Some property rights have their ground in the natural right to control one's own person. e.g. if I sit in my car and you wish to appropriate it, you have to bodily remove me and insert yourself. Since using this sort of physical coercion is contrary to my natural right to life and limb, my "ownership" of the car is in keeping with the definition of autonomous humanity.
If you use the font I designed, it does no injury to me and my right to prohibit you from doing so is a merely "conventional" right.
The grey area -- where libertarians and propertarians rightly and interestingly fight -- is in those things that I "own" but am not currently in possession of.
Microsoft has had to issue numerous press releases saying they can't figure out what the EU wants them to do, and that the EU is just punishing them for making such a great operating system. They've had to pay for numerous "independent" studies to prove that showing several million lines of unreadable source code is the same as documenting an API. Haven't they suffered enough?!?!
...if you know what I mean. Even if an entity does no business in your country, you're (if I've got it right) compelled to enforce Berne-style "intellectual property" enforcement in your borders. Unless you want to be booted from WTO.
By leveraging their monopoly in one market to secure monopolies -- or at least a presence forecful enough to take huge margins -- in in other markets.
And yes, they are willing to take a bath on a product if it will further this overarching goal. It made no economic sense to embed IE into the operating system.
I think a lot of criticism of rms comes from people who are generally focused on price, not freedom. Thought experiment:
What if the main thrust of civil rights activism were arguments that the economy is just so much more productive if minorities are not discriminated against for employment/promotion? And then what if some MLK-types talked about the inherent dignity of all people -- regardless of race -- and the ethical imperative to respect that dignity regardless of cost. And then what if the "main line" civil rights movement got all hostile against this group? Wouldn't that suck? Who would benefit from this conflict? (Hint: you probably don't need a hint)
Plenty of corp's, PACs, and other orgs will shell out for "studies" and "papers" that say whatever they need said in order to entice investors/policymakers toward their ends. It's a whole industry in its own right.
Great post. I like the fact-checking idea, and thought of a nebulous version of it before you even said that. Here's a link for feedback: NPR Taking Issue
I've looked all over the place and can't find a Windows-esque operating system that is also embedded. Could someone post a link in this thread maybe? I'd appreciate it.
If black squares count as a "technical measure" protecting access to a work... ? Someone actually should go ahead and launch this suit, to draw attention to the DMCA's shittiness.
I think the difference is that I think the provisioning problem, if it exists, is something government has a "right" to address -- within reason. Science and Useful Arts being nonrivalrous "public goods" allows for (though it does not in itself sufficiently argue for) government provision.
I'm baffled as to why they would touch this stuff, too. My best guess: "...first document to be CC-licensed using this tool is the text of Brazilian Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil's iSummit keynote speech". Lotta people in Brazil. The Vole's been trying to roll back their F/OSS support for awhile...
This cracks me up because the same people opposing Net Neturality with their "hands off the internet" BS are right here, front and center, saying "hands on every device that can access the internet!"
I have a question that came up as I encouraged a music-writing partner to license some stuff with BY-SA: how would you go about saying something like "after two years, I reserve the right to forbid commercial users". After some discussion, I talked him out of actually doing this, but I wonder if any CC experts know about the legality/feasibility of that sort of thing?
Laws deal in generalities; for every Dick Francis or Confederacy of Dunces there are thousands of works of art that go through the normal lifecycle: peak interest upon release, ideally showing a profit.
Many, but not all, artists care about money. That's who copyright is for. If I can come up with one artist who doesn't care, does that destroy the case for copyright? I'm thinking for example of Bill Drummond burning a million quid.
I think rigorous scientific study of the way information/culture is generated, distributed, and re-used would reveal that the "provisioning problem" has almost evaporated. I mean the problem that's usually phrased "who will create/discover if they can't sell the creation/discovery?" The answer is "Tons of people". Because the creations & discoveries have value in use, not merely in exchange. Set up a network (let's call it the "Innernet") where the ways that people solved their problems are readily accessible by anyone on the planet, ready to be expanded upon, to lead to higher-level solutions, and you'd probably be amazed how infrequently this system needs input $ pumped into it.
I think Science and the Useful Arts are stalling because people can "own" the right to solve problems in certain ways.
It seems to me that a limit is in there -- the term and scope have to serve the purpose of the clause. Any number you pick is going to seem arbitrary to someone; what's needed is a method, developed by an impartial party, for counting the costs and benefits of any proposed term. Hint: retroactive term extensions are B.S. You don't need to provide incentives to produce things that already exist. It'd be great to just start there and fine-tune as we learn more.
Hint 2: it doesn't take 100+ years to realize a profit on your intellectual endeavor, if that's your taste. Especially nowadays. As a general rule, your book/record/film is going to profit in its first five years of life or never. If anything, terms should be getting shorter as distribution & marketing technologies continue to improve.
Slashdot Mirror
If you use the font I designed, it does no injury to me and my right to prohibit you from doing so is a merely "conventional" right.
The grey area -- where libertarians and propertarians rightly and interestingly fight -- is in those things that I "own" but am not currently in possession of.
*Sigh... I know creating fonts is a lot of work and pretty-much an art form, but still... sigh.
TNT kjh fdlgjkh afgve9 qiug kmnbv
Microsoft has had to issue numerous press releases saying they can't figure out what the EU wants them to do, and that the EU is just punishing them for making such a great operating system. They've had to pay for numerous "independent" studies to prove that showing several million lines of unreadable source code is the same as documenting an API. Haven't they suffered enough?!?!
...if you know what I mean. Even if an entity does no business in your country, you're (if I've got it right) compelled to enforce Berne-style "intellectual property" enforcement in your borders. Unless you want to be booted from WTO.
And yes, they are willing to take a bath on a product if it will further this overarching goal. It made no economic sense to embed IE into the operating system.
as per the other guy's math
Pay whatev-percent (1? 1.5?) of our annual revenue and do business as usual
or
Let go of the mechanism (lock in) by which we make $________/yr.
What if the main thrust of civil rights activism were arguments that the economy is just so much more productive if minorities are not discriminated against for employment/promotion? And then what if some MLK-types talked about the inherent dignity of all people -- regardless of race -- and the ethical imperative to respect that dignity regardless of cost. And then what if the "main line" civil rights movement got all hostile against this group? Wouldn't that suck? Who would benefit from this conflict? (Hint: you probably don't need a hint)
Plenty of corp's, PACs, and other orgs will shell out for "studies" and "papers" that say whatever they need said in order to entice investors/policymakers toward their ends. It's a whole industry in its own right.
Great post. I like the fact-checking idea, and thought of a nebulous version of it before you even said that. Here's a link for feedback: NPR Taking Issue
I've looked all over the place and can't find a Windows-esque operating system that is also embedded. Could someone post a link in this thread maybe? I'd appreciate it.
viz., MS SQL Server. wtf?
If black squares count as a "technical measure" protecting access to a work... ? Someone actually should go ahead and launch this suit, to draw attention to the DMCA's shittiness.
I think the difference is that I think the provisioning problem, if it exists, is something government has a "right" to address -- within reason. Science and Useful Arts being nonrivalrous "public goods" allows for (though it does not in itself sufficiently argue for) government provision.
Just helps to see it in someone's hand or something. Not Shaq's hand, though.
next to an ordinary drive
In the other pictures the drive is by itself, so it could be as big as a lawnmower for all I can tell.
I'm baffled as to why they would touch this stuff, too. My best guess: "...first document to be CC-licensed using this tool is the text of Brazilian Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil's iSummit keynote speech". Lotta people in Brazil. The Vole's been trying to roll back their F/OSS support for awhile...
Arrr! Foiled again, mateys.
This cracks me up because the same people opposing Net Neturality with their "hands off the internet" BS are right here, front and center, saying "hands on every device that can access the internet!"
I have a question that came up as I encouraged a music-writing partner to license some stuff with BY-SA: how would you go about saying something like "after two years, I reserve the right to forbid commercial users". After some discussion, I talked him out of actually doing this, but I wonder if any CC experts know about the legality/feasibility of that sort of thing?
Many, but not all, artists care about money. That's who copyright is for. If I can come up with one artist who doesn't care, does that destroy the case for copyright? I'm thinking for example of Bill Drummond burning a million quid.
I think Science and the Useful Arts are stalling because people can "own" the right to solve problems in certain ways.
Hint 2: it doesn't take 100+ years to realize a profit on your intellectual endeavor, if that's your taste. Especially nowadays. As a general rule, your book/record/film is going to profit in its first five years of life or never. If anything, terms should be getting shorter as distribution & marketing technologies continue to improve.