I have always believed that there would be no form of creation if there were no longer to be respect for upholding and respect for copyright and author’s rights.
Right. ALL copyright is theft. Artists should have absolutely no protections along these lines.
Don't know if you're trolling or if your entire post broke my sarcasm meter, but although I don't agree with Copyright as a good means to an end, it is not theft; it's a deal. (between the public and the artists in theory)
The bit that makes it theft is the retroactive extension. If the increased duration was for new works there would be no theft, but there would be a new deal.
That only one side is really represented at the bargaining table and that all the research (I've seen) suggests that shorter terms would be more beneficial to society isn't really part of this discussion.
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.
We have no idea of the success of this law as they're measuring the wrong thing.
Hopefully a decrease in p2p is not what the media publishing/distribution industries actually want. Hopefully they want increased revenue (more specifically profit, but in theory an increase in revenue is an increase in profit for this scenario). So unless we see an increase in sales that we can directly attribute to this law the law has failed regardless of the change in p2p traffic.
And to me this would still be measuring the wrong thing: as a society we want to measure not sales but some more abstract concept of how much quality art is being created.
While interesting, that Google tried to strike a license deal doesn't mean they believed they would be infringing on valid patents; they may have felt it was easier/cheaper to license than fight. Once the license price hit a threshold they decided to fight if necessary. And they may have felt that Sun wouldn't litigate -- had they know Oracle would buy it they might have been willing to pay more to avoid litigation. But that doesn't mean they think they're "in the wrong". The license may have included additional value; at the very least would have made them customers of "Java" technology which they are now not. Having Android==Java might have been a good thing for Sun. We can speculate all day, but at the end all this means is that Google talked to Sun about Java, and then didn't implement Java.
In short, the negotiating is a (not very) interesting historical trivia and nothing more.
Google used the code
This implies a copyright issue; they're being sued for patent infringement.
People have known about Google being in the wrong
again, citation needed [...to the other people who presume Google's "wrong" not you who did provide linky:-) ]
It should be noted that many of the patent claims have already been invalidated w/o further consideration. Where this all ends is yet to be determined, but I tire (in general terms) of the growing presumption of guilt (in general terms) before trials are concluded. That's not a Oracle/Google thing, but a we-believe-in-trials-to-resolve-disputes or for the criminal trials; we believe in innocent until proven guilty.
65,000,000 * 0.01%== 65,000,000 * 0.0001 != 650 000
So 6500 people per year, or about 18 people per day get extra attention from a human. Doesn't seem unmanageable.
I don't disagree with technology helping deal with issues as long as in the end it's a human making the call; not a machine.
The real question/danger is if we begin to rely 100% on this machine whether other methods which work today will mean that Bad People (tm) will take explicit action to become one of the 0.01% ensuring 100% effective failure of the system.
They don't care if they knock out 10,000 sites like my own.
...and you're not even collateral damage -- you're a target.
The only safety is to give your music over to the MAFIAA; their sites alone are authorised to have music...
In a word: Expectation.
I don't see my microwave as being a general purpose computer which has been arbitrarily locked down. For your example to work it would have to refuse to reheat chicken on Tuesdays.
but which the manufacturer prevents you from easily running arbitrary code.
In a word: Intention.
I don't think that they are actively preventing you (which you seem to imply). It may be difficult (as you suggest) but that's because they are not selling a device intended for running arbitrary code; they are selling a device for specific purpose. Apple on the other hand wants to sell a device that is intended to run arbitrary code, but only code they approve of.
Congrats! You just made the Crazy People List. (trademark pending)
Now, thanks to that one comment on-line, the local and federal authorities have placed you on the Watch List (long ago trademarked). Should you go further in your anti-authority ways we may read about you in the paper with heavy slant about how you made dangerous remarks on-line. Or we may never hear from you again as some Secret Terrorist Court (trademark denied: "generic") deems you unfit to be amongst the law abiding citizens. And for our own good, we will let them keep you.
Either way; reaching for your gun works for them, not against them.
There's numerous reasons why patents on software are invalid. The most difficult to understand for a non-technical person might be that it can be reduced to math, which is already not patentable; so be allowing patents on software you are allowing patents on math. And demonstrating this in court for any scenario could be somewhat difficult.
But the simpler answer (from the start) should have been that you are not supposed to be able to patent an idea; you must patent an invention (implementation). In software it's either source code (covered by copyright) or it's an idea (not patentable).
The simple question from the patent examiner or judge for a software patent is a request to see the implementation. Since there's no implementation in "a way to navigate the web using a touch interface" it should get tossed. On the other hand, the specific implementation could (I suppose) be patented, but since the implementation is already covered by copyright, why bother with the (inferior) patent...?
So, the "socially inept" engineers somehow manage to convince the customers that they (the engineers) are trustworthy.
I've seen numerous people associate "socially inept/awkward" as meaning "technically savvy"; it seems that much like eye-glasses have been stereotyped as meaning "smart" it seems that all Asperger's syndrome sufferers are all technical whiz-kids.
I worked with a guy who was pretty average in IT, but had a very difficult time communicating, and was odd when he did: everyone insisted he was some sort of genius.
So when the teflon-suited sales guy shows up saying you need WhizBang5000 (tm) technology he's full of sh!t, but when the socially awkward guy says it, it's true.
I'm less concerned with the agenda than I am that the entire study be open. Including the raw data, methodology etc. In this way, if they try and misinterpret the results others can peer review and point out the flaws. At this point it doesn't matter as much if they had an agenda: either their 'agenda' happens to be beneficial, or they can't back their nefarious agenda.
yes, withhold passwords on a network resulting in no measurable loss, get 20yrs of income as fine. Damage and destroy an ecosystem causing loss of animal life and depressing an entire area economically; get fines that amount to about 7~mos of income. That's called justice.
well then as per usual, since those who make and implement the laws seem to see no problem (and download the responsibility to those they wronged) the answer is to find the individuals who are responsible for this, hack their wifi and pin something on them. All of them.
note: I'm not condoning any illegal activity here of course, 'cause according to the rules they made that would be wrong, and they'll come after you for pointing out the flaws in their system.
so there is a need to incentivize research and development.
If you start with this (incorrect) position, then of course patents seem necessary.
Who would invest hundreds of millions of dollars in research...
The simplest answer is that you don't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars if you do incremental improvement -- which is only possible if there are no patent protections. The patent system itself makes itself appear necessary. The simplest example of this is the inherent differences between how Linux (and most open source) is developed in contrast with MS operating system. By incrementally making small changes and releasing often Linux as surpassed Windows in terms of quality etc.
...could copy their invention and sell it for the marginal cost of production
There is a cost to copying which may not be as high as the original, but it is non-zero. Also, if you are the one innovating you will have the lead in market; during this time you must continue to innovate to maintain your lead. Your continued innovation will leave you at the front while others lag. But that's a lot more work than relying on government monopolies.
but a substantial number of these products would not exist.
Pure conjecture. But I will grant you that some products we have today might not exist in a non-patent world if you agree that in our patent-world there are products we could have and don't because of patent issues. Whether we are better or worse of as a result is purely imaginary. I suggest we are worse off as necessity is the mother of invention; so any product with a need that can't be met today due to patent is a loss to us.
While I have not read the original posts you reference, WTO, FTC, US Courts, EuroCommish, and EuroCourts are not agencies I would trust for original research.
So I see your Schumpeter and raise you a Boldrin & Levine; the research and studies they quote and use seem to strongly indicate that there is no gain by giving monopoly protection. And that's actual in numbers, not hypothesis or theoretical discussions.
People pirate software because they are cheap, unethical bastards. I swapped warez because I was a kid and my parents couldn't afford to buy me all the new games.
Your second sentence makes a lie of the first.
And I protest your making this an ethics issue. It's not; it's a business model problem. The ethical problem with (DRM/IP) is that they believe they control my property. That is the truly unethical act in this discussion. That you can no longer control your own property; that they continue to push through bad laws granting them more power over you and your property by lying and misleading is the ethics part of this conversation. That they continue to erode our rights and privacy in the name of their profits; by lying, misleading and buying politicians (bribery or "lobbying" as the legal!?! version is known) is the ethics issue.
Those servers should be free damn it!
The problem is that there's plenty of free servers/services on the 'net; GOOG gives me free e-mail, picture sharing, mapping/street-view etc. Free. So people can be forgiven if they don't believe that the servers can't be free.
It takes some real strength of character to look at yourself in the mirror and acknowledge that you are ripping someone else off.
Sure, but I don't expect the sort of person who becomes head of a Monopoly Based Media Empire to ever have that sort of strength of character.
Slashdot Mirror
--Sarkozy
Don't know if you're trolling or if your entire post broke my sarcasm meter, but although I don't agree with Copyright as a good means to an end, it is not theft; it's a deal. (between the public and the artists in theory)
The bit that makes it theft is the retroactive extension. If the increased duration was for new works there would be no theft, but there would be a new deal.
That only one side is really represented at the bargaining table and that all the research (I've seen) suggests that shorter terms would be more beneficial to society isn't really part of this discussion.
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.
We have no idea of the success of this law as they're measuring the wrong thing.
Hopefully a decrease in p2p is not what the media publishing/distribution industries actually want. Hopefully they want increased revenue (more specifically profit, but in theory an increase in revenue is an increase in profit for this scenario). So unless we see an increase in sales that we can directly attribute to this law the law has failed regardless of the change in p2p traffic.
And to me this would still be measuring the wrong thing: as a society we want to measure not sales but some more abstract concept of how much quality art is being created.
While interesting, that Google tried to strike a license deal doesn't mean they believed they would be infringing on valid patents; they may have felt it was easier/cheaper to license than fight. Once the license price hit a threshold they decided to fight if necessary. And they may have felt that Sun wouldn't litigate -- had they know Oracle would buy it they might have been willing to pay more to avoid litigation. But that doesn't mean they think they're "in the wrong". The license may have included additional value; at the very least would have made them customers of "Java" technology which they are now not. Having Android==Java might have been a good thing for Sun. We can speculate all day, but at the end all this means is that Google talked to Sun about Java, and then didn't implement Java.
In short, the negotiating is a (not very) interesting historical trivia and nothing more.
This implies a copyright issue; they're being sued for patent infringement.
again, citation needed [...to the other people who presume Google's "wrong" not you who did provide linky :-) ]
It should be noted that many of the patent claims have already been invalidated w/o further consideration.
Where this all ends is yet to be determined, but I tire (in general terms) of the growing presumption of guilt (in general terms) before trials are concluded. That's not a Oracle/Google thing, but a we-believe-in-trials-to-resolve-disputes or for the criminal trials; we believe in innocent until proven guilty.
[citation needed]
65,000,000 * 0.01% == 65,000,000 * 0.0001 != 650 000
So 6500 people per year, or about 18 people per day get extra attention from a human. Doesn't seem unmanageable.
I don't disagree with technology helping deal with issues as long as in the end it's a human making the call; not a machine.
The real question/danger is if we begin to rely 100% on this machine whether other methods which work today will mean that Bad People (tm) will take explicit action to become one of the 0.01% ensuring 100% effective failure of the system.
The only safety is to give your music over to the MAFIAA; their sites alone are authorised to have music
In a word: Expectation.
I don't see my microwave as being a general purpose computer which has been arbitrarily locked down. For your example to work it would have to refuse to reheat chicken on Tuesdays.
In a word: Intention.
I don't think that they are actively preventing you (which you seem to imply). It may be difficult (as you suggest) but that's because they are not selling a device intended for running arbitrary code; they are selling a device for specific purpose. Apple on the other hand wants to sell a device that is intended to run arbitrary code, but only code they approve of.
Campaign Tag Line:
Don't make us come and get it.
yes, but on ver.8 the animation runs in 4 minutes.
Hey! We're Canadian! Mind your manners!
It's We're full, please fuck off.
Congrats! You just made the Crazy People List. (trademark pending)
Now, thanks to that one comment on-line, the local and federal authorities have placed you on the Watch List (long ago trademarked). Should you go further in your anti-authority ways we may read about you in the paper with heavy slant about how you made dangerous remarks on-line. Or we may never hear from you again as some Secret Terrorist Court (trademark denied: "generic") deems you unfit to be amongst the law abiding citizens. And for our own good, we will let them keep you.
Either way; reaching for your gun works for them, not against them.
I don't think those words mean what you think they do.
There's numerous reasons why patents on software are invalid. The most difficult to understand for a non-technical person might be that it can be reduced to math, which is already not patentable; so be allowing patents on software you are allowing patents on math. And demonstrating this in court for any scenario could be somewhat difficult.
But the simpler answer (from the start) should have been that you are not supposed to be able to patent an idea; you must patent an invention (implementation). In software it's either source code (covered by copyright) or it's an idea (not patentable).
The simple question from the patent examiner or judge for a software patent is a request to see the implementation. Since there's no implementation in "a way to navigate the web using a touch interface" it should get tossed. On the other hand, the specific implementation could (I suppose) be patented, but since the implementation is already covered by copyright, why bother with the (inferior) patent...?
I've seen numerous people associate "socially inept/awkward" as meaning "technically savvy"; it seems that much like eye-glasses have been stereotyped as meaning "smart" it seems that all Asperger's syndrome sufferers are all technical whiz-kids. I worked with a guy who was pretty average in IT, but had a very difficult time communicating, and was odd when he did: everyone insisted he was some sort of genius.
So when the teflon-suited sales guy shows up saying you need WhizBang5000 (tm) technology he's full of sh!t, but when the socially awkward guy says it, it's true.
If you can get around these three small problems, your plan is otherwise sound:
[X] spend money
[X] training
[X] (sales people) understanding tech
I'm less concerned with the agenda than I am that the entire study be open. Including the raw data, methodology etc. In this way, if they try and misinterpret the results others can peer review and point out the flaws. At this point it doesn't matter as much if they had an agenda: either their 'agenda' happens to be beneficial, or they can't back their nefarious agenda.
yes, withhold passwords on a network resulting in no measurable loss, get 20yrs of income as fine. Damage and destroy an ecosystem causing loss of animal life and depressing an entire area economically; get fines that amount to about 7~mos of income. That's called justice.
I'd argue the second makes lie of the first.
I thought there were two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things and off by one errors.
...and PirateBay will still have an agreement with none of them, yet somehow will be the best option for getting content. huh.
well then as per usual, since those who make and implement the laws seem to see no problem (and download the responsibility to those they wronged) the answer is to find the individuals who are responsible for this, hack their wifi and pin something on them. All of them.
note: I'm not condoning any illegal activity here of course, 'cause according to the rules they made that would be wrong, and they'll come after you for pointing out the flaws in their system.
If you start with this (incorrect) position, then of course patents seem necessary.
The simplest answer is that you don't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars if you do incremental improvement -- which is only possible if there are no patent protections. The patent system itself makes itself appear necessary. The simplest example of this is the inherent differences between how Linux (and most open source) is developed in contrast with MS operating system. By incrementally making small changes and releasing often Linux as surpassed Windows in terms of quality etc.
There is a cost to copying which may not be as high as the original, but it is non-zero. Also, if you are the one innovating you will have the lead in market; during this time you must continue to innovate to maintain your lead. Your continued innovation will leave you at the front while others lag. But that's a lot more work than relying on government monopolies.
Pure conjecture. But I will grant you that some products we have today might not exist in a non-patent world if you agree that in our patent-world there are products we could have and don't because of patent issues. Whether we are better or worse of as a result is purely imaginary. I suggest we are worse off as necessity is the mother of invention; so any product with a need that can't be met today due to patent is a loss to us.
While I have not read the original posts you reference, WTO, FTC, US Courts, EuroCommish, and EuroCourts are not agencies I would trust for original research.
So I see your Schumpeter and raise you a Boldrin & Levine; the research and studies they quote and use seem to strongly indicate that there is no gain by giving monopoly protection. And that's actual in numbers, not hypothesis or theoretical discussions.
Your second sentence makes a lie of the first.
And I protest your making this an ethics issue. It's not; it's a business model problem. The ethical problem with (DRM/IP) is that they believe they control my property. That is the truly unethical act in this discussion. That you can no longer control your own property; that they continue to push through bad laws granting them more power over you and your property by lying and misleading is the ethics part of this conversation. That they continue to erode our rights and privacy in the name of their profits; by lying, misleading and buying politicians (bribery or "lobbying" as the legal!?! version is known) is the ethics issue.
The problem is that there's plenty of free servers/services on the 'net; GOOG gives me free e-mail, picture sharing, mapping/street-view etc. Free. So people can be forgiven if they don't believe that the servers can't be free.
Sure, but I don't expect the sort of person who becomes head of a Monopoly Based Media Empire to ever have that sort of strength of character.