What? Are you implying criminals don't attempt to fence their ill gotten goods because they may get caught? If they are so concerned about getting caught why commit the first offense? If you are so dense you don't already know how to sell what you're stealing prior to the theft, you aren't gonna last long in the wonderful world of theft. Are you trying to say these guys broke and entered with not a care in the world as to the consequences of that action, but somehow when it comes to making money off the break and enter they get weak in the knees? What's the point of plundering if there is no monetization?
Yeah, so they are being paid. It could not be more obvious. Look at their list of targets, now look at who they haven't hit. This is blatant corporate sabotage/espionage, the attacks are WAY too targeted. Furthermore when they actually come across something of value, do they sell it to the spammers in Russia? Do they auction it off to various criminal bodies? No they totally don't, they prove they are being paid by posting it for free online. Lulzsec is prolly one of the first hacker groups to come up with a good business and marketing plan.
WoW? Going the strongest? You mean the MMO that just lost 600,000 subscribers? That WoW? When a subscription service of any kind loses 600k subscribers it is considered dwindling in interest. "I play WoW and there are lots of people who still play" is not evidence that your choice of MMO is 'going the strongest'. EVE Online has showed steady growth since it was released. Every single other RPG has had a large spike of player interest followed by a brutal decline. WoW got great press and so its initial interest spike was drawn out and quite large, but it is in the throes of that inevitable decline all others have succumbed to. I will go out on a limb here and side with CCP, no matter how big the world, a roller-coaster/on-the-rails style MMO will never survive that inevitable decline. By not giving player an opportunity to make their own game, of the construct you give them to play in, boredom will ensue and the exodus will begin.
I don't understand how you can incorrectly read my comments this many times. If you choose to live in the public eye, you've also chosen to live with the consequences.
LOL, since when was I arguing about football in dark rooms? I used that example to show his fame and wealth only exists because he was in the public eye. The public's scrutiny of his life was because he put himself up for that scrutiny, had he not been an amazing athlete in public view (ie. in a dark room) the benefits (big money, fame, etc) would not have come but neither would the scrutiny of his life. Please frame your responses in with an eye to the entire subject of a post rather than an excerpt that on its own removed from the subject matter you disagree with.
Yes thats right, he kicks a ball around, in public, for millions of the publics money. If he was the best football player on the planet but played in a dark room, where no one could see him I sincerely doubt he would make the money he has made. In summation he made his money on the back of public perception, if he chooses to be involved in actions which alter the publics perception of him, he cannot demand to be suddenly out of the public eye. Actually he can buy a small property in Kamchatka, and stay out of the public eye for the rest of his life and wow then no one will care who he slept with. Oh does he want his cake and want to eat it too? Well then expect people to talk about you.
Wow you could not be more incorrect. Per capita we have access to less works of art and media than we have ever before in history. Just because more people exist making art and media does not somehow mean our access to said art and media is greater. I can prove the opposite is true. Two Hundred years ago there were substantially less trademark/copyright/patent based laws in existence, that would mean that per capita an individuals access to media and art were restricted to a much lesser extent than today. Considering that patent/trademark/copyright litigation is one of the major users/abusers of our justice system, we can deduce that a massive amount of precedence and case law has been created to apply to copyright/trademark/patent issues. So as an individual today I am encumbered many many times more than I was 200 years ago when it comes to appreciating or possessing art or media Or if you wanna build on someone else's idea (the very basis of capitalism) forget it.
So we're super clear here; You know very well it does change that fact. I am surprised that a/. commenter with a join number of 66656 is claiming ignorance over this. If an individual chooses to be flippant and rude in their comments they have given up their expectation of being taken seriously. Whatever point they made is gone with the wind. The people they were intending to make the point to, have no interest for they feel insulted. The people who laugh at the commenter's disrespect will not fathom the point that the commenter is attempting to convey, or if they do their interest is centered around the rude flippancy. Essentially their attempt at witty comedy has simply overshadowed their attempt at intelligent debate. Much clearer. The initial statement was directed at you, the remainder was an example. The reception of a point is extremely important, a man yelling algebra in the middle of the forest accomplishes nothing. Whatever points he may be making are irrelevant because there is no reception. Please explain how your statement; "Yeah, part of the comment was flippant and pretty rude, but that doesn't change the fact that there was a valid point made." Is not a claim of ignorance to the fact that, reception of an idea is as important as the idea itself.
You know very well it does change that fact. I am surprised that a/. commenter with a join number of 66656 is claiming ignorance over this. If you want to be flippant and rude in your comments you have given up your expectation of being taken seriously. Whatever point you made is gone with the wind. The people you were intending to make the point to, have no interest for they feel insulted. The people who laugh at your disrespect will not fathom the point you are attempting to convey, or if they do their interest is centered around the rude flippancy. Essentially your attempt at witty comedy has simply overshadowed your attempt at intelligent debate.
You make sure to tell the doctor that you don't want any testing done, unless you and him can clearly identify physical symptoms of a disease. Then you'll test for it, right? However clear symptoms of illness do not always manifest immediately, so I guess you'll have to keep going back and wasting your time asking the doctor if you need tests yet. Or what if the symptoms are transitory, and big surprise when you show up to the doctors office they are in a low state of annoyance. No point in testing right? You better just go home. Or we could actually use the tools we have developed for our medical care. The question before you; Is another citizens health less important than your tax dollars? Perhaps when your tax dollars are paying for their disability and 24 hour care you'll complain right? I can hear it now; "Well why didn't we test for this possible disease? Then this person wouldn't be disabled!"
This article states exactly what we assumed was happening. Storing location data. Although intended as a 'defense' you've simply confirmed that the phone is doing what apple intended it to do. Store location data, obfuscated away from the user, and then persistently migrate that data.
So your claim is; I can make an allegation of criminal wrongdoing against any company or person I want, and that should create a situation where their partners will no longer do business with them, their financial institutions will withhold their funds, and their leaders will be subject to political scrutiny? Furthermore according to your comment, all international businesses associated with said company/person will imagine themselves to be under random foreign criminal law and cease business operations with the aforementioned? Allegations are allegations, were charges filed? Do we see a criminal case proceeding against wikileaks proper? Status Quo is dead you chump, big government knows it and you are an apologist for evil men.
To me this is a sign that the game development world works. Unlike our current system with its patent, trademarking, and copyrights. A developer with a hit knows he will be copied by everyone, and counts on it. The originators development cycle is always a little ahead because they are the innovator. By not sitting upon their laurels and waiting for the money to roll in and aggressively developing their initial idea, no matter how many copycats come along, they will always be copying an old idea. The instant you receive protection or a temporary monopoly on your innovation, you stagnate. Anyone remember the eighties game development world?
"Assange does to others"? What has he done to others exactly. Did he also set up anonymous leak sites for others too? Jeez, how many does he have going?
Yes Assange does nothing to others, the military's own soldiers have done this to them.
The claim that creative types will stop producing if they are not being paid or protected is questionable. Whereas I can show you many examples of creativity and art and the free exchange of cultural heritage being stifled by greed, selfishness, and protection of ill-gained authority, could you show me one example of an artist or who stopped creating (barring starvation, hehe) because no one paid him, or his work did not have some special protections for infinity?
To be clear I am not arguing that no one deserves money for their work and I should get everything for free, I am rather arguing that expectation of a permanent revenue stream from a single point of creation is not only ludicrous from an economic standpoint, it totally goes against the needs of society to build upon prior creations.
The stronger IP laws we allow, the more stifled our creativity will become. Creativity is derived from freedom of expression not restrictions and policy's governing it.
"But if you want a rationalization for piracy then at least come up with one that doesn't make me gag. Furtherance of our species? Really?"
LOL awesome!
Actually my argument has little to do with piracy, only the measures that are being introduced to 'war' with what is currently (laughably) called piracy. I loathe to use the term 'slippery slope' for I cannot see the future. I do know that, those who would restrict freedoms (interpersonal exchange of cultural heritage) for the sake of security (my business needs guaranteed money forever), deserve neither, and shall lose both. If you think the slow erosion of our personal freedoms isn't tied into the furtherance of our society and species, I don't know what to tell you.
Please do not make the mistake of assuming by my comments that I believe the world should be willy-nilly freedoms with no checks and balances, but they are about to haul 50,000 people into the court system for copyright infringement. Keep in mind these are not people who are profiting or in any way contributing to actual loses for the plaintiffs, in fact its just the opposite, these people are their consumers. The plaintiffs knowingly, are engaging in this behavior in civil court for the burden of proof lays upon the defendants to prove innocence, for going after actual counterfeiters would require criminal proceedings where the opposite is true. On top of that these entities themselves have stated that this action is designed to be a continued revenue stream. You don't see this as a step backwards by our society? The use of you the peoples justice system as a method of business to ensure revenue from disenfranchised consumers? Well IMHO it's an abuse, its been being abused for 2 decades and while we've been debating the legalities of it those who would profit from its abuse have entrenched themselves with legislation.
Ah now programming is very different, clarity here is paramount. Programming falls under the 'music that does my dishes, or solves world hunger' umbrella.
Example; A video game produces nothing per se, but it is definitely not a pale representation of an expression of your creativity any longer. Although you are simply selling ones and zeros similar to a digital copy of a piece of music, the major difference here is your product is whole. It is a product unto itself. Your expression and talents went into it, similar to the musician, but dissimilar from the musician, you are not selling a representation of your programming prowess. You are selling the complete product of that prowess. Although a huge amount of artistic expression went into the product the actual expression, or representation thereof, is not being sold. If the company you work for was to sell a video of someone playing the game would that actually have any value at all?
Lets go one step further here and look at what a musician could sell that would be similar to a piece of software. I believe an apt analogy would be a training video/manual/whatever to teach someone to play or create music in the style of that musician. It is not a pale representation of that expression or talent it is a work unto itself. The musician has used their talents/abilities/skills to compile a tool to share that knowledge with others. They are not selling the knowledge they are selling the tool to grasp the knowledge. If someone had wanted, they could have watched multiple recordings of that musician doing his thing and possibly come up with some similar knowledge to whats in the video/manual but in essence they are creating their own tool to teach themselves in the process.
I believe movies also fall under this premise. They can be sold as an event, or the media that contains them can be sold, but the movie itself is a pale representation of the expressions of the various talents that created it. That's why cinemas have become more immersive in the last couple of decades. A stage theater presentation, and an IMAX presentation (a simple cinema too to a lesser extent) share something in common, they leave you with the memory of that experience coupled with the artistic expression that was presented. If you were to purchase a recording of that event after, what have you actually purchased? A vehicle to remember the actual experience? Or perhaps it was a advertisement to lure others to the actual event? In the latter case you have paid someone to promote their event.
In a sense Im almost saying that a 'Here is how we made this movie, and the tricks we used, and how you can use them too' video has more value as a tool than the movie does as an expression. This is despite the fact that the movie may have cost more to make.
As for the stole bit, I used that term very glibly and I apologize. My intent was to use it as others use 'stealing' as a poor synonym for infringement upon anothers work/idea. In other words usage of their work/idea with or without permission to further ones own works/ideas. I admit you cannot steal knowledge if someone has spoken it aloud, or wrote it down, or whatever. Once its outta your head its fair game.
I stated the exchange of those things is being restricted by non-human entities which have no desire for the furtherance of our species, only the furtherance of themselves. And they are pushing for further restrictions of those exchanges.
Over simplification muddies the point, of course I can still exchange some of those things, but by no means all and some of those things only if I have paid for the right to possess a copy of them. And even if I have the right of possession according to current law I cannot continue exchanging it. I only have the right to possess it, and barely at that. When you bought your last piece of music did it come with a piece of paper allowing you access to that music forever? No it did not, you cannot go back to the sony site and demand a fresh copy of it. Also according to the DMCA if it contains copy protection you cannot even make a backup copy of it to ensure your continued access.
I was not lamenting where we are so much, as where we are headed. Already my right to access and exchange those things I mentioned is heavily restricted, to the point of contradiction. If this is where we are now, are you under the assumption that the restrictiveness and policing of exchange is not going to go any further? ACTA is the perfect example that there are already talks in the works to ensure that you cannot exchange anything unless it is acceptable to big business the gov't and various religious groups.
Use your creativity to continue to create, do not expect your creations to pay you. They cannot. You are worth money, your abilities and talents coupled with learned skills (which you stole/infringed upon/copied from/built upon, from those before you) will make you money.
If you wanna be real specific here you go;
You are a musician, the only tangible thing you can sell is your skill as a musician. Your music is an expression of that talent/skill. If you want to make money play your music for people and get paid. If you want to sell a recording of what you did to someone, then you are no longer selling your talent/skill only a physical item which contains a representation of your expression of your talent. Since all you've done in that instance is make a physical item then that is what you can sell. If your music did something, like my dishes, or solved world hunger then it would have a value unto itself. As it is though the only thing of value there is the physical item.
To sum up, you can sell yourself and your talents as a service. Your abilities, talents and creativity themselves cannot be sold unless you are providing them in person.
I always liked this example, a live show is sold as an event. People purchase the right to attend that event. The recording of that event is simply a memory of history. Anyone attending that event could recount the details of that event to others and still not be able to fully explain what it was like as an experience. The artist counts on the fact that he can do something no one else can, and that recordings or a recounting of memories of that event will never measure up to the actual experience of the event. Therefore its obvious what is being sold, him coupled with his abilities. Not pale representations of his expression of creativity.
A study group of 200 in set conditions. Sounds to me like 1 in 40 people are more comfortable while driving and are capable of concentration on other things. I fail to see how this proves cell phones are not a distraction from driving for a small percentage of people. Perhaps it would have been better to say;
Those more comfortable with driving as a task, do better when having to perform another task, under set conditions.
For I do not believe for a second that these people are going to retain their 'supertasking' ability in an emergency. The whole idea behind not allowing cell phones while driving has more to do with emergency situations then running a red cause you're a jackass and are distracted easily. Any lapse in concentration from driving (changing radio station, conversing with passenger, looking at scenery) has been proven to cause accidents. Why? The unexpected. If your full attention is not on the road, pedestrians, other vehicles, and things directly pertaining to the task of driving, you absolutely will miss something one day, and you absolutely will pay for it with injury and possible fatality.
Do you want to further your species progress? Or just your own? If its the bigger picture you care about then you would want others to take your work and build upon it. It would leave you with a sense of pride to know that your work contributed to the progress of your fellow man. The intent of copyright is to protect, not you the creator, but guarantee a revenue stream for the entity acting as the distributor. If all you can see are dollar signs and perceived losses (not actual) then your question holds true, and you are simply a wallet that had a burst of inspiration.
It is very telling that even when granted a temporary monopoly an entity can grow without check or balance. To imagine that temporary monopolies are somehow less damaging than permanent ones is a fallacy. Dis-proven beyond a doubt by the way big media distributors (not creators, creators love creating, payment is a side benefit) have fought tooth and nail to extend and protect said monopolies.
To answer your question then, I have a question. Is it just of you to create something and then carefully segregate who has access to your creative work based on their ability to pay you 'ad infinitum'? 'Cause after your 80-100 year lifespan is up all you can hope is that you've left something behind of yourself that furthers the species. Otherwise you were just a waste of skin and food.
It is heart wrenching to see where this is going. We are selling our future cultural heritage to entities which have no desire to preserve it, only to control it till it no longer makes them money and then assault those who attempt to enjoy it after that.
The single reason our species has made it this far is through the free exchange of ideas, art, theory, process, and emotion. To see that we have denied our history and choose to err on the side of greed is terrible indeed.
To those naysayers out there that believe this series of events in the last ten years, regarding copyright and patent, is healthy for our society; Really? You truly and honestly believe this is for the betterment of our species? Really?
That's the thing, even what you 'meant' is totally wrong. If you dont know what artificial scarcity is go look it up. Now ask yourself if you are okay with purchasing a physical item that you do not own. Then ponder what it would be like if Sony claimed ownership of all images & sounds stored by your brain that pertained to copyrighted works they 'own'. Does that mean when you share a memory with someone else of a copyrighted work you are infringing? Now the final thing to think about, what on earth did you purchase with that money you gave to them? Was it the right to listen or watch something based on their criteria? If you have not 'leased' a copyrighted work, do you have the right to use your ears and listen to it? Since even your comment stated that they only sell you rights to access something, what exactly are you telling us to go do? Since I can never possess that item in actuality at what point is my want of said item fulfilled?
Also, pull your head outta the clouds, that time you made a 'mix-tape' was just as illegal as all this downloading and uploading, your attempt to pretend you are somehow on the moral high ground is transparent and ill thought out.
Slashdot Mirror
What? Are you implying criminals don't attempt to fence their ill gotten goods because they may get caught?
If they are so concerned about getting caught why commit the first offense?
If you are so dense you don't already know how to sell what you're stealing prior to the theft, you aren't gonna last long in the wonderful world of theft.
Are you trying to say these guys broke and entered with not a care in the world as to the consequences of that action, but somehow when it comes to making money off the break and enter they get weak in the knees?
What's the point of plundering if there is no monetization?
Yeah, so they are being paid. It could not be more obvious. Look at their list of targets, now look at who they haven't hit. This is blatant corporate sabotage/espionage, the attacks are WAY too targeted. Furthermore when they actually come across something of value, do they sell it to the spammers in Russia? Do they auction it off to various criminal bodies? No they totally don't, they prove they are being paid by posting it for free online. Lulzsec is prolly one of the first hacker groups to come up with a good business and marketing plan.
WoW? Going the strongest? You mean the MMO that just lost 600,000 subscribers? That WoW?
When a subscription service of any kind loses 600k subscribers it is considered dwindling in interest.
"I play WoW and there are lots of people who still play" is not evidence that your choice of MMO is 'going the strongest'.
EVE Online has showed steady growth since it was released. Every single other RPG has had a large spike of player interest followed by a brutal decline. WoW got great press and so its initial interest spike was drawn out and quite large, but it is in the throes of that inevitable decline all others have succumbed to.
I will go out on a limb here and side with CCP, no matter how big the world, a roller-coaster/on-the-rails style MMO will never survive that inevitable decline. By not giving player an opportunity to make their own game, of the construct you give them to play in, boredom will ensue and the exodus will begin.
I don't understand how you can incorrectly read my comments this many times.
If you choose to live in the public eye, you've also chosen to live with the consequences.
LOL, since when was I arguing about football in dark rooms? I used that example to show his fame and wealth only exists because he was in the public eye. The public's scrutiny of his life was because he put himself up for that scrutiny, had he not been an amazing athlete in public view (ie. in a dark room) the benefits (big money, fame, etc) would not have come but neither would the scrutiny of his life.
Please frame your responses in with an eye to the entire subject of a post rather than an excerpt that on its own removed from the subject matter you disagree with.
Yes thats right, he kicks a ball around, in public, for millions of the publics money. If he was the best football player on the planet but played in a dark room, where no one could see him I sincerely doubt he would make the money he has made.
In summation he made his money on the back of public perception, if he chooses to be involved in actions which alter the publics perception of him, he cannot demand to be suddenly out of the public eye.
Actually he can buy a small property in Kamchatka, and stay out of the public eye for the rest of his life and wow then no one will care who he slept with.
Oh does he want his cake and want to eat it too? Well then expect people to talk about you.
Wow you could not be more incorrect. Per capita we have access to less works of art and media than we have ever before in history. Just because more people exist making art and media does not somehow mean our access to said art and media is greater.
I can prove the opposite is true. Two Hundred years ago there were substantially less trademark/copyright/patent based laws in existence, that would mean that per capita an individuals access to media and art were restricted to a much lesser extent than today.
Considering that patent/trademark/copyright litigation is one of the major users/abusers of our justice system, we can deduce that a massive amount of precedence and case law has been created to apply to copyright/trademark/patent issues. So as an individual today I am encumbered many many times more than I was 200 years ago when it comes to appreciating or possessing art or media Or if you wanna build on someone else's idea (the very basis of capitalism) forget it.
So we're super clear here; /. commenter with a join number of 66656 is claiming ignorance over this. If an individual chooses to be flippant and rude in their comments they have given up their expectation of being taken seriously. Whatever point they made is gone with the wind.
You know very well it does change that fact.
I am surprised that a
The people they were intending to make the point to, have no interest for they feel insulted. The people who laugh at the commenter's disrespect will not fathom the point that the commenter is attempting to convey, or if they do their interest is centered around the rude flippancy.
Essentially their attempt at witty comedy has simply overshadowed their attempt at intelligent debate.
Much clearer.
The initial statement was directed at you, the remainder was an example.
The reception of a point is extremely important, a man yelling algebra in the middle of the forest accomplishes nothing. Whatever points he may be making are irrelevant because there is no reception.
Please explain how your statement;
"Yeah, part of the comment was flippant and pretty rude, but that doesn't change the fact that there was a valid point made."
Is not a claim of ignorance to the fact that, reception of an idea is as important as the idea itself.
I apologize the "you" and "your" I was using was in reference to any person making a flippant and rude remark. I should have been clearer.
You know very well it does change that fact. /. commenter with a join number of 66656 is claiming ignorance over this. If you want to be flippant and rude in your comments you have given up your expectation of being taken seriously. Whatever point you made is gone with the wind.
I am surprised that a
The people you were intending to make the point to, have no interest for they feel insulted. The people who laugh at your disrespect will not fathom the point you are attempting to convey, or if they do their interest is centered around the rude flippancy.
Essentially your attempt at witty comedy has simply overshadowed your attempt at intelligent debate.
You make sure to tell the doctor that you don't want any testing done, unless you and him can clearly identify physical symptoms of a disease. Then you'll test for it, right?
However clear symptoms of illness do not always manifest immediately, so I guess you'll have to keep going back and wasting your time asking the doctor if you need tests yet. Or what if the symptoms are transitory, and big surprise when you show up to the doctors office they are in a low state of annoyance. No point in testing right? You better just go home.
Or we could actually use the tools we have developed for our medical care. The question before you; Is another citizens health less important than your tax dollars? Perhaps when your tax dollars are paying for their disability and 24 hour care you'll complain right?
I can hear it now;
"Well why didn't we test for this possible disease? Then this person wouldn't be disabled!"
This article states exactly what we assumed was happening. Storing location data. Although intended as a 'defense' you've simply confirmed that the phone is doing what apple intended it to do. Store location data, obfuscated away from the user, and then persistently migrate that data.
Bullshit
So your claim is; I can make an allegation of criminal wrongdoing against any company or person I want, and that should create a situation where their partners will no longer do business with them, their financial institutions will withhold their funds, and their leaders will be subject to political scrutiny? Furthermore according to your comment, all international businesses associated with said company/person will imagine themselves to be under random foreign criminal law and cease business operations with the aforementioned? Allegations are allegations, were charges filed? Do we see a criminal case proceeding against wikileaks proper? Status Quo is dead you chump, big government knows it and you are an apologist for evil men.
To me this is a sign that the game development world works. Unlike our current system with its patent, trademarking, and copyrights. A developer with a hit knows he will be copied by everyone, and counts on it. The originators development cycle is always a little ahead because they are the innovator. By not sitting upon their laurels and waiting for the money to roll in and aggressively developing their initial idea, no matter how many copycats come along, they will always be copying an old idea.
The instant you receive protection or a temporary monopoly on your innovation, you stagnate. Anyone remember the eighties game development world?
"Assange does to others"? What has he done to others exactly. Did he also set up anonymous leak sites for others too? Jeez, how many does he have going? Yes Assange does nothing to others, the military's own soldiers have done this to them.
The claim that creative types will stop producing if they are not being paid or protected is questionable. Whereas I can show you many examples of creativity and art and the free exchange of cultural heritage being stifled by greed, selfishness, and protection of ill-gained authority, could you show me one example of an artist or who stopped creating (barring starvation, hehe) because no one paid him, or his work did not have some special protections for infinity?
To be clear I am not arguing that no one deserves money for their work and I should get everything for free, I am rather arguing that expectation of a permanent revenue stream from a single point of creation is not only ludicrous from an economic standpoint, it totally goes against the needs of society to build upon prior creations.
The stronger IP laws we allow, the more stifled our creativity will become. Creativity is derived from freedom of expression not restrictions and policy's governing it.
"But if you want a rationalization for piracy then at least come up with one that doesn't make me gag. Furtherance of our species? Really?"
LOL awesome!
Actually my argument has little to do with piracy, only the measures that are being introduced to 'war' with what is currently (laughably) called piracy. I loathe to use the term 'slippery slope' for I cannot see the future. I do know that, those who would restrict freedoms (interpersonal exchange of cultural heritage) for the sake of security (my business needs guaranteed money forever), deserve neither, and shall lose both. If you think the slow erosion of our personal freedoms isn't tied into the furtherance of our society and species, I don't know what to tell you.
Please do not make the mistake of assuming by my comments that I believe the world should be willy-nilly freedoms with no checks and balances, but they are about to haul 50,000 people into the court system for copyright infringement. Keep in mind these are not people who are profiting or in any way contributing to actual loses for the plaintiffs, in fact its just the opposite, these people are their consumers. The plaintiffs knowingly, are engaging in this behavior in civil court for the burden of proof lays upon the defendants to prove innocence, for going after actual counterfeiters would require criminal proceedings where the opposite is true. On top of that these entities themselves have stated that this action is designed to be a continued revenue stream. You don't see this as a step backwards by our society? The use of you the peoples justice system as a method of business to ensure revenue from disenfranchised consumers? Well IMHO it's an abuse, its been being abused for 2 decades and while we've been debating the legalities of it those who would profit from its abuse have entrenched themselves with legislation.
Ah now programming is very different, clarity here is paramount. Programming falls under the 'music that does my dishes, or solves world hunger' umbrella.
Example; A video game produces nothing per se, but it is definitely not a pale representation of an expression of your creativity any longer. Although you are simply selling ones and zeros similar to a digital copy of a piece of music, the major difference here is your product is whole. It is a product unto itself. Your expression and talents went into it, similar to the musician, but dissimilar from the musician, you are not selling a representation of your programming prowess. You are selling the complete product of that prowess. Although a huge amount of artistic expression went into the product the actual expression, or representation thereof, is not being sold. If the company you work for was to sell a video of someone playing the game would that actually have any value at all?
Lets go one step further here and look at what a musician could sell that would be similar to a piece of software. I believe an apt analogy would be a training video/manual/whatever to teach someone to play or create music in the style of that musician. It is not a pale representation of that expression or talent it is a work unto itself. The musician has used their talents/abilities/skills to compile a tool to share that knowledge with others. They are not selling the knowledge they are selling the tool to grasp the knowledge. If someone had wanted, they could have watched multiple recordings of that musician doing his thing and possibly come up with some similar knowledge to whats in the video/manual but in essence they are creating their own tool to teach themselves in the process.
I believe movies also fall under this premise. They can be sold as an event, or the media that contains them can be sold, but the movie itself is a pale representation of the expressions of the various talents that created it. That's why cinemas have become more immersive in the last couple of decades. A stage theater presentation, and an IMAX presentation (a simple cinema too to a lesser extent) share something in common, they leave you with the memory of that experience coupled with the artistic expression that was presented. If you were to purchase a recording of that event after, what have you actually purchased? A vehicle to remember the actual experience? Or perhaps it was a advertisement to lure others to the actual event? In the latter case you have paid someone to promote their event.
In a sense Im almost saying that a 'Here is how we made this movie, and the tricks we used, and how you can use them too' video has more value as a tool than the movie does as an expression. This is despite the fact that the movie may have cost more to make.
As for the stole bit, I used that term very glibly and I apologize. My intent was to use it as others use 'stealing' as a poor synonym for infringement upon anothers work/idea. In other words usage of their work/idea with or without permission to further ones own works/ideas. I admit you cannot steal knowledge if someone has spoken it aloud, or wrote it down, or whatever. Once its outta your head its fair game.
I stated the exchange of those things is being restricted by non-human entities which have no desire for the furtherance of our species, only the furtherance of themselves. And they are pushing for further restrictions of those exchanges.
Over simplification muddies the point, of course I can still exchange some of those things, but by no means all and some of those things only if I have paid for the right to possess a copy of them. And even if I have the right of possession according to current law I cannot continue exchanging it. I only have the right to possess it, and barely at that. When you bought your last piece of music did it come with a piece of paper allowing you access to that music forever? No it did not, you cannot go back to the sony site and demand a fresh copy of it. Also according to the DMCA if it contains copy protection you cannot even make a backup copy of it to ensure your continued access.
I was not lamenting where we are so much, as where we are headed. Already my right to access and exchange those things I mentioned is heavily restricted, to the point of contradiction. If this is where we are now, are you under the assumption that the restrictiveness and policing of exchange is not going to go any further? ACTA is the perfect example that there are already talks in the works to ensure that you cannot exchange anything unless it is acceptable to big business the gov't and various religious groups.
Use your creativity to continue to create, do not expect your creations to pay you. They cannot. You are worth money, your abilities and talents coupled with learned skills (which you stole/infringed upon/copied from/built upon, from those before you) will make you money.
If you wanna be real specific here you go;
You are a musician, the only tangible thing you can sell is your skill as a musician. Your music is an expression of that talent/skill. If you want to make money play your music for people and get paid. If you want to sell a recording of what you did to someone, then you are no longer selling your talent/skill only a physical item which contains a representation of your expression of your talent. Since all you've done in that instance is make a physical item then that is what you can sell. If your music did something, like my dishes, or solved world hunger then it would have a value unto itself. As it is though the only thing of value there is the physical item.
To sum up, you can sell yourself and your talents as a service. Your abilities, talents and creativity themselves cannot be sold unless you are providing them in person.
I always liked this example, a live show is sold as an event. People purchase the right to attend that event. The recording of that event is simply a memory of history. Anyone attending that event could recount the details of that event to others and still not be able to fully explain what it was like as an experience. The artist counts on the fact that he can do something no one else can, and that recordings or a recounting of memories of that event will never measure up to the actual experience of the event. Therefore its obvious what is being sold, him coupled with his abilities. Not pale representations of his expression of creativity.
A study group of 200 in set conditions. Sounds to me like 1 in 40 people are more comfortable while driving and are capable of concentration on other things. I fail to see how this proves cell phones are not a distraction from driving for a small percentage of people. Perhaps it would have been better to say;
Those more comfortable with driving as a task, do better when having to perform another task, under set conditions.
For I do not believe for a second that these people are going to retain their 'supertasking' ability in an emergency. The whole idea behind not allowing cell phones while driving has more to do with emergency situations then running a red cause you're a jackass and are distracted easily. Any lapse in concentration from driving (changing radio station, conversing with passenger, looking at scenery) has been proven to cause accidents. Why? The unexpected. If your full attention is not on the road, pedestrians, other vehicles, and things directly pertaining to the task of driving, you absolutely will miss something one day, and you absolutely will pay for it with injury and possible fatality.
Do you want to further your species progress? Or just your own? If its the bigger picture you care about then you would want others to take your work and build upon it. It would leave you with a sense of pride to know that your work contributed to the progress of your fellow man. The intent of copyright is to protect, not you the creator, but guarantee a revenue stream for the entity acting as the distributor. If all you can see are dollar signs and perceived losses (not actual) then your question holds true, and you are simply a wallet that had a burst of inspiration.
It is very telling that even when granted a temporary monopoly an entity can grow without check or balance. To imagine that temporary monopolies are somehow less damaging than permanent ones is a fallacy. Dis-proven beyond a doubt by the way big media distributors (not creators, creators love creating, payment is a side benefit) have fought tooth and nail to extend and protect said monopolies.
To answer your question then, I have a question. Is it just of you to create something and then carefully segregate who has access to your creative work based on their ability to pay you 'ad infinitum'? 'Cause after your 80-100 year lifespan is up all you can hope is that you've left something behind of yourself that furthers the species. Otherwise you were just a waste of skin and food.
It is heart wrenching to see where this is going. We are selling our future cultural heritage to entities which have no desire to preserve it, only to control it till it no longer makes them money and then assault those who attempt to enjoy it after that.
The single reason our species has made it this far is through the free exchange of ideas, art, theory, process, and emotion. To see that we have denied our history and choose to err on the side of greed is terrible indeed.
To those naysayers out there that believe this series of events in the last ten years, regarding copyright and patent, is healthy for our society; Really? You truly and honestly believe this is for the betterment of our species? Really?
That's the thing, even what you 'meant' is totally wrong. If you dont know what artificial scarcity is go look it up. Now ask yourself if you are okay with purchasing a physical item that you do not own. Then ponder what it would be like if Sony claimed ownership of all images & sounds stored by your brain that pertained to copyrighted works they 'own'. Does that mean when you share a memory with someone else of a copyrighted work you are infringing? Now the final thing to think about, what on earth did you purchase with that money you gave to them? Was it the right to listen or watch something based on their criteria? If you have not 'leased' a copyrighted work, do you have the right to use your ears and listen to it? Since even your comment stated that they only sell you rights to access something, what exactly are you telling us to go do? Since I can never possess that item in actuality at what point is my want of said item fulfilled? Also, pull your head outta the clouds, that time you made a 'mix-tape' was just as illegal as all this downloading and uploading, your attempt to pretend you are somehow on the moral high ground is transparent and ill thought out.