My point is an argument against people on here saying that "copying doesn't deprive the creator of anything, as you're only taking a copy, therefore you are not stealing". My point is that you are depriving them of their legal right to control their creation and how it gets used, and who by.
The reason we need IP laws is to encourage ideas and creations out into the open, so that more people can benefit from them, because without this legal protection, people can't protect their creations in any way other than keeping them to themselves. This protection comes at the expense of the the state, and so in return for the protection, the greater society is granted eventual free use of the ideas/creations. It's a completely fair and mutually beneficial exchange (note: when done right!). So, a person has released their idea/creation, on the grounds that they're granted control over it by the greater society. If that control is not left with the creator, eg, by someone taking copies without permission, then the greater society has not keeping up its end of the bargain, control hasn't been protected, and the creator has been failed.
The reason land is different is because land ownership is based on the fact that people, over the past thousands of years, and fought, hard, for it. If you want it off them, you have to fight them for it (or get them to agree to give it to you, eg, by exchange). Once someone has fougth for it, they're then free to decide to pass it down through their family. If your land is within a government controlled state, you are given government protection over it, in exchange for taxes. And, just as you point out, if IP wasn't returned to the greater society after x years, you would find that they become owned by fewer and fewer people, the exact same thing HAS happened with land, where for example, a King can have absolute power over every single square cm in his country, or in countries like England or the US, rich folk can own huge amounts of land, rent it out, and use that money to buy even more. Should it be taken off them? Well, this also happens, for example, during civil war, when people decide to fight for it. There's also such thing as "leasehold" (as apposed to "freehold") where it happens automatically - land is leased for periods of time, eg, 100 years, and then it does return.
"If you don't want your idea to get out, don't tell anyone about it"
That's EXACTLY WHY we need IP protection laws, to give people something in return for not keeping their ideas to themselves, so we can build culture, progress out technology and understanding. I can't believe you could be so narrow minded as to believe that ideas are, or should be, worthless, and that 'all the money' and value should mearly be placed on performance. I think that only speaks for the lack of value of any thought or idea you've had yourself.
All the music I have created myself, I have given away, because I enjoy the thought of other people listening and appreciating it. I don't want money for it. But that's my choice, which I'm as free to make as someone who DOES want to sell their creations. I'm not going to tell anyone they have to do things my way, and are wrong to disagree. By the same token, people pay for my software, which is how come I can eat tonight, because I have the freedom to charge for it. I'm a very open guy, because I like share where I can, and ask for what I need to live. But to say that everyone should be like that, and can't live their lives the way they choose to, without sharing as much if that's what they wish... is far more harmful than than not wanting to give your things away.
"It's 2031, and we've accomplished so much, we're actually running out of things to do. NASA has just sent a probe to Mars to look for the five pound note they hid there two years earlier."
Very funny. Anyone who liked The Day Today will like Time Trumpet.
As their right is to be able to control who gets to use their creation, to only share it with people who have paid them for it if that's what they wish, then yes, your act means they are no longer in the control of their creation that the law grants them; therefore you have taken that right.
No, but they have the right to control their creation, which includes, if they wish, only sharing it with people who pay them for it. And so, if you refuse to pay for the use of their creation, you are taking away their control of it, which means you are depriving them of their legally granted right.
Where are you? That's the case here in the UK, but a) there is movement afoot to change that, and b) we haven't legislated that "you are allowed to media-shift your purchases so you can use it on your equipment" because no one's really challenged it and said that you can't (to the extend that it's being challenged in the USA at least, for sure). Most people I know/meet seem to be quite respectful all round when it comes to copyright (bar the occasional "I buy computer games, copy them to my upgraded large HDD in my xbox, and then return them"). Everyone does it a bit, but there is a real sense of "I want to physically own it" that makes people collect CDs, DVDs etc. The people who don't, and who do copy stuff they shouldn't, tend to be people like me, who can't actually afford to purchase the stuff. Should the poor be deprived of music? No, probably not. Should you pay for it if you can? Yeah, you probably should. Stick to that, and you can't really go wrong.
Yeah it's actually quite scary, from reading slashdot you'd be forgiven for thinking that the whole world is black-and-black (Linus says slashdot sees things in black and white, I'd go one step further)... when you get out there, you'll find there's white and everything inbetween.
I don't think that just because the court calls it "copyright infringement" means that it isn't stealing. You're taking ("displacing", "moving") something without permission, you're depriving someone of their right to control their creation, at least, and sometimes even their income. I really don't understand how people on here can think that's not stealing. And to say that people who DO think it's stealing are brainwashed by the RIAA/MPAA is absolutely absurd; most people here in England have never even heard of them, their kind of organisations aren't anywhere near as visible over here as there, and even AS YOUNG KIDS I remember hearing claims of "you stole my idea!!". Thus is the beauty and flexibility of our language, something that cannot exist within the legal system (which has to be an unambigious as possible), something slashdot (with some exceptions, I guess such as yourself) seems totally ignorant of.
What about unlawfully depriving someone of their rights, granted to them under law, which is what happens when you illegally copy eg, their music? I think all in all, saying that it's "stealing" outside of the courtroom isn't as inaccurate as people on slashdot portray.
You've bought it, which I (and most people) believe means you should be allowed to use it in that way, and laws in many places in the world also grant you that right (which DRM takes away). The purchase makes all the difference, despite what anyone (eg, RIAA) would try have you believe. It's called copyright, and the right are given to all parties. They have the right to share it only with people who pay for it, if that's what they wish, and people who purchase it have the right to use their purchase however they wish, as long as it doesn't inflict on the creators previously mentioned rights (ie, distribute to people who haven't paid the creator for it).
"Copyright infringment" takes the rights away from the creator, and DRM takes the rights away from the user. They are both theft, because they take away rights that the creator/user (respectively) is entitled to. It's not copying their rights. It's taking them.
Except perhaps weapons, yeah. When our (us brits) constitution began formation back in 1100's, it was designed to protect against the king (who was the all powerful of the land), and over the hundreds of years following, limit the power of the crown, and move more power to the people of the land. Well now, the government formed, is becoming too powerful, and whilst we have "the vote", the power is not in the peoples hands as much as it should be, and government are free to pass laws that they shouldn't be. Our constitution is currently undergoing some reform, including creating greater seperation between branches (executive, legislative, and judiciary) of the government, but we definitely do need to limits on the areas where the government are able to legislate, such as where it comes to privacy, free speech, and (as this topic covers) technology. Government are becoming more powerful than they should be, and further seperated from the people than they should be (eg, american federal government), and the only thing that can ultimately result from this, is civil war.
Yes I think this is a good move, and would like to see it in more places around the world, perhaps even at the constitutional level, so that technology mandates cannot be pushed through other areas of government either.
That's what standards body's are for, and they seem to be doing a good enough job at the moment - i'd hate to see how backwards standards would be if left to a government body to dictate. Also, people should be free to move away from standards, and then it's up to the consumer to decide whether they think it's worthwhile or not. Consumer "voting" dictates which way standards go, that choice should not be taken away from people, especially not by an inept body like the government.
I'm being told that "Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted." Hopefully including this here will help post it!
Nope, it didn't, maybe including this here too convince it that the post should be allowed... cuz there's more, although I think you can guess where it's going...
No, you're just being arsy because you think it sounds clever. It doesn't. Just because some of the light might get absorbed by dust/atmosphere between you and the source, does not mean that what gets through is not from the source. The event that cause the photon to be released happened in the past, and you receiving the photon means you know that the event must have happened. The act of intercepting the photon is known as "looking", therefore receiving photons generated in the past is looking at events that occured in the past, thus, you are looking at something in the past. Of cause things will be different if you go right up to it, because the photon spreads out it you view it from further away, and so the amount of receive will obviously be less. And yes, if it passes close to a planet or something, it can squash the beam, but the information is not lost, and it's still the same light. You can drop words like "philosophical" in all you want, but it's just pseudoscience because you don't understand the reality of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking the universe bends because you lack proper understanding of it or what people are doing.
"Once upon a time, the majority believed the Earth was flat"
This is actually much debated. People used to believe that the earth was center, with the sun/moon going around it, but there's huge evidence showing that the idea of everyone (or even most people) believing the world was round is flawed. Evidence includes discovery of coins with king and globes on them (showing people high up believed it to be round, not just some heretic in some village), people realising that for ships to disapear over the horizon must mean there was a curve (otherwise they would keep getting smaller, not disapear). Right back to Eratosthenes, who devised the system of latitude and longitude, and calculated the circumference of the earth around 220BC with an error of around 15% (measuring difference in angles of shadows cast from the sun in Aswan and Alexandria). Early models of the solar system showing the sun/moon going around the earth clearly shows the earth as a ball (makes sense, to believe the sun goes around something implied the something must be round).
Err, I'm getting carried away, was just a little impressed with what people managed to work out 2000+ years ago, distroyed by rumour created by people trying to show "the light" by showing how barbaric and misinformed people in the past were. If only the earth was at the end of the telescope, maybe we could see what really went on.
Occording to relativity, anything travelling at the speed of light doesn't age, which means that the light doesn't age between it leaving its source and reaching you, which means that it is the same light as the past, so you are observing the past - in the present.
To use your china analogy, it's more like, if someone came from china, bringing a photograph they took before leaving, then when they show it to you, the photograph does show what things were like those 12 (or whatever) hours ago. The photograph itself might be in the present, but it's content - what you're looking at - are of the past. This is the same as looking at light from the past; the light may have reached the present, but we're not looking at the light, we're looking at the image carried in the light, which is from the past. Disagree all you want, you'll find you're in the minority opinion.
You abuse your robot? Perhaps you'll be interested in a new chip I developed that lets your robot feel pain... or could wait for the one i'm working on at the moment, that lets it feel shame
This is my point; whether something should work in any standards compliant browser is irrelevant, what matters is whether it works for the real people using the site.
"Or just maybe he/she has OTHER responsibilities like a mortgage, car payments, etc?"
*snort* if anyone was serious and not a l4m3a55 about web development, they should sacrifice everything else, and live in their moms basement, because women, a social life, or your own house, are all distractions *scoff* that's what I did when I made the website for my local chip shop, and the barbers homepage i made before that.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is an argument against people on here saying that "copying doesn't deprive the creator of anything, as you're only taking a copy, therefore you are not stealing". My point is that you are depriving them of their legal right to control their creation and how it gets used, and who by.
:-p
The reason we need IP laws is to encourage ideas and creations out into the open, so that more people can benefit from them, because without this legal protection, people can't protect their creations in any way other than keeping them to themselves. This protection comes at the expense of the the state, and so in return for the protection, the greater society is granted eventual free use of the ideas/creations. It's a completely fair and mutually beneficial exchange (note: when done right!). So, a person has released their idea/creation, on the grounds that they're granted control over it by the greater society. If that control is not left with the creator, eg, by someone taking copies without permission, then the greater society has not keeping up its end of the bargain, control hasn't been protected, and the creator has been failed.
The reason land is different is because land ownership is based on the fact that people, over the past thousands of years, and fought, hard, for it. If you want it off them, you have to fight them for it (or get them to agree to give it to you, eg, by exchange). Once someone has fougth for it, they're then free to decide to pass it down through their family. If your land is within a government controlled state, you are given government protection over it, in exchange for taxes. And, just as you point out, if IP wasn't returned to the greater society after x years, you would find that they become owned by fewer and fewer people, the exact same thing HAS happened with land, where for example, a King can have absolute power over every single square cm in his country, or in countries like England or the US, rich folk can own huge amounts of land, rent it out, and use that money to buy even more. Should it be taken off them? Well, this also happens, for example, during civil war, when people decide to fight for it. There's also such thing as "leasehold" (as apposed to "freehold") where it happens automatically - land is leased for periods of time, eg, 100 years, and then it does return.
Anyway, my food's done
"If you don't want your idea to get out, don't tell anyone about it"
That's EXACTLY WHY we need IP protection laws, to give people something in return for not keeping their ideas to themselves, so we can build culture, progress out technology and understanding. I can't believe you could be so narrow minded as to believe that ideas are, or should be, worthless, and that 'all the money' and value should mearly be placed on performance. I think that only speaks for the lack of value of any thought or idea you've had yourself.
All the music I have created myself, I have given away, because I enjoy the thought of other people listening and appreciating it. I don't want money for it. But that's my choice, which I'm as free to make as someone who DOES want to sell their creations. I'm not going to tell anyone they have to do things my way, and are wrong to disagree. By the same token, people pay for my software, which is how come I can eat tonight, because I have the freedom to charge for it. I'm a very open guy, because I like share where I can, and ask for what I need to live. But to say that everyone should be like that, and can't live their lives the way they choose to, without sharing as much if that's what they wish... is far more harmful than than not wanting to give your things away.
Haha, beginning on Time Trumpet (episode 6) -
"It's 2031, and we've accomplished so much, we're actually running out of things to do. NASA has just sent a probe to Mars to look for the five pound note they hid there two years earlier."
Very funny. Anyone who liked The Day Today will like Time Trumpet.
As their right is to be able to control who gets to use their creation, to only share it with people who have paid them for it if that's what they wish, then yes, your act means they are no longer in the control of their creation that the law grants them; therefore you have taken that right.
"No Mom, I was just checking for probes!"
Yeah right, of CAUSE that's what you were doing. Now go wash your hands.
No, but they have the right to control their creation, which includes, if they wish, only sharing it with people who pay them for it. And so, if you refuse to pay for the use of their creation, you are taking away their control of it, which means you are depriving them of their legally granted right.
Where are you? That's the case here in the UK, but a) there is movement afoot to change that, and b) we haven't legislated that "you are allowed to media-shift your purchases so you can use it on your equipment" because no one's really challenged it and said that you can't (to the extend that it's being challenged in the USA at least, for sure). Most people I know/meet seem to be quite respectful all round when it comes to copyright (bar the occasional "I buy computer games, copy them to my upgraded large HDD in my xbox, and then return them"). Everyone does it a bit, but there is a real sense of "I want to physically own it" that makes people collect CDs, DVDs etc. The people who don't, and who do copy stuff they shouldn't, tend to be people like me, who can't actually afford to purchase the stuff. Should the poor be deprived of music? No, probably not. Should you pay for it if you can? Yeah, you probably should. Stick to that, and you can't really go wrong.
Yeah it's actually quite scary, from reading slashdot you'd be forgiven for thinking that the whole world is black-and-black (Linus says slashdot sees things in black and white, I'd go one step further)... when you get out there, you'll find there's white and everything inbetween.
I don't think that just because the court calls it "copyright infringement" means that it isn't stealing. You're taking ("displacing", "moving") something without permission, you're depriving someone of their right to control their creation, at least, and sometimes even their income. I really don't understand how people on here can think that's not stealing. And to say that people who DO think it's stealing are brainwashed by the RIAA/MPAA is absolutely absurd; most people here in England have never even heard of them, their kind of organisations aren't anywhere near as visible over here as there, and even AS YOUNG KIDS I remember hearing claims of "you stole my idea!!". Thus is the beauty and flexibility of our language, something that cannot exist within the legal system (which has to be an unambigious as possible), something slashdot (with some exceptions, I guess such as yourself) seems totally ignorant of.
What about unlawfully depriving someone of their rights, granted to them under law, which is what happens when you illegally copy eg, their music? I think all in all, saying that it's "stealing" outside of the courtroom isn't as inaccurate as people on slashdot portray.
"that costs you nothing to reproduce"
What about the cost to produce? Surely, at absolute break even point, each copy would be be TotalCost / NumberOfCopies ?
You've bought it, which I (and most people) believe means you should be allowed to use it in that way, and laws in many places in the world also grant you that right (which DRM takes away). The purchase makes all the difference, despite what anyone (eg, RIAA) would try have you believe. It's called copyright, and the right are given to all parties. They have the right to share it only with people who pay for it, if that's what they wish, and people who purchase it have the right to use their purchase however they wish, as long as it doesn't inflict on the creators previously mentioned rights (ie, distribute to people who haven't paid the creator for it).
"Copyright infringment" takes the rights away from the creator, and DRM takes the rights away from the user. They are both theft, because they take away rights that the creator/user (respectively) is entitled to. It's not copying their rights. It's taking them.
"Did you actually remove anything from the "theft victim"?"
Yes. Their rights over their creation.
Except perhaps weapons, yeah. When our (us brits) constitution began formation back in 1100's, it was designed to protect against the king (who was the all powerful of the land), and over the hundreds of years following, limit the power of the crown, and move more power to the people of the land. Well now, the government formed, is becoming too powerful, and whilst we have "the vote", the power is not in the peoples hands as much as it should be, and government are free to pass laws that they shouldn't be. Our constitution is currently undergoing some reform, including creating greater seperation between branches (executive, legislative, and judiciary) of the government, but we definitely do need to limits on the areas where the government are able to legislate, such as where it comes to privacy, free speech, and (as this topic covers) technology. Government are becoming more powerful than they should be, and further seperated from the people than they should be (eg, american federal government), and the only thing that can ultimately result from this, is civil war.
Yes I think this is a good move, and would like to see it in more places around the world, perhaps even at the constitutional level, so that technology mandates cannot be pushed through other areas of government either.
That's what standards body's are for, and they seem to be doing a good enough job at the moment - i'd hate to see how backwards standards would be if left to a government body to dictate. Also, people should be free to move away from standards, and then it's up to the consumer to decide whether they think it's worthwhile or not. Consumer "voting" dictates which way standards go, that choice should not be taken away from people, especially not by an inept body like the government.
Insightful?!! haha
"He's dumb as a post"
A post on slashdot?
Erm, I think this speaks for itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Destination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Destination_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Destination_3
I'm being told that "Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted." Hopefully including this here will help post it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_IV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_V
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VII
Nope, it didn't, maybe including this here too convince it that the post should be allowed... cuz there's more, although I think you can guess where it's going...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VIII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_IX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XII
Woohoo finally!
No, you're just being arsy because you think it sounds clever. It doesn't. Just because some of the light might get absorbed by dust/atmosphere between you and the source, does not mean that what gets through is not from the source. The event that cause the photon to be released happened in the past, and you receiving the photon means you know that the event must have happened. The act of intercepting the photon is known as "looking", therefore receiving photons generated in the past is looking at events that occured in the past, thus, you are looking at something in the past. Of cause things will be different if you go right up to it, because the photon spreads out it you view it from further away, and so the amount of receive will obviously be less. And yes, if it passes close to a planet or something, it can squash the beam, but the information is not lost, and it's still the same light. You can drop words like "philosophical" in all you want, but it's just pseudoscience because you don't understand the reality of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking the universe bends because you lack proper understanding of it or what people are doing.
"Once upon a time, the majority believed the Earth was flat"
This is actually much debated. People used to believe that the earth was center, with the sun/moon going around it, but there's huge evidence showing that the idea of everyone (or even most people) believing the world was round is flawed. Evidence includes discovery of coins with king and globes on them (showing people high up believed it to be round, not just some heretic in some village), people realising that for ships to disapear over the horizon must mean there was a curve (otherwise they would keep getting smaller, not disapear). Right back to Eratosthenes, who devised the system of latitude and longitude, and calculated the circumference of the earth around 220BC with an error of around 15% (measuring difference in angles of shadows cast from the sun in Aswan and Alexandria). Early models of the solar system showing the sun/moon going around the earth clearly shows the earth as a ball (makes sense, to believe the sun goes around something implied the something must be round).
Err, I'm getting carried away, was just a little impressed with what people managed to work out 2000+ years ago, distroyed by rumour created by people trying to show "the light" by showing how barbaric and misinformed people in the past were. If only the earth was at the end of the telescope, maybe we could see what really went on.
Occording to relativity, anything travelling at the speed of light doesn't age, which means that the light doesn't age between it leaving its source and reaching you, which means that it is the same light as the past, so you are observing the past - in the present.
To use your china analogy, it's more like, if someone came from china, bringing a photograph they took before leaving, then when they show it to you, the photograph does show what things were like those 12 (or whatever) hours ago. The photograph itself might be in the present, but it's content - what you're looking at - are of the past. This is the same as looking at light from the past; the light may have reached the present, but we're not looking at the light, we're looking at the image carried in the light, which is from the past. Disagree all you want, you'll find you're in the minority opinion.
"My roomba has stood up to copious abuse"
You abuse your robot? Perhaps you'll be interested in a new chip I developed that lets your robot feel pain... or could wait for the one i'm working on at the moment, that lets it feel shame
hahaha, robot wars!!!
This is my point; whether something should work in any standards compliant browser is irrelevant, what matters is whether it works for the real people using the site.
Because damnit I have to feel passionate about something! And without going outside, all I have is the browser I use.
"Or just maybe he/she has OTHER responsibilities like a mortgage, car payments, etc?"
*snort* if anyone was serious and not a l4m3a55 about web development, they should sacrifice everything else, and live in their moms basement, because women, a social life, or your own house, are all distractions *scoff* that's what I did when I made the website for my local chip shop, and the barbers homepage i made before that.