Seriously, the LAST thing needed is another "somethingorother czar" to supposedly solve problems. What powers will this czar have, other than being the President's lobbyist to Congress to push their own agenda?
The position was created by congress in an attempt to institutionalize the MAFIAA's lobbying to the DoJ, congress and the president. Placing Lessig in the post would be about as much of a reversal of the intended purpose of the position as would be possible it would Lessig as Copyright Czar would be like the GPL is to copyright law - an almost perfect hack to use its own strengths against it.
5'10" - she got them to improve her career -- she's a professional model, mostly commercial print and video (Mercedes, HP, Abercrombie & Fitch, etc) a handful of music videos and lead in one incredibly dull horror movie.
Breasts, I mean. This is going to be heavily used to close incisions of breast augmentation surgery. We shall lose a weapon in our arsenal of 'true-fake' wars.
It's already been lost. I know someone personally who has a boob job, she got them inserted through her navel. And it didn't cost all that much more than the kind where they slice the boob instead. Its probably only good for 10 years though and she will have to get cut on the boob in order to have them removed/replaced.
1) Think it would be cool to have a walking robot 2) Put together a few electric motors and some gears 3) Paint your walking robot according to your preference 4) Enjoy...
You left out the step where he burns down the house and gets his surprisingly attractive (relatively so) wife super-pissed at him.
it's more effective than it is ill-used or applied, as you suggest.
Forgot to comment on this point. That's not the way the law is supposed to work. If simply being net more effective than abusive were the only criteria for the legitimacy of a law, then we would have things like mandatory contraband searches on every street corner, warrantless wiretaps would not be controversial nor would warrantless home searches and every piece of mail would be automatically opened, scanned and recorded by the police before delivery. After all, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.
granny came in here: "but then turned into a free-for-all where grandmothers etc"...since i believe the initial statement to be hype. turning your hype into a worst case scenario would call for grannies demise.
Why are you deliberately replacing the text where I wrote exactly what happened to a grandmother - LOST HER HOUSE - with an ellipses?
Where the hell have you been during the whole Net Neutrality debate? This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality, which is about keeping your ISP from charging the websites you visit, when both you and said websites have already paid for service.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but caps are the back-door around network neutrality. You are capped for all of the internet, except the handful of 'partner' websites which don't count against your cap. We aren't there yet, but it is the next logical step. The ISP won't charge youtube anything for its customer's to download content - they will just threaten to cut them off until the next cycle starts which will cause the users to "self-censor" the places they go on the net. It's totally the users' decision, don't you see?
I think it's pretty obvious that the law hasn't quite caught up with the societal changes caused by the Internet. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the laws that sound like they should apply can't be made to apply.
I don't think it even sounds like it should apply. This conviction is equivalent to saying that if you sign up for one of those grocery-store "discount cards" using a fake name and address, then you would go to jail. After all, you violated their terms of service by lying on the application and used that violation to obtain discounts that you had no right to which is fraud.
Even with the DA's hand-waving about using false information in violation of a TOS is not a crime as long as there is no criminal intent, the above scenario would be enough to qualify.
So I don't think this ruling comes anywhere near sounding like it should apply either.
that's an extreme to believe, even if the grandmother died...gotta link to show this similarity?
(a) How did you get that the grandmother died out of what I wrote? (b) Are you unaware of just how much civil forfeiture has been abused in the war on some drugs?
If so, read this from oregon where civil forfeiture laws were somewhat reeled in by ballot. All the other states, and federal, remain just as bad.
It's similar to marijuana tax stamp laws currently enacted in a multitude of states.
No, it is similar to civil-forfeiture laws that were used to punish people they couldn't otherwise convict but then turned into a free-for-all where grandmothers lost their houses because a grand-kid stayed with them and smoke a couple of joints while he was there.
A portable AIDS is almost irrelevant in a bar setting -- a person would be foolish to have unprotected sex with a stranger anyway, AIDS being only one possible issue.
The choice is not between unprotected sex and protected sex, it is between protected sex and abstinence.
So, in summary you don't give a damn about people who freely redistribute information regardless of the creator's desire.
I really don't care when copyrighted materials are distributed except for the case when they are distributed for profit.
So, as it turns out, you are the radical communist.
And yes, your participation in this thread has been 100% pointless. Why? Because you have been the only one talking about rights of attribution. Everyone else, including yourself at the start, have been talking about the economics of copyright. Droits d'auteur are almost completely irrelevant to the economics of copyright.
So, in summary you don't give a damn about people who freely redistribute information regardless of the creator's desire. Thus your ENTIRE participation in this thread was completely pointless. Thanks.
- au contrair, it is exactly because anything that can be digitized can be easily redistributed by the non-creator at no cost within hours if not minutes and seconds after release of the original, that copyright makes perfect sense as a law.
Explain. No really, I mean it. Explain how copyright "makes perfect sense" in the light of it now being effectively unenforceable.
This sort of really gets to me, it seems like people can't even do math any more. I have a neighbor who was convinced into buying solar panels because he wouldn't have to pay the utility company again. It turns out that not paying the utility company for electricity again is going to cost him roughly 30% more then if he paid them.
You assume that "not paying the utility company" has zero value to your neighbor. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe he gains personal gratification by being "off the grid" that more than makes up for the 30% premium. After all people buy expensive cars that get them where they are going just as well as a cheap car would - they do it because they get other less tangible benefits from their cars, benefits that they feel are worth paying a premium for. There are probably an infinite number of such examples, it is part of the reason we have markets with a variety of choices rather than single suppliers.
Certainly, but only insofar as a natural resource - such as oil, water or land is a government enforced monopoly.
Totally and unequivocally false.
Natural resources are both rivalrous and excludable. Information is not. Copyright is an attempt to artifically make information rivalrous and excludable. Any, and I mean, ANY comparison you try to make between real property and information is going to fail on the critical points because rivalousness and excludability are the defining characteristics of the debate.
There is no such "natural right of free expression".
Totally and unequivocally false.
In the natural state - with no intereference from anyone else like the government - people are free to express any idea. ANY IDEA. Be it original or not.
[custom recordings] If it was that large, it would be happening right now, all the time.
Do I need to say it again? You are on a roll. No way any major record label is going to permit custom recordings - they own the copyrights preventing the people with the actual creative talent from making use of it in new ways that satisfy new market opportunities.
[subscriptions] Didn't work for Stephen King. Didn't work for Radio Head. Doesn't work anywhere else either.
Here, you can have another -- Totally and unequivocally false.
Stephen King was an idiot, he (a) used the honor system, not subscriptions (b) required a 75% renumeration rate instead of a fixed price - with all of the libraries and used book sales he doesn't get 75% of all readers of paper books, he was a fool to expect to do better, at a higher price, for electronic downloads and (c) the story sucked - failure of people to pay for crap is no failure at all. It is the market at work without the government interfering.
Your system would ensure that only sure-fire movies ever got made, and that the escrow people would get rich off it.
Who are these "escrow people" you speak of? The escrow model is only slightly different from the subscription model - it just isn't regular like a subscription. Individuals who wish for a creative work to be created pay into the escrow fund until it reaches the creator's asking price, the creator then gets to work and releases to the public domain. If not enough people pay in, the creator either reduces the asking price or decides not to do the work and returns the money previously collected. Just like the subscription model and even most of the current copyright based model - the more well received a creator's previous work, the more money they can charge for their next work because popularity means more people willing to pay.
Say goodbye to anything which has a high cost to get going. Because your models have proven time and time again not to work.
Lol, you don't even understand the models enough to cite actual failures - you cite other models that succeeded - you don't have a damn clue what you are talking about.
no magazine publisher makes a profit on subscriptions
And HBO, Showtime and Rainbow Media all makes lots of profit on what are essentially subscriptions today.
Where nearly all artists never make a dime off their work. And you want to make it worse for them? Have you ever created anything of any kind of worth in your life? Have you ever even tried?
Quit it with the holier and thou bullshit. I walk the talk. For over a decade I've worked solely on contract. It is precisely because I make a very good living this way - I get paid for the work I do to produce creations that my clients want
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, the LAST thing needed is another "somethingorother czar" to supposedly solve problems. What powers will this czar have, other than being the President's lobbyist to Congress to push their own agenda?
The position was created by congress in an attempt to institutionalize the MAFIAA's lobbying to the DoJ, congress and the president. Placing Lessig in the post would be about as much of a reversal of the intended purpose of the position as would be possible it would Lessig as Copyright Czar would be like the GPL is to copyright law - an almost perfect hack to use its own strengths against it.
She must be very ... short.
5'10" - she got them to improve her career -- she's a professional model, mostly commercial print and video (Mercedes, HP, Abercrombie & Fitch, etc) a handful of music videos and lead in one incredibly dull horror movie.
Breasts, I mean. This is going to be heavily used to close incisions of breast augmentation surgery. We shall lose a weapon in our arsenal of 'true-fake' wars.
It's already been lost. I know someone personally who has a boob job, she got them inserted through her navel. And it didn't cost all that much more than the kind where they slice the boob instead. Its probably only good for 10 years though and she will have to get cut on the boob in order to have them removed/replaced.
No building a walking robot, the Wu's way :
1) Think it would be cool to have a walking robot 2) Put together a few electric motors and some gears 3) Paint your walking robot according to your preference 4) Enjoy ...
You left out the step where he burns down the house and gets his surprisingly attractive (relatively so) wife super-pissed at him.
it's more effective than it is ill-used or applied, as you suggest.
Forgot to comment on this point. That's not the way the law is supposed to work. If simply being net more effective than abusive were the only criteria for the legitimacy of a law, then we would have things like mandatory contraband searches on every street corner, warrantless wiretaps would not be controversial nor would warrantless home searches and every piece of mail would be automatically opened, scanned and recorded by the police before delivery. After all, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.
granny came in here: "but then turned into a free-for-all where grandmothers etc"...since i believe the initial statement to be hype. turning your hype into a worst case scenario would call for grannies demise.
Why are you deliberately replacing the text where I wrote exactly what happened to a grandmother - LOST HER HOUSE - with an ellipses?
Where the hell have you been during the whole Net Neutrality debate? This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality, which is about keeping your ISP from charging the websites you visit, when both you and said websites have already paid for service.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but caps are the back-door around network neutrality. You are capped for all of the internet, except the handful of 'partner' websites which don't count against your cap. We aren't there yet, but it is the next logical step. The ISP won't charge youtube anything for its customer's to download content - they will just threaten to cut them off until the next cycle starts which will cause the users to "self-censor" the places they go on the net. It's totally the users' decision, don't you see?
I think it's pretty obvious that the law hasn't quite caught up with the societal changes caused by the Internet. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the laws that sound like they should apply can't be made to apply.
I don't think it even sounds like it should apply. This conviction is equivalent to saying that if you sign up for one of those grocery-store "discount cards" using a fake name and address, then you would go to jail. After all, you violated their terms of service by lying on the application and used that violation to obtain discounts that you had no right to which is fraud.
Even with the DA's hand-waving about using false information in violation of a TOS is not a crime as long as there is no criminal intent, the above scenario would be enough to qualify.
So I don't think this ruling comes anywhere near sounding like it should apply either.
that's an extreme to believe, even if the grandmother died...gotta link to show this similarity?
(a) How did you get that the grandmother died out of what I wrote?
(b) Are you unaware of just how much civil forfeiture has been abused in the war on some drugs?
If so, read this from oregon where civil forfeiture laws were somewhat reeled in by ballot.
All the other states, and federal, remain just as bad.
http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/Forfeiture/BM3Favor.shtml
I agree with you for the most part. However, this case had A LOT OF EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE attached to it.
Kind of like the PATRIOT acts.
It's similar to marijuana tax stamp laws currently enacted in a multitude of states.
No, it is similar to civil-forfeiture laws that were used to punish people they couldn't otherwise convict but then turned into a free-for-all where grandmothers lost their houses because a grand-kid stayed with them and smoke a couple of joints while he was there.
A portable AIDS is almost irrelevant in a bar setting -- a person would be foolish to have unprotected sex with a stranger anyway, AIDS being only one possible issue.
The choice is not between unprotected sex and protected sex, it is between protected sex and abstinence.
making it illegal for people to use the results of that labor without the permission of the person who performed it.
Oh hey, kind of like the situation we have now.
Oh yeah? And how's that working out?
Screening tests for sensitive jobs (law enforcement, military, medicine, security...)
And BestBuy, Costco, McDonalds, Starbucks, Wal-mart, Blockbuster, Del Taco, Denny's, Maxim, OfficeMax, Petsmart, Sunglass Hut, Bed Bath and Beyond...
Yet that labor is required to created that structured data, which requires payment.
So, how do you propose to make sure, to GUARANTEE, that said labor is paid for?
So, as it turns out, you are the radical communist.
- interesting and pointless comment
No surprise there, since you are the one who said it.
I am talking about credit and redistribution for profit. I hope you can appreciate the difference between what I am saying and what you are hearing.
Good for you, keep on repeating just how irrelevant your points are to the business model of copyright.
So, in summary you don't give a damn about people who freely redistribute information regardless of the creator's desire.
I really don't care when copyrighted materials are distributed except for the case when they are distributed for profit.
So, as it turns out, you are the radical communist.
And yes, your participation in this thread has been 100% pointless. Why? Because you have been the only one talking about rights of attribution. Everyone else, including yourself at the start, have been talking about the economics of copyright. Droits d'auteur are almost completely irrelevant to the economics of copyright.
Do you dispute that information is neither rivalrous nor scarce?
Data is plentiful. Structured data is not. Learn the difference.
No, structured data has exactly the same economic qualities of being non-rivalrous and non-scarce.
Labor, on the other hand, is rivalrous and is scarce. Learn the difference.
If you're going to the effort of doing the awkward social negotiation of testing each other, you're perfectly capable of negotiating using a condom.
Jeesus trees and forest man.
If the test comes back positive then you don't use a condom, you walk away.
So, in summary you don't give a damn about people who freely redistribute information regardless of the creator's desire.
Thus your ENTIRE participation in this thread was completely pointless. Thanks.
- au contrair, it is exactly because anything that can be digitized can be easily redistributed by the non-creator at no cost within hours if not minutes and seconds after release of the original, that copyright makes perfect sense as a law.
Explain. No really, I mean it. Explain how copyright "makes perfect sense" in the light of it now being effectively unenforceable.
Rubbish. Those who are diagnosed only represents a fraction of the total infected, and new infections are occurring daily
Gee, does this sound familiar to you?
"as long as you don't take a negative reading as justification to have unprotected sex, you are no worse off than you would be without the tester."
This sort of really gets to me, it seems like people can't even do math any more. I have a neighbor who was convinced into buying solar panels because he wouldn't have to pay the utility company again. It turns out that not paying the utility company for electricity again is going to cost him roughly 30% more then if he paid them.
You assume that "not paying the utility company" has zero value to your neighbor. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe he gains personal gratification by being "off the grid" that more than makes up for the 30% premium. After all people buy expensive cars that get them where they are going just as well as a cheap car would - they do it because they get other less tangible benefits from their cars, benefits that they feel are worth paying a premium for. There are probably an infinite number of such examples, it is part of the reason we have markets with a variety of choices rather than single suppliers.
Certainly, but only insofar as a natural resource - such as oil, water or land is a government enforced monopoly.
Totally and unequivocally false.
Natural resources are both rivalrous and excludable. Information is not. Copyright is an attempt to artifically make information rivalrous and excludable. Any, and I mean, ANY comparison you try to make between real property and information is going to fail on the critical points because rivalousness and excludability are the defining characteristics of the debate.
There is no such "natural right of free expression".
Totally and unequivocally false.
In the natural state - with no intereference from anyone else like the government - people are free to express any idea. ANY IDEA. Be it original or not.
[custom recordings] If it was that large, it would be happening right now, all the time.
Do I need to say it again? You are on a roll.
No way any major record label is going to permit custom recordings - they own the copyrights preventing the people with the actual creative talent from making use of it in new ways that satisfy new market opportunities.
[subscriptions] Didn't work for Stephen King. Didn't work for Radio Head. Doesn't work anywhere else either.
Here, you can have another -- Totally and unequivocally false.
Stephen King was an idiot, he (a) used the honor system, not subscriptions (b) required a 75% renumeration rate instead of a fixed price - with all of the libraries and used book sales he doesn't get 75% of all readers of paper books, he was a fool to expect to do better, at a higher price, for electronic downloads and (c) the story sucked - failure of people to pay for crap is no failure at all. It is the market at work without the government interfering.
Radiohead didn't do the subscription model either - they used a form of the honor system too and they made more money that way than their LABEL grossed on the entire sales run of their previous album.
Your system would ensure that only sure-fire movies ever got made, and that the escrow people would get rich off it.
Who are these "escrow people" you speak of? The escrow model is only slightly different from the subscription model - it just isn't regular like a subscription. Individuals who wish for a creative work to be created pay into the escrow fund until it reaches the creator's asking price, the creator then gets to work and releases to the public domain. If not enough people pay in, the creator either reduces the asking price or decides not to do the work and returns the money previously collected. Just like the subscription model and even most of the current copyright based model - the more well received a creator's previous work, the more money they can charge for their next work because popularity means more people willing to pay.
Say goodbye to anything which has a high cost to get going. Because your models have proven time and time again not to work.
Lol, you don't even understand the models enough to cite actual failures - you cite other models that succeeded - you don't have a damn clue what you are talking about.
no magazine publisher makes a profit on subscriptions
And HBO, Showtime and Rainbow Media all makes lots of profit on what are essentially subscriptions today.
Where nearly all artists never make a dime off their work. And you want to make it worse for them? Have you ever created anything of any kind of worth in your life? Have you ever even tried?
Quit it with the holier and thou bullshit. I walk the talk. For over a decade I've worked solely on contract. It is precisely because I make a very good living this way - I get paid for the work I do to produce creations that my clients want
Well, PETA could probably get away with their game as a parody under Fair Use.
DMCA take-downs are routinely abused to just shut people up rather than actually go to court.
It has become so bad, that a judge recently ruled that companies who file DMCA take-downs have to consider if fair-use is going to apply beforehand
but his ruling isn't likely to make a whole lot of difference.