From the Article: "They seem clean and you don't have to flush them and I like that," said Philippe Van Nieuwenhuyse, a sophomore business-law student. "I always hate to flush with my hand. A lot of germs can collect on one of those handles."
Philippe, that's why Mommy told you to always wash your hands when you're done...
Enter Mulder and Scully to the Canadian Field Office...
Extension of the Blogging Culture
on
Podcasting Hacks
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
First there were blogs which allowed to people to become amateur journalists and columnists. Now we have podcasting which allows people to become amatuer radio hosts and broadcasters. Probably the best evidence yet for the "Internet is the modern printing press" arguments.
The grandparent post's author was a Communist. Unfortunately we have a lot of those on Slashdot. Ah, I'm new here, I haven't learned my way around yet.
"Copyrights reward people who harm society, a reward that is no longer bearable or tenable in the information age." "Besides, there is a creator bigger than you that gave information one set of characteristics, and physical property antoher - so in all fairness, who'se violating who'se terms now." Can you unpack those statements for me? I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.
The same with copyrights, the right to controll how people use information at their disposal is not a tool or a right. See, now I'm not sure if we're even on the same page. I'm talking about copyrights to created works like books, music, artwork. What copyrights are you talking about?
It is human nature to make our best interest to look out and work for the best interest of others, but sometimes that doesn't happen because we are finite, or we use our free choice to deny that nature What are you talking about? No, human nature is look out for number one and say "screw everyone else". Ever seen a group of toddlers at play with toys? They don't share naturally, they take what they want and fight with each other when they want the same thing. It takes an older individual to explain the concept of sharing to them because sharing does not come naturally to toddlers. If it did, we wouldn't have to explain it to them.
I'm not denying the abusive power a copyright can hold. But if you write or create something, then you, as the creator, have the right to determine how you want your work to be used. If you want to open your creation to completely unconditional use go for it. If you want to stipulate how your work can be used then it is your right.
And monopolies do not help little guys, they help big bullies.
Copyrights (and patents for that matter) are tools useful to the holder. In the modern situation copyrights are the weapon of choice for large companies because they hold all the copyrights. The copyright benefits the little guy if and only if (note the emphasis) the people are responsible enough to make sure the little guy can hold onto his copyright. Most times the big company has enough muscle and the people aren't responsible enough to keep the bullies in check.
...but copyrights by their very nature are abusive
I wholeheartedly disagree. They are tools, nothing more.
They are the root, and the consequences are obvious even to you. It doesn't take much genius to follow the branches of the vine back to the root.
The real root of the problem isn't the system, it's human nature. At the core, humans are selfish greedy creatures. If you don't believe me, visit a Christmas sale at a big department store sometime. People are using copyrights for selfish ends.
Ironically, when you force people to let others use their works however they like, you are placing a restriction on the person who created the work, which is really just another form of control
From the article: "Edwyn Chan's Weblog is among the milder critics, describing the BBC as "annoying" for always asking about freedom of speech when interviewing Chinese citizens."
It sounds like the bloggers are irritated at the BBC for getting stuck on a single issue, Chinese censorship. From their point of view, the BBC is spinning everything the bloggers put out as a symbol of China's repressive government and therefore, in the eyes of the Western world who equate freedom with progress of any kind, a symbol of Chinese backwardness and inferiority. In other words, the BBC is critizing the Chinese people, not just the Chinese government.
Bullcrap. Copyrights are not "moral sewage", they are vital to protecting the right of an artist. A copyright makes sure an artist is given credit for his or her work and it allows the artist to control how his or her work can be used. The problem comes when an artist cedes control of copyright to a corporation.
Take Bill Waterson, for example, the cartoonist who created Calvin and Hobbes. He went through a fight with the comic syndicate (Universal I think) that distributed his comics because they began merchandising Calvin and Hobbes against his wishes. Problem was Universal Syndicate owned the copyright on the strip and not him. It took two years for Waterson to gain control of his own work back from Universal, at which point he was so wiped he went on sabbatical to recover.
Any system has the potential for abuse and harm. Take Islamic suicide bombers, Christian abortion clinic bombers, crooked cops, dirty government officials, abusive civilian and military prisions and prision gaurds. The job of the responsible citizen is to keep an eye on the system and watch for abuses, correcting the abuses when spotted.
I'll agree heartily that DCMA has problems, that Sony is taking things too far, that the **AA industries are greedy bullies, but destruction of the entire copyright system creates more problems than it solves. We need harsh reforms but not complete dismantlement.
Re:I used to think Republican = Limited Government
on
DMCA Abuse Widespread
·
· Score: 1
The Republicans want your privacy, the Democrats want your money. Which is why any bill with support from both parties should scare the heck out of you. When bilaterally-supported bills are announced, find shelter, 'cause it's getting ready to hit the fan.
Slashdot Mirror
You've never been to a TX DPS office have you?
From the Article: "They seem clean and you don't have to flush them and I like that," said Philippe Van Nieuwenhuyse, a sophomore business-law student. "I always hate to flush with my hand. A lot of germs can collect on one of those handles."
Philippe, that's why Mommy told you to always wash your hands when you're done...
The Flying Spaghetti Monster wouldn't allow such a thing! Too warm and he becomes a big pile of alfredo.
Enter Mulder and Scully to the Canadian Field Office...
First there were blogs which allowed to people to become amateur journalists and columnists. Now we have podcasting which allows people to become amatuer radio hosts and broadcasters. Probably the best evidence yet for the "Internet is the modern printing press" arguments.
The grandparent post's author was a Communist. Unfortunately we have a lot of those on Slashdot.
Ah, I'm new here, I haven't learned my way around yet.
"Copyrights reward people who harm society, a reward that is no longer bearable or tenable in the information age."
"Besides, there is a creator bigger than you that gave information one set of characteristics, and physical property antoher - so in all fairness, who'se violating who'se terms now."
Can you unpack those statements for me? I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.
The same with copyrights, the right to controll how people use information at their disposal is not a tool or a right.
See, now I'm not sure if we're even on the same page. I'm talking about copyrights to created works like books, music, artwork. What copyrights are you talking about?
It is human nature to make our best interest to look out and work for the best interest of others, but sometimes that doesn't happen because we are finite, or we use our free choice to deny that nature
What are you talking about? No, human nature is look out for number one and say "screw everyone else". Ever seen a group of toddlers at play with toys? They don't share naturally, they take what they want and fight with each other when they want the same thing. It takes an older individual to explain the concept of sharing to them because sharing does not come naturally to toddlers. If it did, we wouldn't have to explain it to them.
I'm not denying the abusive power a copyright can hold. But if you write or create something, then you, as the creator, have the right to determine how you want your work to be used. If you want to open your creation to completely unconditional use go for it. If you want to stipulate how your work can be used then it is your right.
And monopolies do not help little guys, they help big bullies.
Copyrights (and patents for that matter) are tools useful to the holder. In the modern situation copyrights are the weapon of choice for large companies because they hold all the copyrights. The copyright benefits the little guy if and only if (note the emphasis) the people are responsible enough to make sure the little guy can hold onto his copyright. Most times the big company has enough muscle and the people aren't responsible enough to keep the bullies in check.
I wholeheartedly disagree. They are tools, nothing more.
They are the root, and the consequences are obvious even to you. It doesn't take much genius to follow the branches of the vine back to the root.
The real root of the problem isn't the system, it's human nature. At the core, humans are selfish greedy creatures. If you don't believe me, visit a Christmas sale at a big department store sometime. People are using copyrights for selfish ends.
Ironically, when you force people to let others use their works however they like, you are placing a restriction on the person who created the work, which is really just another form of control
From the article: "Edwyn Chan's Weblog is among the milder critics, describing the BBC as "annoying" for always asking about freedom of speech when interviewing Chinese citizens."
It sounds like the bloggers are irritated at the BBC for getting stuck on a single issue, Chinese censorship. From their point of view, the BBC is spinning everything the bloggers put out as a symbol of China's repressive government and therefore, in the eyes of the Western world who equate freedom with progress of any kind, a symbol of Chinese backwardness and inferiority. In other words, the BBC is critizing the Chinese people, not just the Chinese government.
Bullcrap. Copyrights are not "moral sewage", they are vital to protecting the right of an artist. A copyright makes sure an artist is given credit for his or her work and it allows the artist to control how his or her work can be used. The problem comes when an artist cedes control of copyright to a corporation. Take Bill Waterson, for example, the cartoonist who created Calvin and Hobbes. He went through a fight with the comic syndicate (Universal I think) that distributed his comics because they began merchandising Calvin and Hobbes against his wishes. Problem was Universal Syndicate owned the copyright on the strip and not him. It took two years for Waterson to gain control of his own work back from Universal, at which point he was so wiped he went on sabbatical to recover. Any system has the potential for abuse and harm. Take Islamic suicide bombers, Christian abortion clinic bombers, crooked cops, dirty government officials, abusive civilian and military prisions and prision gaurds. The job of the responsible citizen is to keep an eye on the system and watch for abuses, correcting the abuses when spotted. I'll agree heartily that DCMA has problems, that Sony is taking things too far, that the **AA industries are greedy bullies, but destruction of the entire copyright system creates more problems than it solves. We need harsh reforms but not complete dismantlement.
The Republicans want your privacy, the Democrats want your money. Which is why any bill with support from both parties should scare the heck out of you. When bilaterally-supported bills are announced, find shelter, 'cause it's getting ready to hit the fan.