Copyright does not automatically mean that the artist can be just sitting on his ass for the rest of his life. His works have to be good so that he keeps getting profit from them.
Just as downloading a copy of a song that you technically don't have the rights to download isn't 'stealing', them saying that you technically don't have the rights to download it isn't stealing.
The content creator used, let's say, $20,000 to make the work. His balance is now -$20,000. This amount he expects to recoup with sales, and ideally also get some profit. So let's say he could earn $30,000, ending up with a balance of $10,000.
Which option do you think makes the creator more likely to see his commercial art as feasible deal: that we pay properly for each copy, or that we just freeload it chanting how "it's not stealing".
I am fine with copyright extension if there is a company which actively maintains the IP. Such as Disney protecting Mickey Mouse (they still even create new content with features Mickey). However if no one is actively taking care of the copyright and not providing a way to distribute it, then there could be a timeout of decade or two.
Why? The great thing about open source is that if there's a problem in a key package then any supplier can work on it. Red Hat can. Canonical can. IBM can. Or I can pay someone to work on it myself if I really want to.
Sure, but now we are already talking about paid professional developers. My criticism was directed to the original claim which was that the end-user can fix the bugs.
While non-proprietary software might be imperfect at least the end-user isn't restricted from fixing bugs when they occur.
It's only a theoretical possibility. Even if the fix would not consist of much code, getting familiar with the codebase and then designing the proper fix takes ages.
People talking about the wonders of open source should do an experiment where they personally actually fix some little thing in one open source project.
Here in Finland cosmologists are predicting that we can see the next quick glimpse of Sun somewhere around 2025. We always gather together with some good photography equipment to capture a couple of shots of this rare event.
I assume that probably just parks the head rather than spinning down the disk? Laptop disks also park their heads after a moment of inactivity, which can be heard as a small click.
Under subdirectories of C:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution there is details about what files got patched for a specific update. That might be a good place to start.:)
To me, Twitter is like an improved RSS reader. Very useful to keep up with the headlines. Also, great way to utilize horizontal screen estate is to tuck TweetDeck next to the web browser.
You're attempting to argue that Sony should not be held accountable by the same laws as the rest of us
That is not my point. I hope the artist in question gets compensated properly.
My original argument was that I speculated that if we went by the rules of freeloader pirates, then one might assume that by the same rules, Sony would be eligible to do some freeloading too.
Are you joking? That is a serious copyright violation and represents a significant amount of lost income for an artist. The income, which the artist needs to recoup the investment that making the music took.
I think that was exactly his point: some of the benefits of having robust SSL are lost if the crucial details are afterwards transmitted through another cleartext channel.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright does not automatically mean that the artist can be just sitting on his ass for the rest of his life. His works have to be good so that he keeps getting profit from them.
Good point, but avoiding that would require completely removing the copyright system.
Just as downloading a copy of a song that you technically don't have the rights to download isn't 'stealing', them saying that you technically don't have the rights to download it isn't stealing.
The content creator used, let's say, $20,000 to make the work. His balance is now -$20,000. This amount he expects to recoup with sales, and ideally also get some profit. So let's say he could earn $30,000, ending up with a balance of $10,000.
Which option do you think makes the creator more likely to see his commercial art as feasible deal: that we pay properly for each copy, or that we just freeload it chanting how "it's not stealing".
It's not that important. The artists can easily make original content, which would create more interesting art anyway, than some reheated old stuff.
Well played. :)
Keep everything the same, but as soon as non-text media ends up being 28 (or fine, 30) years old, just release it!
It is released already. You can pick up the DVD cheaply from Amazon. I don't see why it would be terribly important for that material to be PD.
This discussion is usually centered around movies, music and books, but what do you think about software and video games?
For example, should Quake 1 (1996) be public domain? The source code is libre already, but the art assets are still sold in Steam.
What about Windows XP which was released 2001, but was still actively maintained till 2013?
I am fine with copyright extension if there is a company which actively maintains the IP. Such as Disney protecting Mickey Mouse (they still even create new content with features Mickey). However if no one is actively taking care of the copyright and not providing a way to distribute it, then there could be a timeout of decade or two.
Works from 1994 should be in public domain.
Why? So that you could acquire them for free? What's the motivation?
That's true.
Why? The great thing about open source is that if there's a problem in a key package then any supplier can work on it. Red Hat can. Canonical can. IBM can. Or I can pay someone to work on it myself if I really want to.
Sure, but now we are already talking about paid professional developers. My criticism was directed to the original claim which was that the end-user can fix the bugs.
While non-proprietary software might be imperfect at least the end-user isn't restricted from fixing bugs when they occur.
It's only a theoretical possibility. Even if the fix would not consist of much code, getting familiar with the codebase and then designing the proper fix takes ages.
People talking about the wonders of open source should do an experiment where they personally actually fix some little thing in one open source project.
I can't think of a single good reason why spoofed packets should be allowed out at all.
It takes CPU resources to filter them out.
Oh!
Here in Finland cosmologists are predicting that we can see the next quick glimpse of Sun somewhere around 2025. We always gather together with some good photography equipment to capture a couple of shots of this rare event.
I assume that probably just parks the head rather than spinning down the disk? Laptop disks also park their heads after a moment of inactivity, which can be heard as a small click.
Under subdirectories of C:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution there is details about what files got patched for a specific update. That might be a good place to start. :)
Is that still true? Has anyone actually verified that the OS or file manager still uses IE components?
Peppermint or spearmint?
Shut up.
To me, Twitter is like an improved RSS reader. Very useful to keep up with the headlines. Also, great way to utilize horizontal screen estate is to tuck TweetDeck next to the web browser.
No, I fully agree with you. :) I was just looking the thing from the perspective of the freeloaders.
You're attempting to argue that Sony should not be held accountable by the same laws as the rest of us
That is not my point. I hope the artist in question gets compensated properly.
My original argument was that I speculated that if we went by the rules of freeloader pirates, then one might assume that by the same rules, Sony would be eligible to do some freeloading too.
A kid sharing a song to 10,000 people is nothing.
Are you joking? That is a serious copyright violation and represents a significant amount of lost income for an artist. The income, which the artist needs to recoup the investment that making the music took.
I think that was exactly his point: some of the benefits of having robust SSL are lost if the crucial details are afterwards transmitted through another cleartext channel.