What about the ninja families who were pirates and raided ships moving along their coast lines, like the Kukishin family? Let that blow your mind for a bit, real ninja pirates. o.O
Heaven forbid that the symphony would have to come up with something original?
A symphony is a piece of music. An orchestra performs music. (just being pedantic;)
An orchestra, however, doesn't write music, it just performs it. Music is written by a composer. Which is then published, by a publisher. Which is then bought by a symphony, so that they have something to play so they can sell tickets. If they don't buy the music, the publisher makes no money and in turn, neither does the composer, who then has to get a day job to feed himself and then has little or no time to continue composing complicated pieces of music for orchestras to play. So now where does the orchestra get music to play?
The argument could be made that with this age of the internet, the whole "publisher" step could be eliminated, but that's a different argument...
also, would the world really be a worse place if Britney Spears didn't release another album?
Your or anyone else's subjective opinion of the quality of a creative work is irrelevant to the argument of who has the right to copy or distribute it. Replace Britney Spears with some artist that you really enjoy but that someone else thinks is shit and see if you still agree.
You're wrong, i think their time is just not worth anything to me.
Maybe not, but is the end product of that labor worth anything to you? Do you still feel entitled to enjoy their product for free just because you say it has no value to you?
i put time and effort into making my lawn look nice, should i be able to charge people to be able to view a picture of this artistic creation? how would this be different?
If your wanted to sell your picture (which is copyrightable) of your lawn (which isn't copyrightable), then yes, you should be able to charge whatever you want for that picture. Many people do; the entire stock photography industry is based on being able to control the sale of copies of images and the permission to use those images. It's your picture, why shouldn't you be able to charge people to use something that you created if you want to? If you want to give your picture away for anyone to see and use, that's great, that's your perogative. That doesn't give you the right to tell someone else what they can do with their creations.
Would you be ok if at the end of the work week your boss told you that he didn't think your work the past week was worth anything, therefore he wouldn't be paying you for it? How is that different?
Yes, and that is only because of how our current capitalistic society works. If it is required of artists to demand money from people for goods that are in an infinite supply (and punish those that don't conform with artificial scarcity), then, through no fault of the artists, that is a flaw in our capitalistic society.
Perhaps so, but what is the alternative? The government providing all artists a fixed income and demanding a certain turnout of music from them within a fixed time period? What do you suggest? I hear lots of "it's broken, it's a bad business model!" but no realistic suggestions of what's a better alternative.
When someone violates someone else's copyright (such as downloading a song, for example), there are very few cases in which the person who owns said copyright is actually affected in the least.
Except for the fact that it's a direct infringment against their Constitutionally-granted rights. The purpose of these rights is to grant a temporary monopoly over the ability to distribute and copy someone's own created work so that there is enough monetary incentive for those people to continue to do creative stuff like writing music or inventing things for the common good of the People, otherwise no one could make a living at it and there would be far, far less enjoyable material out there for everyone. So by violating someone's copyright, you aren't only affecting the original creator, but you're also affecting society as a whole by removing the incentive for people to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
They never had the copyright infringer's money to begin with, so you can't claim that was stolen. They didn't lose the money, either, because as I said, they never had it. They remain completely the same as they were before. The only thing they 'lose' is an opportunity to have more money, but since they never had the object in the first place (and in almost all cases, they had no idea they even had such an opportunity to begin with), they haven't lost anything. Not time or resources (except the time and resources to build the initial product, but not only are those costs only incurred once, but it is not the fault of the copyright infringer).
The infringer also didn't have a product to consume before either. So what you're asking for is a very one-sided transaction: a creator invests time and money into a product that is legally under his/her control, a right granted to them by the United States Constitution (obviously, only talking about the law as it stands in the United States), and you seem to be saying that since you don't agree with copyright law, you feel it ok to take it upon yourself to tell a creator that his creation has zero value while still consuming said product anyway.
The time and investment costs are only incurred once.
That investment may be a significant portion of someone's life that they can never get back. Who are you to say what value they can place upon that?
However, I never said anything about their time being worthless, so that was a nice assumption (and this isn't the only assumption you made, either).
You don't have to say it, it's a logical inference implicit in your entire argument. Can you not see that?
Nice assumptions and false dilemmas. [wikipedia.org] I don't even listen to music, so I wouldn't download it or infringe upon copyright for it to begin with.
Now who's making assumptions? The original argument was regarding printed sheet music and photocopying, not downloading songs on the internet. But how does you personally infringing or not infringing copyright have any bearing on the issue at hand, at all? The "you" is a general "you", not you specifically. I've never heard an argument against copyright that didn't ultimately boil down to "I just want shit for free."
It would be bad because the next time that world class symphony wants to perform, they won't have any place to get their music from because no one would be publishing music anymore. Or it would cost them thousands of dollars to get that single copy for one instrument since they're just going to copy it for everyone else anyway.
It's interesting that you think that other people's time and investment isn't worth anything since the final product can be reproduced so easily. Either you fail to grasp the concept of what the actual product is (the music that took time to create and distribute, not the paper it's printed on), or you just don't care because you're a greedy bastard that thinks laws are bad because you just want shit for free. Which is it?
Do you still not understand the difference between a private institution and a public/government one and how the Constitution applies? Geez, it's like talking to a fucking wall. You're on/. so I assume you aren't stupid, so you must be just willfully ignorant. C'mon man, THINK!
If you'd still like to buy me a beer, I'm in New Orleans.:)
Obviously you don't understand the difference between a private function and one that is sponsored/funded/run by the government. Nor do you, again, understand the history of the Constitution, the Establishment Clause, or prior case history thereof. I suggest you study up on it and learn the facts before you continue to make yourself look as ignorant as you appear to be. In fact, I'll even post the relevant Wiki link for you: Separation of church and state in the US
There's no point in arguing with someone who refuses to understand and accept the basic facts.
I suppose you think that it's ok for a teacher in a public school to use his or her class time to preach and proselytize to their class, lest their free speech be hindered? (hint: it's not).
Separation of church and state... Nonexistent.
Supreme court rulings say otherwise. It's not some atheist conspiracy. It's atheists fighting for our right which includes the right to not be forced to endure you expressing your religious bullshit whenever you want, especially in government run/sponsored/funded establishments. If you don't agree with the first amendment, perhaps you're in the wrong country. You should go try Iraq, they don't have any problem with mixing religion and government. Let me know how that works out for you.
If that's their job and they refuse to do it, then why not? If you can't do the job you were hired to do, then why shouldn't you be fired (or quit)? In the case of the doctor who has to execute the death penalty, I'm pretty sure you would know what's involved in the job going in.
It's the same as anything, such as if you were an atheist who worked for a graphic design firm and refused to illustrate a billboard for a local church, or any number of other scenarios.
That's a beautiful little emotion-laden story, but the shitty part is your "disbelief in the separation of church and state crap", which flies in the face of constitutional history and law of the country. You WERE insubordinate and your religion isn't an excuse not to do the job you were hired to do any more than it was for those fuckers that refused to fill birth control or morning after pill prescriptions because they don't agree with the practice. If you can't do your job because of your religion, then it's not the job for you (and in your case, obviously it wasn't, hence your quitting.)
I'm assuming this wasn't a private school graduation otherwise there wouldn't have been any problem with her speech in the first place. Or at least no constitutional infringement. If it were a public school though, yeah, her speech should have been edited. I, for one, would not want myself or my kids to have to sit through a single second of religious bullshit at an institution that my tax dollars pay for. If you want to praise your god publicly, do it in your church or your home. That's what it's there for. No one is stopping you there.
It's admirable that you stand up for what you believe in and more people should do the same. However, if your belief is that the constitution is bullshit and you want to pick and choose which of its parts you want to uphold for yourself and EVERYONE ELSE, well, that just doesn't fly.
Your boss wasn't some minority imposing his will upon everyone else because he abusing his power. He was upholding the right to freedom of religion for ALL of those people, not just the ones that agreed with it. Unless you think it's ok to trample on the rights of those who don't believe or at least not as you do?
If the vote had been 199 for and 1 against, the school would still be in the right for refusing to allow them their 1 minute prayer because the tyranny of the majority is not allowed to override the rights of ANYONE. This is why we have a Constitution in the first place, guaranteeing certain rights the government is not allowed to take away. Otherwise, we would just have a democracy in which the majority always wins and fuck whatever those minorities want. Those 200 people did not have their rights taken away; they're just as free to go pray in their own church now as they were before. But they weren't, aren't, and shouldn't be allowed to lead a prayer at a government-sponsored function. Atheists have rights too.
Depending on your translation of the Bible, the tree of knowledge of good and evil can be interpreted as of good and of evil, or (according to Wikipedia) as a merism, to be interpreted as "all knowledge". The same wikipedia page states that Jewish traditions (the people who wrote the Old Testament!) consider the tree itself to be evil as well as the serpent. Either way you look at it, Adam and Eve were cast out for acquiring knowledge against the wishes of God, hence original sin. It isn't a very difficult logical leap to make the allusion that knowledge = bad from the story.
Also, this God guy certainly is a huge prick for creating creatures able to succumb to temptation that don't know right from wrong and then punish them for doing something he could have simply prevented in the first place. Screw that guy!
They need not be explicitly stated within Christian dogma, as they are the logical implications thereof. Just because "a = 2, b = 3" doesn't explicitly state that "a+b=5" doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Also, if you don't see how the concept of knowledge = evil fits into Christian dogma, you might want to check out Genesis again.
It's not that unreasonable; as Biff gambled and changed the future outcomes of different sporting events (assuming that his gambling would change them, which isn't unreasonable), the almanac which was reporting the outcomes of these events from the POV of the future would have changed as well, always being accurate on the results of the (possibly changing) outcomes because it would have been changing as well.
That "somebody who actually did something to deserve the wealth" is daddy, and he can do what he pleases with his money, including passing it on to his kid. The kid deserves the money because it's his dad's money and dad can do whatever the fuck he wants with it. If you think the kid doesn't deserve it and you do, then don't complain about the kid, complain about your daddy.
Slashdot Mirror
Science is not an explanation. It's a process. And it works. Bitches.
What about the ninja families who were pirates and raided ships moving along their coast lines, like the Kukishin family? Let that blow your mind for a bit, real ninja pirates. o.O
Unrepeatable/unverifiable video/audio "evidence" amounts to anecdotes. If it didn't, you wouldn't have had to put "evidence" in quotation marks.
So besides unverifiable anecdotes such as yours, where is this objective evidence?
A symphony is a piece of music. An orchestra performs music. (just being pedantic ;)
An orchestra, however, doesn't write music, it just performs it. Music is written by a composer. Which is then published, by a publisher. Which is then bought by a symphony, so that they have something to play so they can sell tickets. If they don't buy the music, the publisher makes no money and in turn, neither does the composer, who then has to get a day job to feed himself and then has little or no time to continue composing complicated pieces of music for orchestras to play. So now where does the orchestra get music to play?
The argument could be made that with this age of the internet, the whole "publisher" step could be eliminated, but that's a different argument...
Your or anyone else's subjective opinion of the quality of a creative work is irrelevant to the argument of who has the right to copy or distribute it. Replace Britney Spears with some artist that you really enjoy but that someone else thinks is shit and see if you still agree.
Maybe not, but is the end product of that labor worth anything to you? Do you still feel entitled to enjoy their product for free just because you say it has no value to you?
If your wanted to sell your picture (which is copyrightable) of your lawn (which isn't copyrightable), then yes, you should be able to charge whatever you want for that picture. Many people do; the entire stock photography industry is based on being able to control the sale of copies of images and the permission to use those images. It's your picture, why shouldn't you be able to charge people to use something that you created if you want to? If you want to give your picture away for anyone to see and use, that's great, that's your perogative. That doesn't give you the right to tell someone else what they can do with their creations.
Would you be ok if at the end of the work week your boss told you that he didn't think your work the past week was worth anything, therefore he wouldn't be paying you for it? How is that different?
Perhaps so, but what is the alternative? The government providing all artists a fixed income and demanding a certain turnout of music from them within a fixed time period? What do you suggest? I hear lots of "it's broken, it's a bad business model!" but no realistic suggestions of what's a better alternative.
Except for the fact that it's a direct infringment against their Constitutionally-granted rights. The purpose of these rights is to grant a temporary monopoly over the ability to distribute and copy someone's own created work so that there is enough monetary incentive for those people to continue to do creative stuff like writing music or inventing things for the common good of the People, otherwise no one could make a living at it and there would be far, far less enjoyable material out there for everyone. So by violating someone's copyright, you aren't only affecting the original creator, but you're also affecting society as a whole by removing the incentive for people to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
The infringer also didn't have a product to consume before either. So what you're asking for is a very one-sided transaction: a creator invests time and money into a product that is legally under his/her control, a right granted to them by the United States Constitution (obviously, only talking about the law as it stands in the United States), and you seem to be saying that since you don't agree with copyright law, you feel it ok to take it upon yourself to tell a creator that his creation has zero value while still consuming said product anyway.
That investment may be a significant portion of someone's life that they can never get back. Who are you to say what value they can place upon that?
You don't have to say it, it's a logical inference implicit in your entire argument. Can you not see that?
Now who's making assumptions? The original argument was regarding printed sheet music and photocopying, not downloading songs on the internet. But how does you personally infringing or not infringing copyright have any bearing on the issue at hand, at all? The "you" is a general "you", not you specifically. I've never heard an argument against copyright that didn't ultimately boil down to "I just want shit for free."
It's interesting that you think that other people's time and investment isn't worth anything since the final product can be reproduced so easily. Either you fail to grasp the concept of what the actual product is (the music that took time to create and distribute, not the paper it's printed on), or you just don't care because you're a greedy bastard that thinks laws are bad because you just want shit for free. Which is it?
Hitchen's rule: What can be asserted without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence.
If you'd still like to buy me a beer, I'm in New Orleans. :)
There's no point in arguing with someone who refuses to understand and accept the basic facts.
I suppose you think that it's ok for a teacher in a public school to use his or her class time to preach and proselytize to their class, lest their free speech be hindered? (hint: it's not).
Supreme court rulings say otherwise. It's not some atheist conspiracy. It's atheists fighting for our right which includes the right to not be forced to endure you expressing your religious bullshit whenever you want, especially in government run/sponsored/funded establishments. If you don't agree with the first amendment, perhaps you're in the wrong country. You should go try Iraq, they don't have any problem with mixing religion and government. Let me know how that works out for you.
It's the same as anything, such as if you were an atheist who worked for a graphic design firm and refused to illustrate a billboard for a local church, or any number of other scenarios.
I'm assuming this wasn't a private school graduation otherwise there wouldn't have been any problem with her speech in the first place. Or at least no constitutional infringement. If it were a public school though, yeah, her speech should have been edited. I, for one, would not want myself or my kids to have to sit through a single second of religious bullshit at an institution that my tax dollars pay for. If you want to praise your god publicly, do it in your church or your home. That's what it's there for. No one is stopping you there.
It's admirable that you stand up for what you believe in and more people should do the same. However, if your belief is that the constitution is bullshit and you want to pick and choose which of its parts you want to uphold for yourself and EVERYONE ELSE, well, that just doesn't fly.
Your boss wasn't some minority imposing his will upon everyone else because he abusing his power. He was upholding the right to freedom of religion for ALL of those people, not just the ones that agreed with it. Unless you think it's ok to trample on the rights of those who don't believe or at least not as you do?
I do agree with the rest of your post, however.
Thank you for this post, it's probably the most clearly stated argument I've been able to find for copyright.
Is this really what you would like to see happen rather than compensate someone for their work?
Also, this God guy certainly is a huge prick for creating creatures able to succumb to temptation that don't know right from wrong and then punish them for doing something he could have simply prevented in the first place. Screw that guy!
Go to the bottom of the Red Sea and look at the line of Egyptian fragments of chariots and armor.
Citation, please?
The religious have an uncanny ability to either redefine words or even entire concepts to suit their purpose, as evident in your post above.
Also, if you don't see how the concept of knowledge = evil fits into Christian dogma, you might want to check out Genesis again.
Also, science need not be as amoral as most people believe.
Call me when that's a yes. :D
If you're getting scratched, you might want to rethink your method. Most people don't drink milk right from the cow... o.O
Why would she be hard on a sock? That doesn't make any sense.
It's not that unreasonable; as Biff gambled and changed the future outcomes of different sporting events (assuming that his gambling would change them, which isn't unreasonable), the almanac which was reporting the outcomes of these events from the POV of the future would have changed as well, always being accurate on the results of the (possibly changing) outcomes because it would have been changing as well.
That "somebody who actually did something to deserve the wealth" is daddy, and he can do what he pleases with his money, including passing it on to his kid. The kid deserves the money because it's his dad's money and dad can do whatever the fuck he wants with it. If you think the kid doesn't deserve it and you do, then don't complain about the kid, complain about your daddy.