I can't think of any significant innovations, but I can think of benefits. Copyright industries have helped thousands of artists support themselves exclusively on their art, and distributed their works worldwide. They've nurtured the concept of a "star", and helped millions of others aspire to become an artist themselves. Not that it was ever uncool before (as far as I know), but now, with the number of hopefuls and wannabes, we're simply spoiled for choice.
As technology improves, we are eventually going to forget about copyrights;
The way things are going, it looks like you're right. They're going to be completely forgotten, right about the time people start completely forgetting their moral obligation to pay the artist. That's right about the time that culture will (almost) completely be wiped out.
I live in Australia, and it's sunny 250-300 days a year (and that's in the lush coastal areas). There's plenty of time and opportunity for a device like that to charge, unless you're going spelunking. Even if, for most activities, you're not straying far from a power point, there's the convenience of not dragging cords, and also being able to charge on the move. It would also prolong the reading time you can do outside when off a battery. I also do a little (overnight) bushwalking, and a solar panel wouldn't go far astray there.
Also, I'm not sure you're being fair to Greenies either. Some genuinely like the environment, and some do go out some days and enjoy it. I should also mention that charging the ebook via the sun would make a difference to greenhouse gasses, and Greenies are no stranger to paying a little more for environmental benefits.
You know the biggest problem is that you make, just like Concerned Onlooker up there when he says "Everybody thinks every other profession is less valuable than their own", childish assumptions of people other than yourself.
Uh, OK. I assume that you are referring to my hypothesis about people's problems with journalists? Consider this research.;)
I don't want jounalists to report anything of even remote bias.
Yeah, but then you miss out on reading about issues with any contention or controversy behind them. The bias is non-removable in most cases.
Why do you assume that I want to hear what makes me smile? Is it that hard for you to imagine that some people just want to know the plain fucking truth?
I hypothesise (since you don't like the word "assume") that you (involuntarily) prefer to hear things more in line with your own biases. Of course, there's no way for me to determine from this short encounter what exactly that entails, but you're starting to give me a picture...
If Jimmy, 5, falls down the fucking well I want the head line to say "Jimmy, 5, falls down the well" and not "WELLS SLAUGHTERING OUR CHILDREN, GOVERNMENT IGNORING".
Yeah, but what if the government is ignoring it? If wells are that dangerous, then surely the government should be paying attention, right? Otherwise something is going wrong in the system.
Now, of course, you probably think that presumably one kid falling down one well shouldn't cause a government to lose sleep, but there are plenty who disagree with you. The very omission of such details like government response would be biased against their own interests.
There is little room for sense, and more often people, like yourself and Onlooker, draw conclusions based on assumptions which were never justified. This leads to what? That's right -- misunderstandings. And that is what you just did -- misunderstood me.
You assume that I drew assumptions about you, and that I generated a misunderstanding? Well, I suppose your assumption is not entirely unjustified, but carefully reading my would tell you that I wasn't taking it as a foregone conclusion; it's a hypothesis, and I am still testing it. Still, if you're calling people on assumptions, you should probably watch yourself first.
A journalist is a researcher with an additional goal: to provide the general public with the results. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think the biggest problem that you (and many others) are experiencing is that you (and they) expect journalists to report to your biases, rather than the public's, or their own. For example, there are a great many people out there who want to hear about the investigations into terrorist activities, but to a smaller minority, this is perceived as fearmongering to sell papers. Yes, it is superficially to sell papers, but there fear was there first, and it's the public who want that fear addressed.
If your biases aren't mainstream enough, then journalism is just going to seem like a bunch of bullshit.
... then some nutjob, who thinks he's the last sane person on the earth, will fill in the details of how the lie is true, and then believe it absolutely and unconditionally?
That's incredible! Thank you sir! By juxtaposing that ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theory with my opinion of Obama, you have successfully demonstrated to me just how ridiculous my opinion was. I now no longer hold that opinion, and I see the truth: that it was, quite obviously, Obama who perpetrated 9/11.
It's actually much better to say that "if you can't prove it, it must be false". Better still, "if you can't prove it, then for all intents and purposes, it's false".
Out of a universe (or beyond!) with unfathomable possibility, it's much, much easier and much, much more reliable to live by confirming truths than eliminating falsehoods.
And besides, how exactly can we eliminate Jesus as a falsehood?
Yes. Let us sedate the peasants by giving them what they want! We have discovered what's important to them and now we are giving it to them! Now we are in control, so long as we cater to their needs! How terribly EVIL of me! Mwhahahahaha!
Did WB's actions even prevent the copyright holder from accessing his own work? I hope not. If the copyright holder's only copy of his work was on MySpace, well, that would be far more his fault than anyone else's. MySpace can delete whatever they feel like, so it's not like its presence was guaranteed.
The thing is that MySpace is not a house, or anything private. It's more like... er... a beach. Sure, you can start building elaborate sandcastles if you like, and you can find plenty of fans of your buildings, but there's no guarantee that they'll be there in the morning. Oh, and any bully can walk in and kick it down.
OK, it's not quite like that, but you get the idea. MySpace is not your space. MySpace belongs to MySpace, who serves the public with public space. There's no right to keep your space untouched.
Sorry, but what exactly is the problem here? That we can't force a company reinstate old works?
It's the discretion of the company because it's the company's resources being used. If they don't want to waste the space, they don't have to. There would also have to be minimum term limits where the material would have to be shown. Is it fair to expect that contested works enjoy protected status, even from the company who owns the hardware it's stored upon, and others be able to be deleted at will?
It's not an asymmetry against the people, it's an asymmetry against forced storage. Unless the company is totally in the pocket of media companies (to the extent where DMCA takedowns are a mere formality), there's no reason not to expect a company to either put it back up, or allow you to upload the same thing again.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't think of any significant innovations, but I can think of benefits. Copyright industries have helped thousands of artists support themselves exclusively on their art, and distributed their works worldwide. They've nurtured the concept of a "star", and helped millions of others aspire to become an artist themselves. Not that it was ever uncool before (as far as I know), but now, with the number of hopefuls and wannabes, we're simply spoiled for choice.
The way things are going, it looks like you're right. They're going to be completely forgotten, right about the time people start completely forgetting their moral obligation to pay the artist. That's right about the time that culture will (almost) completely be wiped out.
I'm not sure you're being entirely fair here.
I live in Australia, and it's sunny 250-300 days a year (and that's in the lush coastal areas). There's plenty of time and opportunity for a device like that to charge, unless you're going spelunking. Even if, for most activities, you're not straying far from a power point, there's the convenience of not dragging cords, and also being able to charge on the move. It would also prolong the reading time you can do outside when off a battery. I also do a little (overnight) bushwalking, and a solar panel wouldn't go far astray there.
Also, I'm not sure you're being fair to Greenies either. Some genuinely like the environment, and some do go out some days and enjoy it. I should also mention that charging the ebook via the sun would make a difference to greenhouse gasses, and Greenies are no stranger to paying a little more for environmental benefits.
Uh, OK. I assume that you are referring to my hypothesis about people's problems with journalists? Consider this research. ;)
Yeah, but then you miss out on reading about issues with any contention or controversy behind them. The bias is non-removable in most cases.
I hypothesise (since you don't like the word "assume") that you (involuntarily) prefer to hear things more in line with your own biases. Of course, there's no way for me to determine from this short encounter what exactly that entails, but you're starting to give me a picture...
Yeah, but what if the government is ignoring it? If wells are that dangerous, then surely the government should be paying attention, right? Otherwise something is going wrong in the system.
Now, of course, you probably think that presumably one kid falling down one well shouldn't cause a government to lose sleep, but there are plenty who disagree with you. The very omission of such details like government response would be biased against their own interests.
You assume that I drew assumptions about you, and that I generated a misunderstanding? Well, I suppose your assumption is not entirely unjustified, but carefully reading my would tell you that I wasn't taking it as a foregone conclusion; it's a hypothesis, and I am still testing it. Still, if you're calling people on assumptions, you should probably watch yourself first.
A journalist is a researcher with an additional goal: to provide the general public with the results. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think the biggest problem that you (and many others) are experiencing is that you (and they) expect journalists to report to your biases, rather than the public's, or their own. For example, there are a great many people out there who want to hear about the investigations into terrorist activities, but to a smaller minority, this is perceived as fearmongering to sell papers. Yes, it is superficially to sell papers, but there fear was there first, and it's the public who want that fear addressed.
If your biases aren't mainstream enough, then journalism is just going to seem like a bunch of bullshit.
Wait. Think it through. In the context of commercial online journalism, is late really better than wrong?
I think you need to integrate the humour in a little more.
... then some nutjob, who thinks he's the last sane person on the earth, will fill in the details of how the lie is true, and then believe it absolutely and unconditionally?
Wait, is that "good" news, or "Good news everybody!" news?
That's incredible! Thank you sir! By juxtaposing that ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theory with my opinion of Obama, you have successfully demonstrated to me just how ridiculous my opinion was. I now no longer hold that opinion, and I see the truth: that it was, quite obviously, Obama who perpetrated 9/11.
The **AA's top technical advisers have informed them that making the web leakier will sink all those pesky pirates.
Wait, I thought that was the way to deal with homophobes.
Yep. Nothing maximises profits like paying people to develop a huge patch, and then providing the bandwidth to distribute that patch free.
Unless, of course, your comment was a subtle parody of anti-MS crowd. ;)
It's actually much better to say that "if you can't prove it, it must be false". Better still, "if you can't prove it, then for all intents and purposes, it's false".
Out of a universe (or beyond!) with unfathomable possibility, it's much, much easier and much, much more reliable to live by confirming truths than eliminating falsehoods.
And besides, how exactly can we eliminate Jesus as a falsehood?
It's interesting that you perceive the parent post as an attack on your country, not on a general mentality.
and I command you to stop using table-based layouts!
Hey, if you can't disprove it, it must be true!
Yes. Let us sedate the peasants by giving them what they want! We have discovered what's important to them and now we are giving it to them! Now we are in control, so long as we cater to their needs! How terribly EVIL of me! Mwhahahahaha!
Did WB's actions even prevent the copyright holder from accessing his own work? I hope not. If the copyright holder's only copy of his work was on MySpace, well, that would be far more his fault than anyone else's. MySpace can delete whatever they feel like, so it's not like its presence was guaranteed.
The thing is that MySpace is not a house, or anything private. It's more like... er... a beach. Sure, you can start building elaborate sandcastles if you like, and you can find plenty of fans of your buildings, but there's no guarantee that they'll be there in the morning. Oh, and any bully can walk in and kick it down.
OK, it's not quite like that, but you get the idea. MySpace is not your space. MySpace belongs to MySpace, who serves the public with public space. There's no right to keep your space untouched.
Sorry, but what exactly is the problem here? That we can't force a company reinstate old works?
It's the discretion of the company because it's the company's resources being used. If they don't want to waste the space, they don't have to. There would also have to be minimum term limits where the material would have to be shown. Is it fair to expect that contested works enjoy protected status, even from the company who owns the hardware it's stored upon, and others be able to be deleted at will?
It's not an asymmetry against the people, it's an asymmetry against forced storage. Unless the company is totally in the pocket of media companies (to the extent where DMCA takedowns are a mere formality), there's no reason not to expect a company to either put it back up, or allow you to upload the same thing again.
WTF is with this headline?
That, or recoup profits some other way.
Companies won't mind giving in to our demands so long as we're prepared to pay the price.
No, I don't think he's complaining about that. I think he's complaining that facebook is forcing him to endure negative comments.
But, apparently, he doesn't want to just log off either.
Hey, I like your post!
Your post makes me wonder: if you ever rose to power, would you declare all dissidents to be mentally ill?
I can't say he keeps me up at night.
There have been many such people in power over the years, and there appears to be no lasting damage.
It's pretty hard for these extremists to slip past public opinion, and even when the public is with them, it typically doesn't last for long.