If no one's heard of an author, their works very likely won't ever be freely available for download. The assumption here is that of the original intent of copyright, to prevent distribution of another's works for commercial gain, the latter once again in the original sense of being paid for a copy, deriving an income from distribution, and not today's attempt to twist individual savings into commercial gain. Unauthorized scanning of books for online sale would still be in contravention. If on the other hand an author has achieved a level of popularity where the works become commonly available on line, it's a good bet they're already doing quite well financially. By that measure, using the figures provided, in its strong DRM-form copyright is of arguable value to less than 2% of all published authors.
"..only 2 percent of books released each year sell more than 1000 copies. 1000 copies == peanuts in royalties == don't give up the day job"
I know you meant that as a simple statement of fact, but so what? All that tells me is there are too many people trying to be authors, as would a walk through any Chapters. Write if that's your itch to scratch, and if you're in the top 2% of the 2% being marginally read you can give up that day job whether copyright is understood in the 18th or 21st century manner. There's no reason for everyone in society to undergo federally mandated rights management on all data to expand the percentage of day-job-quitters in an extremely tiny subset of its membership.
It's a reasonable suggestion the Grateful Dead wouldn't be more than an interesting 'Hits of the Sixties' or 'Where are They Now' trivia question if it weren't for those Haight Asbury ideals of community and sharing. The Dead invited the audience to be part of the group and gave freely, getting a liftime of adoration, appreciation and financial benefit in return. Given the long-unpopular style of music the Dead played they'd could have been just another Quicksilver Messenger Service otherwise. The Dead are one of the best counter-arguments against DRM. Real artists, as opposed to what media companies today term 'product', can survive and flourish, give to society freely and get a lifetime of riches in return, under the notion of copyright as first intended - a limited license on commercial distribution instead of property, or 'music ownership'.
I can't speak to printers as I don't have one, otherwise hardware compatibility and sensing has advanced light years since the early days. The second partition of my AMD64 machine is running 64-bit Debian Alioth, a still experimental or developmental OS. Recently the on board sound was upgraded to an Audigy ZS. I did nothing, it just worked. Logitech mouse, same. DVD burner? Installed Gravemen burning software with apt from the repository and it just worked, no messing with grub.conf or editing modules autoload files by hand.
Where it still lacks is in areas where vendors insist. EAX on the Audigy would be a battle for example, if possible at all. Nvidia drivers still require building by kernel version. In terms of common business desktop requirements though Debian is arguably there.
Calgary is the friendliest place I ever lived, so long as I kept my Toronto origins under wraps. =D Though there's much complaining housing prices are very reasonable too.
Vancouver however is rampant with petty crime. Surrey was purpotedly the car theft capital of North America. Drug crime is everywhere. Housing prices are insane, not a 400 square foot bungalow under a half mill within 40 minutes of downtown. And interestingly enough, no area cranks out the serial killers like the Pacific Northwest: Pickton, Green River, Olson. Must be something in the water.
That's about the purest strawman I've seen on Slashdot yet. Fierce competion. 3 million != 10 billion. Everyone != corporate sponsors. Slashkitty != American Museum of Natural History. Neither do you have an established record of receiving corporate donations. It's difficult to see how the logic of your objection extends beyond pressing hot buttons.
Or the power of pissed-off Canadian voters. They came out en masse to bid right-wing Mulrooney goodbye, and did the same for far-left Rae in Ontario. When it comes to jack-ass politicians were a totally non-partisan lot.
Mod this up! Your band 'gets it'. Those seeking fame and who want their music heard understand P2P can provide them that exposure on their terms, without selling their souls, artistic sensibilities and financial futures to lawyers and accounts maquerading as music people. The main people who benefit from these laws are record companies stockholders and big established artists, most living off their back catalogue. Copyright was established to benefit society at large, not a tiny subset of its members.
Hey, there's two ways to look at this development. The artificial controversy around ID might spur many a student to examine the literature for themselves outside of the classroom and make an attempt at an individual opinion. Independent, informed thought is after all a good goal of education. Note that only the controversy has this effect, dressing religion as pseudo-science and forcing on the young is still wrong. And for those who claim it's not religion, I'll ask again: If not a watered down diety what is the 'I' in ID, space aliens?
"The question of species formation is completely distinct from the cosmological question."
Who or what does ID propose as The Intelligence then? Do they draw from the physical world or leave it at That of Whom We Cannot Speak? The Kansas Board of Ed and the Bush adminstration aren't arguing to permit the concept we may be the result of alien tampering in the classroom. If ID proponents side step the issue, it's not much of theory:
"X caused this."
"What is X?"
"I dunno."
"What would be it's neccessary characteristics?"
"I dunno."
"Animal? Cosmic force? Vegetable"
"Could be."
If they draw from the physical world it puts them in danger of being grouped with those donning Keds and jumpsuit waiting on the comet. If it's a 'universal force', it's outside the realm of science and they're closet creationists, loading the theological muskets while the fundies shoot. So what specifically do they contend is the Intelligence in ID?
My understanding is that literal interpretation was a reaction to the Catholic church, direct communication with a creator instead of separated by middlemen in robes. The RC church birthed fundamentalism.
Though my beliefs are diametrically opposed, I can greatly respect a man who put that much work into his devotion. So unlike today's lazy TV Christianity.
"The bottom-line issue is that the rest of the world wants the U.S. in their internet, a lot more than the U.S. -- generally speaking -- cares about being able to access the rest of the world."
You're assuming American businesses would act in an uber-patriotic manner and concentrate on information only available to your 300 million at the expense of a 7 billion market. If the US Internet segmented off you can bet your ass multinationals would jump ship faster than you can say 'outsourcing'.
"If you travel to another state and purchase goods you may pay sales tax, but not vote. "
Isn't this refundable?
"..as they pay him in New York.."
No, they pay him from New York. That's the point. He's not in New York. He gets no reasonable benefits from payment of those taxes so how are they justified at the state level?
Thanks, I read it but can't find where recurring yearly profits are mentioned. Also didn't find where 5% is 'about right', or where a 15% growth in net assets over three years is part of the definition. Which was the entire point, the devil's in the details and those of the Gates Foundation are, to put it charitably, "not a typical one and certainly not one to hold up as the embodiment of charitable acts."
Doesn't mean they do either. It could be an act intended to 'leave a legacy'. I don't particularly believe it, being in no position to know either way, but everyone here is in a position to check the financial statements of the Gates Foundation because they're on-line.
And what they'll find is every year the Foundation is richer than the previous. It makes a profit consistently from a combination of investment income and contributions. The unrestricted net assets for the last few years are roughly: 2001 = $23.3B, 2002 = $24.1B, 2003 = $25.1B, 2004 = $26.9B, the last year on record. Every year the Foundation takes in more than they distribute in grants.
I don't know what kind of philanthropy gives out less than it takes in and never more than ~5% of its net worth, but it's not a typical one and certainly not one to hold up as the embodiment of charitable acts.
Considering the intent of Copyright was a limited short-term monopoly on commercial distribution for the promotoion of Art and Science in society, and not the 'ownership' monster those distributors have created, that's an easy one to answer. In a sane society that is, out here in corporate lobby land it's anyone's guess. I do however find it ironic that a foriegn multinational appears to be protected by law from repurcussion for in effect hacking American computers to 'save the artists.' How far we've traveled.
Slashdot Mirror
"..only 2 percent of books released each year sell more than 1000 copies. 1000 copies == peanuts in royalties == don't give up the day job"
I know you meant that as a simple statement of fact, but so what? All that tells me is there are too many people trying to be authors, as would a walk through any Chapters. Write if that's your itch to scratch, and if you're in the top 2% of the 2% being marginally read you can give up that day job whether copyright is understood in the 18th or 21st century manner. There's no reason for everyone in society to undergo federally mandated rights management on all data to expand the percentage of day-job-quitters in an extremely tiny subset of its membership.
It's a reasonable suggestion the Grateful Dead wouldn't be more than an interesting 'Hits of the Sixties' or 'Where are They Now' trivia question if it weren't for those Haight Asbury ideals of community and sharing. The Dead invited the audience to be part of the group and gave freely, getting a liftime of adoration, appreciation and financial benefit in return. Given the long-unpopular style of music the Dead played they'd could have been just another Quicksilver Messenger Service otherwise. The Dead are one of the best counter-arguments against DRM. Real artists, as opposed to what media companies today term 'product', can survive and flourish, give to society freely and get a lifetime of riches in return, under the notion of copyright as first intended - a limited license on commercial distribution instead of property, or 'music ownership'.
Where it still lacks is in areas where vendors insist. EAX on the Audigy would be a battle for example, if possible at all. Nvidia drivers still require building by kernel version. In terms of common business desktop requirements though Debian is arguably there.
Vancouver however is rampant with petty crime. Surrey was purpotedly the car theft capital of North America. Drug crime is everywhere. Housing prices are insane, not a 400 square foot bungalow under a half mill within 40 minutes of downtown. And interestingly enough, no area cranks out the serial killers like the Pacific Northwest: Pickton, Green River, Olson. Must be something in the water.
Culinary insults from the land of boiled beef!?!?! What did we do to warrant that? ;)
That's about the purest strawman I've seen on Slashdot yet. Fierce competion. 3 million != 10 billion. Everyone != corporate sponsors. Slashkitty != American Museum of Natural History. Neither do you have an established record of receiving corporate donations. It's difficult to see how the logic of your objection extends beyond pressing hot buttons.
Windows: Can't Keep It Up. I like it.
Or the power of pissed-off Canadian voters. They came out en masse to bid right-wing Mulrooney goodbye, and did the same for far-left Rae in Ontario. When it comes to jack-ass politicians were a totally non-partisan lot.
Sony is American? A good indicator of how successful their PR campaign has been.
Mod this up! Your band 'gets it'. Those seeking fame and who want their music heard understand P2P can provide them that exposure on their terms, without selling their souls, artistic sensibilities and financial futures to lawyers and accounts maquerading as music people. The main people who benefit from these laws are record companies stockholders and big established artists, most living off their back catalogue. Copyright was established to benefit society at large, not a tiny subset of its members.
Fixed that typo.
Hey, there's two ways to look at this development. The artificial controversy around ID might spur many a student to examine the literature for themselves outside of the classroom and make an attempt at an individual opinion. Independent, informed thought is after all a good goal of education. Note that only the controversy has this effect, dressing religion as pseudo-science and forcing on the young is still wrong. And for those who claim it's not religion, I'll ask again: If not a watered down diety what is the 'I' in ID, space aliens?
Who or what does ID propose as The Intelligence then? Do they draw from the physical world or leave it at That of Whom We Cannot Speak? The Kansas Board of Ed and the Bush adminstration aren't arguing to permit the concept we may be the result of alien tampering in the classroom. If ID proponents side step the issue, it's not much of theory:
"X caused this."
"What is X?"
"I dunno."
"What would be it's neccessary characteristics?"
"I dunno."
"Animal? Cosmic force? Vegetable"
"Could be."
If they draw from the physical world it puts them in danger of being grouped with those donning Keds and jumpsuit waiting on the comet. If it's a 'universal force', it's outside the realm of science and they're closet creationists, loading the theological muskets while the fundies shoot. So what specifically do they contend is the Intelligence in ID?
My understanding is that literal interpretation was a reaction to the Catholic church, direct communication with a creator instead of separated by middlemen in robes. The RC church birthed fundamentalism.
Though my beliefs are diametrically opposed, I can greatly respect a man who put that much work into his devotion. So unlike today's lazy TV Christianity.
That's how they end up teaching English.
You're assuming American businesses would act in an uber-patriotic manner and concentrate on information only available to your 300 million at the expense of a 7 billion market. If the US Internet segmented off you can bet your ass multinationals would jump ship faster than you can say 'outsourcing'.
It goes into a fund to pay for black helicopters should England ever become a fanatical theocracy. It's your personal rescue fund.
Isn't this refundable?
"..as they pay him in New York.."
No, they pay him from New York. That's the point. He's not in New York. He gets no reasonable benefits from payment of those taxes so how are they justified at the state level?
You're assuming it didn't end in sex on the basis that she left?
You forgot control of exposure, aka radio payola and cross promotions. No competetion for the consumer's dollar from unknown artists.
Thanks, I read it but can't find where recurring yearly profits are mentioned. Also didn't find where 5% is 'about right', or where a 15% growth in net assets over three years is part of the definition. Which was the entire point, the devil's in the details and those of the Gates Foundation are, to put it charitably, "not a typical one and certainly not one to hold up as the embodiment of charitable acts."
And what they'll find is every year the Foundation is richer than the previous. It makes a profit consistently from a combination of investment income and contributions. The unrestricted net assets for the last few years are roughly: 2001 = $23.3B, 2002 = $24.1B, 2003 = $25.1B, 2004 = $26.9B, the last year on record. Every year the Foundation takes in more than they distribute in grants.
I don't know what kind of philanthropy gives out less than it takes in and never more than ~5% of its net worth, but it's not a typical one and certainly not one to hold up as the embodiment of charitable acts.
Considering the intent of Copyright was a limited short-term monopoly on commercial distribution for the promotoion of Art and Science in society, and not the 'ownership' monster those distributors have created, that's an easy one to answer. In a sane society that is, out here in corporate lobby land it's anyone's guess. I do however find it ironic that a foriegn multinational appears to be protected by law from repurcussion for in effect hacking American computers to 'save the artists.' How far we've traveled.
How is that a public document?