It mostly spread, by support of the Romantics, to replace the patron system. I tend to agree that the GP is right on that count. Even though there was some precedent, it was the Romantics and their ideology that made copyright a global phenomena.
That said, it has completely failed. Changing how ownership of ideas is transfered (or not) will not affect how the idea is ill-conceived and immoral. In the US, copyright was supposed to be for a limited term; now it is being extended faster than it expires. There is no reason a rational person would think any modifications to the system will prevent its further abuse. The only final answer is outright and complete abolition of both copyright and patents.
Communism removes ownership from property (ie, physical objects). Copyright tries to create property where it does not exist. Society got along fine for thousands of years without information being property; items were property since nearly the dawn of civilization.
Abolishing copyright and patents has nothing to do with communism, unless you're an imbecile.
Wait... so... you are free to choose, as long as you choose the "right" option? Wow, talk about a slippery slope. Better not bring that reasoning into more murky waters.
I am pretty much tired of hearing about shouting fire, and how that is a legitimate reason to support censorship. There are two major issues with this. First, yelling fire causes a rather urgent problem. If there really is a fire, there is no proper time to go and question the matter. This does not apply to slander and libel. Slander and libel laws are violations of free speech. Please do not use the analogy to support those (many, many people have... and been wrong).
Second problem: why is it never the fault of the people trampling others, or the organizers who set the situation up to be dangerous to begin with? Of course, it would be quite annoying if people constantly were yelling fire... yet, false fire alarms are actually pretty common. False security lock downs, too. Essentially, at what point is it the fault of the people listening to the guy yelling fire and trampling someone? I'd say, from the moment it happens. Consider if there actually was a fire - how does the situation change? Where does the fault go for someone being trampled if it was really a fire and it happened? If it can't rest with the person raising the alarm, where is it? Was it there all along?
Your idiotic rhetoric about some speech not being protected is why, lo and behold, less and less speech is being protected, despite nearly every developed country recognizing free speech as a human right. I think you can take your "fire in a theater" excuse and shove it you know where.
I believe the age to enter the military to active duty is 17. Essentially, you are allowed to sign up to be shot at before YOU believe you are able to make an informed decision on sense. That falls under my definition of insanity.
Also, I lean more socialist but tend to think of myself as Technocratic. That is, I think government policy should be based on rational arguments, statistics, necessity, and greater good; not on emotions, religions, or false morality. Guess which side you're on.
Both are pretty much witch hunts. One is literally a witch hunt. Perhaps your own cultural bias prevents you from seeing the same undercurrents in them. Those wacky Muslims and their blasphemy; but lock those people with kiddy porn up forever! Yeah, totally different things... right.
"But it's about shaking up the status quo, and trying to choosing the lesser evil, and sending a message."
Then do that in the primary. Do that by supporting third parties in the run up to congressional elections. Don't roll out of bed on election day and think that checking the third box on the ballot means anything thing about your ability to overturn the system. When it comes down to it, nothing short of a massive cultural shift is going to overcome the power of the two party system as a whole, and that isn't going to happen; there have been much more interesting periods in American history than this.
You can't win them by going completely unnoticed, either. People need to have the sense to use their vote in a useful way. Blowing it on whatever party suits your fancy on election day is simply irresponsible. Vote in the primaries if you care and feel you are not represented. The fact Ron Paul is still bouncing around, however misguided he might be, shows that it is possible to have an effect on the system that way. Otherwise, suck it up and take the lesser evil, since one of the two will win, and I damn sure want it to be the lesser of them if there is an option.
Only to be replaced by their friends? What purpose on this earth does effectively making term limits 1 term have relating to the prevention of corruption?
So you can vote in the other (potentially worse) corporate candidate? Or do you plan to vote for a third party with little chance of winning? If the first, at least do the due diligence of figuring out if the opposition is more fanatical in support of the things you dislike. This is a step I fear most people do not realize is necessary. If the second, well... have fun being a statistical outlier.
"I am really not concerned at all with anything I can envision them doing with that information. In a word, meh."
The fact they are going to pay what is likely to be, in Google terms (think ad click cost), a huge sum should send up some red flags. (If it isn't that much, then it isn't going to be worth installing the plug for most users.) They stand to profit a lot from this data, else they wouldn't pay for it. Keep in mind all the data they receive for free.
Alright, when I heard about the privacy policy changes, I thought "oh, well, not like they will really be doing anything new." Yet almost instantly afterwards, we see two attempts on Google's part to grab even more data. The first question that comes to mind is why they want it so badly. If they are ready to pay you for browsing history, this is not simply about getting ad clicks from you personally. I doubt they would ever recoup the money they spent from whatever slight improvement in ad targeting they would get. No, something deeper is at work, and as someone essentially locked into gmail, I am extremely uncomfortable even considering what they are up to. If this is Google's future, it is time to cut my losses and go anywhere else.
Because the grainy data given by a GPS should not be consider legal reason to charge higher or lower prices for customers. Because if you are a truly unsafe driver, your costs will be raised because you have made claims. Because this is an insane violation of consumer privacy. Do you need more reasons or did you just see this as a good opportunity to flog a witch?
...as a "discount" for those exhibiting the behavior they want. In fact, they simply raise prices for everyone at such a rate that the discount is in fact the lack of a penalty. Yet, somehow, dressing it up in this way avoids backlash and consumer protection lawsuits, while convincing people to give up their privacy in ways they would have never considered has it not been for the phantom carrot of a "discount".
Before someone says "free market!", keep in mind that nearly every insurance company does this to some extent, usually with no proof of their claims, and insurance is legally required to some extent in most of the country. The free market does not exist, never did, and never will.
And of course, it is worth adding, copyright and patents are not part of an honest way to make a profit. They are simply a power-grab by the wealthy to steal our collective culture.
The GPL is designed to prevent use of GPL'd sources in propriety, closed-source applications. Yes, sources can be closed if there is no copyright and no GPL. However, reverse engineering becomes completely legal, and in fact there would be an economic benefit to adopt a model like Red Hat and open your source and sell support. I am not one of the people who claims commercial software could exist unchanged without copyright: the industry as we know it will be turned upside-down. You will be unable to go on selling, say, Windows, if anyone can legally copy and/or reverse engineer it. Essentially, the motives which exist to abuse things placed under the BSD would be lessened to such a point they would cease to be of worry. This is why I don't believe the GPL is an argument to keep the flawed institution of copyright. It is a band-aid on a flawed system which has thus far allowed Linux to exist despite repeated attempts by large companies to attack it with patents and copyright. It is not the end-all goal, but a tool.
I take it you did not read my post, as it already addressed this (among other common claims), and you said nothing what-so-ever to undermine that argument except to restate the one I originally replied to. Hence you will be free to not appreciate it, but I have to come to the conclusion you're just trolling. Feel free to find a real objection that I have not already given a reply to.
Without copyright, the GPL is not necessary to many of its users. I'm tired of explaining this, so you can read my post here if you aren't just trolling and are actually confused.
Copyright and patents are conceptually identical. They both depend on the claim you can own information. You cannot. It is time we as a society stop trying to put a price tag on knowledge and culture and abolish both outright.
Hence the distinction, "if it was encrypted." As it is it is not a problem, but the situation illustrates that it is quite possible to have encrypted data and not know how to access it.
Slashdot Mirror
It mostly spread, by support of the Romantics, to replace the patron system. I tend to agree that the GP is right on that count. Even though there was some precedent, it was the Romantics and their ideology that made copyright a global phenomena.
That said, it has completely failed. Changing how ownership of ideas is transfered (or not) will not affect how the idea is ill-conceived and immoral. In the US, copyright was supposed to be for a limited term; now it is being extended faster than it expires. There is no reason a rational person would think any modifications to the system will prevent its further abuse. The only final answer is outright and complete abolition of both copyright and patents.
There is no disease cruel enough to make that a reasonable motive. Best let them remain IP lawyers. It is the worst fate I can think of.
Communism removes ownership from property (ie, physical objects). Copyright tries to create property where it does not exist. Society got along fine for thousands of years without information being property; items were property since nearly the dawn of civilization.
Abolishing copyright and patents has nothing to do with communism, unless you're an imbecile.
Wait... so... you are free to choose, as long as you choose the "right" option? Wow, talk about a slippery slope. Better not bring that reasoning into more murky waters.
I am pretty much tired of hearing about shouting fire, and how that is a legitimate reason to support censorship. There are two major issues with this. First, yelling fire causes a rather urgent problem. If there really is a fire, there is no proper time to go and question the matter. This does not apply to slander and libel. Slander and libel laws are violations of free speech. Please do not use the analogy to support those (many, many people have... and been wrong).
Second problem: why is it never the fault of the people trampling others, or the organizers who set the situation up to be dangerous to begin with? Of course, it would be quite annoying if people constantly were yelling fire... yet, false fire alarms are actually pretty common. False security lock downs, too. Essentially, at what point is it the fault of the people listening to the guy yelling fire and trampling someone? I'd say, from the moment it happens. Consider if there actually was a fire - how does the situation change? Where does the fault go for someone being trampled if it was really a fire and it happened? If it can't rest with the person raising the alarm, where is it? Was it there all along?
Your idiotic rhetoric about some speech not being protected is why, lo and behold, less and less speech is being protected, despite nearly every developed country recognizing free speech as a human right. I think you can take your "fire in a theater" excuse and shove it you know where.
That would be sex, not sense. I should not post before going to bed.
I believe the age to enter the military to active duty is 17. Essentially, you are allowed to sign up to be shot at before YOU believe you are able to make an informed decision on sense. That falls under my definition of insanity.
Also, I lean more socialist but tend to think of myself as Technocratic. That is, I think government policy should be based on rational arguments, statistics, necessity, and greater good; not on emotions, religions, or false morality. Guess which side you're on.
Then why do we let them join the military?
Both are pretty much witch hunts. One is literally a witch hunt. Perhaps your own cultural bias prevents you from seeing the same undercurrents in them. Those wacky Muslims and their blasphemy; but lock those people with kiddy porn up forever! Yeah, totally different things... right.
"Hi, I'm Jimbo. I'm going to leave my face on every page until GoDaddy goes out of business. You know what to do. Thank you for your support."
"But it's about shaking up the status quo, and trying to choosing the lesser evil, and sending a message."
Then do that in the primary. Do that by supporting third parties in the run up to congressional elections. Don't roll out of bed on election day and think that checking the third box on the ballot means anything thing about your ability to overturn the system. When it comes down to it, nothing short of a massive cultural shift is going to overcome the power of the two party system as a whole, and that isn't going to happen; there have been much more interesting periods in American history than this.
You can't win them by going completely unnoticed, either. People need to have the sense to use their vote in a useful way. Blowing it on whatever party suits your fancy on election day is simply irresponsible. Vote in the primaries if you care and feel you are not represented. The fact Ron Paul is still bouncing around, however misguided he might be, shows that it is possible to have an effect on the system that way. Otherwise, suck it up and take the lesser evil, since one of the two will win, and I damn sure want it to be the lesser of them if there is an option.
Only to be replaced by their friends? What purpose on this earth does effectively making term limits 1 term have relating to the prevention of corruption?
So you can vote in the other (potentially worse) corporate candidate? Or do you plan to vote for a third party with little chance of winning? If the first, at least do the due diligence of figuring out if the opposition is more fanatical in support of the things you dislike. This is a step I fear most people do not realize is necessary. If the second, well... have fun being a statistical outlier.
"I am really not concerned at all with anything I can envision them doing with that information. In a word, meh."
The fact they are going to pay what is likely to be, in Google terms (think ad click cost), a huge sum should send up some red flags. (If it isn't that much, then it isn't going to be worth installing the plug for most users.) They stand to profit a lot from this data, else they wouldn't pay for it. Keep in mind all the data they receive for free.
Alright, when I heard about the privacy policy changes, I thought "oh, well, not like they will really be doing anything new." Yet almost instantly afterwards, we see two attempts on Google's part to grab even more data. The first question that comes to mind is why they want it so badly. If they are ready to pay you for browsing history, this is not simply about getting ad clicks from you personally. I doubt they would ever recoup the money they spent from whatever slight improvement in ad targeting they would get. No, something deeper is at work, and as someone essentially locked into gmail, I am extremely uncomfortable even considering what they are up to. If this is Google's future, it is time to cut my losses and go anywhere else.
Give it a few years and every insurer will require some form of this. This company is not the first and will not be the last.
Their invoices are also written out in pencil on toilet paper and delivered by pony express.
Because the grainy data given by a GPS should not be consider legal reason to charge higher or lower prices for customers. Because if you are a truly unsafe driver, your costs will be raised because you have made claims. Because this is an insane violation of consumer privacy. Do you need more reasons or did you just see this as a good opportunity to flog a witch?
...as a "discount" for those exhibiting the behavior they want. In fact, they simply raise prices for everyone at such a rate that the discount is in fact the lack of a penalty. Yet, somehow, dressing it up in this way avoids backlash and consumer protection lawsuits, while convincing people to give up their privacy in ways they would have never considered has it not been for the phantom carrot of a "discount".
Before someone says "free market!", keep in mind that nearly every insurance company does this to some extent, usually with no proof of their claims, and insurance is legally required to some extent in most of the country. The free market does not exist, never did, and never will.
And of course, it is worth adding, copyright and patents are not part of an honest way to make a profit. They are simply a power-grab by the wealthy to steal our collective culture.
The GPL is designed to prevent use of GPL'd sources in propriety, closed-source applications. Yes, sources can be closed if there is no copyright and no GPL. However, reverse engineering becomes completely legal, and in fact there would be an economic benefit to adopt a model like Red Hat and open your source and sell support. I am not one of the people who claims commercial software could exist unchanged without copyright: the industry as we know it will be turned upside-down. You will be unable to go on selling, say, Windows, if anyone can legally copy and/or reverse engineer it. Essentially, the motives which exist to abuse things placed under the BSD would be lessened to such a point they would cease to be of worry. This is why I don't believe the GPL is an argument to keep the flawed institution of copyright. It is a band-aid on a flawed system which has thus far allowed Linux to exist despite repeated attempts by large companies to attack it with patents and copyright. It is not the end-all goal, but a tool.
I take it you did not read my post, as it already addressed this (among other common claims), and you said nothing what-so-ever to undermine that argument except to restate the one I originally replied to. Hence you will be free to not appreciate it, but I have to come to the conclusion you're just trolling. Feel free to find a real objection that I have not already given a reply to.
Without copyright, the GPL is not necessary to many of its users. I'm tired of explaining this, so you can read my post here if you aren't just trolling and are actually confused.
Copyright and patents are conceptually identical. They both depend on the claim you can own information. You cannot. It is time we as a society stop trying to put a price tag on knowledge and culture and abolish both outright.
Hence the distinction, "if it was encrypted." As it is it is not a problem, but the situation illustrates that it is quite possible to have encrypted data and not know how to access it.