I actually think that not only is the conveyability of copyrights a good thing, but that it ought to be done more thoroughly
The Crown was fully in favor of the conveying of rights. In that fashion The Crown could bully anyone into giving up anything The Crown wanted.
Gosh that's easy. Conforms to Occam's, Hanlon's, and plutocracy all at the same time.
But nevertheless, you are the one person in all history who is right about this?</i>
Every court case before the Supreme Court regarding copyright and intellectual property has two sides. Statistically, at least 50% of the finest legal minds in the nation agree with me.
The fact that the plutocracy has won is simply the path of least resistance. It's easy to stay on top once you're there.
Occam's Razor is that the most simple answer is probably the correct one
Plutocracy is a result of stupidity because it's easier.
Those who support the plutocracy (yes, that's you) do so out of stupidity, because it's easier to be a lapdog than stand up for yourself like any man with real testicles.
that absolutely everyone involved in copyright law since 1710 is wrong
They're not maliciously wrong. That would take cunning and effort. They're stupidly wrong in that those writing the rules have no clue why life is suddenly so easy.
Hardly. The Framer's were coming out of England and this is exactly the type of thing which they were attempting to prevent from happening again.
No, the initial grant is reserved to them.
Does the document say initial? No. It says exclusive.
You do this every time. And every time, no matter how many bought court decisions you have to back you, you're wrong. I already said that I was wondering what was taking you so long to jump in.
Completely ignoring the superior economic position of the major labels.
It's safe to assume that the choice of the authors was made in their own self interest
It's also safe to assume that recording contracts are in the interests of the recording company, and in no way reflect reserving exclusive rights to authors and inventors.
So they get to be free to make decisions, whether the outcome is good or bad.
Completely ignoring that the laws are rigged in favor of corporations which hold an economic upper hand.
Selling or licensing a copyright is no different, really, than selling a car or a house or anything else.
Except that, Constitutionally, the exclusive right is reserved to the author or inventor.
Talk to me again when the laws reflect the document which gives them any legitimacy.
get it through your dumbass heads. Copyright infringment is theft plain and simple.
It's copyright infringement. Current copyright law is unConstitutional and can therefore be disregarded at your own risk. No one can protect you from the mafia like cartel that purports to be the Federal Government but you don't have to feel guilty about telling them to shove their plutocratic rules up their backsides.
A good Republic has a charter. Without a charter document there is no legitimacy. When outside the scope of that charter document there is no legitimacy. The US Federal Law regarding copyright has been outside the scope of the charter document since, pretty much, the first Congress.
notice, no reference to composers, musicians, or programmers
Who are all authors and inventors within a reasonable definition.
ACTIVIST JUDGES at work, my friends
Activist judges are the ones who think that lawyers writing recording contracts and conglomerate organizations like the RIAA/MPAA qualify as authors and inventors with respect to the work in question.
The lawyers may be authors of the contracts. I don't see anyone getting sued for sharing contracts without the permissions of the lawyers.
If you can't sell copyright, it takes away a lot of the potential value.
Under today's laws, yes. Intellectual property does not have any default value. Had we spent the last 200 years writing the laws correctly, rather than rigging a plutocracy, this would be more readily apparent.
I don't believe it should be the purpose of law to protect people from their own bad judgement
This is agreeable. However this isn't about the bad judgement of the people. This is about what the Constitution empowers the Federal Government to do. When I read the document I read that the Federal Government is empowered to protect the authors and inventors. I do not read that the Federal Government is empowered to sell the authors and inventors to the corporations for the lowest dollar offered up by a political lobbying group or a corporate special interest donation.
I'm not really all that difficult about Copyright Law. It goes something like this: The Constitution empowers the feds to secure, for limited times, to authors and inventors exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries.
If someone has secured to me an exclusive right then it should be very very very very difficult for someone else to take that right from me. The concept of "copyright owner" is a trojan horse on the whole Constitution since it allows corporations to maneuver authors and inventors into an economic playing field where the corporation has the obvious bargaining advantage. How then does copyright law secure anything to the authors and inventors?
When copyright law follows the Constitution in protecting the individual authors and inventors then I'll start mounting the "don't steal IP" battle. Until then it's just a rigged plutocracy.
It's really not all that difficult to comply with the GPL with respect to sharing. If someone can't be GPL compliant they're really trying to do something wrong.
On the other hand, complying with any given label's interpretation of Fair Use (which gets notably thinner with every passing year, another symptom the GPL doesn't have) is near impossible.
When record labels publish a definitive list of acceptable terms of sharing in the same way the GPL does then it'll be a valid discussion. Until then it's just trolling. The GPL is very clear about what is and isn't allowed for sharing. With the record labels there are a thousand vague interpretations of Fair Use and no one makes any effort to clear it up.
Not only did we invent and build it -- we paid for it. That doesn't entitle us to something?
It sure doesn't. Have you seen your ISP bill lately?
You're right. We, the taxpayers of the US, paid in taxes to lay down the infrastructure which was then happily given to the corporate overlords so they could fleece us blind.
Now suppose a musician, a producer, a team of sound engineers, cover artists, a couple talent scouts, and the management to put them all together each contribute a little bit towards a great new album they expect you to pay for
That pretty much sums it up. You pad your argument by pulling heartstrings for musicians, producers, engineers, cover artists, and scouts... when the only people profiting largely from copyright law are the upper managment.
Re:This sort of thing...
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
you have still violated copyright and that is wrong.
If copyright law were even remotely close to what was indicated in the Constitution I'd agree with you. Since copyright law is a complete laughingstock of morality and ethics, though, I'm going to say that violating current copyright law is a patriotic duty.
Anyone who doesn't want to live under that government is free to leave at any time
That's where this whole thing started. I said that contracts are rigged and the person across from me was vehement that there's no requirement to sign them.
Libertarians would never allow the government the authority to set that contract as it applies to all of society. That would require massive government control and oversight. This conflicts directly with Libertarianism/minarchism.
which doesn't even attack my thesis
Your thesis is based on a wikipedia page which is chock full of meaningless political jargon and I've already shown how the two terms are at opposing ends of the spectrum in terms of implementation.
You can certainly argue that such a system is inherently impossible or contradictory
" The more hurdles that one has to jump through for good security, the less likely people will go through the trouble. OpenBSD allows even the most inexperienced users to take advantage of these technologies without any effort. "
Can they fix the government, too? It sounds like the same problem.
In some cases introns serve a known purpose in indexing for the enzymes which work with DNA. Junk DNA is the stuff with no known purpose at all.
You're still correct. It is heap protection in an evolutionary way. Heap protection on computers seeks to safeguard the data as it is. Junk DNA accepts that things are going to get corrupted and seeks to make it statistically less likely for the important parts to get corrupted.
That's a link for socialism, not communism. There's a difference.
Additionally there is absolutely no way to implement Libertarian socialism. Socialism implies using government authority for enforcement. That's something which Libertarians are set against. Libertarians support a minimalist model of government. A minimalist government could never enforce a centralized socialism. The only true "libertarian socialism" would be Utopia, in which there is no overbearing government yet somehow everyone manages to get along perfectly. In that case, call it Utopia and remember that, in Utopia, government oversight is completely unnecessary.
Wikipedia is full of misconceptions which are propagated by a generally ignorant public.
You're a fucking retard, you don't even understand what you wrote, let alone anything anyone else here wrote. Dumbass.
What's sad is that, even with this impressive display of intellectual eloquence, it's very likely that you make more money per year than I do. No wonder the world functions like a group of brain-damaged zombies.
Karl Marx would be right, and we should overthrow the government and extablish a Communist country.
Until reaching Utopia, a communist country is one which is completely controlled by the government. Very similar to the US today with the government regulating everything and anything under the sun. You're very confused.
You and everyone else just bitch because you got EXACTLY what you asked for
I asked for you to practice what you preach. You preached "life isn't fair" and you're right, it's not. I'm asking for the courts to serve that dish to the RIAA and every other pouting billionaire media mogul who shows up in court trying to prosecute kids for sharing.
There's no secret that the medium is easily replicated. They make absolutely no attempt to secure the IP. They sell it to every 12-year old with $10. Why should my tax money be responsible for cleaning up their refusal to face reality?
Slashdot Mirror
Gosh that's easy. Conforms to Occam's, Hanlon's, and plutocracy all at the same time.
Every court case before the Supreme Court regarding copyright and intellectual property has two sides. Statistically, at least 50% of the finest legal minds in the nation agree with me.
The fact that the plutocracy has won is simply the path of least resistance. It's easy to stay on top once you're there.
Those who support the plutocracy (yes, that's you) do so out of stupidity, because it's easier to be a lapdog than stand up for yourself like any man with real testicles.
They're not maliciously wrong. That would take cunning and effort. They're stupidly wrong in that those writing the rules have no clue why life is suddenly so easy.
That's because the plutocracy existed even then.
Yes, yes. You've already told me how the First Congress decided that any limitations on their power didn't really apply to them.
Yes. Your point of view, and the point of view of the courts, is a result of stupidity. In no way are you intelligent enough to be malicious.
Does the document say initial? No. It says exclusive.
You do this every time. And every time, no matter how many bought court decisions you have to back you, you're wrong. I already said that I was wondering what was taking you so long to jump in.
It's also safe to assume that recording contracts are in the interests of the recording company, and in no way reflect reserving exclusive rights to authors and inventors.
Completely ignoring that the laws are rigged in favor of corporations which hold an economic upper hand.
Except that, Constitutionally, the exclusive right is reserved to the author or inventor.
Talk to me again when the laws reflect the document which gives them any legitimacy.
Just what part of authors and inventors looking out for their own interests does the RIAA/MPAA fit in?
A good Republic has a charter. Without a charter document there is no legitimacy. When outside the scope of that charter document there is no legitimacy. The US Federal Law regarding copyright has been outside the scope of the charter document since, pretty much, the first Congress.
Activist judges are the ones who think that lawyers writing recording contracts and conglomerate organizations like the RIAA/MPAA qualify as authors and inventors with respect to the work in question.
The lawyers may be authors of the contracts. I don't see anyone getting sued for sharing contracts without the permissions of the lawyers.
This is agreeable. However this isn't about the bad judgement of the people. This is about what the Constitution empowers the Federal Government to do. When I read the document I read that the Federal Government is empowered to protect the authors and inventors. I do not read that the Federal Government is empowered to sell the authors and inventors to the corporations for the lowest dollar offered up by a political lobbying group or a corporate special interest donation.
I'm not really all that difficult about Copyright Law. It goes something like this: The Constitution empowers the feds to secure, for limited times, to authors and inventors exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries.
If someone has secured to me an exclusive right then it should be very very very very difficult for someone else to take that right from me. The concept of "copyright owner" is a trojan horse on the whole Constitution since it allows corporations to maneuver authors and inventors into an economic playing field where the corporation has the obvious bargaining advantage. How then does copyright law secure anything to the authors and inventors?
When copyright law follows the Constitution in protecting the individual authors and inventors then I'll start mounting the "don't steal IP" battle. Until then it's just a rigged plutocracy.
It's really not all that difficult to comply with the GPL with respect to sharing. If someone can't be GPL compliant they're really trying to do something wrong.
On the other hand, complying with any given label's interpretation of Fair Use (which gets notably thinner with every passing year, another symptom the GPL doesn't have) is near impossible.
When record labels publish a definitive list of acceptable terms of sharing in the same way the GPL does then it'll be a valid discussion. Until then it's just trolling. The GPL is very clear about what is and isn't allowed for sharing. With the record labels there are a thousand vague interpretations of Fair Use and no one makes any effort to clear it up.
You're right. We, the taxpayers of the US, paid in taxes to lay down the infrastructure which was then happily given to the corporate overlords so they could fleece us blind.
At least that's what I'm told when I talk about the inequities of the system.
Linus was being a realist.
Quite nice. Linguists rule.
Libertarians would never allow the government the authority to set that contract as it applies to all of society. That would require massive government control and oversight. This conflicts directly with Libertarianism/minarchism.
Your thesis is based on a wikipedia page which is chock full of meaningless political jargon and I've already shown how the two terms are at opposing ends of the spectrum in terms of implementation.
That's exactly what I did.
In some cases introns serve a known purpose in indexing for the enzymes which work with DNA. Junk DNA is the stuff with no known purpose at all.
:)
You're still correct. It is heap protection in an evolutionary way. Heap protection on computers seeks to safeguard the data as it is. Junk DNA accepts that things are going to get corrupted and seeks to make it statistically less likely for the important parts to get corrupted.
Thanks for that train of thought.
That's a link for socialism, not communism. There's a difference.
Additionally there is absolutely no way to implement Libertarian socialism. Socialism implies using government authority for enforcement. That's something which Libertarians are set against. Libertarians support a minimalist model of government. A minimalist government could never enforce a centralized socialism. The only true "libertarian socialism" would be Utopia, in which there is no overbearing government yet somehow everyone manages to get along perfectly. In that case, call it Utopia and remember that, in Utopia, government oversight is completely unnecessary.
Wikipedia is full of misconceptions which are propagated by a generally ignorant public.
Did anyone else read that then re-read the snippets to see if there was some subliminal message?
I asked for you to practice what you preach. You preached "life isn't fair" and you're right, it's not. I'm asking for the courts to serve that dish to the RIAA and every other pouting billionaire media mogul who shows up in court trying to prosecute kids for sharing.
There's no secret that the medium is easily replicated. They make absolutely no attempt to secure the IP. They sell it to every 12-year old with $10. Why should my tax money be responsible for cleaning up their refusal to face reality?