Suing high-school students and grandmas encourages the arts and sciences??
Suing pirates encourages the arts and sciences. Some students and grandmas are pirates. Therefore, suing some students and grandmas encourages the arts and sciences.
It's one thing to allow creators to derive some benefits from the work, but it's an altogether different thing letting publishers put all culture behind a paywall for more than a century while instating draconian laws to protect their profits.
You're more right than you know; they are completely different things. One is copyright, and the other is a hybrid of deep problems inherent in political lobbying (the laws), and a market problem (the paywall). The suing of students and grandmas (or more generally, pirates) doesn't come from any of the additions to copyright law; it comes from the bog-standard vanilla flavour. They distribute, artists have the right to sue. It's been that way since the beginning. The only reason why grandmas and students have been so late to the party is that they only got the equipment to copy and distribute relatively recently.
If the creators of copyright could see what copyright has become today they'd be seething with anger.
(FTFY?) Look, I have no doubt that copyright is sick. Unlike many here, I don't think it's terminally ill, but I certainly think it needs to be mended. However, I don't think the fact that some students and grandmas have decided to become pirates is indicative that copyright has lost its way. This is, really, the only point I was trying to argue. I have no trouble admitting, as you've seen, that copyright is far from perfect in its current implementation.
If they did then they are stupid and deserve their fate.
Why do stupid people deserve their fate?
That's a serious question there. It's not like stupid people choose (necessarily) to be stupid. You might as well tell the guy in a wheelchair that he deserves to never walk again.
Failbook must be shut down so fucktards will fucking self destruct and the gene pool can be fucking cleansed.
I agree wholeheartedly. Right now, millions of fucktards are using failbook to have a social life, get dates, and ultimately, have sex. How on earth will that further the human race!?
Physical property is just as imaginary as intellectual property. Physical possession is not, but property is. If someone robs you of a possession, the only thing that connects you to that object is a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, similar to the legal mumbo jumbo which makes up intellectual property. The main difference? Everyone is now used to physical property, since we've had a few odd centuries to become accustomed to it.
No, copyright law was intended for encouraging arts and sciences, specifically by giving artists control over distribution of their works, even more specifically by giving artists the right to sue anyone who distributes their work without their permission. So, while the purpose not to make high-school students and grandmas suffer financially, granting immunity to high-school students and grandmas (or equivalently, abridging the artist's right to sue them for their wrongdoings) would directly contravene the intended purpose of copyright law.
I realise how unpopular this opinion is around slashdot (especially with the moderators, it seems), but it's true. If you're worried about your dear old granny, or your teenage child, you should be warning them about the potential consequences for their actions.
I don't think that's fair. All but a handful genuine crackpots know that their pets are not human. Some treat them as human, but that's not necessarily an indicator of poor judgement.
Question 1: Do you have all the relevant facts of the case and testimonies from the two parties?"
a) No b) I left them in my other pants c) Screw testimony! I know exactly who's guilty! d) Of course I do; I'm the judge e) All of the above (mistrial)
It would be effective, and it contains all the information needed to assess who should be assessing (judging, if you will) these cases.
Come on; that's hardly fair. You can't judge the game by what it could have been, had you had the imagination. It was created to be played a certain way, and that's what it should be judge upon. Otherwise, even the worst games of all time probably should get higher scores:
"I give Dreckfest 88%. If you played the way they say in the manuals, the tutorials, and the pop-up hints, the controls were horrendous, the graphics were utterly broken, and the AI would frequently walk into walls. However, if you played the game with your eyes closed, and tried to navigate the game world by listening only to the sounds (e.g. your footsteps, enemy footsteps/voices, projectiles from your guns on various surfaces), the game became atmospheric and fun."
* Being polite * Being correct * Justifying absolutely everything you say, including, but not limited to, reason and real-world examples, and * Responding solidly to everyone who rebuts your argument in a convincing manner
is not enough not to be modded down while others around you are modded up (let alone be modded up yourself), then I honestly don't know what is, bar toeing the party line. This groupthink is evidently powerful stuff. Hell, I've almost certainly seen more +5 insightful comments satisfying none of the above (copiously loaded with groupthink of course) than I have seen +5 comments which dare to argue on "decided" topics here on slashdot.
I wasn't even (initially) arguing in favour of patents, just stating factually how they are supposed to accomplish what their proponents say they accomplish.
If there's one group of people on the internet mature enough to handle such a powerful, balanced, and carefully constructed moderation system, it would be us. Given how fucked up it is, I guess no-one is.
Huh, it turns out I was wrong. Edison was not the person who invented the tungsten filament bulb, but, according to wikipedia, Sando Just and Franjo Hanaman. Edison did improve on Swan's design by trying several filaments, but he arrived at a carbonised bamboo filament.
Oh well, the basic principle is the same. He improved the lightbulb (notice I never said that he invented it) by working his ass off, and accordingly, he was awarded a patent. As was Just and Hanaman.
A system that can render all your hard work redundant just because some other guy was the first to cross the finish line (note, first, that doesn't even mean his methods are necessarily the best if his patent is broad enough to cover your work) might be just as stifling to innovation as one where nobody has any protection.
That makes about as much sense as "Trying is the first step to failure, so you shouldn't try."
That's what they're both for. Encouraging inspiration is useless. You don't need to put time or effort into inspiration, but you do into making the invention. Inspiration comes naturally to people, at no time or money cost to themselves. What does cost is the time subsequent to inspiration in which the idea is developed.
And yes, you are correct that an idea that requires time to implement is inherently patentable. I'm talking about research that needs to be done before implementing the idea, but that can be far more easily done once looking at the finished product.
For example, it took Edison many, many attempts before he used tungsten in the light-bulb filament. It took many hours of trial and error before he reached this conclusion. Once he had reached this conclusion, it was a trivial matter for competitors to then discover this fact for themselves, thus giving his competitors an unfair advantage over him. That is a classic use for patents. It's not that he was some sort of genius for (eventually) thinking of tungsten that made the invention worthy of a patent, just that he put effort into it that nobody would have to put in again.
No, actually. Patents aren't supposed to reward inspiration, they're supposed to reward work. They're to help with the 99% perspiration that the invention process involves. Even if the particular invention is "obvious", that doesn't mean there isn't a shitload of work to do, and that somebody won't have to put in the hours (with no financial support) in order to develop the idea into any usable form.
Oh, and I am particularly disgusted that you didn't use your first post privileges to make a lame joke about timeliness over inspiration! That was a quality opportunity missed!;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I wish my girlfriend wore holographic panties...
Or, perhaps they're slipping slowly down a slippery slope. People like canonical, so therefore, no.
... free speech was impossible before the internet?
Suing pirates encourages the arts and sciences. Some students and grandmas are pirates. Therefore, suing some students and grandmas encourages the arts and sciences.
You're more right than you know; they are completely different things. One is copyright, and the other is a hybrid of deep problems inherent in political lobbying (the laws), and a market problem (the paywall). The suing of students and grandmas (or more generally, pirates) doesn't come from any of the additions to copyright law; it comes from the bog-standard vanilla flavour. They distribute, artists have the right to sue. It's been that way since the beginning. The only reason why grandmas and students have been so late to the party is that they only got the equipment to copy and distribute relatively recently.
(FTFY?) Look, I have no doubt that copyright is sick. Unlike many here, I don't think it's terminally ill, but I certainly think it needs to be mended. However, I don't think the fact that some students and grandmas have decided to become pirates is indicative that copyright has lost its way. This is, really, the only point I was trying to argue. I have no trouble admitting, as you've seen, that copyright is far from perfect in its current implementation.
Why do stupid people deserve their fate?
That's a serious question there. It's not like stupid people choose (necessarily) to be stupid. You might as well tell the guy in a wheelchair that he deserves to never walk again.
I agree wholeheartedly. Right now, millions of fucktards are using failbook to have a social life, get dates, and ultimately, have sex. How on earth will that further the human race!?
Hypocrite much?
Yes, I realise that countering AC lies one by one is like trying to stop a hurricane by blowing in the opposite direction.
Physical property is just as imaginary as intellectual property. Physical possession is not, but property is. If someone robs you of a possession, the only thing that connects you to that object is a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, similar to the legal mumbo jumbo which makes up intellectual property. The main difference? Everyone is now used to physical property, since we've had a few odd centuries to become accustomed to it.
No, copyright law was intended for encouraging arts and sciences, specifically by giving artists control over distribution of their works, even more specifically by giving artists the right to sue anyone who distributes their work without their permission. So, while the purpose not to make high-school students and grandmas suffer financially, granting immunity to high-school students and grandmas (or equivalently, abridging the artist's right to sue them for their wrongdoings) would directly contravene the intended purpose of copyright law.
I realise how unpopular this opinion is around slashdot (especially with the moderators, it seems), but it's true. If you're worried about your dear old granny, or your teenage child, you should be warning them about the potential consequences for their actions.
You mean exposure to Justin Bieber presents neurological symptoms in children? Ban him! Ban him immediately!
Couldn't that be said about any visual improvement? I'm sure colour was similarly gimmicky when it first became commercial.
I don't think that's fair. All but a handful genuine crackpots know that their pets are not human. Some treat them as human, but that's not necessarily an indicator of poor judgement.
And some of us even improve!
... I would like them to perform this kind of damage control. You know, the kind of damage control that involves listening to your user-base.
Mind you, it's not like they had a choice.
But, 1 does equal 0!
(Just a little factoid you should know)
The sentences in your title are out of order.
/troll
Holy christ! Your asses must weigh fuckton! Well, 0.595 fucktons, but... fuck!
I can just imagine such a questionnaire:
It would be effective, and it contains all the information needed to assess who should be assessing (judging, if you will) these cases.
Come on; that's hardly fair. You can't judge the game by what it could have been, had you had the imagination. It was created to be played a certain way, and that's what it should be judge upon. Otherwise, even the worst games of all time probably should get higher scores:
"I give Dreckfest 88%. If you played the way they say in the manuals, the tutorials, and the pop-up hints, the controls were horrendous, the graphics were utterly broken, and the AI would frequently walk into walls. However, if you played the game with your eyes closed, and tried to navigate the game world by listening only to the sounds (e.g. your footsteps, enemy footsteps/voices, projectiles from your guns on various surfaces), the game became atmospheric and fun."
I give up slashdot. If:
* Being polite
* Being correct
* Justifying absolutely everything you say, including, but not limited to, reason and real-world examples, and
* Responding solidly to everyone who rebuts your argument in a convincing manner
is not enough not to be modded down while others around you are modded up (let alone be modded up yourself), then I honestly don't know what is, bar toeing the party line. This groupthink is evidently powerful stuff. Hell, I've almost certainly seen more +5 insightful comments satisfying none of the above (copiously loaded with groupthink of course) than I have seen +5 comments which dare to argue on "decided" topics here on slashdot.
I wasn't even (initially) arguing in favour of patents, just stating factually how they are supposed to accomplish what their proponents say they accomplish.
If there's one group of people on the internet mature enough to handle such a powerful, balanced, and carefully constructed moderation system, it would be us. Given how fucked up it is, I guess no-one is.
Huh, it turns out I was wrong. Edison was not the person who invented the tungsten filament bulb, but, according to wikipedia, Sando Just and Franjo Hanaman. Edison did improve on Swan's design by trying several filaments, but he arrived at a carbonised bamboo filament.
Oh well, the basic principle is the same. He improved the lightbulb (notice I never said that he invented it) by working his ass off, and accordingly, he was awarded a patent. As was Just and Hanaman.
That makes about as much sense as "Trying is the first step to failure, so you shouldn't try."
That's what they're both for. Encouraging inspiration is useless. You don't need to put time or effort into inspiration, but you do into making the invention. Inspiration comes naturally to people, at no time or money cost to themselves. What does cost is the time subsequent to inspiration in which the idea is developed.
And yes, you are correct that an idea that requires time to implement is inherently patentable. I'm talking about research that needs to be done before implementing the idea, but that can be far more easily done once looking at the finished product.
For example, it took Edison many, many attempts before he used tungsten in the light-bulb filament. It took many hours of trial and error before he reached this conclusion. Once he had reached this conclusion, it was a trivial matter for competitors to then discover this fact for themselves, thus giving his competitors an unfair advantage over him. That is a classic use for patents. It's not that he was some sort of genius for (eventually) thinking of tungsten that made the invention worthy of a patent, just that he put effort into it that nobody would have to put in again.
No, actually. Patents aren't supposed to reward inspiration, they're supposed to reward work. They're to help with the 99% perspiration that the invention process involves. Even if the particular invention is "obvious", that doesn't mean there isn't a shitload of work to do, and that somebody won't have to put in the hours (with no financial support) in order to develop the idea into any usable form.
Oh, and I am particularly disgusted that you didn't use your first post privileges to make a lame joke about timeliness over inspiration! That was a quality opportunity missed! ;-)