The people aren't obligated to offer copyright at all, the Constitution merely permits it, and then only for the promotion of science and useful arts.
And the creator isn't obligated to create at all
That post was moderated flamebait but it isn't. It is a valid point that should be addressed.
Here's my take on it.
True, the creator isn't obligated to create. However, it is society's choice whether to offer the creator incentives to create and the decision should be based on cost/benefit considerations. In the 21st century, the life+70 copyright terms can provide absolutely no benefit to society over the original 14+14, or even a flat decade. The cost (to the public domain), on the other hand, has skyrocketed.
So I say let the creators that depend on absurd copyright terms stop creating, we will all be better off.
This is a thinly veiled attempt to turn the once mighty US of A into a nation of informers and people so afraid of being targeted that all potential protest is squashed at the bud.
It's called sharing; you might have heard about it.
If widespread pirating is indeed good for content creators, then they are free to give their stuff away. It's not for you to unilaterally declare what's good for them
He didn't. He implied that sharing is good for society as a whole, not for the "content creators" in particular.
just because you want free stuff.
I think you missed the part where he mentions that he *gives* stuff (that he created) for free.
Let me quote it for you:
> And before you dare call me selfish or a thief, and before you accuse me of taking crumbs from the mouth of the poor, starving artist: > I get paid to write, code and take photos, and yet I still manage to give almost all of that output away. If I can do it, then so can others.
If you want to play the car analogy, it can't be about stealing the car. Pirating diminishes the value of the work to the author, so to do a proper car analogy, you would need to do something to the car that diminishes its value to its owner, while not actually taking anything physical away.
Except that this "value" that you speak of was not something that the author was naturally entitled to, it was only created by the artificial scarcity imposed by the copyright grant.
One example is keying the car.
Stupid example. You are altering the owner's car in ways he does not approve of. If, by way of some weird quantum principle, copying a work would alter the original then your analogy might have merit.
A second example is taking the car for a joyride, but taking care not to demolish it.
Another stupid example. The original object is modified (gas consumption, wear of parts) as well as being physically unavailable to the owner for the duration of your joy ride.
So no, pirating isn't stealing in the common sense, but it is taking something of value from the owner.
You want a car analogy, I'll give you one. You have a car; now I start selling identical cars for $10 each (or even giving them away for free). The resale value of your car just vanished in a puff of logic. Did I take something of value from you? Are you entitled to compensation?
I consider myself a Libertarian, and yes I make a living because of copyright.
Correction: you take advantage of copyright to make a living. If there was no copyright, I believe that you would still make a living; possibly in a different field, possibly utilizing your other talents, possibly more successfully, possibly even benefiting society more than you do now.
I also think that piracy is rampant.
And I think that fornication is rampant. And it was also rampant in the state of Virginia before 2005 (It was a criminal offence until Martin v. Ziherl). Doesn't make it wrong though.
A LOT of people don't realize it is wrong.
Correction: A LOT of people don't AGREE that it is wrong. And maybe, just maybe, the same "A LOT of people" are right about this.
But the general feeling I get from the average slashdotter is "copyright is evil because I want free stuff."
Funny. The arguments that I hear are that copyright -- in its current reincarnation -- creates artificial scarcity, locks down culture, limits the freedom of expression, robs the public domain, etc. Some of them laid down more logically are presented more eloquently than others but then, not everyone is a natural public speaker.
I hear time and again how the publishers are screwing the creators
I think that things like SOPA are bad. But not that copyright should be abolished.
And I think that it should be. But then, I also believe that corrupt politicians and dirty cops should be thrown in jail to rot and corporate officers should be legally responsible for the actions of their respective corporations so it tells you how much my ideas are worth.
I also think there are a lot of people here who thing they way you think in that it is a matter of principle. BUT the noisiest argument tends to "I want my shit for free"
Then perhaps you should pay more attention to the quietly stated reasonable arguments and learn to tune out the noise.
Of course these people then call the "mafiaa" greedy
As the Commander-In-Chief of all U.S. forces, the president is within his authority to order military action against hostile military forces. Doesn't matter that some U.S. citizen has joined those forces. War doesn't stop because there's a traitor in the enemy camp.
The question is, can the Commander-In-Chief of all U.S. forces, at his sole discretion, declare any particular US citizen a traitor that has joined the enemy forces and orchestrate the targeted elimination of that individual?
If that is the case, why are Gingrich and Romney still alive?
Not long ago, a huge portion of the country was treated as subhuman while our leaders were playing with the idea of wiping out human civilization. We got through that, and we can sure as hell get through this.
You got through that because the "huge portion of the country [who] was treated as subhuman", as well as members of the "human civilization" facing wipe-out had very strong incentives to turn things around (read: no viable alternatives)
You may have fought for something, all right, but it wasn't for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
At least not for you and me.
Well I can tell you it definitely wasn't for YOU! The government's reasons for doing things frequently don't align with the individual's. I was a Marine in GHWB's Gulf War. From a government perspective it was definitely about oil. To me, those would have been unlawful orders, except that I saw what Hussein did to the people of Kuwait. THAT is why I served, sir. Our family friend that we wave to daily as he strolls by in his wheelchair didn't lose his legs in the current Iraq venture because of GWB's daddy complex, he did it because he believed he was trying to help the Iraqi people, because he believed (however misguided it may be) that he was helping to keep our liberties safe. He paid for it with loss of use of half of his body, at the hands of the very people he was trying to help.
Hmmm... You do realize that the same Iraqis that put your neighbour in a wheelchair "did it because they believed they were trying to help the Iraqi people, because they believed (however misguided it may be) that they were helping to keep their liberties safe", right? You should also realize that, objectively, they had a better justification than you did, because they were fighting an invader on their homeland.
And to have some cumstain POS like you denigrate the sacrifice that he made makes my blood boil!
Outtascope's dictionary: cumstain POS like you, n.: A person who disagrees with me, whose argument I cannot refute.
Your resorting to anger, name calling and srawman arguments are classical symptoms of cognitive dissonance. You should consider stopping throwing tantrums and starting addressing the issues.
For the record, the AC did not denigrate anything. He did state that whatever you (and by extension, your neighbour) were fighting for had absolutely no positive effect on "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in your country (that little "At least not for you and me" part that you neglected to include in your quoting). Personally, I happen to agree with him.
But I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people who fought (and continue to fight in Afghanistan), even the ones who committed some awful acts, did it out of a love for their country, for their fellow citizens, and for the principles that they represent (regardless of how far we may come from actually attaining them).
I would very much like to know which principles exactly justified this.
They did it for you and me and the Iraqi/Afghan people.
No, they didn't. Some of them (maybe even most of them) believed that they were doing it for those stated reasons, while some of them used it as a convenient excuse.
It's real easy to take a stand against something from the cozy confines of the internet, but you best drag your ass out there and do it in the real world before you decide to slander several million Americans who put their countrymen before themselves.
The AC made a statement. Do you have anything (other than jingoistic fervour) to counter it?
If a 270 year old dead guy told you to jump off a bridge, would you?
If he had a really convincing argument to back it up then yes, I would.
Stop prostrating yourself at the feet of the founding fathers. They were men, not gods. They did a pretty decent job, all things considered, but they don't have all the answers.
They were in a similar situation as he finds himself in, he happens to agree with their reasoning and decided to quote one of them because that founding father was more eloquent and succinct in expressing the point than he could be. Also, Jefferson has more name recognition so people will be more inclined to consider his arguments over those of a random/. poster.
What we're talking about here is theft of IP for personal use.
And my reply to that is: 1. Nothing "Intellectual" can be "Property" 2. Therefore, it cannot be "stolen", for personal use or otherwise 3. And (forgive me for repeating myself) it does not warrant any protection
And batteries and magnet tech and lower energy needs have been improving greatly over the last few decades. My old Star Tak analog phone lasted a day if I was lucky, my newer Motorola has a smaller battery and lasts several days. I think you're a bit too pessimistic.
Your Motorola lasting several days on standby is a technological achievement but it is still way off the mark. What we want is battery tech that will let the most powerful smartphones and "gaming" laptops last several days at full load.
I still don't understand like someone else here said deep in this thread, how copying ones and zeros is a crime.
Anything that your masters decide to outlaw is a crime; including, should the fancy strike them, thinking about white elephants or hearing the word "galoshes".
Feudalism never went away, it just got better at disguising itself.
I like that people get paid to be creative and provide me with entertainment.
And I would like the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of giants. So much in fact, that I won't even complain if later a crowd gathers to stand on my own.
Your honour, the government submits that thatbloke83 was, at the time of his arrest, in a possession of an instrument of rape. Furthermore, we have found on his computer a stash of textual and graphical material designed to bring said instrument to a ready-to-use state. And finally, we have sworn testimony of his friends that on numerous occasions he expressed his desire to use it on various people of the female persuasion.
We request that thatbloke83 be sentenced to 2 years in prison, plus confiscation of the offending tool.
Slashdot Mirror
also consider the fact that people in the past have made all kinds of published work before without any kind of copyright protection at all.
This.
The people aren't obligated to offer copyright at all, the Constitution merely permits it, and then only for the promotion of science and useful arts.
And the creator isn't obligated to create at all
That post was moderated flamebait but it isn't. It is a valid point that should be addressed.
Here's my take on it.
True, the creator isn't obligated to create. However, it is society's choice whether to offer the creator incentives to create and the decision should be based on cost/benefit considerations. In the 21st century, the life+70 copyright terms can provide absolutely no benefit to society over the original 14+14, or even a flat decade. The cost (to the public domain), on the other hand, has skyrocketed.
So I say let the creators that depend on absurd copyright terms stop creating, we will all be better off.
Something you can buy for little money from many different stores doesn't exactly count as being locked up.
Yes, it does. Culture should not be something you rent, it should be something that everybody is free to participate in.
This is a thinly veiled attempt to turn the once mighty US of A into a nation of informers and people so afraid of being targeted that all potential protest is squashed at the bud.
Welcome to the Soviet Union.
Chill.
People like you try to make the world a better place for everybody.
Just remember that and ignore the trolls.
It's called sharing; you might have heard about it.
If widespread pirating is indeed good for content creators, then they are free to give their stuff away. It's not for you to unilaterally declare what's good for them
He didn't. He implied that sharing is good for society as a whole, not for the "content creators" in particular.
just because you want free stuff.
I think you missed the part where he mentions that he *gives* stuff (that he created) for free.
Let me quote it for you:
> And before you dare call me selfish or a thief, and before you accuse me of taking crumbs from the mouth of the poor, starving artist:
> I get paid to write, code and take photos, and yet I still manage to give almost all of that output away. If I can do it, then so can others.
If you want to play the car analogy, it can't be about stealing the car. Pirating diminishes the value of the work to the author, so to do a proper car analogy, you would need to do something to the car that diminishes its value to its owner, while not actually taking anything physical away.
Except that this "value" that you speak of was not something that the author was naturally entitled to, it was only created by the artificial scarcity imposed by the copyright grant.
One example is keying the car.
Stupid example. You are altering the owner's car in ways he does not approve of. If, by way of some weird quantum principle, copying a work would alter the original then your analogy might have merit.
A second example is taking the car for a joyride, but taking care not to demolish it.
Another stupid example. The original object is modified (gas consumption, wear of parts) as well as being physically unavailable to the owner for the duration of your joy ride.
So no, pirating isn't stealing in the common sense, but it is taking something of value from the owner.
You want a car analogy, I'll give you one. You have a car; now I start selling identical cars for $10 each (or even giving them away for free). The resale value of your car just vanished in a puff of logic. Did I take something of value from you? Are you entitled to compensation?
I consider myself a Libertarian, and yes I make a living because of copyright.
Correction: you take advantage of copyright to make a living. If there was no copyright, I believe that you would still make a living; possibly in a different field, possibly utilizing your other talents, possibly more successfully, possibly even benefiting society more than you do now.
I also think that piracy is rampant.
And I think that fornication is rampant.
And it was also rampant in the state of Virginia before 2005 (It was a criminal offence until Martin v. Ziherl).
Doesn't make it wrong though.
A LOT of people don't realize it is wrong.
Correction: A LOT of people don't AGREE that it is wrong.
And maybe, just maybe, the same "A LOT of people" are right about this.
But the general feeling I get from the average slashdotter is "copyright is evil because I want free stuff."
Funny. The arguments that I hear are that copyright -- in its current reincarnation -- creates artificial scarcity, locks down culture, limits the freedom of expression, robs the public domain, etc. Some of them laid down more logically are presented more eloquently than others but then, not everyone is a natural public speaker.
I hear time and again how the publishers are screwing the creators
Dont' they?
or the general public
Dont' they?
I think that things like SOPA are bad. But not that copyright should be abolished.
And I think that it should be. But then, I also believe that corrupt politicians and dirty cops should be thrown in jail to rot and corporate officers should be legally responsible for the actions of their respective corporations so it tells you how much my ideas are worth.
I also think there are a lot of people here who thing they way you think in that it is a matter of principle. BUT the noisiest argument tends to "I want my shit for free"
Then perhaps you should pay more attention to the quietly stated reasonable arguments and learn to tune out the noise.
Of course these people then call the "mafiaa" greedy
Aren't they?
Lawyers are the worst thing to happen to the planet.
FTFY.
They should be indicted - every last one of them.
By whom exactly?
As the Commander-In-Chief of all U.S. forces, the president is within his authority to order military action against hostile military forces. Doesn't matter that some U.S. citizen has joined those forces. War doesn't stop because there's a traitor in the enemy camp.
The question is, can the Commander-In-Chief of all U.S. forces, at his sole discretion , declare any particular US citizen a traitor that has joined the enemy forces and orchestrate the targeted elimination of that individual?
If that is the case, why are Gingrich and Romney still alive?
Not long ago, a huge portion of the country was treated as subhuman while our leaders were playing with the idea of wiping out human civilization. We got through that, and we can sure as hell get through this.
You got through that because the "huge portion of the country [who] was treated as subhuman", as well as members of the "human civilization" facing wipe-out had very strong incentives to turn things around (read: no viable alternatives)
You may have fought for something, all right, but it wasn't for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
At least not for you and me.
Well I can tell you it definitely wasn't for YOU! The government's reasons for doing things frequently don't align with the individual's. I was a Marine in GHWB's Gulf War. From a government perspective it was definitely about oil. To me, those would have been unlawful orders, except that I saw what Hussein did to the people of Kuwait. THAT is why I served, sir. Our family friend that we wave to daily as he strolls by in his wheelchair didn't lose his legs in the current Iraq venture because of GWB's daddy complex, he did it because he believed he was trying to help the Iraqi people, because he believed (however misguided it may be) that he was helping to keep our liberties safe. He paid for it with loss of use of half of his body, at the hands of the very people he was trying to help.
Hmmm... You do realize that the same Iraqis that put your neighbour in a wheelchair "did it because they believed they were trying to help the Iraqi people, because they believed (however misguided it may be) that they were helping to keep their liberties safe", right? You should also realize that, objectively, they had a better justification than you did, because they were fighting an invader on their homeland.
And to have some cumstain POS like you denigrate the sacrifice that he made makes my blood boil!
Outtascope's dictionary:
cumstain POS like you, n.: A person who disagrees with me, whose argument I cannot refute.
Your resorting to anger, name calling and srawman arguments are classical symptoms of cognitive dissonance. You should consider stopping throwing tantrums and starting addressing the issues.
For the record, the AC did not denigrate anything. He did state that whatever you (and by extension, your neighbour) were fighting for had absolutely no positive effect on "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in your country (that little "At least not for you and me" part that you neglected to include in your quoting). Personally, I happen to agree with him.
But I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people who fought (and continue to fight in Afghanistan), even the ones who committed some awful acts, did it out of a love for their country, for their fellow citizens, and for the principles that they represent (regardless of how far we may come from actually attaining them).
I would very much like to know which principles exactly justified this.
They did it for you and me and the Iraqi/Afghan people.
No, they didn't. Some of them (maybe even most of them) believed that they were doing it for those stated reasons, while some of them used it as a convenient excuse.
It's real easy to take a stand against something from the cozy confines of the internet, but you best drag your ass out there and do it in the real world before you decide to slander several million Americans who put their countrymen before themselves.
The AC made a statement. Do you have anything (other than jingoistic fervour) to counter it?
Disclaimer: not an American.
If a 270 year old dead guy told you to jump off a bridge, would you?
If he had a really convincing argument to back it up then yes, I would.
Stop prostrating yourself at the feet of the founding fathers. They were men, not gods. They did a pretty decent job, all things considered, but they don't have all the answers.
They were in a similar situation as he finds himself in, he happens to agree with their reasoning and decided to quote one of them because that founding father was more eloquent and succinct in expressing the point than he could be. Also, Jefferson has more name recognition so people will be more inclined to consider his arguments over those of a random /. poster.
I find nothing wrong with his course of action.
I do not dispute your assertion.
I just say that it is not the technological leap that people were waiting for.
What we're talking about here is theft of IP for personal use.
And my reply to that is:
1. Nothing "Intellectual" can be "Property"
2. Therefore, it cannot be "stolen", for personal use or otherwise
3. And (forgive me for repeating myself) it does not warrant any protection
Exoskeletons
And batteries and magnet tech and lower energy needs have been improving greatly over the last few decades. My old Star Tak analog phone lasted a day if I was lucky, my newer Motorola has a smaller battery and lasts several days. I think you're a bit too pessimistic.
Your Motorola lasting several days on standby is a technological achievement but it is still way off the mark.
What we want is battery tech that will let the most powerful smartphones and "gaming" laptops last several days at full load .
We need to stand up against censorship on the streets, not on some dark unknown meshnet.
Well, are you?
I still don't understand like someone else here said deep in this thread, how copying ones and zeros is a crime.
Anything that your masters decide to outlaw is a crime; including, should the fancy strike them, thinking about white elephants or hearing the word "galoshes".
Feudalism never went away, it just got better at disguising itself.
HTH.
The courts can't force you to do something you can't do.
No, but they can imprison you indefinitely for failing to do the impossible.
Should IP be protected? Absolutely.
Absolutely not!
I like that people get paid to be creative and provide me with entertainment.
And I would like the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of giants. So much in fact, that I won't even complain if later a crowd gathers to stand on my own.
I LIKE my copyright priveleges as a Canadian
Get ready to be using the past tense. Your privileges are about to be revoked.
Your honour, the government submits that thatbloke83 was, at the time of his arrest, in a possession of an instrument of rape.
Furthermore, we have found on his computer a stash of textual and graphical material designed to bring said instrument to a ready-to-use state.
And finally, we have sworn testimony of his friends that on numerous occasions he expressed his desire to use it on various people of the female persuasion.
We request that thatbloke83 be sentenced to 2 years in prison, plus confiscation of the offending tool.
Surveillance, perhaps?