This is the best thing to happen to copyright in a long time.
It will be an intersting opportunity for the evolution of copyright law. Right now the copyright concept hinges on the antiquated notion that the right to make a copy is what matters.
Google is making full text electronic searches of scanned books, and has clearly made a copy. The scale of this copying clearly falls outside of "fair use".
On the other hand, the intended use of the copies they hold would be of great benefit to authors and society at large, but antiquated laws restrict the right to make copies to the owner of the copyright.
Hopefully the money will be here to get an opinion from the courts that clarifies these antiquated notions.
The courts are the friends of the people in this case.
The courts are the only ones that can bring balance to the force of copyright since Lawmakers have already been bought by the vested interests of copyright exploiters.
The best thing that could happen to bring the balance of copyright back toward benefiting the public good in the spirit it was granted in the first place, is going to court oposing someone with $84,000,000,000 valuation.
Of course you were referring to cutting edge research aiming to further control and utilize quantum principles in computing and communication. Deeper understanding and conrtrol of our universe will certainly allow much more exciting and revolutionary inventions.
My point is that the devices like the transistor (upon which an easy 40% of the American economy now relies) and LEDs which you see everwhere from stoplights to TV remotes, are infact (already in the 1960's) based on principles of quantum mechanics. (Try fully explaining how the LED works without going into a quantum mechanics primer.)
Yet how many Computer science grads understand the fundamental principles behind the operation of these devices that enable their lievelyhood?
How many even realize that quantum mechanics not just an acedemic theory but is has born fruit that deeply affects their lives?
Your post about future devices being based on futuristic "quantum principles" just underscored to me that it is not just the younger generation that doesn't know how the things they use every day actually work. I certainly don't.
Economists understand this principle well. One of them said something to the effect that "The richer a society gets the less likely any member would have the skills to even survive on their own."
An economist might point out that there is not likely even one person in the world with the knowledge to make a wooden pencil on their own. They would need knowledge of chemistry, mining, metalurgy, rubber, woodworking, and paint, and to draw on diversly scattered natural resources. The fact that pencils (and transistors) are so cheap that you might not even stoop to retreive one from the floor, illustrates the value of econmic specialization.
Barring a major disruption to the system, economic specialization, and knowledge specialization serve us well. Understanding a technology is not at all a prequisite to utilizing a technology.
Slashdot Mirror
It will be an intersting opportunity for the evolution of copyright law. Right now the copyright concept hinges on the antiquated notion that the right to make a copy is what matters.
Google is making full text electronic searches of scanned books, and has clearly made a copy. The scale of this copying clearly falls outside of "fair use".
On the other hand, the intended use of the copies they hold would be of great benefit to authors and society at large, but antiquated laws restrict the right to make copies to the owner of the copyright.
Hopefully the money will be here to get an opinion from the courts that clarifies these antiquated notions.
The courts are the friends of the people in this case. The courts are the only ones that can bring balance to the force of copyright since Lawmakers have already been bought by the vested interests of copyright exploiters.
The best thing that could happen to bring the balance of copyright back toward benefiting the public good in the spirit it was granted in the first place, is going to court oposing someone with $84,000,000,000 valuation.
My point is that the devices like the transistor (upon which an easy 40% of the American economy now relies) and LEDs which you see everwhere from stoplights to TV remotes, are infact (already in the 1960's) based on principles of quantum mechanics. (Try fully explaining how the LED works without going into a quantum mechanics primer.)
Yet how many Computer science grads understand the fundamental principles behind the operation of these devices that enable their lievelyhood?
How many even realize that quantum mechanics not just an acedemic theory but is has born fruit that deeply affects their lives?
Your post about future devices being based on futuristic "quantum principles" just underscored to me that it is not just the younger generation that doesn't know how the things they use every day actually work. I certainly don't.
Economists understand this principle well. One of them said something to the effect that "The richer a society gets the less likely any member would have the skills to even survive on their own."
An economist might point out that there is not likely even one person in the world with the knowledge to make a wooden pencil on their own. They would need knowledge of chemistry, mining, metalurgy, rubber, woodworking, and paint, and to draw on diversly scattered natural resources. The fact that pencils (and transistors) are so cheap that you might not even stoop to retreive one from the floor, illustrates the value of econmic specialization.
Barring a major disruption to the system, economic specialization, and knowledge specialization serve us well. Understanding a technology is not at all a prequisite to utilizing a technology.
We need not be concerned about this.
Wow! Like the silicon transistor that has been around for 45 years? Its operation is certainly based on "quantum principles".
Thanks for reaffirming that the younger generation really doesn't know HOW things work.
Props for the Simpson's quote though.