UThis book changed the way I view the world (Don Norman is Nielsen's buddy). Ever since I read it, I learned a new appreciation for human interface.
Instead of saying "this book" (especially when there is no book laying around) could you instead, maybe give the actual name of the book? I realize typing "The deisng of everyday things" is a lot longer than 'this book" but it is MUCH more informative (and well a better design) for the reader.
There are a couple of ways to overturn a bad law. ONE of them is to violate the law, and then fight it in the court system. While this can be more expensive and time consuming, it is a way that ONE individual can overturn a bad law. While voting against it takes quite a few more individuals.
The resulting outcry over that one gave us the TSA. Do you really want that agency (or one like it) having control over *anything* outside of an airport?
You do know that TSA has (or will have) control outside the airport?
and some ability to purchase a product that exhibits this behavior (they don't necessarily have to be the same).
No, no, no, no, no.
You should NOT need a working product to get a patent, and most definitely should not need one that you can sale. This would pretty much eliminate any "little guy" from ever getting a patent.
While I think software patents are nonsense, I'm not sure how your "runs on someone else's product" should eliminate it. Basically you are saying, you shouldn't try to improve someone else's invention.
It's not a shock to anyone that projects don't make deadlines. But it raises a lot of questions about the nature of kickstarter funding.
No it isn't a shock. Really the only problem is that the companies schedule is more public. Deadlines are missed a lot, especially when you have to do more than planned.
But NO it doesn't raise any questions. Those questions were already there. You should have been asking those questions before you donated.
One of the things I think it goes back to is the word "Inexperienced". Projects always seem easier in the planning phases than execution.
To be fair, TFS did say:
It took off, raising vastly more money than they anticipated — and obliterating the original production plans and timeline.
Even experienced planning can get blown away if your actual numbers are "vastly more" than your planned numbers.
Also does it take into account the number of times that real world stuff ships, and you never know about it?
Citation Needed.
Just based on some of the comments on slashdot, plenty of people have lost money from piracy. Of course there are some people who gained money from piracy. But YOU don't get to choose someone else business model.
If someone wants to give the first one away for free, and charge you for the second. That is his right. It isn't yours to choose that method. You can suggest it, and you can take your business elsewhere.
It should. A right (to restrict distribution) without a corresponding duty (to do said distribution yourself) is unbalanced. And worldwide distribution at that. 'N' years without publishing and presto, right lost, similar to what happens with trademarks. (See also my answer to the OP for more on this notion.)
Trademarks and copyrights are completely different matters. If you don't use a trademark, then well nothing really happens. If you don't distribute a work, then the works that are in the wild could potentially have more value.
You are claiming that no one can have a limited run of something. If a book is out of print, then anyone can copy it? That is absurd.
Does the copyright owner have the right to *not* sell the work?
NOT sell the work, is not the same as not distribute the work.
Of course you have both rights. You own the copyright, well you own the distribution right. You can give it away for free (or release it into public domain) OR you can choose not to release the work. If you want to do a play, and do it once. Should you be forced to do it everynight forever? Should you be forced to film it and give it away?
If you paint a painting, should you be forced to paint copies for anyone who wants one?
And how should one compensate HBO for Game of Thrones without compensating
Disney for ESPN, an unwanted service?
Since generally ESPN is included with the first paid tier, which you usually have to get before getting HBO, you can't. Of course Disney isn't the only one being compensated. The other option is to talk to your Cable operator, or HBO directly.
What you don't do, is take it for free. "Well I didn't feel like paying for the full package, as there was stuff I didn't want... So I just took it for free instead.'
I only wanted to watch one of the 4 bands playing. I didn't want the other bands to get my money. So I snuck in.
No, you don't get to choose how they run their business. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere. That doesn't mean taking the product without permission, it means spending your money on a different product.
The "pirate" who copies something without permission. GAINS. They may think the product is crummy, and not worth paying for (or at least not the price that is being charged) But it is apparently worth their time to copy it. It has some value to the "pirate." The "pirates" net worth has gone up. Even if that only means 2 hours of enjoyment of a "crummy" product. And the creators of the product were not compensated. If the product was so crummy, why did they waste their time taking it?
But obviously the "crummy" argument isn't true for a lot of items that are copied. I've heard time and again 'I would have paid, but not the price they are asking." One common item complained about here, is the cost of Game of Thrones. Just the other day someone quoted $1000 a season. More than they were willing to spend, so instead they took it for free.
It may not be stealing, but the person admitted they would have paid some money, but instead paid nothing. AND they got to enjoy the product.
It may not be "stealing' but it is still morally wrong. Everyone knows it, hence the reason they rationalize what they are doing. They make it look like they are the victims, instead of the creators.
What sample bias that every single person I know personally has copied something from the internet or the radio, or recorded off of TV, or shared something they purchased with someone else who has then made copies of it themselves?
More specifically the institutions pushing for more insane copywright laws have done MORE to damage peoples personal and public image of authors and creators.
Here is the problem with your statement. A lot of people claim copyright lengths are too long. They cite lengths between 14 and 25ish years or so. IF we assume a length of 14 years, that would mean pretty much everything created outside this century is fair game. You said you claim that every single person has copied something from the internet or radio (assuming the copy is outside fair use) HOW many times was that copy of something OLDER than 14 years?
I'm sure a lot of Beatles songs, or other similar songs were copied, but I'd hazard that a large portion of the items that were illegally copied, were products created this century. The fact that copyrights have lengthened doesn't mean anything then. Yes copyrights are too long, but it doesn't change the fact that people are copying mostly newer stuff.
The works of tolkien were removed from the public domain in 1994 and given to a holding company in trust of tolkiens estate. They are no longer benefiting from his work, we are being punished.
The "works" of Tolkien? Do you mean specifically The Hobbit? LOTR wasn't published until the 50s. But The Hobbit wasn't removed from public domain, as it never entered public domain.
Are copyright terms too long? Absolutely. I personally believe current lengths are unconstitutional, as a work from our lifetime will never enter into public domain. Which means for a given individual the terms are unlimited.
Of course I don't see how that means the tolkein estate isn't benefiting from his work (I assume that is the "they" you refer to)
It seems harsh to smash someone’s dreams, but people need to have a sense of realism in their career choices.
Seems like some HORRIBLE advice. Not everyone can make a gazillion dollars. But telling people not to follow their dreams, so they can make money in some dead end mind numbing job?
You are right, in that you shouldn't get a degree in "tower sitting" because some test told you to. But you shouldn't also do it because it pays money. Do it because you enjoy it.
Your friend would probably not get a job at National Geographic. And he definitely won't now. But he might have gotten a job in a similar field, working for a different magazine. Or doing something else he enjoyed.
Yes you need a sense of realism, but that doesn't mean just throwing your dream away.
You go to universities to learn, and debate, and meet other similar minded people. Not to get a job.
because she was stupid and though the "better schools" means you get more job opportunities.
The "better schools" DO give you more job opportunities. Some companies ONLY recruit, or recruit more heavily at the "better schools." In some cases mentioning the "better schools" will get you an interview. It gets your foot in the door. It doesn't mean you'll get hired though.
They are not morons and get loans and spend it on rent, food, and beer.
I'm not sure if you are saying the morons get loans and spend it on rent and food. Or if the smart ones do, but what do you think student loans are for? Just to pay your tuition? Student loans are there to help pay your room and board, as well as tuition and books, while you go to school. You can learn more if you have more time to study. Yes, having a full or part time job means you owe less at the end, but it also makes it harder to learn.
Recent comments demonstrate some senators just don't get it. I don't understand why he thinks "Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better" I've never heard of a single study that indicates games cause violence. In fact I've seen studies that claim the exact opposite. That is violent video games give people a release valve.
I agree with this. IF you want to learn another human language, then pick one that you find interesting. Pick one because you like the cultural and might want to visit. Pick one because you think that maybe you would like to move to a different region.
But don't pick something based on computers. Chances are you'll never use it. Pick something you might be interested in, as you'll be more likely to learn it and use it. If you pick a language to try to further your computer career, you'll probably not learn it as well, and forget it in a few years.
Why do you need a special app to take pictures? I dont understand the need to make it complicated. Take picture, use normal tools that dont demand your first born, publish.
Uhm... instagram is just a "tool." And is easier to use than your "normal tools" probably are, at least for what it does.
Really it is just about convenience.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the Verge completely misses the point. Lets take a look:
you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post...
You give them the right to transfer and sub-license your content (that is publicly available) How does that NOT give them the right to sale it?
Yes there is another clause that talks about using your content as advertising. "you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you
The verge says this doesn't give Budweiser rights to modify your photo (but the aforementioned sure seems to indicate it does) and that it only allows Instagram to display it. But it doesn't limit WHERE it can be displayed.
Finally The Verge says:
Instagram has always had an expansive license to use and copy your photos. It has to — that's how it runs its networks of servers around the world
NO it doesn't have to, it just thinks it does. Yes they are trying to cover their butts (give us ALL the rights) makes it easier. But seriously, you don't need every right under the sun, to redisplay the photo that I told you to redisplay.
The reason they do this is so that they can show your pictures to other users of Instagram without getting sued.
That is what they want you to think.
Lets compare this to Microsoft's windows live TOS:
When you upload your content to the services, you agree that it may be used, modified, adapted, saved, reproduced, distributed, and displayed to the extent necessary to protect you and to provide, protect and improve Microsoft products and services.
I'm not saying Microsoft's is perfect, but notice how it doesn't say anything about "royalty-free", "transferable", "sub-licensable", "non-exclusive."
I'm not a lawyer, but I would expect (at least in the US) that you don't have to give your explicit request to the provider, for them to share your pictures. You give them implicit consent to share your pictures when you upload them and click the "share" button.
I've never consider renting a car, nor a hotel room to be a major purchase. Never had a problem paying for a hotel room with cash, although some hotels want you to post a security deposit up front.
Car Rental is another issue. But again part of it has to do with a security deposit.
Slashdot Mirror
UThis book changed the way I view the world (Don Norman is Nielsen's buddy). Ever since I read it, I learned a new appreciation for human interface.
Instead of saying "this book" (especially when there is no book laying around) could you instead, maybe give the actual name of the book? I realize typing "The deisng of everyday things" is a lot longer than 'this book" but it is MUCH more informative (and well a better design) for the reader.
This is pretty much the definition of "Cruel and Unusual"
It should be shot down, but of course.... think of the children.
There are a couple of ways to overturn a bad law. ONE of them is to violate the law, and then fight it in the court system. While this can be more expensive and time consuming, it is a way that ONE individual can overturn a bad law. While voting against it takes quite a few more individuals.
What does the Supreme Court of the United States definition of pornography, have to do with the UK?
Nope, just freedom
The resulting outcry over that one gave us the TSA. Do you really want that agency (or one like it) having control over *anything* outside of an airport?
You do know that TSA has (or will have) control outside the airport?
and some ability to purchase a product that exhibits this behavior (they don't necessarily have to be the same).
No, no, no, no, no.
You should NOT need a working product to get a patent, and most definitely should not need one that you can sale. This would pretty much eliminate any "little guy" from ever getting a patent.
While I think software patents are nonsense, I'm not sure how your "runs on someone else's product" should eliminate it. Basically you are saying, you shouldn't try to improve someone else's invention.
It's not a shock to anyone that projects don't make deadlines. But it raises a lot of questions about the nature of kickstarter funding.
No it isn't a shock. Really the only problem is that the companies schedule is more public. Deadlines are missed a lot, especially when you have to do more than planned.
But NO it doesn't raise any questions. Those questions were already there. You should have been asking those questions before you donated.
One of the things I think it goes back to is the word "Inexperienced". Projects always seem easier in the planning phases than execution.
To be fair, TFS did say:
It took off, raising vastly more money than they anticipated — and obliterating the original production plans and timeline.
Even experienced planning can get blown away if your actual numbers are "vastly more" than your planned numbers.
Also does it take into account the number of times that real world stuff ships, and you never know about it?
Nobody ever lost money from piracy,
Citation Needed.
Just based on some of the comments on slashdot, plenty of people have lost money from piracy. Of course there are some people who gained money from piracy. But YOU don't get to choose someone else business model.
If someone wants to give the first one away for free, and charge you for the second. That is his right. It isn't yours to choose that method. You can suggest it, and you can take your business elsewhere.
It should. A right (to restrict distribution) without a corresponding duty (to do said distribution yourself) is unbalanced. And worldwide distribution at that. 'N' years without publishing and presto, right lost, similar to what happens with trademarks. (See also my answer to the OP for more on this notion.)
Trademarks and copyrights are completely different matters. If you don't use a trademark, then well nothing really happens. If you don't distribute a work, then the works that are in the wild could potentially have more value.
You are claiming that no one can have a limited run of something. If a book is out of print, then anyone can copy it? That is absurd.
Does the copyright owner have the right to *not* sell the work?
NOT sell the work, is not the same as not distribute the work.
Of course you have both rights. You own the copyright, well you own the distribution right. You can give it away for free (or release it into public domain) OR you can choose not to release the work. If you want to do a play, and do it once. Should you be forced to do it everynight forever? Should you be forced to film it and give it away?
If you paint a painting, should you be forced to paint copies for anyone who wants one?
And how should one compensate HBO for Game of Thrones without compensating Disney for ESPN, an unwanted service?
Since generally ESPN is included with the first paid tier, which you usually have to get before getting HBO, you can't. Of course Disney isn't the only one being compensated. The other option is to talk to your Cable operator, or HBO directly.
What you don't do, is take it for free. "Well I didn't feel like paying for the full package, as there was stuff I didn't want... So I just took it for free instead.'
I only wanted to watch one of the 4 bands playing. I didn't want the other bands to get my money. So I snuck in.
No, you don't get to choose how they run their business. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere. That doesn't mean taking the product without permission, it means spending your money on a different product.
How does copyright infringe on your free speech, and your property rights?
The "pirate" who copies something without permission. GAINS. They may think the product is crummy, and not worth paying for (or at least not the price that is being charged) But it is apparently worth their time to copy it. It has some value to the "pirate." The "pirates" net worth has gone up. Even if that only means 2 hours of enjoyment of a "crummy" product. And the creators of the product were not compensated. If the product was so crummy, why did they waste their time taking it?
But obviously the "crummy" argument isn't true for a lot of items that are copied. I've heard time and again 'I would have paid, but not the price they are asking." One common item complained about here, is the cost of Game of Thrones. Just the other day someone quoted $1000 a season. More than they were willing to spend, so instead they took it for free.
It may not be stealing, but the person admitted they would have paid some money, but instead paid nothing. AND they got to enjoy the product.
It may not be "stealing' but it is still morally wrong. Everyone knows it, hence the reason they rationalize what they are doing. They make it look like they are the victims, instead of the creators.
What sample bias that every single person I know personally has copied something from the internet or the radio, or recorded off of TV, or shared something they purchased with someone else who has then made copies of it themselves?
More specifically the institutions pushing for more insane copywright laws have done MORE to damage peoples personal and public image of authors and creators.
Here is the problem with your statement. A lot of people claim copyright lengths are too long. They cite lengths between 14 and 25ish years or so. IF we assume a length of 14 years, that would mean pretty much everything created outside this century is fair game. You said you claim that every single person has copied something from the internet or radio (assuming the copy is outside fair use) HOW many times was that copy of something OLDER than 14 years?
I'm sure a lot of Beatles songs, or other similar songs were copied, but I'd hazard that a large portion of the items that were illegally copied, were products created this century. The fact that copyrights have lengthened doesn't mean anything then. Yes copyrights are too long, but it doesn't change the fact that people are copying mostly newer stuff.
The works of tolkien were removed from the public domain in 1994 and given to a holding company in trust of tolkiens estate. They are no longer benefiting from his work, we are being punished.
The "works" of Tolkien? Do you mean specifically The Hobbit? LOTR wasn't published until the 50s. But The Hobbit wasn't removed from public domain, as it never entered public domain.
Are copyright terms too long? Absolutely. I personally believe current lengths are unconstitutional, as a work from our lifetime will never enter into public domain. Which means for a given individual the terms are unlimited.
Of course I don't see how that means the tolkein estate isn't benefiting from his work (I assume that is the "they" you refer to)
It seems harsh to smash someone’s dreams, but people need to have a sense of realism in their career choices.
Seems like some HORRIBLE advice. Not everyone can make a gazillion dollars. But telling people not to follow their dreams, so they can make money in some dead end mind numbing job?
You are right, in that you shouldn't get a degree in "tower sitting" because some test told you to. But you shouldn't also do it because it pays money. Do it because you enjoy it.
Your friend would probably not get a job at National Geographic. And he definitely won't now. But he might have gotten a job in a similar field, working for a different magazine. Or doing something else he enjoyed.
Yes you need a sense of realism, but that doesn't mean just throwing your dream away.
You go to universities to learn, and debate, and meet other similar minded people. Not to get a job.
because she was stupid and though the "better schools" means you get more job opportunities.
The "better schools" DO give you more job opportunities. Some companies ONLY recruit, or recruit more heavily at the "better schools." In some cases mentioning the "better schools" will get you an interview. It gets your foot in the door. It doesn't mean you'll get hired though.
They are not morons and get loans and spend it on rent, food, and beer.
I'm not sure if you are saying the morons get loans and spend it on rent and food. Or if the smart ones do, but what do you think student loans are for? Just to pay your tuition? Student loans are there to help pay your room and board, as well as tuition and books, while you go to school. You can learn more if you have more time to study. Yes, having a full or part time job means you owe less at the end, but it also makes it harder to learn.
Recent comments demonstrate some senators just don't get it. I don't understand why he thinks "Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better" I've never heard of a single study that indicates games cause violence. In fact I've seen studies that claim the exact opposite. That is violent video games give people a release valve.
I agree with this. IF you want to learn another human language, then pick one that you find interesting. Pick one because you like the cultural and might want to visit. Pick one because you think that maybe you would like to move to a different region.
But don't pick something based on computers. Chances are you'll never use it. Pick something you might be interested in, as you'll be more likely to learn it and use it. If you pick a language to try to further your computer career, you'll probably not learn it as well, and forget it in a few years.
Why do you need a special app to take pictures? I dont understand the need to make it complicated. Take picture, use normal tools that dont demand your first born, publish.
Uhm... instagram is just a "tool." And is easier to use than your "normal tools" probably are, at least for what it does.
Really it is just about convenience.
you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post...
You give them the right to transfer and sub-license your content (that is publicly available) How does that NOT give them the right to sale it?
Yes there is another clause that talks about using your content as advertising. "you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you
The verge says this doesn't give Budweiser rights to modify your photo (but the aforementioned sure seems to indicate it does) and that it only allows Instagram to display it. But it doesn't limit WHERE it can be displayed.
Finally The Verge says:
Instagram has always had an expansive license to use and copy your photos. It has to — that's how it runs its networks of servers around the world
NO it doesn't have to, it just thinks it does. Yes they are trying to cover their butts (give us ALL the rights) makes it easier. But seriously, you don't need every right under the sun, to redisplay the photo that I told you to redisplay.
The reason they do this is so that they can show your pictures to other users of Instagram without getting sued.
That is what they want you to think.
Lets compare this to Microsoft's windows live TOS:
When you upload your content to the services, you agree that it may be used, modified, adapted, saved, reproduced, distributed, and displayed to the extent necessary to protect you and to provide, protect and improve Microsoft products and services.
I'm not saying Microsoft's is perfect, but notice how it doesn't say anything about "royalty-free", "transferable", "sub-licensable", "non-exclusive."
I'm not a lawyer, but I would expect (at least in the US) that you don't have to give your explicit request to the provider, for them to share your pictures. You give them implicit consent to share your pictures when you upload them and click the "share" button.
I've never consider renting a car, nor a hotel room to be a major purchase. Never had a problem paying for a hotel room with cash, although some hotels want you to post a security deposit up front.
Car Rental is another issue. But again part of it has to do with a security deposit.