To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Um...the Constitutional Copyright Clause...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment...
It seems pretty clear cut here...the copyright clause gives the United States Congress the power to create laws to give authors and artists limited copyrights. The First amendment, clearly LIMITS this power. There is no conflict. The First Amendment CLEARLY has priority in this case.
Mike's argument is that the courts are FINALLY acknowledging this.
Why innovate or create if you cannot profit from it?
It's a good thing that artists throughout history didn't ask themselves that question, or we wouldn't have the rich history and culture that we do have...It's such a sad thing that there are no examples throughout all of history that show the relationships that purveyors and creators of art can have without money being directly exchanged.
O...wait...that's right...the direct exchange of money for art didn't even surface until the middle ages when artists were commissioned...O, and the rise of popular music didn't even start until, WHAT?, the 20th Century!?!?!?!
So...we're looking at the past 50-100 (ya...I'm being REALLY generous) as the meter for how economies SHOULD work?
You're right...he's not anonymous...maybe he didn't hand out his home address, driver's license number, credit card number, and social security number, but he has a name that we can recognize, and a reputation that goes along with that name. He's IDENTIFIABLE. You are NOT. It would be the same if I met you at some random party and you told me your first name. I would have a name and face to put with your words, giving me something to recognize you with. However, once we leave the party, I'm not gonna be able to find you again without some more information. Same here...once you leave this site, you don't have a method of finding PaulT again unless you can obtain some more information. In your case, none of use can tell which one of the who knows how many Anonymous Cowards there are that post here. So we can't really even address you.
That's a HUGE difference. We may not particularly like or agree with Weird Harold, but, I must admit, I respect that he does post with an identifiable handle. Even when others try to impersonate him, it's quite obvious and others point it out rather quickly.
Anyone can impersonate someone online, but that's no different from real life either.
There's a reason why the handle is 'Anonymous Coward'...try to rationalize it anyway you want...
The technical term is 'rouge' employee...it's the kind of employee that spends all day in the bathroom applying rouge to their face...then spends the five minutes they ARE at their desk creating havoc through back doors...
Yes, you are right...CDs are NOT lossless, but the human ear cannot physically hear the sounds missing from a CD (though, there are always those who claim that it still affects the experience)...so...as far as we can perceive, it's lossless.
I think I posted this in another comment today, but it makes perfect sense here:
Ben Franklin: A man who trades his freedoms for security deserves neither.
I don't care if Obama wakes up tomorrow and cures cancer, AIDS, convinces every terrorist in the world to peacefully lay down arms, and ends all famine...I don't hate Obama, but I do wonder what is going on with the current Administration. He is definitely grating against my good side right now...starting off on a bad foot usually doesn't help anyone's opinions of you.
I actually have to admit that Weird Harold makes a somewhat valid point. HOWEVER, I can't agree with his conclusions.
A subset of the adolescents — 126 — also answered online surveys. Of these, only 5% said they had friends known only from the Internet.
Quick math: 40 million kids 10 - 19 in the US Chop off on average the top and bottom to get 13-17 and you have 20 million in that group (averaged). So there are 1 million of them with internet only friends.
5% seems like a small number, until you look at the numbers.
1,000,000 kids...ok...assuming that EVERY kid between 13-17 uses the internet, then those 1 million kids have at least 1 friend who they've only met on the internet.
Ok, so, I guess I would have had to be included since I've made at least one friend online in every game that I've tried online that had a multiplayer aspect to it (I tried out a number of games back at that age).
Personally, I didn't have a negative experience in any way. As far as I know, neither have any of my friends (we're talking real life ones at this point). However, we're talking about now...obviously all 1,000,000 of THEM have had negative experiences...
Hardly...there may be a number of them, but certainly, we're talking outside the scope of what legislation can do.
Besides, Weird Harold, you made the most relevant comment in your next post:
Sadly, most parents treat a computer the same way they treat the TV, an idiot box baby sitter.
Being on the internet unsupervised is not different from dropping the kid off in the middle of a busy city street and telling him to have a good time.
I don't know if I'd take the internet thing to that extreme, but my sentiment is the same...the internet is more like the busy street that ran in front of my house when I was a kid...it was a useful tool...and, possibly, a great playground for a kid - if you could watch what you were doing and be careful for cars...teaching safety to me was the responsibility of my parents...not the government, not anyone else. My parents couldn't watch me all the time...they gave me the tools I needed, watched me as much as they could, but, ultimately, let me go...
If you can't let go, how the heck is the kid supposed to learn?
Weird Harold, that may well be true and all (personally, I think it's completely Bull-shit, but that's irrelevant); however, I don't care if a million people see the movie and decide never to go buy it again. The same thing would happen if ANY product was passed around and given to friends to try out...my friend coming over to sit in my chair, me lending my vehicle to a buddy, my buddy letting me check out his xbox...who knows what, who cares. EVERY OTHER industry has to deal with such things. The entertainment industry enjoys a government PROTECTED and ENFORCED privilege of denying people their ability to share. The entertainment industry gets to dictate how I use my LEGALLY purchased goods AFTER I OWN them.
That's bull-shit. That's a violation of my rights as a US citizen. Businesses do not have rights. Rights belong to the people. We choose to give them any rights that they have through our representation in the government. When the government violates our trust in them, we have the obligation and right to take that trust back. That's what this argument is about. I don't care whether it's legal or not. This is about changing legality because it does not represent the will of the people.
That's why we have a problem with their DRACONIAN or ONEROUS (I'm not so sure that 'onerous' is the best choice of words, but whatever...) policies and laws...because they ARE draconian and onerous and just plain antiquated (that might be a better term also).
The government was never intended to interfere in our lives. It was intended to keep order. The government has become a tool for those with money. And, we, as a people have allowed it to happen for our own comfort.
...as Ben Franklin says...the man that gives up freedom for security deserves neither...
You're right...I know that I should have walked the 30 miles from my college town to the nearest city with a movie theater...gee...didn't think of that did you?
I remember my father getting pulled over for driving too slow (I grew up in Dallas, TX). There's a completely different concept of driving down there. They actually care about safety...sometimes...
If law-enforcement actually cared about safety rather than making money off the letter of the law, then we would have more enforcement of the actual causes of traffic problems - cruisers in left lanes, grandma driving 20 mph in a 45mph zone, lane-changing without signals, and similar stuff. The real issue is that speeding tickets are profitable. How are you gonna make money off of grandma driving 20 in a 45 mph zone (reckless driving?!?)? Unless there's a minimum speed limit posted, there's not really a good way to give grandma a ticket...you can only pull her over and tell her that she's being a hazard. Suddenly, you've wasted that valuable time where you could have been working towards your monthly quota of ticket revenue.
While slightly extreme, the point is that the whole situation is about money, not my safety or the safety of my fellow drivers...in fact, cops are just as dangerous of drivers as the rest of the crowd...
I think he's sick...definitely a case of intelligence and rationality. It's a very rare and dangerous syndrome where lawyers actually begin to make sense and become human beings. Personally, I wouldn't hire him - because he wouldn't make the opposition squeal, but might actually solve the problem...definitely very sick.
My previous comment should read more like this:
It all just shows how mainstream your music choices are, or it shows the higher quality of the shows you are attending.
It all just shows how mainstream your music choices are, or how quality of shows you are attending. As someone who attends all sorts of shows, I can tell you that there are definitely a number of shows that I have been to where this is not the case, ESPECIALLY for the opening acts...they aren't always quality. There are always the groupies and the hardcore fans that came to see the band anyway, but you can ALWAYS tell when a crowd just is totally pumped for a band they've never seen or HEARD of before.
@Weird Harold...Vodafone has already arbitrated funds for and paid for the ENTIRETY of the bandwidth used by text messages...yes, there is a cost, but that cost is actually associated with the cost of maintaining a cell phone's connection with the tower. All text messages are sent in between signals sent from tower to phone and back...this is just called making use of what you already have.
While it's true that this is not equal to free, it's also not truthful to say that the company is "passing on costs" when they charge either sender or receiver. The only way that could be true is if the mobile carrier lowers the costs for maintaining the phone's connection, etc. to balance out the costs between the two. THEN, the carrier could claim that it is "passing on costs". As it is, the carrier is charging more for virtually nothing (the servers used to store history of those messages are already set up to store that data - they store cell phone call data).
Currently, carriers provide this service for NEGLIGENT costs. This is good business for them, but it's biting them in the butt, especially with stupid moves like T-Mobile claiming that costs have gone up for text messaging, so it has to pass those costs on to customers. That's BS.
If they want to charge their customers for providing the service, no one is going to complain because it just makes sense to do so. It's even ethical. But Bull-Shitting customers is not and customers don't like that. I can't tell you how many of my friends are actually considering giving up text messaging altogether because of the hassle and stupidity of the carriers. I personally already blocked all text messages because I didn't want to fork over $10 a month for a text plan or potentially $40 a month for the 100 text messages that people send me that cost $.40 apiece. So, I had my friends learn how to send their texts to my email address instead. Not a solution for everyone, but I was tired of the charges, and I don't have $10 a month to spend like that...it's much better spent on other things.
@R. Miles...don't fall to this level of crap. I don't like Weird Harold that much either, but I really thought of your opinions much better than this. Maybe you just haven't had your morning coffee yet this morning or something. I don't know...but stop flaming. That's just stupid and below you.
At the same time, however, I agree. I don't think the real issue is whether or not the LAW says that this is copyright. I think the real issue is whether or not we as participants in this government system should have to tolerate such obvious and blatant abuse and misuse of copyright/trademark/IP law.
True, but I think that the best software designers and debuggers are actually artistic persons who are also gifted at math. The math-oriented people are exceptionally gifted at applying solutions to problems, but it's usually the creative ones that come up with GOOD solutions...also on that note...you don't have to draw, sing, paint, or act to be creative. I've known plenty of good mathematically gifted people who had creative solutions to math problems or were just good at finding a solution that may or may not have been textbook, but they found it. I'd say there's a lot of creativity in that too - it's just combining the stuff you already know with new knowledge to come up with something else.
On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment
Re:
Um...the Constitutional Copyright Clause...
The First Amendment...
It seems pretty clear cut here...the copyright clause gives the United States Congress the power to create laws to give authors and artists limited copyrights. The First amendment, clearly LIMITS this power. There is no conflict. The First Amendment CLEARLY has priority in this case.
Mike's argument is that the courts are FINALLY acknowledging this.
On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment
Re:
It's a good thing that artists throughout history didn't ask themselves that question, or we wouldn't have the rich history and culture that we do have...It's such a sad thing that there are no examples throughout all of history that show the relationships that purveyors and creators of art can have without money being directly exchanged.
O...wait...that's right...the direct exchange of money for art didn't even surface until the middle ages when artists were commissioned...O, and the rise of popular music didn't even start until, WHAT?, the 20th Century!?!?!?!
So...we're looking at the past 50-100 (ya...I'm being REALLY generous) as the meter for how economies SHOULD work?
Right...good thinking there.
On the post: Songwriter Claims He Was Exploited By Google... But A Few Seconds Of Logical Thinking Disproves That
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: A Lawsuit Over Trademarks In AdWords That Makes Sense
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Software Audits In India Block Companies From Backing Up Their Data, Claiming It's Infringement
Re:
opinion + opinion + opinion + opinion + opinion + opinion = educated guess
This is the standard for Academic opinions/conclusions...
This is a rather sound methodology for arguing any opinion or conclusion...I might say its a much stronger structure than your flaming comments...
On the post: Did Frank Zappa Come Up With A Business Plan For File Sharing In 1983?
Re: Re: Re: Dear Big Weird Retard
On the post: EFF: Obama DOJ's Warrantless Wiretapping Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's
Re: Re: Messiah, indeed.
Ben Franklin: A man who trades his freedoms for security deserves neither.
I don't care if Obama wakes up tomorrow and cures cancer, AIDS, convinces every terrorist in the world to peacefully lay down arms, and ends all famine...I don't hate Obama, but I do wonder what is going on with the current Administration. He is definitely grating against my good side right now...starting off on a bad foot usually doesn't help anyone's opinions of you.
On the post: Teens Want To Interact With Their Friends, Not Strangers, Online
This is gonna hurt...
On the post: Daytona Beach Charity Movie Night Put On Hold Due To Copyright
Re:
On the post: Shaking, Rumbling Movie Chair Puts You In The Driver's Seat
Re: Re:
On the post: Maryland Ramps Up Traffic Cameras... But For Safety Or Revenue?
Safety
If law-enforcement actually cared about safety rather than making money off the letter of the law, then we would have more enforcement of the actual causes of traffic problems - cruisers in left lanes, grandma driving 20 mph in a 45mph zone, lane-changing without signals, and similar stuff. The real issue is that speeding tickets are profitable. How are you gonna make money off of grandma driving 20 in a 45 mph zone (reckless driving?!?)? Unless there's a minimum speed limit posted, there's not really a good way to give grandma a ticket...you can only pull her over and tell her that she's being a hazard. Suddenly, you've wasted that valuable time where you could have been working towards your monthly quota of ticket revenue.
While slightly extreme, the point is that the whole situation is about money, not my safety or the safety of my fellow drivers...in fact, cops are just as dangerous of drivers as the rest of the crowd...
On the post: Lawyers Realizing That Suing Gripe Sites Might Not Make Much Sense
Re: Who Is This Guy?
On the post: School Administrator Accused Of Child Porn Because He Investigated Sexting At School
Re: HA! #2
On the post: UK Musicians: Extend Copyright, But Give The Copyright Back To The Musicians
Re: It's about the Mickey
On the post: Bands That Take Selling Seriously
grammer correction
On the post: Bands That Take Selling Seriously
Good Shows
On the post: Apparently, Cybercrime Isn't Actually A Trillion-Dollar Business
Re: Re: Fact checking?
if not, then I commend you for your good BS-storytelling skills...perhaps you should include this on your resume to The Onion on application?
On the post: Twitter Finds Now It Has The Leverage On Mobile Operators
Re:
While it's true that this is not equal to free, it's also not truthful to say that the company is "passing on costs" when they charge either sender or receiver. The only way that could be true is if the mobile carrier lowers the costs for maintaining the phone's connection, etc. to balance out the costs between the two. THEN, the carrier could claim that it is "passing on costs". As it is, the carrier is charging more for virtually nothing (the servers used to store history of those messages are already set up to store that data - they store cell phone call data).
Currently, carriers provide this service for NEGLIGENT costs. This is good business for them, but it's biting them in the butt, especially with stupid moves like T-Mobile claiming that costs have gone up for text messaging, so it has to pass those costs on to customers. That's BS.
If they want to charge their customers for providing the service, no one is going to complain because it just makes sense to do so. It's even ethical. But Bull-Shitting customers is not and customers don't like that. I can't tell you how many of my friends are actually considering giving up text messaging altogether because of the hassle and stupidity of the carriers. I personally already blocked all text messages because I didn't want to fork over $10 a month for a text plan or potentially $40 a month for the 100 text messages that people send me that cost $.40 apiece. So, I had my friends learn how to send their texts to my email address instead. Not a solution for everyone, but I was tired of the charges, and I don't have $10 a month to spend like that...it's much better spent on other things.
On the post: Copyright And Libel Questions Hit The Twitterverse
Get a grip...
At the same time, however, I agree. I don't think the real issue is whether or not the LAW says that this is copyright. I think the real issue is whether or not we as participants in this government system should have to tolerate such obvious and blatant abuse and misuse of copyright/trademark/IP law.
On the post: Is It A Good Thing That Computer Science Is 'Cool Again'?
Re: Look to math performance
Next >>