In the Tolkein example, the vast majority of new books were published under copyright, and there was a public understanding that copyright existed and that authors should, for a limited time, be paid royalties from the sale of their books. If you can't see a difference between that world and a world where copyright doesn't exist, I can't help you.
That doesn't even enter into it. If the law has a great effect on what people do then people wouldn't have preferred the authorized version. It was legal to buy and read the unauthorized version. Today the majority of music is under copyright and people pirate more even though the law is harsher. The law obviously has little or no effect on what people do.
When exactly did I propose a war on piracy, again?
Nowhere, I'm just wondering how why you want a law if it's not going to be enforced.
Let me put it this way: it makes no sense to abolish copyright and then expect market forces to enforce that copyright for you. If it was the accepted order of things to write and publish books without copyright, there would be no public outcry for publishers to pay royalties to authors because that's exactly the system that would be abolished.
I don't think it will be normal royalties in a system w/o copyright either. But you can bet your ass that there will be an official version, signed copies and a tip jar. My firm belief grounded in empirical evidence is that books will still be written and that people are somewhat rational and will pay for things they like.
If you have a real, substantive proposal to replace copyright with some other mechanism that would do just as well at promoting book-writing, I'd be glad to hear it, and to compare it to the alternatives. Absent such a proposal, I prefer a system of time-limited copyrights with explicit fair use exceptions. This is most emphatically not the system we have today, although it was the system we had when Tolkein's works were first released in this country.
My preffered system would be no system.
The system least distasteful to me would be severely limited "protection" times and (vastly) expanded fair use. It would probably be somewhat like yours. I would not, however, stop working for the abolishment of IP in general even if the current system was replaced with something less insane.
A loophole which meant that royalties weren't payed out which differs exactly how from absence from copyright?
And that wouldn't be possible today why? Because people don't respect copyright as much? Would a war on piracy change that or even do any good at all?
Which proves the hippies point and contradicts yours.
You're still saying that people have no idea what's good for them. We can't abolish copyright now because not enough people would want to We can't abolish copyright later when most people want to because then no-one would get payed. When exactly can we abolish copyright? And why should I trust you on your words without any empirical evidence?
I'm aware that most authors suck and I wasn't talking about them I was talking about the other kind.
There's a hole in your argument too. It's been shown that even with no copyright a more expensive book that pays royalties can outsell a cheaper book without royalties. I do not understand where you get the impression that all person are total fucking cheapskates and idiots and don't know what's good for them. I.e. making sure that your favorite entertainers don't have to work at wal-mart.
No, so many people that are into "Art" sound like pompous asses because of the increasingly divide between Art and the general public. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the biggest is a the loss of widely shared culture and iconography over the last century-and-some.
Please elaborate because this strikes me as patently false unless you think shared culture means 200 people looking at the same stained windows in a church. There has never been a more widely shared culture and "iconography" than there is now.
I haven't used Vista at all and only spent a few hours on Kubuntu and Xubuntu.
How does UAC differ from sudo or running something as root? The malware isn't relying on any exploits but the fact that a computer will run what the user installs. Are you suggesting that Linux will be patched so that the user can't run whatever program it wants to run? If UAC required that you type the root password how would it differ from root or sudo?
When you buy unlimited home cable service, it's like buying the salad portion of the buffet: you can eat as much salad (=web browsing) as you want. You did not buy the entree or deserts, meaning you are not permitted to run P2P or servers.
So if I pay for an all you can eat buffé I'm limiting myself to the salad even though it says unlimited buffé? Unlimited or non-capped broadband means you can saturate your connection all the time. To derive any other meaning from those words is nothing but newspeak.
You did not pay for unlimited 24/7 bandwidth, you paid for web browsing and related activities at uncapped speeds.
Show me one ad where they specifically mention that the connection is not for downloading video or music or even one that only advertises mail and HTTP.
What is wrong with you people? If I'm sold a service I am under no obligation to not use the entire service. When you go to an all-you-can-eat buffé do you not eat until you're full? Do you start thinking that the owner might have made a prising mistake and the food might run out before closing time?
If their infrastructure can't handle what they've sold they need to raise their prises and/or build better infrastructure and in some cases get sued for fraud. You as a customer have no obligation to the company other than to pay you bills and follow the contract.
Utilizing a service you pay for is not like abusing a charity.
Are you sure you aren't an astroturfer?
NB: I'm not saying that flat rate is the only way to go but putting the blame on someone who's just using what they payed for is idiotic.
I think it's the same ballpark. If you can enforce seatbelt laws you can enforce fatty food laws. I see no difference between them but then I'm not a utilitarian and if you are I don't think we'll get anywhere.
The point is that you're blaming the wrong guy as long as taxes aren't voluntary. Not that I think that would work with current health care system.
The simple way is that everyone pays for their own medical cost. If you legislate about seatbelts it's not a big step do demand less fatty foods or prohibit most sports.
You should hardly have to waive your "right" to healthcare if you're still paying the taxes. If that's the case then everything you said applies to anything that might bring up healthcare costs.
OK then let's get a paperback book you don't have.
Get in the car drive for 20 minutes
Get out at the bookshop and buy the book.
Drive back for 20 minutes and then you can just open your book.
This is compared to going on IRC downloading a few books
Loading them to an SD card and inserting that card into the reader.
Comparing books you already have is meaningless. Get to the bookshelf, taking down a book and opening it versus turning your e-reader on and selecting the book you want.
It's the basis for free speech. You don't have to protect speech that conforms with the government line, you have to protect speech that differs from it. Thats basic civics, come on.
That ignores speech that could get you lynched it also means that you need a state to be able to have the right of free speech. Arguing that pedophiles should be left alone if they don't rape children or that god doesn't exist could probably get you into a great amount of trouble from private citizens. I'm not sure exactly what the forbidden subjects in the US are as slashdot and other forums aren't really representative.
Since corporations use their wealth to finance candidates that will exercise political power on their behalf (this is not questioned by sane members of society) their line is essentially the government line, because the government does what they are told by their corporate backers. Since speech in a public space is exclusive, and the loudest wins, flooding public space with the messages of the authorities effectively restricts dissenting points of view.
If the government line is the corporate line then the government and (all) corporations are basically the same thing. That is not what I would call a sane opinion. I would call it severe hyperbole, an outright falsehood or paranoid delusions. I agree that the large intrusions into the market creates great incentive for using lobbyists to control policy. I also agree that politicians are corrupt.
I don't think there should be such a thing as public property owned by the state. But as there is the handling of public property should be put to vote (ie what we have now). If it's against the current rules to advertise then I, as a private citizen, (flaming fanboy or paid clandestinely) couldn't put up ultrasonic transducers. If advertising is allowed then I or the company itself could install the transducers bans on the technology is put into place.
The right of free speech is the right of citizens to petition their government with grievances. You can't argue for intrusive advertising on that basis. And, once again, corporations are not citizens and those acting on behalf of corporations are not exercising personal rights.
Are you located in the PRC? Since when does the right of free speech have anything to do with the government other than that they can't touch it? I thought that right (like all others) stemmed from self-ownership.
How will you know I'm acting on the behalf on the corporation? I'm just a great big flaming
fanboy
Since when is freedom of speech suspended for people hired in publicly traded companies? The persons working for a corp is not the same as the "legal construct" (I don't know the correct word in English) itself.
Oh, and the fact you use a bloody comedy as an excuse to avoid discussing the very real issues regarding corporate personhood is deeply anti-intellectual.
It wasn't meant to be humorous. I was just stating the fact that humor has inoculated me from someone crying about the corporations being all corporation-y.
The word intellectual is synonym with someone educated beyond their abilities for me so I'm taking that as a compliment.
Then the corporation pays me to use my free speech to put up ultrasonic transducers. Also I can't stand the word corporation being used in a discussion since Team America World Police.
That really doesn't do it for me, sorry. We are talking laced marijuana sold as unadulterated marijuana not random seizures from someone who may have knowingly have bought or even added adulterants themselves.
Yes, I think a Libertarian Randist like Paul could be a helluva lot worse than Bush. Bush is just an alcoholic puppet, Ron Paul is a lunatic with damn little understanding of history, economics and politics. The only thing that would really keep a maniac like Paul in place is that Congress would fight him at every turn.
He's got a good grounding in Austrian economics. What's wrong with the Austrian school? It seems spot on to me. I've also seen him reference history a lot more than any other political candidate and I haven't seen him make any blatant errors yet.
Do you have any specific complaints like: historically this has happened and Ron Paul says it'll happen this way. Or going back to the gold standard would be horrible because deflation would stop all consumption.
I would like to know because I am a libertarian and I did not acquire my views lightly. Any real criticism is welcome. Opinion doesn't mean much to me though.
Why people are so addicted to this crazy bastard is quite beyond me. He speaks rubbish. Libertarianism is a fantasy. The closest I know of to a Libertarian state was the US until the Civil War, built largely on Maddison's and Jefferson's ideal state, but the idea of a minimalistic Federal government proved incapable of properly dealing with the economic disparity between the Northern and Southern states and its most obvious effect; slavery.
Are you suggesting that libertarianism leads to slavery?
Yeah it's crazy, the state closest to the libertarian ideal became the richest country on earth. That's much worse than all other ideologies put together. No I'm not saying the ideology is the only factor but Hong Kong and Singapore are fairly good examples that economic freedom works well even without much natural resources. Why social and economic freedom wouldn't work together is beyond me. I also haven't found a cut-off point where more freedom leads to less prosperity. If you have, please let me know where. All data I've seen indicates that more freedom is better.
I can think of some made up reasons too, that's why I asked for verified cases of laced weed.
PCP is a dissociative and dissociatives aren't very addictive. I don't know the exact doses of heroin but heroin is expensive even if it's a newbie dose. It's much better better to sell it to someone who wants heroin maybe even a heroin craving newbie.
often, less reputable dealers will lace shitweed with PCP, crack, heroin, or other drugs just so they can sell it
Please cite even one confirmed case of laced weed. Why the hell would you sell more expensive drugs for weed prizes when you can just sell the other drugs for more money?
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus fucking Christ!
I knew Tesla was good but I never knew he was that good.
A loophole which meant that royalties weren't payed out which differs exactly how from absence from copyright?
And that wouldn't be possible today why? Because people don't respect copyright as much? Would a war on piracy change that or even do any good at all?
Which proves the hippies point and contradicts yours.
You're still saying that people have no idea what's good for them. We can't abolish copyright now because not enough people would want to We can't abolish copyright later when most people want to because then no-one would get payed. When exactly can we abolish copyright? And why should I trust you on your words without any empirical evidence?
I'm aware that most authors suck and I wasn't talking about them I was talking about the other kind.
There's a hole in your argument too. It's been shown that even with no copyright a more expensive book that pays royalties can outsell a cheaper book without royalties. I do not understand where you get the impression that all person are total fucking cheapskates and idiots and don't know what's good for them. I.e. making sure that your favorite entertainers don't have to work at wal-mart.
I give you the war over middle earth
I haven't used Vista at all and only spent a few hours on Kubuntu and Xubuntu.
How does UAC differ from sudo or running something as root? The malware isn't relying on any exploits but the fact that a computer will run what the user installs. Are you suggesting that Linux will be patched so that the user can't run whatever program it wants to run? If UAC required that you type the root password how would it differ from root or sudo?
Nothing? Either the leads can take the tiny current from the taser and nothing will happen or they burn out and you'll need new lenses.
What is wrong with you people? If I'm sold a service I am under no obligation to not use the entire service. When you go to an all-you-can-eat buffé do you not eat until you're full? Do you start thinking that the owner might have made a prising mistake and the food might run out before closing time?
If their infrastructure can't handle what they've sold they need to raise their prises and/or build better infrastructure and in some cases get sued for fraud. You as a customer have no obligation to the company other than to pay you bills and follow the contract.
Utilizing a service you pay for is not like abusing a charity.
Are you sure you aren't an astroturfer?
NB: I'm not saying that flat rate is the only way to go but putting the blame on someone who's just using what they payed for is idiotic.
I think it's the same ballpark. If you can enforce seatbelt laws you can enforce fatty food laws. I see no difference between them but then I'm not a utilitarian and if you are I don't think we'll get anywhere.
The point is that you're blaming the wrong guy as long as taxes aren't voluntary. Not that I think that would work with current health care system.
The simple way is that everyone pays for their own medical cost. If you legislate about seatbelts it's not a big step do demand less fatty foods or prohibit most sports.
You should hardly have to waive your "right" to healthcare if you're still paying the taxes. If that's the case then everything you said applies to anything that might bring up healthcare costs.
It was a joke.
OK then let's get a paperback book you don't have.
Get in the car drive for 20 minutes
Get out at the bookshop and buy the book.
Drive back for 20 minutes and then you can just open your book.
This is compared to going on IRC downloading a few books
Loading them to an SD card and inserting that card into the reader.
Comparing books you already have is meaningless. Get to the bookshelf, taking down a book and opening it versus turning your e-reader on and selecting the book you want.
How will you know I'm acting on the behalf on the corporation? I'm just a great big flaming fanboy
Since when is freedom of speech suspended for people hired in publicly traded companies? The persons working for a corp is not the same as the "legal construct" (I don't know the correct word in English) itself. It wasn't meant to be humorous. I was just stating the fact that humor has inoculated me from someone crying about the corporations being all corporation-y.
The word intellectual is synonym with someone educated beyond their abilities for me so I'm taking that as a compliment.
Then the corporation pays me to use my free speech to put up ultrasonic transducers. Also I can't stand the word corporation being used in a discussion since Team America World Police.
That really doesn't do it for me, sorry. We are talking laced marijuana sold as unadulterated marijuana not random seizures from someone who may have knowingly have bought or even added adulterants themselves.
Do you have any specific complaints like: historically this has happened and Ron Paul says it'll happen this way. Or going back to the gold standard would be horrible because deflation would stop all consumption.
I would like to know because I am a libertarian and I did not acquire my views lightly. Any real criticism is welcome. Opinion doesn't mean much to me though. Are you suggesting that libertarianism leads to slavery?
Yeah it's crazy, the state closest to the libertarian ideal became the richest country on earth. That's much worse than all other ideologies put together. No I'm not saying the ideology is the only factor but Hong Kong and Singapore are fairly good examples that economic freedom works well even without much natural resources. Why social and economic freedom wouldn't work together is beyond me. I also haven't found a cut-off point where more freedom leads to less prosperity. If you have, please let me know where. All data I've seen indicates that more freedom is better.
Chuck Norris?
I can think of some made up reasons too, that's why I asked for verified cases of laced weed.
PCP is a dissociative and dissociatives aren't very addictive. I don't know the exact doses of heroin but heroin is expensive even if it's a newbie dose. It's much better better to sell it to someone who wants heroin maybe even a heroin craving newbie.
But I want to read about keyboard layouts.