You're remarkably insightful. (implied qualifier "... for a mentally handicapped douchebag").
So you agree with his premise then? That cheaper is never better? That a black and white world is really preferable to one with shades of grey? Irony, your sig has it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a huge gamer, and my parents were very good about exposing me to video games. They also played the games with me or at the least watched to make sure my games were appropriate. And they sure as hell didn't give me a credit card to go out and buy whatever.
Replace "video games" with books and that sounds pretty bad.
Maybe I was unique with a bunch of librarians in the family but my parents only ever tried to restrict my reading material once in my life. My mom told me I couldn't borrow "Moonraker" (the book, not the movie, libraries didn't have movies back then) from the library - so I stole it instead (and returned it when I was done). Otherwise no restrictions at all, plenty of times I got cash as xmas or bday gifts and spent it on any book I wanted at the local bookstore. And that was when Boris Vallejo and Frank Frazetta artwork of babes wearing just chain-mail bikinis (or less) pretty much dominated the SF&F book covers.
When the borrower dies or disappears, the loaned item is repatriated by the loaner.
The problem is that is NOT the way the law is written. Not even kinda sorta, it is incontrovertibly not written that way. The handling of orphan works is one of the most broken things about current copyright law in the US.
I'm good with the law being changed to work that way. What I'm not good with is Google setting themselves up to break the law because they can afford to pay the consequences while just about everybody else can not. The law is not intended to be something anyone can violate as long as they can afford to pay the fines. Especially when the fines are so large that only the richest could hope to pay them. Law is intended to egalitarian. Google's actions here are decidedly not egalitarian. They wrong society as a whole by breaking the law.
However they could the get exact same results for themselves by lobbying for the law to be changed. The Author's Guild and any other groups' lawsuits would be completely voided by changing the law to "repatriate" orphan works to the public domain.
This isn't about the Author's Guild being right, it is about Google being wrong.
At no point did you seek to address any of his post -
When I told him that his definition of the word "needs" wasn't the relevant definition and that he was a pedantic little shit for insisting that it was, that addressed his entire point.
Yep, ad hominem.
You really don't get this ad hominem thing do you? Here's a simple rule just for you:
Your argument is wrong because you suck - ad hominem. You suck because your argument is wrong - not ad hominem.
No. I do not need to do that in order to say that Google is wrong. This is not a court of law and you aren't a lawyer. If anything the lawyers agree with me since the court has not dismissed the Author's Guild for lack of standing.
When people talk about buying the "cheapest thing that meets their needs", that naturally excludes niceties and extras. It refers to basics.
Lol. Keep on spinning those wheels. You were out-pedanted with the dictionary definition. Even if your "basics" were the only valid definition of "needs" - rather than the least common definition, we wouldn't be having this conversation about fucking ipads, we'd be talking about food and shelter.
It isn't that google is preventing anything. They are just as beholden to the copyright bargain as anyone else and that includes both sides of the bargain. When they break the bargain not only are breaking it with the authors of the abandoned works they are breaking it with every member of society - we gave those rights to the authors, not to google. Because copyright is merely a temporary loan from the public domain, we as a society have an interest in seeing the bargain upheld or at least renegotiated to reflect the changing circumstances so that it can continue to be upheld.
WWhere's the pedantry? In noting the difference between "need" and "want" or "nice to have" or "worth paying extra for"? Because that's rather fundamental, and by no means splitting hairs over strict definitions.
Merriam Webster definition of need: 2a) a lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful meanwhile YOUR definition is the last of 4 definitions.
So yes you are acting like a six year old pedant and you got back the level of argument you gave.
1) You don't seem to know what an ad hominem attack is. It didn't just call him a vulgar word, I justified the vulgarity with an explanation as to exactly why it was deserving in this context.
2) A dishonest argument is just as disrespectful as a vulgarity if not more so because not only is it rude, it is also intended to draw someone into wasting time.
Ok. Not used to AG having other meanings in a legal context.
It isn't that the Author's Guild is right or wrong, it's that Google is wrong.
As part of society I say abandoned works should be in the public domain and since Google wants to treat them that way then its only fair that everybody get to treat them that way, not just google because they are loaded with more than enough cash to fight anyone who does sue them.
Yes the real me has no problem returning a lack of respect with a lack of respect and I don't feel the need to mince words when I do it.
I'm not complaining that "it's everyone else's fault" that they didn't understand what I wrote, I'm saying it's the deuce's fault for choosing to wilfully misunderstand even in the face of an explanation. Nothing he's written here has increased anyone's understanding of the situation, at best he's a no-op.
The JSTOR guy wasn't charged with any copyright violations. JSTOR themselves seem to have distanced themselves from the criminal prosecution too by releasing a statement that they will not pursue civil charges and, by implication, they aren't behind the criminal charges. And then last week JSTOR made all of their public domain articles freely accessible to non-subscribers.
On the other hand, Google does need a slap-down here. The people they are "negotiating" with don't have any standing wrt to abandoned works - if they did, the works would not qualify as abandoned. If Google really wants this, they need to lobby for changes in the law. The MAFIAA has no problem buying senators, Google's got more than enough money to buy practically the entire senate. If they don't have a problem with "defensive" software patents, they shouldn't have a problem with defensive lobbying either....
That's why everyone drives the cheapest car they can find,...
Yes, they all do. For cars and everything else you listed. The thing is, you seem just a tad lacking in sophistication to realise the implied qualifier, "... that meets their needs."
Racism being overplayed is not the same as it ending. It will never end, it will just become more equally distributed. At least that's my experience growing up in the most racial harmonious, and probably heterogeneous, area in the country and arguably the entire planet.
And I'm pretty sure that if it's "theft" for an artist to own his copyright when he's 80 years old, then it's absurd to content that it's not theft when he's 60 years old.
You are right. It was on loan to them from the public domain from day one.
Cars physically interconnect all our lives and, with their massive fiscal and environmental costs, they directly connect all of our destinies, as well. Our entire lives, at least in the US, are designed around then.... They're a public good, not a private right.
That exact same argument can be made about houses, only more so. I think you would have a hell of a time arguing that houses are a public good.
Very soon after installing the cameras at the controlled-access gates my university started mounting them on curbside free-standing poles all over campus. It is almost impossible to drive through campus (which I acknowledge is private property) without having your plate scanned.
If it is private property, you have no legal requirement to display your license plate. I'd very much like to purchase a license-plate obscurer that could be hooked up to a GPS unit so that it would automatically cover up my plate as I left the public roads for a parking-lot or wherever.
FWIW, I read a couple of years back that Target was surreptitiously deploying such ANPR cameras to all of their parking lots. I can't easily dig up the article via google because, as you might imagine, "target" is way too generic of a search term, however "Target CSI" yields some related info that is disturbing.
The cars are parked in a public place, with license plates easily viewable. There is no expectation of privacy in this case.
Ah, but there [i]is[/i] an expectation of privacy.
The general population does not expect that the mere act of going shopping will cause the date, location and duration of such normal activities to be permanently recorded by a large, well-funded organization in a database with practically no access controls.
Furthermore, the american jurisprudence (Katz v United States) which established the concept of "no privacy in public spaces" was written in 1967 - a time when wide-spread surveillance and, more importantly, essentially infinite-sized databases were only the stuff of science fiction.
Technology has progressed and the law needs to catch up.
Slashdot Mirror
You're remarkably insightful. (implied qualifier "... for a mentally handicapped douchebag").
So you agree with his premise then? That cheaper is never better? That a black and white world is really preferable to one with shades of grey? Irony, your sig has it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a huge gamer, and my parents were very good about exposing me to video games. They also played the games with me or at the least watched to make sure my games were appropriate. And they sure as hell didn't give me a credit card to go out and buy whatever.
Replace "video games" with books and that sounds pretty bad.
Maybe I was unique with a bunch of librarians in the family but my parents only ever tried to restrict my reading material once in my life. My mom told me I couldn't borrow "Moonraker" (the book, not the movie, libraries didn't have movies back then) from the library - so I stole it instead (and returned it when I was done). Otherwise no restrictions at all, plenty of times I got cash as xmas or bday gifts and spent it on any book I wanted at the local bookstore. And that was when Boris Vallejo and Frank Frazetta artwork of babes wearing just chain-mail bikinis (or less) pretty much dominated the SF&F book covers.
Thanks man. Really convinced me.
When the borrower dies or disappears, the loaned item is repatriated by the loaner.
The problem is that is NOT the way the law is written. Not even kinda sorta, it is incontrovertibly not written that way. The handling of orphan works is one of the most broken things about current copyright law in the US.
I'm good with the law being changed to work that way. What I'm not good with is Google setting themselves up to break the law because they can afford to pay the consequences while just about everybody else can not. The law is not intended to be something anyone can violate as long as they can afford to pay the fines. Especially when the fines are so large that only the richest could hope to pay them. Law is intended to egalitarian. Google's actions here are decidedly not egalitarian. They wrong society as a whole by breaking the law.
However they could the get exact same results for themselves by lobbying for the law to be changed. The Author's Guild and any other groups' lawsuits would be completely voided by changing the law to "repatriate" orphan works to the public domain.
This isn't about the Author's Guild being right, it is about Google being wrong.
At no point did you seek to address any of his post -
When I told him that his definition of the word "needs" wasn't the relevant definition and that he was a pedantic little shit for insisting that it was, that addressed his entire point.
Yep, ad hominem.
You really don't get this ad hominem thing do you?
Here's a simple rule just for you:
Your argument is wrong because you suck - ad hominem.
You suck because your argument is wrong - not ad hominem.
Got it?
Well then trot out these authors,
No. I do not need to do that in order to say that Google is wrong. This is not a court of law and you aren't a lawyer. If anything the lawyers agree with me since the court has not dismissed the Author's Guild for lack of standing.
When people talk about buying the "cheapest thing that meets their needs", that naturally excludes niceties and extras. It refers to basics.
Lol. Keep on spinning those wheels. You were out-pedanted with the dictionary definition. Even if your "basics" were the only valid definition of "needs" - rather than the least common definition, we wouldn't be having this conversation about fucking ipads, we'd be talking about food and shelter.
It isn't that google is preventing anything. They are just as beholden to the copyright bargain as anyone else and that includes both sides of the bargain. When they break the bargain not only are breaking it with the authors of the abandoned works they are breaking it with every member of society - we gave those rights to the authors, not to google. Because copyright is merely a temporary loan from the public domain, we as a society have an interest in seeing the bargain upheld or at least renegotiated to reflect the changing circumstances so that it can continue to be upheld.
WWhere's the pedantry? In noting the difference between "need" and "want" or "nice to have" or "worth paying extra for"? Because that's rather fundamental, and by no means splitting hairs over strict definitions.
Merriam Webster definition of need:
2a) a lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful
meanwhile YOUR definition is the last of 4 definitions.
So yes you are acting like a six year old pedant and you got back the level of argument you gave.
1) You don't seem to know what an ad hominem attack is. It didn't just call him a vulgar word, I justified the vulgarity with an explanation as to exactly why it was deserving in this context.
2) A dishonest argument is just as disrespectful as a vulgarity if not more so because not only is it rude, it is also intended to draw someone into wasting time.
Ok. Not used to AG having other meanings in a legal context.
It isn't that the Author's Guild is right or wrong, it's that Google is wrong.
As part of society I say abandoned works should be in the public domain and since Google wants to treat them that way then its only fair that everybody get to treat them that way, not just google because they are loaded with more than enough cash to fight anyone who does sue them.
IANAL, so....lawyers, is it legal to represent someone without their expressed consent?
That's the job of the attorney general - representing "the people" as a whole. Although, AFAIK no AG has anything to do with the Google Books case.
Ah, and now we see the real you.
Yes the real me has no problem returning a lack of respect with a lack of respect and I don't feel the need to mince words when I do it.
I'm not complaining that "it's everyone else's fault" that they didn't understand what I wrote, I'm saying it's the deuce's fault for choosing to wilfully misunderstand even in the face of an explanation. Nothing he's written here has increased anyone's understanding of the situation, at best he's a no-op.
The JSTOR guy wasn't charged with any copyright violations. JSTOR themselves seem to have distanced themselves from the criminal prosecution too by releasing a statement that they will not pursue civil charges and, by implication, they aren't behind the criminal charges. And then last week JSTOR made all of their public domain articles freely accessible to non-subscribers.
On the other hand, Google does need a slap-down here. The people they are "negotiating" with don't have any standing wrt to abandoned works - if they did, the works would not qualify as abandoned. If Google really wants this, they need to lobby for changes in the law. The MAFIAA has no problem buying senators, Google's got more than enough money to buy practically the entire senate. If they don't have a problem with "defensive" software patents, they shouldn't have a problem with defensive lobbying either....
Do people *need* power windows and power locks?
The problem with pedantic little shits is they think their current favorite definition of a word is the only definition. What are you, six?
That's why everyone drives the cheapest car they can find,...
Yes, they all do. For cars and everything else you listed. The thing is, you seem just a tad lacking in sophistication to realise the implied qualifier, "... that meets their needs."
Except they aren't quite as Runaway portrays them.
Google the phrase he quoted for more even-handed analysis.
Racism being overplayed is not the same as it ending. It will never end, it will just become more equally distributed. At least that's my experience growing up in the most racial harmonious, and probably heterogeneous, area in the country and arguably the entire planet.
Would you by any chance be white?
Lol! Now that's racist.
And I'm pretty sure that if it's "theft" for an artist to own his copyright when he's 80 years old, then it's absurd to content that it's not theft when he's 60 years old.
You are right. It was on loan to them from the public domain from day one.
I guess the idea of trying to make a BETTER product never occurred to him.
Cheaper is better.
Cars physically interconnect all our lives and, with their massive fiscal and environmental costs, they directly connect all of our destinies, as well. Our entire lives, at least in the US, are designed around then. ... They're a public good, not a private right.
That exact same argument can be made about houses, only more so. I think you would have a hell of a time arguing that houses are a public good.
Very soon after installing the cameras at the controlled-access gates my university started mounting them on curbside free-standing poles all over campus. It is almost impossible to drive through campus (which I acknowledge is private property) without having your plate scanned.
If it is private property, you have no legal requirement to display your license plate. I'd very much like to purchase a license-plate obscurer that could be hooked up to a GPS unit so that it would automatically cover up my plate as I left the public roads for a parking-lot or wherever.
FWIW, I read a couple of years back that Target was surreptitiously deploying such ANPR cameras to all of their parking lots. I can't easily dig up the article via google because, as you might imagine, "target" is way too generic of a search term, however "Target CSI" yields some related info that is disturbing.
The cars are parked in a public place, with license plates easily viewable. There is no expectation of privacy in this case.
Ah, but there [i]is[/i] an expectation of privacy.
The general population does not expect that the mere act of going shopping will cause the date, location and duration of such normal activities to be permanently recorded by a large, well-funded organization in a database with practically no access controls.
Furthermore, the american jurisprudence (Katz v United States) which established the concept of "no privacy in public spaces" was written in 1967 - a time when wide-spread surveillance and, more importantly, essentially infinite-sized databases were only the stuff of science fiction.
Technology has progressed and the law needs to catch up.
I'm only deficient in hearing in a certain small range but it makes talking to certain people (usually women and kids) a chore.
Don't worry, the older you get the more you'll think that's actually a benefit.