There is certainly something about seeing Dave Matthews live that downloading a videotape of the performance doesn't even begin to capture, as is true of many other artists. Not everything can be digitized, but this model would be very fair to both producer and consumer for those things which can be.
And not everyone downloads this stuff. Some people prefer to go to Best Buy and purchase their shiny new CD/DVD/shrinkwrapped software package. Those people will not be going away anytime soon. But in the meantime, some of us don't. And every successful company in the world learns this-it's a cliche, but most cliches get that way because they're correct.
The customer is ALWAYS right.
When your customers say "We want this", you have several choices. You may find a way to deliver what they want, in the way they want it, at the price they want it, and make money. If you do this, your business will succeed. You may decide it's impossible, close up the shop, and go home to try something else. Or you may tell your customers that they're wrong, and try to push on them what they don't want rather than give them what they do. In that case, you should spend time researching bankruptcy lawyers, you'll need one pretty soon.
Currently, the "IP industries" are telling us-their customers-that not only are we wrong, we are thieves. I wonder, if I get into law school specializing in bankruptcy now, how soon I can graduate? There'll be a need pretty soon. Treating your customers like criminals is not, anywhere that I've seen, advised for someone who wants to run a successful business. And don't kid yourself that this is theft. This is an intangible. Theft is walking into the store and walking out with an item (a physical one) for which you did not pay. What's going on here is more akin to walking in and talking to the salescperson for a while, but not buying anything. You cost the company money, granted (they pay those salespeople, and they could've been selling to someone interested), but by the logic of the **AA's, that company should be able to sue you. For causing them-not real damages, but imaginary, potential damages.
How about...5-10 years? Maximum? Not -after- the author dies, 5-10 years PERIOD. Mandatory registration (free, but MUST register the work with the copyright office to gain ANY type of protection). This is PLENTY of time to make some money off the work if you're going to.
But after that, the money dries up? Well, yes. Most of us have to KEEP doing good work in order to make money, we don't do a good job once and profit the rest of our lives. (Plus, with the "Copyright Perpetuation Act", for our children and grandchildren's lives.)
In the meantime, the public domain is enriched with RECENT, RELEVANT work. And YES, this should apply to software, and yes, sourcecode release should be mandatory at the expiration of copyright. (Part of the registration procedure for copyright protection would be deposit of the source code with Library Of Congress, for release at the expiration of the term. This would protect against the original owner dying, going out of business, abandoning the work, or otherwise becoming defunct/detached from the work and not releasing.)
The other alternative is long copyright periods with mandatory collective license. We could, in fact, implement this, and REMAIN in compliance with Berne. (There is nothing in the Berne Convention which says that collective license cannot be mandated, indeed, in some cases-such as radioplay-it already is). Even foreign copyright-holders could be paid from the "collective pot", although they, like anyone, would have to arrange to have their work put in the database.
Life-of-the-author copyrights are ridiculous. No one deserves to profit their entire life for doing a good job once, no one deserves lifetime (BEYOND lifetime!) monopoly of an idea.
Therefore, if you don't have several different competing companies offering the same (or similar) products, THE ONE COMPANY PROVIDING IT IS A MONOPOLY. (In fact, this situation can even exist when there is competition, if one company has such complete dominance over the market that it can squash or ignore any attempt at competition.)
Cable, likewise, is not a monopoly; you have a choice. You can pay your local cable MONOPOLY, or you can not watch television.
Congratulations, that must be the dumbest thing I've seen someone post all day. Fortunately, even you seem to realize that you're wrong, on some level.
To start with, this guy didn't even -post- the links. What he did was more akin to putting up a bulletin board in a public place, on which anyone could post, and when someone posted something which -might be- illegal (please note that the legality of BitTorrent, edonkey, etc. sites are still very much a grey area, they don't host -content-), he was busted because he put up the board.
Have a look here. Well look at that, I just linked to a site which contains a program which contains illegal content. Am I a criminal for that?
But wait, that's not even the question. Here's what it IS: Are the people who run Slashdot liable for running a public board to which anyone can post, on which someone did post, a link to a site which contains a program which can be used to find copyrighted files?
Just to what degree of ridiculousness do you think this whole thing should be taken? You already refer to copyright infringement as "theft", when the two are not equivalent. Theft involves depriving someone else of real property in order that you might use it yourself-i.e., if I break into and hotwire your car, I have stolen it. Copyright infringement involves making a copy without permission-i.e., if I copy your post on another site, I have infringed your copyright to it. But I'd like to hear you defend that I've "stolen" it.
Come back when you have a cogent argument that copyright is -good- for anyone but the oligopoly that makes sickening amounts of money from it. Copyright used to be defensible under the "incentive to disseminate the work" rationale-and still is, FOR THOSE WORKS FOR WHICH THERE IS A NECESSARY COST of distribution. For others, however, no incentive is needed to disseminate-in fact, people will continue to distribute even given PENALTIES for doing so. Copyright was NEVER intended to guarantee corporate profits.
No per-track at all. A flat-rate or collective license model would work. The collective-license model would work best, since in that case, they could simply allow P2P to operate legally. The users would, in that case, absorb the costs of bandwidth, distribution, and manufacturing of the CD's if desired. All the labels would have to do is sit back and collect the money.
Of course, given that, they could no longer -control- distribution. Might that be the reason for the resistance to something which in every other way is pure profit for them?
However, a flat-rate model would also work. And I'm not talking "RealRhapsody"-I'm talking a per-month flatrate for downloadable, burnable, DRM-free content, with EVERYTHING available, not just whatever few labels they can get to sign on, in (within reason) a format of choice-perhaps choices between.mp3,.flac,.ogg, and a raw uncompressed format.
When they offer that (provided the fee isn't astronomical), I'll have my credit card ready. Until then, I'll keep right on downloading. And by the way, guys-DRM is trivial to break.
I didn't say don't fix the system. Nor did i say "This is how it is so that's how it should stay". If you are going to quote me, then make sure you quote me.
Granted, the "quote" was actually a paraphrase, my apologies for not making that clearer, or if I misunderstood what you said. It certainly -appeared- to me that, rather than advocating change, you were stating the status quo without advocating changing it. This is, if not outright support, at least de facto support for leaving things as they are.
At no point did I say we should not attempt to reach a "Star Trek" type of society. I said we are not at this level, and to ask for a major -high impact change- with little incentive is ridiciulous and futile.
Your incentive is contained in your statement-living in such a society would be vastly superior to the one we live in currently, with the exception of an elite few. For the vast majority of people, it would be an improvement. If the elite don't wish to go along, then leave them out-the rest of us can do it. I don't encourage advocating big business to change, they won't. (A few might, and could be valuable contributors, but the majority profit from the current system and don't care at whose expense they do so.) I suggest, rather, that like-minded people establish their own groups for the strength gained by numbers.
And that brings us to our next point...
You also conveniently ignored the rest of my statement. How are you going to personally start helping this change to a new society? Doing a few hours of additional programming for the OSS community?
Your point is the amusing one, and is rather silly. I mean, SQL certainly could never challenge Oracle's superiority. And it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Linux might become a serious rival to Microsoft, especially in something so critical as the server market. And I mean, there were even those who thought they could talk some company like IBM into adopting an OSS model. What a bunch of morons they are...
Oh, wait a minute. That's happened. OSS is here to stay, and MANY other things can be done and built on that model-a collaborative effort on the part of a group for the benefit of all the members, rather then intended to benefit one or two CEO's or other types of "leaders". Those who do the work are just as valuable as those who plan and organize it, there's no excuse for paying real workers less than a living wage while the CEO flies around in his personal jet and gets off it into his private limo.
OSS is the model of true collaborative effort, the most successful that I know of to date. It addresses the simple failure of Marxism and similar philosophies-true cooperation can never be dictated from the top down, it must grow organically from the bottom up. (Lay off the flame button, please, I am not a communist, and just stated that such philosophies have proven themselves miserable -failures-.) That does not mean, however, that nothing can be learned from failure, or that failing once means you can't improve your model and try something else.
Now, if you think the current system's broken, get to work fixing it, and convincing others to do the same. If you don't, by all means, defend it. But kindly get off the fence and pick one.
Well, I dunno about anyone else, but I'm quite a ways to the left. (social democrat) However, Michael Moore just strikes me as a little too much of a demagogue for my liking, I prefer people who can speak calmly.
Slashdot Mirror
Back under the bridge, troll. It would be REAL smart for someone to distribute kiddie porn via bittorrent, given that you have to do it through a CENTRAL WEBSITE.
But cop-killers are at the top of the heap, and are looked up to. They don't take kindly to -some- types of f'ed up behavior, and very kindly to others. Please don't make it out as though jailhouse beatings and rape are meted out according to the severity of the prisoner's crime-they're generally meted out according to opportunity and physical strength, or lack thereof.
If this is happening, would be nice both to see some evidence of it, and know what companies are doing it (and which are not), do you have any listings of such information?
Back under the bridge, troll.
I can't wait to download normal music that normal people actually want from the five major US record labels!
That's a rather narrow definition of "normal". Care to elaborate on how those who like indie bands are somehow "abnormal", while those who like mainstream stuff are "normal"? Does this include the guy who has 5 noserings and listens to Limp Bizkit? Is he "normal"?
MP3tunes will use a service or tool called "MP3beamer", which Robertson said would reconcile the need to store music in a centralized file store with the ability to play back the music anywhere, on any device. He declined to comment further.
(From TFA, for those who didn't R it)
If this service stores music somewhere you must somehow log into, and does not -upload to you- a DRM-free MP3, this service is NOT free of DRM, just using a different version of it.
Have you ever heard the expression "They KILLED the other team out there today"? Does that mean that a mass murder occurred on a football field, or is it simply a figure of speech?
Similarly, "steal" can be used as such a figure of speech. Weren't you ever about to say something, which someone else came up with and said the exact same thing, and said "Man, that guy stole my line!" Is he genuinely guilty of theft, just because your use of that word is a common colloquialism?
The danger here is that it could be seen that copyright infringement -is- theft. It is not. It's copyright infringement. It might be argued that "piracy" is a proper term for this as well if it is done for profit, but theft, quite simply, is not. Theft means to take a tangible good or sum of money from another person without their permission. It does not mean to make a copy of something.
Use of a word over and over in a certain way might create a -slang- expression for that word, but it doesn't change the -real- meaning of a word, any more then using the seemingly popular expression "my dog" for a friend will turn them into a four-legged canine. Similarly, calling copyright infringement theft over and over does not make it so. But it can result in inaccurate -perceptions- that it is, and that's why grandparent objects (correctly) to the mischaracterization of fansubbing.
Effectively reinforcing and clarifying, sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
WRONG with that? I love that marketing strategy, because I know about it!
Company X offers loss leader/free bait. Take loss leader/free bait. Ignore upsell treatment because company Y offers what's being upsold as loss leader/free bait in an attempt to sell you what you're getting cheap/free from company X.
Rinse, repeat. You'll wind up paying very little or nothing for both sides of the equation.
I think a lot of people confuse loss-leader marketing (legal and perfectly ethical) with bait-and-switch marketing (illegal and definitely unethical). Loss-leader marketing generally involves offering something offered below cost or for free as a "sample" of a company's offerings, or to familiarize people with the company and upsell them some of their more expensive (and profitable) products/services. As stated above, those who "bargain-hunt" often seek out such offers. This is really no different then a supermarket giving out free samples.
On the other hand, bait-and-switch is effectively false advertising of something you never intended to offer. When someone asks after the offer, you tell them that that offer is "out of stock" or "no longer available". But we DO have...Or you advertise that "Yes, that's available, but we only offer it bundled with..."
This type of marketing is considered false advertising, and is unethical and illegal. If you advertise something, you must be willing and able to provide it as advertised. Loss leaders fulfill this requirement, bait-and-switch does not.
In Google's case, what they are advertising (cheap domain registration, free mail service, etc.) is exactly what they're offering and providing, so they're not doing a thing wrong.
Can happen. Doesn't specifically mean it -will-, but the technology exists, and the stupidity exists for most people to accept it. And orphan work has -long- since been an issue, even before the Internet.
Didn't buy it. Don't even have a cracked copy, I don't like that game. It cracked nicely for a couple friends, though. The cracked copies are working perfectly, even right now, unlike the legitimate copies, which both of them bought. The legit copies, on the other hand, only worked intermittently, even in "offline" mode.
People -will- crack games. No matter what any software company does. The only question the software company needs to ask themselves is-how appealing do you want to make the cracks? The more you encumber your legitimate users with "authentication", the more of them you drive to cracked copies with that garbage removed.
Well, a couple of friends of mine have had all kinds of issues with their legally purchased copy of Halflife 2. Personally, I played a friend's copy, and didn't like it, so I didn't even bother getting a cracked copy.
However, both of them have had Steam issues over and over again. Eventually, I got them both cracked copies, which work flawlessly. (Even for online play on uncracked servers, interestingly). I can guarantee you two things: One, they will never purchase another Valve/Steam game. And two, I will be getting them both cracks when HL3 (or whatever else) comes out next. Great way to discourage piracy, Valve. You've made sure that your paying customers have to deal with your shortcomings, while cracked copies get around them and work all the time.
Mind telling me what part of that you disagree with, or all of it, and if so, why?
When "trusted computing" becomes a reality, said "lunatic" might not be too far from the truth. And if such technology is invented, it'll be illegal (read: illegal, jail-time, not illegal, 1 in 100000 chance of getting sued) to break it.
Might want to have a look at where your reality's heading. "Orphan works" are all too real, there was an article posted quite recently here.
Who's "entitled" to anything? You're not "entitled" even to read this post. But since I'm choosing to offer it to the public, the public NOW has the right to read it. Of course, if you put a gun to my head and told me to get to writing, that'd be wrong.
You are also entitled, if you like, to quote it, paraphrase it, reuse it, post it somewhere else, argue with it, criticize it, expand upon it, contrast with it...that is the benefit of having work available to the public. It is not just about being "entitled to the pleasure", it is about those who cannot afford royalties being able to use the work to improve upon and create further using the base of the original creation. It is also about such future creators being able to do so while the initial work is still relevant and timely.
Asking that works be locked down for (literally) over a century after their creation, except to be allowed limited use at the whim of their creator (or more likely, a corporation, music label, publishing house, etc.), at a price they set arbitrarily and without limitation. And this may be done for such a long time that, at the expiration of copyright, most works will have long outlived their usefulness or relevance. (What do you think public-domain access to Windows 98 is going to mean in 100-150 years? Right-nothing.)
What I propose is a compromise. Give the creators their monopoly, if that's how it must be. But not for more then a couple of years. That's plenty of time to make money off the work if it's worthwhile. (Likely, it's not enough time to get rich, nor -should- it be. Everyone else makes a LIVING for doing a good job, not a killing.) Same with patents-tangible, real devices only (not on algorithms, math equations, etc.), and much shorter time. Both copyrights and patents should have mandatory registration (with protection under a "copyright/patent pending" type arrangement while registration is being processed.) Registration should be free and available online, so that no one can yowl and so that it doesn't favor corporations. If a creator doesn't care enough about his work to take a couple of minutes registering it, the law should not waste effort to protect it.
The patent process, especially, also needs to be made more stringent, especially in granting patents only in cases where the new invention is clearly novel, no prior art exists or has even been considered, and the idea is stunningly brilliant and absolutely not obvious. (As opposed to "obvious but just not quite made workable before.")
This would be a far more balanced approach then the current system, and would ensure that relevant, timely work enters the public domain, not just century-old relics. It would be a benefit to the public and to creators both, in the end. To the public, by giving them a rich library of public-domain works to view and select from, and to creators, by giving them a rich library of public-domain works to improve, expand upon, and draw ideas from.
Your idea, once you voluntarily choose to expose it to the public, belongs to the public, and if you're going to be allowed to flaunt that natural truth and withhold exclusive rights, we better be talking about for a couple of years, not a couple of centuries.
Is it so much to ask that those who wish to make their living creating, I don't know, CONTINUE doing their job (creating) rather then do it once, sit back, and collect the money?
Mickey Mouse enters the public domain. This does not -prohibit- Disney from ever making money off the character again. This simply means that others can make use too, enriching the public domain. And if Disney wants something else with exclusive control for a few years, they have to create again.
If you're going to quote me, mind doing it properly?
If this had gone to trial, chances are, he'd be in jail now!
Right so far.
Because the evidence is so flimsy! In fact, nonexistent!
Replace "because" with "in spite of the fact that", and we're good.
And people are exonerated every day! And apparently, I think 'exonerated' means 'found guilty,' when in fact it means the precise opposite.
"Exonerated", in this context, means to later be proven innocent even though you were convicted at trial. If juries would not convict when doubt still existed, exonerations would very, very rarely happen. Instead, they often convict based on circumstantial evidence ("it looks like he did it") rather than ("He for sure did it.")
Now, is THAT distillation clear enough for you?
If you should ever find yourself on a jury. Chances are, had this gone to trial, he would've been convicted, and be in jail right now.
All the evidence is circumstantial and really pretty flimsy. The dog circling to the front door? Well of course he's going to detect that the family was in their own yard. While from movies we get these impressions of "superdogs" that do police work, in reality, such dogs are quite prone to make mistakes.
So his club card (not, apparently, his credit card-examine what's NOT said. The credit card would've been far stronger evidence. Had he used that, they would've worried about getting evidence from that and not even been concerned with the club card.) was used to make the purchases. So what? I signed up for my club card with bogus information. Sometimes, I forget the card, and I have no idea what BS phone number I put down, so I use my boss's phone #. He must have one of those cards, it always works. But I've certainly never been asked to verify my identity when doing so.
The real moral of this story-cops and prosecutors are often overzealous. When you are on a jury, do not ask yourself "Does it look like this guy did it?" Ask yourself instead "Has it been proven to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this person did it? Would I stake x years of my life on the fact that this guy did it?" Because you are staking years of someone's life on your decision. If you cannot say "I am sure"-even if you can say "I'm almost sure"-the vote is not guilty. Even if the other 11 say otherwise. Stick it out and hang the jury if you have to, but do NOT condemn a person guilty unless you are ABSOLUTELY sure. People are exonerated every day because some jury thought "probably did it" equated to "for-sure did it."
Artists and such could follow such an open-source model. The FSF might be against that, but I don't work for them, and I have no problem with that concept.
Also, artists could be paid based on number of downloads. If a million dollars are available, and my song is downloaded 999,999 times to your 1 time of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, I get the 999k and change, and you get a buck. It is possible to get pretty accurate statistics through random sampling, ask TV about Nielsen ratings. Networks can also be sampled more widely. Not perfect, but very close (and really, the imperfections would amount to no more then current clerical errors on cue sheets). As to where the money would come from, it would come from a "pool" from the flat rates paid, or under collective license model, under a tax on (media/bandwidth/CD burners/take your pick). That pool would be divided according to popularity (so no, your version of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star does -not- weigh in equally with Nickelback's new single. Unless you get the same number of downloads.)
And of course, artists would still be able to perform live. There is certainly something about seeing Dave Matthews live that downloading a videotape of the performance doesn't even begin to capture, as is true of many other artists. Not everything can be digitized, but this model would be very fair to both producer and consumer for those things which can be.
And not everyone downloads this stuff. Some people prefer to go to Best Buy and purchase their shiny new CD/DVD/shrinkwrapped software package. Those people will not be going away anytime soon. But in the meantime, some of us don't. And every successful company in the world learns this-it's a cliche, but most cliches get that way because they're correct.
The customer is ALWAYS right.
When your customers say "We want this", you have several choices. You may find a way to deliver what they want, in the way they want it, at the price they want it, and make money. If you do this, your business will succeed. You may decide it's impossible, close up the shop, and go home to try something else. Or you may tell your customers that they're wrong, and try to push on them what they don't want rather than give them what they do. In that case, you should spend time researching bankruptcy lawyers, you'll need one pretty soon.
Currently, the "IP industries" are telling us-their customers-that not only are we wrong, we are thieves. I wonder, if I get into law school specializing in bankruptcy now, how soon I can graduate? There'll be a need pretty soon. Treating your customers like criminals is not, anywhere that I've seen, advised for someone who wants to run a successful business. And don't kid yourself that this is theft. This is an intangible. Theft is walking into the store and walking out with an item (a physical one) for which you did not pay. What's going on here is more akin to walking in and talking to the salescperson for a while, but not buying anything. You cost the company money, granted (they pay those salespeople, and they could've been selling to someone interested), but by the logic of the **AA's, that company should be able to sue you. For causing them-not real damages, but imaginary, potential damages.
How about...5-10 years? Maximum? Not -after- the author dies, 5-10 years PERIOD. Mandatory registration (free, but MUST register the work with the copyright office to gain ANY type of protection). This is PLENTY of time to make some money off the work if you're going to.
But after that, the money dries up? Well, yes. Most of us have to KEEP doing good work in order to make money, we don't do a good job once and profit the rest of our lives. (Plus, with the "Copyright Perpetuation Act", for our children and grandchildren's lives.)
In the meantime, the public domain is enriched with RECENT, RELEVANT work. And YES, this should apply to software, and yes, sourcecode release should be mandatory at the expiration of copyright. (Part of the registration procedure for copyright protection would be deposit of the source code with Library Of Congress, for release at the expiration of the term. This would protect against the original owner dying, going out of business, abandoning the work, or otherwise becoming defunct/detached from the work and not releasing.)
The other alternative is long copyright periods with mandatory collective license. We could, in fact, implement this, and REMAIN in compliance with Berne. (There is nothing in the Berne Convention which says that collective license cannot be mandated, indeed, in some cases-such as radioplay-it already is). Even foreign copyright-holders could be paid from the "collective pot", although they, like anyone, would have to arrange to have their work put in the database.
Life-of-the-author copyrights are ridiculous. No one deserves to profit their entire life for doing a good job once, no one deserves lifetime (BEYOND lifetime!) monopoly of an idea.
Tinfoil key rings!!!!!!!!! It'll be even bigger than the hats! Everyone knows people value their car more then their mind!
Come on, this can work...
Back under the bridge, troll.
Monopoly: Where the market has only one supplier.
Therefore, if you don't have several different competing companies offering the same (or similar) products, THE ONE COMPANY PROVIDING IT IS A MONOPOLY. (In fact, this situation can even exist when there is competition, if one company has such complete dominance over the market that it can squash or ignore any attempt at competition.)
Cable, likewise, is not a monopoly; you have a choice. You can pay your local cable MONOPOLY, or you can not watch television.
Congratulations, that must be the dumbest thing I've seen someone post all day. Fortunately, even you seem to realize that you're wrong, on some level.
Back under the bridge, troll.
To start with, this guy didn't even -post- the links. What he did was more akin to putting up a bulletin board in a public place, on which anyone could post, and when someone posted something which -might be- illegal (please note that the legality of BitTorrent, edonkey, etc. sites are still very much a grey area, they don't host -content-), he was busted because he put up the board.
Have a look here. Well look at that, I just linked to a site which contains a program which contains illegal content. Am I a criminal for that?
But wait, that's not even the question. Here's what it IS: Are the people who run Slashdot liable for running a public board to which anyone can post, on which someone did post, a link to a site which contains a program which can be used to find copyrighted files?
Just to what degree of ridiculousness do you think this whole thing should be taken? You already refer to copyright infringement as "theft", when the two are not equivalent. Theft involves depriving someone else of real property in order that you might use it yourself-i.e., if I break into and hotwire your car, I have stolen it. Copyright infringement involves making a copy without permission-i.e., if I copy your post on another site, I have infringed your copyright to it. But I'd like to hear you defend that I've "stolen" it.
Come back when you have a cogent argument that copyright is -good- for anyone but the oligopoly that makes sickening amounts of money from it. Copyright used to be defensible under the "incentive to disseminate the work" rationale-and still is, FOR THOSE WORKS FOR WHICH THERE IS A NECESSARY COST of distribution. For others, however, no incentive is needed to disseminate-in fact, people will continue to distribute even given PENALTIES for doing so. Copyright was NEVER intended to guarantee corporate profits.
No per-track at all. A flat-rate or collective license model would work. The collective-license model would work best, since in that case, they could simply allow P2P to operate legally. The users would, in that case, absorb the costs of bandwidth, distribution, and manufacturing of the CD's if desired. All the labels would have to do is sit back and collect the money.
Of course, given that, they could no longer -control- distribution. Might that be the reason for the resistance to something which in every other way is pure profit for them?
However, a flat-rate model would also work. And I'm not talking "RealRhapsody"-I'm talking a per-month flatrate for downloadable, burnable, DRM-free content, with EVERYTHING available, not just whatever few labels they can get to sign on, in (within reason) a format of choice-perhaps choices between .mp3, .flac, .ogg, and a raw uncompressed format.
When they offer that (provided the fee isn't astronomical), I'll have my credit card ready. Until then, I'll keep right on downloading. And by the way, guys-DRM is trivial to break.
I didn't say don't fix the system. Nor did i say "This is how it is so that's how it should stay". If you are going to quote me, then make sure you quote me.
Granted, the "quote" was actually a paraphrase, my apologies for not making that clearer, or if I misunderstood what you said. It certainly -appeared- to me that, rather than advocating change, you were stating the status quo without advocating changing it. This is, if not outright support, at least de facto support for leaving things as they are.
At no point did I say we should not attempt to reach a "Star Trek" type of society. I said we are not at this level, and to ask for a major -high impact change- with little incentive is ridiciulous and futile.
Your incentive is contained in your statement-living in such a society would be vastly superior to the one we live in currently, with the exception of an elite few. For the vast majority of people, it would be an improvement. If the elite don't wish to go along, then leave them out-the rest of us can do it. I don't encourage advocating big business to change, they won't. (A few might, and could be valuable contributors, but the majority profit from the current system and don't care at whose expense they do so.) I suggest, rather, that like-minded people establish their own groups for the strength gained by numbers.
And that brings us to our next point...
You also conveniently ignored the rest of my statement. How are you going to personally start helping this change to a new society? Doing a few hours of additional programming for the OSS community?
Your point is the amusing one, and is rather silly. I mean, SQL certainly could never challenge Oracle's superiority. And it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Linux might become a serious rival to Microsoft, especially in something so critical as the server market. And I mean, there were even those who thought they could talk some company like IBM into adopting an OSS model. What a bunch of morons they are...
Oh, wait a minute. That's happened. OSS is here to stay, and MANY other things can be done and built on that model-a collaborative effort on the part of a group for the benefit of all the members, rather then intended to benefit one or two CEO's or other types of "leaders". Those who do the work are just as valuable as those who plan and organize it, there's no excuse for paying real workers less than a living wage while the CEO flies around in his personal jet and gets off it into his private limo.
OSS is the model of true collaborative effort, the most successful that I know of to date. It addresses the simple failure of Marxism and similar philosophies-true cooperation can never be dictated from the top down, it must grow organically from the bottom up. (Lay off the flame button, please, I am not a communist, and just stated that such philosophies have proven themselves miserable -failures-.) That does not mean, however, that nothing can be learned from failure, or that failing once means you can't improve your model and try something else.
Now, if you think the current system's broken, get to work fixing it, and convincing others to do the same. If you don't, by all means, defend it. But kindly get off the fence and pick one.
Well, I dunno about anyone else, but I'm quite a ways to the left. (social democrat) However, Michael Moore just strikes me as a little too much of a demagogue for my liking, I prefer people who can speak calmly.