And, I suppose if we want to talk to the craft, we're kind of screwed because they have to be pointing the antenna toward us, and thus will continue to slow throughout the remainder of the mission.
Whether you get chicken pox from another person or shot, it's still the same virus. Except the vaccine virus is already dead, so it's harmless. I don't know why you would be opposed to doing it.
BTW thanks for the reminder. I need to get my adult vaccinations. (It's been 20 years since last time.)
Good luck with that - from the people I know who have/have not contracted shingles, it seems to have zero correlation to vaccination (some get it a number of years after vax, some get it soon after vax, some never get it - recent vax or not).
Sadly, I doubt anybody has been funded to produce an unbiased study of shingles and vaccination, at least not real one (with N>100).
I have been successfully avoiding Java for over a decade. It had "trap" written all over it from day one, especially when they were talking about building special-purpose silicon for "fast Java processing", any day now.
I write software. Over the last 20 years, people have paid more than a million dollars for me to write software for them. If you could legally come along and copy my work verbatim, and sell it in the open marketplace in direct competition with my employers the day after they launch their product, they wouldn't have paid for me to produce the software in the first place. I am not unique.
Yes, without copyright, no one would ever pay anyone to write software for them.
Where do you think your employers got the money to pay you? Customers who wanted software, that's where.
Umm... no. Mostly my paychecks are derived from money given by investors, trying to make more money on future sales of the yet to be developed product that they believe people will want to buy in the future. Sometimes they are right, sometimes not.
I did work for a company once where my paycheck came from sale of product instead of speculative investment, it was the most boring damn place ever. My title was Principal R&D Engineer, but my primary job function was to do nothing because the current product made boatloads of money and the investors saw _anything_ new as risk to their cash cow - ergo: R&D stood for Risk and Devaluation in their minds, gotta have it to look like a growing company, but, hey, word to staff, don't make any progress on any research or development project, if you want to keep your job.
Jobs' Apple doesn't make products that people ask for, they speculate what the market will want and put it out there... seems to work pretty well for them.
It sounds good, abolish patent copyright. China has effectively been trying this model for 20+ years. Quality suffers. Innovation suffers more. Sure, you get some good stuff cheaper than "the old way," but it tends to be a degenerate system where your engineers just have to be good enough to make a copy, not really good enough to make something new or better.
I'm all for returning copyright (and patent) to reasonable terms, if you can't make money on it within 20 years, don't bother with the monopoly rights because they won't help you.
I write software. Over the last 20 years, people have paid more than a million dollars for me to write software for them. If you could legally come along and copy my work verbatim, and sell it in the open marketplace in direct competition with my employers the day after they launch their product, they wouldn't have paid for me to produce the software in the first place. I am not unique.
The field I work in deals in $5K widgets. You pay $5K for a widget that contains $250 worth of hardware, plus software that cost millions to develop. If we could, we'd just copy the hardware design, burn in the original software and sell the widget for $500 - actually, if that were legal, someone would do it for us and likely sell it for $255. But, that's a degenerate case, the system doesn't improve. Instead, we're spending millions to develop our own widget with our own software - our widget is different, better for us, and we'll be able to sell it for $5K/copy, netting the $4750 per system back and eventually paying off the software investment. That's innovation and improvement instead of degenerate cost savings, it's what is supposed to happen with IP protection.
Abolisment of IP would require a return to the patronage model. Wherein the wealthy pay artists to make whatever they want, and everyone else just makes do with that same content. I'm not convinced that's actually a better system than what we have now.
Anyone still reading this thread please mod parent up... for examples of society where the wealthy dictate basically everything, look at modern day Panama, Columbia, hell most of central and south America. It's better for some, much worse for most, and even the wealthy in Columbia still flee to avoid problems like kidnapping of their children for ransom (yes, recently... a large number of them have moved to Key Biscayne in Miami, paradise they call it because their children can play in the street without fear of being kidnapped - they pay upwards of $5M for a home... not something that every Columbian can do.)
Not being part of the 1%, I'd rather direct society toward benefiting the majority - it's really better for everyone in the end.
So not only do you want total freedom for your music to be able play it on any device, you want every vendor to hand-hold you through the procedure of moving it from one device to another?
The fact that the procedure requires hand-holding at all is ridiculous. It's a fucking digital file. It should be as simple a matter as cut and paste, but God Forbid someone do that, a rights holder's head would probably explode somewhere...
Thanks, I didn't want to feed the Troll directly, but you made exactly the point I wanted to.
I don't play a lot of games anymore, but gog.com publishes what I would call decent, entertaining games DRM free - they are legit, aren't they? I wouldn't call the gog games "cutting edge," but I also wouldn't call them insignificant.
Copyright could be rewritten so that it doesn't limit the flow of information (creators can be paid from taxes, the money distribution would be problematic but the problems would be far lesser then the problems of current copyright).
While I like your utopian vision, I don't think I want to live in the transition period where the kind of kinks you're proposing get worked out...
And there is your problem: It is not "your" book. It is a book you created, but you have zero natural rights to it.
If you want to live in that primeval forest, I'd like to let you do that, follow the link in my sig. I'd rather spend most of my time living in post-Amish civilization. Having said that, there's also the hyper-lawyered, mega-corp extreme we're heading toward that I hope backs down a little in your direction before it implodes.
People installing cameras in their houses (or being forced to) has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. And you implied that it does.
If you don't have a camera in every living room, how can you be sure that people aren't giving private, unlicensed performances of copyrighted works? Sounds absurd, but just because today's movies are mostly licensed for unlimited private performance does not mean that single viewing licenses are not possible or practicable within the law. First we can start with a DRM scheme that "doesn't invade privacy"/sarcasm, while "protecting the rights" of the content creators to only show a movie once for $15.99. When pirates get around the DRM using the 8Kx4K video cameras embedded in their cell phones to make an analog copy of the movie and re-displaying it, obviously the studios will have a reason to tap into the ubiquitous video camera fabric that's built into every new home and monitored by the police "for your safety." It sounds absurd, but the studios are already creeping toward the realm of wiretapping to make sure you're not streaming content through your internet connection.
Obviously, I hope, I don't think we should ever go there, but it is one possible future.
Even though the reasons for their existence are different, the concepts are not completely independent - for a different aspect of closely related issues, see:
I'd prefer a more direct example, as I don't agree with censorship or surveillance. But really, you can be against intellectual property in the traditional sense and for privacy. It's completely possible.
I agree that it is possible to feel the emotions "against IP" and "for privacy", but in real-life implementation, the two will rub against each other. Violations of privacy are, in a sense, a violation of IP. The act of taking images of you in the shower is a violation of your privacy, the act of publishing those images on the internet is moving toward the IP realm.
but I think DRM/IP will continue to be valuable to society
When has it been valuable? The DRM part, I mean.
MacroVision (ok, ARM in this case) effectively boosted the income of the video tape rental business, while simultaneously having a minor negative impact on the quality of the delivered product. Even though it is broken, CSS on DVDs does slow down many people from copying and keeps them as RedBox customers instead of trading hard drives full of bootlegs with their friends. I posted above about my experience with "non-DRM iTunes," in my case I revolted and went back to.mp3s due to the "cost of learning" how to access my files, but I'm sure a lot of Apple customers just click "buy now" a second time and pay the credit card bill without looking when it comes, paying for the convenience rather than figure out how to copy/organize the files they already own. In the iTunes case, the right to copy is there, but the iTunes software presents a "cost of learning how to access your rights" that is a weaker, but still profit increasing in many cases, form of DRM.
Similarly for video games - though DRM in video games has often been intrusive enough to "jump the shark" into making piracy more attractive and widely practiced, sometimes to the detriment of the game publishers. Pre-effective DRM video games (think: 8 bit computer era) had a horrible time turning profit for anything with significant production value, WoW has very effective DRM and seems to be quite valuable to its owners.
Where's the value to society? When a studio spends $100M making a movie, that's $100M worth of jobs created. Sure, indie film producers can also make movies for a tiny fraction of the cost, but they also produce a tiny fraction of the employment and spin-off industries. There are thousands of computer programmers employed in the CGI business... I'm not saying that indies are all crap bec
As long as there exists a concept of privacy, that in itself is a form of intellectual property.
No, it's not. The concepts and reasons for its existence are completely different. You can have privacy and not have intellectual property, and vice versa. You've set up a false dilemma here.
Even though the reasons for their existence are different, the concepts are not completely independent - for a different aspect of closely related issues, see:
The world may change to one in which non-DRMed/IP work is more valuable to society as a whole, and the author, than DRMed/IP work, but I think DRM/IP will continue to be valuable to society as a whole for some time in many areas, including arts and entertainment.
Thanks for the tip, in my particular situation, my MacBook has gone faulty, iTunes on my PC sucks, and I have been using the iPad mostly un-tethered for some time now. Trying your instructions now... I do have to point out that there is a many pages long "Terms and Conditions" that I have to click through - another cost of doing business that seems ridiculous to me (not unique to Apple, I know)... O.K. so, now the tracks are downloaded into iTunes on the PC, and I can see the.mp4/.aac files in Windows explorer... part of why I never bothered to jump through these hoops was that I hated the ultra-compressed production style of the album, but it also strikes me as a grudging kind of DRM release rather than a helpful: oh, you paid for these songs, here you go, please enjoy them on all your devices approach.
TL;DR Make it convenient, DRM free, and reasonably priced and 95%-99% of the potential market will pay for it. The ~1% who are committed to piracy will copy it no matter what you do.
In the U.S., we keep more than ~1% locked up, or under close supervision of the court.
You have no reasonable expectation that I would have paid for your book if I couldn't copy it. If I couldn't I wouldn't have it. So you lost nothing.
That is indeed an argument, not a very good one I think, but you have made your point.
If I, as an author or artist, wanted you to have my book for free, I would have published it for free - see Cory Doctorow for extensive ramblings on the subject of getting paid for free work.
Back when, Bruce Springsteen had some vault copies of unreleased tracks released by pirates, he, too has been damaged by that, even though he was not seeking to make money from the unreleased tracks, his control of his public image was improperly taken away from him by people publishing works of his that they had no right to.
When the day comes that every room of every building has hundreds of cameras and microphones that record everything that goes on 24/7 in 3D high resolution / high fidelity and the content is all indexed, searchable and accessible to everyone, then, yes, I concede your point. As long as there exists a concept of privacy, that in itself is a form of intellectual property.
We currently watch a couple of TV series on hulu-free, and in the U.S. they make us wait 8 days to get the new shows - it's a game, so, we can't hob-nob with friends who a) pay for hulu, b) bittorrent the shows, or c) put a ridiculous kink in their life to watch the broadcast, about the new shows when they first come out... oh well, doesn't really upset us, or most of our friends, enough to take up any of the other 3 options.
The thing that really gets me is the ever-present advertising, regardless of medium. Hulu-free was reasonable for awhile, but I'm not sure if hulu-paid is even 100% ad-free, and I'd rather not get hooked into it being ad-free and then have them start slipping them in little by little the way premium cable tv has.
Slashdot Mirror
and acts as a solar sail...
Apparently not as effective a propulsion source as the isotropic heat radiation.
And, I suppose if we want to talk to the craft, we're kind of screwed because they have to be pointing the antenna toward us, and thus will continue to slow throughout the remainder of the mission.
HepA is "required" in Texas - gave our 2.5yr old a 108 fever and a trip to the ER for an ice bath.
Whether you get chicken pox from another person or shot, it's still the same virus. Except the vaccine virus is already dead, so it's harmless. I don't know why you would be opposed to doing it.
BTW thanks for the reminder. I need to get my adult vaccinations. (It's been 20 years since last time.)
Good luck with that - from the people I know who have/have not contracted shingles, it seems to have zero correlation to vaccination (some get it a number of years after vax, some get it soon after vax, some never get it - recent vax or not).
Sadly, I doubt anybody has been funded to produce an unbiased study of shingles and vaccination, at least not real one (with N>100).
I want to hear the followup: is any portion of the default judgement ever collected, or does the judgement just amount to a Cease and Desist?
In my case, the GPU wasn't at fault, it was Apple's faulty application of heat sink compound that caused the chip to fail.
I have been successfully avoiding Java for over a decade. It had "trap" written all over it from day one, especially when they were talking about building special-purpose silicon for "fast Java processing", any day now.
I write software. Over the last 20 years, people have paid more than a million dollars for me to write software for them. If you could legally come along and copy my work verbatim, and sell it in the open marketplace in direct competition with my employers the day after they launch their product, they wouldn't have paid for me to produce the software in the first place. I am not unique.
Yes, without copyright, no one would ever pay anyone to write software for them.
Where do you think your employers got the money to pay you? Customers who wanted software, that's where.
Umm... no. Mostly my paychecks are derived from money given by investors, trying to make more money on future sales of the yet to be developed product that they believe people will want to buy in the future. Sometimes they are right, sometimes not.
I did work for a company once where my paycheck came from sale of product instead of speculative investment, it was the most boring damn place ever. My title was Principal R&D Engineer, but my primary job function was to do nothing because the current product made boatloads of money and the investors saw _anything_ new as risk to their cash cow - ergo: R&D stood for Risk and Devaluation in their minds, gotta have it to look like a growing company, but, hey, word to staff, don't make any progress on any research or development project, if you want to keep your job.
Jobs' Apple doesn't make products that people ask for, they speculate what the market will want and put it out there... seems to work pretty well for them.
Agreed. If you are selling me a twenty-year light bulb, then you can give me an 18-year warranty on that.
Good luck collecting anything after year 5....
It sounds good, abolish patent copyright. China has effectively been trying this model for 20+ years. Quality suffers. Innovation suffers more. Sure, you get some good stuff cheaper than "the old way," but it tends to be a degenerate system where your engineers just have to be good enough to make a copy, not really good enough to make something new or better.
I'm all for returning copyright (and patent) to reasonable terms, if you can't make money on it within 20 years, don't bother with the monopoly rights because they won't help you.
I write software. Over the last 20 years, people have paid more than a million dollars for me to write software for them. If you could legally come along and copy my work verbatim, and sell it in the open marketplace in direct competition with my employers the day after they launch their product, they wouldn't have paid for me to produce the software in the first place. I am not unique.
The field I work in deals in $5K widgets. You pay $5K for a widget that contains $250 worth of hardware, plus software that cost millions to develop. If we could, we'd just copy the hardware design, burn in the original software and sell the widget for $500 - actually, if that were legal, someone would do it for us and likely sell it for $255. But, that's a degenerate case, the system doesn't improve. Instead, we're spending millions to develop our own widget with our own software - our widget is different, better for us, and we'll be able to sell it for $5K/copy, netting the $4750 per system back and eventually paying off the software investment. That's innovation and improvement instead of degenerate cost savings, it's what is supposed to happen with IP protection.
Abolisment of IP would require a return to the patronage model. Wherein the wealthy pay artists to make whatever they want, and everyone else just makes do with that same content. I'm not convinced that's actually a better system than what we have now.
Anyone still reading this thread please mod parent up... for examples of society where the wealthy dictate basically everything, look at modern day Panama, Columbia, hell most of central and south America. It's better for some, much worse for most, and even the wealthy in Columbia still flee to avoid problems like kidnapping of their children for ransom (yes, recently... a large number of them have moved to Key Biscayne in Miami, paradise they call it because their children can play in the street without fear of being kidnapped - they pay upwards of $5M for a home... not something that every Columbian can do.)
Not being part of the 1%, I'd rather direct society toward benefiting the majority - it's really better for everyone in the end.
So not only do you want total freedom for your music to be able play it on any device, you want every vendor to hand-hold you through the procedure of moving it from one device to another?
The fact that the procedure requires hand-holding at all is ridiculous. It's a fucking digital file. It should be as simple a matter as cut and paste, but God Forbid someone do that, a rights holder's head would probably explode somewhere...
Thanks, I didn't want to feed the Troll directly, but you made exactly the point I wanted to.
I don't play a lot of games anymore, but gog.com publishes what I would call decent, entertaining games DRM free - they are legit, aren't they? I wouldn't call the gog games "cutting edge," but I also wouldn't call them insignificant.
Copyright could be rewritten so that it doesn't limit the flow of information (creators can be paid from taxes, the money distribution would be problematic but the problems would be far lesser then the problems of current copyright).
While I like your utopian vision, I don't think I want to live in the transition period where the kind of kinks you're proposing get worked out...
To complete the pedantic circle, I was responding to the implications of "is" in your "is/was."
I think we actually understand each other, even though we do not agree.
And there is your problem: It is not "your" book. It is a book you created, but you have zero natural rights to it.
If you want to live in that primeval forest, I'd like to let you do that, follow the link in my sig. I'd rather spend most of my time living in post-Amish civilization. Having said that, there's also the hyper-lawyered, mega-corp extreme we're heading toward that I hope backs down a little in your direction before it implodes.
People installing cameras in their houses (or being forced to) has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. And you implied that it does.
If you don't have a camera in every living room, how can you be sure that people aren't giving private, unlicensed performances of copyrighted works? Sounds absurd, but just because today's movies are mostly licensed for unlimited private performance does not mean that single viewing licenses are not possible or practicable within the law. First we can start with a DRM scheme that "doesn't invade privacy" /sarcasm, while "protecting the rights" of the content creators to only show a movie once for $15.99. When pirates get around the DRM using the 8Kx4K video cameras embedded in their cell phones to make an analog copy of the movie and re-displaying it, obviously the studios will have a reason to tap into the ubiquitous video camera fabric that's built into every new home and monitored by the police "for your safety." It sounds absurd, but the studios are already creeping toward the realm of wiretapping to make sure you're not streaming content through your internet connection.
Obviously, I hope, I don't think we should ever go there, but it is one possible future.
Even though the reasons for their existence are different, the concepts are not completely independent - for a different aspect of closely related issues, see:
I'd prefer a more direct example, as I don't agree with censorship or surveillance. But really, you can be against intellectual property in the traditional sense and for privacy. It's completely possible.
I agree that it is possible to feel the emotions "against IP" and "for privacy", but in real-life implementation, the two will rub against each other. Violations of privacy are, in a sense, a violation of IP. The act of taking images of you in the shower is a violation of your privacy, the act of publishing those images on the internet is moving toward the IP realm.
but I think DRM/IP will continue to be valuable to society
When has it been valuable? The DRM part, I mean.
MacroVision (ok, ARM in this case) effectively boosted the income of the video tape rental business, while simultaneously having a minor negative impact on the quality of the delivered product. Even though it is broken, CSS on DVDs does slow down many people from copying and keeps them as RedBox customers instead of trading hard drives full of bootlegs with their friends. I posted above about my experience with "non-DRM iTunes," in my case I revolted and went back to .mp3s due to the "cost of learning" how to access my files, but I'm sure a lot of Apple customers just click "buy now" a second time and pay the credit card bill without looking when it comes, paying for the convenience rather than figure out how to copy/organize the files they already own. In the iTunes case, the right to copy is there, but the iTunes software presents a "cost of learning how to access your rights" that is a weaker, but still profit increasing in many cases, form of DRM.
Similarly for video games - though DRM in video games has often been intrusive enough to "jump the shark" into making piracy more attractive and widely practiced, sometimes to the detriment of the game publishers. Pre-effective DRM video games (think: 8 bit computer era) had a horrible time turning profit for anything with significant production value, WoW has very effective DRM and seems to be quite valuable to its owners.
Where's the value to society? When a studio spends $100M making a movie, that's $100M worth of jobs created. Sure, indie film producers can also make movies for a tiny fraction of the cost, but they also produce a tiny fraction of the employment and spin-off industries. There are thousands of computer programmers employed in the CGI business... I'm not saying that indies are all crap bec
See what you get for using apple.
Hey, I didn't buy any of these Apple products - they're o.k. for free, but I certainly don't see why people pay a premium for them.
You are wrong. Selling a copy of a work is/was a crime. At that time, publishing was always tied to selling. It is not anymore.
And many recent court decisions say that you are wrong, you do not have to sell a copy of a work to commit copyright infringement.
The lines need to be examined and redrawn, not erased entirely.
As long as there exists a concept of privacy, that in itself is a form of intellectual property.
No, it's not. The concepts and reasons for its existence are completely different. You can have privacy and not have intellectual property, and vice versa. You've set up a false dilemma here.
Even though the reasons for their existence are different, the concepts are not completely independent - for a different aspect of closely related issues, see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/02/censorship-inseperable-from-surveillance
The world may change to one in which non-DRMed/IP work is more valuable to society as a whole, and the author, than DRMed/IP work, but I think DRM/IP will continue to be valuable to society as a whole for some time in many areas, including arts and entertainment.
Thanks for the tip, in my particular situation, my MacBook has gone faulty, iTunes on my PC sucks, and I have been using the iPad mostly un-tethered for some time now. Trying your instructions now... I do have to point out that there is a many pages long "Terms and Conditions" that I have to click through - another cost of doing business that seems ridiculous to me (not unique to Apple, I know)... O.K. so, now the tracks are downloaded into iTunes on the PC, and I can see the .mp4/.aac files in Windows explorer... part of why I never bothered to jump through these hoops was that I hated the ultra-compressed production style of the album, but it also strikes me as a grudging kind of DRM release rather than a helpful: oh, you paid for these songs, here you go, please enjoy them on all your devices approach.
TL;DR
Make it convenient, DRM free, and reasonably priced and 95%-99% of the potential market will pay for it. The ~1% who are committed to piracy will copy it no matter what you do.
In the U.S., we keep more than ~1% locked up, or under close supervision of the court.
You have no reasonable expectation that I would have paid for your book if I couldn't copy it. If I couldn't I wouldn't have it. So you lost nothing.
That is indeed an argument, not a very good one I think, but you have made your point.
If I, as an author or artist, wanted you to have my book for free, I would have published it for free - see Cory Doctorow for extensive ramblings on the subject of getting paid for free work.
Back when, Bruce Springsteen had some vault copies of unreleased tracks released by pirates, he, too has been damaged by that, even though he was not seeking to make money from the unreleased tracks, his control of his public image was improperly taken away from him by people publishing works of his that they had no right to.
When the day comes that every room of every building has hundreds of cameras and microphones that record everything that goes on 24/7 in 3D high resolution / high fidelity and the content is all indexed, searchable and accessible to everyone, then, yes, I concede your point. As long as there exists a concept of privacy, that in itself is a form of intellectual property.
I'm sure there are more than 100,000 lawyers.
As the joke goes, it would be a good start.
We currently watch a couple of TV series on hulu-free, and in the U.S. they make us wait 8 days to get the new shows - it's a game, so, we can't hob-nob with friends who a) pay for hulu, b) bittorrent the shows, or c) put a ridiculous kink in their life to watch the broadcast, about the new shows when they first come out... oh well, doesn't really upset us, or most of our friends, enough to take up any of the other 3 options.
The thing that really gets me is the ever-present advertising, regardless of medium. Hulu-free was reasonable for awhile, but I'm not sure if hulu-paid is even 100% ad-free, and I'd rather not get hooked into it being ad-free and then have them start slipping them in little by little the way premium cable tv has.