less heat, less energy consumption, potential for smaller pathways, and higher speed
Indeed. You've hit the nail on the head. Of course, the majority of jokesters around here will probably continue to ridicule the concept in other threads, mostly because they don't know what they're talking about. The difference between current processor technology and photonic processors is the same as the difference between copper wire network connections and fiberoptic connections.
Fiberoptics are superior to purely electrical designs but only after they've overcome the initial investment hurdle for design and implementation.
The fact remains that a natural disaster, however terrible for the people involved, is like ringing the cash register for the large corporate conglomerates that could afford to stack their investment with all sorts of insurance coverage. Insurance companies are like any other multi-faceted business venture. If one of arm of the business is losing money the executives will milk the other arms to make up for it.
The same thing happened in the dot-com crash. While most American investors were watching their investment dollars tank down the toilet, the business investors at the topmost levels were recouping their losses from the business insurance and leaving the rest of us to fight over the scraps. There's a reason why home and health insurance costs rose so sharply (along with gas prices) just as the stock market was tanking. At some level, wealthy investing conglomerates were balancing the "loss" and "earnings" columns in their ledgers. No matter what the public release excuses were.
2004 was the costliest year on record for global insurers, who paid out more than $40 billion on natural disasters
And don't blame your kids for the car insurance rates either.
Consider: raise everyone's health care and car insurance rates and use the money to cover the losses on the recreational business ventures covered by disaster insurance. Indeed even the normal people in the disaster area are typically losing as we've all heard the stories of homeowners who had insurance, just not the right kind of insurance.
In a way, insurance money from disasters probably goes to the bank account of some real estate conglomerate safely seated in New York.
When I was younger, it was kind of a thing to do. Go and spend an hour or two meandering around the CD store looking through racks and racks and racks of CDs. In today's world I can't prioritize that kind of time to browsing through music. In the last year I've bought about 10 CDs and it took me less than an hour over the course of the whole year to do it.
I've only gotten one album from the 'net, and it wasn't from an automated file-sharing network. It was from an acquaintence who frequents many of the same music forums that I do. It was Maxim's Hell's Kitchen album. I've since purchased the actual CD, and Maxim's second album "Fallen Angel", as a result of it.
The time would be around the correct years but, honestly, I don't see the face of the business landscape as having changed that much.
I'm not so certain that militant terrorists would have much of an interest in poring over patents. It's not like they have the type of legitimate facilities and employment that would put them close to the development stage of manufacturing. Unless someone would like to admit that there are more real-world business ties to militant terrorists than what's commonly thought.
In the pdf is a graph of year vs. number of declassified and classified pages. The Clinton years are the only years since 1980 where more pages were declassified than new pages classified.
The correlation is so strong that it makes me think there's a lot more that we should be able to learn from that graph. Perhaps there are correlations between businesses owned primarily by Repubs vs. businesses owned primarily by Dems. Perhaps there are correlations with watchdog groups which try to keep the government in line. Perhaps there are correlations with specific lobbying groups and law enforcement agencies.
There's also a graph on secrecy orders issued vs. secrecy orders rescinded with respect to patents. Apparently this was a much more popular maneuver in the late 80s than it is today. It makes me wonder if that system may have become stagnant and no longer serves the purpose which it was created for.
The big difference is that now, file trading can completely replace legitimate purchases
It can, but it doesn't. Just like pigs can fly, but they don't. Quit spreading FUD. The music industry will be just fine after it gets its head out of its backside and turns around to face the reality that sharing is one of the few good parts of life.
However, it completely ruins the business model of music distribution to allow for anonymous, limitless music sharing
No. It doesn't. Automated file sharing has been around for over 10 years and the media industry still turns a profit every year.
how does any of this excuse pirating material protected under current laws?
If my friend buys a CD then the CD was legally bought and sold. If it was legally bought and sold then ownership was trasnferred. If he owns it then he can legally share it with me.
There is no secret that CDs are easily ripped to a hard drive and shared over a network. This is not a surprise. If the media companies feel they're getting a raw deal they're free to screen their customers, raise the price of a CD, or make an attempt at producing an affordable and long-lived player with custom hardware encryption.
Whatever it is, there is one thing which stands true: No more grousing about the profit margin after the point of sale. No one's forcing these people to sell CDs to every 10-year old with $15. No one's forcing these billionaire media moguls to be in the media business. If they don't like it they're free to leave. No one has a gun to their head to force them to stay in the boardroom.
Do whatever it takes, but do it before the point of sale. After the point of sale, get over it. Face reality. The product was legally bought and sold and there no longer is any claim to dictating terms of use.
If anything, file-sharing gives the media companies a taste of what they're doing to the artists: "This is the way the world works, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Now either continue on or get out of the game. You can't fight us, and you sure as hell can't win."
The NET Act (No Electronic Theft) of 1997 criminalized unlicensed, non-profit, re-distribution.
Where does the Federal Government derive any authority to enforce this? I'm reading the Constitution, and no where do I see the right to control the distribution of copyrighted works. If you want to claim interstate commerce I direct you to the 9th Amendment in which enumeration of the Constitution to expand the powers of the Federal Government is specifically prohibited.
So, regardless of the impotent puppet court system's rulings on the matter, this act is unconstitutional.
You don't own the music, you own the disk.
Good. Then I'm free to make copies of the disk or do with it whatever I please. If the original author or inventor or creator takes issue with it then they're free to file their claim in court as the copyright holder. If anyone else claims to be the official copyright holder then this is no longer under Federal jurisdiction. The Constitution, with respect to exclusive rights to inventions and creations, recognizes only the original author, inventor, or creator.
The RIAA and the other holders of copyright entitlements can collectively go suck an egg unless they find a state or locality which recognizes them in their respective charters. If not then, per the Constitutional default, the rights remain with the individuals.
You want a license for broadcast, public performance, re-distribution, you negotiate it separately.
That's not recognized as under Federal jurisdiction and, to be fair, I've not seen it in the charters of any of the states in which I've lived.
Again, no interstate commerce bull-roar. Just because no one adheres to the 9th Amendment doesn't mean that it was stricken from the Constitution. If anything it's a blatant testament to the illegitimacy of the current government.
Treaties have equal status with the Constitution, and can significantly expand federal power, something to think about when considering copyright law.
Treaties are between nations and do not infringe on the rights of the people, as the rights of the people are protected first and foremost by the Constitution. Treaties cannot expand the role or jurisdiction of the Federal government. I don't know how you think you can justify that.
and your solution is to subvert the right of every author to profit from the distribution of his own work?
A complete disconnect from file-sharing. The original authors and inventors aren't involved in the legal process anymore. In many cases they don't even "legally" own their rights (which is itself an unConstitutional prospect).
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that every law is legitimate by default. Newsflash: It's not. If it's not authorized in a charter document such as the US Constitution, then it's no better than mafia rule of force.
The goal is to live within the system while not burdening yourself with the complete and utter BS that's in it.
I don't want to go to court, I don't want to fight a battle, I have no crusade. The RIAA is the one on a crusade. You know what I say? Let them have it. They want a crusade, that's their problem. Quit wasting my taxpayer money to support it.
You're supposed to be demonstrating the wrongness of the law
That's a very popular troll. There are no stars in this world. No one's going to stand up to be a shining knight to take on the copyright system. No one's going to suddenly rise up out of the ashes and come up with the kind of cash that it takes to challenge the big IP companies.
Did you see what happened when the US took on MS? We wasted millions in taxpayer dollars and the US attorneys had their ass handed to them. Did you see what happened when the EU tried? They also had their ass handed to them and got a paltry settlement--and these were governments with taxpayer billions at their disposal to fight these legal battles.
How can you claim to be serious in suggesting that a private citizen mount a legal battle against the media industry with its associated lobbies and pocketed politicians?
There's no explanation. You've got to be astronomically naive... or a very pitiable troll.
If that happens, there's nothing to enforce the GPL with
Hardly. If we had a system without our current screwed up copyright laws, then the GPL wouldn't be necessary. The whole landscape of the computing industry would be completely different and free software wouldn't need to be protected from proprietary marauders. In a system of proper copyright, the free software community and the proprietary community would borrow from each other freely and would contribute to each other inherently.
But you don't see that, because you haven't actually thought about it. The only thing you want to do is take the holier-than-thou road of "if it's illegal, don't do it". Have you ever questioned the legitimacy of that legality? Of course not. Have you looked at the charter document which empowers the government enforcing that legality to see if they have any real jurisdiction in the area? Of course not. Would you even know the difference between a legitimate government and a loosely affiliated system of arbitrary mafioso bosses? Of course not.
So you just keep shilling along. Some of us out here are thinking critically and the day will come when the matter of jurisdiction and legitimacy will come into question.
I'm reading through the Constitution and, you know, I just can't find anywhere in this document where there's a "right of distribution" which is delegated as under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Per the 9th and 10th Amendments, that jurisdiction is reserved then to the states (if it's in the state's charter Constitution) or the individual people.
You know why it's not in there? Because the people who wrote the Constitution realized that "right to distribute" is an artificial aberration. They recognized 200 years ago something which you have absolutely no grasp over today: That if you have something in your possession, you're naturally going to have a right to distribute it. They had the printing press at the time. This would have been a very logical thing for them to consider. You can't say that they didn't think of it.
They left it out for a reason--because the "right to distribute" is another legal scam to subvert the Constitutionally guaranteed copyright which rests with the original author, inventor, or creator. The same as the concept of a transferrable "copyright holder". In the Constitution there is only one copyright holder: the original author, inventor, or creator. Why did they not think to include more verbage about copyright holders? Because they'd had plenty of experience with The Crown being the copyright holder. They knew that the system could easily be twisted to turn into the abomination that it is today.
They tried to head it off at the pass with the 9th and 10th Amendments. Fortunately for 21st century AC trolls, one of the very first things that the first Congress did was to decide that the 9th and 10th Amendments don't really apply to them.
I just think that morally a copyright holder, who has gone to the bother of creating music or other intellectual property (or paid someone else to make it) should have the right to limit the distribution of that work, since were it not for them it wouldn't exist.
Let's start with a basic premise that everyone (who's sane) agrees upon: People who create the work need to be properly compensated for it, but they aren't entitled to take all of society to the cleaners over it. Fair enough? I think so. This premise is in the Constitution, in the charter document for our Federal Government. There's a clause which secures, to authors and inventors, for a limited time, exclusive rights to their creation.
So who are these copyright holders? First, get it out of your head that these copyright holders are anyone who is protected by the law. Big media companies are like loan sharks. They don't give a damn about the artists and they don't give a damn about the artists rights. The Constitution was written to protect authors, inventors, and creators from entities like big media companies who will use any leverage point, any tactic possible, to wrest control of the original invention or creation from the rightful owner. This is precisely the tactic that the English monarchy used and it is the precise reason for the inclusion of of the intellectual property clause in the Constitution. It was recognized that the legal "copyright holder" very rarely has the best interests of the author, inventor, creator, or even society at heart.
Take into account the sheer perversion that has become our Federal Government, the influence of lobbies, the influence of big business, and attempt to find a single shred of protecting original authors and inventors in our system of copyright law. There isn't any. That employee agreement that you signed is a perfect example. Rather than protecting and securing your rights, as a potential author/inventor/creator of IP, copyright law and the courts ensure that your employer has full right to back you into a corner (employed or unemployed? not a tough decision) and wrest your IP from you.
Now that we've identified that the big business players aren't playing by the rules, and neither are the politicians, on what basis should we citizens be required to participate in their set of rules? If it could be shown that the individual artists, authors, and creators, the rightful owners of the copyright, were involved in this process and were destitute as a result of file-sharing, then I would support the legal actions against them. The reality is, however, that the actions of the RIAA and the big media companies with respect to IP are gestures of unrepentant greed. If these actions were being taken through their own hard work, I'd say more power to them. With the amount of federal money which pours into the media industry directly, and the amount of taxpayer money which is wasted on these lawsuits, though, I demand that they stick to the Constitution. Per the Constitution, if anyone has a lawsuit, the artists have a lawsuit against the media companies for taking their copyrights away. The Constitution, and thus the federal government, serves one thing in the realm of IP: To secure to the authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective creations for a limited time. There is no mention of "copyright holder" (aka kinder, gentler extortionist) in the document--and for good reason.
Given this, is it then okay for someone to take a photo of my paiting?
It's not okay, but it's certainly not something I would want codified into law. Did you search them for cameras before you let them in the studio? If you allowed them to bring a camera in then, well, it's your own fault. Don't waste my tax money running them down.
I just think they have the right to do so.
With their own money, yes. Within a jurisdiction which can support them, yes. In Federal Court? Absolutely not. At taxpayer expense? Absolutely not.
You might not think so, but it is according to the law.
It's a technical aberration created by attorneys. There are only two types of transactions: one which involves transfer of ownership and one which does not. Call them whatever you like.
Read a few more legal books before you call anyone else on a lack of education
I've already identified your need to include useless commentary to bolster your self-esteem but, really, must you make it so obvious?
There is an inherent requirement for a limitation on the time of use in the agreement for it to be considered a rental instead of a sale.</i>
Maybe you'll get it eventually. There is only one fundamental defining factor in the nature of a transaction: Was ownership transferred with the object or not? The details of limits on time of possession (for non-transferral of ownership) or the monetary price of the transactions are, for the most part, irrelevant.
Are you proposing that the downloading and keeping of a practically perfect copy of a music file constitutes a rental, in the same way that rental of a DVD from Netflix does?
Absolutely. There is only one distinguishing characteristic between a sale and a rental: ownership. If it's a sale, then you have ownership of the item and are not held accountable to the wishes of anyone else concerning the object which is now your property. If it is a rental, then you are still help accountable for their wishes since they retain ownership.
Now, again, when people buy a CD, is it a sale or a rental? If it's a sale, then they have full rights to make use of it as they see fit because they have ownership. This includes sharing. Last I checked, sharing something which you own is not illegal. On the other hand, if the purchase of a CD constitutes a rental where sharing may be restricted by the owner, then that discrepency should be made public at the point of sale and in advertising. No longer should we hear "own your copy today". Rather it should be,"rent your copy which you can keep as long as you like today."
So are you arguing that contracts between artists and distribution companies are inherently unconstitutional?
In the worst case scenario, yes. In a more moderate scenario, suffice it to say that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction in the matter unless it is to defend the artist. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the distribution company is the illegitimate aggressor.
In ancient England, if the king wanted something which you owned, he gave you a choice: You can keep your land and give up the item, or he'll burn you out. In today's America, if the industry wants something which you've created, you are given a choice: You can keep your job and give up your IP, or you can choose to get fired (and they'll still keep your IP per your employment agreement).
As I've said before, modern IP law is little more than a kinder, gentler, more well-disguised form of extortion.
I'm also wary of the assertion that copyright is a "natural law."
It's natural in that it's hard coded in the Constitution. It's also natural that, if you don't show anyone else your IP, you have exclusive copyright to products which you make using that IP. It's also natural that, once you give or sell your IP to someone else, they very well may give it to other people that you didn't expect them to give it to. It's natural.
The media industry needs to face reality.
Are we to view the Constitution purely through our interpretation of how the Founders intended it?
Maybe you can. I prefer to stick to the what's actually written in the document. You should also take a close look at the 9th and 10th Amendments. Do you know why they're the 9th and 10th Amendments, the last ones that were written? They're at the end because they're the endcap amendments. They're the Amendments which say "This is it, and no more, unless you write new Amendments." This whole business of expanding the role of government past the core document by reinterpreting individual clauses is specifically forbidden by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Nobody listens, nobody cares. Politicians made an active decision to ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments in the very first meeting of Congress. It's all a sham anyway.
What part of the license says you have to turn the CD back in after a certain amount of time?
Again you're a victim of incomplete education. There are two kinds of transactions in the world. The first type of transaction involves the transfer of ownership and involves a sale. The second type of transaction does not involve transfer of ownership and is a rental. There is no inherent requirement that a rental has a return date.
There's nothing in the GPL about giving back. There is a term for acceptable sharing: accompany with source.
how you don't want to give back to them
Another fallacy. The media industry asks for ~$15 per CD. That is how they want us to give back to them. Everyone who has bought the CD has given the media industry everything it has asked for at the point of sale.
License agreements are a subersive technique to turn a sale into a rental. There is no such elusive technique in the GPL.
You're wrong on both parts of your argument, both in understanding and in the incorrect logic that you use to attempt to connect the two.
I've noticed that you've dropped the name-calling, though. You're already improving and you've been under treatment for less than 20 minutes. Very commendable.
The media industry is restricting sharing. If you want to argue the terms of the sharing, first you must put the media industry in a situation where it promotes sharing the same as the GPL.
I know you're sitting in your room, thinking to yourself how smug you are, thinking you're getting someone on the 'net all worked up. It's a psychological deficiency which you have, to derive amusement from this sort of childish name-calling. Your condition is treatable with modern pharmaceuticals.
The media industry got everything it asked for: the selling price at the point of sale. After the sale is complete they have no room to whine about what the new owner of the product did with the product.
Additionally, providing source code to the customer has nothing to do with giving back to the community. That is another fallacy in your attack. Indeed, it's a fallacy in most people's understanding of the purpose of the GPL and free software. Providing source code to the consumer is a condition imposed to assure that the product is not relabeled. At best, you could say that people who misrepresent the identity of a shared tune would be at odds with the GPL.
There is no hypocrisy in sharing. But you just keep up with the name-calling and see if it makes you feel better. I'm here all night.
I, and many people, do not feel that modern copyright law is a fair implementation which actually protects the good of society. Even if it were, the Federal Government is outside of its jurisdiction taking part in any law which doesn't deal directly with the original author or inventor. The Constitution says nothing of a "copyright holder" and, even if the law does, the Constitution's (and government's) duty is to the original author, inventor, or creator. The "copyright holder" is just some schmuck with a piece of paper, a big mouth, and lots of money to bribe politicians.
This whole business about licensing is an artificial creation of the politicians, attorneys, and lobbies to subvert the Constitutional protection for the individual authors, inventors, and creators.
In short... modern copyright law is the newer, kindler, gentler extortion.
Attacks are just not tolerated. If you would like to have a reasonable discussion, you're welcome to it. If you wish to continue with a pattern of abusive and unfounded name-calling then I can only pray that the GNU monks get around to dealing with you in the proper manner.
The GPL does not discourage sharing. The media industry does. There's a difference.
If you want to argue the technicalities of the terms of sharing, first you must get the media industry on a level where it similarly promotes sharing in the same manner as the GPL: with source code. With DRM gaining momentum, it's easy to see that the media industry is moving in exactly the opposite direction. So this argument of attacking the GPL to support the actions of the media industry will never apply.
Slashdot Mirror
Fiberoptics are superior to purely electrical designs but only after they've overcome the initial investment hurdle for design and implementation.
What did I miss?
but Fortune's writing style is absolutely unreadable. It's 95% advertisement and pump, 3% "{and,if,or,not,the}", and 2% information.
UGH.
Get one and customize accordingly with printed stickers, paint, or pens.
I know where most of the k/b is. Every once in a while I need reminders for some of the symbol keys.
The fact remains that a natural disaster, however terrible for the people involved, is like ringing the cash register for the large corporate conglomerates that could afford to stack their investment with all sorts of insurance coverage. Insurance companies are like any other multi-faceted business venture. If one of arm of the business is losing money the executives will milk the other arms to make up for it.
The same thing happened in the dot-com crash. While most American investors were watching their investment dollars tank down the toilet, the business investors at the topmost levels were recouping their losses from the business insurance and leaving the rest of us to fight over the scraps. There's a reason why home and health insurance costs rose so sharply (along with gas prices) just as the stock market was tanking. At some level, wealthy investing conglomerates were balancing the "loss" and "earnings" columns in their ledgers. No matter what the public release excuses were.
Consider: raise everyone's health care and car insurance rates and use the money to cover the losses on the recreational business ventures covered by disaster insurance. Indeed even the normal people in the disaster area are typically losing as we've all heard the stories of homeowners who had insurance, just not the right kind of insurance.
In a way, insurance money from disasters probably goes to the bank account of some real estate conglomerate safely seated in New York.
When I was younger, it was kind of a thing to do. Go and spend an hour or two meandering around the CD store looking through racks and racks and racks of CDs. In today's world I can't prioritize that kind of time to browsing through music. In the last year I've bought about 10 CDs and it took me less than an hour over the course of the whole year to do it.
I've only gotten one album from the 'net, and it wasn't from an automated file-sharing network. It was from an acquaintence who frequents many of the same music forums that I do. It was Maxim's Hell's Kitchen album. I've since purchased the actual CD, and Maxim's second album "Fallen Angel", as a result of it.
The time would be around the correct years but, honestly, I don't see the face of the business landscape as having changed that much.
I'm not so certain that militant terrorists would have much of an interest in poring over patents. It's not like they have the type of legitimate facilities and employment that would put them close to the development stage of manufacturing. Unless someone would like to admit that there are more real-world business ties to militant terrorists than what's commonly thought.
In the pdf is a graph of year vs. number of declassified and classified pages. The Clinton years are the only years since 1980 where more pages were declassified than new pages classified.
The correlation is so strong that it makes me think there's a lot more that we should be able to learn from that graph. Perhaps there are correlations between businesses owned primarily by Repubs vs. businesses owned primarily by Dems. Perhaps there are correlations with watchdog groups which try to keep the government in line. Perhaps there are correlations with specific lobbying groups and law enforcement agencies.
There's also a graph on secrecy orders issued vs. secrecy orders rescinded with respect to patents. Apparently this was a much more popular maneuver in the late 80s than it is today. It makes me wonder if that system may have become stagnant and no longer serves the purpose which it was created for.
I like graphs.
No. It doesn't. Automated file sharing has been around for over 10 years and the media industry still turns a profit every year.
There is no secret that CDs are easily ripped to a hard drive and shared over a network. This is not a surprise. If the media companies feel they're getting a raw deal they're free to screen their customers, raise the price of a CD, or make an attempt at producing an affordable and long-lived player with custom hardware encryption.
Whatever it is, there is one thing which stands true: No more grousing about the profit margin after the point of sale. No one's forcing these people to sell CDs to every 10-year old with $15. No one's forcing these billionaire media moguls to be in the media business. If they don't like it they're free to leave. No one has a gun to their head to force them to stay in the boardroom.
Do whatever it takes, but do it before the point of sale. After the point of sale, get over it. Face reality. The product was legally bought and sold and there no longer is any claim to dictating terms of use.
If anything, file-sharing gives the media companies a taste of what they're doing to the artists: "This is the way the world works, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Now either continue on or get out of the game. You can't fight us, and you sure as hell can't win."
So, regardless of the impotent puppet court system's rulings on the matter, this act is unconstitutional.
Good. Then I'm free to make copies of the disk or do with it whatever I please. If the original author or inventor or creator takes issue with it then they're free to file their claim in court as the copyright holder. If anyone else claims to be the official copyright holder then this is no longer under Federal jurisdiction. The Constitution, with respect to exclusive rights to inventions and creations, recognizes only the original author, inventor, or creator.
The RIAA and the other holders of copyright entitlements can collectively go suck an egg unless they find a state or locality which recognizes them in their respective charters. If not then, per the Constitutional default, the rights remain with the individuals.
That's not recognized as under Federal jurisdiction and, to be fair, I've not seen it in the charters of any of the states in which I've lived.
Again, no interstate commerce bull-roar. Just because no one adheres to the 9th Amendment doesn't mean that it was stricken from the Constitution. If anything it's a blatant testament to the illegitimacy of the current government.
Treaties are between nations and do not infringe on the rights of the people, as the rights of the people are protected first and foremost by the Constitution. Treaties cannot expand the role or jurisdiction of the Federal government. I don't know how you think you can justify that.
A complete disconnect from file-sharing. The original authors and inventors aren't involved in the legal process anymore. In many cases they don't even "legally" own their rights (which is itself an unConstitutional prospect).
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that every law is legitimate by default. Newsflash: It's not. If it's not authorized in a charter document such as the US Constitution, then it's no better than mafia rule of force.
The goal is to live within the system while not burdening yourself with the complete and utter BS that's in it.
I don't want to go to court, I don't want to fight a battle, I have no crusade. The RIAA is the one on a crusade. You know what I say? Let them have it. They want a crusade, that's their problem. Quit wasting my taxpayer money to support it.
That's a very popular troll. There are no stars in this world. No one's going to stand up to be a shining knight to take on the copyright system. No one's going to suddenly rise up out of the ashes and come up with the kind of cash that it takes to challenge the big IP companies.
Did you see what happened when the US took on MS? We wasted millions in taxpayer dollars and the US attorneys had their ass handed to them. Did you see what happened when the EU tried? They also had their ass handed to them and got a paltry settlement--and these were governments with taxpayer billions at their disposal to fight these legal battles.
How can you claim to be serious in suggesting that a private citizen mount a legal battle against the media industry with its associated lobbies and pocketed politicians?
There's no explanation. You've got to be astronomically naive... or a very pitiable troll.
But you don't see that, because you haven't actually thought about it. The only thing you want to do is take the holier-than-thou road of "if it's illegal, don't do it". Have you ever questioned the legitimacy of that legality? Of course not. Have you looked at the charter document which empowers the government enforcing that legality to see if they have any real jurisdiction in the area? Of course not. Would you even know the difference between a legitimate government and a loosely affiliated system of arbitrary mafioso bosses? Of course not.
So you just keep shilling along. Some of us out here are thinking critically and the day will come when the matter of jurisdiction and legitimacy will come into question.
You know why it's not in there? Because the people who wrote the Constitution realized that "right to distribute" is an artificial aberration. They recognized 200 years ago something which you have absolutely no grasp over today: That if you have something in your possession, you're naturally going to have a right to distribute it. They had the printing press at the time. This would have been a very logical thing for them to consider. You can't say that they didn't think of it.
They left it out for a reason--because the "right to distribute" is another legal scam to subvert the Constitutionally guaranteed copyright which rests with the original author, inventor, or creator. The same as the concept of a transferrable "copyright holder". In the Constitution there is only one copyright holder: the original author, inventor, or creator. Why did they not think to include more verbage about copyright holders? Because they'd had plenty of experience with The Crown being the copyright holder. They knew that the system could easily be twisted to turn into the abomination that it is today.
They tried to head it off at the pass with the 9th and 10th Amendments. Fortunately for 21st century AC trolls, one of the very first things that the first Congress did was to decide that the 9th and 10th Amendments don't really apply to them.
So who are these copyright holders? First, get it out of your head that these copyright holders are anyone who is protected by the law. Big media companies are like loan sharks. They don't give a damn about the artists and they don't give a damn about the artists rights. The Constitution was written to protect authors, inventors, and creators from entities like big media companies who will use any leverage point, any tactic possible, to wrest control of the original invention or creation from the rightful owner. This is precisely the tactic that the English monarchy used and it is the precise reason for the inclusion of of the intellectual property clause in the Constitution. It was recognized that the legal "copyright holder" very rarely has the best interests of the author, inventor, creator, or even society at heart.
Take into account the sheer perversion that has become our Federal Government, the influence of lobbies, the influence of big business, and attempt to find a single shred of protecting original authors and inventors in our system of copyright law. There isn't any. That employee agreement that you signed is a perfect example. Rather than protecting and securing your rights, as a potential author/inventor/creator of IP, copyright law and the courts ensure that your employer has full right to back you into a corner (employed or unemployed? not a tough decision) and wrest your IP from you.
Now that we've identified that the big business players aren't playing by the rules, and neither are the politicians, on what basis should we citizens be required to participate in their set of rules? If it could be shown that the individual artists, authors, and creators, the rightful owners of the copyright, were involved in this process and were destitute as a result of file-sharing, then I would support the legal actions against them. The reality is, however, that the actions of the RIAA and the big media companies with respect to IP are gestures of unrepentant greed. If these actions were being taken through their own hard work, I'd say more power to them. With the amount of federal money which pours into the media industry directly, and the amount of taxpayer money which is wasted on these lawsuits, though, I demand that they stick to the Constitution. Per the Constitution, if anyone has a lawsuit, the artists have a lawsuit against the media companies for taking their copyrights away. The Constitution, and thus the federal government, serves one thing in the realm of IP: To secure to the authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective creations for a limited time. There is no mention of "copyright holder" (aka kinder, gentler extortionist) in the document--and for good reason.
It's not okay, but it's certainly not something I would want codified into law. Did you search them for cameras before you let them in the studio? If you allowed them to bring a camera in then, well, it's your own fault. Don't waste my tax money running them down.
With their own money, yes. Within a jurisdiction which can support them, yes. In Federal Court? Absolutely not. At taxpayer expense? Absolutely not.
I've already identified your need to include useless commentary to bolster your self-esteem but, really, must you make it so obvious?
Maybe you'll get it eventually. There is only one fundamental defining factor in the nature of a transaction: Was ownership transferred with the object or not? The details of limits on time of possession (for non-transferral of ownership) or the monetary price of the transactions are, for the most part, irrelevant.
Now, again, when people buy a CD, is it a sale or a rental? If it's a sale, then they have full rights to make use of it as they see fit because they have ownership. This includes sharing. Last I checked, sharing something which you own is not illegal. On the other hand, if the purchase of a CD constitutes a rental where sharing may be restricted by the owner, then that discrepency should be made public at the point of sale and in advertising. No longer should we hear "own your copy today". Rather it should be,"rent your copy which you can keep as long as you like today."
In the worst case scenario, yes. In a more moderate scenario, suffice it to say that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction in the matter unless it is to defend the artist. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the distribution company is the illegitimate aggressor.
In ancient England, if the king wanted something which you owned, he gave you a choice: You can keep your land and give up the item, or he'll burn you out. In today's America, if the industry wants something which you've created, you are given a choice: You can keep your job and give up your IP, or you can choose to get fired (and they'll still keep your IP per your employment agreement).
As I've said before, modern IP law is little more than a kinder, gentler, more well-disguised form of extortion.
It's natural in that it's hard coded in the Constitution. It's also natural that, if you don't show anyone else your IP, you have exclusive copyright to products which you make using that IP. It's also natural that, once you give or sell your IP to someone else, they very well may give it to other people that you didn't expect them to give it to. It's natural.
The media industry needs to face reality.
Maybe you can. I prefer to stick to the what's actually written in the document. You should also take a close look at the 9th and 10th Amendments. Do you know why they're the 9th and 10th Amendments, the last ones that were written? They're at the end because they're the endcap amendments. They're the Amendments which say "This is it, and no more, unless you write new Amendments." This whole business of expanding the role of government past the core document by reinterpreting individual clauses is specifically forbidden by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Nobody listens, nobody cares. Politicians made an active decision to ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments in the very first meeting of Congress. It's all a sham anyway.
Don't blame me for your inadequate understanding.
Another fallacy. The media industry asks for ~$15 per CD. That is how they want us to give back to them. Everyone who has bought the CD has given the media industry everything it has asked for at the point of sale.
License agreements are a subersive technique to turn a sale into a rental. There is no such elusive technique in the GPL.
You're wrong on both parts of your argument, both in understanding and in the incorrect logic that you use to attempt to connect the two.
I've noticed that you've dropped the name-calling, though. You're already improving and you've been under treatment for less than 20 minutes. Very commendable.
The media industry is restricting sharing. If you want to argue the terms of the sharing, first you must put the media industry in a situation where it promotes sharing the same as the GPL.
I know you're sitting in your room, thinking to yourself how smug you are, thinking you're getting someone on the 'net all worked up. It's a psychological deficiency which you have, to derive amusement from this sort of childish name-calling. Your condition is treatable with modern pharmaceuticals.
The media industry got everything it asked for: the selling price at the point of sale. After the sale is complete they have no room to whine about what the new owner of the product did with the product.
Additionally, providing source code to the customer has nothing to do with giving back to the community. That is another fallacy in your attack. Indeed, it's a fallacy in most people's understanding of the purpose of the GPL and free software. Providing source code to the consumer is a condition imposed to assure that the product is not relabeled. At best, you could say that people who misrepresent the identity of a shared tune would be at odds with the GPL.
There is no hypocrisy in sharing. But you just keep up with the name-calling and see if it makes you feel better. I'm here all night.
This whole business about licensing is an artificial creation of the politicians, attorneys, and lobbies to subvert the Constitutional protection for the individual authors, inventors, and creators.
In short... modern copyright law is the newer, kindler, gentler extortion.
Attacks are just not tolerated. If you would like to have a reasonable discussion, you're welcome to it. If you wish to continue with a pattern of abusive and unfounded name-calling then I can only pray that the GNU monks get around to dealing with you in the proper manner.
Sharing of information is good.
The GPL does not discourage sharing. The media industry does. There's a difference.
If you want to argue the technicalities of the terms of sharing, first you must get the media industry on a level where it similarly promotes sharing in the same manner as the GPL: with source code. With DRM gaining momentum, it's easy to see that the media industry is moving in exactly the opposite direction. So this argument of attacking the GPL to support the actions of the media industry will never apply.
Calling me a hypocrite doesn't help you.