You're right about Britain not having a First Amendment. The question "Could Britain, rather than the US, be the main front of the battle against censorship in 2007?" suggests that the author has a very American centric worldview. In Europe in general free speech is much more limited. Yes they are more open in some areas; a couple of notable examples being tolerance of drugs and public portrayal of sex such as in advertising and on TV. However, in many other areas, note ably in political speech, they are much more extreme then the states and the root of it is related to the lack of a fundamental Free Speech right in their laws. A lot of people in the states dislike NPR or Fox TV, Rush or Air America but the fact is we have multiple loudly and publicly divergent views. In much of Europe the official view is presented by government tied organizations, or, as in France the people who run the government, major enterprises, and the media come over whelming from one school, give each other jobs as they move in and out of government and squelch opposing views. As much as I dislike the ultra naturalist Le Pen the deriding of all his supports as racists is a perfect example. His success was driven by the lack of an mainstream outlet in France for issues that concern a large portion of the population but rather then take them seriously the two, supposedly opposing major parties, joined together to ensure he would be kept from achieving any political win. Neither party moved to adopt, or co-opt any of his bases of support; instead they used their control of the government and media to push the issues under the rug. In the US by contrast Perot's Reform party had a few minor wins but has since been co-opted by both the parties, the Democrats taking the protectionist stance and the Republicans adopting the immigration concerns.
A much scarier trend is what is happening in Britain related to slander laws. In Britain there is no protection given to journalist and authors when they write about public figures. This means subjects of authors and journalists can, and do, successfully sue as a means of suppressing criticism. In the States it is very difficult for a public figure to win a slander suit against an author because you need to prove what was written was wrong, the author new it was wrong, the author had intentional malice in what they wrote and that harm was done. In Britain the prosecution need only show that what was published was wrong and that harm was done; there is no need for the author to have been aware of the mistake or to have had malice in their actions.
As a result of these laws publications in Britain are much more reluctant to write hard-hitting articles about individuals. Even more disturbing, a number of US authors have been sued, with some success, because there books were sold in Britain and now US publishers have said they will hesitate in publishing books that could be target of these suits, even in the US, because of the cost of limiting the publications distribution to North America.
A recent review, by James Glassman, that was in essential agreement with this one about the merits of the book and the reaction of the green community addressed the Scientific American article (which I had read previously) in more detail. Of particular interest to me was background information he supplied on one of the four critics Scientific American selected for the review, Stephan Schneider.
Kassman includes the following quote by professor Stephan Schneider, a bioligist from Standford. "[We] are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place. . . . To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media cov-erage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dra-matic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
When I read the Scientific American review I remember thinking that the tone of the artical was much more rhetorical and less substantive then I would have hoped/expected from the magazine. While I never doubted that there were individuals and groups who used 'science' to further political agendas it is very dissipointing that an institute whose focus is not even environmental science would publish such a questionable article.
It should be observed that the record industry's lawsuits could be viewed as a defense mechanism related to the legal nuances of information property. According to precedent (at least in the US) to maintain ownership of intellectual property you have to be able to show that you have a clear track record of defending you rights to the property.
If for example I were to write a song and openly release it on the Internet I would forfeit much of my legal ownership over the property irrespective of any paper legal claims I may have filed claiming ownership.
While it seems clear to any outside viewer that from a sales point of view the record companies should embrace the Internet as a new distribution channel, and while their failure to establish any viable Internet distribution solution stands as glaring failure on their part, it has to be recognized that it would have been irrational for them to have simply openly embrace the new Internet music distributors when by doing so they would not only have risked being destroyed by the new technologies but also by the old legal precedents.
There are two questions here that are being treated as one.
1) Does and should the creation of creative (ie new and unique) material bestow upon it's creator some form of ownership?
The answer to this question is NOT a force of nature; it is not a universal moral principal and it is not an absolute. It is what an individual society chooses it to be. In today's world, in our society, we have chosen to grant ownership of new creations to their creators for a period of time. Contrary to what many people here seem to think this is not an unreasonable decision. By granting an individual ownership our society is recognizing the individuals efforts, HOWEVER, we are not bestowing any value upon the individuals efforts. I can record and copyright the noise my dog makes when play with her toys but I find it highly unlikely that I will get any monetary reward.
It is perfectly reasonable to think that creators do not deserve ownership their work but it must be recognized that this is an opinion and it's an opinion that is contrary with the current consensus of society (as defined by our laws). It must also be recognized that this opinion has absolutely nothing to do with technology. This question DOES NOT addresses the effects of technology on production and distribution of new creations. Technology has had a major impact on the cost structure of production and distribution but changes in costs should be related to changes in values and as observed earlier the bestowing of ownership does not address the issue of value.
2) What should a creator's reward for their work be?
Assuming that a creator deserves to be rewarded for their work what should the reward be? I find it very notable that one comment referred for support to Marx because it is exactly Marx's line of reasoning that people seem to be taking. The disparagement of the current cost structure appears focused on the cost of production in relationship to return. One comment observed that the cost of producing an album was a few hundred thousand dollars and so the return should be limited to the same range and that once the cost had been recouped the album should be free. Sounds good if you want a socialist economy.
The cost of a creation, such as an album, is and should be related to the value people place on it. This is not wrong. Record companies make a lot of money on albums like Britney Spear's but they also loose money on albums that don't sell well. Why? Because we, us, the average Joe, have chosen to pay money for the Britney Spears album but not for the ones that bombed, the ones we can't even name because they bombed so badly.
And this is not a result of marketing. Marketing works because when someone goes to the store they by what they know. We have heard of Britney Spears because of marketing and that's why we buy her album. It is obvious but needs repeating that no one has ever walked into a store and asked for an Album they have never heard of.
The decision complaint of many of the comments is that artists don't deserve to be rewarded much more then the production cost of their creations but it is a short sighted complaint. The choice in practice is between devising a system where every artist or creator gets rewarded the production costs of their creation, (a system that does not recognize a creations value), and a system that bestows rewards proportional to the value of (i.e. demand for) the creation.
Again this is a judgment call but as far as I am concerned Capitalism easily beats Communism.
The key phrase is 'the main part'. The pulse is a distributed wave whose 'main part' follows a leading smaller series of waves, what they refer to the tail. These smaller series of waves generate on the far side of the chamber two knew waves. On, identical to 'the main part' of the wave keeps going forward. The other, a sort of anti wave heads back toward the incoming 'main part' wave. It is this anti wave, which is actually an interfence pattern, that travels at 300 times the speed of light, reaching the begining of the chamber just in time to cancel out the incoming 'main part'. The reason the 'main part' appears to exit the chamber before it enters it is because the leadinf protrusion which generates the exiting copy of the wave is more the the length of the chamber ahead of the 'main part'.
The observation you make is a point that the courts have recognized when applying to print media. The key phrase of what my observation is that the copyrighted material needs to pertain to the topic BEING discussed. If, as apparently the Free Republic site did, a piece of copyrighted material is posted and then people are asked to discuss it, the actual postage of the material was not used by the poster to add information to a prexisting debate.
I have not read the comments so I am not certain this pertains. The law explicitly says that it is legal to uses copyrighted material if it is for editorial purposes. Considering that Slashdot is clearly an environment for discussion and debate the posting of Copyrighted material should be legal as long as it pertains to the topic being discussed.
Thank you for mentioning Michigan. Again it will sound like a plug because I did get my MS there but I found them to be strong on a variety of subjects. Particularly OS/Distributed Systems, Algorithims, and Architecture. The only area I felt was week was in AI though they had some interesting cross disciplinary programs that were psuedo AI. I would strongly recommend at least looking into their programs.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right about Britain not having a First Amendment. The question "Could Britain, rather than the US, be the main front of the battle against censorship in 2007?" suggests that the author has a very American centric worldview. In Europe in general free speech is much more limited. Yes they are more open in some areas; a couple of notable examples being tolerance of drugs and public portrayal of sex such as in advertising and on TV. However, in many other areas, note ably in political speech, they are much more extreme then the states and the root of it is related to the lack of a fundamental Free Speech right in their laws. A lot of people in the states dislike NPR or Fox TV, Rush or Air America but the fact is we have multiple loudly and publicly divergent views. In much of Europe the official view is presented by government tied organizations, or, as in France the people who run the government, major enterprises, and the media come over whelming from one school, give each other jobs as they move in and out of government and squelch opposing views. As much as I dislike the ultra naturalist Le Pen the deriding of all his supports as racists is a perfect example. His success was driven by the lack of an mainstream outlet in France for issues that concern a large portion of the population but rather then take them seriously the two, supposedly opposing major parties, joined together to ensure he would be kept from achieving any political win. Neither party moved to adopt, or co-opt any of his bases of support; instead they used their control of the government and media to push the issues under the rug. In the US by contrast Perot's Reform party had a few minor wins but has since been co-opted by both the parties, the Democrats taking the protectionist stance and the Republicans adopting the immigration concerns.
A much scarier trend is what is happening in Britain related to slander laws. In Britain there is no protection given to journalist and authors when they write about public figures. This means subjects of authors and journalists can, and do, successfully sue as a means of suppressing criticism. In the States it is very difficult for a public figure to win a slander suit against an author because you need to prove what was written was wrong, the author new it was wrong, the author had intentional malice in what they wrote and that harm was done. In Britain the prosecution need only show that what was published was wrong and that harm was done; there is no need for the author to have been aware of the mistake or to have had malice in their actions.
As a result of these laws publications in Britain are much more reluctant to write hard-hitting articles about individuals. Even more disturbing, a number of US authors have been sued, with some success, because there books were sold in Britain and now US publishers have said they will hesitate in publishing books that could be target of these suits, even in the US, because of the cost of limiting the publications distribution to North America.
A recent review, by James Glassman, that was in essential agreement with this one about the merits of the book and the reaction of the green community addressed the Scientific American article (which I had read previously) in more detail. Of particular interest to me was background information he supplied on one of the four critics Scientific American selected for the review, Stephan Schneider.
Kassman includes the following quote by professor Stephan Schneider, a bioligist from Standford.
"[We] are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place. . . . To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media cov-erage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dra-matic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
When I read the Scientific American review I remember thinking that the tone of the artical was much more rhetorical and less substantive then I would have hoped/expected from the magazine. While I never doubted that there were individuals and groups who used 'science' to further political agendas it is very dissipointing that an institute whose focus is not even environmental science would publish such a questionable article.
It should be observed that the record industry's lawsuits could be viewed as a defense mechanism related to the legal nuances of information property. According to precedent (at least in the US) to maintain ownership of intellectual property you have to be able to show that you have a clear track record of defending you rights to the property.
If for example I were to write a song and openly release it on the Internet I would forfeit much of my legal ownership over the property irrespective of any paper legal claims I may have filed claiming ownership.
While it seems clear to any outside viewer that from a sales point of view the record companies should embrace the Internet as a new distribution channel, and while their failure to establish any viable Internet distribution solution stands as glaring failure on their part, it has to be recognized that it would have been irrational for them to have simply openly embrace the new Internet music distributors when by doing so they would not only have risked being destroyed by the new technologies but also by the old legal precedents.
There are two questions here that are being treated as one. 1) Does and should the creation of creative (ie new and unique) material bestow upon it's creator some form of ownership? The answer to this question is NOT a force of nature; it is not a universal moral principal and it is not an absolute. It is what an individual society chooses it to be. In today's world, in our society, we have chosen to grant ownership of new creations to their creators for a period of time. Contrary to what many people here seem to think this is not an unreasonable decision. By granting an individual ownership our society is recognizing the individuals efforts, HOWEVER, we are not bestowing any value upon the individuals efforts. I can record and copyright the noise my dog makes when play with her toys but I find it highly unlikely that I will get any monetary reward. It is perfectly reasonable to think that creators do not deserve ownership their work but it must be recognized that this is an opinion and it's an opinion that is contrary with the current consensus of society (as defined by our laws). It must also be recognized that this opinion has absolutely nothing to do with technology. This question DOES NOT addresses the effects of technology on production and distribution of new creations. Technology has had a major impact on the cost structure of production and distribution but changes in costs should be related to changes in values and as observed earlier the bestowing of ownership does not address the issue of value. 2) What should a creator's reward for their work be? Assuming that a creator deserves to be rewarded for their work what should the reward be? I find it very notable that one comment referred for support to Marx because it is exactly Marx's line of reasoning that people seem to be taking. The disparagement of the current cost structure appears focused on the cost of production in relationship to return. One comment observed that the cost of producing an album was a few hundred thousand dollars and so the return should be limited to the same range and that once the cost had been recouped the album should be free. Sounds good if you want a socialist economy. The cost of a creation, such as an album, is and should be related to the value people place on it. This is not wrong. Record companies make a lot of money on albums like Britney Spear's but they also loose money on albums that don't sell well. Why? Because we, us, the average Joe, have chosen to pay money for the Britney Spears album but not for the ones that bombed, the ones we can't even name because they bombed so badly. And this is not a result of marketing. Marketing works because when someone goes to the store they by what they know. We have heard of Britney Spears because of marketing and that's why we buy her album. It is obvious but needs repeating that no one has ever walked into a store and asked for an Album they have never heard of. The decision complaint of many of the comments is that artists don't deserve to be rewarded much more then the production cost of their creations but it is a short sighted complaint. The choice in practice is between devising a system where every artist or creator gets rewarded the production costs of their creation, (a system that does not recognize a creations value), and a system that bestows rewards proportional to the value of (i.e. demand for) the creation. Again this is a judgment call but as far as I am concerned Capitalism easily beats Communism.
Amen!
The key phrase is 'the main part'. The pulse is a distributed wave whose 'main part' follows a leading smaller series of waves, what they refer to the tail. These smaller series of waves generate on the far side of the chamber two knew waves. On, identical to 'the main part' of the wave keeps going forward. The other, a sort of anti wave heads back toward the incoming 'main part' wave. It is this anti wave, which is actually an interfence pattern, that travels at 300 times the speed of light, reaching the begining of the chamber just in time to cancel out the incoming 'main part'. The reason the 'main part' appears to exit the chamber before it enters it is because the leadinf protrusion which generates the exiting copy of the wave is more the the length of the chamber ahead of the 'main part'.
The observation you make is a point that the courts have recognized when applying to print media. The key phrase of what my observation is that the copyrighted material needs to pertain to the topic BEING discussed. If, as apparently the Free Republic site did, a piece of copyrighted material is posted and then people are asked to discuss it, the actual postage of the material was not used by the poster to add information to a prexisting debate.
I have not read the comments so I am not certain this pertains. The law explicitly says that it is legal to uses copyrighted material if it is for editorial purposes. Considering that Slashdot is clearly an environment for discussion and debate the posting of Copyrighted material should be legal as long as it pertains to the topic being discussed.
Thank you for mentioning Michigan. Again it will sound like a plug because I did get my MS there but I found them to be strong on a variety of subjects. Particularly OS/Distributed Systems, Algorithims, and Architecture. The only area I felt was week was in AI though they had some interesting cross disciplinary programs that were psuedo AI. I would strongly recommend at least looking into their programs.