I think real estate commissions are way too high and overdue for a reduction. If we could sell our house with a 1% commission, we would be a lot more mobile. I have seen some realtors offering 1% lately- and heck- that can be $2,000 dollars these days- a good week's pay. They would only need to sell 50 houses a year.
In relation to IT and moving- and really moving in general- I have heard too many stories about moving for a job and then getting laid off 3 to 6 months later. Suddenly in a new city with no resources and no job. Great way to be destroyed unless you have significant savings.
So... "They", what is your agenda? That way I can clue my friends in on it.;)
---
Actually the agenda has been very clear and not mysterious at all lately. It might be random Slashdot and ZDNet duping but we are suddenly swamped with articles saying how rare programmers are, how we need more H1B's and how we need more programmers when I see people with experience and degrees who can't find work or who are making $20k less than they should be making. Meanwhile, my company continues to outsource like a fiend.
The flood of articles (some from people with a strongly vested interest like IBM) makes me suspicious since reality is different than what these stories are reporting.
I used to be very trusting- but the more bogus studies I see outed, the less trusting I become.
As/400, Java, Websphere, C, C++, Unix, RPG, Cobol, Lisp, Pascal, Assembly... Project Lead, Developer, Microsoft Project. I am proactive but all the proactive in the world doesn't help me when 50% of our IT people are now indian (with 30% onshore and 70% offshore) and I know it is a race between their inflation and ours whether I remain employed or not. It doesn't matter how skilled I am if management can find an equally skilled person who is willing to work for $30k per year.
People with 7 years in accounting, have a skill. People with 7 years in IT don't unless they got lucky with regard to hot technology. Most of my friends from college missed one of the many turns (java being the recent one) and boom- they were out on their ass.
Again- I know a lot of hard working people whose life experience is NOT matching these recent news stories. So I suspect an agenda is behind them - not that things are really changing yet. I -do- think things will change in 6-10 years but many more of us will be SOL before then.
A relentless stream of "IT is great" news... yet a lot of folks I know are struggling (I'm doing okay but worry if I lost my current position).
So I just don't believe this news and I think there is some kind of agenda behind it. Perhaps the big IT companies want to head things off because they finally see a big crunch is coming and they are going to need skilled IT people again.
I would love to see things turn good again in this field but I'm not seeing it at the ground level yet (10+ years experience-- in the South).
And yet... You'll hire INFOSYS (would have been IBM 10 years ago).. who will have a RANDOM person - possibly right out of college with no experience..
to write your critical code- and they'll produce a MESS with the same novice mistakes new programmers always make. And you'll pay their company $100 an hour.. instead of hiring the guy above who could have solved your problem.
1) You will incur a large pile of debt getting the degree. 2) The degree is very hard compared to many other degrees. 3) The compensation starts in the 40's and goes up to the 80's- but then it mostly stops cold. MOST make under 70- Very few make six figures. 4) You -WILL- suffer severe age discrimination and be put out to pasture between 45 and 55 years old. 5) You -WON'T- be hired unless you are a genius- if you are a solid "B" student, your job will be outsourced, or have ridiculous requirements for sub-par pay. 6) Every three to four years your skill set becomes obsolete and so you must both -retrain- and -get some kind of project in new technology- or you are screwed.
We are seeing a lot of these propaganda articles lately while at my company we have over 200 indians working in for INFOSYS and we are down to under 100 american workers. Our productivity has gone to crap over the last four years-- incredible increases in productivity. We are -forbidden- to work on unapproved projects to the point that the choice is sit at your desk taking classes or basically just do nothing until you get approval (Not all outsourcing here- Sarbanes Oxley is a large part of the bureaucratic increase).
Listen- I've posted this at least a half dozen times over the last two months.
If you -love- computers. If you -are- a genius (top 5%) and a hard worker. If you intern (for god's sake don't graduate without experience).
You can do well in the field.
If you -like- computers. If you -are- smart (top 85-95%). If you fail to intern.
You are screwed- there are people who love computers and are smart and who are willing to work for $5k to $10k who will have your job.
So- STOP NOW- change majors before you work up a huge debt that by the way, you CANNOT declare bankruptcy from.
Most computer people I -knew- are struggling on subpar pay (under $60k with over 7 years experience) or they have changed careers. I'm still doing okay- but every day it gets worse. No raises have been given period for the last three years-- we are all at the top of the pay band and they are not changing it yet.
What I loved about that particular Bullshit was the extremely handicapped lady not allowed to build a small house on her own property while Walmart was allowed to mow under many acres of land and replace it with asphalt.
No- this isn't an anti-Walmart bit- it's about the hypocracy (sp) of these laws.
I think the congressman pn the show said these laws were really about land use control- not about protecting species and that's about right.
It's not PROVABLE-- it MAKES PREDICTIONS that would falsify it if they were found to not be true. You can't prove science- only collect a huge overwhelming pile of evidence that could still be shown incorrect by new evidence (like flipping a coin 100 times and it always comes up heads so you conclude it is an unfair coin but the next test has a reasonable mixture of heads and tails).
Add primitive flowers millions of years later- the first arthropods were see dwellers.
Then add millions of years of the flowers adapting to the bees and the bees adapting to the flowers. Throw in tiny variation to all bee's so that no two are exactly alike. Throw in an occasional drought or ice age to stress them so badly that 99% of them die off and only the most efficient ones survive.
And voila... instant bee.
The great thing is that, like most science, it's PROVABLE and the measurable facts are internally consistent. RNA and DNA share appropriate similarities to other arthropods. Arthropods share certain commonalities (like wierd vision frequencies starting with the chelicerates which were the common ancestor). The expected rates of mutation of the DNA/RNA vs the mitochodrial dna support it (and even FIT that bee's mutate a little faster because of the way they breed).
Bee's adapt and there is clear fossil evidence that the first bees were similar but not the same as modern bees. (The same fossil evidence that hangs together for bee's by the way shows that they are MUCH older than humans... dating back to the cretaceous period... and that humans did not exist for millions of years.)
While we can't build a Bee yet (and once we do, ID'ers will simply move the bar like they did when we figured out how Bee's fly), we will probably completely map their DNA soon.
---
None of this proves anything about whether gods exist. It is just a bunch of -facts- about bees that you could collect yourself given the resources and time. Because scientific measurements can be -repeated- by -ANYONE-.
You have have missed it but it has been pointed out that any scientist alive would LOVE to debunk evolution and find the new theory that fits the huge web of supporting information (geologic, taxonomic, genetic, historical, archeological, etc). They would be FAMOUS. But their new theory (just like Einsteins work) has to FIT the facts not IGNORE the facts like ID does.
Ganesha is the beginning of our world. He was created first and he gave shapes, the qualities, the elements, the modes of time, the Gods, the people. Ganesha is the symbol of the personality, which surpasses the human ego and superego. Ganesha is the innocence, living in constant worship of the Spirit. In other words, Ganesha is the unrealized, potential innocence in everything. Lord Ganesha is source of the illusive energy "Maya", hiding Atma (soul) from the mind in the same way as an illusion makes one mistake the rope for a snake.
Ganesha is also the Lord of Categories. All that can be counted or comprehended is a category (gana, hence the lord of gana, Gana-pati). The principle of all classifications through which the relations between different orders of things, between the macrocosm and the microcosm, can be understood is called the lord-of-categories.
Faith/Belief is -probably- a measurable biochemical process.
God is not measurable, weighable, etc and is thus NOT IN THE REALM OF SCIENCE.
Science is about what you can observe/measure- what you can predict from your measurements/observations.
Just so stories about an invisible being does not fit that definition.
Science does not PROVE god does NOT exist either. It doesn't prove Thor, Shiva, or the Spaghetti monster do not exist either.
Science doesn't really "prove" most anything- it only collects observations and makes predictions-- tomorrow we could have a new prediction that invalidates everything known to date. But as a body of work builds, it's extremely rare that happens so it is -effectively- proven for common use.
The Theory of Gravity is used to calculate the movements of objects every day- even tho it -could- change tomorrow.
The Theory of Evolution is used to make predictions every day as well.
Intelligent design does none of these things. It is not a theory. It is not science. It's not even really religion. What it is is a bald face lie told by people who should not be knowingly lying to protect their religion.
The person without the computer got off- the other lady was found guilty when it went to trial as I remember correctly. Since she seemed very sympathetic before the trial, I'm assuming things were not as portrayed in the media.
It was 70 going up the hill and 55 right over the crest of the hill. Last time I got tagged it was something similar-- 35 going up and down the bridge. But if all you did was coast down the bridge, you broke the speed limit- I was doing 38 in a 35. Clearly it was quota time and that was his favorite spot. I call it my "gravity assisted" ticket.
We typically have 55 mph in freeway construction areas in Texas. Lowering the speed limit from 55 to 30 would double my commute from 40 minutes to 80 minutes. Yow!
I didn't say laws were equal. I didn't say laws were moral.
I said, if you live in a society and don't leave it, then you agree to live by it's laws and accept the punishments for breaking those laws. It's called the social contract. You can read more here.
If you don't like these laws then 1) disobey them and accept that you will be punished if you are caught. 2) Leave and go some place that doesn't have these laws. 3) Work hard, lobby, use social pressure, and get them changed. 4) Go for a jury trial and shoot for jury nullification.
You always have a right to claim that the law doesn't apply to you (free speech and all) but you are being soft-headed if you do.
If you disagree with the social contract, then basically you are saying you want to live in a state of nature and that gives someone the right to club you and take your stuff. Either you are part of a society and obey its laws, or you are not and you are prey for everyone stronger than you.
It did seem to protect you from known IP's (which was already a large number back when I used it). Back when I messed with this stuff heavily (mainly for anime) it used to block tons of hits every day and I never got hauled into court. Now it is easier to buy, rent, or trade face to face with folks.
If she only downloaded 1 song, the fine wouldn't have been 3kish and she wouldn't have been sued. She probably had a pile of songs like most of us.
I'm converting my library over to legit copies that I'm recording and encoding free off the air. I p2p'd for a while but I think the risk/reward ratio isn't there for songs when there are so many -easy-, -legal-, -free-, ways to get the same songs.
Furthermore, if it was -WIDELY- known that you could get a $15,000 speeding ticket in a certain area, would you still go there and speed? Would you go there at all?
She did the action in question. She is responsible for the penalties for undertaking that action.
We all have to make hard choices every day.
The last time I broke a speeding law, it was pretty bogus. I still paid for the ticket and took the classes. IMHO- that particular speeding ticket set up was unfair (basically 70mph/hill\ 55mph construction zone - cop at bottom of hill).
She chose to download songs. She probably also foolishly didn't use programs like peer guardian. She also got unlucky.
Yes- Riaa are weasels. But by now, surely we ALL know that if you download copyrighted material you are risking a 3kish fine (or being ruined in court if you tried to fight it).
Of course, that's basically true*- my original post was addressing someone who said that drm violated copyright since the work wouldn't be readable by the time copyright finally expired. My point in this thread has been that there is no such requirement.
*disagree with your contention that creative works are not property. I agree that the idea/concept behind a creative work is not property, but instances of the work are since if I steal or destroy your only copy of it you still have the -idea- but you have lost the actual creative work. If I take your copy of "Goldfinger" and delete/destroy it, it would be impossible for you to recreate the movie from memory.
Ergo: your instance of goldfinger is property.
the idea of a madman polluting gold with radiactivity and being stopped by a british spy is not property.
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong!
on
Sun's Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 1
Yes but we still have copyright protected performances which do not enter the public domain.
For example- I can write a story and read it to an audience who cannot record it. Before I die, I can destroy the story. Nothing in copyright law -prohibits- these actions.
For example, I can compose music, and perform it only in settings where you cannot record it and each copyrighted performance is lost.
Copyright in the sense that you are using it only applies when I sell *copies* of it into the public market place.
Even then- it doesn't mandate that all works enter public domain- it is not an iron clad contract. It's within my rights to make copies which are unplayable except on my special hardware. It's within YOUR right to refuse to purchase such versions of books.
But if Rowlings decided to bring out Harry Potter 7 such that you had to go to a special reading room and couldn't buy a copy that's her right.
Copyright allows you to attempt to make a copy only if I sell you a physical copy. Even then, the court ruling only says that it is not illegal for you to -attempt- to copy a physical copy, not that I -must- make it possible for you to copy it (again- divx dvd's and other proprietary formats).
Ultimately the best practice is not not purchase or support formats that reduce your rights.
What I got out of it was, if the blind person purchased the right to the book and the blind person used a reader that used this DRM engine and it checked and they had the right to it, then everything was cool.
But I did skim more than read so I'll cede the point to you since it's not life or death and it is time for me to head on.
I support a creator's right to refuse to sell a product at a reasonable price and for unreasonable terms.
It is always my right to not give them my money.
We can negotiate about how long they get government protection to prevent others from making similar items. Currently, I think 28 years is reasonable.
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong!
on
Sun's Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 1
You say:
If I sell a book (which I wrote) to you, when the copyright expires you will have the right to my work. You can reprint it, sell copies, digitize it and put it on bittorrent, or whatever. At that point I have no right to dictate what you do with my work, because my copyright is gone. That's the problem with DRM; it can be made to never expire.
---
Yes this is true- but my point was that if I -do not- sell it to you then it is not true. Creators are under no obligation to release their works to the public domain.
Addressing your specific example: They may add additional conditions- for example, they may prevent you from making a copy which you can release to public domain later.
For example, you may see a play or concert but not be allowed to record it. That concert is copyrighted. The performers are not required to release a copy of the performance to public domain and they are allowed to prevent you from making a copy of it.
This is almost exactly equivalent to DRM. Their DRM is "You can't bring a recording device into our performance." It's possible that that particular live performance could be forever lost because of their DRM (I assume most play and concert performances have been lost this way).
---
It's not a natural right on either side. We can refuse to buy these DRM'd products (Like we did with DIVX dvd's). They can refuse to sell us a copy without DRM. They are pushing hard for eternal copyright. We should push back just as hard to stop it.
Many people are willing to pay some money for new creations but balk at the idea of paying for an item whose creators are all dead and so will ignore unreasonable demands and even legal restrictions on copying such material because they view them to be without moral standing.
Slashdot Mirror
I think real estate commissions are way too high and overdue for a reduction. If we could sell our house with a 1% commission, we would be a lot more mobile. I have seen some realtors offering 1% lately- and heck- that can be $2,000 dollars these days- a good week's pay. They would only need to sell 50 houses a year.
In relation to IT and moving- and really moving in general- I have heard too many stories about moving for a job and then getting laid off 3 to 6 months later. Suddenly in a new city with no resources and no job. Great way to be destroyed unless you have significant savings.
Well .. at last we are getting somewhere.
;)
So... "They", what is your agenda? That way I can clue my friends in on it.
---
Actually the agenda has been very clear and not mysterious at all lately. It might be random Slashdot and ZDNet duping but we are suddenly swamped with articles saying how rare programmers are, how we need more H1B's and how we need more programmers when I see people with experience and degrees who can't find work or who are making $20k less than they should be making. Meanwhile, my company continues to outsource like a fiend.
The flood of articles (some from people with a strongly vested interest like IBM) makes me suspicious since reality is different than what these stories are reporting.
I used to be very trusting- but the more bogus studies I see outed, the less trusting I become.
Let's put it this way...
As/400, Java, Websphere, C, C++, Unix, RPG, Cobol, Lisp, Pascal, Assembly...
Project Lead, Developer, Microsoft Project. I am proactive but all the proactive in the world doesn't help me when 50% of our IT people are now indian (with 30% onshore and 70% offshore) and I know it is a race between their inflation and ours whether I remain employed or not. It doesn't matter how skilled I am if management can find an equally skilled person who is willing to work for $30k per year.
People with 7 years in accounting, have a skill. People with 7 years in IT don't unless they got lucky with regard to hot technology. Most of my friends from college missed one of the many turns (java being the recent one) and boom- they were out on their ass.
Again- I know a lot of hard working people whose life experience is NOT matching these recent news stories. So I suspect an agenda is behind them - not that things are really changing yet. I -do- think things will change in 6-10 years but many more of us will be SOL before then.
A relentless stream of "IT is great" news... yet a lot of folks I know are struggling (I'm doing okay but worry if I lost my current position).
So I just don't believe this news and I think there is some kind of agenda behind it. Perhaps the big IT companies want to head things off because they finally see a big crunch is coming and they are going to need skilled IT people again.
I would love to see things turn good again in this field but I'm not seeing it at the ground level yet (10+ years experience-- in the South).
And yet... ..
You'll hire INFOSYS (would have been IBM 10 years ago).. who will have a RANDOM person - possibly right out of college with no experience
to write your critical code- and they'll produce a MESS with the same novice mistakes new programmers always make. And you'll pay their company $100 an hour.. instead of hiring the guy above who could have solved your problem.
God... what incredible bullshit this article is.
1) You will incur a large pile of debt getting the degree.
2) The degree is very hard compared to many other degrees.
3) The compensation starts in the 40's and goes up to the 80's- but then it mostly stops cold. MOST make under 70- Very few make six figures.
4) You -WILL- suffer severe age discrimination and be put out to pasture between 45 and 55 years old.
5) You -WON'T- be hired unless you are a genius- if you are a solid "B" student, your job will be outsourced, or have ridiculous requirements for sub-par pay.
6) Every three to four years your skill set becomes obsolete and so you must both -retrain- and -get some kind of project in new technology- or you are screwed.
We are seeing a lot of these propaganda articles lately while at my company we have over 200 indians working in for INFOSYS and we are down to under 100 american workers. Our productivity has gone to crap over the last four years-- incredible increases in productivity. We are -forbidden- to work on unapproved projects to the point that the choice is sit at your desk taking classes or basically just do nothing until you get approval (Not all outsourcing here- Sarbanes Oxley is a large part of the bureaucratic increase).
Listen- I've posted this at least a half dozen times over the last two months.
If you -love- computers.
If you -are- a genius (top 5%) and a hard worker.
If you intern (for god's sake don't graduate without experience).
You can do well in the field.
If you -like- computers.
If you -are- smart (top 85-95%).
If you fail to intern.
You are screwed- there are people who love computers and are smart and who are willing to work for $5k to $10k who will have your job.
So- STOP NOW- change majors before you work up a huge debt that by the way, you CANNOT declare bankruptcy from.
Most computer people I -knew- are struggling on subpar pay (under $60k with over 7 years experience) or they have changed careers. I'm still doing okay- but every day it gets worse. No raises have been given period for the last three years-- we are all at the top of the pay band and they are not changing it yet.
What I loved about that particular Bullshit was the extremely handicapped lady not allowed to build a small house on her own property while Walmart was allowed to mow under many acres of land and replace it with asphalt.
No- this isn't an anti-Walmart bit- it's about the hypocracy (sp) of these laws.
I think the congressman pn the show said these laws were really about land use control- not about protecting species and that's about right.
The great plains ( a huge area) were essentially created by huge numbers of buffalo. I would say they have a significant effect on the environment.
Plants and plankton transformed the bloody atmosphere- so I would say they had a significant effect on the environment.
Soldier ants had a regular habit of laying waste to huge areas-- so... you get the point.
Most wildly successful species will reach numbers that impact the environment.
I got carried away a bit there...
It's not PROVABLE-- it MAKES PREDICTIONS that would falsify it if they were found to not be true. You can't prove science- only collect a huge overwhelming pile of evidence that could still be shown incorrect by new evidence (like flipping a coin 100 times and it always comes up heads so you conclude it is an unfair coin but the next test has a reasonable mixture of heads and tails).
Well first you have to make an arthropod.
Add primitive flowers millions of years later- the first arthropods were see dwellers.
Then add millions of years of the flowers adapting to the bees and the bees adapting to the flowers. Throw in tiny variation to all bee's so that no two are exactly alike. Throw in an occasional drought or ice age to stress them so badly that 99% of them die off and only the most efficient ones survive.
And voila... instant bee.
The great thing is that, like most science, it's PROVABLE and the measurable facts are internally consistent. RNA and DNA share appropriate similarities to other arthropods. Arthropods share certain commonalities (like wierd vision frequencies starting with the chelicerates which were the common ancestor). The expected rates of mutation of the DNA/RNA vs the mitochodrial dna support it (and even FIT that bee's mutate a little faster because of the way they breed).
Bee's adapt and there is clear fossil evidence that the first bees were similar but not the same as modern bees. (The same fossil evidence that hangs together for bee's by the way shows that they are MUCH older than humans... dating back to the cretaceous period... and that humans did not exist for millions of years.)
While we can't build a Bee yet (and once we do, ID'ers will simply move the bar like they did when we figured out how Bee's fly), we will probably completely map their DNA soon.
---
None of this proves anything about whether gods exist. It is just a bunch of -facts- about bees that you could collect yourself given the resources and time. Because scientific measurements can be -repeated- by -ANYONE-.
You have have missed it but it has been pointed out that any scientist alive would LOVE to debunk evolution and find the new theory that fits the huge web of supporting information (geologic, taxonomic, genetic, historical, archeological, etc). They would be FAMOUS. But their new theory (just like Einsteins work) has to FIT the facts not IGNORE the facts like ID does.
Gosh darn it...
.../
Of course I would pick the indian creator god.
Sorry
From http://www.dollsofindia.com/library/article0007/2
Ganesha is the beginning of our world. He was created first and he gave shapes, the qualities, the elements, the modes of time, the Gods, the people. Ganesha is the symbol of the personality, which surpasses the human ego and superego. Ganesha is the innocence, living in constant worship of the Spirit. In other words, Ganesha is the unrealized, potential innocence in everything. Lord Ganesha is source of the illusive energy "Maya", hiding Atma (soul) from the mind in the same way as an illusion makes one mistake the rope for a snake.
Ganesha is also the Lord of Categories. All that can be counted or comprehended is a category (gana, hence the lord of gana, Gana-pati). The principle of all classifications through which the relations between different orders of things, between the macrocosm and the microcosm, can be understood is called the lord-of-categories.
Love is a measurable biochemical process.
Faith/Belief is -probably- a measurable biochemical process.
God is not measurable, weighable, etc and is thus NOT IN THE REALM OF SCIENCE.
Science is about what you can observe/measure- what you can predict from your measurements/observations.
Just so stories about an invisible being does not fit that definition.
Science does not PROVE god does NOT exist either. It doesn't prove Thor, Shiva, or the Spaghetti monster do not exist either.
Science doesn't really "prove" most anything- it only collects observations and makes predictions-- tomorrow we could have a new prediction that invalidates everything known to date. But as a body of work builds, it's extremely rare that happens so it is -effectively- proven for common use.
The Theory of Gravity is used to calculate the movements of objects every day- even tho it -could- change tomorrow.
The Theory of Evolution is used to make predictions every day as well.
Intelligent design does none of these things. It is not a theory. It is not science. It's not even really religion. What it is is a bald face lie told by people who should not be knowingly lying to protect their religion.
Thor did not create the universe.
Bacchus did not create the universe.
Lord Ganesha did not create the universe.
Not all gods are viewed as creator gods.
The person without the computer got off- the other lady was found guilty when it went to trial as I remember correctly. Since she seemed very sympathetic before the trial, I'm assuming things were not as portrayed in the media.
It was 70 going up the hill and 55 right over the crest of the hill. Last time I got tagged it was something similar-- 35 going up and down the bridge. But if all you did was coast down the bridge, you broke the speed limit- I was doing 38 in a 35. Clearly it was quota time and that was his favorite spot. I call it my "gravity assisted" ticket.
We typically have 55 mph in freeway construction areas in Texas. Lowering the speed limit from 55 to 30 would double my commute from 40 minutes to 80 minutes. Yow!
I didn't say laws were equal.
I didn't say laws were moral.
I said, if you live in a society and don't leave it, then you agree to live by it's laws and accept the punishments for breaking those laws. It's called the social contract. You can read more here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
If you don't like these laws then
1) disobey them and accept that you will be punished if you are caught.
2) Leave and go some place that doesn't have these laws.
3) Work hard, lobby, use social pressure, and get them changed.
4) Go for a jury trial and shoot for jury nullification.
You always have a right to claim that the law doesn't apply to you (free speech and all) but you are being soft-headed if you do.
If you disagree with the social contract, then basically you are saying you want to live in a state of nature and that gives someone the right to club you and take your stuff. Either you are part of a society and obey its laws, or you are not and you are prey for everyone stronger than you.
It won't protect you from new IP's.
It did seem to protect you from known IP's (which was already a large number back when I used it). Back when I messed with this stuff heavily (mainly for anime) it used to block tons of hits every day and I never got hauled into court. Now it is easier to buy, rent, or trade face to face with folks.
If she only downloaded 1 song, the fine wouldn't have been 3kish and she wouldn't have been sued. She probably had a pile of songs like most of us.
I'm converting my library over to legit copies that I'm recording and encoding free off the air. I p2p'd for a while but I think the risk/reward ratio isn't there for songs when there are so many -easy-, -legal-, -free-, ways to get the same songs.
Furthermore, if it was -WIDELY- known that you could get a $15,000 speeding ticket in a certain area, would you still go there and speed? Would you go there at all?
She did the action in question. She is responsible for the penalties for undertaking that action.
/hill\ 55mph construction zone - cop at bottom of hill).
We all have to make hard choices every day.
The last time I broke a speeding law, it was pretty bogus. I still paid for the ticket and took the classes. IMHO- that particular speeding ticket set up was unfair (basically 70mph
She chose to download songs. She probably also foolishly didn't use programs like peer guardian. She also got unlucky.
Yes- Riaa are weasels. But by now, surely we ALL know that if you download copyrighted material you are risking a 3kish fine (or being ruined in court if you tried to fight it).
The funny thing is that clearly the study was off by a huge amount.
Sales of these huge vehicles dropped like a stone when gas rose only to 3.00.
And inflation adjusted that is cheaper than it has been in the past (Gas was roughly 1.60 in the 1980's- effectively about 3.20 to 3.75 now).
Of course, that's basically true*- my original post was addressing someone who said that drm violated copyright since the work wouldn't be readable by the time copyright finally expired. My point in this thread has been that there is no such requirement.
*disagree with your contention that creative works are not property. I agree that the idea/concept behind a creative work is not property, but instances of the work are since if I steal or destroy your only copy of it you still have the -idea- but you have lost the actual creative work. If I take your copy of "Goldfinger" and delete/destroy it, it would be impossible for you to recreate the movie from memory.
Ergo:
your instance of goldfinger is property.
the idea of a madman polluting gold with radiactivity and being stopped by a british spy is not property.
Yes but we still have copyright protected performances which do not enter the public domain.
For example- I can write a story and read it to an audience who cannot record it. Before I die, I can destroy the story. Nothing in copyright law -prohibits- these actions.
For example, I can compose music, and perform it only in settings where you cannot record it and each copyrighted performance is lost.
Copyright in the sense that you are using it only applies when I sell *copies* of it into the public market place.
Even then- it doesn't mandate that all works enter public domain- it is not an iron clad contract. It's within my rights to make copies which are unplayable except on my special hardware. It's within YOUR right to refuse to purchase such versions of books.
But if Rowlings decided to bring out Harry Potter 7 such that you had to go to a special reading room and couldn't buy a copy that's her right.
Copyright allows you to attempt to make a copy only if I sell you a physical copy. Even then, the court ruling only says that it is not illegal for you to -attempt- to copy a physical copy, not that I -must- make it possible for you to copy it (again- divx dvd's and other proprietary formats).
Ultimately the best practice is not not purchase or support formats that reduce your rights.
Hmm. That's not what I got out of it.
What I got out of it was, if the blind person purchased the right to the book and the blind person used a reader that used this DRM engine and it checked and they had the right to it, then everything was cool.
But I did skim more than read so I'll cede the point to you since it's not life or death and it is time for me to head on.
I support a creator's right to refuse to sell a product at a reasonable price and for unreasonable terms.
It is always my right to not give them my money.
We can negotiate about how long they get government protection to prevent others from making similar items. Currently, I think 28 years is reasonable.
You say:
If I sell a book (which I wrote) to you, when the copyright expires you will have the right to my work. You can reprint it, sell copies, digitize it and put it on bittorrent, or whatever. At that point I have no right to dictate what you do with my work, because my copyright is gone. That's the problem with DRM; it can be made to never expire.
---
Yes this is true- but my point was that if I -do not- sell it to you then it is not true. Creators are under no obligation to release their works to the public domain.
Addressing your specific example: They may add additional conditions- for example, they may prevent you from making a copy which you can release to public domain later.
For example, you may see a play or concert but not be allowed to record it. That concert is copyrighted. The performers are not required to release a copy of the performance to public domain and they are allowed to prevent you from making a copy of it.
This is almost exactly equivalent to DRM. Their DRM is "You can't bring a recording device into our performance." It's possible that that particular live performance could be forever lost because of their DRM (I assume most play and concert performances have been lost this way).
---
It's not a natural right on either side. We can refuse to buy these DRM'd products (Like we did with DIVX dvd's). They can refuse to sell us a copy without DRM. They are pushing hard for eternal copyright. We should push back just as hard to stop it.
Many people are willing to pay some money for new creations but balk at the idea of paying for an item whose creators are all dead and so will ignore unreasonable demands and even legal restrictions on copying such material because they view them to be without moral standing.