I think he's intending to add to your point, not detract from it. ie: they are supposedly to increase innovation through incentive (personal profit motive) but were originally a buddy system for those with political power to increase wealth for themselves and their freinds at the expense of everyone else.
In effect, it appears to me that he's saying: "you're right, the system is bad, but it's really even worse than you think" rather than disputing your point.
Yes, I'm not refering to the legitimacy or otherwise of Communism, democracy or violent revolution. What I'm trying to say is that the Communist Manifesto mandates violent revolution. Therefore, a government that does not use this method is not communist in the sense of following the Communist Manifesto. A movement that shares goals with communism but doesn't seek violent revolution would probably be better with another name.
As I said, the parent seemed to have done some study, but history does tend to give a view of the role of revolution in communism that aligns closely with the Communist Manifesto. Since it's the declared aim and historic practice to institute communism by revolution, that's what most people think it is.
But I suppose it could be considered a "Communist government" but not a "Communist state" as such, in the same way that a state in the US could have a "Republican government" but not be a "Republican State", by which I mean, they could change government at any time without needing to change political systems.
Well, I'm not sure where you get your definition of communism, but it seems like you've done a bit of study on it. Most of us would probably consider the Communist Manifesto http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61/61.txt to be a reasonable source of information. One of the statements in the introductory section is: "It is high time that Communists should openly, in the
face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their
tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of
Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself."
I'm sure you've probably read it before, but it seems to me that communism explicitly requires the violent overthrow of the bourgeois as it's method of implementation. I don't see how this could be compatible with democracy.
"Perpetrated for profit, you see?"
OR dishonest advantage! Don't ignore half of it just so that it fits your preconceptions!
Yes. That means fraud is:
deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit
or
deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated to gain some unfair advantage
or
deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated to gain some dishonest advantage
so you see I wasn't ignoring it to fit my preconceptions, I was using it as an accurate description. Just because I didn't include every possible meaning of the word has no bearing on the correctness of use.
Regarding the word counterfeit, you seem to have ignored (4. Archaic. a copy. ) part of the definition. I quote a man who claimed to be respectable: "Don't ignore half of it just so that it fits your preconceptions!" Oh, but I was saying fraud was something that is included in the definition, while you were claiming that counterfeit was not something that is included in the definition. Which of course would be well and good, you might not think of counterfeiting that way, despite the dictionary. That's ok, people use words different ways. Except for your insistence that people accept the dictionary definition of stealing to include ideas, which is also not the primary meaning. So you have very much chosen what to believe, in the same way that you criticize in others.
Is English actually not your first language? Because you really need to learn it better before getting involved with things like this. If people like you keep throwing these invalid arguments against copyright infringement, then the real arguments from people that know what they're talking about don't get heard through all the noise.
I said no such thing. Please apologize for the false accusation.
You are quite correct. It was a case of mistaken identity, but I admit that I could easily have checked and not made this error. Sorry.
You have an interesting moral compass. You, yourself would be comfortable doing what he did?
I'm not sure it was quite like you've taken it. The fact that others were using the tools after he left makes it seem to me that he didn't move them to prevent them being backed up, but left them where they were. That would seem sensible enough to me. He did extra work he wasn't paid for, and let others benefit from it. That's a good thing isn't it? The fact that he didn't put in extra effort again to ensure that others would continue to benefit after he left has no moral implications as far as I'm concerned.
If he acted with malice, then no, I would not have done so. It is not at all clear to me from his post that he did so, even though he seems to derive some enjoyment from it now. I have attempted to leave every work place running better because I have been there. If I had not backed it up, it would have been through negligence, not malice.
Aside from that, in my view, he owned the code. In my view, he didn't do anything wrong by not ensuring that it was backed up. They had it, they knew where it was (presumably, else how could they be using it?). Just because it's not how I would do it doesn't make it wrong.
Ok. It's obviously fine for you to have an opinion. When you express that opinion in the form of an accusation, it would generally be considered that the onus is on you to 1) be correct and 2) prove it. Much of our court system, for example, is based on this type of understanding. If your accusation is not correct, you would be said to have "falsely accused" someone.
In this post you say he appears to be lazy and dishonest, and make an outright accusation "you tried to extort them for something they had already paid for". Well, saying that he appears to be lazy and dishonest could be taken as just being a statement of your perception, but the accusation of extortion is a very definite accusation, so I'll deal with that.
The exact wording of your accusation is as quoted above "you tried to extort them for something they had already paid for". You stated that you made the assumption that he wrote it on work time. This assumption was incorrect. They had neither paid for code nor time to write it. It was his property, being neither purchased nor a work for hire. As for your accusation that he tried toextort them, the word means:
1. Law.
a. to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.
b. to take illegally by reason of one's office.
2. to compel (something) of a person or thing: Her wit and intelligence extorted their admiration.
Well, he certianly didn't use violence, intimidation or abuse authority, nor force, torture, threat, or the like. He doesn't appear to have taken anything illegally. That leaves compel. So I'll quote from the parent: [the code was] "Still available, still used and everyone was happy..." So it seems to me that if they were still using it that he did not attempt to compel them to anything. When they deleted it, he offered to work on contract. That is not trying to extort anyone. They had it, they used it for 30 days, they knew he wrote it, knew he was gone and didn't back it up. This seems to me to be a false accusation. That is where you seem to be in error.
As for lazy, he did more than was required by working on his own time. Yes, procedure would have been to back it up, but since even writing them at all was an extra effort provided without charge, this hardly qualifies as laziness.
Basically he made a bad decision(deciding to write a work related tool in his free time) and to get "revenge" for his first poor decision, he decided to not to backup his tools knowing his employer will eventually lose them and that will provide him an opportunity to get paid to re-create the tool. This is good behavior?
Alternatively: he made a generous decision (deciding to write a work related tool in his free time) and to complement his first generous decision, he decided to leave the tools available for use by his ex-employer. However, when his ex-employer deleted the tools, he set the limit at going in at no charge to rebuild them and offered to work on contract to replace them. This is good behaviour!
There is enough room for interpretation in this situation for your accusation to be unwarranted.
Well, I accept what you've said, but for the record, truth is important to me. I do not consider it to be truth that copyright infringement is theft. I also consider there are ideas, especially those of a philosophical nature, that part of the test of their truthfulness is to judge the consequences.
As for choosing what to believe, anyone certainly can. For example, I've had people do things where I questioned their motives. Sometimes, I've decided to believe that they meant no offense. We probably all make choices in that way on a regular basis. There is nothing manipulating or deceptive about it.
Counterfeiting is still a better description. I notice you didn't address that. I guess you just chose what to believe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fraud
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
Perpetrated for profit, you see? As far as I know, when people are charged with fraud, it is usually because they have taken something. My description was accurate.
thus, genetic engineering is still a self-referencing process of evolution, but at a much faster rate. and like all other experiments, this one could fail or bring unexpected success - to evolution, not to mankind. we are just a middle man for things to come.
Your statement presupposes evolution. This presupposition eliminates the possibility that it is evidence for evolution, even if the statement is correct.
In other words, if you believe in evolution producing life through "genetic engineering is still a self-referencing process of evolution, but at a much faster rate." If you believe in creation, producing life through genetic engineering is an example of life being created by an intelligent designer.
To quote the OP: Kinda puts an ironic twist on the old adage: "To those who believe, no proof is necessary. To those who disbelieve, no proof is possible."
In reality, creating life through genetic engineering proves that you can create life through genetic engineering. Nothing more, nothing less. At least, not without knowing more about the process, which we wont unless it actually happens.
What they deny is that one species can change so much that it becomes another species.
Or even that speciation can occur, but that it occurs through processes that involve a loss of genetic information, not gaining genetic information. That dogs could speciate (is that even a word?) into sub-species of dog, but not into super-dogs, so to speak.
And life created by men from scratch would be a demonstration of life being created by an intelligent designer.
I didn't say that I believe that the law should grant them the right to decide whether you should be allowed to mediashift - for the last time - I don't!
I know. I'll quote myself "Even if it is not your intention, you are indeed working for the benefit of the *AA's by spreading that propaganda." I believe you have not understood the consequences of the stance you take. But I did misunderstand your intentions and was too harsh. Sorry.
If you convince someone that copyright infringement is theft (in the context that you think it is) you gain nothing. Nothing at all. The *AA's gain another person that much more susceptible to their propaganda. That's why I say you are working for their benefit even if you don't agree with what they are doing.
Seriously, what do you think you would lose by changing your idea of theft to not include copyright infringement? If you still considered it wrong, but not the same, in much the same way that fraud is wrong, but not the same as theft. Fraud is still taking something that doesn't belong to you. It's called fraud instead of theft because of the difference in method of taking. If you like to think of it this way, copyright infringement can still be taking something that doesn't belong to you. One of the things that makes it not theft is the difference in the method of taking. It is actually closer to counterfeiting than theft. Not less wrong, but different.
What I encourage you to do is this: think about what you would lose or have to give up if you took the above view. Professionally? Nothing, you would still have the same stance about protecting your work, but using a different (more accurate?) word. Personally? Well, maybe a bit of wounded pride, but people change their minds about things all the time.
I note that theft describes the act, not the result. The results of copyright infringement could in some circumstances be similar to theft, but the act is very different. About the same degree of difference as between fraud and theft, some people might think.
It's not intellectually dishonest either. There are words that describe copyright infringment better than theft. You might like to use piracy. Despite some peoples objections, nobody seriously mistakes copying files to boarding a ship. To be sure, you could qualify it as "copyright piracy" if you liked. Counterfeit, piracy, these are words that adequately convey your meaning, accurately describe the act but don't bring you into alignment with the *AA's to the extent that calling it theft does.
If you really would like a chance of having influence against the attacks on fair use, take a page from the saleman's/marketer's/lawyer's handbook. The more times people agree with what you put forward, the more likely they will accept your conclusions. If you help bring people into agreement with the *AA's stance that copyright infringement is theft, you make it that much easier for them. Even if you don't want to.
Then, what would you gain if you took this view? An easy way to get people to understand what the *AA's are up to, even if they aren't interested enought to study up on it or have a long conversation. A couple of minutes is all it takes.
No. I know many people don't read the article. I've seen that some people don't read the post they reply to. You have excelled them all. You don't seem to have read your own post!
But yes, if the artist isn't happy with you mediashifting, then by doing it, you are still depriving them or what is their decision. If they are happy with it, then it is their decision, so doing it isn't depriving them of anything.
If you seriously believe that I would be depriving a dvd producer of something by format shifting a legally purchased for private use if they didn't want me to, then you "drank the kool-aid" as they say. Then you give me a tip to find reality? I will no longer attempt to reason with you. Reason has limits, and you have placed yourself beyond them for the time being. I wish you well, but not in your attempts to convince people that copyright violation is theft. Even if it is not your intention, you are indeed working for the benefit of the *AA's by spreading that propaganda.
I refer to pilgrim23's reply to you: "The software was written ON MY OWN TIME as a tool to help me do my own job which had absolutely nothing to do with programming."
The fact that he wrote it on his own time could have been deduced from his statement that he was not paid to write it. I don't see why it's disrespectful of him to not ensure availability of something to people who neither paid to have it nor are owed anything by him. You appear to be in error. You speak of karma, you might consider how your karma is affected by these apparently false accusations. An apology is in order.
So . . . You claim to have developed some software at work on your employer's dime (I'm assuming this because you don't say otherwise and it makes my rhetorical point stronger).
From the parent to your comment: But I was never hired to write it,nor was I paid for writing it.
I know people don't like to read the article, but you could at least read the post before you reply to it. Especially if you intend to be as insulting as that. You appear to have unjustly accused pilgrim23 of extortion, laziness and dishonesty. A reasonable person might think it's time to apologise now.
It's long been part of the culture to copy a new CD to tape to play it in the car, for example. I don't know any artist that would wish to deny you that.
There's this organisation called the RIAA, who I believe have directly stated that this is what they wish to do. There is a law called the DMCA. You may have heard of it. It is the method by which this intention is being enforced. In the US it is now a crime to exercise your fair use rights in many circumstances. In Australia, the law which was supposed to finally give us fair use rights actually changed fair use from a civil offence to a criminal one in many cases.
But yes, if the artist isn't happy with you mediashifting, then by doing it, you are still depriving them or what is their decision. If they are happy with it, then it is their decision, so doing it isn't depriving them of anything.
Well, in that case, the reason we need to educate people that copyright is infringement is not theft is to enable us to protect society from people who think like you, who would allow "artists" to control what we do in the privacy of our own homes with our legally purchased property.
The difference between us isn't semantics or understanding, it's that we've chosen opposite sides in this confrontation. Fortunately for our side, it is very easy and quick to convince most people that copyright infringement is not theft. On Sunday I had four friends in my house. I mentioned the "You wouldn't steal a car/handbag etc" message in front of movies, asked them if they would copy cars if they could with the click of a button. They would. They agreed that copying isn't stealing, and that content producers need protection from commercial copyright infringement. About 2 minutes work during a pleasant afternoon. There are many of us, it is easy to turn your sides propaganda against you. We will eventually win.
Your posts here:"I really don't understand how people on here can think that's not stealing."
and here:"just because something's covered by copyright infringment laws, does not make it stealing"
...well, how do I say it to you? You seem to understand, but then you don't. How do you think the word stealing accurately describes copyright infringement, except the times you don't want it to? With such distictions it would be impossible to mobilise people to vote based on the issue, or write a sensible letter to their government rep. Consider: "Copyright infringment is stealing, except for fair use, and some other things which aren't legally fair use, but still aren't stealing." Do you really think you can get action based on that thinking? If people use the word stealing because it's ok to be ambiguous, how do you get them to understand that when it's used in context of the law it can be grossly incorrect? Remember most people don't want a course on this, they want to understand it quickly and easily, if at all. Call it stealing, you give them to the *AA's.
If someone agrees to give you something after 50 years, then it's stealing if you take it before, but not stealing when you take it after.
I understand your point, but the original agreement was 14 years with the option to renew if I remember correctly. Perhaps if copyright owners had not been consistently breaking their side of the contract people would be more sympathetic to their greivances. In any case, you said you didn't understand. You still don't agree, no problem. But if you still don't understand it would seem to be a deliberate decision on your part to not understand. As an example, copying a DVD I have purchased to my hard drive is illegal in my country. I do not consider this to be theft, but it is certainly copyright infringement according to the laws of my country.
This is slashdot. 80% of people on here don't even know how to spell the word 'lose'. That can hardly be compared to a court of law!!!:-)
They probably don't perceive incorrect spelling of 'lose' to have the same social consequences as misunderstanding of copyright issues.
I really don't understand how people on here can think that's not stealing.
To me, it's like the difference between fraud and theft, or vandalism and theft. All things that affect property, none of them right, but they are different. One reason why I think of it as not stealing, for example, is because of the different exceptions there are like fair use. Also, expiration of copyrights. Why would stealing, after a period of time, be not stealing? There is no such expiration of my ownership of a chair, or my car. Copyright is different to tangible property, therefore copyright infringement is different to stealing.
even AS YOUNG KIDS I remember hearing claims of "you stole my idea!!"
The courts use language in a specific way, also the lawmakers, and it is different to common use of language. Many of us see problems with things that are happening with copyright law at the moment. We wish to mobilise people to understand the issues and make a difference. To do this, it is necessary to use appropriate language for them to understand what we are trying to say.
For the record, I am in favour of copyrights and think they need to be enforced, but I also think the law should be changed to reflect current reality with the type of technology available. I think the changes being introduced are going the wrong way in general.
Thus is the beauty and flexibility of our language
Feel free to have flexibility of your language talking to your friends or writing poetry. When discussing law, such flexibility ends.
Like loaves and fish, for example? Jesus took a few loaves and fish, and distributed copies to thousands of people. Your sig claims that you're a Jesus freak, you might like to consider that for awhile.
Maybe somebody out there would care about this, but as a business person who associates with a lot of other business people, I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone who would be likely to consider that video when making a decision to employ someone or not.
What should be done about it?
Come up with different business models to respond to changes in tech, instead of trying to enforce systems that were created to deal with very different technological/business environments.
When copyrights were invented, it was unthinkable for one person of modest resources to be able to quickly a cheaply send unlimited copies of a written work across the world at no charge. Now nearly every household in the western world can do this. I don't think we can abandon copyright, but I do think some different understanding is required.
I think of the movies Cars, for example. My kids really like that movie. We have the DVD, but I'm sure Pixar have made more from us out of merchandising than by the DVD sale. I'm pretty sure that financially succesful movies could be made even without ever doing anything to stop downloaders. Commercial pirates could still be prosecuted, but have liberal fair use for non-commercial purposes. If they went so far as to promote it as free to download (a reasonable time after the cinema release) they could potentially gain a much larger market share and therefore merchandising revenue.
Looking at software: Microsoft use copyright violation to sustain their market share. It is a part of their business model, they don't openly admit it, but it's not a secret. If personal copies were permitted, but copying for commercial use forbidden, in reality it would not destroy their profits. Most people buy their computer with software on it, and would continue to do so. Most people simply don't want to install their own operating system. Redhat seems to remain a viable business, despite CentOS. Probably CentOS helps Redhat retain market share in much the same way that pirated windows does for MS, but without requiring the law to be broken.
In short:
1 - There are currently viable business models that don't require changes to copyright law/enforcement. Use and improve on these.
2 - Accept that some businesses may have to operate with smaller profit margins. Deal with it.
3 - Accept that some industries may have to become smaller. Deal with it.
4 - Acknowledge that there is much "content" produced today that would not harm society in the slightest if none of it ever got made again.
Recently I met a guy who owns 4 houses (I don't know what mortgages he has, but he seemed to be doing well). His job? Plastic extruder operator, basically a labourer working shift work. There would probably be plenty of people in his workplace, all making similar money, doing a similar amount of work, but not accumulating wealth. I have known several people like that. I know a number of people with higher incomes but less wealth and more debt than myself.
It's like fitness. The majority of people could be physically fit, but many aren't. Many of those people work hard at their jobs/businesses etc, that is, they're not lazy. They just haven't prioritized fitness, they haven't done what it takes. It's the same with money. Many would like to be better off, most could (in developed countries). They just don't do what it takes. There are many reasons other than laziness, in my opinion.
How many people do you know who have made a serious attempt to become millionaires? I mean, have had a goal to do it, developed a plan to achieve it and have consistently worked that plan for 10 years or more? Anyone who hasn't done that really doesn't know if they could or not.
I'm an Australian, I must not have been paying attention, can you give me some more info please?
Format shifting such as the ability to rip a CD to MP3 for a portable media player (which was previously against the law).
Oh that. I don't think that's done what you think it has just yet. From the attorney general's press release
"The Government will monitor the implementation of the scope of the format shifting
exception to review in two years' time, whether the scope can be expanded to digital audio-visual materials in a way which complies with our international obligations."
Copying music in different formats
"9. What if my CD has copy protection applied to it?
The Government is still considering this issue of copy protection."
Format-shifting of other material
"3. Will I be able to copy a film from DVD to a portable player?
No. The Government will monitor the implementation of the new exceptions and review its scope in two years. It will be possible to dub an old VHS tape to a digital player."
And what isn't directly affecting our DMCA compliance but bodes ill for future changes in copyright law:
"The Australian Government is committed to tackling copyright piracy. The Government regards this activity as stealing."
I wouldn't say that these laws have rid us of the DMCA just yet.
I'm not sure whether or not this is something new he has latched onto
No, it's not new. You can find it in GPLv2:
"2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work"
May, not must. You have never had to distribute source of changes you've made, for example, if you didn't distribute the program.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he's intending to add to your point, not detract from it. ie: they are supposedly to increase innovation through incentive (personal profit motive) but were originally a buddy system for those with political power to increase wealth for themselves and their freinds at the expense of everyone else.
In effect, it appears to me that he's saying: "you're right, the system is bad, but it's really even worse than you think" rather than disputing your point.
Yes, I'm not refering to the legitimacy or otherwise of Communism, democracy or violent revolution. What I'm trying to say is that the Communist Manifesto mandates violent revolution. Therefore, a government that does not use this method is not communist in the sense of following the Communist Manifesto. A movement that shares goals with communism but doesn't seek violent revolution would probably be better with another name.
As I said, the parent seemed to have done some study, but history does tend to give a view of the role of revolution in communism that aligns closely with the Communist Manifesto. Since it's the declared aim and historic practice to institute communism by revolution, that's what most people think it is.
But I suppose it could be considered a "Communist government" but not a "Communist state" as such, in the same way that a state in the US could have a "Republican government" but not be a "Republican State", by which I mean, they could change government at any time without needing to change political systems.
Well, I'm not sure where you get your definition of communism, but it seems like you've done a bit of study on it. Most of us would probably consider the Communist Manifesto http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61/61.txt to be a reasonable source of information. One of the statements in the introductory section is: "It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself."
I'm sure you've probably read it before, but it seems to me that communism explicitly requires the violent overthrow of the bourgeois as it's method of implementation. I don't see how this could be compatible with democracy.
Yes. That means fraud is:
deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit
or
deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated to gain some unfair advantage
or
deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated to gain some dishonest advantage
so you see I wasn't ignoring it to fit my preconceptions, I was using it as an accurate description. Just because I didn't include every possible meaning of the word has no bearing on the correctness of use.
Regarding the word counterfeit, you seem to have ignored (4. Archaic. a copy. ) part of the definition. I quote a man who claimed to be respectable: "Don't ignore half of it just so that it fits your preconceptions!" Oh, but I was saying fraud was something that is included in the definition, while you were claiming that counterfeit was not something that is included in the definition. Which of course would be well and good, you might not think of counterfeiting that way, despite the dictionary. That's ok, people use words different ways. Except for your insistence that people accept the dictionary definition of stealing to include ideas, which is also not the primary meaning. So you have very much chosen what to believe, in the same way that you criticize in others.
Is English actually not your first language? Because you really need to learn it better before getting involved with things like this. If people like you keep throwing these invalid arguments against copyright infringement, then the real arguments from people that know what they're talking about don't get heard through all the noise.
Take a pill.
Wasn't me. Please check your link.
Yes, I noticed that before your reply. Sorry.
I said no such thing. Please apologize for the false accusation.
You are quite correct. It was a case of mistaken identity, but I admit that I could easily have checked and not made this error. Sorry.
You have an interesting moral compass. You, yourself would be comfortable doing what he did?
I'm not sure it was quite like you've taken it. The fact that others were using the tools after he left makes it seem to me that he didn't move them to prevent them being backed up, but left them where they were. That would seem sensible enough to me. He did extra work he wasn't paid for, and let others benefit from it. That's a good thing isn't it? The fact that he didn't put in extra effort again to ensure that others would continue to benefit after he left has no moral implications as far as I'm concerned.
If he acted with malice, then no, I would not have done so. It is not at all clear to me from his post that he did so, even though he seems to derive some enjoyment from it now. I have attempted to leave every work place running better because I have been there. If I had not backed it up, it would have been through negligence, not malice.
Aside from that, in my view, he owned the code. In my view, he didn't do anything wrong by not ensuring that it was backed up. They had it, they knew where it was (presumably, else how could they be using it?). Just because it's not how I would do it doesn't make it wrong.
I fail to see how I am in error. Please explain.
..." So it seems to me that if they were still using it that he did not attempt to compel them to anything. When they deleted it, he offered to work on contract. That is not trying to extort anyone. They had it, they used it for 30 days, they knew he wrote it, knew he was gone and didn't back it up. This seems to me to be a false accusation. That is where you seem to be in error.
Ok. It's obviously fine for you to have an opinion. When you express that opinion in the form of an accusation, it would generally be considered that the onus is on you to 1) be correct and 2) prove it. Much of our court system, for example, is based on this type of understanding. If your accusation is not correct, you would be said to have "falsely accused" someone.
In this post you say he appears to be lazy and dishonest, and make an outright accusation "you tried to extort them for something they had already paid for". Well, saying that he appears to be lazy and dishonest could be taken as just being a statement of your perception, but the accusation of extortion is a very definite accusation, so I'll deal with that.
The exact wording of your accusation is as quoted above "you tried to extort them for something they had already paid for". You stated that you made the assumption that he wrote it on work time. This assumption was incorrect. They had neither paid for code nor time to write it. It was his property, being neither purchased nor a work for hire. As for your accusation that he tried toextort them, the word means:
1. Law.
a. to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.
b. to take illegally by reason of one's office.
2. to compel (something) of a person or thing: Her wit and intelligence extorted their admiration.
Well, he certianly didn't use violence, intimidation or abuse authority, nor force, torture, threat, or the like. He doesn't appear to have taken anything illegally. That leaves compel. So I'll quote from the parent: [the code was] "Still available, still used and everyone was happy
As for lazy, he did more than was required by working on his own time. Yes, procedure would have been to back it up, but since even writing them at all was an extra effort provided without charge, this hardly qualifies as laziness.
Basically he made a bad decision(deciding to write a work related tool in his free time) and to get "revenge" for his first poor decision, he decided to not to backup his tools knowing his employer will eventually lose them and that will provide him an opportunity to get paid to re-create the tool. This is good behavior?
Alternatively: he made a generous decision (deciding to write a work related tool in his free time) and to complement his first generous decision, he decided to leave the tools available for use by his ex-employer. However, when his ex-employer deleted the tools, he set the limit at going in at no charge to rebuild them and offered to work on contract to replace them. This is good behaviour!
There is enough room for interpretation in this situation for your accusation to be unwarranted.
Well, I accept what you've said, but for the record, truth is important to me. I do not consider it to be truth that copyright infringement is theft. I also consider there are ideas, especially those of a philosophical nature, that part of the test of their truthfulness is to judge the consequences.
As for choosing what to believe, anyone certainly can. For example, I've had people do things where I questioned their motives. Sometimes, I've decided to believe that they meant no offense. We probably all make choices in that way on a regular basis. There is nothing manipulating or deceptive about it.
Counterfeiting is still a better description. I notice you didn't address that. I guess you just chose what to believe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fraud
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
Perpetrated for profit, you see? As far as I know, when people are charged with fraud, it is usually because they have taken something. My description was accurate.
thus, genetic engineering is still a self-referencing process of evolution, but at a much faster rate. and like all other experiments, this one could fail or bring unexpected success - to evolution, not to mankind. we are just a middle man for things to come.
Your statement presupposes evolution. This presupposition eliminates the possibility that it is evidence for evolution, even if the statement is correct.
In other words, if you believe in evolution producing life through "genetic engineering is still a self-referencing process of evolution, but at a much faster rate." If you believe in creation, producing life through genetic engineering is an example of life being created by an intelligent designer.
To quote the OP: Kinda puts an ironic twist on the old adage: "To those who believe, no proof is necessary. To those who disbelieve, no proof is possible."
In reality, creating life through genetic engineering proves that you can create life through genetic engineering. Nothing more, nothing less. At least, not without knowing more about the process, which we wont unless it actually happens.
What they deny is that one species can change so much that it becomes another species.
Or even that speciation can occur, but that it occurs through processes that involve a loss of genetic information, not gaining genetic information. That dogs could speciate (is that even a word?) into sub-species of dog, but not into super-dogs, so to speak.
And life created by men from scratch would be a demonstration of life being created by an intelligent designer.
I didn't say that I believe that the law should grant them the right to decide whether you should be allowed to mediashift - for the last time - I don't!
e it :
I know. I'll quote myself "Even if it is not your intention, you are indeed working for the benefit of the *AA's by spreading that propaganda." I believe you have not understood the consequences of the stance you take. But I did misunderstand your intentions and was too harsh. Sorry.
If you convince someone that copyright infringement is theft (in the context that you think it is) you gain nothing. Nothing at all. The *AA's gain another person that much more susceptible to their propaganda. That's why I say you are working for their benefit even if you don't agree with what they are doing.
Seriously, what do you think you would lose by changing your idea of theft to not include copyright infringement? If you still considered it wrong, but not the same, in much the same way that fraud is wrong, but not the same as theft. Fraud is still taking something that doesn't belong to you. It's called fraud instead of theft because of the difference in method of taking. If you like to think of it this way, copyright infringement can still be taking something that doesn't belong to you. One of the things that makes it not theft is the difference in the method of taking. It is actually closer to counterfeiting than theft. Not less wrong, but different.
What I encourage you to do is this: think about what you would lose or have to give up if you took the above view. Professionally? Nothing, you would still have the same stance about protecting your work, but using a different (more accurate?) word. Personally? Well, maybe a bit of wounded pride, but people change their minds about things all the time.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=counterf
1. made in imitation so as to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine; not genuine; forged: counterfeit dollar bills.
4. Archaic. a copy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theft :
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
I note that theft describes the act, not the result. The results of copyright infringement could in some circumstances be similar to theft, but the act is very different. About the same degree of difference as between fraud and theft, some people might think.
It's not intellectually dishonest either. There are words that describe copyright infringment better than theft. You might like to use piracy. Despite some peoples objections, nobody seriously mistakes copying files to boarding a ship. To be sure, you could qualify it as "copyright piracy" if you liked. Counterfeit, piracy, these are words that adequately convey your meaning, accurately describe the act but don't bring you into alignment with the *AA's to the extent that calling it theft does.
If you really would like a chance of having influence against the attacks on fair use, take a page from the saleman's/marketer's/lawyer's handbook. The more times people agree with what you put forward, the more likely they will accept your conclusions. If you help bring people into agreement with the *AA's stance that copyright infringement is theft, you make it that much easier for them. Even if you don't want to.
Then, what would you gain if you took this view? An easy way to get people to understand what the *AA's are up to, even if they aren't interested enought to study up on it or have a long conversation. A couple of minutes is all it takes.
Okay now you're just making stuff up
No. I know many people don't read the article. I've seen that some people don't read the post they reply to. You have excelled them all. You don't seem to have read your own post!
But yes, if the artist isn't happy with you mediashifting, then by doing it, you are still depriving them or what is their decision. If they are happy with it, then it is their decision, so doing it isn't depriving them of anything.
If you seriously believe that I would be depriving a dvd producer of something by format shifting a legally purchased for private use if they didn't want me to, then you "drank the kool-aid" as they say. Then you give me a tip to find reality? I will no longer attempt to reason with you. Reason has limits, and you have placed yourself beyond them for the time being. I wish you well, but not in your attempts to convince people that copyright violation is theft. Even if it is not your intention, you are indeed working for the benefit of the *AA's by spreading that propaganda.
I refer to pilgrim23's reply to you: "The software was written ON MY OWN TIME as a tool to help me do my own job which had absolutely nothing to do with programming."
The fact that he wrote it on his own time could have been deduced from his statement that he was not paid to write it. I don't see why it's disrespectful of him to not ensure availability of something to people who neither paid to have it nor are owed anything by him. You appear to be in error. You speak of karma, you might consider how your karma is affected by these apparently false accusations. An apology is in order.
So . . . You claim to have developed some software at work on your employer's dime (I'm assuming this because you don't say otherwise and it makes my rhetorical point stronger).
From the parent to your comment: But I was never hired to write it,nor was I paid for writing it.
I know people don't like to read the article, but you could at least read the post before you reply to it. Especially if you intend to be as insulting as that. You appear to have unjustly accused pilgrim23 of extortion, laziness and dishonesty. A reasonable person might think it's time to apologise now.
It's long been part of the culture to copy a new CD to tape to play it in the car, for example. I don't know any artist that would wish to deny you that.
There's this organisation called the RIAA, who I believe have directly stated that this is what they wish to do. There is a law called the DMCA. You may have heard of it. It is the method by which this intention is being enforced. In the US it is now a crime to exercise your fair use rights in many circumstances. In Australia, the law which was supposed to finally give us fair use rights actually changed fair use from a civil offence to a criminal one in many cases.
But yes, if the artist isn't happy with you mediashifting, then by doing it, you are still depriving them or what is their decision. If they are happy with it, then it is their decision, so doing it isn't depriving them of anything.
Well, in that case, the reason we need to educate people that copyright is infringement is not theft is to enable us to protect society from people who think like you, who would allow "artists" to control what we do in the privacy of our own homes with our legally purchased property.
The difference between us isn't semantics or understanding, it's that we've chosen opposite sides in this confrontation. Fortunately for our side, it is very easy and quick to convince most people that copyright infringement is not theft. On Sunday I had four friends in my house. I mentioned the "You wouldn't steal a car/handbag etc" message in front of movies, asked them if they would copy cars if they could with the click of a button. They would. They agreed that copying isn't stealing, and that content producers need protection from commercial copyright infringement. About 2 minutes work during a pleasant afternoon. There are many of us, it is easy to turn your sides propaganda against you. We will eventually win.
Your posts here:"I really don't understand how people on here can think that's not stealing."
...well, how do I say it to you? You seem to understand, but then you don't. How do you think the word stealing accurately describes copyright infringement, except the times you don't want it to? With such distictions it would be impossible to mobilise people to vote based on the issue, or write a sensible letter to their government rep. Consider: "Copyright infringment is stealing, except for fair use, and some other things which aren't legally fair use, but still aren't stealing." Do you really think you can get action based on that thinking? If people use the word stealing because it's ok to be ambiguous, how do you get them to understand that when it's used in context of the law it can be grossly incorrect? Remember most people don't want a course on this, they want to understand it quickly and easily, if at all. Call it stealing, you give them to the *AA's.
and here:"just because something's covered by copyright infringment laws, does not make it stealing"
If someone agrees to give you something after 50 years, then it's stealing if you take it before, but not stealing when you take it after.
:-)
I understand your point, but the original agreement was 14 years with the option to renew if I remember correctly. Perhaps if copyright owners had not been consistently breaking their side of the contract people would be more sympathetic to their greivances. In any case, you said you didn't understand. You still don't agree, no problem. But if you still don't understand it would seem to be a deliberate decision on your part to not understand. As an example, copying a DVD I have purchased to my hard drive is illegal in my country. I do not consider this to be theft, but it is certainly copyright infringement according to the laws of my country.
This is slashdot. 80% of people on here don't even know how to spell the word 'lose'. That can hardly be compared to a court of law!!!
They probably don't perceive incorrect spelling of 'lose' to have the same social consequences as misunderstanding of copyright issues.
For example, if you somehow conned them into signing the rights to you for free.
No, that would be fraud, not stealing.
I really don't understand how people on here can think that's not stealing.
To me, it's like the difference between fraud and theft, or vandalism and theft. All things that affect property, none of them right, but they are different. One reason why I think of it as not stealing, for example, is because of the different exceptions there are like fair use. Also, expiration of copyrights. Why would stealing, after a period of time, be not stealing? There is no such expiration of my ownership of a chair, or my car. Copyright is different to tangible property, therefore copyright infringement is different to stealing.
even AS YOUNG KIDS I remember hearing claims of "you stole my idea!!"
The courts use language in a specific way, also the lawmakers, and it is different to common use of language. Many of us see problems with things that are happening with copyright law at the moment. We wish to mobilise people to understand the issues and make a difference. To do this, it is necessary to use appropriate language for them to understand what we are trying to say.
For the record, I am in favour of copyrights and think they need to be enforced, but I also think the law should be changed to reflect current reality with the type of technology available. I think the changes being introduced are going the wrong way in general.
Thus is the beauty and flexibility of our language
Feel free to have flexibility of your language talking to your friends or writing poetry. When discussing law, such flexibility ends.
Is it something you can buy?
Like loaves and fish, for example? Jesus took a few loaves and fish, and distributed copies to thousands of people. Your sig claims that you're a Jesus freak, you might like to consider that for awhile.
Maybe somebody out there would care about this, but as a business person who associates with a lot of other business people, I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone who would be likely to consider that video when making a decision to employ someone or not.
What should be done about it?
Come up with different business models to respond to changes in tech, instead of trying to enforce systems that were created to deal with very different technological/business environments.
When copyrights were invented, it was unthinkable for one person of modest resources to be able to quickly a cheaply send unlimited copies of a written work across the world at no charge. Now nearly every household in the western world can do this. I don't think we can abandon copyright, but I do think some different understanding is required.
I think of the movies Cars, for example. My kids really like that movie. We have the DVD, but I'm sure Pixar have made more from us out of merchandising than by the DVD sale. I'm pretty sure that financially succesful movies could be made even without ever doing anything to stop downloaders. Commercial pirates could still be prosecuted, but have liberal fair use for non-commercial purposes. If they went so far as to promote it as free to download (a reasonable time after the cinema release) they could potentially gain a much larger market share and therefore merchandising revenue.
Looking at software: Microsoft use copyright violation to sustain their market share. It is a part of their business model, they don't openly admit it, but it's not a secret. If personal copies were permitted, but copying for commercial use forbidden, in reality it would not destroy their profits. Most people buy their computer with software on it, and would continue to do so. Most people simply don't want to install their own operating system. Redhat seems to remain a viable business, despite CentOS. Probably CentOS helps Redhat retain market share in much the same way that pirated windows does for MS, but without requiring the law to be broken.
In short:
1 - There are currently viable business models that don't require changes to copyright law/enforcement. Use and improve on these.
2 - Accept that some businesses may have to operate with smaller profit margins. Deal with it.
3 - Accept that some industries may have to become smaller. Deal with it.
4 - Acknowledge that there is much "content" produced today that would not harm society in the slightest if none of it ever got made again.
The money does not go to job creators. It goes mostly to people who borrow to pay for a car, house or credit cards.
Building cars, houses etc requires jobs.
Recently I met a guy who owns 4 houses (I don't know what mortgages he has, but he seemed to be doing well). His job? Plastic extruder operator, basically a labourer working shift work. There would probably be plenty of people in his workplace, all making similar money, doing a similar amount of work, but not accumulating wealth. I have known several people like that. I know a number of people with higher incomes but less wealth and more debt than myself.
It's like fitness. The majority of people could be physically fit, but many aren't. Many of those people work hard at their jobs/businesses etc, that is, they're not lazy. They just haven't prioritized fitness, they haven't done what it takes. It's the same with money. Many would like to be better off, most could (in developed countries). They just don't do what it takes. There are many reasons other than laziness, in my opinion.
How many people do you know who have made a serious attempt to become millionaires? I mean, have had a goal to do it, developed a plan to achieve it and have consistently worked that plan for 10 years or more? Anyone who hasn't done that really doesn't know if they could or not.
"The Government will monitor the implementation of the scope of the format shifting exception to review in two years' time, whether the scope can be expanded to digital audio-visual materials in a way which complies with our international obligations."
Copying music in different formats
"9. What if my CD has copy protection applied to it?
The Government is still considering this issue of copy protection."
Format-shifting of other material
"3. Will I be able to copy a film from DVD to a portable player?
No. The Government will monitor the implementation of the new exceptions and review its scope in two years. It will be possible to dub an old VHS tape to a digital player."
And what isn't directly affecting our DMCA compliance but bodes ill for future changes in copyright law:
"The Australian Government is committed to tackling copyright piracy. The Government regards this activity as stealing."
I wouldn't say that these laws have rid us of the DMCA just yet.
I'm not sure whether or not this is something new he has latched onto
No, it's not new. You can find it in GPLv2:
"2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work"
May, not must. You have never had to distribute source of changes you've made, for example, if you didn't distribute the program.