No, it only serves people who want to travel from one part of the U.S. of A. to another part of the U.S. of A.
There are people who live outside of the U.S. of A. who sometimes like to travel from one part to another.
And shockingly there are people living inside the U.S. of A. who sometimes like to travel outside of it.
There is no moral or philosophically defensible position that says someone needs to own a song or a movie for 70 years. The only explanation is greed overstepping all sense of proportion and reason. Disgusting. It just moves me with great anger to make sure I will do my best to hurt the bottom line of those who think dollar signs are more important than the common property of mankind.
There is no moral or philosophically defensible position that says a song or a movie has to be given away after 70 years. The only explanation is greed overstepping all sense of proportion and reason. Disgusting.
Common property of mankind? HOW did it become common property?
In this discussion of copyright it's actually appropriate to call it theft.
This music is being (preemptively) removed from the public domain; it's being stolen from the people.
My grandmother is a THIEF. She needs to be arrested.
She promised me her oak chest when she died. She should have died years ago, but she is still alive. Every second she is alive she is STEALING my oak chest from me. She is a thief!
You claim there is value in the music, and yet at the same time, you claim the owner of the music shouldn't get anything for it?
But here is the thing. OBVIOUSLY people still want the item that the artist created.
Meanwhile, by extending the copyright, they are denying our society our cultural heritage. I can't share with kids of today what music was like back in my youth because it's irrevocably locked up by copyrights until well after I'll be dead.
The music companies have made it impossible for your record player to work? Or your computer to play old songs? The local oldies-but-goodies radio station doesn't play over the air? You can still BUY many old songs, and others you can find at used record shops.
But the fact remains YOU want to listen, or let someone else listen to the music. But YOU, for some reason feel you are now entitled to the music for free. "oh but the guy created it years ago, why should he get more money?" Well why should you be able to get it for free?
Anything that you care about is worth complaining about. If you something is bad and you don't complain about it, it will never improve. Games are a 10 billion dollar industry, of course they are worth complaining about. At least to the people that care about them.
My metric is mouse clicks.
In Office the Ribbon puts MANY items that used to be one click away, two clicks away. And then they claim it is faster. I'm not sure how clicking two things is faster than clicking one.
Especially when you are using items that are in the same tab of the ribbon, or same menu of the old style..
And there in lies the biggest problem with the sticky menus (I mean Ribbon)
In the old days. the item I wanted was a click away. Because it was on a toolbar. Now it is under a different menu (I mean tab) which requires more clicking on my part.
The Ribbon is bad.
TV shows are broadcast to the public, so they shouldn't be copyrighted?
If an author does a public reading, the book shouldn't be copyrighted?
How does the speech being given in PUBLIC make it not copyrightable?
For the average user who has more RAM and CPU cycles than what they know what do with; does it matter that a page will load in 1sec or 2sec? Seriously, 99% of the consumers won't care.
I'm not sure what RAM and CPU have to do with it.MOST people would rather have their pages load in 1 second over two seconds.
Typically, a speech broadcast to a large audience on radio and television (and considered instrumental in historic political changes and ranked as the most important speech in 20th century American history) would seem to be a prime candidate for the public domain.
Why should a speech be a part of public domain? If it is broadcast to a large audience? So if I want to retain copyright I should make sure I only broadcast to small audiences?
Is it the radio or television that is important here?
Or is the they "considered instrumental" part?
It sounds to me like any (and all of these) are very good reasons to maintain and protect the copyright on said work.
Copyright is set up for the creator (or the person who hired the creator) can benefit from their creation for a number of years (and sure, sometimes this means the creator's offspring profit, good for them)
Just because a creation becomes popular, or well known, or historically instrumental, doesn't mean the author should no longer profit.
I find it interesting that some people consider celebrities children to be greedy free-riding bastards, and yet that same person wants the said item for... free.
Actually if you are insured and you get in an accident, it is a very good chance the other driver is also insured.
The 21% of vehicles number is irrelevant (despite what the other posts are saying)
You claim that more than half of all car accidents involve at least 1 uninsured driver. I'm not sure how much more, for the sake of argument assume it is 50%. That means 50% of the time both cars are insured. A portion of the remaining time both cars are uninsured, the remaining one car is uninsured.
Given this, the number in the insured/insured category is larger than the insured/uninsured (otherwise there is not uninsured/uninsured)
Since the insured/insured category is larger, it means if you are insured and in a wreck, chances are the other car is insured.
boiled over at less then 190 degrees? Was she in the rarefied air of the Andes?
Yes the coffee was hotter than other places, but a lot of people liked the coffee hotter.
Yes she was injured more than she would have been if the coffee was cooler. But the coffee didn't melt the cup, and it didn't boil over.
I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work. Without necessarily knowing the specific laws, it seems it should be similar here. The alleged goal of copyright is to incentivize the creation and/or distribution of works. The fact that this typically involves rewarding the 'artist' is tangential.
According to wiki "The Berne Convention focuses on authors as the key figure in copyright law..." so I don't think that rewarding the 'artist' is tagential.
While possessing the sole copy of a piece of work gives you some way of controlling the copying of such work, it doesn't automatically grant you the copyright. Only the owner of the copyright can grant you the copyright.
As I understand it, they hired him to write the site. He claimed he was, and then released it as his own.
Imagine if you had an awesome idea for a car. You hire a craftsmen to help you build it. The guy likes your idea and says it is good and will build it for you for a small fee. He goes off and starts working on it. You communicate regularly, he tells you it is coming along. 6 months (or a year, whatever) later he says he is almost done with your product. Then he releases your product to the public as his. It is the same product you hired him to do. Did he beat you to building it, well yes in the sense that he built it, but no, not in the sense that he was supposed to be part of your team. Can you still create your idea? Sure you can find another craftsmen to built it. But you are now 6+ months late to the party, AND its not like you can build a better product because the current product IS your idea. In the sense that you gave the craftsmen the idea, and the craftsmen agreed to build it for you, and took money to build it for you, and then released it himself, then yes he stole the idea (and the product)
So is it skill, or is it chance?
I'd say it's a little of both, with chance being predominant in the game's actual elements, and skill being predominant in its (human) players.
This presents a bit of a problem as the laws currently are sort of black-and-white. It's either a game of chance or a game of skill with nothing in between.
And yet there is a lot of luck in professional sports. I was just watching a sports and science segment on ESPN. They were looking at how someone leapt up and caught a ball just as it cleared the fence. They then went on to describe how any number of variables could have turned that hit into a home run including temperature and barometer.
There is always luck involved, the star player getting sick, getting injured. If it was pure skill no shot would miss and baseball players would bat 1000.
I'm curious about this supposed computer that pros can't beat.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it only serves people who want to travel from one part of the U.S. of A. to another part of the U.S. of A. There are people who live outside of the U.S. of A. who sometimes like to travel from one part to another. And shockingly there are people living inside the U.S. of A. who sometimes like to travel outside of it.
If you live in the European Union your culture has just been stolen.
How is it stolen? The music still exists. You can still find it and listen to it. Nothing stolen, except greedy people not wanting to pay.
There is no moral or philosophically defensible position that says someone needs to own a song or a movie for 70 years. The only explanation is greed overstepping all sense of proportion and reason. Disgusting. It just moves me with great anger to make sure I will do my best to hurt the bottom line of those who think dollar signs are more important than the common property of mankind.
There is no moral or philosophically defensible position that says a song or a movie has to be given away after 70 years. The only explanation is greed overstepping all sense of proportion and reason. Disgusting. Common property of mankind? HOW did it become common property?
In this discussion of copyright it's actually appropriate to call it theft. This music is being (preemptively) removed from the public domain; it's being stolen from the people.
My grandmother is a THIEF. She needs to be arrested. She promised me her oak chest when she died. She should have died years ago, but she is still alive. Every second she is alive she is STEALING my oak chest from me. She is a thief! You claim there is value in the music, and yet at the same time, you claim the owner of the music shouldn't get anything for it?
Of course that is the intention. Long duration copyrights are not good for society.
Why? and what is "long duration"
Just get a job like the rest of us
I cannot emphasize how insightful this is.
But here is the thing. OBVIOUSLY people still want the item that the artist created.
Meanwhile, by extending the copyright, they are denying our society our cultural heritage. I can't share with kids of today what music was like back in my youth because it's irrevocably locked up by copyrights until well after I'll be dead.
The music companies have made it impossible for your record player to work? Or your computer to play old songs? The local oldies-but-goodies radio station doesn't play over the air? You can still BUY many old songs, and others you can find at used record shops.
But the fact remains YOU want to listen, or let someone else listen to the music. But YOU, for some reason feel you are now entitled to the music for free. "oh but the guy created it years ago, why should he get more money?" Well why should you be able to get it for free?
Anything that you care about is worth complaining about. If you something is bad and you don't complain about it, it will never improve. Games are a 10 billion dollar industry, of course they are worth complaining about. At least to the people that care about them.
But "real world testing" can be done BEFORE going out to the bar
Yes, because there are no bars in the real world.
those last miles of ancient copper that they're always promising to replace with something better, but always find a reason not to.
The reason is called MONEY.
Its not spam. Vaporware maybe, but not spam.
Really? What are your metrics?
My metric is mouse clicks. In Office the Ribbon puts MANY items that used to be one click away, two clicks away. And then they claim it is faster. I'm not sure how clicking two things is faster than clicking one.
Especially when you are using items that are in the same tab of the ribbon, or same menu of the old style..
And there in lies the biggest problem with the sticky menus (I mean Ribbon) In the old days. the item I wanted was a click away. Because it was on a toolbar. Now it is under a different menu (I mean tab) which requires more clicking on my part. The Ribbon is bad.
It isn't a menu replacement. It IS a menu, a sticky menu. And yes it is a horrible toolbar replacement.
TV shows are broadcast to the public, so they shouldn't be copyrighted? If an author does a public reading, the book shouldn't be copyrighted? How does the speech being given in PUBLIC make it not copyrightable?
For the average user who has more RAM and CPU cycles than what they know what do with; does it matter that a page will load in 1sec or 2sec? Seriously, 99% of the consumers won't care.
I'm not sure what RAM and CPU have to do with it.MOST people would rather have their pages load in 1 second over two seconds.
What? Most artists create something to convey a message to everyone.
Typically, a speech broadcast to a large audience on radio and television (and considered instrumental in historic political changes and ranked as the most important speech in 20th century American history) would seem to be a prime candidate for the public domain.
Why should a speech be a part of public domain? If it is broadcast to a large audience? So if I want to retain copyright I should make sure I only broadcast to small audiences? Is it the radio or television that is important here? Or is the they "considered instrumental" part? It sounds to me like any (and all of these) are very good reasons to maintain and protect the copyright on said work. Copyright is set up for the creator (or the person who hired the creator) can benefit from their creation for a number of years (and sure, sometimes this means the creator's offspring profit, good for them) Just because a creation becomes popular, or well known, or historically instrumental, doesn't mean the author should no longer profit. I find it interesting that some people consider celebrities children to be greedy free-riding bastards, and yet that same person wants the said item for... free.
Actually if you are insured and you get in an accident, it is a very good chance the other driver is also insured. The 21% of vehicles number is irrelevant (despite what the other posts are saying) You claim that more than half of all car accidents involve at least 1 uninsured driver. I'm not sure how much more, for the sake of argument assume it is 50%. That means 50% of the time both cars are insured. A portion of the remaining time both cars are uninsured, the remaining one car is uninsured. Given this, the number in the insured/insured category is larger than the insured/uninsured (otherwise there is not uninsured/uninsured) Since the insured/insured category is larger, it means if you are insured and in a wreck, chances are the other car is insured.
boiled over at less then 190 degrees? Was she in the rarefied air of the Andes? Yes the coffee was hotter than other places, but a lot of people liked the coffee hotter. Yes she was injured more than she would have been if the coffee was cooler. But the coffee didn't melt the cup, and it didn't boil over.
If we got rid of the security checkpoints the queue times would be 0... problem solved.
I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work. Without necessarily knowing the specific laws, it seems it should be similar here. The alleged goal of copyright is to incentivize the creation and/or distribution of works. The fact that this typically involves rewarding the 'artist' is tangential.
According to wiki "The Berne Convention focuses on authors as the key figure in copyright law..." so I don't think that rewarding the 'artist' is tagential.
While possessing the sole copy of a piece of work gives you some way of controlling the copying of such work, it doesn't automatically grant you the copyright. Only the owner of the copyright can grant you the copyright.
As I understand it, they hired him to write the site. He claimed he was, and then released it as his own. Imagine if you had an awesome idea for a car. You hire a craftsmen to help you build it. The guy likes your idea and says it is good and will build it for you for a small fee. He goes off and starts working on it. You communicate regularly, he tells you it is coming along. 6 months (or a year, whatever) later he says he is almost done with your product. Then he releases your product to the public as his. It is the same product you hired him to do. Did he beat you to building it, well yes in the sense that he built it, but no, not in the sense that he was supposed to be part of your team. Can you still create your idea? Sure you can find another craftsmen to built it. But you are now 6+ months late to the party, AND its not like you can build a better product because the current product IS your idea. In the sense that you gave the craftsmen the idea, and the craftsmen agreed to build it for you, and took money to build it for you, and then released it himself, then yes he stole the idea (and the product)
So is it skill, or is it chance? I'd say it's a little of both, with chance being predominant in the game's actual elements, and skill being predominant in its (human) players.
This presents a bit of a problem as the laws currently are sort of black-and-white. It's either a game of chance or a game of skill with nothing in between.
And yet there is a lot of luck in professional sports. I was just watching a sports and science segment on ESPN. They were looking at how someone leapt up and caught a ball just as it cleared the fence. They then went on to describe how any number of variables could have turned that hit into a home run including temperature and barometer. There is always luck involved, the star player getting sick, getting injured. If it was pure skill no shot would miss and baseball players would bat 1000. I'm curious about this supposed computer that pros can't beat.
I'm never really cared for gaming, I was always interested in something more connected with the physical world, I suspect I am not the only one.
You might not be the only one, but you are in the minority.
Not everyone's brain works like a Slashdotter's.
Thank God!