Given the FBI's history of misconduct, I don't think that this is FUD whatsoever. You claim that this assertion is "factless", but it is really not illogical to presume that if they've done something before, they'll likely do it again.
In this case, the justification for suspicion is not technically "factual" (this would be near-impossible, since the FBI operates with a great degree of secrecy), but rather, logical. It is logical to presume that an organization which has behaved badly and resists reform intends to continue to behave badly. The fact that they resist oversight and transparency only adds to this perception, and rightfully so.
FUD is UNFOUNDED suspicion, I might remind you, not well-founded suspicion. I would submit that suspicion toward the FBI is quite well-founded given a history of misconduct from that organization. Please learn what the word (or acronym) means before you throw it around.
Well, I could always, say, try and get others involved too. In fact...oh wait.
You are, however, absolutely correct. Really, this law's not going to change until people make widespread demand for it to happen. If everyone who wished that IP would be loosened/abolished spoke up and demanded it, that's, I dunno, somewhere to the tune of 55 million voices? I certainly think we might see the "Sonny Bono Copyright Perpetuation Act" gone, copyrights/patents reduced to reasonable periods of time and imposing only reasonable restriction, and fair use coming back strong.
Patent office? Yes, I'd like to patent life itself
on
Plant a Seed, Get Sued?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This illustrates perfectly what is wrong with "Intellectual Property." Aside from the egregious abuses that Monsanto has been guilty of in this particular case. For example, suing farmers who DON'T use Monsanto seeds when seeds blow in from a neighboring farm which does, going after farmers who break off the deal (it would be nearly impossible to eradicate all traces of the previously-planted Monsanto seeds, so chances are high that any farm which has ever used Monsanto's seeds still have some lying around in their soil, giving Monsanto grounds for a lawsuit), and many other abuses. While unproven, Monsanto has even been accused of "planting" (in both the sense of planting a seed, and planting evidence) their crops on the farms of those who refuse to use their crops.
To my thinking, arguing that "patents" are applicable to any living organism or any part thereof (including its DNA sequence or any portion thereof) is dangerous and absolutely ludicrous. If someday it becomes possible to genetically engineer humans to cure them of crippling genetic diseases, will that person have to later purchase a "license" to have children, and the children, if they receive the modified gene, will have to also purchase such a license, and so on...
"Intellectual property" is out of control. Time to bring it back to reality (max. 5 year length of copyright/patent, only tangible, non-living, truly unique items patentable, no personal use restrictions) or, better yet, abolish entirely the dated and inappropriate concept that a person (or, worse yet, a pseudo-person known as a "corporation") can OWN an idea. This case makes the perfect argument that such laws do great harm FAR beyond college kids sharing a few movies.
Perhaps, those who feel that this is a fine practice can explain to me, then, why court orders are required for bugs, wiretaps, and the like. Does information you transmit off your property, over the phone lines, have "no reasonable expectation of privacy?" Clearly, the courts have decided differently, and warrants are required for police to covertly plant such technological surveillance devices.
I don't see this as any different. The police could, for example, track your whereabouts with one of these devices even when you are in a private location (for example, an enclosed garage), or when you are out of their jurisdiction. If they have a court order to do this, that is acceptable. If they do not, this would be far too great a power with far too little oversight.
It sounds like, in most of these cases, a court order/warrant could have been obtained by the police. If it becomes permissible for police agencies to place these devices without suspicion or warrant, what is, in theory, to stop them from planting such devices on every vehicle in existence, and randomly monitoring your activities? This is the reason for mandatory oversight by the courts-it is a check and balance on the power of the executive, law-enforcement branch of government. We advocate removing that check at our own peril.
I didn't say that, and if it doesn't apply to you, why are you responding? Clearly, I struck a nerve.
"I also never had to work for anything in my life, and my parents bought my car for me growing up, so it's only natural I have the same sense of whiny entitlement the other bitter freeloaders have."
(excerpted from original post)
So could you please explain what you DID mean by that?
Well, can't argue with that kind of research.
Never claimed any type of "research" or that such a method is scientific, only that I am not the only one who sees the current system as broken, and that such people come from both sides of the political spectrum. While I imagine that scientific polling would bear that out, I don't claim I've done such a study.
It absolutely is. It illustrates the root cause of your position on defending piracy.
Very well, I am a social democrat. However, that is not the root of my position on this particular issue, that is based on my read of the situation.
And so one of the root causes surfaces--bitter envy and vitriol toward business. You are a dorm room anti-capitalist.
Dorm room? Hrm, when I look around, my house looks little like a dorm room to me. I'm curious as to how you came up with all this stuff you "know" about me, being as I do not believe that I know you, and most of it is in error.
As for being anti-capitalist, in some ways that is true and in some ways false. We are, however, only discussing the pros and cons of intellectual property here, not the rest of my political philosophies, or yours.
It's very simple. You are protected under law to come up with something that is your own and sell it as you wish.
I was unclear, my apologies. I understand the concept, and I do understand why some think it should be implemented. I think, however, that the cons of doing so outweigh the pros, and disagree that it should be. Thus far, I've heard few argue as to why it should exist, most who believe so only like to throw "thief" and "pirate" and "freeloader" around without making a cogent argument as to why their position is correct.
COPYright. You own the right to copy and sell it. You're veering off into a strawman argument. Nobody's talking about the ownership of ideas. We're talking about copyright.
So, you can come up with an idea, and subsequently prevent anyone from competing with you on, improving upon, or creating copies or derivatives of, that idea? Sure sounds like "ownership" to me.
I'll remember that in the next GPL "source code theft" article.
I recall saying nothing about the GPL. However, if "IP" were eliminated or scaled quite a way back, the GPL likely would no longer exist. Neither would the need for it. In the meantime, I have great respect for those who release GPL software, they utilize the current system to do what should be done. Of course, those companies who state out of one side of their mouth that copyright should be universally respected have often turned around and attempted to fight the GPL, but THIS is not hypocrisy of any type.
Nobody EVER, EVER said that. But those companies do have a right not to have their rights violated. If their business is going to die, it should be because nobody is buying it, not because their product really is in demand but people are making sure they don't have to pay them for it.
Actually, copyright is, in effect, stating that the copyright industries have a right to a continued flow of money from any idea they've ever come up with, even if someone else comes along who can do it better and cheaper.
Clearly the consumer wants it if they're pirating it. Consumers don't have a "right" to something just becuase they want it. Your argument has already fallen completely flat.
Correct on the first part, clearly the consumers do wish it. And clearly, they do not wish to pay per copy. A flat-fee or collective license scheme woul
And once again, collective license solves the entire problem, ensuring revenue to the creators of content (provided, of course, that someone wants it, but even under the current model you get no money if no one wants your stuff), and, at the same time, changing from the pay-per-each model of distribution to a flat-fee and distribution system. This system already works fine for radio and TV, and, on a larger scale, could support larger-scale projects.
And once again, if Valve or any other company sticks to a business model which is no longer viable, they WILL go under. Adapt to change or die off from it is really not a terribly tough concept.
Revenue collection and distribution could be handled through a private organization, much like ASCAP works now. The government would not necessarily have to be involved except in the tax-based scheme, and even then would likely turn distribution to a private organization.
It is agreed, that if government was in control of the collection and distribution both, that would not be a setup I would like to see either, but the concept does not dictate that.
Collective licensing, still and yet, solves all the problems you bring up. In fact, it somewhat -reduces- the element of risk involved and might allow for a broader range of art to be tried, instead of the current "mass-market" crap currently fed people by the major conglomerates.
Doesn't stop your side from engaging in the same behaviour
That was not my post, nor one even of someone I know. Certainly I can show you plenty of examples of your "side" flaming, generalizing, stereotyping, and engaging in all sorts of bad behavior, but that does not reflect on you personally.
If that's what IP was, you'd have a point. However it's not. "Expressions of an idea" are considered IP.
I am well aware that they -are- considered so, and am advocating changing that. Can you tell me why you think it should -not- be changed?
In your personal opinion.
Of course, in my personal opinion, and that of many others. Now if you disagree with that opinion, can you tell me why?
Neither does one have a right to be entertained. Let alone other people's "expressions of an idea".
Actually, if you choose to express an idea publicly, those who hear it DO have the right to expand, improve, and build upon it, and find new and better ways of implementing it. Giving one person sole control over that just because they thought of it first is counterproductive.
As to a "right to be entertained", no, no one has a right to hold a gun to someone's head and demand that that person entertain them. However, if someone chooses to be an entertainer and release their works to the public, I have the right to see and hear them.
This assumes that the consumer is a fair and just assesser of value. Also businesses don't have to be formed to serve a capricious and spiteful public.
Again, no, no one has to. But if it is true (and it often can be) that the public is "capricious and spitefuL", then those who CHOOSE to go into business, despite not HAVING to, go in well knowing that and had better plan around it. They'd also better face up to the fact that the consumer is not interested in a "just assessment of value", they're interested in the best product at the cheapest price. Again, anyone who goes into business without figuring on that should not be going into business at all.
Incorrect. They create an artificial scarcity of the "expression of an idea". You're more than free to take an idea, and come up with your own unique "expression" of that idea.
Actually, you are incorrect. I am NOT free to take that idea and improve upon it or come up with a unique expression of it, copyright prohibits derivative works. This is enforced to the point that sampling a few notes out of another song is considered a "derivative work", at which time it's treated just the same as an exact copy.
Innovation is hard to substain in the face of poverty. Many artists have either starved, unknown and forgotten. Their contributions lost to time. Or found patrons who served a similiar role to our modern day content creators. Many simply had their ideas profitted from, after their paupers deaths.
Most artists -still- live in poverty, what world have YOU been living in? "IP" hasn't changed that one bit. Sure, they can sign up with a major label/publishing house/etc., and then said corporation owns the rights to the creator's work, not the creator themself. This is a travesty. I don't believe in -anyone- having the exclusive rights, but if someone is going to, it should be the artist, and any contract should be legally limited to paying a promotional company for services rendered while retaining full rights.
Well there goes the "Internet as a new business model. Adapt or die" argument.
Not at all, several independent Internet distributors are already starting up. However, without mandatory licensing, the **AA's are free to license only those who will do exactly as they are told, and disallow any business model which threatens the status quo. Of course, those who go with totally independent works are free from this, but also will have a very difficult time competing on the major companies' scale.
IP doesn't guarentee profit. IP guarentees that you can exercise certain
Thank you for generalizing that everyone with an opposing viewpoint from you is some type of spoiled rich kid. Actually, I have met quite a few people who are in favor of changes to "intellectual property", from liberals who have spent years helping with poverty-stricken families in third-world countries and have little sympathy for CEO's who don't make another million, to archconservatives including my father.
Which one I am, if either, is not really relevant to our discussion here. I do not understand the concept of "intellectual property". Want to "own" an idea? Keep it in your head with your mouth shut, and if you write it down or otherwise record it anywhere, make sure that it's somewhere no one will ever find it.
An idea, spoken in public, is public property. Period. Doesn't matter if the "idea" is a song, a computer program, a movie, or anything else.
Awwwwww, big corporation can't make money? Too bad. No one has a "right" to the continued success of their business model. They have the right to adapt and find a way to provide what the consumer wants, the way they want it, and make money, or die. Copyrights and patents create artificial scarcity and give "ownership" and exclusive rights to the first person to come up with something which cannot be owned-an idea.
But it'll stifle innovation? Biggest load I've heard. Those who have great ideas and are passionate about them need no reward. Socrates was KILLED for putting forth his thoughts, but even facing that he would not back down. And we suggest massive amounts of money are necessary to encourage this? It never was before.
Of course, there are those who can consistently do a great job at coming up with and putting into practice great ideas. They'll make a living. (No, I didn't say "killing").
All "copyright" creates is a massive media monopoly capable of controlling the distribution of 98% or so of creative work. The "little guy" doesn't even get heard amidst their marketing noise.
No one has a right to make massive amounts of money for the REST OF THEIR LIFE plus 75 years because they do a good job one time, or even several times. Most of us must go to work, every day, and do our job well each and every time. I don't get to say "Well you know what, boss? I've done a damn good job, and this company will benefit from that work for quite a while, so you owe me royalties for the rest of my life while I do no more work." If an artist/programmer/filmmaker/whatever is out of ideas and can't do his job anymore, it's not time for him to retire and profit at 31, it's time for him to find another job.
As for the **AA's, they are as animals whose ecosystem has been radically changed. They can either a. Act like nothing has changed, and face extinction, or b. Adapt. Right now, they're thinking they'll roll back the clock, and that does not constitute option c. or any other.
Collective license would solve this whole problem. If the "IP Industries" are unwilling to embrace this model, they have chosen option a., and I won't mourn their passing.
The word "liberal" is at once an identifier of someone who can think of someone other than themself, the mark of a great person as opposed to a mediocre one, and a person who is likely a good one.
Isn't it easy to state your opinion as an undisputed fact? Isn't it pointless too?
And the moment you release them, they are correct. If you release anything that can be made into data (music, movie, program, whatever) and expect that that won't -happen- to it, and that it will subsequently be shared, you are naive. "Intellectual property" is an artificial scheme that gives someone "ownership" of an idea and the exclusive rights to its use. If you can consistently have good ideas, and continually implement them well, great, someone will pay you to use that talent on their behalf. But those who think that they can produce ONE good one (a great song, movie, program, whatever), and continue to profit for years from it, they are delusional. No one else gets paid for years and years for doing a good job once, most everyone has to CONTINUALLY work and do well to make a living.
Re:Five words for stupid people who are opposed:
on
The Super Superhighway
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Aren't conservatives (in theory) -against- such massive projects unless a real need can be shown? Or are you just one of these who likes to throw around "liberal" like it's a swear word instead of an opposing philosophy?
Well, the fact remains, that there are far more very worthwhile causes out there than most of us could ever make a meaningful donation to. There is nothing wrong with picking a few which have significance to you and making enough of a donation to make a difference on those, rather than take on the impossible task of trying to fix everything.
So, those who strongly believe that the entire concept of "intellectual property" is an aberration, an artificial monopoly created by law, and needs to be eliminated (and yes, we are out there) are far fewer in number than those who will sympathize with the terrible situation in Sri Lanka. Therefore, perhaps those few -would- be better served pooling their resources in an area where there is not already a massive public outpouring of support?
This is not to belittle the terrible tragedy that befell the Sri Lankans or to say that helping them is not extremely important. But please don't castigate someone because he can't support -every- worthwhile cause out there, I doubt if you can either.
By that logic, if I'm in your home and copy your decorating scheme for my own house, I've "stolen" it from you. The fact that your house stays decorated the same way changes that not in the slightest. Is that really the same as if I broke into the house and STOLE all your stuff?
I don't know what dictionary you found that from, but I find several which define stealing as "to deprive another person of their property without consent." That definition is far more correct to my way of thinking, and in that case, you being left with a copy absolutely does change the face of the whole issue.
You can argue over and over whether copyright is right and copyright infringement is wrong. To my way of thinking, the concept of copyright is wrong. You cannot "own" a thought or a concept, and anyone who says otherwise supports, to some degree or another, thought policing.
Of course, if you become very good at something and someone wishes to hire you to do custom work for them in that field, great. But to say "I invented this algorithm that figures out that 2+2=4, and now for the next x-many years whoever utilizes that must pay me royalties" is ridiculous. Most of us must KEEP producing work, every day, in order to make our paycheck. If I quit my job tomorrow but the company I work for still benefits from what I did for the next 20 years, I cannot come to demand "royalties" from them. No different standard should be artifically applied to anyone else. If a musician can't KEEP performing and putting out good-quality work, they get to find another job, like the rest of us. If a programmer writes a great program, they should be paid for their time and then a. move on to the next one or b. find another line of work. And so on. No one "deserves" to get rich just for doing a good job, most of us have to continuously produce good-quality work just to HAVE a job.
Actually, the Supreme Court may well rule against this, and I hope they do. The Court has ruled, over and over again, that "prior restraint" (being prevented from saying something before even saying it) is
generally not acceptable, except in the most extreme cases.
Excerpted from the decision cited above:
"Although the Sixth Circuit in Procter &
Gamble has held that a defendant's improper conduct in obtaining confidential
information does not justify a prior restraint, the legal system may yet provide redress
through criminal prosecution, if such is found to be warranted by the underlying facts."
What does this say? Even though the speech above may be CRIMINAL in nature (extortionist, read the page to find more detail), and even though it overwhelmingly appears that the information he is publishing are trade secrets which Ford can successfully sue him for, he CANNOT be prohibited from publishing them by injunction.
Of course, this does not mean that he may not be sued and/or prosecuted if and when he DOES, if what he is publishing violates the law. But the Court's precedents are clear: Prior restraint is unconstitutional except in the most extreme cases, e.g. someone is about to publish a planned movement of troops in the paper or on a website. This case, as with the Lane case, only establishes that monetary/commercial losses may result. The Court has ruled very clearly that this is not even a valid reason for a court or Congress to issue prior restraint. Do we wish to give a corporation powers that we would not even grant to our judges and legislators?
The **AA's should have the same standard as anyone else. If you feel that some published speech "damages" you, you have two options. The first option, and probably the best, especially if you feel that they might've accidentally violated the law, is to send a cease-and-desist letter to the PERSON running the website. As to the "But the ISP's won't give us the identity of their customers to send letters to!" I say "GOOD!" That doesn't mean you can't contact them. Most websites have an email link to the site admin, and if not, I would think it acceptable to put a provision in the law that ISP's must forward legal correspondence regarding a website they host to that site's owner. This policy would have two positive effects: The copyright holders would be served by being immediately able to contact suspected infringers, and the consumer would benefit from greater anonymity and the taking of excessive power from the **AA's.
Of course, the second option is to take the webmaster directly to court. If the court finds the site to be infringing, they will issue an injunction ordering the webmaster to take down all infringing material, as well as possibly awarding damages. However, this should not happen until AFTER a trial has been held, or a settlement reached.
Actually, I think that this could easily be solved. For controversial subjects, have a "for" and "against" post (or some similar). Have the "Ronald Reagan" link offer a choice of articles about him: one for editors who love the guy, one for those who don't care one way or the other, and one for those who hate him. Similar, controversial subjects could be handled in a similar manner. This way, everyone gets their say, without the "slant" of the article depending on who touched it last.
That's the simple answer. No, it is not unethical to use code as per the terms of the license he chose to release it under. (Or had to, but if he has a problem with other people using GPL code, he shouldn't be doing so himself.) Your choice to credit the author, despite his bad behavior, further reinforces that you are acting within both the bounds of the law and ethical standards.
Politely inform him that it is your right to use the code he releases under the terms of that license, just as it is for anyone in compliance with the GPL terms. and that you are going to continue to do so. If he continues as he currently is, just ignore him and continue to do what you're doing. You are not acting unethically just because he says so, you are complying with the terms of the license under which the code is released, as well as good practice of crediting.
Some people are just stuck-up or don't understand that they must accept their own choices. Be polite to this type of person, take the high road, and don't let them suck you down to their level. If you do this, everyone will see them for what they are.
So who is to determine what is "silly"? That seems a rather arbitrary standard. It would seem to me that in any such case, they could claim that they had already fulfilled their end of the "contract" between us (putting the product I bought into my hands, in one way or another), and that my attempt to "slip one by" is invalid.
In the case of the software, it's simply reversed. I've already given X Software Company my end of the deal (money), they've given me their end (software). However, they then try to sneak in more terms, and claim that their "consideration" is to so graciously allow me to use the product I already bought and paid for. This still seems pretty thin to me.
Actually, you caught the exact point I was trying to make with the whole thing. You've already given them what they asked for, which was the payment. For them to slip in additional terms after you open the box you already purchased is very likely not enforceable.
IANAL, but doesn't copyright only prohibit unauthorized distribution? You can't really "distribute" something to yourself. Now the fraud bit I could see (especially if the retailers developed something, like I imagine they would, a form that says to the effect of "By accepting this refund I agree either that I have destroyed all copies of this software or will do so as soon as possible.") I don't see where the copyright comes into that though.
Also, even if they were fully well aware of you doing it, there's not a whole lot they could do if it's mandated that they -must- accept a return. I suppose after a few iterations they could refuse to sell to you in the future. But really, despite that draconian-looking "FBI Warning" on videotapes, we all very well knew that the FBI would not come kick down our door for making a copy or two, it takes making a thousand or two to get that kind of attention. So even if they figure it out, you're likely too small a fish for anyone to care.
Slashdot Mirror
Pardon me? FUD?
Given the FBI's history of misconduct, I don't think that this is FUD whatsoever. You claim that this assertion is "factless", but it is really not illogical to presume that if they've done something before, they'll likely do it again.
In this case, the justification for suspicion is not technically "factual" (this would be near-impossible, since the FBI operates with a great degree of secrecy), but rather, logical. It is logical to presume that an organization which has behaved badly and resists reform intends to continue to behave badly. The fact that they resist oversight and transparency only adds to this perception, and rightfully so.
FUD is UNFOUNDED suspicion, I might remind you, not well-founded suspicion. I would submit that suspicion toward the FBI is quite well-founded given a history of misconduct from that organization. Please learn what the word (or acronym) means before you throw it around.
Don't we wish. Or at least "lockfingers" maybe. That would certainly raise the intelligence level of this thing we call the "net".
Well, I could always, say, try and get others involved too. In fact...oh wait.
You are, however, absolutely correct. Really, this law's not going to change until people make widespread demand for it to happen. If everyone who wished that IP would be loosened/abolished spoke up and demanded it, that's, I dunno, somewhere to the tune of 55 million voices? I certainly think we might see the "Sonny Bono Copyright Perpetuation Act" gone, copyrights/patents reduced to reasonable periods of time and imposing only reasonable restriction, and fair use coming back strong.
This illustrates perfectly what is wrong with "Intellectual Property." Aside from the egregious abuses that Monsanto has been guilty of in this particular case. For example, suing farmers who DON'T use Monsanto seeds when seeds blow in from a neighboring farm which does, going after farmers who break off the deal (it would be nearly impossible to eradicate all traces of the previously-planted Monsanto seeds, so chances are high that any farm which has ever used Monsanto's seeds still have some lying around in their soil, giving Monsanto grounds for a lawsuit), and many other abuses. While unproven, Monsanto has even been accused of "planting" (in both the sense of planting a seed, and planting evidence) their crops on the farms of those who refuse to use their crops.
To my thinking, arguing that "patents" are applicable to any living organism or any part thereof (including its DNA sequence or any portion thereof) is dangerous and absolutely ludicrous. If someday it becomes possible to genetically engineer humans to cure them of crippling genetic diseases, will that person have to later purchase a "license" to have children, and the children, if they receive the modified gene, will have to also purchase such a license, and so on...
"Intellectual property" is out of control. Time to bring it back to reality (max. 5 year length of copyright/patent, only tangible, non-living, truly unique items patentable, no personal use restrictions) or, better yet, abolish entirely the dated and inappropriate concept that a person (or, worse yet, a pseudo-person known as a "corporation") can OWN an idea. This case makes the perfect argument that such laws do great harm FAR beyond college kids sharing a few movies.
Please don't tell me this REALLY got modded "informative"...although SOMEONE'S certainly been inhaling some flame retardant.
Perhaps, those who feel that this is a fine practice can explain to me, then, why court orders are required for bugs, wiretaps, and the like. Does information you transmit off your property, over the phone lines, have "no reasonable expectation of privacy?" Clearly, the courts have decided differently, and warrants are required for police to covertly plant such technological surveillance devices.
I don't see this as any different. The police could, for example, track your whereabouts with one of these devices even when you are in a private location (for example, an enclosed garage), or when you are out of their jurisdiction. If they have a court order to do this, that is acceptable. If they do not, this would be far too great a power with far too little oversight.
It sounds like, in most of these cases, a court order/warrant could have been obtained by the police. If it becomes permissible for police agencies to place these devices without suspicion or warrant, what is, in theory, to stop them from planting such devices on every vehicle in existence, and randomly monitoring your activities? This is the reason for mandatory oversight by the courts-it is a check and balance on the power of the executive, law-enforcement branch of government. We advocate removing that check at our own peril.
Says the guy posting on a computer, using the internet, to slashdot.
I didn't say that, and if it doesn't apply to you, why are you responding? Clearly, I struck a nerve.
"I also never had to work for anything in my life, and my parents bought my car for me growing up, so it's only natural I have the same sense of whiny entitlement the other bitter freeloaders have." (excerpted from original post)
So could you please explain what you DID mean by that?
Well, can't argue with that kind of research.
Never claimed any type of "research" or that such a method is scientific, only that I am not the only one who sees the current system as broken, and that such people come from both sides of the political spectrum. While I imagine that scientific polling would bear that out, I don't claim I've done such a study.
It absolutely is. It illustrates the root cause of your position on defending piracy.
Very well, I am a social democrat. However, that is not the root of my position on this particular issue, that is based on my read of the situation.
And so one of the root causes surfaces--bitter envy and vitriol toward business. You are a dorm room anti-capitalist.
Dorm room? Hrm, when I look around, my house looks little like a dorm room to me. I'm curious as to how you came up with all this stuff you "know" about me, being as I do not believe that I know you, and most of it is in error.
As for being anti-capitalist, in some ways that is true and in some ways false. We are, however, only discussing the pros and cons of intellectual property here, not the rest of my political philosophies, or yours.
It's very simple. You are protected under law to come up with something that is your own and sell it as you wish.
I was unclear, my apologies. I understand the concept, and I do understand why some think it should be implemented. I think, however, that the cons of doing so outweigh the pros, and disagree that it should be. Thus far, I've heard few argue as to why it should exist, most who believe so only like to throw "thief" and "pirate" and "freeloader" around without making a cogent argument as to why their position is correct.
COPYright. You own the right to copy and sell it. You're veering off into a strawman argument. Nobody's talking about the ownership of ideas. We're talking about copyright.
So, you can come up with an idea, and subsequently prevent anyone from competing with you on, improving upon, or creating copies or derivatives of, that idea? Sure sounds like "ownership" to me.
I'll remember that in the next GPL "source code theft" article.
I recall saying nothing about the GPL. However, if "IP" were eliminated or scaled quite a way back, the GPL likely would no longer exist. Neither would the need for it. In the meantime, I have great respect for those who release GPL software, they utilize the current system to do what should be done. Of course, those companies who state out of one side of their mouth that copyright should be universally respected have often turned around and attempted to fight the GPL, but THIS is not hypocrisy of any type.
Nobody EVER, EVER said that. But those companies do have a right not to have their rights violated. If their business is going to die, it should be because nobody is buying it, not because their product really is in demand but people are making sure they don't have to pay them for it.
Actually, copyright is, in effect, stating that the copyright industries have a right to a continued flow of money from any idea they've ever come up with, even if someone else comes along who can do it better and cheaper.
Clearly the consumer wants it if they're pirating it. Consumers don't have a "right" to something just becuase they want it. Your argument has already fallen completely flat.
Correct on the first part, clearly the consumers do wish it. And clearly, they do not wish to pay per copy. A flat-fee or collective license scheme woul
And once again, collective license solves the entire problem, ensuring revenue to the creators of content (provided, of course, that someone wants it, but even under the current model you get no money if no one wants your stuff), and, at the same time, changing from the pay-per-each model of distribution to a flat-fee and distribution system. This system already works fine for radio and TV, and, on a larger scale, could support larger-scale projects.
And once again, if Valve or any other company sticks to a business model which is no longer viable, they WILL go under. Adapt to change or die off from it is really not a terribly tough concept.
Revenue collection and distribution could be handled through a private organization, much like ASCAP works now. The government would not necessarily have to be involved except in the tax-based scheme, and even then would likely turn distribution to a private organization.
It is agreed, that if government was in control of the collection and distribution both, that would not be a setup I would like to see either, but the concept does not dictate that.
Collective licensing, still and yet, solves all the problems you bring up. In fact, it somewhat -reduces- the element of risk involved and might allow for a broader range of art to be tried, instead of the current "mass-market" crap currently fed people by the major conglomerates.
Doesn't stop your side from engaging in the same behaviour
That was not my post, nor one even of someone I know. Certainly I can show you plenty of examples of your "side" flaming, generalizing, stereotyping, and engaging in all sorts of bad behavior, but that does not reflect on you personally.
If that's what IP was, you'd have a point. However it's not. "Expressions of an idea" are considered IP.
I am well aware that they -are- considered so, and am advocating changing that. Can you tell me why you think it should -not- be changed?
In your personal opinion.
Of course, in my personal opinion, and that of many others. Now if you disagree with that opinion, can you tell me why?
Neither does one have a right to be entertained. Let alone other people's "expressions of an idea".
Actually, if you choose to express an idea publicly, those who hear it DO have the right to expand, improve, and build upon it, and find new and better ways of implementing it. Giving one person sole control over that just because they thought of it first is counterproductive.
As to a "right to be entertained", no, no one has a right to hold a gun to someone's head and demand that that person entertain them. However, if someone chooses to be an entertainer and release their works to the public, I have the right to see and hear them.
This assumes that the consumer is a fair and just assesser of value. Also businesses don't have to be formed to serve a capricious and spiteful public.
Again, no, no one has to. But if it is true (and it often can be) that the public is "capricious and spitefuL", then those who CHOOSE to go into business, despite not HAVING to, go in well knowing that and had better plan around it. They'd also better face up to the fact that the consumer is not interested in a "just assessment of value", they're interested in the best product at the cheapest price. Again, anyone who goes into business without figuring on that should not be going into business at all.
Incorrect. They create an artificial scarcity of the "expression of an idea". You're more than free to take an idea, and come up with your own unique "expression" of that idea.
Actually, you are incorrect. I am NOT free to take that idea and improve upon it or come up with a unique expression of it, copyright prohibits derivative works. This is enforced to the point that sampling a few notes out of another song is considered a "derivative work", at which time it's treated just the same as an exact copy.
Innovation is hard to substain in the face of poverty. Many artists have either starved, unknown and forgotten. Their contributions lost to time. Or found patrons who served a similiar role to our modern day content creators. Many simply had their ideas profitted from, after their paupers deaths.
Most artists -still- live in poverty, what world have YOU been living in? "IP" hasn't changed that one bit. Sure, they can sign up with a major label/publishing house/etc., and then said corporation owns the rights to the creator's work, not the creator themself. This is a travesty. I don't believe in -anyone- having the exclusive rights, but if someone is going to, it should be the artist, and any contract should be legally limited to paying a promotional company for services rendered while retaining full rights.
Well there goes the "Internet as a new business model. Adapt or die" argument.
Not at all, several independent Internet distributors are already starting up. However, without mandatory licensing, the **AA's are free to license only those who will do exactly as they are told, and disallow any business model which threatens the status quo. Of course, those who go with totally independent works are free from this, but also will have a very difficult time competing on the major companies' scale.
IP doesn't guarentee profit. IP guarentees that you can exercise certain
Well look at that, I can get called immature by someone who thinks a one-line namecalling constitutes a rebuttal. Who's the kid, friend? :)
Thank you for generalizing that everyone with an opposing viewpoint from you is some type of spoiled rich kid. Actually, I have met quite a few people who are in favor of changes to "intellectual property", from liberals who have spent years helping with poverty-stricken families in third-world countries and have little sympathy for CEO's who don't make another million, to archconservatives including my father.
Which one I am, if either, is not really relevant to our discussion here. I do not understand the concept of "intellectual property". Want to "own" an idea? Keep it in your head with your mouth shut, and if you write it down or otherwise record it anywhere, make sure that it's somewhere no one will ever find it.
An idea, spoken in public, is public property. Period. Doesn't matter if the "idea" is a song, a computer program, a movie, or anything else.
Awwwwww, big corporation can't make money? Too bad. No one has a "right" to the continued success of their business model. They have the right to adapt and find a way to provide what the consumer wants, the way they want it, and make money, or die. Copyrights and patents create artificial scarcity and give "ownership" and exclusive rights to the first person to come up with something which cannot be owned-an idea.
But it'll stifle innovation? Biggest load I've heard. Those who have great ideas and are passionate about them need no reward. Socrates was KILLED for putting forth his thoughts, but even facing that he would not back down. And we suggest massive amounts of money are necessary to encourage this? It never was before.
Of course, there are those who can consistently do a great job at coming up with and putting into practice great ideas. They'll make a living. (No, I didn't say "killing").
All "copyright" creates is a massive media monopoly capable of controlling the distribution of 98% or so of creative work. The "little guy" doesn't even get heard amidst their marketing noise.
No one has a right to make massive amounts of money for the REST OF THEIR LIFE plus 75 years because they do a good job one time, or even several times. Most of us must go to work, every day, and do our job well each and every time. I don't get to say "Well you know what, boss? I've done a damn good job, and this company will benefit from that work for quite a while, so you owe me royalties for the rest of my life while I do no more work." If an artist/programmer/filmmaker/whatever is out of ideas and can't do his job anymore, it's not time for him to retire and profit at 31, it's time for him to find another job.
As for the **AA's, they are as animals whose ecosystem has been radically changed. They can either a. Act like nothing has changed, and face extinction, or b. Adapt. Right now, they're thinking they'll roll back the clock, and that does not constitute option c. or any other.
Collective license would solve this whole problem. If the "IP Industries" are unwilling to embrace this model, they have chosen option a., and I won't mourn their passing.
The word "liberal" is at once an identifier of someone who can think of someone other than themself, the mark of a great person as opposed to a mediocre one, and a person who is likely a good one.
Isn't it easy to state your opinion as an undisputed fact? Isn't it pointless too?
And the moment you release them, they are correct. If you release anything that can be made into data (music, movie, program, whatever) and expect that that won't -happen- to it, and that it will subsequently be shared, you are naive. "Intellectual property" is an artificial scheme that gives someone "ownership" of an idea and the exclusive rights to its use. If you can consistently have good ideas, and continually implement them well, great, someone will pay you to use that talent on their behalf. But those who think that they can produce ONE good one (a great song, movie, program, whatever), and continue to profit for years from it, they are delusional. No one else gets paid for years and years for doing a good job once, most everyone has to CONTINUALLY work and do well to make a living.
Aren't conservatives (in theory) -against- such massive projects unless a real need can be shown? Or are you just one of these who likes to throw around "liberal" like it's a swear word instead of an opposing philosophy?
Well, the fact remains, that there are far more very worthwhile causes out there than most of us could ever make a meaningful donation to. There is nothing wrong with picking a few which have significance to you and making enough of a donation to make a difference on those, rather than take on the impossible task of trying to fix everything.
So, those who strongly believe that the entire concept of "intellectual property" is an aberration, an artificial monopoly created by law, and needs to be eliminated (and yes, we are out there) are far fewer in number than those who will sympathize with the terrible situation in Sri Lanka. Therefore, perhaps those few -would- be better served pooling their resources in an area where there is not already a massive public outpouring of support?
This is not to belittle the terrible tragedy that befell the Sri Lankans or to say that helping them is not extremely important. But please don't castigate someone because he can't support -every- worthwhile cause out there, I doubt if you can either.
By that logic, if I'm in your home and copy your decorating scheme for my own house, I've "stolen" it from you. The fact that your house stays decorated the same way changes that not in the slightest. Is that really the same as if I broke into the house and STOLE all your stuff?
I don't know what dictionary you found that from, but I find several which define stealing as "to deprive another person of their property without consent." That definition is far more correct to my way of thinking, and in that case, you being left with a copy absolutely does change the face of the whole issue.
You can argue over and over whether copyright is right and copyright infringement is wrong. To my way of thinking, the concept of copyright is wrong. You cannot "own" a thought or a concept, and anyone who says otherwise supports, to some degree or another, thought policing.
Of course, if you become very good at something and someone wishes to hire you to do custom work for them in that field, great. But to say "I invented this algorithm that figures out that 2+2=4, and now for the next x-many years whoever utilizes that must pay me royalties" is ridiculous. Most of us must KEEP producing work, every day, in order to make our paycheck. If I quit my job tomorrow but the company I work for still benefits from what I did for the next 20 years, I cannot come to demand "royalties" from them. No different standard should be artifically applied to anyone else. If a musician can't KEEP performing and putting out good-quality work, they get to find another job, like the rest of us. If a programmer writes a great program, they should be paid for their time and then a. move on to the next one or b. find another line of work. And so on. No one "deserves" to get rich just for doing a good job, most of us have to continuously produce good-quality work just to HAVE a job.
Actually, the Supreme Court may well rule against this, and I hope they do. The Court has ruled, over and over again, that "prior restraint" (being prevented from saying something before even saying it) is generally not acceptable, except in the most extreme cases.
Excerpted from the decision cited above:
What does this say? Even though the speech above may be CRIMINAL in nature (extortionist, read the page to find more detail), and even though it overwhelmingly appears that the information he is publishing are trade secrets which Ford can successfully sue him for, he CANNOT be prohibited from publishing them by injunction.
Of course, this does not mean that he may not be sued and/or prosecuted if and when he DOES, if what he is publishing violates the law. But the Court's precedents are clear: Prior restraint is unconstitutional except in the most extreme cases, e.g. someone is about to publish a planned movement of troops in the paper or on a website. This case, as with the Lane case, only establishes that monetary/commercial losses may result. The Court has ruled very clearly that this is not even a valid reason for a court or Congress to issue prior restraint. Do we wish to give a corporation powers that we would not even grant to our judges and legislators?
The **AA's should have the same standard as anyone else. If you feel that some published speech "damages" you, you have two options. The first option, and probably the best, especially if you feel that they might've accidentally violated the law, is to send a cease-and-desist letter to the PERSON running the website. As to the "But the ISP's won't give us the identity of their customers to send letters to!" I say "GOOD!" That doesn't mean you can't contact them. Most websites have an email link to the site admin, and if not, I would think it acceptable to put a provision in the law that ISP's must forward legal correspondence regarding a website they host to that site's owner. This policy would have two positive effects: The copyright holders would be served by being immediately able to contact suspected infringers, and the consumer would benefit from greater anonymity and the taking of excessive power from the **AA's.
Of course, the second option is to take the webmaster directly to court. If the court finds the site to be infringing, they will issue an injunction ordering the webmaster to take down all infringing material, as well as possibly awarding damages. However, this should not happen until AFTER a trial has been held, or a settlement reached.
Actually, I think that this could easily be solved. For controversial subjects, have a "for" and "against" post (or some similar). Have the "Ronald Reagan" link offer a choice of articles about him: one for editors who love the guy, one for those who don't care one way or the other, and one for those who hate him. Similar, controversial subjects could be handled in a similar manner. This way, everyone gets their say, without the "slant" of the article depending on who touched it last.
That's the simple answer. No, it is not unethical to use code as per the terms of the license he chose to release it under. (Or had to, but if he has a problem with other people using GPL code, he shouldn't be doing so himself.) Your choice to credit the author, despite his bad behavior, further reinforces that you are acting within both the bounds of the law and ethical standards.
Politely inform him that it is your right to use the code he releases under the terms of that license, just as it is for anyone in compliance with the GPL terms. and that you are going to continue to do so. If he continues as he currently is, just ignore him and continue to do what you're doing. You are not acting unethically just because he says so, you are complying with the terms of the license under which the code is released, as well as good practice of crediting.
Some people are just stuck-up or don't understand that they must accept their own choices. Be polite to this type of person, take the high road, and don't let them suck you down to their level. If you do this, everyone will see them for what they are.
So who is to determine what is "silly"? That seems a rather arbitrary standard. It would seem to me that in any such case, they could claim that they had already fulfilled their end of the "contract" between us (putting the product I bought into my hands, in one way or another), and that my attempt to "slip one by" is invalid.
In the case of the software, it's simply reversed. I've already given X Software Company my end of the deal (money), they've given me their end (software). However, they then try to sneak in more terms, and claim that their "consideration" is to so graciously allow me to use the product I already bought and paid for. This still seems pretty thin to me.
Actually, you caught the exact point I was trying to make with the whole thing. You've already given them what they asked for, which was the payment. For them to slip in additional terms after you open the box you already purchased is very likely not enforceable.
And if it is, I'll be off to CompUSA now...
IANAL, but doesn't copyright only prohibit unauthorized distribution? You can't really "distribute" something to yourself. Now the fraud bit I could see (especially if the retailers developed something, like I imagine they would, a form that says to the effect of "By accepting this refund I agree either that I have destroyed all copies of this software or will do so as soon as possible.") I don't see where the copyright comes into that though.
Also, even if they were fully well aware of you doing it, there's not a whole lot they could do if it's mandated that they -must- accept a return. I suppose after a few iterations they could refuse to sell to you in the future. But really, despite that draconian-looking "FBI Warning" on videotapes, we all very well knew that the FBI would not come kick down our door for making a copy or two, it takes making a thousand or two to get that kind of attention. So even if they figure it out, you're likely too small a fish for anyone to care.