Regarding my CC works, I put *one* copyright notice *in the footer of my site*, as stated previously; twice.. While removing that would be quite simple, you are quite correct that adding the public domain release in each source file would be beyond tedious. As it is right now, the only works that are not covered by the CC license have any license or copyright texts included with them. These works are limited to works done under contract and one work that is derived from MIT-licensed code, which can not be released under a less restrictive license. I'd rather worry about licensing and copyright for the less than a dozen projects that aren't covered by my footer text and spend the rest of my time worrying about code; any amount of effort put toward anything else is a nontrivial amount of effort, IMO.
To recap: Footer text covers 95% of my projects, over 99% of my code, with no additional work required; releasing these works into the public domain would require that I explicitly release them. The remaining 5% of projects, 1% of code, are covered by their own separate licenses only out of necessity -- in an ideal world, I could treat all the code I host the same way; and in that world, it would all be public domain.
Since I've explained this clearly now several times and you still don't seem to understand it, I have to ask, are you trolling, ignorant, or just mentally deficient? Or are you just so hard headed that you can't accept the fact that releasing my works into the public domain grants nobody anything that isn't already allowed in the CC license I use and, therefore, isn't worth the effort when I can apply the CC license to a new work with literally zero effort at all? I'm giving you an our here, if you don't want to be viewed as a troll, ignoramus, or retard; I suggest take it.
If you weren't ignoring it, you were misunderstanding it, so let me explain it again in clearer terms. You see, I write a fair bit of code just because I feel like writing it; I want this code to be freely available, so I make it so. I also write a fair bit of code for pay, which ends up licensed under whatever terms the party paying me for that code wishes for it to be licensed under (with the exception of my employer, I do restrict this to open licenses because I believe in sharing code whenever possible).
To facilitate this, I have a copyright notice along the lines of "All content licensed under Creative Commons unless otherwise noted." on every page of my site. This saves me the trouble of adding a license to each of my works; I only have to specify licenses for the few that are not CC. Were I to release my works into the public domain, I would have to explicitly state the licensing terms for each of my works individually; even those which are currently covered by the footer copyright notice, which is currently the majority of my work. There is no "All content is released into the public domain unless otherwise noted", as releasing a work into the public domain is an action that has to be stated explicitly for a single work.
The default state of any work created by any person is copyright. If public domain were the default, my CC works would be public domain works instead; since releasing those works into the public domain would require a nontrivial amount of effort for each of those works, I went with the next best thing: defaulting to the least restrictive license I could reasonably find.
Maybe some day I'll find the free time to go through each of my works and explicitly release them into the public domain, but right now I'd rather write and share code, since that's what I'm actually trying to do. The way it is now, I just have to attach an explicit license to the very few I write on contract, with the footer copyright notice automatically applying to everything else. But you're right, copyright does have a value for me, relating to those works; a negative value.
You're right, my statement was very judgmental. However, it's very probably that we will (at least have the opportunity to) know whether those weapons were locked up; you can bet your ass the police took note of whether there was a gun safe in the home and, if there was, whether there was evidence that it was used as intended; and that information will be made public at some point.
Once she recognized that the boy couldn't be trusted, the guns should have been out of the home, not just locked up (if they even were), plain and simple.
Your last paragraph points out quite well why my statement was so judgmental; it was intentional and with good cause. You don't keep lethal weapons where someone you're about to (in their own mind) betray can access them. Might he have grabbed a knife instead? Possibly, and there would have been fewer, if any, fatalities, if he had. Might he have gotten a gun from elsewhere? Nothing reasonable escapes the realm of possibility in these situations. The fact is that he shot her with her own gun, which should not have been in that home by that point, then continued on to kill many other innocent people with that same gun. Had he been forced to seek his weapon elsewhere, this may have been prevented.
Mother definitely had been in contact with a court, to get the necessary documents to have him declared incompetent.
Yes, and she had an assault rifle in the home. She certainly could have changed the situation had she had her own head screwed on straight. Her elder son's sanity is a miracle.
I do utilize CC because it is much simpler to put that in the footer of my site than it is to add the notice to every individual work I release, save for the few which are licensed under other terms at the request of whomever it they were created for. A copyright notice can have an "unless otherwise stated" clause, while PD is incompatible with any form of alternate licensing. Were PD the default if not copyright was claimed, any of my works not requested (by the recipient) to be alternately licensed would be in the public domain. That is why *I* do it, so can you find another example?
LIKEWISE. I HIT IT ONCE AFTER I BOOT UP, TO MAKE SURE IT STILL WORKS, AND LEAVE IT ALONE UNTIL THE NEXT REBOOT.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Seriously, Slashdot? Way to fuck up my gag.
Nope, still can't post this, let's add a little more lowercase text.
Show me one of the "free" content makers you speak of that does not have advertising alongside their content; they get paid for that, that's profit motive, a function of monetary worth.
Beyond that, perhaps they simply want their name on the work; a license indicating that the work is freely distributable if not modified would indicate this. I'll grant you that single non-monetary value if you'll grant me the fact that works are, by default, covered by copyright (at least in the US) and that releasing a work into the public domain requires additional effort which is unrelated to the creation of the work itself (which, of course, is the part someone working for the love of their craft is interested in).
More to the point, those who do not wish to artificially restrict their works for unreasonable periods of time are not the ones who broke the system; in fact, it is certainly worth respecting the copyrights of those who clearly wish to see the system restored to what it was originally meant to be. At no point did I say copyright should be abolished, nor did I say that it should be completely disregarded. What I said was that copyright is a goodwill contract between the people and those who create content; by showing bad will toward the people, a content creator has devalued their own copyright and that their copyright should be disregarded.
I, personally, produce some volume of content, licensed under various terms. Much of my content is Creative Commons licensed, some of it is licensed per the wishes of whoever I created it for, none of it will ever be locked away from public view. To be clear, my beef is with those who openly abuse the copyright system to lock their content away, in violation of the spirit of copyright law; for me to benefit from copyright the way I do while holding the point of view that it should be abolished would be quite hypocritical and I want it to be understood that this is not the case.
You do realize that parents tend to raise different children differently, right? While it may or may not have applied in Lanza's case, what GP said is good advice. Teach moderation; allow, even encourage, free thought; foster an environment where your child feels empowered to do the right thing.
Before anyone pops up with "you must not have kids of your own", no, I don't, and I'm sure you had no inkling of how to raise yours before they came along, either, right? I raised my adopted sister (biologically my stepfather's sister's daughter) to age two before my mother and stepfather adopted her; they moved in with me when they adopted her and I continued to help raising her until I moved out of state when she was 4. A year later, they moved 2 doors down from me and I again continued assisting them in raising her until work moved me to the other side of the country when she was 8. She's well-adjusted and doing just fine, so while I have not fathered my own offspring, I should say I certainly do have at least a modicum of experience in child rearing.
and the alternative to copyright is not public domain, it is censorship and limited accessibility
Because few have ever seen any of the art that was created before copyright, right? Patronage rarely worked, of course; and when it did, those works were never placed in public view.
Musicians certainly never performed in public for a buck before copyright; players never performed in the days before it was illegal to copy (even onto paper) their performances and replay them elsewhere; only the rich were ever allowed into the Sistine Chapel before copyright, and poetry and prose were rarely heard or read (okay, I'll grant you that they were rarely read before copyright, if you'll admit that it's because few could actually read until a short time before copyright came to be) by anyone except the wealthy until copyright came to save the day.
Is content more accessible today than it was before copyright? Yes, with the printing press becoming more efficient; recording mediums, including audio and video, proliferating; the advent of radio and television; and automotive, air, and electronic transportation speeding delivery, there has been quite an improvement in content accessibility. On the other hand, while one may argue that copyright has led to an increase in the production of content (something which may well have happened as a natural consequence of technology, as we are seeing more and more today), copyright, by its very nature, makes content less accessible in they eyes of the law.
That's not to say that censorship and limited accessibility aren't possible outcomes; that is certainly one possible road history could have taken. Ponder this: Why are we taught history in public schools? (Hint: it's not just so we can avoid history's mistakes.)
If copyright has value, it stands to reason that breaking it is wrong... for *EITHER* party. If it had no value, then please try to consider exactly why a vast majority of content makers that *DO* make freely available content decide to explicitly utilize copyright instead of putting their works into public domain.
That's the thing; allowing the copyright act to be signed into law was a goodwill contract between us and those who would hold the rights to any content covered by the new law (with due note to the overlap between those two groups). That did have value, which was lost the moment it was abused. It stood to reason that breaking it was wrong, in the short time before it was widely abused; in the time when Walt would have seen Mickey Mouse enter the public domain, it was wrong to break copyright. That time has long passed and copyright was broken by the "content industry" when they lobbied to transform it into something contrary to the original contract.
When they showed bad will toward the people, that goodwill contract was rendered void and copyright lost any value it may have had. Now, it stands to reason that, since it is already broken, disregarding it breaks nothing.
Did Zynga hire some jackoff from an 'enterprise solutions' firm, who thinks that customers will just have to migrate to the shiny new product because support is no longer available for the old one?
My guess? Yes. May this turn out to be a lesson for everyone involved:
— To consumers: Vendor lock-in always bites you in the ass. ALWAYS. Learn to identify forms of lock-in and avoid them wherever possible, or know up-front that what you're spending your money on today can be taken from you tomorrow and be okay with this prior to the transaction.
— To corporations: When you screw your customers, or make them feel like you're screwing them, you lose them. The trick to keeping customers and extracting more money from them over a longer term is to keep them happy; underpromise, overdeliver, and never take away what has already been delivered (with legal exceptions, of course). A secondary lesson to take from this is: If you've been in the industry for any length of time, nobody knows your industry as well as you or your competitors; an outsider can not help you and a competitor will not help you; consider all offers of assistance with this in mind.
— To "Enterprise Solutions" douc^H^H^H^Hfirms: If you have fewer years of experience in a given industry than the company you're trying to "help", insist on payment up-front; you'll likely be near the bottom of the list of people to pay after the liquidation.
Also, why the fuck do unordered lists on/. not get bullets?
To some (a surprising number, actually), that ring is an announcement of challenge. "Go ahead, make your move. Even better for you, I'm not around to do anything about it."
Well, not all of the time; it didn't happen this time. I think you meant to say it happens in the rare instances when the "suspect's" rights don't get trampled.
Oh, I'd also like to add that I used to draw guns, swastikas, and even violent shooting scenes all over *everything* in high school. I also wrote a short story about a school shooting; my principal absolutely loved it. Oh, and I never shot anyone, either.
First off, it's Asperger Syndrome. Second, as an aspie and a functional member of society with a leadership position at a successful and somewhat well known in the Bay Area company, I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic.
I think GP was assuming a competent operator; likely himself. I know, personally, as a competent operator, I want a gun that goes "bang" when I tell it to. A moment sooner or later and the "bang" may be directed somewhere other than where I wanted it to go; not at all and a different "bang" may be directed my way.
You think banning guns will prevent them from being used in criminal acts? Do you have any idea how easy it is to get an illegal gun *right now*? If you're using a gun to commit a crime, you're not using the gun you bought from Pete's Pistols, you're using the one you bought in the alleyway behind Best Buy. It's obvious by your mentality that you didn't know drugs were illegal; you clearly use them excessively.
The angle was based on the story of the 3yr old who shot his mother; show me a story of a 3mo old doing the same and you've got my backing. I fostered my sister (legally, she's my sister now; biologically, she's my stepfather's niece) before my mother and stepfather adopted her, I know what the first two years are.
If you can survive the first three months of parenthood, you can survive anything!
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding my CC works, I put *one* copyright notice *in the footer of my site*, as stated previously; twice.. While removing that would be quite simple, you are quite correct that adding the public domain release in each source file would be beyond tedious. As it is right now, the only works that are not covered by the CC license have any license or copyright texts included with them. These works are limited to works done under contract and one work that is derived from MIT-licensed code, which can not be released under a less restrictive license. I'd rather worry about licensing and copyright for the less than a dozen projects that aren't covered by my footer text and spend the rest of my time worrying about code; any amount of effort put toward anything else is a nontrivial amount of effort, IMO.
To recap: Footer text covers 95% of my projects, over 99% of my code, with no additional work required; releasing these works into the public domain would require that I explicitly release them. The remaining 5% of projects, 1% of code, are covered by their own separate licenses only out of necessity -- in an ideal world, I could treat all the code I host the same way; and in that world, it would all be public domain.
Since I've explained this clearly now several times and you still don't seem to understand it, I have to ask, are you trolling, ignorant, or just mentally deficient? Or are you just so hard headed that you can't accept the fact that releasing my works into the public domain grants nobody anything that isn't already allowed in the CC license I use and, therefore, isn't worth the effort when I can apply the CC license to a new work with literally zero effort at all? I'm giving you an our here, if you don't want to be viewed as a troll, ignoramus, or retard; I suggest take it.
If you weren't ignoring it, you were misunderstanding it, so let me explain it again in clearer terms. You see, I write a fair bit of code just because I feel like writing it; I want this code to be freely available, so I make it so. I also write a fair bit of code for pay, which ends up licensed under whatever terms the party paying me for that code wishes for it to be licensed under (with the exception of my employer, I do restrict this to open licenses because I believe in sharing code whenever possible).
To facilitate this, I have a copyright notice along the lines of "All content licensed under Creative Commons unless otherwise noted." on every page of my site. This saves me the trouble of adding a license to each of my works; I only have to specify licenses for the few that are not CC. Were I to release my works into the public domain, I would have to explicitly state the licensing terms for each of my works individually; even those which are currently covered by the footer copyright notice, which is currently the majority of my work. There is no "All content is released into the public domain unless otherwise noted", as releasing a work into the public domain is an action that has to be stated explicitly for a single work.
The default state of any work created by any person is copyright. If public domain were the default, my CC works would be public domain works instead; since releasing those works into the public domain would require a nontrivial amount of effort for each of those works, I went with the next best thing: defaulting to the least restrictive license I could reasonably find.
Maybe some day I'll find the free time to go through each of my works and explicitly release them into the public domain, but right now I'd rather write and share code, since that's what I'm actually trying to do. The way it is now, I just have to attach an explicit license to the very few I write on contract, with the footer copyright notice automatically applying to everything else. But you're right, copyright does have a value for me, relating to those works; a negative value.
I release a fair bit of work under CC3.0-Attribution. You tell me.
You're right, my statement was very judgmental. However, it's very probably that we will (at least have the opportunity to) know whether those weapons were locked up; you can bet your ass the police took note of whether there was a gun safe in the home and, if there was, whether there was evidence that it was used as intended; and that information will be made public at some point.
Once she recognized that the boy couldn't be trusted, the guns should have been out of the home, not just locked up (if they even were), plain and simple.
Your last paragraph points out quite well why my statement was so judgmental; it was intentional and with good cause. You don't keep lethal weapons where someone you're about to (in their own mind) betray can access them. Might he have grabbed a knife instead? Possibly, and there would have been fewer, if any, fatalities, if he had. Might he have gotten a gun from elsewhere? Nothing reasonable escapes the realm of possibility in these situations. The fact is that he shot her with her own gun, which should not have been in that home by that point, then continued on to kill many other innocent people with that same gun. Had he been forced to seek his weapon elsewhere, this may have been prevented.
I've already explained why I use CC, but you have chosen to ignore that.
Mother definitely had been in contact with a court, to get the necessary documents to have him declared incompetent.
Yes, and she had an assault rifle in the home. She certainly could have changed the situation had she had her own head screwed on straight. Her elder son's sanity is a miracle.
I do utilize CC because it is much simpler to put that in the footer of my site than it is to add the notice to every individual work I release, save for the few which are licensed under other terms at the request of whomever it they were created for. A copyright notice can have an "unless otherwise stated" clause, while PD is incompatible with any form of alternate licensing. Were PD the default if not copyright was claimed, any of my works not requested (by the recipient) to be alternately licensed would be in the public domain. That is why *I* do it, so can you find another example?
DaVinci was nobody's pet, friend.
LIKEWISE. I HIT IT ONCE AFTER I BOOT UP, TO MAKE SURE IT STILL WORKS, AND LEAVE IT ALONE UNTIL THE NEXT REBOOT.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Seriously, Slashdot? Way to fuck up my gag.
Nope, still can't post this, let's add a little more lowercase text.
Show me one of the "free" content makers you speak of that does not have advertising alongside their content; they get paid for that, that's profit motive, a function of monetary worth.
Beyond that, perhaps they simply want their name on the work; a license indicating that the work is freely distributable if not modified would indicate this. I'll grant you that single non-monetary value if you'll grant me the fact that works are, by default, covered by copyright (at least in the US) and that releasing a work into the public domain requires additional effort which is unrelated to the creation of the work itself (which, of course, is the part someone working for the love of their craft is interested in).
More to the point, those who do not wish to artificially restrict their works for unreasonable periods of time are not the ones who broke the system; in fact, it is certainly worth respecting the copyrights of those who clearly wish to see the system restored to what it was originally meant to be. At no point did I say copyright should be abolished, nor did I say that it should be completely disregarded. What I said was that copyright is a goodwill contract between the people and those who create content; by showing bad will toward the people, a content creator has devalued their own copyright and that their copyright should be disregarded.
I, personally, produce some volume of content, licensed under various terms. Much of my content is Creative Commons licensed, some of it is licensed per the wishes of whoever I created it for, none of it will ever be locked away from public view. To be clear, my beef is with those who openly abuse the copyright system to lock their content away, in violation of the spirit of copyright law; for me to benefit from copyright the way I do while holding the point of view that it should be abolished would be quite hypocritical and I want it to be understood that this is not the case.
You do realize that parents tend to raise different children differently, right? While it may or may not have applied in Lanza's case, what GP said is good advice. Teach moderation; allow, even encourage, free thought; foster an environment where your child feels empowered to do the right thing.
Before anyone pops up with "you must not have kids of your own", no, I don't, and I'm sure you had no inkling of how to raise yours before they came along, either, right? I raised my adopted sister (biologically my stepfather's sister's daughter) to age two before my mother and stepfather adopted her; they moved in with me when they adopted her and I continued to help raising her until I moved out of state when she was 4. A year later, they moved 2 doors down from me and I again continued assisting them in raising her until work moved me to the other side of the country when she was 8. She's well-adjusted and doing just fine, so while I have not fathered my own offspring, I should say I certainly do have at least a modicum of experience in child rearing.
normal
/nôrml/
Adjective
Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Noun
The usual, average, or typical state or condition.
By those definitions, porn is the normal sector of the internet.
and the alternative to copyright is not public domain, it is censorship and limited accessibility
Because few have ever seen any of the art that was created before copyright, right? Patronage rarely worked, of course; and when it did, those works were never placed in public view.
Musicians certainly never performed in public for a buck before copyright; players never performed in the days before it was illegal to copy (even onto paper) their performances and replay them elsewhere; only the rich were ever allowed into the Sistine Chapel before copyright, and poetry and prose were rarely heard or read (okay, I'll grant you that they were rarely read before copyright, if you'll admit that it's because few could actually read until a short time before copyright came to be) by anyone except the wealthy until copyright came to save the day.
Is content more accessible today than it was before copyright? Yes, with the printing press becoming more efficient; recording mediums, including audio and video, proliferating; the advent of radio and television; and automotive, air, and electronic transportation speeding delivery, there has been quite an improvement in content accessibility. On the other hand, while one may argue that copyright has led to an increase in the production of content (something which may well have happened as a natural consequence of technology, as we are seeing more and more today), copyright, by its very nature, makes content less accessible in they eyes of the law.
That's not to say that censorship and limited accessibility aren't possible outcomes; that is certainly one possible road history could have taken. Ponder this: Why are we taught history in public schools? (Hint: it's not just so we can avoid history's mistakes.)
If copyright has value, it stands to reason that breaking it is wrong... for *EITHER* party. If it had no value, then please try to consider exactly why a vast majority of content makers that *DO* make freely available content decide to explicitly utilize copyright instead of putting their works into public domain.
That's the thing; allowing the copyright act to be signed into law was a goodwill contract between us and those who would hold the rights to any content covered by the new law (with due note to the overlap between those two groups). That did have value, which was lost the moment it was abused. It stood to reason that breaking it was wrong, in the short time before it was widely abused; in the time when Walt would have seen Mickey Mouse enter the public domain, it was wrong to break copyright. That time has long passed and copyright was broken by the "content industry" when they lobbied to transform it into something contrary to the original contract.
When they showed bad will toward the people, that goodwill contract was rendered void and copyright lost any value it may have had. Now, it stands to reason that, since it is already broken, disregarding it breaks nothing.
Did Zynga hire some jackoff from an 'enterprise solutions' firm, who thinks that customers will just have to migrate to the shiny new product because support is no longer available for the old one?
My guess? Yes. May this turn out to be a lesson for everyone involved:
Also, why the fuck do unordered lists on /. not get bullets?
To some (a surprising number, actually), that ring is an announcement of challenge. "Go ahead, make your move. Even better for you, I'm not around to do anything about it."
So now we're not just spamming, we're ripping posts off from other forums? Fuck.
You've never met my mother-in-law, then. She make the most cryptic remarks.
Well, not all of the time; it didn't happen this time. I think you meant to say it happens in the rare instances when the "suspect's" rights don't get trampled.
Oh, I'd also like to add that I used to draw guns, swastikas, and even violent shooting scenes all over *everything* in high school. I also wrote a short story about a school shooting; my principal absolutely loved it. Oh, and I never shot anyone, either.
First off, it's Asperger Syndrome. Second, as an aspie and a functional member of society with a leadership position at a successful and somewhat well known in the Bay Area company, I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic.
I think GP was assuming a competent operator; likely himself. I know, personally, as a competent operator, I want a gun that goes "bang" when I tell it to. A moment sooner or later and the "bang" may be directed somewhere other than where I wanted it to go; not at all and a different "bang" may be directed my way.
You think banning guns will prevent them from being used in criminal acts? Do you have any idea how easy it is to get an illegal gun *right now*? If you're using a gun to commit a crime, you're not using the gun you bought from Pete's Pistols, you're using the one you bought in the alleyway behind Best Buy. It's obvious by your mentality that you didn't know drugs were illegal; you clearly use them excessively.
Nor does the P226 I take target shooting every weekend.
If you can survive the first three months of parenthood, you can survive anything!
I guess I'm some kind of badass, then. :)