This kind of thing could lead to a new golden age of gaming! I strongly recommend investing heavily in video game company stocks. This explosion in gaming that this sort of thing will bring could be limitless! Hang on, folks! It's gonna be one hell of a ride!
PS: I know I was wrong about that turn-of-the-millenium tech bubble lasting forever, but I know I'm right about this one!
Hey, that's pretty interesting. I had no idea that this was anything more than a clever statement said by a friend after seeing how every bit of matter always ends up being empty space plus some smaller bits of matter. While much of those papers go well beyond my layman's understanding of quantum physics, I appreciate the links.
Yes, but he's EXTREME. Being EXTREME is cool. You want to be cool, don't you? Then listen to Howard Stern. Because he's EXTREME, and EXTREME is cool. By listening to Howard Stern, you then become EXTREME -- and therefore cool -- by extension.
This would be a great system (assuming a more reasonable amount, like $0.01/email) if this was the only fee for internet access use. Period. A regular user could send out a hundred emails a day and still pay as much per month as he's paying now.
I, for one, would absolutely switch to a system like this.
Note: This is not a talk about the Mickey Mouse Extension, or any of the other issues with contemporary copyright law. This is just an argument for its need and purpose on a fundamental level.
Sorry, I was under the impression you were arguing that there was nothing wrong with modern copyright law. I do see the value in a realistic copyright law, such as it was originally written (though with more realistic time limits, like 5 years instead of 14 years). I also had some counterpoints to the rest of your post, but I'll save that for another day.;-)
Just wait 'til you see the license that's going to come with Microsoft's next OS after Vista: it will forbid the use of even the first copy of the OS made off the installation CD.
Software as a service? Perpetual payments? No thanks.
Who -- besides companies looking for more profits and a constant revenue stream -- actually wants this? The cons far, far outweight the pros for the typical customer.
What you propose will end "promotional" spending on entertainment. Overnight. This is not a small evolutionary change but a great big revolutionary one. One that I doubt anyone has really thought through all of the consequences of.
You fail to explain why promotional spending on entertainment will end. Things will not fundamentally change overnight. Content producers/distributors still need to promote their stuff in order to raise awareness and generate sales.
Sure, it would be nice to get everything for free.
The idea of abolishing copyright is not about getting things for free. I think this might be the flawed premise that dismisses your entire argument.
I seriously doubt that something like this will happen in the US and Western Europe without having an economic impact that is completely unforeseen. And it is big and dangerous enough that it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Unless the pirates really do win and start distributing prime-quality content wide enough to put media companies out of business.
This has already been happening -- in a sense -- in the US and Western Europe for over a decade. The results, so far, have been good...unless you believe the current culture owners who claim trillions of dollars in sales have somehow magically disappeared from the economy entirely because of piracy.
But we'd lose the GPL if there were no copyright. That is to say people could make binary only versions of this or that bit of code, and not distribute the source.
And that's different than the current situation...how? Or do you honestly think that every current closed source apps is absolutely free of code copied from GPL licensed code?
There'd be no reason to keep the GPL if there was no copyright. So someone wants to take your work and pass it off as his own? Big deal. This will reduce the code-for-profit mentality and promote code-for-the-love-of-it thinking.
And if companies want to try making money by writing and selling software, they just need to guard their code closely and have a distribution plan in place for when the product is ready. They can then establish themselves as the first provider while people who want to copy their work and sell it for themselves will have to play catch-up.
We could also implement a system of "original authorship" where a work is sent to a central office (similar to the way the patent office 'works', and I use that term loosely) where an official record can be made. The original author may then legally claim to be the original author, and no one else could. Anyone else could still copy and sell the work, but they could not claim to be the original author. This way people can still claim (and, unfortunately, fight over) 'ownership', in a sense, without hurting the public good by locking away content.
People love the idea of buying "genuine" instead of knockoffs, first editions, and such. This simple system of "original authorship" also helps the original author of a book or movie or game or whatever in that sense.
Playing on the psychological makeup of humans -- capitalizing on their natural desires rather than trying to manufacture them -- will be the name of the game in a world without copyright.
In this day and age, copyrights should just be abolished entirely. It just runs so counter to this stage of the advance of human civilization. People pay for things they could otherwise get for free with little or no effort. That's a simple fact. If we got rid of copyright, then things like movies, books, and movies could be made for the love of the craft/art rather than for the love of money.
Where the profits come in is not in the creation or distribution of a intellectual "property", but in making its acquisition and use more convenient and enjoyable. For years, music and movies (and, to a lesser extent, things like books) have been effectively free with the estrablishment of the internet and P2P sharing, yet people still buy movies and music on disc. People still by water when it flows for [almost] free from their taps at home, for goodness sake! Getting rid of copyright law would open up huge, lucrative markets in the manufacture of content delivery products -- much more lucrative than the current market of digitally restricted and crippled devices.
No, you fools! It's mother nature trying to keep us from leaving this planet! She wants to take us down with her!
"Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing. Well I say, hard cheese." - C. M. Burns
Slashdot Mirror
This kind of thing could lead to a new golden age of gaming! I strongly recommend investing heavily in video game company stocks. This explosion in gaming that this sort of thing will bring could be limitless! Hang on, folks! It's gonna be one hell of a ride!
PS: I know I was wrong about that turn-of-the-millenium tech bubble lasting forever, but I know I'm right about this one!
Don't I know it.
Well, back to work.
(yeah, right)
Hey, that's pretty interesting. I had no idea that this was anything more than a clever statement said by a friend after seeing how every bit of matter always ends up being empty space plus some smaller bits of matter. While much of those papers go well beyond my layman's understanding of quantum physics, I appreciate the links.
I guess quantum physics is not for you, then. ;-)
Yes, but he's EXTREME . Being EXTREME is cool. You want to be cool, don't you? Then listen to Howard Stern. Because he's EXTREME , and EXTREME is cool. By listening to Howard Stern, you then become EXTREME -- and therefore cool -- by extension.
I'm still waiting for my buddy's theory of the universe to be disproven:
"Matter [and energy] is nothing more than carefully arranged empty space."
This would be a great system (assuming a more reasonable amount, like $0.01/email) if this was the only fee for internet access use. Period. A regular user could send out a hundred emails a day and still pay as much per month as he's paying now.
I, for one, would absolutely switch to a system like this.
It's sad how this statement is becoming more and more associated with freedom nowadays.
Sorry, I was under the impression you were arguing that there was nothing wrong with modern copyright law. I do see the value in a realistic copyright law, such as it was originally written (though with more realistic time limits, like 5 years instead of 14 years). I also had some counterpoints to the rest of your post, but I'll save that for another day. ;-)
Just wait 'til you see the license that's going to come with Microsoft's next OS after Vista: it will forbid the use of even the first copy of the OS made off the installation CD.
;-)
Why? What gives you the intrinsic right to control what other people do with the knowledge they have?
Okay, so you're saying that there's a 36% percent chance that the hot female night elf I cybered with last night was really a man?
"With a name like 'Cryinggam', I figured she just needed a little comforting!"
Wake me when Serenity: Special Edition comes out. I can't wait to see Wash shoot a giant spike at the Reavers first.
Software as a service? Perpetual payments? No thanks.
Who -- besides companies looking for more profits and a constant revenue stream -- actually wants this? The cons far, far outweight the pros for the typical customer.
I think Vista will be the last OS Microsoft ever puts out.
Once Google releases an OS, it's over for Microsoft.
You mean used to be a very forward-looking law.
Oh, yes, thank you, massah. No, I won't be messin no mo' wit my com-pyoo-tuh, no sir. Yes, massah, here's my credit card. Thank you, massah.
You fail to explain why promotional spending on entertainment will end. Things will not fundamentally change overnight. Content producers/distributors still need to promote their stuff in order to raise awareness and generate sales.
The idea of abolishing copyright is not about getting things for free. I think this might be the flawed premise that dismisses your entire argument.
This has already been happening -- in a sense -- in the US and Western Europe for over a decade. The results, so far, have been good...unless you believe the current culture owners who claim trillions of dollars in sales have somehow magically disappeared from the economy entirely because of piracy.
And that's different than the current situation...how? Or do you honestly think that every current closed source apps is absolutely free of code copied from GPL licensed code?
There'd be no reason to keep the GPL if there was no copyright. So someone wants to take your work and pass it off as his own? Big deal. This will reduce the code-for-profit mentality and promote code-for-the-love-of-it thinking.
And if companies want to try making money by writing and selling software, they just need to guard their code closely and have a distribution plan in place for when the product is ready. They can then establish themselves as the first provider while people who want to copy their work and sell it for themselves will have to play catch-up.
We could also implement a system of "original authorship" where a work is sent to a central office (similar to the way the patent office 'works', and I use that term loosely) where an official record can be made. The original author may then legally claim to be the original author, and no one else could. Anyone else could still copy and sell the work, but they could not claim to be the original author. This way people can still claim (and, unfortunately, fight over) 'ownership', in a sense, without hurting the public good by locking away content.
People love the idea of buying "genuine" instead of knockoffs, first editions, and such. This simple system of "original authorship" also helps the original author of a book or movie or game or whatever in that sense.
Playing on the psychological makeup of humans -- capitalizing on their natural desires rather than trying to manufacture them -- will be the name of the game in a world without copyright.
In this day and age, copyrights should just be abolished entirely. It just runs so counter to this stage of the advance of human civilization. People pay for things they could otherwise get for free with little or no effort. That's a simple fact. If we got rid of copyright, then things like movies, books, and movies could be made for the love of the craft/art rather than for the love of money.
Where the profits come in is not in the creation or distribution of a intellectual "property", but in making its acquisition and use more convenient and enjoyable. For years, music and movies (and, to a lesser extent, things like books) have been effectively free with the estrablishment of the internet and P2P sharing, yet people still buy movies and music on disc. People still by water when it flows for [almost] free from their taps at home, for goodness sake! Getting rid of copyright law would open up huge, lucrative markets in the manufacture of content delivery products -- much more lucrative than the current market of digitally restricted and crippled devices.
That's a really interesting link.
Also, the author seems to suffer from the same random bolding of words while writing that I do. Interesting...
No, you fools! It's mother nature trying to keep us from leaving this planet! She wants to take us down with her!
"Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing. Well I say, hard cheese." - C. M. Burns
I think I have a spare suckometer lying around that you could use. It can measure up to 10 kilo-ashlees.
I didn't think anyone would take that post seriously. Oh well. What's the point of maxxed out karma anyway?
I work for Microsoft; So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.
Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
But trust me.... You don't.
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.
This is how bad info gets passed around.
If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.
Cos some Slashdotters believe anything they hear.