Is there anybody who answered the Microsoft Hotmail e-mail to be legitimate?
I actually suspected, that such a spam could in fact come from Microsoft, but checked the Fraud box nevertheless. It simply has all the hallmarks of a spam. After all, does the real Microsoft origin of that e-mail mean it is legitimate?
I'm affraid that the whole idea of the copyright was allways meant to serve the publishers, not the authors.
There will allways be people creating all kinds of art just for fun, to give or tell something to the others or out of other reasons not related to money at all. Some of them actually may be even willing to pay for publishing of their art. The job of paying good artists for the benefit of the society, for them not to starve to death and not to have waste their time by making their living by things unrelated to their art, had been for hundreds of years succesfully done by rich benefactors, who themselves did that not just out of their filantropy, but also to amuse themselves or to add to their image. Although the artists may---to some extent, untill it gets out of bounds---benefit of the copyright, they did not demanded such a concept, they did not invented it, and they never have any power to bring it into existence.
The publishers, on the other hand, can not rely on the authors creating their art for the art, they have to pay them first to have enough of their art to publish, and second to encourage their best artists to create for them, and not for the competing publishers. And this is the point, where the idea of copyright takes its part, as soon as the technology allows cheap copying of the art. Since if one publisher pays the artist, and all the others may then simply and cheaply copy the published art, what preventss the competitors from offering much lower prize? Or even worst---what prevents the consumers from just copying and sharing the art, not feeding the publishers? Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce The Copyright!
Justified by the artists' right to get their reward for their art, the copyright ensures the business of the publishers. And well, untill it gets out of bounds, it may do quite a good work, truely providing the artists reasonable income, helping them create more art, and helping the consumers to get the art from the publishers. Unfortunately these days the copyright concept backfires allready, the validity of the copyright being constantly prolonged ad absurdum, the publishers taking the rights away from the artists and denying public access to their art against their will, and various law enforcers making their living of sheer parasiting on the system, taking all rights away not only from the authors but of their publishers too, spreading their own power all over this world, commanding people, spying on people, and collecting royalties just for everything, no matter who created it and wheather the name of the author is known at all, to their own pockets.
All the concepts of so called intellectual property seam to be backfiring these days, serving rather some might-loving rulers to call the intellect of the others their own property, than to the intelligent people to gain some property through their intellect or to the society to develop proper intellect.
Woody Guthrie's spirit may sing in the wind (until RIAA gets power to shut down the wind and to get spirits under custody) something like:
The song was my song, I made it your song,
to sing it freely, if it is handsome,
but lawyers came out, demanding ransom,
my song no longer belongs to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually suspected, that such a spam could in fact come from Microsoft, but checked the Fraud box nevertheless. It simply has all the hallmarks of a spam. After all, does the real Microsoft origin of that e-mail mean it is legitimate?
There will allways be people creating all kinds of art just for fun, to give or tell something to the others or out of other reasons not related to money at all. Some of them actually may be even willing to pay for publishing of their art. The job of paying good artists for the benefit of the society, for them not to starve to death and not to have waste their time by making their living by things unrelated to their art, had been for hundreds of years succesfully done by rich benefactors, who themselves did that not just out of their filantropy, but also to amuse themselves or to add to their image. Although the artists may---to some extent, untill it gets out of bounds---benefit of the copyright, they did not demanded such a concept, they did not invented it, and they never have any power to bring it into existence.
The publishers, on the other hand, can not rely on the authors creating their art for the art, they have to pay them first to have enough of their art to publish, and second to encourage their best artists to create for them, and not for the competing publishers. And this is the point, where the idea of copyright takes its part, as soon as the technology allows cheap copying of the art. Since if one publisher pays the artist, and all the others may then simply and cheaply copy the published art, what preventss the competitors from offering much lower prize? Or even worst---what prevents the consumers from just copying and sharing the art, not feeding the publishers? Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce The Copyright!
Justified by the artists' right to get their reward for their art, the copyright ensures the business of the publishers. And well, untill it gets out of bounds, it may do quite a good work, truely providing the artists reasonable income, helping them create more art, and helping the consumers to get the art from the publishers. Unfortunately these days the copyright concept backfires allready, the validity of the copyright being constantly prolonged ad absurdum, the publishers taking the rights away from the artists and denying public access to their art against their will, and various law enforcers making their living of sheer parasiting on the system, taking all rights away not only from the authors but of their publishers too, spreading their own power all over this world, commanding people, spying on people, and collecting royalties just for everything, no matter who created it and wheather the name of the author is known at all, to their own pockets.
All the concepts of so called intellectual property seam to be backfiring these days, serving rather some might-loving rulers to call the intellect of the others their own property, than to the intelligent people to gain some property through their intellect or to the society to develop proper intellect.
Woody Guthrie's spirit may sing in the wind (until RIAA gets power to shut down the wind and to get spirits under custody) something like:
The song was my song, I made it your song,
to sing it freely, if it is handsome,
but lawyers came out, demanding ransom,
my song no longer belongs to me.
Well, does democratic mean the same as Democratic?