However, we will feed the Troll by pretending it's real. You, dear Troll, are a sociopath.
Enjoying the non-concentual pain of others has nothing to do with religion or a lack there of. The human animal has something we call empathy. It is a real and substantive biological response to anothers state of mind or body. Those of us who have properly functioning brain chemistry (whatever that means) are not held back from rape and torture because of their belief in the Nanny God(tm) constantly looking over there shoulder. Being an atheist I have never had *any* problem stopping myself from raping or torturing. As a matter of fact it doesn't even occur to me that I am capable of it. The idea sickens me. What also sickens me is people like you (you, being a fictitious Troll) who stay there hand from violence because there might be consequences. Hey cocksock, you don't hurt people because it hurts them, dipshit.
People are real. Souls are a story. If a story is the only thing keeping you from "the pleasure of rape and torture" then my only suggestion to you is a form of masturbation. Go fuck yourself while you jump from a cliff. Preferrably somwhere isolated, where no one will have to be disturbed further by your need of violence.
P.S. I'm capable of feeling love for every human being I meet. Empathy is one of the major characteristics in what I call human. If you lack that, your are no longer a human in my book, you are a rabid animal that needs to be put down. Not out of cruelty, and not out of fear, but out of a well reasoned necessity for our own safety and freedom. (After all, tyrants are also sociopaths)
I'm not sure of your position one way or the other but you make a very valid point supporting the proposition.
We're always worried about the guy who created a "franchise". I'm not, if he was capable of making a sucessful show then he should be able to make another. If however someone comes along and takes his idea, but makes it better, why not? We as a culture are certainly better for it. Just as I'm better for Firefox. It's too bad for Netscape, certainly, but they could not, or were unwilling, to keep up with technology.
I think the only risk is that authors *must* cater to the masses. But then, that would only be the case for projects which required large sums of money to produce. Even then, neccessity is the mother of invention, whos to say what kind of inovations would arise when people want to do expensive things more economically.
Once there is a system in place where we can vote with our money more DIRECTLY, I think such a system will be not only possible but much better for all of us.
A lot of those smaller type refridgerators are pigs when it comes to electricity. Throw down the cash and buy an efficient modern refridgerator and KEEP IT FULL.
Keep it full either with food stuffs, or keep your plastic gallon milk jugs and fill them with water. (Or in a pinch ziplock bags filled with water.)
The more full the fridge (the freezer especially) the more the stuff inside keeps everything cold. Less work for the fridge itself.
If you need extra freezer space, get a floor model that opens from the top. Cold air stays at the bottom.
The refridgerator is probably one of the worst offenders in your home. Major savings can be had when you use it smartly. (Ohh and NEVER stand in front of it and keep it open for too long. Major waste)
Wow I hadn't realized that "Pro Bono" meant, "I'll represent someone who is poor without cost". Ohh yeah it doesn't. It only means Free. Don't assume just because they have to do it for free means they have to do it for the poor.
Let me start off by stating that I agree with copyright law as it was entered into law in 1790.
Was copyright mentioned in the constitution? The original constitution? No I do not think so.
You are correct, the constitution did not give authors an exclusive right to the copying of their works. It only gave the Congress the power... "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"Article I, Section 8, Clause 8It took Congress three years to finally ratify legislation to create a term of copyright.
It is not saying anything about IP. There is no natural right for you to take what i created and modify/give it out as you so please.
Yes. Yes there is. And copyright LIMITS it. Thats what copyright means. The government is giving the person a temporary monopoly, so that only he can copy his work. The ONLY reason we do this is to help along innovation. In the eyes of the drafters of the constitution the distribution of art, science, and other creative works in the public domain was not only a natural right but something that is absolutly necessary for an open and free society.
Copyright is a needed law that helps give incentive for companies to create works. They will not create it if they cannot profit from it (for the most part). People have the option of giving their stuff away for free - - goodfor them. But it is their OPTION.
First of all we are dealing with creative works. Only people can create works. Companies don't do anything except exist as a lawful entity. They only have "Intellectual Property" as you call it because a person or persons gave away their copy rights to their creative works that the government originally gave them. The OPTION people have is whether or not to create something. Once you create something it exists and is therefore within my right to copy it. Just because I copied an idea and decided to sell it does not prevent you from profiting from your creation. If your goal is profit then you take the necessary measures to ensure you can. As a bonus the government has given you a temporary monopoly on it.
There is a misconception that there is such a thing as an "absolute original idea". There is not, there is only this basic truth: Nothing is created in a vacuum. There are no absolutely original ideas. All knowledge, all art and all works are based off earlier works and cultural influences, and until recently most of mankinds works at some point entered into the public domain. This is no longer the case. Because Shakespeares works are in the Public Domain I can write a play with a modern twist using his dialog. I cannot make a derivative work of something more modern (even as far back as 1930 at least) and make something of my own. How is this promoting innovation and the growth of American Culture?
There is a speech written by a man a long time ago that explains what freedom of information is. I suggest you take some time to read it. It is one of the many writings that convinced me that shorter copyright terms are important for a free culture.
Exgesis Clique 'Education and religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have, the less they want.
- [Charlotte Observer, 1897]'
I think your confusion lies with a misunderstanding of the basic tenets on which this country is founded. Let me make it very clear.
You are free.
As the Declaration of independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It is in fact copyright that is not a "natural" right. It is an exclusive right granted by the Constitution. Your are given a temporary monopoly (a bad thing to the minds of the drafters of the constitution) on a work in order to halt other peoples natural right to know and disperse information. This gives some time for the creator to pursue his happiness, at the EXPENSE of everyone elses liberty. But it was deemed important enough to encourage innovation that it was included. Provided it was for limited terms.
As to your last comment. It is not the job of the Government to make you rich. Its only function (in theory) is to provide a free environment for its citizenry to live peacefully so that we have the OPPURTUNITY to pursue happiness. It is not a guarantee of happiness. Copyright in its original form provided this function.
Copyright as it exists now does nothing for innovation or the public good.
Walt Disney can no longer innovate. He can no longer create characters for your children to love and cherish. So why does Disney Inc. still have an exclusive right to his creation? How is Disney Inc making however much they actually make of Mickey Mouse going to enourage Walt Disney the man to create more?
Copyright does not exist so that you can create once and live well forever. While it is entirely possible for it to happen, that is not why it exists. If a creator makes a fortune off one idea and never creates again then copyright has failed in its purpose.
I want my natural right, which was endowed by my creator, back. I think you should want it back as well. I think all people should WANT their rights and to keep them. Governments and corporations are not people. They do not make society, they are only a function of it. The individual is paramount and his or her rights should be held above the rights of both government and corporation.
exgesis clique 'Education and religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have, the less they want.
- [Charlotte Observer, 1897]'
Copying is an unalienable human right endowed by my creator. Keep DRM away!
'Education and religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have, the less they want.'
- [Charlotte Observer, 1897]
I'm not sure a license/key solution is warrented. That is, after all, the source of their problems now. They are so scared of piracy and desperate for the killer DRM app that they aren't focusing on the problem.
Unfortunatly I can only describe the problem as it pertains to me.
I have been known to download music from the internet. I do this not because I get a rush from stealing, or that I don't want to pay for it. I'm lazy, AND OK I'll admit, a little cheap. It is my personal feeling that I don't get my moneys worth buying a CD in a store. In fact I don't feel I get my moneys worth from iTunes. It also seems to me that this is the case for those around me.
If they had some way that I could buy a download of a music file and they charged me some low figure, say $.05 to $.10 then I'd do it. Making sure it was as easy as clicking a link and it automatically charged my account and without making it so that I had to jump through any hoops to listen to it. i.e. no encryption or special appliction.
In fact, I don't even care if they charge me again for downloading it again. That would be the point. Everytime I want to access it from their site I have to pay for it. Sure I can copy it and give it to a friend, but at some point it's going to be easier just to grab it from the source.
10 cents here and there is nothing to me, but add in the millions and MILLIONS of people, downloading the same track a few times will mean enourmous profits.
Perhaps if we used a more intelligent animal, like a rat, they would learn that there movements controls the music and they could then orchastrate music for us!
Finally, no more having to pay expensive Boy Bands to create music for the unwashed masses!
I have the right to that content because I have been endowed by my creator to view that content. The drafters of the constitution would have a fit if they could see the state of the union.
Benjamin: Yo! Tommy! Take a look at this shit. Americans piss their rights away cauze a corporations tells them to!
Thomas: Well why the fuck did we even bother!
Benjamin: Hell I don't know.
Thomas: Lemme see that Musket Benji, I'm gonna replace my brain with lead.
Fucktard.
No you wouldn't steal your neighbors' car. That would morally wrong. However, if you could make an exact COPY of your neighbors car and drive it to work while your car is in the shop, whats the harm in that?
Oh yeah the car manufacturer wouldn't get money from that car. But wait, the car manufacturer would never have gotten that money from you anyway, I mean, why would you buy a car that your only going to use for two days?
Slashdot Mirror
You are a Troll... And that's a good thing.
However, we will feed the Troll by pretending it's real. You, dear Troll, are a sociopath.
Enjoying the non-concentual pain of others has nothing to do with religion or a lack there of. The human animal has something we call empathy. It is a real and substantive biological response to anothers state of mind or body. Those of us who have properly functioning brain chemistry (whatever that means) are not held back from rape and torture because of their belief in the Nanny God(tm) constantly looking over there shoulder. Being an atheist I have never had *any* problem stopping myself from raping or torturing. As a matter of fact it doesn't even occur to me that I am capable of it. The idea sickens me. What also sickens me is people like you (you, being a fictitious Troll) who stay there hand from violence because there might be consequences. Hey cocksock, you don't hurt people because it hurts them, dipshit.
People are real. Souls are a story. If a story is the only thing keeping you from "the pleasure of rape and torture" then my only suggestion to you is a form of masturbation. Go fuck yourself while you jump from a cliff. Preferrably somwhere isolated, where no one will have to be disturbed further by your need of violence.
P.S. I'm capable of feeling love for every human being I meet. Empathy is one of the major characteristics in what I call human. If you lack that, your are no longer a human in my book, you are a rabid animal that needs to be put down. Not out of cruelty, and not out of fear, but out of a well reasoned necessity for our own safety and freedom. (After all, tyrants are also sociopaths)
Neat... It was patented in 1979. It's in the public domain. Build it and you'll be one of the most wealthy people alive. Go on... try it...
I'm not sure of your position one way or the other but you make a very valid point supporting the proposition.
We're always worried about the guy who created a "franchise". I'm not, if he was capable of making a sucessful show then he should be able to make another. If however someone comes along and takes his idea, but makes it better, why not? We as a culture are certainly better for it. Just as I'm better for Firefox. It's too bad for Netscape, certainly, but they could not, or were unwilling, to keep up with technology.
I think the only risk is that authors *must* cater to the masses. But then, that would only be the case for projects which required large sums of money to produce. Even then, neccessity is the mother of invention, whos to say what kind of inovations would arise when people want to do expensive things more economically.
Once there is a system in place where we can vote with our money more DIRECTLY, I think such a system will be not only possible but much better for all of us.
A lot of those smaller type refridgerators are pigs when it comes to electricity. Throw down the cash and buy an efficient modern refridgerator and KEEP IT FULL. Keep it full either with food stuffs, or keep your plastic gallon milk jugs and fill them with water. (Or in a pinch ziplock bags filled with water.) The more full the fridge (the freezer especially) the more the stuff inside keeps everything cold. Less work for the fridge itself. If you need extra freezer space, get a floor model that opens from the top. Cold air stays at the bottom. The refridgerator is probably one of the worst offenders in your home. Major savings can be had when you use it smartly. (Ohh and NEVER stand in front of it and keep it open for too long. Major waste)
The world is funny... Laugh...
Wow I hadn't realized that "Pro Bono" meant, "I'll represent someone who is poor without cost". Ohh yeah it doesn't. It only means Free. Don't assume just because they have to do it for free means they have to do it for the poor.
Social Security Administration. It is by far the tightest ship we run, and it's been around for decades.
Let me start off by stating that I agree with copyright law as it was entered into law in 1790.
Was copyright mentioned in the constitution? The original constitution? No I do not think so.
You are correct, the constitution did not give authors an exclusive right to the copying of their works. It only gave the Congress the power... "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 It took Congress three years to finally ratify legislation to create a term of copyright.
It is not saying anything about IP. There is no natural right for you to take what i created and modify/give it out as you so please.
Yes. Yes there is. And copyright LIMITS it. Thats what copyright means. The government is giving the person a temporary monopoly, so that only he can copy his work. The ONLY reason we do this is to help along innovation. In the eyes of the drafters of the constitution the distribution of art, science, and other creative works in the public domain was not only a natural right but something that is absolutly necessary for an open and free society.
Copyright is a needed law that helps give incentive for companies to create works. They will not create it if they cannot profit from it (for the most part). People have the option of giving their stuff away for free - - goodfor them. But it is their OPTION.
First of all we are dealing with creative works. Only people can create works. Companies don't do anything except exist as a lawful entity. They only have "Intellectual Property" as you call it because a person or persons gave away their copy rights to their creative works that the government originally gave them. The OPTION people have is whether or not to create something. Once you create something it exists and is therefore within my right to copy it. Just because I copied an idea and decided to sell it does not prevent you from profiting from your creation. If your goal is profit then you take the necessary measures to ensure you can. As a bonus the government has given you a temporary monopoly on it.
There is a misconception that there is such a thing as an "absolute original idea". There is not, there is only this basic truth: Nothing is created in a vacuum. There are no absolutely original ideas. All knowledge, all art and all works are based off earlier works and cultural influences, and until recently most of mankinds works at some point entered into the public domain. This is no longer the case. Because Shakespeares works are in the Public Domain I can write a play with a modern twist using his dialog. I cannot make a derivative work of something more modern (even as far back as 1930 at least) and make something of my own. How is this promoting innovation and the growth of American Culture?
There is a speech written by a man a long time ago that explains what freedom of information is. I suggest you take some time to read it. It is one of the many writings that convinced me that shorter copyright terms are important for a free culture.
Thomas Babington Macaulay on Copyright
Exgesis Clique
'Education and religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have, the less they want. - [Charlotte Observer, 1897]'
I think your confusion lies with a misunderstanding of the basic tenets on which this country is founded. Let me make it very clear.
You are free.
As the Declaration of independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It is in fact copyright that is not a "natural" right. It is an exclusive right granted by the Constitution. Your are given a temporary monopoly (a bad thing to the minds of the drafters of the constitution) on a work in order to halt other peoples natural right to know and disperse information. This gives some time for the creator to pursue his happiness, at the EXPENSE of everyone elses liberty. But it was deemed important enough to encourage innovation that it was included. Provided it was for limited terms.
As to your last comment. It is not the job of the Government to make you rich. Its only function (in theory) is to provide a free environment for its citizenry to live peacefully so that we have the OPPURTUNITY to pursue happiness. It is not a guarantee of happiness. Copyright in its original form provided this function.
Copyright as it exists now does nothing for innovation or the public good.
Walt Disney can no longer innovate. He can no longer create characters for your children to love and cherish. So why does Disney Inc. still have an exclusive right to his creation? How is Disney Inc making however much they actually make of Mickey Mouse going to enourage Walt Disney the man to create more?
Copyright does not exist so that you can create once and live well forever. While it is entirely possible for it to happen, that is not why it exists. If a creator makes a fortune off one idea and never creates again then copyright has failed in its purpose.
I want my natural right, which was endowed by my creator, back. I think you should want it back as well. I think all people should WANT their rights and to keep them. Governments and corporations are not people. They do not make society, they are only a function of it. The individual is paramount and his or her rights should be held above the rights of both government and corporation.
exgesis clique
'Education and religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have, the less they want. - [Charlotte Observer, 1897]'
Copying is an unalienable human right endowed by my creator. Keep DRM away!
'Education and religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have, the less they want.'
- [Charlotte Observer, 1897]
I'm not sure a license/key solution is warrented. That is, after all, the source of their problems now. They are so scared of piracy and desperate for the killer DRM app that they aren't focusing on the problem.
Unfortunatly I can only describe the problem as it pertains to me.
I have been known to download music from the internet. I do this not because I get a rush from stealing, or that I don't want to pay for it. I'm lazy, AND OK I'll admit, a little cheap. It is my personal feeling that I don't get my moneys worth buying a CD in a store. In fact I don't feel I get my moneys worth from iTunes. It also seems to me that this is the case for those around me.
If they had some way that I could buy a download of a music file and they charged me some low figure, say $.05 to $.10 then I'd do it. Making sure it was as easy as clicking a link and it automatically charged my account and without making it so that I had to jump through any hoops to listen to it. i.e. no encryption or special appliction.
In fact, I don't even care if they charge me again for downloading it again. That would be the point. Everytime I want to access it from their site I have to pay for it. Sure I can copy it and give it to a friend, but at some point it's going to be easier just to grab it from the source.
10 cents here and there is nothing to me, but add in the millions and MILLIONS of people, downloading the same track a few times will mean enourmous profits.
Perhaps if we used a more intelligent animal, like a rat, they would learn that there movements controls the music and they could then orchastrate music for us!
Finally, no more having to pay expensive Boy Bands to create music for the unwashed masses!
I have the right to that content because I have been endowed by my creator to view that content. The drafters of the constitution would have a fit if they could see the state of the union. Benjamin: Yo! Tommy! Take a look at this shit. Americans piss their rights away cauze a corporations tells them to! Thomas: Well why the fuck did we even bother! Benjamin: Hell I don't know. Thomas: Lemme see that Musket Benji, I'm gonna replace my brain with lead. Fucktard.
No you wouldn't steal your neighbors' car. That would morally wrong. However, if you could make an exact COPY of your neighbors car and drive it to work while your car is in the shop, whats the harm in that? Oh yeah the car manufacturer wouldn't get money from that car. But wait, the car manufacturer would never have gotten that money from you anyway, I mean, why would you buy a car that your only going to use for two days?