Like the US Post Office, I would want to have it be self sufficient, using collected fees to run itself.
Copyright as spelled out in the Constitution is supposed to benefit not authors and publishers, but everybody. Its purpose is supposed to be to persuade authors to write more so their writing (sculpture, painting, etc) will go to the public domain.
The public is the "owner" of the novel, not the nonel's copyright holder. So IMO the public should not get a free ride at the expense of the artist. And I would not have too many extensions for too long a term; half a lifetime is too long. I'm 56 years old, any work made before I entered grade school should be in the public domain as the Constitutional fremers envisioned.
I would grant no extension that would go past 30 years. Even a mortgage company doesn't get paid after 30 years, why should Disney?
-mcgrew (swears at slashdot for its stupid anti-literacy filter that won't let you post a four word reply to a comment that is in its message center without giving you a blank page and scolding you for hitting "submit" sixteen seconds after hitting "reply". Mods, this poaragraph is filler so I don't get that same fucktarded message again.)
If this guy wants paid registration, he should just say so and have that, where people cough up $10 a year or something for access to the site's contents.
It's not about the site contents, it's about posting comments. It's an old school dead tree newspaper, where the editor determines whose letters to the editor not only get printed but edited for grammar, spelling, clarity, brevity, political correctness, and the newspaper's corporate opinion.
They're used to censoring. They're not used to having random unwashed people speak out against corporate welfare, corporate censorship, Ron Paul, Libertarians, the evils of having a "two party system", corporate campaign bribery, etc.
The corporates have a hard time controlling information these days. They want the genie to get back in the bottle.
recording companies actually sell you licenses to listen to the songs on a CD
If there's a license, then where's my copy of the license? When did I sign a license agreement to play my CD?
I signed no agreement and clicked through no EULA. There is no license! With software, the license is debatable; I've been shown where under some circumstances EULAs can be enforceable (although I still doubt it), but when you buy a music CD you own the CD and are free to do anything you wish with it except distribute copies of it.
Downloaded tracks are another matter entirely. When you "buy" from iTunes or any other online "store" you do indeed click an agreement. Rent DRM-infested, lossy music from iTunes instead of buying a CD? Just a bad decicion. Once you have the physical CD you can legally do as you damned well please with it (save distributing copies), including making MP3s for your iPod and copies of it for your car.
Don't swallow the corporate bullshit. You still have a few rights, at least don't fight against them.
I'm only a layman, but it sure looks like more than chutzpah. Could the lawyers involved be disbarred? Could anybody actually see the inside of a cell over this?
Most of the cd's I own are merely format change versions of prior albums I owned
Sometimes folks remark how good my car stereo sounds, and invariably it's a CD that I made from an LP. I wrote a how-to a few years ago. The secret to a good sounding CD is finding a damned good turntable.
I don't know what Clinton's reasoning was but one has a tendancy to believe that they will, indeed, reform themself. I divorced Evil-X when the pain got too great. The divorce had nothing to do with my self respect or honor, and neither did my forgiveness of her dallyance. Both decisions were about pain, and only pain.
A man can punch me, kick me, hit me, shoot me, break my bones, cut me, stab me, but only a woman can truly hurt me.
Newspapers had no problem with it for the two hundred years that you did indeed have to file an application and two copies. I had no trouble making two copies of the programs I copyrighted back in 1983 when you still had to do that.
However, for web based content perhaps you're right, the LoC could keep a copy (and its backup).
The way it is now where everything is instantly copyrighted would force a burden on the LoC, but if you had to register then most stuff (like slashdot comments) would go into the public domain.
I don't like the cost factor. A pauper should be able to copyright a work. A hundred bucks is quite a lot for the average (or should I say "median") American, but it's chumpo change to a rich man or a corporation.
If he's a hacker (old school sense of the word) it doesn't matter whether or not he's a criminal. Criminality shouldn't enter into its use. If he writes a quick program to illegally gain access then he is indeed a hacker. If he uses Nmap without modification to crack a system he's a script kiddie (Yes, Trinity is a script kiddie, nowhere do we see her writing original code).
You are misusing the term "politically correct". "Hacker" meaning "cyberglar" (new word for the day) isn't politically incorrect, it's factually incorrect (or was before we allowed the definition to change). "Pro-life" is politically correct, but usually factually incorrect since most pro-lifers are, in fact, for the deat penalty as well as any war the government brainwashes them into believing is right. "Pro-choice" is also politically correct but factually incorrect, since few "pro-choicers" support the woman's right to inject heroin.
I am for the intelligent evolution of language. I am against completely changing a word to its opposite meaning in less than a single generation for no reason whatever save ignorance or malice.
New words are needed all the time, and there is no reason not to use an obsolete word for a new purpose (we drive our cars, the word "drive" comes from back when we drove a team of horses). But using a perfectly useful word because of stupidity (hacker) or malice (gay) is illogical and unreasonable. If gaity had left the world and laughter was outlawed, then using "gay" to mean "homosexual" would be logical. But to change the meaning of a word that maent "happy and carefree" to "a member of a group, half of whom attempt suicide" is extrordinarily stupid IMO. Shit, they could have coined a new word, or used a foreign word, or used an obsolete English word. But now when a kid hears "Deck the Halls" he has to think that "Don we now our gay apparel" means cross dressing!
It goes against the very purpose of language, which is communication.
My ex-wife (she and her family are mentioned in the link) was a serial adultress. Where do you get the assertion that I was responsible in any way for my wife's adultery?
The McDonalds coffee thing is a very poor example. McDonalds fucked up, plain and simple. All the old dimwitted woman wanted was medical bills paid (so there would not have even been an issue in any civilized country like Canada or Britain). Had McDumbass paid the what, two hundred bicks? They would have saved their shareholders thousands.
There are really very few examples of egregious, scandalous lawsuits like that. Doctors squeal and whine about malpractice suits, but in reality unless the doctor really fcked up bad - left a sponge in the patient, sawed off the wrong leg, prescribed a lethal dose of drug, or whatever, juries are not inclined to go in favor of the patient.
Easy solution: You sell the software and I'll use it any way I damned well please, just as copyright law allows. If Blizzard gets away with this Congress needs to change copyright law.
The only problem with the changing copyright law thing is that the corporate controlled Congress will change it the wrong fucking way like they almost always do.
How I would change copyright:
Book, music, movie, and image copyrights: 20 years, ten year extension
Software copyrights: Five years, must include the source code, five year extension on old parts of the work
Out of print works go directly into the public domain (none of this Disney bullshit of taking a movie off the market for seven years)
Any private, noncommercial use is statutorily considered non-infringing, including distribution
No copyright can be held by a corporation. All copyrights are held by the works author or authors
Anyone caught abusing copyright like the record companies do and like Blizzard is doing here loses all copyrights they hold, and may not hold copyright for another five years
No work is copyrighted unless application is filed along with two copies in the Library of Congress
Cowboy Neal is in the public domain
Blizzard made "Diablo" and "Diablo II"
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 0
Diablo - now we know where Blizzard got the name for that game.
Hell, I wouldn't mind if it was spelled "crhacker". But clearly we need a new word for what "hacker" was before the world's ignorants changed its meaning.
First, the restaraunt dodn't kill anyone, it failed an inspection. It stands to reason that the place is going to be squeaky clean before the health department lets it open again, and it will likely be the cleanest place in towm.
OTOH when Jack in the Box killed all those children it almost went bankrupt, and there are people who refuse to eat there to this day.
Hillary's moral fiber doesn't enter into it - she's not the one caught committing adultery. Rather you should look at Elliot Spizer.
Shit, you're right. That's a bigassed tank, he's driving one of those giant pickup trucks. Tell your starving unborn great grandchildren to thank the selfish bastard.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the US Post Office, I would want to have it be self sufficient, using collected fees to run itself.
Copyright as spelled out in the Constitution is supposed to benefit not authors and publishers, but everybody. Its purpose is supposed to be to persuade authors to write more so their writing (sculpture, painting, etc) will go to the public domain.
The public is the "owner" of the novel, not the nonel's copyright holder. So IMO the public should not get a free ride at the expense of the artist. And I would not have too many extensions for too long a term; half a lifetime is too long. I'm 56 years old, any work made before I entered grade school should be in the public domain as the Constitutional fremers envisioned.
I would grant no extension that would go past 30 years. Even a mortgage company doesn't get paid after 30 years, why should Disney?
...says the anonymous coward!
-mcgrew
(swears at slashdot for its stupid anti-literacy filter that won't let you post a four word reply to a comment that is in its message center without giving you a blank page and scolding you for hitting "submit" sixteen seconds after hitting "reply". Mods, this poaragraph is filler so I don't get that same fucktarded message again.)
"cyberglar" is difficult to pronounce (and also uncool)
It's not old enough to be cool. It was literally born yesterday.
If this guy wants paid registration, he should just say so and have that, where people cough up $10 a year or something for access to the site's contents.
It's not about the site contents, it's about posting comments. It's an old school dead tree newspaper, where the editor determines whose letters to the editor not only get printed but edited for grammar, spelling, clarity, brevity, political correctness, and the newspaper's corporate opinion.
They're used to censoring. They're not used to having random unwashed people speak out against corporate welfare, corporate censorship, Ron Paul, Libertarians, the evils of having a "two party system", corporate campaign bribery, etc.
The corporates have a hard time controlling information these days. They want the genie to get back in the bottle.
-mcgrew
recording companies actually sell you licenses to listen to the songs on a CD
If there's a license, then where's my copy of the license? When did I sign a license agreement to play my CD?
I signed no agreement and clicked through no EULA. There is no license! With software, the license is debatable; I've been shown where under some circumstances EULAs can be enforceable (although I still doubt it), but when you buy a music CD you own the CD and are free to do anything you wish with it except distribute copies of it.
Downloaded tracks are another matter entirely. When you "buy" from iTunes or any other online "store" you do indeed click an agreement. Rent DRM-infested, lossy music from iTunes instead of buying a CD? Just a bad decicion. Once you have the physical CD you can legally do as you damned well please with it (save distributing copies), including making MP3s for your iPod and copies of it for your car.
Don't swallow the corporate bullshit. You still have a few rights, at least don't fight against them.
The record companies themselves won't have to answer for this
Actually, they will. It isn't "RIAA vs Del Cid" it's "UMG v. Del Cid". UMG is the record company that filed suit, not the industry association.
I don't necessarily agree with the GP about individual ownership - it totally blows the concept of "work for hire" out of the water
I would love to do away with "works for hire" as well as the priveledge of selling a copyright (but not licensing it to a publisher).
What's the matter, son, the judge upheld all the counterclaims against you? If you litigate as badly as you troll, you're in deep doo-doo.
I'm only a layman, but it sure looks like more than chutzpah. Could the lawyers involved be disbarred? Could anybody actually see the inside of a cell over this?
Most of the cd's I own are merely format change versions of prior albums I owned
Sometimes folks remark how good my car stereo sounds, and invariably it's a CD that I made from an LP. I wrote a how-to a few years ago. The secret to a good sounding CD is finding a damned good turntable.
I don't know what Clinton's reasoning was but one has a tendancy to believe that they will, indeed, reform themself. I divorced Evil-X when the pain got too great. The divorce had nothing to do with my self respect or honor, and neither did my forgiveness of her dallyance. Both decisions were about pain, and only pain.
A man can punch me, kick me, hit me, shoot me, break my bones, cut me, stab me, but only a woman can truly hurt me.
Newspapers had no problem with it for the two hundred years that you did indeed have to file an application and two copies. I had no trouble making two copies of the programs I copyrighted back in 1983 when you still had to do that.
However, for web based content perhaps you're right, the LoC could keep a copy (and its backup).
The way it is now where everything is instantly copyrighted would force a burden on the LoC, but if you had to register then most stuff (like slashdot comments) would go into the public domain.
I don't like the cost factor. A pauper should be able to copyright a work. A hundred bucks is quite a lot for the average (or should I say "median") American, but it's chumpo change to a rich man or a corporation.
If he's a hacker (old school sense of the word) it doesn't matter whether or not he's a criminal. Criminality shouldn't enter into its use. If he writes a quick program to illegally gain access then he is indeed a hacker. If he uses Nmap without modification to crack a system he's a script kiddie (Yes, Trinity is a script kiddie, nowhere do we see her writing original code).
You are misusing the term "politically correct". "Hacker" meaning "cyberglar" (new word for the day) isn't politically incorrect, it's factually incorrect (or was before we allowed the definition to change). "Pro-life" is politically correct, but usually factually incorrect since most pro-lifers are, in fact, for the deat penalty as well as any war the government brainwashes them into believing is right. "Pro-choice" is also politically correct but factually incorrect, since few "pro-choicers" support the woman's right to inject heroin.
I am for the intelligent evolution of language. I am against completely changing a word to its opposite meaning in less than a single generation for no reason whatever save ignorance or malice.
New words are needed all the time, and there is no reason not to use an obsolete word for a new purpose (we drive our cars, the word "drive" comes from back when we drove a team of horses). But using a perfectly useful word because of stupidity (hacker) or malice (gay) is illogical and unreasonable. If gaity had left the world and laughter was outlawed, then using "gay" to mean "homosexual" would be logical. But to change the meaning of a word that maent "happy and carefree" to "a member of a group, half of whom attempt suicide" is extrordinarily stupid IMO. Shit, they could have coined a new word, or used a foreign word, or used an obsolete English word. But now when a kid hears "Deck the Halls" he has to think that "Don we now our gay apparel" means cross dressing!
It goes against the very purpose of language, which is communication.
My ex-wife (she and her family are mentioned in the link) was a serial adultress. Where do you get the assertion that I was responsible in any way for my wife's adultery?
Your post may come back to haunt you some day.
The McDonalds coffee thing is a very poor example. McDonalds fucked up, plain and simple. All the old dimwitted woman wanted was medical bills paid (so there would not have even been an issue in any civilized country like Canada or Britain). Had McDumbass paid the what, two hundred bicks? They would have saved their shareholders thousands.
There are really very few examples of egregious, scandalous lawsuits like that. Doctors squeal and whine about malpractice suits, but in reality unless the doctor really fcked up bad - left a sponge in the patient, sawed off the wrong leg, prescribed a lethal dose of drug, or whatever, juries are not inclined to go in favor of the patient.
The only problem with the changing copyright law thing is that the corporate controlled Congress will change it the wrong fucking way like they almost always do.
How I would change copyright:
Diablo - now we know where Blizzard got the name for that game.
And what it cost them to get it. Poor fools.
Hell, I wouldn't mind if it was spelled "crhacker". But clearly we need a new word for what "hacker" was before the world's ignorants changed its meaning.
And you still haven't pointed to statute that I, sitting on a jury, would say "yes, that fellow commited copyright infringement".
You are attempting to prove a point to me. I cannot prove a negative. The onus is on you.
First, the restaraunt dodn't kill anyone, it failed an inspection. It stands to reason that the place is going to be squeaky clean before the health department lets it open again, and it will likely be the cleanest place in towm.
OTOH when Jack in the Box killed all those children it almost went bankrupt, and there are people who refuse to eat there to this day.
Hillary's moral fiber doesn't enter into it - she's not the one caught committing adultery. Rather you should look at Elliot Spizer.
True.
Shit, you're right. That's a bigassed tank, he's driving one of those giant pickup trucks. Tell your starving unborn great grandchildren to thank the selfish bastard.
When you download, you are either copying a file (illegal, per copyright law)
Fair use, per copyright law. If copying for your own personal us is infringement, then please point to the statute that says so.