Not sure this would be a good idea for the ISP as it may render itself liable for the copyright infringement since that IP address is registered in its name.
I would put on the walls some posters or enlarged photographs of beautiful natural scenes such as lakes, mountains, rivers, trees and so forth. These have the benefit of tricking the subconscious into believing it is in a wilderness environment instead of an office, thus creating a more calming and relaxed atmosphere.
But don't have too many either. There are numerous health and safety issues pertaining to laser printers in particular such as ozone and nox emissions. I would put the printers in an enclosed, well ventilated room segregated from human work areas.
See this file for more details:
http://www.lhc.org.uk/members/pubs/factsht/76fact. pdf
Thanks, yes it seems quite apparent to me that copyright is being used as a tool of censorship. I was discussing this with a friend who once managed a book shop. He explained that often he would have many people people enquiring about a certain book that they would love to buy and read only to be told by the publisher "Sorry it's out of print."
Maybe I would have liked to tone down my post from "poisoning minds" to "moulding beliefs" but then again maybe it is fair enough.
If the elite really is using copyright as a form of censorship I doubt that Lessig has a chance of gaining a relaxation of copyright for orphaned works. But if the public becomes sufficiently educated about this issue, who knows?
You misunderstand this sentence of the constitution. Copyright is supposed to promote and encourage science and the useful arts by giving the copyright holder of a creative work a monopoly on the distribution of the creative work. The use of the word promote here has nothing to do with giving publicity to a particular work.
Should neo-conservatives be allowed to reprint it widely?
Yes.
Copyright is not supposed to be a tool used for censorship. It seems to me that what Kerry has said previously is of the utmost public interest since he is a candidate for president and will give us some insight into is values, character and beleifs.
Sometimes a company may cease distributing a product because they want to focus consumer attention on their new offerings.
You make it sound like this is a legitimate thing to do. I don't believe it is, since to restict the availability of creative works can in no way benefit the community at large.
Maybe this is what Copyright law and the DMCA is really about. Namely, the destruction of the culture of our ancestors so that it can be replaced with the anaesthetizing culture that suits the current political establishment, such as, the current crop of movies being pumped out of Hollywood, poisoning the minds of an entire generation.
Chocolate milk shakes and backrubs consume resources so you must pay for them. To make a copy of an old computer game consumes virtually no resources, harms no one, yet is prohibited by our dysfunctional copyright legislation.
I guess my post was supposed to highlight the rather devious and predatory nature of this strategy which another poster quite rightly likened to that of a drug pusher.
Step 1: Offer the service for free initially.
Step 2: Get the customers hooked.
Step 3: Milk the customers.
I wonder if this business strategy has been patented yet.
I have two degrees (Chemistry and computer science).
Academically I was always way above average. I'm 37.
I used to be employed as a computer programmer but was recently fired for suggesting that maybe my "role" was way to tightly constrained by management. Now I'm unemployed but I still have a postive attitude and I'm looking for some pursuit that will suit me better.
was this "free trade" agreement worth trading in our reasonable copyright law in exchange for selling some more sugar, wheat and wool in the US market?
Actually, the "free" trade agreement exludes sugar exports.
The Florida cane growers have quite a bit of influence with Bush since it is such a pivotal state under the US electoral system.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure this would be a good idea for the ISP as it may render itself liable for the copyright infringement since that IP address is registered in its name.
I would put on the walls some posters or enlarged photographs of beautiful natural scenes such as lakes, mountains, rivers, trees and so forth. These have the benefit of tricking the subconscious into believing it is in a wilderness environment instead of an office, thus creating a more calming and relaxed atmosphere.
Have enough printers.
. pdf
But don't have too many either. There are numerous health and safety issues pertaining to laser printers in particular such as ozone and nox emissions. I would put the printers in an enclosed, well ventilated room segregated from human work areas. See this file for more details: http://www.lhc.org.uk/members/pubs/factsht/76fact
Thanks, yes it seems quite apparent to me that copyright is being used as a tool of censorship. I was discussing this with a friend who once managed a book shop. He explained that often he would have many people people enquiring about a certain book that they would love to buy and read only to be told by the publisher "Sorry it's out of print."
Maybe I would have liked to tone down my post from "poisoning minds" to "moulding beliefs" but then again maybe it is fair enough.
If the elite really is using copyright as a form of censorship I doubt that Lessig has a chance of gaining a relaxation of copyright for orphaned works. But if the public becomes sufficiently educated about this issue, who knows?
You misunderstand this sentence of the constitution. Copyright is supposed to promote and encourage science and the useful arts by giving the copyright holder of a creative work a monopoly on the distribution of the creative work. The use of the word promote here has nothing to do with giving publicity to a particular work.
Should neo-conservatives be allowed to reprint it widely?
Yes.
Copyright is not supposed to be a tool used for censorship. It seems to me that what Kerry has said previously is of the utmost public interest since he is a candidate for president and will give us some insight into is values, character and beleifs.
Copyright holders should not claim 'lost sales' because of copying of the product
Generating sales is not what copyright is supposed to be about anyway. It is supposed to be about "promoting science and the useful arts."
Sometimes a company may cease distributing a product because they want to focus consumer attention on their new offerings.
You make it sound like this is a legitimate thing to do. I don't believe it is, since to restict the availability of creative works can in no way benefit the community at large.
Maybe this is what Copyright law and the DMCA is really about. Namely, the destruction of the culture of our ancestors so that it can be replaced with the anaesthetizing culture that suits the current political establishment, such as, the current crop of movies being pumped out of Hollywood, poisoning the minds of an entire generation.
Chocolate milk shakes and backrubs consume resources so you must pay for them. To make a copy of an old computer game consumes virtually no resources, harms no one, yet is prohibited by our dysfunctional copyright legislation.
I guess my post was supposed to highlight the rather devious and predatory nature of this strategy which another poster quite rightly likened to that of a drug pusher.
People pay for cable TV which has ads.
Step 1: Offer the service for free initially.
Step 2: Get the customers hooked.
Step 3: Milk the customers.
I wonder if this business strategy has been patented yet.
I have two degrees (Chemistry and computer science). Academically I was always way above average. I'm 37. I used to be employed as a computer programmer but was recently fired for suggesting that maybe my "role" was way to tightly constrained by management. Now I'm unemployed but I still have a postive attitude and I'm looking for some pursuit that will suit me better.
Someone learning might want to test ceating outside links. I think the noindex option is better so that sandboxes are invisible to the google bots.
was this "free trade" agreement worth trading in our reasonable copyright law in exchange for selling some more sugar, wheat and wool in the US market?
Actually, the "free" trade agreement exludes sugar exports. The Florida cane growers have quite a bit of influence with Bush since it is such a pivotal state under the US electoral system.
Good question. I'd also like to know if the is some software that can sweep my GNU/Linux system for spyware. Anyone know?