You may not care what anyone calls it, but I and others do. The vested interests like to use the inaccurate term "theft" because it is much more emotive than the term "copyright infringement".
The fact is that theft is not possible under copyright laws as they stand. Copyright laws only give the authority to prohibit or authorise what you can do with a copyrighted work once you have it, they don't give the authority to say how it must be obtained in the first place.
So to infringe copyright you must already have the copyrighted work, and if you already have it you are not stealing it. This, of course, is on top of the fact that the copyright holder doesn't own the work, they own the copyright to the work.
As for people being less intelligent for believing otherwise, I'm not sure there are many people who do believe otherwise. I sure there are a lot of intelligent people who (think they will) stand to gain financially if they can convince people to believe it, and a lot of people who are paid well to do the convincing.
...Of course if you get rid of the right to own personal property entirely you don't have this issue.
You may not have thought this through, it may lead to one or two other more severe problems.
Frequently Asked Questions
What rights does copyright provide?
The original creators of works protected by copyright, and their heirs, have certain basic rights. They hold the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the work on agreed terms. The creator of a work can prohibit or authorize:
* its reproduction in various forms, such as printed publication or sound recording;
* its public performance, as in a play or musical work;
* recordings of it, for example, in the form of compact discs, cassettes or videotapes;
* its broadcasting, by radio, cable or satellite;
* its translation into other languages, or its adaptation, such as a novel into a screenplay.
It appears that copyright gives the copyright holder the authority (within reason) to tell you what you can and cannot do with the copyrighted work.
Interestingly, there is no mention of anyone owning the work, but owning the copyright to the work, as in:-
"...The creator - or the owner of the copyright in a work - can enforce rights administratively and in the courts...".
Therefore if you infringe a copyright you are not stealing the work as they don't own it, nor are you stealing the copyright, which they do own.
It seems that failure to bow to this authority is an act of, well, copyright infringement, not theft.
This is one of my pet hates with linux:- Why oh why didn't they put an "etc" directory in the home directory for applications files? Is there a good reason? Anyone know?
Ah, a scholar of the Dick Van Dyke school of pronunciaton.
While I agree that his portrayal of a cockney accent was indeed criminal, it really doesn't address the question of your FUD concerning what you can and can't say in the UK.
...You can say "hail satan and his nazi worshippers too" all you want. You just can't say that in England, France and Germany [among others].
What have you been smoking? Of course you can. If you know something I don't, please post a link to it. I would be particularly interested to know why I can't say this in the UK. Thanks.
...There may be objective truth, but there is no objective observer (which we can communicate with objectively), so there is no infallable way of demonstrating the objective veracity of an assertion. There are only aproximate truthes.
You mean we may not be able to find out what the truth is. Which is what I said. Not being able to determine what the truth is doesn't alter it or mean it doesn't exist, it just means we don't know what it is.
...Also, it may be that objective truth does NOT exist.
So you're saying it probably does exist.
...We would have no way of knowing because we have no objective observational mechanism with which to test its veracity.
There's no need to test it's veracity. It's a man made word to describe a man made concept, i.e. (from The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48) Conformity to fact or reality...
Either you're reading this or you're not. If you are, getting the world to believe you're not doesn't make it the truth. Even if you, for some strange reason, believe you're not reading it when you get everyone to believe you are, it still not the truth. The truth would be that you are, even if we never get to know.
...I am also not saying there are no true statements. I only state that no statements can be known or proven to be objectively or absolutely true regardless of their actual truth.
But you just said there may be no such thing as truth, and now you're just reiterating what I originally said. To repeat for your benefit:- "Although you may not be able to ascertain what it is, that doesn't change what actually happened. And what actually happened is the truth."
...but that doesn't make the opposite of that statement true, it only makes it _less false_.
It can't be less false, it's either false or it's true. If we don't know which it is then it's a guess, an estimation or a stastistical probability. True or false is binary, it's either one or the other. A lot of the time we don't know, so we have to make do with our best guess.
...This is also not a justification for Nilism. I'm not saying reality is a sham, I'm saying it's something we can never know perfectly.
...I don't believe there is such a thing as "the truth". Just doesn't exist.
And I say thats bullshit. Of course the truth exists.
Although you may not be able to ascertain what it is, that doesn't change what actually happened. And what actually happened is the truth.
Re:algae carrying crap for a few centimeters...
on
Algae Can Carry Cargo
·
· Score: 1
...The curtain problem looks like simple 'hot air rises' to me. The steam goes up and the cold air coming in at the bottom pushes against the curtain. Simple.
I would have thought it was because the water flowing from the shower head drags air down with it causing a downdraught in the area of the shower.
This air would then be at a lower pressure than the air outside the shower curtain causing the curtain to billow inwards.
...On the other hand, I think that Intelligent Design can be proven true if it can be shown that intelligent systems require intelligence to design.
Well, this is just silly. If it is shown that intelligent systems require intelligence to design, who designed the intelligent system that designed the intelligent system? And who designed that?
You will just end up with an infinite number of recursive intelligent systems. If one intelligent system is allowed to exist without being designed to start the ball rolling, why not be a friend to Ocham and leave all the others out?
Well, all analogy's fail at some level, that doesn't mean they're flawed. Selling groceries in a supermarket is not exactly the same as being in the recording industry.
However, if you want to include Aro in the analogy (and I'm guessing here it is the supermarkets own brand), theres nothing to stop the labels making their own music and trying to sell it.
I don't really understand what your trying to say though. I suggested that it may be better for consumers if the artists and the labels roles were reversed and the labels worked for the artists. The supermarket analogy was to replace the labels with the supermarkets and the artists with Heinz to reinforce the type of relationship I was refering to. One where Heinz (the artist) and the supermarket (the label) both make money, but due to the fact that you can buy the product from more than one supermarket chain the consumer gets lower prices.
...here in Venezuela it's rather common to have brands that only sell trough one chain.
I didn't know. My analogy was based on what happens in the UK. Here all the supermarket chains sell Heinz products.
...I do agree that it would be a good idea for bands to let more than one label to sell their music, but I'd guess they (both the bands and the labels) don't think it's such a good idea, because there are quite a few bands big enough to have done it if they wanted by now.
I think you'll find that the artists couldn't even if they wanted to, as George Michael found out when he wanted to leave Sony. And I'm sure the labels wouldn't like it. Good God, they'ld have to cut their profits to compete for business.
So where do you think the money comes from? Do the record companies grow it on trees?
It comes from the artists earnings. The artists already pay for all this stuff. The labels themselves produce nothing saleable.
If you are into music to make money it would be no different than starting any other business. If you don't have the money you have to convince someone to invest, get a loan or start small. It could even be one of the labels that invests in you.
The difference at the moment is that the label effectively owns the artist, and only they can sell the product. In any other business an investor may have a say in the running of the company, but you can still sell the product anywhere.
And in case you didn't realise it this is exactly how some bands get started now. They make their own recordings and hawk them about.
You seem to have misconstrued this particular part of the thread. It goes as follows:
-The fact that so many people do want their product, compared to buying music/movies online, is economically speaking plain proof that they do serve a huge role in the value of their products, otherwise the market would have eliminated them naturally long ago.
-This is false logic, if people want their product there is nowhere else to go, they've got it sown up.
-Untrue. There are always independant options. Use them.
-Really? I think you are misinformed. If an artist works for a particular label I can only buy their music through that label.
See, the point was if you want *their* product you have nowhere else to go. Not that there are no other products.
This was in comparison to supermarkets... well, re-read the previous posts if your lost.
...Then you just buy music from other artists if you don't like the label. This sounds (to me at least) kinda like complaining that you can only buy oscar mayer wieners (sp?) with the oscar mayer label.
Well I'm not familiar with Oscar Mayer, and have no idea what wieners are. So to continue with my previous analogy it's actually like complaining you can only buy Heinz products from one particular supermarket chain.
This is demonstrably not the case, and yet supermarkets will stock and advertise Heinz products, usually by stating how cheap they are at their stores. Heinz makes money, the supermarket makes money, and we get cheap products. Isn't competition wonderful!
Now do you get it? If I like U2 I have to go through the label they are contracted to. There is no competition, hence the products are overpriced. Ideally U2 would hire the label to do their marketing etc. rather than the other way round, then the labels would be in competition with each other and we would get reasonably priced products. Hell, why not let more than one label have a copy of your recording, and see who does the best job.
...they see that the music is actually produced to the best quality possible, by helping provide recording and postproduction facilities.
And what is to stop the musicians hiring people to do this, rather than these people hiring the musicians?
...they provide the commercial infrastructure to make sure music is paid for, and artists get paid.
This cold still happen if they worked for the musicians, instead of the musicians working for them.
...they find good (in the sense "popularly demanded", not necessarily "talented") musicians, preventing people having to wade through as much crap as they might.
Not "popularly demanded", just popular, there is a difference. "Preventing people having to wade through as much crap as they might" could be replaced with "Preventing people expiriencing as much diversity as they might"
...they help cultivate those particular musicians, by ensuring they continue to make music in the way people want.
Or, they cultivate their cash cow by ensuring the artists creativity is stifled.
...they provide the marketing and advertising that commercial success requires.
Which, again, they could do if they worked for the artists instead of the artists working for them.
...Perhaps a good analogy would be stores, should you steal milk because supermarkets pay farmers a fraction of what they sell the milk for? After all, all we need is farmers and people to drink milk, how dare those supermarket assholes get in the way!
I think the supermarkets are a good analogy. They should be more like supermarkets in the sense that supermarkets are competitive with each other, reducing prices. Heinz doesn't work for the supermarkets, but the supermarkets distribute and advertise their products even though you can buy them elsewhere. You can buy eggs from the supermarket, but you can also buy the eggs direct from the farm that supplies them, cheaper and fresher, if you want to. Supermarkets embrace new technology, you can buy stuff from the supermarket via the internet and have it delivered to your door. And it's the same product that you get from the shop, it hasn't been disabled in any way.
..the fact that so many people do want their product, compared to buying music/movies online, is economically speaking plain proof that they do serve a huge role in the value of their products, otherwise the market would have eliminated them naturally long ago.
This is false logic, if people want their product there is nowhere else to go, they've got it sown up.
In case anyones still interested I'd like to clear up the common misconception that some mechanism, in or on the rotor hub, is responsible for changing the pitch of the blades to compensate for the lift differential in forward flight.
Three points to note:-
1) Helicopter blades have hinges near the hub allowing the blades to move up and down independently (flapping).
2) The blades are not flat during flight, they form a cone. The angle of the cone is dependent on the weight of the Helicopter. As pitch is added to the blades via the collective lift increases causing the blades to flap up and form a cone. The blades will continue to flap up until the lift is greater than the weight of the Helicopter when the flapping will stop and the Helicopter will lift off the ground.
3) Although the blades form a cone, they are known as the disc. It is the disc that flies, the fuselage is just hanging off it.
Consider a Helicopter hovering in still air, the blades form a cone with its axis perpendicular to the ground.
No consider a breeze of x knots starts to blowing towards the front of the Helicopter. The advancing blade will create more lift and the retreating blade will create less lift. When the blades are in line with the fuselage the lift will be unchanged.
Following one blade from the point where it is in line with the fuselage and at its rearmost position, as it moves round lift is increasing. This will cause it to flap up. The act of flapping up will change the airflow over the blade as it now has a vertical component. This vertical component will reduce the angle of attack of the blade thereby reducing lift. So equilibrium is achieved by the flapping rate counteracting the increase in airflow over the blade.
Once the blade is again in line with the fuselage, but now in its foremost position, there is no increase in airflow, so the blade no longer flaps up.
The blade now becomes the retreating blade and the airflow across it decreases. This will cause the blade to flap down, again changing the airflow by introducing a vertical component. This time, however, the change in airflow is opposite to that on the advancing blade. This causes an increase in the angle of attack and increases lift. And again an equilibrium is reached, but his time the flapping counteracts the decrease in lift due to decreased airflow.
So we can see that the lift has remained constant without any input from the pilot or magic pitch changing mechanism that somehow "knows" whether the helicopter is flying forwards, backwards or sideways, and therefore which is the retreating or advancing blade.
Unfortunately, that is not the end of it. What has happened is that the blade has flapped up while advancing, and flapped down while retreating. The result of this is that the blade is higher at the front than it is at the back, or that the cone has been "tilted" backwards (known as flapback, unsurprisingly). This tilting of the cone will cause the disc to fly backwards, i.e. in the direction of the breeze.
As the Helicopter is just suspended under the disc, inertia will create a delay before the fuselage follows the disc, and when it does so the hub will move first causing the shaft driving the rotors to tilt backwards. The effect of this is to increase the tilt of the disc and speed up the rearwards flight until the whole helicopter is moving backwards.
Once it is moving backwards the fuselage will try to return to its original position under the disc. this will tilt the drive shaft forwards again and slow the rearwards flight down. But the fuselage now has momentum and will continue rearwards, thereby tilting the disc further forwards until the momentum is overcome.
When the fuselage starts to move back to its original position again...
If unchecked by the pilot this oscillation will increase until it is irrecoverable. Hence, whilst they are statically stable, helicopters are dynamically unstable. But they are just so much fun.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact is that theft is not possible under copyright laws as they stand. Copyright laws only give the authority to prohibit or authorise what you can do with a copyrighted work once you have it, they don't give the authority to say how it must be obtained in the first place.
So to infringe copyright you must already have the copyrighted work, and if you already have it you are not stealing it. This, of course, is on top of the fact that the copyright holder doesn't own the work, they own the copyright to the work.
As for people being less intelligent for believing otherwise, I'm not sure there are many people who do believe otherwise. I sure there are a lot of intelligent people who (think they will) stand to gain financially if they can convince people to believe it, and a lot of people who are paid well to do the convincing.
You may not have thought this through, it may lead to one or two other more severe problems.
Or it could just mean he is an unusual ignorant Microsoft-bribed hack...
Frequently Asked Questions What rights does copyright provide?
The original creators of works protected by copyright, and their heirs, have certain basic rights. They hold the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the work on agreed terms. The creator of a work can prohibit or authorize:
It appears that copyright gives the copyright holder the authority (within reason) to tell you what you can and cannot do with the copyrighted work.
Interestingly, there is no mention of anyone owning the work, but owning the copyright to the work, as in:-
Therefore if you infringe a copyright you are not stealing the work as they don't own it, nor are you stealing the copyright, which they do own.It seems that failure to bow to this authority is an act of, well, copyright infringement, not theft.
Put it on Ebay.
This is one of my pet hates with linux:- Why oh why didn't they put an "etc" directory in the home directory for applications files? Is there a good reason? Anyone know?
You must have met a select group of people, I don't know many, if any.
While I agree that his portrayal of a cockney accent was indeed criminal, it really doesn't address the question of your FUD concerning what you can and can't say in the UK.
What have you been smoking? Of course you can. If you know something I don't, please post a link to it. I would be particularly interested to know why I can't say this in the UK. Thanks.
24/7/365? Is that 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 weeks a year... Talk about messing with time.
You mean we may not be able to find out what the truth is. Which is what I said. Not being able to determine what the truth is doesn't alter it or mean it doesn't exist, it just means we don't know what it is.
So you're saying it probably does exist.
There's no need to test it's veracity. It's a man made word to describe a man made concept, i.e. (from The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48) Conformity to fact or reality...
Either you're reading this or you're not. If you are, getting the world to believe you're not doesn't make it the truth. Even if you, for some strange reason, believe you're not reading it when you get everyone to believe you are, it still not the truth. The truth would be that you are, even if we never get to know.
But you just said there may be no such thing as truth, and now you're just reiterating what I originally said. To repeat for your benefit:- "Although you may not be able to ascertain what it is, that doesn't change what actually happened. And what actually happened is the truth."
It can't be less false, it's either false or it's true. If we don't know which it is then it's a guess, an estimation or a stastistical probability. True or false is binary, it's either one or the other. A lot of the time we don't know, so we have to make do with our best guess.
Which, again, is what I said in my post.
And I say thats bullshit. Of course the truth exists.
Although you may not be able to ascertain what it is, that doesn't change what actually happened. And what actually happened is the truth.
I would have thought it was because the water flowing from the shower head drags air down with it causing a downdraught in the area of the shower.
This air would then be at a lower pressure than the air outside the shower curtain causing the curtain to billow inwards.
Well, this is just silly. If it is shown that intelligent systems require intelligence to design, who designed the intelligent system that designed the intelligent system? And who designed that?
You will just end up with an infinite number of recursive intelligent systems. If one intelligent system is allowed to exist without being designed to start the ball rolling, why not be a friend to Ocham and leave all the others out?
There's nothing in your post to indicate why it has to be this way.
There's nothing in your post that explains why this is the *best* way.
There's nothing in your post that explains why my suggestion couldn't work.
So, basically, theres nothing in your post.
However, if you want to include Aro in the analogy (and I'm guessing here it is the supermarkets own brand), theres nothing to stop the labels making their own music and trying to sell it.
I don't really understand what your trying to say though. I suggested that it may be better for consumers if the artists and the labels roles were reversed and the labels worked for the artists. The supermarket analogy was to replace the labels with the supermarkets and the artists with Heinz to reinforce the type of relationship I was refering to. One where Heinz (the artist) and the supermarket (the label) both make money, but due to the fact that you can buy the product from more than one supermarket chain the consumer gets lower prices.
What's your point?
I didn't know. My analogy was based on what happens in the UK. Here all the supermarket chains sell Heinz products.
I think you'll find that the artists couldn't even if they wanted to, as George Michael found out when he wanted to leave Sony. And I'm sure the labels wouldn't like it. Good God, they'ld have to cut their profits to compete for business.
It comes from the artists earnings. The artists already pay for all this stuff. The labels themselves produce nothing saleable.
If you are into music to make money it would be no different than starting any other business. If you don't have the money you have to convince someone to invest, get a loan or start small. It could even be one of the labels that invests in you.
The difference at the moment is that the label effectively owns the artist, and only they can sell the product. In any other business an investor may have a say in the running of the company, but you can still sell the product anywhere.
And in case you didn't realise it this is exactly how some bands get started now. They make their own recordings and hawk them about.
-The fact that so many people do want their product, compared to buying music/movies online, is economically speaking plain proof that they do serve a huge role in the value of their products, otherwise the market would have eliminated them naturally long ago.
-This is false logic, if people want their product there is nowhere else to go, they've got it sown up.
-Untrue. There are always independant options. Use them.
-Really? I think you are misinformed. If an artist works for a particular label I can only buy their music through that label.
See, the point was if you want *their* product you have nowhere else to go. Not that there are no other products. This was in comparison to supermarkets... well, re-read the previous posts if your lost.
Well I'm not familiar with Oscar Mayer, and have no idea what wieners are. So to continue with my previous analogy it's actually like complaining you can only buy Heinz products from one particular supermarket chain.
This is demonstrably not the case, and yet supermarkets will stock and advertise Heinz products, usually by stating how cheap they are at their stores. Heinz makes money, the supermarket makes money, and we get cheap products. Isn't competition wonderful!
Now do you get it? If I like U2 I have to go through the label they are contracted to. There is no competition, hence the products are overpriced. Ideally U2 would hire the label to do their marketing etc. rather than the other way round, then the labels would be in competition with each other and we would get reasonably priced products. Hell, why not let more than one label have a copy of your recording, and see who does the best job.
Really? I think you are misinformed. If an artist works for a particular label I can only buy their music through that label.
And what is to stop the musicians hiring people to do this, rather than these people hiring the musicians?
This cold still happen if they worked for the musicians, instead of the musicians working for them.
Not "popularly demanded", just popular, there is a difference. "Preventing people having to wade through as much crap as they might" could be replaced with "Preventing people expiriencing as much diversity as they might"
Or, they cultivate their cash cow by ensuring the artists creativity is stifled.
Which, again, they could do if they worked for the artists instead of the artists working for them.
I think the supermarkets are a good analogy. They should be more like supermarkets in the sense that supermarkets are competitive with each other, reducing prices. Heinz doesn't work for the supermarkets, but the supermarkets distribute and advertise their products even though you can buy them elsewhere. You can buy eggs from the supermarket, but you can also buy the eggs direct from the farm that supplies them, cheaper and fresher, if you want to. Supermarkets embrace new technology, you can buy stuff from the supermarket via the internet and have it delivered to your door. And it's the same product that you get from the shop, it hasn't been disabled in any way.
This is false logic, if people want their product there is nowhere else to go, they've got it sown up.
No, go to the dealers for a test drive.
you misspelt copyright infringement.
Three points to note:-
1) Helicopter blades have hinges near the hub allowing the blades to move up and down independently (flapping).
2) The blades are not flat during flight, they form a cone. The angle of the cone is dependent on the weight of the Helicopter. As pitch is added to the blades via the collective lift increases causing the blades to flap up and form a cone. The blades will continue to flap up until the lift is greater than the weight of the Helicopter when the flapping will stop and the Helicopter will lift off the ground.
3) Although the blades form a cone, they are known as the disc. It is the disc that flies, the fuselage is just hanging off it.
Consider a Helicopter hovering in still air, the blades form a cone with its axis perpendicular to the ground.
No consider a breeze of x knots starts to blowing towards the front of the Helicopter. The advancing blade will create more lift and the retreating blade will create less lift. When the blades are in line with the fuselage the lift will be unchanged.
Following one blade from the point where it is in line with the fuselage and at its rearmost position, as it moves round lift is increasing. This will cause it to flap up. The act of flapping up will change the airflow over the blade as it now has a vertical component. This vertical component will reduce the angle of attack of the blade thereby reducing lift. So equilibrium is achieved by the flapping rate counteracting the increase in airflow over the blade.
Once the blade is again in line with the fuselage, but now in its foremost position, there is no increase in airflow, so the blade no longer flaps up.
The blade now becomes the retreating blade and the airflow across it decreases. This will cause the blade to flap down, again changing the airflow by introducing a vertical component. This time, however, the change in airflow is opposite to that on the advancing blade. This causes an increase in the angle of attack and increases lift. And again an equilibrium is reached, but his time the flapping counteracts the decrease in lift due to decreased airflow.
So we can see that the lift has remained constant without any input from the pilot or magic pitch changing mechanism that somehow "knows" whether the helicopter is flying forwards, backwards or sideways, and therefore which is the retreating or advancing blade.
Unfortunately, that is not the end of it. What has happened is that the blade has flapped up while advancing, and flapped down while retreating. The result of this is that the blade is higher at the front than it is at the back, or that the cone has been "tilted" backwards (known as flapback, unsurprisingly). This tilting of the cone will cause the disc to fly backwards, i.e. in the direction of the breeze.
As the Helicopter is just suspended under the disc, inertia will create a delay before the fuselage follows the disc, and when it does so the hub will move first causing the shaft driving the rotors to tilt backwards. The effect of this is to increase the tilt of the disc and speed up the rearwards flight until the whole helicopter is moving backwards.
Once it is moving backwards the fuselage will try to return to its original position under the disc. this will tilt the drive shaft forwards again and slow the rearwards flight down. But the fuselage now has momentum and will continue rearwards, thereby tilting the disc further forwards until the momentum is overcome.
When the fuselage starts to move back to its original position again...
If unchecked by the pilot this oscillation will increase until it is irrecoverable. Hence, whilst they are statically stable, helicopters are dynamically unstable. But they are just so much fun.
Trust me, I'm a helicopter flying instructor.