Your advice to buy mining stocks is warranted: demand for Au and U are increasing much faster than supply, pressing the need for more agressive exploration and exploitation of lower grade deposits. However, your justification for buying U/Au company stocks is not. There are really only two types of U deposits worth mentioning that also are associated with gold: the quartz-pebble conglomerates of the Witwatersrand Basin, South Africa and the Olympic Dam deposit in Australia.
The U in the Witwatersrand is mined as a byproduct of Au mining. The Witswatersrand Basin is, by far, the highest gold producing region in the world, and if you move enough rock, pretty much anything can be recovered economically. The sedimentary rocks that host the placer gold were deposited >2 billion years ago, before the atmosphere was oxidizing. Uranium is very soluble under oxidizing conditions. Consequently, U minerals were stable at the earth's surface >2 billion years ago, and some grains of U minerals are found in the conglomerates in the Wits.
The Olympic Dam deposit is somewhat of a freek of nature. Geologists still aren't quite sure what to make of it; it doesn't fall nicely into any ore deposit category. Economically recoverable elements include Au, Ag, Cu, and U. Rare Earth Elements (lanthanides) are present in high concentrations (~0.5%), but they are not favorable for economic extraction.
Most U comes from unconformity-hosted deposits in Canada and Australia. Most of the US's U is found in sandstone-hosted uranium deposits on the Colorado plateau. These are much lower grade (by about an order of magnitude) than the unconformity-type deposits, but are becoming econmoical again, owing to the high prices mentioned in the article.
I would like to see some of your evidence. If everybody keeps saying that you can't disprove God, your evidence to the contrary is a true breakthrough.
I am a scientist (geologist). I like to think of myself as a rational and logical person, yet I still believe in God. Why? Because I have interpreted feelings I have had and events I have experienced as supporting the hypothesis that God exists. For example, when I am living a "good" life (scripturally speaking) I feel better and have a greater capacity to deal with all the crap life throws at me. This is an observation. I interpret this to be evidence that I'm being blessed for doing what I'm supposed to. That's what good scientists do; take available observations and interpret them.
Go ahead and argue that I'm interpreting things wrong, but I don't see what piles of evidence you're sitting on proving that faith and interlligence (not scientifict fact - different from truth, IMHO) are mutually exclusive.
In an economy based on growth they had better hope that peak oil doesn't exist. As reserves decline, the companies lose value; nobody wants to invest in a compnay that's going to make less money next year than it did this year because its running out of product. The mining industry faces the same problem. IF they don't replace their reserves, stock prices tank. One result of this is that we now have a handfull of oil (and gold in the metals industry) companies, where twenty years ago we had many, many more. It's getting to the point that it's easier (if not cheaper) to buy reserves than it is to find them.
I'm sure there's a tradeoff between falling reserves and increasing per barrel profit, but I'm not prepared to say where that line is drawn.
No, Peak Oil has never predicted that we'd "run out".
Actually that is precisely what peak oil predicts. Peak oil is ONLY about the fact that oil production will peak out at some point and will thereafter decline. It will keep declining until there is no more oil that can be economically extracted -- in essence, we will run out. Peak oil doesn't really say anything about demand; it is all about oil production.
See this link for a much more detailed, less biased analysis of the pros and cons of peak oil theory. Down at the bottom you'll find a table with predictions of when we'll reach the global production peak. Note that some of the predictions putting peak production in the next few years are from people who work (or worked) for oil companies.
This group CERA has a prediction on there, too; in 2004 they believed in peak oil theory and thought the world would peak in 2020. Their new "oil plateau" idea basically says that as traditional oil becomes more scarce, technology will bring new sources (tar sands, oil shale, etc.) on line, thereby increasing reserves. Whoever they work for, they have some interesting, if not compelling, points.
It's not all the bank's fault. Ignorant/naive/stupid people are (largely) at fault. The customers are the ones giving people access to their accounts. How is this the bank's fault? (I'm sure someon can come up with a car analogy to help me out here.) My bank has sent me letters and has, from time to time, posted warnings on their website about phishing scams. They have done their part to warn me, and should bear no responsibility if I give my account information away.
No doubt some things need to be done to tighten up access to bank accounts, etc. But no matter what extra security you put in place, people will always fall for scams. Give them password protected smartcards and the next thing you know, you'll see phishing attacks saying "There's been a recall on your smartcard. Please send it along with your password and any cash you happen to have on hand to 123 Fake St, Springfield USA". Hopefully people won't fall for this, but I'm sure that some people will fall for it just as some people today ignore news reports, letters from the bank, etc. that tell them to beware phishing scams.
So until banks figure out a way to secure accounts from stupid customers, I'll answer the question "is it ultimately the customer's responsibility to make educated use of technology?" with a resounding YES!
Of your five gripes here, only number five comes even close to constituting a LIE LIE LIE which was your complaint in your original post. These other examples might not constitute very friendly practices, but they aren't all cap lies.
If your going to yell accusations, give us something to back up those accusations. And as far as the aformentioned "twice as fast" benchmark data for the Intel chips: I'm pretty sure everybody does that sort of thing.
The "trick" is to filter the facts (observations) from the interpretations. It's true that this is best done by getting your news from various sources. Unfortunately, many people haven't developed the skills to determine where the facts end and the interpretations (editorializing) begins. I think that many reporters have lost this skill (or never had it?).
<anecdote>I was a teaching assistant for an intro geology class ("rocks for jocks"). In every lab assignment the students had to write up a short report stating two or three observations (i.e. the shadows on the aerial photo point to the west) and the relevant interpretations of those observations (the picture was taken in the morning). It was disapointed how few non-science majors could not grasp the difference between observation and interpretation, even at the end of the semester.</anecdote>
What concerns me as much as the blurring line between the front page and the opinion section is the lack of substance found in many news outlets. I don't watch the news that often, but last night I caught the local Fox affiliate's hour-long 9 o'clock news. At the end, they had a five minute recap of the day's top stories; this five minute "Quick-cast" had just as much substance as the previous hour! I felt cheated.
I heard they were just going to fill all the extra space with bigger, better DRM. I mean, with 4 Gb of DRM protecting that 700 Mb of music, no one would ever crack it!
I didn't say that there should be a govt. license for members of the news media, and I certainly didn't say that we should only get our news from established sources and ignore independent sources. I was talking about a percieved (and usually merited) quality of information that comes from established/traditional news sources.
But as I mentioned in another post, any claim to be reporting news implies a certain integrity to your information. Having to have a license to report is a silly idea; you're right. What about some independent accrediting institution that researches the track record of a news outlet? I'm not sure this would work, either, but it might.
Like I said in the GP, I am not sure where to draw the line, but if you're claiming to report news, then people should reasonably expect that what you say is true, that what you say is news. I think some set of ethical standard, adhered to by bloggers and NYT reporters alike, would be a great service to news consumers.
See the Mr. X episode of the Simpsons for the good and bad sides of blogs as news sources.
Very good point. In the context you bring up here, the "problem" is that it is just so easy to get your views out there these days. As a result, there's a lot more crap out there claiming to be news than there was back in the day when you had to have access to an actual press to publish news and ideas*.
I guess in my mind there's a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of the press today. All speech (supposing there it isn't libel, etc.) is protected, but in my view, if you claim protection under free press you imply something about the integrity of your information. It comes down to whether or not you claim to be a member of the press in the modern sense; are you claiming to be a news organization? If so, there should be some standard so the readers can determine the integrity of the information. The suggestion to put footnotes in news stories, as mentioned by the AC in response to my original post would be a welcome start. . . Might be overkill, too.
* On a bit of a tangent, "news" outlets these days have gotten news and ideas confused, sometimes making the frontpage appear awfuly similar to the opinions page. Fox News had the right idea with "We report, you decide". Too bad they didn't keep to the spirit of that little bit of marketing.
The only reason a NYT reporter gets more consideration than some random blogger, is because the NYT reporter has a team of specialist lawyers funded by a large news organization behind them.
Not true. I think the main reason that the NYT reporters get more consideration is that they are percieved as a reliable news source. The traditional news outlets have established credibility. Bloggers have yet to earn that.
Many (most?) reporters for big news outlets have degrees in journalism/communications where they were taught to research their stories and not rely on single sources and other sound journalistic practices. I'm not saying that they do any research, but they were taught to research their stories.
Anyone who spews thoughts onto the internet can be classified as a blogger. I don't think this does not give them protection under the freedom of the press. Freedom of speech, sure, but not necessarily protection under freedom of press.
I am not sure where do draw the line of what qualifies as a news outlet, but I think there should be some standards to which "members of the press" are held.
I was reading the comments in the original story yesterday, but just ended up confused. I realize now that all I needed was a car analogy. Thanks Mike!
I'm interested where this inherent right to compensation comes from, and where it stops.
And where does your inherent right to copy my creative works come from? These kinds of questions are very interesting to me; I've also thought about it in relation to other "inherent" rights. I think that same question can lead to some interesting lines of thought about other rights we generally feel are inherent: life, liberty, property, etc. I believe in God, so I think these fundamental rights come from above ("endowed by their creator. .."). If you remove all laws and customs, though, I really don't know the answer to which rights are inherent and independent of anything else. I think that life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness should be inherent rights, but I think that we accept them as inherent as a consequence of the society in which we live (based on Judeo-Christian morals here in the US, like it or lump it).
Another poster pointed out to me that, indeed, nobody has the right to compensation for their creative work. However, I maintain that creative types (including scientists, programers, etc.) have the right to seek compensation for their work. Copyright was established to encourage content creators to publish their works (copyright 101), because without the possibility of compensation, most content creators would keep their work secret or pursue other careers that are of little benefit to our cultural heritage.
Seeking compensation for your work is (or should be) a fundamental right because without this, people will not work. This holds true for trench diggers as well as creative types. One of the purposes of government is to protect the right to seek (not necessarily to obtain) compensation for whatever work you choose to pursue. I disagree with a lot of the finer points of Ayn Rand's writings, but she was on to something with her thoughts on human motivation: i.e., people do what they do because they receive compensation for their work (with money, pride, warm fuzzies, whatever).
I hope I haven't muddled things too badly.
Why do you single out one group of tradesmen for special treatment, this hardly seems reasonable to me. I can create lots of jobs which would not exist without a law to keep them there, and make up inherent rights of compensation. However these jobs would be economically ridiculous.
You have a good point here. what you're implying is that we have laws now that are economically ridiculous. You're right. Copyright for the life of author + 70 years is way too long.
These are not rights that exist apriori to legislation. ..
I disagree. I believe everybody has a right to seek profit for their work. Whether that involves making stuff up or putting stuff together, you have a right to recieve compensation for work that has value to others. If you write a song that millions of people download, it has some value to somebody, and those people who value your work should provide compensation to you for it.
And using your example of the water company, they do have a right to seek compensation for providing the infrastructure and delivering the water that people need. Their right to seek compensation for providing services that people value does exist apriori of legislation. If you dig your own well with your own two hands, your right to compensation still holds, apart from legislation. You get to not die of thirst.
The tempory made up rights of the copyright holder do not supercede indefinately the rights of society to access it's cultural heritage.
True, but this is hardly a justification for breaking the law. Copyright doesn't indefinitely eliminate your right to distribute others' works as you see fit. Granted, the way it stands now, copyrights are valid for far, far too long, but copyrights do eventually expire
The copyright system needs to be rebalanced in order to meet it's primary objective, which is not reimbursing artists for their time, but enhancing the public domain.
I call BS. Copyrights do NOT exist to enhance public domain; they exist for the same reason the (now broken) patent system was created: to give inventors/"content" producers a time to profit before their work passes into the public domain. Sure, in a way copyright enhances public domain by encouraging artists, etc. to publish (and try to profit from) their work, but it exists to benefit the artists. (and their great-great-great grandkids, the way things stand now)
Good point. I didn't quite think that sentence through.
You're right that nobody has the right to revenue, but I will maintain that artists do have a right to try to collect revenue for their work. My point was that consumers don't have the right to distribute copyrighted works as they see fit; that is the right of whoever makes the "content" (or whoever holds the copyright).
Your comments make me think of what the future holds for artists. I think you're definitely right in stating that the number of artists that can be supported will fall. Touring/live performances will have to be the big money maker for most artists if the industry is forced to come to terms with virtually free reproduction of their goods. And there are not too many artists with enough talent (musical or performing) to sell enough tickets to turn a consistent profit.
As has been pointed out here on/. before, this model has worked for a number of groups in the past; the Grateful Dead and Phish are probably the best known examples. If you go to etree you can see that a number of bands are giving away their music, often as high-quality soundboard recordings. And they're still out there making music and money.
One key ingredient the profitibility of most of these bands is the same thing that is making open source software successful: community. Many of the fans that attend concerts and trade recordings also buy practically anything the band puts out. Many of them are willing to pay for official releases of concerts they already have to support the band.
The communities around these bands/artists are not usually large enough to drive albums to multi-platinum status, but they are loyal. That's probably more than can be said about people who buy the latest flavor-of-the-month studio album.
It appears I'm missing a key part of the point you're trying to make with this and other posts, or maybe I don't understand the intricacies of the DMCA.
From what I understand, the DMCA isn't disrupting the rights of people to invent new and innovative ways to distribute their work. If you want to produce a new media with a new compression scheme, or for a new sort of player that feeds music directly into your brain, great. But I don't see how it's anybody's right to "interact with protected media". I'm not even sure what that means; are you talking about DJs sampling parts of existing recordings, etc.? If so, you have a point. If you're talking about new CDs not working on old CD players, that is a moot point. Manufacturers aren't under any obligation to ensure 100% backwards compatibility. It would be nice, but they don't have to if they don't want to. To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) old media works on new players, so my right to play music I have already paid for is not being infringed. If I just have to have the latest DRMed Britney Spears CD, then I guess I'd better pay $100 for a new CD player or go to iTMS.
It doesn't matter whether I think anybody's official license is too restrictive. As long as the license is legally sound, I'm bound by the restrictions found in the license. I don't have a right to engineer technology with the express intent to bypass other technologies that try to enforce that license. I'll agree with you, though, that any license that deprives me of fair use of the product I have purchased should be illegal; it's a shame elected officials aren't seeing this.
Good land! Do you actually believe what you just wrote? I agree that the tactics used by certain organizations *cough-RIAA-cough* to discourage piracy are heavy-handed and innefective, but this doesn't give anybody the "right" to pirate media.
You state:
You seem to believe that these people should be allowed to control and regulate every other sector of the economy.. that they are some superclass of nobles who have a "right" to revenue.
presumabely talking about the RIAA, etc. Wheras it may be true that these people don't have a right to revenue, somebody does. This group of people are called artists. They make music, movies, etc. I'll admit that it is debatable whether much of what is rolled out should be called "art". Nevertheless, "artists" make this stuff. And, as the original post pointed out, they should be free to decide how to distribute their art, whether or not it provides them with the highest financial return.
Slashdot Mirror
Your advice to buy mining stocks is warranted: demand for Au and U are increasing much faster than supply, pressing the need for more agressive exploration and exploitation of lower grade deposits. However, your justification for buying U/Au company stocks is not. There are really only two types of U deposits worth mentioning that also are associated with gold: the quartz-pebble conglomerates of the Witwatersrand Basin, South Africa and the Olympic Dam deposit in Australia.
The U in the Witwatersrand is mined as a byproduct of Au mining. The Witswatersrand Basin is, by far, the highest gold producing region in the world, and if you move enough rock, pretty much anything can be recovered economically. The sedimentary rocks that host the placer gold were deposited >2 billion years ago, before the atmosphere was oxidizing. Uranium is very soluble under oxidizing conditions. Consequently, U minerals were stable at the earth's surface >2 billion years ago, and some grains of U minerals are found in the conglomerates in the Wits.
The Olympic Dam deposit is somewhat of a freek of nature. Geologists still aren't quite sure what to make of it; it doesn't fall nicely into any ore deposit category. Economically recoverable elements include Au, Ag, Cu, and U. Rare Earth Elements (lanthanides) are present in high concentrations (~0.5%), but they are not favorable for economic extraction.
Most U comes from unconformity-hosted deposits in Canada and Australia. Most of the US's U is found in sandstone-hosted uranium deposits on the Colorado plateau. These are much lower grade (by about an order of magnitude) than the unconformity-type deposits, but are becoming econmoical again, owing to the high prices mentioned in the article.
See here for more information.
EARTH FIRST!!
We'll mine other planets later
I would like to see some of your evidence. If everybody keeps saying that you can't disprove God, your evidence to the contrary is a true breakthrough.
I am a scientist (geologist). I like to think of myself as a rational and logical person, yet I still believe in God. Why? Because I have interpreted feelings I have had and events I have experienced as supporting the hypothesis that God exists. For example, when I am living a "good" life (scripturally speaking) I feel better and have a greater capacity to deal with all the crap life throws at me. This is an observation. I interpret this to be evidence that I'm being blessed for doing what I'm supposed to. That's what good scientists do; take available observations and interpret them.
Go ahead and argue that I'm interpreting things wrong, but I don't see what piles of evidence you're sitting on proving that faith and interlligence (not scientifict fact - different from truth, IMHO) are mutually exclusive.
The folks who make those inspiring posters put it best:
If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made prolonging the problem
In an economy based on growth they had better hope that peak oil doesn't exist. As reserves decline, the companies lose value; nobody wants to invest in a compnay that's going to make less money next year than it did this year because its running out of product. The mining industry faces the same problem. IF they don't replace their reserves, stock prices tank. One result of this is that we now have a handfull of oil (and gold in the metals industry) companies, where twenty years ago we had many, many more. It's getting to the point that it's easier (if not cheaper) to buy reserves than it is to find them.
I'm sure there's a tradeoff between falling reserves and increasing per barrel profit, but I'm not prepared to say where that line is drawn.
Actually that is precisely what peak oil predicts. Peak oil is ONLY about the fact that oil production will peak out at some point and will thereafter decline. It will keep declining until there is no more oil that can be economically extracted -- in essence, we will run out. Peak oil doesn't really say anything about demand; it is all about oil production.
See this link for a much more detailed, less biased analysis of the pros and cons of peak oil theory. Down at the bottom you'll find a table with predictions of when we'll reach the global production peak. Note that some of the predictions putting peak production in the next few years are from people who work (or worked) for oil companies.
This group CERA has a prediction on there, too; in 2004 they believed in peak oil theory and thought the world would peak in 2020. Their new "oil plateau" idea basically says that as traditional oil becomes more scarce, technology will bring new sources (tar sands, oil shale, etc.) on line, thereby increasing reserves. Whoever they work for, they have some interesting, if not compelling, points.
It's not all the bank's fault. Ignorant/naive/stupid people are (largely) at fault. The customers are the ones giving people access to their accounts. How is this the bank's fault? (I'm sure someon can come up with a car analogy to help me out here.) My bank has sent me letters and has, from time to time, posted warnings on their website about phishing scams. They have done their part to warn me, and should bear no responsibility if I give my account information away.
No doubt some things need to be done to tighten up access to bank accounts, etc. But no matter what extra security you put in place, people will always fall for scams. Give them password protected smartcards and the next thing you know, you'll see phishing attacks saying "There's been a recall on your smartcard. Please send it along with your password and any cash you happen to have on hand to 123 Fake St, Springfield USA". Hopefully people won't fall for this, but I'm sure that some people will fall for it just as some people today ignore news reports, letters from the bank, etc. that tell them to beware phishing scams.
So until banks figure out a way to secure accounts from stupid customers, I'll answer the question "is it ultimately the customer's responsibility to make educated use of technology?" with a resounding YES!
Of your five gripes here, only number five comes even close to constituting a LIE LIE LIE which was your complaint in your original post. These other examples might not constitute very friendly practices, but they aren't all cap lies.
If your going to yell accusations, give us something to back up those accusations. And as far as the aformentioned "twice as fast" benchmark data for the Intel chips: I'm pretty sure everybody does that sort of thing.
The "trick" is to filter the facts (observations) from the interpretations. It's true that this is best done by getting your news from various sources. Unfortunately, many people haven't developed the skills to determine where the facts end and the interpretations (editorializing) begins. I think that many reporters have lost this skill (or never had it?).
<anecdote>I was a teaching assistant for an intro geology class ("rocks for jocks"). In every lab assignment the students had to write up a short report stating two or three observations (i.e. the shadows on the aerial photo point to the west) and the relevant interpretations of those observations (the picture was taken in the morning). It was disapointed how few non-science majors could not grasp the difference between observation and interpretation, even at the end of the semester.</anecdote>
What concerns me as much as the blurring line between the front page and the opinion section is the lack of substance found in many news outlets. I don't watch the news that often, but last night I caught the local Fox affiliate's hour-long 9 o'clock news. At the end, they had a five minute recap of the day's top stories; this five minute "Quick-cast" had just as much substance as the previous hour! I felt cheated.
I heard they were just going to fill all the extra space with bigger, better DRM. I mean, with 4 Gb of DRM protecting that 700 Mb of music, no one would ever crack it!
Nice use of selective quoting.
I didn't say that there should be a govt. license for members of the news media, and I certainly didn't say that we should only get our news from established sources and ignore independent sources. I was talking about a percieved (and usually merited) quality of information that comes from established/traditional news sources.
But as I mentioned in another post, any claim to be reporting news implies a certain integrity to your information. Having to have a license to report is a silly idea; you're right. What about some independent accrediting institution that researches the track record of a news outlet? I'm not sure this would work, either, but it might.
Like I said in the GP, I am not sure where to draw the line, but if you're claiming to report news, then people should reasonably expect that what you say is true, that what you say is news. I think some set of ethical standard, adhered to by bloggers and NYT reporters alike, would be a great service to news consumers.
See the Mr. X episode of the Simpsons for the good and bad sides of blogs as news sources.
Very good point. In the context you bring up here, the "problem" is that it is just so easy to get your views out there these days. As a result, there's a lot more crap out there claiming to be news than there was back in the day when you had to have access to an actual press to publish news and ideas*.
I guess in my mind there's a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of the press today. All speech (supposing there it isn't libel, etc.) is protected, but in my view, if you claim protection under free press you imply something about the integrity of your information. It comes down to whether or not you claim to be a member of the press in the modern sense; are you claiming to be a news organization? If so, there should be some standard so the readers can determine the integrity of the information. The suggestion to put footnotes in news stories, as mentioned by the AC in response to my original post would be a welcome start. . . Might be overkill, too.
* On a bit of a tangent, "news" outlets these days have gotten news and ideas confused, sometimes making the frontpage appear awfuly similar to the opinions page. Fox News had the right idea with "We report, you decide". Too bad they didn't keep to the spirit of that little bit of marketing.
Not true. I think the main reason that the NYT reporters get more consideration is that they are percieved as a reliable news source. The traditional news outlets have established credibility. Bloggers have yet to earn that.
Many (most?) reporters for big news outlets have degrees in journalism/communications where they were taught to research their stories and not rely on single sources and other sound journalistic practices. I'm not saying that they do any research, but they were taught to research their stories.
Anyone who spews thoughts onto the internet can be classified as a blogger. I don't think this does not give them protection under the freedom of the press. Freedom of speech, sure, but not necessarily protection under freedom of press.
I am not sure where do draw the line of what qualifies as a news outlet, but I think there should be some standards to which "members of the press" are held.
Ahhhh, but what about Dr. Frink's death ray?
I was reading the comments in the original story yesterday, but just ended up confused. I realize now that all I needed was a car analogy. Thanks Mike!
Don't worry. This being Slashdot, you'll probably get another story exactly like this in a day or two.
And where does your inherent right to copy my creative works come from? These kinds of questions are very interesting to me; I've also thought about it in relation to other "inherent" rights. I think that same question can lead to some interesting lines of thought about other rights we generally feel are inherent: life, liberty, property, etc. I believe in God, so I think these fundamental rights come from above ("endowed by their creator. . ."). If you remove all laws and customs, though, I really don't know the answer to which rights are inherent and independent of anything else. I think that life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness should be inherent rights, but I think that we accept them as inherent as a consequence of the society in which we live (based on Judeo-Christian morals here in the US, like it or lump it).
Another poster pointed out to me that, indeed, nobody has the right to compensation for their creative work. However, I maintain that creative types (including scientists, programers, etc.) have the right to seek compensation for their work. Copyright was established to encourage content creators to publish their works (copyright 101), because without the possibility of compensation, most content creators would keep their work secret or pursue other careers that are of little benefit to our cultural heritage.
Seeking compensation for your work is (or should be) a fundamental right because without this, people will not work. This holds true for trench diggers as well as creative types. One of the purposes of government is to protect the right to seek (not necessarily to obtain) compensation for whatever work you choose to pursue. I disagree with a lot of the finer points of Ayn Rand's writings, but she was on to something with her thoughts on human motivation: i.e., people do what they do because they receive compensation for their work (with money, pride, warm fuzzies, whatever).
I hope I haven't muddled things too badly.
You have a good point here. what you're implying is that we have laws now that are economically ridiculous. You're right. Copyright for the life of author + 70 years is way too long.
There is no emoticon for how stupid I feel.
(Apologies to Comic Book Guy)
You've got my vote, as long as you also advocate long prison terms for misuse of apostraphes.
So I know when I get to the polls, are you associated with the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Grammarpartei?
I disagree. I believe everybody has a right to seek profit for their work. Whether that involves making stuff up or putting stuff together, you have a right to recieve compensation for work that has value to others. If you write a song that millions of people download, it has some value to somebody, and those people who value your work should provide compensation to you for it.
And using your example of the water company, they do have a right to seek compensation for providing the infrastructure and delivering the water that people need. Their right to seek compensation for providing services that people value does exist apriori of legislation. If you dig your own well with your own two hands, your right to compensation still holds, apart from legislation. You get to not die of thirst.
True, but this is hardly a justification for breaking the law. Copyright doesn't indefinitely eliminate your right to distribute others' works as you see fit. Granted, the way it stands now, copyrights are valid for far, far too long, but copyrights do eventually expire
I call BS. Copyrights do NOT exist to enhance public domain; they exist for the same reason the (now broken) patent system was created: to give inventors/"content" producers a time to profit before their work passes into the public domain. Sure, in a way copyright enhances public domain by encouraging artists, etc. to publish (and try to profit from) their work, but it exists to benefit the artists. (and their great-great-great grandkids, the way things stand now)
Good point. I didn't quite think that sentence through.
You're right that nobody has the right to revenue, but I will maintain that artists do have a right to try to collect revenue for their work. My point was that consumers don't have the right to distribute copyrighted works as they see fit; that is the right of whoever makes the "content" (or whoever holds the copyright).
Your comments make me think of what the future holds for artists. I think you're definitely right in stating that the number of artists that can be supported will fall. Touring/live performances will have to be the big money maker for most artists if the industry is forced to come to terms with virtually free reproduction of their goods. And there are not too many artists with enough talent (musical or performing) to sell enough tickets to turn a consistent profit.
As has been pointed out here on /. before, this model has worked for a number of groups in the past; the Grateful Dead and Phish are probably the best known examples. If you go to etree you can see that a number of bands are giving away their music, often as high-quality soundboard recordings. And they're still out there making music and money.
One key ingredient the profitibility of most of these bands is the same thing that is making open source software successful: community. Many of the fans that attend concerts and trade recordings also buy practically anything the band puts out. Many of them are willing to pay for official releases of concerts they already have to support the band.
The communities around these bands/artists are not usually large enough to drive albums to multi-platinum status, but they are loyal. That's probably more than can be said about people who buy the latest flavor-of-the-month studio album.
It appears I'm missing a key part of the point you're trying to make with this and other posts, or maybe I don't understand the intricacies of the DMCA.
From what I understand, the DMCA isn't disrupting the rights of people to invent new and innovative ways to distribute their work. If you want to produce a new media with a new compression scheme, or for a new sort of player that feeds music directly into your brain, great. But I don't see how it's anybody's right to "interact with protected media". I'm not even sure what that means; are you talking about DJs sampling parts of existing recordings, etc.? If so, you have a point. If you're talking about new CDs not working on old CD players, that is a moot point. Manufacturers aren't under any obligation to ensure 100% backwards compatibility. It would be nice, but they don't have to if they don't want to. To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) old media works on new players, so my right to play music I have already paid for is not being infringed. If I just have to have the latest DRMed Britney Spears CD, then I guess I'd better pay $100 for a new CD player or go to iTMS.
It doesn't matter whether I think anybody's official license is too restrictive. As long as the license is legally sound, I'm bound by the restrictions found in the license. I don't have a right to engineer technology with the express intent to bypass other technologies that try to enforce that license. I'll agree with you, though, that any license that deprives me of fair use of the product I have purchased should be illegal; it's a shame elected officials aren't seeing this.
Good land! Do you actually believe what you just wrote? I agree that the tactics used by certain organizations *cough-RIAA-cough* to discourage piracy are heavy-handed and innefective, but this doesn't give anybody the "right" to pirate media.
You state:
presumabely talking about the RIAA, etc. Wheras it may be true that these people don't have a right to revenue, somebody does. This group of people are called artists. They make music, movies, etc. I'll admit that it is debatable whether much of what is rolled out should be called "art". Nevertheless, "artists" make this stuff. And, as the original post pointed out, they should be free to decide how to distribute their art, whether or not it provides them with the highest financial return.
The people at Apple might disagree with you (here).