I don't think they should have the right to either, but that is one of the downsides of allowing one's industry to unionize or form guilds. The reason those groups exist is to be the legal arm of the publishing industry. They were the ones that brought the suit against Google and they were the ones that gave Google permission to use everybody's work. If someone is culpable for screwing over the American copyright holder it is these two groups, but not Google.
And the books google will be allowed to sell without opting out is all out of print books, not unknown copyrights
The American Association of Publishers and the Author's Guild gave Google permission to use known works as part of their settlement. Orphaned books, on the other hand, have no copyright owner and therefore no representation. The agreement to allow these books as a default opt-in applies to orphaned books only. All other works were opted-in by the AAP and AG.
Should the American Association of Authors / Author's Guild have the right to speak for all American book copyright owners?
Personally, I don't know and I don't care. Either way it isn't Google's responsibility.
The country would drop into a total chaos if the government falls
You are perpetuating a fallacy. Change does not require war. In fact, the Chinese constitution already guarantees certain rights to speech, press, and assembly. The Chinese could implement democratic reforms by simply upholding their existing constitution. That would mean allowing people to speak out against the government, government officials, or government actions. That would mean allowing political rivals to run for office. That would mean not censoring the press. It does not require revolution or war.
The idea that the Chinese government provides stability is misguided, at best. Authoritarian regimes don't provide stability -- they repress. That repression leads to frustration and without adequate political safety valves that anger boils over into revolution. Authoritarian regimes create revolutions since there is no other way for the citizens to have their concerns addressed. A Chinese government that adhered to its own constitution would be much more stable than the thugs currently in power.
what would they revolt for? To change Chinese culture
The current political leaders aren't "Chinese culture". Chinese culture is represented by thousands of years of history, not the last few decades. In fact, Taiwan has a better link to Chinese "culture" than mainland China as that government is older.
What would they revolt for? Stability. Authoritarian regimes are unstable. Authoritarian regimes don't allow for pressure release valves causing tensions to build and build and build until they explode, like they are in the Western Provinces.
the current Chinese government are the ones that stopped years long bloody internal wars and the dieing of millions of Chinese
I can't tell if you are trolling or if you are an agent of the Chinese government. But, let me remind you that 1) the current government started a civil war to gain power 2) killed over 30 million people during the cultural revolution and 3) continue to kill people to this day for speaking out for human rights.
I don't think the country could manage a huge change.
The Chinese are a resilient people who have dealt with many more huge changes than any Western culture can fathom. It is arrogant and condescending to imply that the Chinese people cannot "handle" a more open system.
Google did not make an agreement with the copyright owner, they made a generalised agreement with 'everyone'
This statement is completely inaccurate. The agreement pertains only to orphaned books, ones without a known copyright owner.
regardless of whether the actual copyright owner knew about the agreement or not.
Again, if there is a copyright owner then, by definition, this agreement does not apply. On the other hand, if an orphaned book's author finds out about the agreement they can contact Google to be compensated or remove the book.
Google, as part of their settlement, has purchased print advertising in every country on Earth in attempt to contact these owners. Also, this issue has gotten tons of media attention especially in the book publishing industry.
No. Google's model only applies to orphaned books, ones that don't have an identifiable owner. Both you and Le Guin want us to believe that Google can use any book they want whenever they want without permission.
As far as I know only one corporation has made an agreement, not 10,000. Also, once you identify yourself as the owner of a copyrighted book it is no longer orphaned so your argument about having to do this every 10 years is inaccurate.
I've thought a lot about this same thing lately but came to the conclusion it wouldn't be feasible. For one, most wealth isn't in cash, it is tied up in non-liquid assets. Forcing individuals to turn non-liquid assets into liquid ones would destroy a ton of destructive potential, including a portion of the investment itself.
Secondly, people don't work this way. In Arizona, where I grew up, there is a large community of Native Americans that do get one time or annual stipend from their tribes. Every single person I know that got a stipend ended up not working and addicted to drugs. It sucks, but it is human nature.
Third, people still won't be happy. Studies show that people aren't satisfied by the amount of money they have, they are only satisfied if that amount is more than that of those around them. My ex thought her new Coach bag was great until her friend got a nicer Loius Vutton (its a purse).
Fourth, the economy depends on a large number of people working in mediocre jobs. If they could just sit around collect a check, no one is going to clean toilets.
Even if we forget about these problems there is still another huge political problem (in a democracy): people will vote for stipend increases every single opportunity until all wealth has been confiscated. This is the same fear some people have about Health Care.
You are missing the biggest two developments of the last 50 years because they don't affect you directly. The first is birth control (the pill), which some have argued is the most important invention of the last 1000 years. The second is the green revolution, that lifted a few billion people out of starvation.
Sure, the average American may not see much different since 1958 (except maybe Google, cell phones, most modern medicine), but people living in India and China definitely notice the difference.
Maybe I'm an optimist, but I think humanity will continue to find ways to eliminate scarcity during the next century.
He is trying to raise the point that perhaps this is Google's fault, not Microsoft's. And I agree, but not for the same reasons. If Google was stupid enough to use Windows internally they deserved to be hacked. They should know better.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Climate is not an average of weather over the long term. It is way more complex than that and it relies on many more inputs. If you were right then there would be exactly one model and it would give the same result every time. But there isn't just one model, there are many and they give very different results.
Modeling the climate and weather are not the same thing, you are right. Modeling the climate is WAY HARDER than the weather.
Weather is difficult to model because it is a chaotic system, not because we don't know what is going on. The fluid dynamics were fleshed out decades ago and now we are limited only by our sensor density and computing power.
The climate is a completely different problem. We don't know a lot. How will radiation from the Sun vary over the next 100 years? Will the economies of developing countries continue to progress at the current rate? How much carbon, exactly, will be absorbed by natural processes? How will plant life adapt to higher carbon dioxide levels? Will there be one or more large volcanic eruptions in that time?
We just don't know enough to make an accurate long term model of the climate. If we did, there would be one model and it would give the same result every, single time.
Which of the many, competing, models do you recommend we base policy on? By the way, if we are so good at predicting the climate, why are there even different, competing models? Shouldn't there just be one, accurate model?
Your approach won't do anything to fix the problem. He is right, nuclear energy is the only way out. Carbon caps will not work and we will all be worse off for them.
they should be advocating nuclear energy...Not fucking windmills or wave generators
You are 100% right, nuclear energy is the only way to seriously cut carbon emissions. Giving the government control over carbon production will do nothing except give them control over the entire economy without solving the problem.
However, for your intelligent and accurate comments, you will be derided as a fool and "denier".
There is no flat tax in the US because it would cause the poor to pay more taxes than they do now. Right now, about 40% of people pay no taxes or are refunded their tax withholdings at the end of the year because of various deductions. Most people think the rich pay no taxes and the poor pick up the slack, but in reality it is the opposite.
So I gather you are in full support of the US being kicked out of the WTO and sanctioned being raised by every government against the US too?
Yes, the US should be held accountable to the WTO for its violations.
Years ago I knew a few people who made a good living writing software for online gaming. In about 2005 the US changed its rules about online gaming -- in violation of their agreements with the WTO. The US was sued, lost the case, and was fined.
Did the US change? No. Did Europe, China, or anyone step in to force a change? No. Did my friends lose their jobs? Yes.
I don't care if it is China with Avatar, the US with online gaming, or the EU with Airbus -- everyone should have to honor the agreements they signed.
When the Chinese became part of the WTO, they signed treaties stating:
"China will provide non-discriminatory treatment to all WTO Members. All foreign individuals and enterprises, including those not invested or registered in China, will be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to enterprises in China with respect to the right to trade." - WTO, 2001
In other words, "all foreign enterprises will be treated the same as domestic enterprises in China".
By pulling Avatar in favor of domestic movies, limiting foreign films to 10 days run time, and limiting the number of screens available China is violating its commitments under the law. It would be like the US banning Chinese manufactured imports because those imports were too successful compared to domestic brands.
China needs to honor its commitments to free trade, or be kicked out of the WTO. Which, coincidentally, would make it legal for the US to ban their imports.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think they should have the right to either, but that is one of the downsides of allowing one's industry to unionize or form guilds. The reason those groups exist is to be the legal arm of the publishing industry. They were the ones that brought the suit against Google and they were the ones that gave Google permission to use everybody's work. If someone is culpable for screwing over the American copyright holder it is these two groups, but not Google.
And the books google will be allowed to sell without opting out is all out of print books, not unknown copyrights
The American Association of Publishers and the Author's Guild gave Google permission to use known works as part of their settlement. Orphaned books, on the other hand, have no copyright owner and therefore no representation. The agreement to allow these books as a default opt-in applies to orphaned books only. All other works were opted-in by the AAP and AG.
Should the American Association of Authors / Author's Guild have the right to speak for all American book copyright owners?
Personally, I don't know and I don't care. Either way it isn't Google's responsibility.
They adapted to market reforms pretty darn well, I don't see why political reforms would be any different.
True. True. My original statement, when I read it in your post, reminds me of the Simpsons:
"The gays are very clean people, they have been that way ever since they came here from France."
The country would drop into a total chaos if the government falls
You are perpetuating a fallacy. Change does not require war. In fact, the Chinese constitution already guarantees certain rights to speech, press, and assembly. The Chinese could implement democratic reforms by simply upholding their existing constitution. That would mean allowing people to speak out against the government, government officials, or government actions. That would mean allowing political rivals to run for office. That would mean not censoring the press. It does not require revolution or war.
The idea that the Chinese government provides stability is misguided, at best. Authoritarian regimes don't provide stability -- they repress. That repression leads to frustration and without adequate political safety valves that anger boils over into revolution. Authoritarian regimes create revolutions since there is no other way for the citizens to have their concerns addressed. A Chinese government that adhered to its own constitution would be much more stable than the thugs currently in power.
what would they revolt for? To change Chinese culture
The current political leaders aren't "Chinese culture". Chinese culture is represented by thousands of years of history, not the last few decades. In fact, Taiwan has a better link to Chinese "culture" than mainland China as that government is older.
What would they revolt for? Stability. Authoritarian regimes are unstable. Authoritarian regimes don't allow for pressure release valves causing tensions to build and build and build until they explode, like they are in the Western Provinces.
the current Chinese government are the ones that stopped years long bloody internal wars and the dieing of millions of Chinese
I can't tell if you are trolling or if you are an agent of the Chinese government. But, let me remind you that 1) the current government started a civil war to gain power 2) killed over 30 million people during the cultural revolution and 3) continue to kill people to this day for speaking out for human rights.
I don't think the country could manage a huge change.
The Chinese are a resilient people who have dealt with many more huge changes than any Western culture can fathom. It is arrogant and condescending to imply that the Chinese people cannot "handle" a more open system.
Google did not make an agreement with the copyright owner, they made a generalised agreement with 'everyone'
This statement is completely inaccurate. The agreement pertains only to orphaned books, ones without a known copyright owner.
regardless of whether the actual copyright owner knew about the agreement or not.
Again, if there is a copyright owner then, by definition, this agreement does not apply. On the other hand, if an orphaned book's author finds out about the agreement they can contact Google to be compensated or remove the book.
Google, as part of their settlement, has purchased print advertising in every country on Earth in attempt to contact these owners. Also, this issue has gotten tons of media attention especially in the book publishing industry.
No. Google's model only applies to orphaned books, ones that don't have an identifiable owner. Both you and Le Guin want us to believe that Google can use any book they want whenever they want without permission.
Google doesn't have special privileges. Any company is free to negotiate the same terms.
As far as I know only one corporation has made an agreement, not 10,000. Also, once you identify yourself as the owner of a copyrighted book it is no longer orphaned so your argument about having to do this every 10 years is inaccurate.
Nihilism
The Dude would beg to differ.
I've thought a lot about this same thing lately but came to the conclusion it wouldn't be feasible. For one, most wealth isn't in cash, it is tied up in non-liquid assets. Forcing individuals to turn non-liquid assets into liquid ones would destroy a ton of destructive potential, including a portion of the investment itself.
Secondly, people don't work this way. In Arizona, where I grew up, there is a large community of Native Americans that do get one time or annual stipend from their tribes. Every single person I know that got a stipend ended up not working and addicted to drugs. It sucks, but it is human nature.
Third, people still won't be happy. Studies show that people aren't satisfied by the amount of money they have, they are only satisfied if that amount is more than that of those around them. My ex thought her new Coach bag was great until her friend got a nicer Loius Vutton (its a purse).
Fourth, the economy depends on a large number of people working in mediocre jobs. If they could just sit around collect a check, no one is going to clean toilets.
Even if we forget about these problems there is still another huge political problem (in a democracy): people will vote for stipend increases every single opportunity until all wealth has been confiscated. This is the same fear some people have about Health Care.
You are missing the biggest two developments of the last 50 years because they don't affect you directly. The first is birth control (the pill), which some have argued is the most important invention of the last 1000 years. The second is the green revolution, that lifted a few billion people out of starvation.
Sure, the average American may not see much different since 1958 (except maybe Google, cell phones, most modern medicine), but people living in India and China definitely notice the difference.
Maybe I'm an optimist, but I think humanity will continue to find ways to eliminate scarcity during the next century.
He is trying to raise the point that perhaps this is Google's fault, not Microsoft's. And I agree, but not for the same reasons. If Google was stupid enough to use Windows internally they deserved to be hacked. They should know better.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Climate is not an average of weather over the long term. It is way more complex than that and it relies on many more inputs. If you were right then there would be exactly one model and it would give the same result every time. But there isn't just one model, there are many and they give very different results.
Modeling the climate and weather are not the same thing, you are right. Modeling the climate is WAY HARDER than the weather.
Weather is difficult to model because it is a chaotic system, not because we don't know what is going on. The fluid dynamics were fleshed out decades ago and now we are limited only by our sensor density and computing power.
The climate is a completely different problem. We don't know a lot. How will radiation from the Sun vary over the next 100 years? Will the economies of developing countries continue to progress at the current rate? How much carbon, exactly, will be absorbed by natural processes? How will plant life adapt to higher carbon dioxide levels? Will there be one or more large volcanic eruptions in that time?
We just don't know enough to make an accurate long term model of the climate. If we did, there would be one model and it would give the same result every, single time.
Which of the many, competing, models do you recommend we base policy on? By the way, if we are so good at predicting the climate, why are there even different, competing models? Shouldn't there just be one, accurate model?
If we could accurately predict the climate over the long term then there would be 1 model, not many.
Your approach won't do anything to fix the problem. He is right, nuclear energy is the only way out. Carbon caps will not work and we will all be worse off for them.
they should be advocating nuclear energy...Not fucking windmills or wave generators
You are 100% right, nuclear energy is the only way to seriously cut carbon emissions. Giving the government control over carbon production will do nothing except give them control over the entire economy without solving the problem.
However, for your intelligent and accurate comments, you will be derided as a fool and "denier".
Why should I pay $1,761 per year for something that won't work?
There is no flat tax in the US because it would cause the poor to pay more taxes than they do now. Right now, about 40% of people pay no taxes or are refunded their tax withholdings at the end of the year because of various deductions. Most people think the rich pay no taxes and the poor pick up the slack, but in reality it is the opposite.
So I gather you are in full support of the US being kicked out of the WTO and sanctioned being raised by every government against the US too?
Yes, the US should be held accountable to the WTO for its violations.
Years ago I knew a few people who made a good living writing software for online gaming. In about 2005 the US changed its rules about online gaming -- in violation of their agreements with the WTO. The US was sued, lost the case, and was fined.
Did the US change? No. Did Europe, China, or anyone step in to force a change? No. Did my friends lose their jobs? Yes.
I don't care if it is China with Avatar, the US with online gaming, or the EU with Airbus -- everyone should have to honor the agreements they signed.
When the Chinese became part of the WTO, they signed treaties stating:
"China will provide non-discriminatory treatment to all WTO Members. All foreign individuals and enterprises, including those not invested or registered in China, will be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to enterprises in China with respect to the right to trade." - WTO, 2001
In other words, "all foreign enterprises will be treated the same as domestic enterprises in China".
By pulling Avatar in favor of domestic movies, limiting foreign films to 10 days run time, and limiting the number of screens available China is violating its commitments under the law. It would be like the US banning Chinese manufactured imports because those imports were too successful compared to domestic brands.
China needs to honor its commitments to free trade, or be kicked out of the WTO. Which, coincidentally, would make it legal for the US to ban their imports.
Yes, exactly. The US has troops stationed around the world based on treaties and UN resolutions. Including Iraq and Afghanistan.
If people don't like the US's troops in a country then there are legal means to get them out via the UN and clauses on existing treaties.