I suspect you're right. Enron made their income & expenditure information public, too. For funzies here's a story about how they evade being specific here in Dallas: Schutze rules, by the way.
"Senate leaders had tried to pass the bill in early August but Rep. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., blocked passage by lodging secret "holds" on the bill. The bloggers tracked down those responsible for the delay and the senators let the bill advance under the pressure."
Interesting stuff. I've also heard that "the debtae" over global warming is not whether it's happening, but whether we should 1) focus on slowing/reversing it; or 2) focus on adapting to the warmer Earth.
I like how
-It doesn't fit onscreen unless maximized.
-It whisks you off to "wallopcorp.com". That'll go over great.
-You're supposed to email them and tell them why you should be invited, but they forgot to tell you any of their criteria for who gets invited. I think I'll say "you should invite me because I weight 130 pounds"
-There are people who do not "pirate" movies and music, and who also write papers for school. This is a totally irrelevant point, and I might say an attempt to "distract from the actual topic of discussion" -The "implicit property transfer" you talk about has zero legal substance. Copyright transfer requires an explicit writing. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#204 -The threat of a failing grade is clearly coercion. The students are being "forced" to accept this or fail. If a teacher demanded sexual favors from a student in exchange for a passing grade would you say "If they don't like that, their parents can pull them out of school and homeschool them."? If the student provided the favors, would that be a freely-accepted agreement?
Try to get at least one or two of the most basic facts under your belt before trashing people.
I'll throw out an idea. The patent office is flooded; frivolous patents are accepted because the resources aren't there to examine applications with anything near the correct level of scrutiny.
Why is the patent office flooded Because teh potential benefits of securing a patent are significant enough to justify the cost of flooding it.
Reduce the benefits. Scope and term. 5 year term for most patents; 2 years for software if you really don't think we can live without software patents. 0 years for "business methods" -- gimme a break.
(This suggestion assumes that anyone anywhere is aware that patent protection is a State-given right, not a God-given right)
Remember that trademark law does not protect the manufacturer from unauthorized use of words. Leo Stoller wishes it did, but it does not. Trademark protects from confusion that results when a protected word is used in conjunction with products similar to what the manufacturer offers.
This -- I think -- is an interesting case where confusion is probably demonstrable (you would only need to find people who thought that a "podcast" was somehow-related to an iPod) but also probably beneficial to the manufacturer. That is to say, if people think an iPod is required in order to listen to podcasts Apple will fetch more sales, not less.
I have heard the "social skills" shibboleth from just about everyone to whom I've mentioned the idea of home education. It is an important point -- and I plan to incorporate community activities, team sports, and a number of other things into my "curriculum" at home -- but I think a lot of the people who make this point don't think very critically about what they're saying:
Yes, kids learn "how to socialize" in public schools. But what exactly are they learning? That the people who make the rules (teachers, admins) are your enemy; that it's fine and natural to form groups and exclude others based on criteria such as looks, or name brand clothing; that sucking up to authority is much more beneficial than questioning it.
In short I see tremendous value in group education as part of a complete upbringing, but damn-near resent the suggestion that this part of my child's upbringing is best left to a swarm of hormone-addled teenagers who are either angst-filled in rebellion against authority or indoctrinated into subservience to it.
I had a client just today getting all excited about Vista, saying "it'll create a ton of work for guys like us" (this was a developers' meeting, mixed MS/Mac/FOSS company). Made me sad; I say anything partly 'cause I need the client, and partly because I don't quite know how to answer this assertion. That GPI link is interesting.
I think the way I'd answer in non-professional company is "I don't feel comfortable introducing obstacles and problems into other people's lives so that I can make money solving them..."
I would also like to commend you on levelheaded sincerity. Bentcd said a lot of useful things, but I'll add some thoughts:
When you write code, music, or anything that we currently treat as "intellectual property", you are consciously or subconsciously using the ideas, expressions, etc. of hundreds of people who went before you and discovered -- for example -- that a triad built on the Dominant resolves to the Tonic in a way that pleases the ear, or that insertion-sort is more efficient than bubble sort. You do not compensate anyone for these pieces of "intellectual property", but you also do not harm anyone. Where there is no harm, talking about "protection" of intellectual property doesn't make much sense.
At this point people generally talk about "lost sales" (this is what underlies your foo fighters example). The foo fighters, indeed, make more money because the govt. prohibits their output from being copied and sold for a profit by others. They would make even more money if you had to pay them again each time you listened to their CD. They would make even more money if people had to pay a royalty in order to hum their tunes, or discuss their lyrics, or think about them at all.
The question of effective copyright is not "did they lose money" but "at what point do the costs associated with guaranteeing their income outweigh the benefits that are derived from their cultural output." If the state completely withdrew all enforecment of copyright, some people somewhere would still write/produce music, for kicks, and toss it out there into the public domain. You'd have X songs of quality Y. To justify copyright, you need to demonstrate the state's interest in having some other number or quality of songs produced, then demonstrate that the copyright scope & term recommended is the minimum required to "incentivize" this extra creative production.
The pirate party thinks a 5 year term is about right. The reasoning is that most songs/movies/etc. make their profit in that time or not at all. So the cultural landscape would be -- say -- 90% unchanged from what it is now. That "extra" 10% does not justify the "extra" 100-something years of copyright term that US law provides.
I think it was assumed that you were just trying to get a rise out of people by saying amazingly stupid things. If you were actually sincere, then geez I don't know what to say to you, man.
Actually, if they're smart they will do what it takes to get a foot into the door in China, which has a potential market 5 times the size of the U.S. Then they can use their early-supporter status to influence Red Hat's direction, which I agree should be toward LSB.
I was surprised to find that legaltorrents.com is not even mentioned. Are they such a bit player? Is there a bigger, better site in that space (i.e. free/openn/cc culture)?
one of the classes I think that high school really could use is some kinda philosophy, but it's absent in most curricula. I'm guessing because of the parental complaint or even lawsuit factor if people started discussing gay rights, morality through religion, civil disobedience, etc
How disappointing. I thought you were going to recommend philosophy be taught in high school. I in fact am of the opinion it should be taught in middle school. But I don't think it means what you think it means
The topics you describe fall under contemporary events, politics, or ethics, not philosophy. What's missing from public school is exactly what philosophy is supposed to provide: critical thinking skills. It might be argued that these simply cannot be taught in large-group settings. I'm not sure, myself.
They definitely cannot be taught by following a curriculum voted on by a committee who was appointed by another committee. My kids will be educated at home.
Overblown copyright is obviously not as intense a problem as torture, but I think it's reductive to say it boils down to entertainment. Its intent, as some of us never get tired of pointing out, is to promote science and the useful arts -- not to divert us. I would go so far as to suggest that art as mere diversion results from the industrialization of "content". That's a different story, though.
Allow the public domain to be enriched again, and you will see innovations and dsicoveries that make human life better and more fair. It's a perfectly noble project
Fair use is a longstanding element of copyright that "content owners" (sic) were hoping we would all just eventually forget about. Google's indexing of information (even if it involves copying without permission) is a perfect example of fair use, and hopefully this case will be high-profile enough to get people asking questions about this stuff
(These are notes I jotted down as fast as I could as I was listening in on one of their meetings)
-Unsold books actually somewhat decorative... charge Barnes&Nob. a "decoration rental fee"? Interior design fee?
-When content creators drive cars around, they're kinda expressing themselves... should charge oil companies money to put gas in our cars
-Remember to think outside the box...
One kinda important difference is that copyright automatically attaches to any software that is written. Patents do not. So getting a patent on software would be an active (evil) step to take, but getting copyright on software is totally inadvertent. And rms correctly realized that putting software into the public domain was -- well, not evil -- but not as good as it could be.
If a bunch of people or organizations were doing reckless things, and semi-advertently causing a bunch of fires, would you pour research money into new fireproofing techniques or shut the bastards down?
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect you're right. Enron made their income & expenditure information public, too. For funzies here's a story about how they evade being specific here in Dallas: Schutze rules, by the way.
"Senate leaders had tried to pass the bill in early August but Rep. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., blocked passage by lodging secret "holds" on the bill. The bloggers tracked down those responsible for the delay and the senators let the bill advance under the pressure."
Try to clog up our legislative tubes, will ya?
We need another one to track what congresspeople spend their time doing. Heard a radio story about that but can't remember who was doing it...
Interesting stuff. I've also heard that "the debtae" over global warming is not whether it's happening, but whether we should 1) focus on slowing/reversing it; or 2) focus on adapting to the warmer Earth.
Sounds complicated. And sounds like it would penalize orgs that really did invent more stuff than other people.
I like how -It doesn't fit onscreen unless maximized. -It whisks you off to "wallopcorp.com". That'll go over great. -You're supposed to email them and tell them why you should be invited, but they forgot to tell you any of their criteria for who gets invited. I think I'll say "you should invite me because I weight 130 pounds"
Wow OCG you're outdoing youself. Did you know
-There are people who do not "pirate" movies and music, and who also write papers for school. This is a totally irrelevant point, and I might say an attempt to "distract from the actual topic of discussion"
-The "implicit property transfer" you talk about has zero legal substance. Copyright transfer requires an explicit writing. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#204
-The threat of a failing grade is clearly coercion. The students are being "forced" to accept this or fail. If a teacher demanded sexual favors from a student in exchange for a passing grade would you say "If they don't like that, their parents can pull them out of school and homeschool them."? If the student provided the favors, would that be a freely-accepted agreement?
Try to get at least one or two of the most basic facts under your belt before trashing people.
I'll throw out an idea. The patent office is flooded; frivolous patents are accepted because the resources aren't there to examine applications with anything near the correct level of scrutiny.
Why is the patent office flooded Because teh potential benefits of securing a patent are significant enough to justify the cost of flooding it.
Reduce the benefits. Scope and term. 5 year term for most patents; 2 years for software if you really don't think we can live without software patents. 0 years for "business methods" -- gimme a break.
(This suggestion assumes that anyone anywhere is aware that patent protection is a State-given right, not a God-given right)
Remember that trademark law does not protect the manufacturer from unauthorized use of words. Leo Stoller wishes it did, but it does not. Trademark protects from confusion that results when a protected word is used in conjunction with products similar to what the manufacturer offers.
This -- I think -- is an interesting case where confusion is probably demonstrable (you would only need to find people who thought that a "podcast" was somehow-related to an iPod) but also probably beneficial to the manufacturer. That is to say, if people think an iPod is required in order to listen to podcasts Apple will fetch more sales, not less.
Well, I used to be, at least.
I have heard the "social skills" shibboleth from just about everyone to whom I've mentioned the idea of home education. It is an important point -- and I plan to incorporate community activities, team sports, and a number of other things into my "curriculum" at home -- but I think a lot of the people who make this point don't think very critically about what they're saying:
Yes, kids learn "how to socialize" in public schools. But what exactly are they learning? That the people who make the rules (teachers, admins) are your enemy; that it's fine and natural to form groups and exclude others based on criteria such as looks, or name brand clothing; that sucking up to authority is much more beneficial than questioning it.
In short I see tremendous value in group education as part of a complete upbringing, but damn-near resent the suggestion that this part of my child's upbringing is best left to a swarm of hormone-addled teenagers who are either angst-filled in rebellion against authority or indoctrinated into subservience to it.
I had a client just today getting all excited about Vista, saying "it'll create a ton of work for guys like us" (this was a developers' meeting, mixed MS/Mac/FOSS company). Made me sad; I say anything partly 'cause I need the client, and partly because I don't quite know how to answer this assertion. That GPI link is interesting.
I think the way I'd answer in non-professional company is "I don't feel comfortable introducing obstacles and problems into other people's lives so that I can make money solving them..."
I'm "sorry"
I would also like to commend you on levelheaded sincerity. Bentcd said a lot of useful things, but I'll add some thoughts:
When you write code, music, or anything that we currently treat as "intellectual property", you are consciously or subconsciously using the ideas, expressions, etc. of hundreds of people who went before you and discovered -- for example -- that a triad built on the Dominant resolves to the Tonic in a way that pleases the ear, or that insertion-sort is more efficient than bubble sort. You do not compensate anyone for these pieces of "intellectual property", but you also do not harm anyone. Where there is no harm, talking about "protection" of intellectual property doesn't make much sense.
At this point people generally talk about "lost sales" (this is what underlies your foo fighters example). The foo fighters, indeed, make more money because the govt. prohibits their output from being copied and sold for a profit by others. They would make even more money if you had to pay them again each time you listened to their CD. They would make even more money if people had to pay a royalty in order to hum their tunes, or discuss their lyrics, or think about them at all.
The question of effective copyright is not "did they lose money" but "at what point do the costs associated with guaranteeing their income outweigh the benefits that are derived from their cultural output." If the state completely withdrew all enforecment of copyright, some people somewhere would still write/produce music, for kicks, and toss it out there into the public domain. You'd have X songs of quality Y. To justify copyright, you need to demonstrate the state's interest in having some other number or quality of songs produced, then demonstrate that the copyright scope & term recommended is the minimum required to "incentivize" this extra creative production.
The pirate party thinks a 5 year term is about right. The reasoning is that most songs/movies/etc. make their profit in that time or not at all. So the cultural landscape would be -- say -- 90% unchanged from what it is now. That "extra" 10% does not justify the "extra" 100-something years of copyright term that US law provides.
I think it was assumed that you were just trying to get a rise out of people by saying amazingly stupid things. If you were actually sincere, then geez I don't know what to say to you, man.
Actually, if they're smart they will do what it takes to get a foot into the door in China, which has a potential market 5 times the size of the U.S. Then they can use their early-supporter status to influence Red Hat's direction, which I agree should be toward LSB.
I was surprised to find that legaltorrents.com is not even mentioned. Are they such a bit player? Is there a bigger, better site in that space (i.e. free/openn/cc culture)?
one of the classes I think that high school really could use is some kinda philosophy, but it's absent in most curricula. I'm guessing because of the parental complaint or even lawsuit factor if people started discussing gay rights, morality through religion, civil disobedience, etc
How disappointing. I thought you were going to recommend philosophy be taught in high school. I in fact am of the opinion it should be taught in middle school. But I don't think it means what you think it means
The topics you describe fall under contemporary events, politics, or ethics, not philosophy. What's missing from public school is exactly what philosophy is supposed to provide: critical thinking skills. It might be argued that these simply cannot be taught in large-group settings. I'm not sure, myself.
They definitely cannot be taught by following a curriculum voted on by a committee who was appointed by another committee. My kids will be educated at home.
Overblown copyright is obviously not as intense a problem as torture, but I think it's reductive to say it boils down to entertainment. Its intent, as some of us never get tired of pointing out, is to promote science and the useful arts -- not to divert us. I would go so far as to suggest that art as mere diversion results from the industrialization of "content". That's a different story, though.
Allow the public domain to be enriched again, and you will see innovations and dsicoveries that make human life better and more fair. It's a perfectly noble project
"It's not like Google is hosting the article on it's own website"
Actually, an earlier article explained it is exactly like that, for certain older stories no longer on the original publishers' sites.
(This does not make the thing less stupid, though)
Fair use is a longstanding element of copyright that "content owners" (sic) were hoping we would all just eventually forget about. Google's indexing of information (even if it involves copying without permission) is a perfect example of fair use, and hopefully this case will be high-profile enough to get people asking questions about this stuff
(These are notes I jotted down as fast as I could as I was listening in on one of their meetings) -Unsold books actually somewhat decorative... charge Barnes&Nob. a "decoration rental fee"? Interior design fee? -When content creators drive cars around, they're kinda expressing themselves... should charge oil companies money to put gas in our cars -Remember to think outside the box...
This thing looks small and cool enough that you could just make it a portable router and skip the WiFi/ndiswrapper tangle for a Linux laptop?
One kinda important difference is that copyright automatically attaches to any software that is written. Patents do not. So getting a patent on software would be an active (evil) step to take, but getting copyright on software is totally inadvertent. And rms correctly realized that putting software into the public domain was -- well, not evil -- but not as good as it could be.
If a bunch of people or organizations were doing reckless things, and semi-advertently causing a bunch of fires, would you pour research money into new fireproofing techniques or shut the bastards down?
I was beginning to think everyone had just accepted the idea that the patent system is just a game people will be forced to play.