A plumber can pass down his physical and scarce property (be that a wrench or a plumbing business) to his children. Stocks and bank accounts are intangible but still scarce property -- their value is reflected by a number, and basically when that number becomes zero their value becomes zero.
Intellectual monopolies, created for the specific purpose of encouraging creation, are not property. Extending them beyond the author's death is stupid and indefensible.
A link to a professional shilling outfit, that downplays the value of due process and the First Amendment to hype copyright, is to be considered substantive, but anyone calling you out on that extreme and somewhat disturbing bias is trolling. Got it.
Not only do I think their paywall is doomed to failure, I think their website is one of the worst-branded websites on the internet. You get linked there, and at first you might think you've been linked to a generic blog, so plain and unmemorable is their design...
It's not entitlement, it's economics. If the product of my work is scarce, then my work can have a non-zero price -- which of course is not determined by me, but by competition in the market.
Copies of files are not scarce, and their price is zero. It *is* entitlement to expect people to pay high prices for copies of files.
However, scarcity does exist in content *creation*, and I'm all for finding new ways of funding creators without needing insane laws to keep up the old pay-per-copy business model.
I don't personally consider monopolies on ideas to be a right, but at the same time I can understand why rights holders are afraid to lose those privileges.
STFU. I'm not a pirate, I've stated that many times already. My only interest is in preserving the civil rights the anti-pirates are so bent on destroying, even if that means I have to side with the pirates a lot of the time.
I mean, things like file-sharing and streaming are left alone (so no dangerous and draconian enforcement laws are needed), but creators still hold a monopoly on how their work is used commercially (for a reasonable duration).
That individual was trolling. We have a small group of organised (?) trolls who constantly post personal attacks on other people, aiming to either irritate or hijack the discussion. For some reason they seem to be here around the clock.
They were not censored, merely hidden. It wasn't Nina's doing, but the result of a voting process. See Slashdot's "-1 Troll" moderation as an analogue.
Interesting. Would you object to a system where the rules for non-commercial copying are relaxed, but commercial actors are still bound by law to answer to rights-holders?
"So if Nina had children, she would have no problem with me taking pictures of them in ways she would not approve and distributing them to anyone anywhere?"
You mean she'd "birth" them, but in this case you'd be the one to "bear" them, right?
These are questions as old as the field of AI itself.
I'm sure most here are familiar with Asimov's laws of robotics. There have been many debates about how ethical it is to imprint such rules in any creature we may devise. This is kind of the same question, really, but from a different perspective.
If anyone is interested, you can look at John McCarthy's Stanford website. He's one of the geniuses who founded the field, he's credited with coming up with the term "Artificial Intelligence", and he's also the creator of the LISP programming language.
He wrote a short story which I thought was quite interesting, that deals with the AI personhood issue. May require some basic knowledge of LISP, but it's not hard to understand if you remember that the basic syntax is in prefix form, eg: (function-name argument (function-name argument)).
Maybe I'm not reading that quite right, but can one use "birth" as a transitive verb, as in "to birth children"? "To bear children" sounds more correct. ;)
On the post: Big, Big Loss For Righthaven: Reposting Full Article Found To Be Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Big, Big Loss For Righthaven: Reposting Full Article Found To Be Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Righthaven is safe
Similarly, to me you sound like a selfish, belligerent and right-down unethical individual. My opinion of Terry Hart is even lower.
On the post: Big, Big Loss For Righthaven: Reposting Full Article Found To Be Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Intellectual monopolies, created for the specific purpose of encouraging creation, are not property. Extending them beyond the author's death is stupid and indefensible.
On the post: Big, Big Loss For Righthaven: Reposting Full Article Found To Be Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Righthaven is safe
On the post: Who Actually Felt 'Guilty' That They Read The NYTimes Online For Free?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: If I was rolling out a point-by-point dismantling...
On the post: 'My Works Are Like My Children'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copies of files are not scarce, and their price is zero. It *is* entitlement to expect people to pay high prices for copies of files.
However, scarcity does exist in content *creation*, and I'm all for finding new ways of funding creators without needing insane laws to keep up the old pay-per-copy business model.
On the post: 'My Works Are Like My Children'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 'My Works Are Like My Children'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 'My Works Are Like My Children'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 'My Works Are Like My Children'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
QED.
On the post: 'My Works Are Like My Children'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 'My Works Are Like My Children'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 'My Works Are Like My Children'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 'My Works Are Like My Children'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 'My Works Are Like My Children'
Re:
You mean she'd "birth" them, but in this case you'd be the one to "bear" them, right?
On the post: 'My Works Are Like My Children'
Re: Re:
Ah, I should have known. It's "candy floss" not "cotton candy" you insensitive clods!
On the post: 'My Works Are Like My Children'
Re: Re:
On the post: When Will We Have To Grant Artificial Intelligence Personhood?
I'm sure most here are familiar with Asimov's laws of robotics. There have been many debates about how ethical it is to imprint such rules in any creature we may devise. This is kind of the same question, really, but from a different perspective.
If anyone is interested, you can look at John McCarthy's Stanford website. He's one of the geniuses who founded the field, he's credited with coming up with the term "Artificial Intelligence", and he's also the creator of the LISP programming language.
He wrote a short story which I thought was quite interesting, that deals with the AI personhood issue. May require some basic knowledge of LISP, but it's not hard to understand if you remember that the basic syntax is in prefix form, eg: (function-name argument (function-name argument)).
On the post: 'My Works Are Like My Children'
Nah, it applies to copyright just fine.
Maybe I'm not reading that quite right, but can one use "birth" as a transitive verb, as in "to birth children"? "To bear children" sounds more correct. ;)
Next >>