There are far too many people in this country, in this world even, who judge people by the color of their skin, and who, in all likelyhood, will find the election of a black man to the presidency to be too large of an offense to be ignored and will at least attempt to take matters into their own hands.
Don't worry. That's part of their right, no sorry, their duty as American citizens to overthrow a government who is not representing the people (or at least just the few people they've talked to about it). Go USA: land of the free!
His opinion is worth listening to while it influences millions of people. Let's face it: God or no, our morality is whatever we say it is, and he happens to speak for a lot of people. Religion may not have much scientific authority, but it has a lot of moral authority. Let's give credit where credit's due, shall we?
That's all well and good, but I don't think I'd be alone in hate to live in your democracy, where they arbitrarily try to kill its members. In fact, you probably wouldn't have too many members, and you wouldn't have much of a democracy. It certainly wouldn't build to anything like the democracies of today.
Oh wait, it wasn't arbitrary? In that case, I also wouldn't like to live in a democracy, where matters of importance are paralysed by a nut "trying to defend himself". Too much power in idiots' hands... well... nothing constructive ever came out of it.
With copyrights, only the publisher chosen by the author may print that specific work, and can command any price he sees fit. It may or may not sell, but other works are not necessarily a substitute for that work, as any avid reader knows.
If it's truly a great book, in true free market fashion, people will be prepared to pay a higher price, including dealing with IP restrictions. In any other corner of the free market, the same thing applies: the supplier sets the price, the consumer chooses whether or not to pay for it. Like I said, the difference lies in that the value of the method of distribution gets tied to the product itself.
You also make the assumption that the great book would be published and available without copyright. Allowing the option to opt out of copyright is really the most tried-and-true method of finding a sweet spot between production and consumer rights.
Of course, this could be improved dramatically, by restoring copyright to an opt-in system, rather than an opt-out system. Right now authors who don't want copyrights but cannot be bothered to put their works in the public domain wind up holding copyrights that they don't want and which nevertheless burden the public. Better would be to require authors who do want copyrights to register in order to get them, as we can expect them to jump over a trivial hurdle. This more neatly aligns the interests of authors and the public, and is how we've traditionally done things to boot, so we know it works!
It's a relatively elegant solution, but I'm not convinced that there's that much of a problem. When you distribute a work, it's fairly trivial to put your work into the public domain. It's certainly more trivial than registering for a copyright would be. Plus, it's significantly cheaper to enable copyright by default than to maintain a database of all the copyrighted works out there.
Given that copyright exists to serve the public interest, I see no reason for the public to have to bother with a boycott, when copyright is a legislative creation and thus quite easy to change legislatively, given a democratic society.
That's true, but on the same token, we don't have to change it legislatively. I would argue that, given the two party system of so many democracies out there, and that issues are only addressed if they're particularly hot-button issues, using the free market would be an easier and more effective method of determining the wants of the people, and instituting change. There's no need to compete with media lobbyists, there's no need to make potentially rash decisions law. Allow the market to choose from the "free" media and the "restricted" media. Allow consumers to weigh up the restrictions from big media and the decreased choice from indie media. We don't need to constantly pass and withdraw laws to force the market to incorporate society's constantly changing and always diverse needs and wants, we can just let it adjust in its own time.
BTW, I'm sorry, but I'm going away for a couple of days, so if you wish to continue this discussion, you may have to wait.
I see plenty of room for the free market. There's nothing in copyright law saying you have to buy anything. There's nothing in copyright law that prevents competition from other copyrighted works. There's nothing in copyright law that mandates copyright be applied to every work despite the artist's wishes. If they want to release without copyright, or without restrictions on distribution, then they may. The supplier is perfectly free to provide that kind of product, and we are perfectly free to consume it. All copyright does, in terms of the free market, is tie the value of the product to its distribution restrictions.
My suggestion isn't silly at all. If we were to completely stop buying restricted media, do you really think that business model could survive? Of course not. No matter how much of a state-granted monopoly is granted over one particular artwork, it still needs to be purchased to be commercially viable.
The book says one thing - the telescope says another. Which is right?
You would have thought that the inquisition could've accepted Galileo's observations were the result of the will of God, rather than just trying to convince him that he didn't see what he saw. I mean, if it's God's universe, and he saw something up there that was previously unknown, it shouldn't be a challenge to God. As a matter of fact, the same goes for all scientific observations. It's all God's will, right?
He doesn't have to. Being the head of a popular religion, his opinion represents the morality of millions of people (how many auto-mechanics/half-dead chipmunks could say that?). What he says about ethics should be listened to, especially by those living in a democracy, because it will no doubt influence what many other people consider to be ethical.
In situation B, however, all that is said is that if society -wants- a given Artwork, they'd better either pay for it, or deal with the fact that they won't have said Artwork. And that, I think, is perfectly fair. If that results in the Artist neither getting purchases -nor- popularity from pirating, then that's the result of the Artist's own choice.
Exactly. Remember the free market, people? We can affect the market by selectively choosing what we purchase. If we want media with lax copyright restrictions, and the market can satisfy that want, then we shall receive. There's no need to force the market by changing copyright law (beyond making shorter term lengths - it's hard for the free market to guarantee a work will be released into the public domain before its time) when we can just reward the behaviour that we approve of.
We don't have a Bill of Rights to guarantee our democracy. Attempts to take democracy away from us are made step by step and this is a step in the wrong direction.
True, but the power of a Bill of Rights comes entirely from the people who support it. We really don't need a Bill of Rights to uphold our own rights, if we just protect them ourselves. Mandatory voting also helps, since people are forced to put effort into the political system, and politicians have to pander to everyone, not just the few who are actively interested in politics.
This alone isn't too bad. It's just one guy appealing to the public to allow him some legally-sanctioned breathing space. There has always been people who want to restrict our rights to help combat terrorism, and this is just another case of one of them speaking their mind.
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not a troll, just a guy who has legitimate considered opinion that's different from yours. And I haven't heard anyone ever say that copyright infringement is the same thing as stealing, just that copyright infringement is a subset of stealing. And I haven't heard of any law that says you need to agree with any or everything the RIAA does in order to believe that. And I have no idea how you got any insightful mods.
It's one thing for a tin-pot dictator in the middle of nowhere to do so, and it is quite another for someone in a position of authority in a western-styled democracy to make such statements.
You're right. He's living in a democracy, and hell, his position in power probably gave him the inspiration to say it. He's not forcing it upon us, he's not trying to pull of a coup, he's just suggesting, in the spirit of democracy, that we may want to give the police some space only on terrorism cases, and only for a limited amount of time. I find it hard to get quite as shocked as you evidently have over this issue.
I think claiming that this is the first step into becoming a police state would be exaggerating the problem. The police are hoping for a little temporary discretion from the media while terrorism cases (always an emotive point nowadays) are being investigated. After the investigations are completed the media are free to investigate themselves, and publish whatever they want. I'm not saying it's ideal, but I can see why the police want a bit of temporary breathing space. It's a long road from this to being a police state.
If Australia takes this step, it's only a matter of time before they're creating news altogether.
This is a step, but a small one. You may report whatever you like, just not about terrorism while an investigation is still continuing. Yes, it's a damage to accountability, but I at least see the reasons why he's done it. While it is worrying, I certainly don't think "it's only a matter of time before they're creating news".
My words in neither form nor manner, either implicitly or by inference, associated anything whatsoever with copyright infringement. That errant association was your opportunistic and shallow method of forcing yourself into the conversation.
Say what you want. It was a strawman, and I just wanted to correct you, lest I have to deal with people in the future who seriously believe it to be the opposition's point of view. I never really wanted conversation, nor did I need a grinning idiot to misrepresent me.
Besides, your post was in reply to the article alone. There was no conversation that I could "force" my way into.
funniest thing I've seen all day. Didn't get you modded up, tho, did it? hehehehhehe
Oh well, Slashdot's loss I guess. Just yet another reason why the political system doesn't seem to take Slashdotters seriously.
Really, so I can't take a typical politician in general and compare his campaign promises to his actions in office and find blatant inconsistencies that most reasonable people would believe indicate lies?
Well, if they fail to follow through on a promise, they have to have been definitely intending from the start to break it in order to be lying. Otherwise, it's a case of the politician being unreliable. However, it's typically not that black and white, and I'm pretty sure that politicians promise more than they believe they can deliver. It's not lying outright, it's failing to mention they probably won't fulfil all those promises.
If they outright lie about anything, they can be caught and exploited by their opposition. Every major politician, no matter how slimy, has supporters who think he's an honest leader, and clearly being caught in a lie will lose them too much support to make routinely outright lying worth any political benefits. Every lie is a crack in the veneer of the highly polished package that a politician offers his electorate.
Not at all, if I were asked by them whether I voted for them or not, and dodged it, then I would be at their level.
That would help, yes. However, I think that "most reasonable people" would consider it a truly honest politician's responsibility to inform the public of any caveats relevant to their argument without having being asked first. They don't do this deliberately because they don't want to make themselves sound less convincing. Just like you seem to think there will be an adverse effect from mentioning that you didn't vote for them, they believe there will be adverse effects from mentioning those caveats, and so you both avoid mentioning them. I'm not saying you're a bad person, I'm just saying it just shows how ingrained stretching the truth is in politics.
Your Dad's manager was trying to compete with the store across the street. The store across the street was motivated by the union to increase working conditions. Perhaps unions aren't needed to encompass every working person, rather to give businesses something to compete with.
If you didn't, then don't lie unless you want to be lowered to their level, just don't bring up who you did vote for.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but politicians don't usually lie outright, they usually fail to bring up certain relevant facts that could destabilise their position. If you deliberately fail to mention that you didn't vote for them, you basically are at their level.
... people actually have varying tastes, which means they might like different movies and music to you. They never "foist", they offer. They give you the opportunity to pay money to see the movie, or listen to the music that they (as an organisation) created. If it's not to your tastes, that's absolutely fine. The problem is those who find those movies/songs to their tastes, but decide they'll skip their end of the deal.
I know you're trying to be cute, but I have two corrections:
1) Theft, not robbery, is the term you're looking for. From Wikipedia:
Robbery is the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation.
Nobody has ever called copyright infringement "robbery".
2) Record companies aren't perpetrating theft. They have agreements which artists are perfectly free to refuse, and seek alternative, possibly cheaper methods of distribution. They can take what they want, so long as they make sure it's visibly part of the contract. If that's theft, then we should probably round up all the "thieves" who bought "In Rainbows" for $0.
No, rights-holders should really be the ones being paid. By refusing to recognise rights-holders as exactly what they are, you are effectively saying that copyrights shouldn't be transferable. This limits the resale value of copyrights, and takes away the one avenue for profit for an artist who can't afford to distribute by himself.
Besides, that's essentially what's happening here. The government buys the copyrights, and charges a flat rate for them. It would seem that you don't have any trouble conceptually with trading copyrights.
It is indeed an interesting concept. The biggest problem with copyright is the tension between the public and artist both claiming ownership of the same piece of culture. (Actually, the biggest really would be piracy undermining it, but that's not really relevant) This has the potential to solve that tension, with the public paying for and owning their culture, while still paying for it, and encouraging its creation. However, I have a few reservations:
1) This approach would eliminate the more creative approaches to copyright. The artist would get paid, and that's that. There'd be no room for stipulation of other conditions, which would eliminate licenses like the GPL, if applied to software.
2) The system could get complicated while apportioning out funds to the artists. Do we pay all artists the same, regardless of popularity, or cost of production? That would discourage excellence or the creation of the more expensive artworks (like movies). Or do we implement a complicated and probably flawed system for measuring popularity of shared works and base all payments upon those measurements?
3) Which works do we buy? We can't possibly buy every single work that would qualify for copyright, otherwise we would be paying for every single cease-and-desist letter out there among other things. We need a system, or an organisation responsible for choosing works to be bought. It could be the government, but that will lead to the inevitable censorship issue. It could be a private organisation, but that leads to questions of profit motive and lack of perspective. The unfortunate truth may be that art is far too broad and varied to be effectively regulated.
Basically, the idea has potential, and we should probably concentrate on ironing out the kinks. When it's ready, we can then perform a parallel trial with traditional copyright, and see which consumers prefer. If the tax is large and well apportioned enough, we shouldn't see too much of a decline in the production of artistic works.
Slashdot Mirror
You're kidding, right?
His opinion is worth listening to while it influences millions of people. Let's face it: God or no, our morality is whatever we say it is, and he happens to speak for a lot of people. Religion may not have much scientific authority, but it has a lot of moral authority. Let's give credit where credit's due, shall we?
That's all well and good, but I don't think I'd be alone in hate to live in your democracy, where they arbitrarily try to kill its members. In fact, you probably wouldn't have too many members, and you wouldn't have much of a democracy. It certainly wouldn't build to anything like the democracies of today.
Oh wait, it wasn't arbitrary? In that case, I also wouldn't like to live in a democracy, where matters of importance are paralysed by a nut "trying to defend himself". Too much power in idiots' hands... well... nothing constructive ever came out of it.
You also make the assumption that the great book would be published and available without copyright. Allowing the option to opt out of copyright is really the most tried-and-true method of finding a sweet spot between production and consumer rights.It's a relatively elegant solution, but I'm not convinced that there's that much of a problem. When you distribute a work, it's fairly trivial to put your work into the public domain. It's certainly more trivial than registering for a copyright would be. Plus, it's significantly cheaper to enable copyright by default than to maintain a database of all the copyrighted works out there.That's true, but on the same token, we don't have to change it legislatively. I would argue that, given the two party system of so many democracies out there, and that issues are only addressed if they're particularly hot-button issues, using the free market would be an easier and more effective method of determining the wants of the people, and instituting change. There's no need to compete with media lobbyists, there's no need to make potentially rash decisions law. Allow the market to choose from the "free" media and the "restricted" media. Allow consumers to weigh up the restrictions from big media and the decreased choice from indie media. We don't need to constantly pass and withdraw laws to force the market to incorporate society's constantly changing and always diverse needs and wants, we can just let it adjust in its own time.
BTW, I'm sorry, but I'm going away for a couple of days, so if you wish to continue this discussion, you may have to wait.
I see plenty of room for the free market. There's nothing in copyright law saying you have to buy anything. There's nothing in copyright law that prevents competition from other copyrighted works. There's nothing in copyright law that mandates copyright be applied to every work despite the artist's wishes. If they want to release without copyright, or without restrictions on distribution, then they may. The supplier is perfectly free to provide that kind of product, and we are perfectly free to consume it. All copyright does, in terms of the free market, is tie the value of the product to its distribution restrictions.
My suggestion isn't silly at all. If we were to completely stop buying restricted media, do you really think that business model could survive? Of course not. No matter how much of a state-granted monopoly is granted over one particular artwork, it still needs to be purchased to be commercially viable.
He doesn't have to. Being the head of a popular religion, his opinion represents the morality of millions of people (how many auto-mechanics/half-dead chipmunks could say that?). What he says about ethics should be listened to, especially by those living in a democracy, because it will no doubt influence what many other people consider to be ethical.
This alone isn't too bad. It's just one guy appealing to the public to allow him some legally-sanctioned breathing space. There has always been people who want to restrict our rights to help combat terrorism, and this is just another case of one of them speaking their mind.
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not a troll, just a guy who has legitimate considered opinion that's different from yours. And I haven't heard anyone ever say that copyright infringement is the same thing as stealing, just that copyright infringement is a subset of stealing. And I haven't heard of any law that says you need to agree with any or everything the RIAA does in order to believe that. And I have no idea how you got any insightful mods.
I think claiming that this is the first step into becoming a police state would be exaggerating the problem. The police are hoping for a little temporary discretion from the media while terrorism cases (always an emotive point nowadays) are being investigated. After the investigations are completed the media are free to investigate themselves, and publish whatever they want. I'm not saying it's ideal, but I can see why the police want a bit of temporary breathing space. It's a long road from this to being a police state.
Perhaps they shouldn't be pirating in the first place?
If the going gets tough, then they'll hopefully get going.
You're with IBM too, aren't you!? Aren't you!!?
Besides, your post was in reply to the article alone. There was no conversation that I could "force" my way into.Oh well, Slashdot's loss I guess. Just yet another reason why the political system doesn't seem to take Slashdotters seriously.
If they outright lie about anything, they can be caught and exploited by their opposition. Every major politician, no matter how slimy, has supporters who think he's an honest leader, and clearly being caught in a lie will lose them too much support to make routinely outright lying worth any political benefits. Every lie is a crack in the veneer of the highly polished package that a politician offers his electorate.That would help, yes. However, I think that "most reasonable people" would consider it a truly honest politician's responsibility to inform the public of any caveats relevant to their argument without having being asked first. They don't do this deliberately because they don't want to make themselves sound less convincing. Just like you seem to think there will be an adverse effect from mentioning that you didn't vote for them, they believe there will be adverse effects from mentioning those caveats, and so you both avoid mentioning them. I'm not saying you're a bad person, I'm just saying it just shows how ingrained stretching the truth is in politics.
Your Dad's manager was trying to compete with the store across the street. The store across the street was motivated by the union to increase working conditions. Perhaps unions aren't needed to encompass every working person, rather to give businesses something to compete with.
... people actually have varying tastes, which means they might like different movies and music to you. They never "foist", they offer. They give you the opportunity to pay money to see the movie, or listen to the music that they (as an organisation) created. If it's not to your tastes, that's absolutely fine. The problem is those who find those movies/songs to their tastes, but decide they'll skip their end of the deal.
1) Theft, not robbery, is the term you're looking for. From Wikipedia: Nobody has ever called copyright infringement "robbery".
2) Record companies aren't perpetrating theft. They have agreements which artists are perfectly free to refuse, and seek alternative, possibly cheaper methods of distribution. They can take what they want, so long as they make sure it's visibly part of the contract. If that's theft, then we should probably round up all the "thieves" who bought "In Rainbows" for $0.
No, rights-holders should really be the ones being paid. By refusing to recognise rights-holders as exactly what they are, you are effectively saying that copyrights shouldn't be transferable. This limits the resale value of copyrights, and takes away the one avenue for profit for an artist who can't afford to distribute by himself.
Besides, that's essentially what's happening here. The government buys the copyrights, and charges a flat rate for them. It would seem that you don't have any trouble conceptually with trading copyrights.
It is indeed an interesting concept. The biggest problem with copyright is the tension between the public and artist both claiming ownership of the same piece of culture. (Actually, the biggest really would be piracy undermining it, but that's not really relevant) This has the potential to solve that tension, with the public paying for and owning their culture, while still paying for it, and encouraging its creation. However, I have a few reservations:
1) This approach would eliminate the more creative approaches to copyright. The artist would get paid, and that's that. There'd be no room for stipulation of other conditions, which would eliminate licenses like the GPL, if applied to software.
2) The system could get complicated while apportioning out funds to the artists. Do we pay all artists the same, regardless of popularity, or cost of production? That would discourage excellence or the creation of the more expensive artworks (like movies). Or do we implement a complicated and probably flawed system for measuring popularity of shared works and base all payments upon those measurements?
3) Which works do we buy? We can't possibly buy every single work that would qualify for copyright, otherwise we would be paying for every single cease-and-desist letter out there among other things. We need a system, or an organisation responsible for choosing works to be bought. It could be the government, but that will lead to the inevitable censorship issue. It could be a private organisation, but that leads to questions of profit motive and lack of perspective. The unfortunate truth may be that art is far too broad and varied to be effectively regulated.
Basically, the idea has potential, and we should probably concentrate on ironing out the kinks. When it's ready, we can then perform a parallel trial with traditional copyright, and see which consumers prefer. If the tax is large and well apportioned enough, we shouldn't see too much of a decline in the production of artistic works.