"Our current copyright system is very, very bad at doing this. That's all."
On this, I agree.
"If I can't produce generic HIV drugs or get access to a medical textbook or get access to news stories that might inform my participation in a democracy because the information embodied in those works is ruled to be the property of someone else, then that information is being withheld from me, right?"
For me, the question is, does society have a right to FREE access to that information. That completely depends on your view of how societies should operate. I think if a private group has to pay to research and develop something, they should recieve 'fair' compensation, even if the thing they produce is of universal value to society as a whole. The reasoning being that if such a thing was so valuable to society, the societies governments should pay for it, and not rely so much on private groups to do so. In this way, certain things (imo) like medicine, should be developed by the government and be public domain for the common good. Music however, which I believe isnt something necessary for the sustenance of life, should not be free:-)
The problem with that logic is that no information is being withheld, not at all. The other problem is that someone has to pay for the production of the information, at a fair rate.
The logic that it costs the same to make one copy as a million is irrelevant since it costs a lot more to produce the original. If we dont support the information producers, we as a society will become a society of pure consumers, where nothing new will ever be produced.
If I had to face a future where there was a near limitless supply of new information, but at a cost, vs a future with an entire history of old material, but no new material for free... Id rather pay and see some progress.
I dont think they should have to delay anything. I thing for a large percentage of people who use cable to watch television, this wont be a problem, as long as their cable companies provide a cable box with an integrated converter by the time the changeover happens. I think a lot of people arent even gonna know it happened when it does, except the few that DO still use analog antennas....
Luckily Nikon provides a raw converter of their own (for a fee) with their cameras:-)
But either way, Im sure C1dSLR will only benefit from this... Photoshop RAW is nice to have for how simple it is, but most photographers I know (including myself) use C1dSLR because of its ability to batch process raw files with multiple settings.... I hear Adobe is gonna adopt this into their next PS edition, but for flexibility, C1 is the best:-)
Slashdot Mirror
"Our current copyright system is very, very bad at doing this. That's all." On this, I agree. "If I can't produce generic HIV drugs or get access to a medical textbook or get access to news stories that might inform my participation in a democracy because the information embodied in those works is ruled to be the property of someone else, then that information is being withheld from me, right?" For me, the question is, does society have a right to FREE access to that information. That completely depends on your view of how societies should operate. I think if a private group has to pay to research and develop something, they should recieve 'fair' compensation, even if the thing they produce is of universal value to society as a whole. The reasoning being that if such a thing was so valuable to society, the societies governments should pay for it, and not rely so much on private groups to do so. In this way, certain things (imo) like medicine, should be developed by the government and be public domain for the common good. Music however, which I believe isnt something necessary for the sustenance of life, should not be free :-)
The problem with that logic is that no information is being withheld, not at all. The other problem is that someone has to pay for the production of the information, at a fair rate. The logic that it costs the same to make one copy as a million is irrelevant since it costs a lot more to produce the original. If we dont support the information producers, we as a society will become a society of pure consumers, where nothing new will ever be produced. If I had to face a future where there was a near limitless supply of new information, but at a cost, vs a future with an entire history of old material, but no new material for free ... Id rather pay and see some progress.
... meet his money! Maybe even make a TV show of it :-) 'Meet Bill Gates Money' ... now that sounds familiar....
I dont think they should have to delay anything. I thing for a large percentage of people who use cable to watch television, this wont be a problem, as long as their cable companies provide a cable box with an integrated converter by the time the changeover happens. I think a lot of people arent even gonna know it happened when it does, except the few that DO still use analog antennas ....
Luckily Nikon provides a raw converter of their own (for a fee) with their cameras :-)
But either way, Im sure C1dSLR will only benefit from this ... Photoshop RAW is nice to have for how simple it is, but most photographers I know (including myself) use C1dSLR because of its ability to batch process raw files with multiple settings.... I hear Adobe is gonna adopt this into their next PS edition, but for flexibility, C1 is the best :-)