I work in a technical field, and my experience is innovators innovate, and people who can't innovate get patents. Our company is a world leader in the specific type of analysis we do, and have zero patents. Our competitors have many.
It is the difference between getting out and working hard every day, or sitting on the couch scratching lottery tickets hoping to win.
> Does Al get permission to do his parodies?
>
> Al does get permission from the original writers of the
> songs that he parodies. While the law supports his
> ability to parody without permission, he feels it's
> important to maintain the relationships that he's built
> with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants
> to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as
> writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of
> the royalties.
From Weird Al's website. He considers his songs parodies, and doesn't believe he needs permission. I agree with him.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Supply and Deman isn't straight-forward.
> You people keep looking at a *well-regulated* society
> and mistaking it with notions of the superiority of *raw
> capitalism*, when it's NOT.
It is not like capitalism has no regulation. Look, here's how it would run. Every driver must be licenced to drive a cab and would have to pass training of some sort (e.g., safe driving). Every cab must be inspected every year so it is safe to transport people. Other than that, all the other stuff you describe, the "cycles of boom and bust" is just capitalism, which is the most effective system for allocating scarce resources.
> See, even "next in line" is a *convention* agreed upon by
> regulated drivers
Wrong. The airport determines the convention. An airport is private property, not a free for all. For example, my city airport just signed an agreement with a cab company to provide all the outgoing pickups at the airport. This is totally in-line with capitalism.
If a car is safe, and the driver isn't a crazy person, I couldn't give a s**t if he isn't making more than minimum wage. Why should the municipal government prop up a monopoly? There are many other similar services -- plumbers, caterers, etc. -- that don't get an artificial monopoly; why should cabbies?
> While it's great that Watson had success with this, I'm
> not so certain it would be so in every case.
If you want a steady income, get a day job.
> For instance, if Lars Ulrich were to do the same thing
> with a music file, I can't see sales rising all that much
> as a result.
I think the exposure from piracy tends to help small acts and hurt large acts.
> There is an up-front capital cost to making art
Fine, that is the way it is now, but it doesn't have to be. In fact, art is better when it is under duress. People paid to do things get lazy. People doing things to get paid work much harder.
> But the product cycle for putting out an album has
> increased a lot in the last 30 years, and that's got to
> be accounted for as well.
This makes no sense, and actually shows the bloating and inefficiencies due to the monopoly. In every other industry, as technology increases, cycle time goes down. Frankly, I don't believe you. What may have happened is more people have a hand in the pie, just like film-making (which also has bloated to a ridiculous level). There is no reason why a band couldn't put out a new song every few months.
> They are already facing a lot of scrutiny over their
> actions at the G20
As a Canadian, I was horrified about the G20 summit for two reasons: the $1.1B price tag, and why there was so much footage of "protesters" smashing cars and windows.
Maybe I'm old, but why weren't these tight black jean, ironic t-shirt wearing terrorists being shot left and right with bean-bag shotguns, stun guns, and tear gas? Oh, so not agreeing with capitalism allows you to take a bat to a storefront window? And then we get the ridiculous charge that the police were out of line? Give me a f**kin break. I'm not going to be happy until I see several dozen d-bag college kids serve real jail time for the destruction that happened.
> Personally, I don't think I've seen anything in the past 20 years
> in relation to software that was truly unique and deserving of a patent
I agree.
Here's why I don't think software should be patentable. Software is written in a programming language, which was created by others. If the programming language didn't exist, then the software can't exist.
If you try and generalize software to the point where the programming language doesn't matter, then it crosses the expression/idea boundary and becomes an idea, which is not patentable.
Another way to look at it is, if I create the rules for a board game (like chess), I have also created all the possible states of the game. You couldn't copyright one set of moves, because those moves were already created when the rules of the game were created. The moves may not have been _discovered_ yet, but that is irrelevant.
I'm not sure if you're joking. It was a ridiculous plan, if they were eventually going to get into online gaming. When the US outlawed online gaming, it did hurt Pokerstars and FullTilt, but what they did was aggressively focus on Europe. Now they don't need Americans (even though many still play online). When HarrahsOnline, or whatever, tries to come in, they won't have a chance. For online poker, at least, you need to have enough people playing so there is always a game going. At 3am, I can register for a 90 person sit-and-go, and it will be full in a few minutes. There is no way any Vegas online casino could even hope to get those kind of numbers.
You're right, corporations are run by cackling maniacs who sit in a hot tub of diamonds and throw stacks of bills on the fire.
What the hell are you talking about? Corporations have shareholders and boards who DEMAND dividends. There are no "greedy few" at the top. There are the greedy many, lots of whom are everyday people who own mutual funds with Pharmaceutical companies in them.
Where are these police when a woman's abusive ex threatens to kill her? One of the leading causes of death in pregnant women is murder (I think it is third). Around half of murdered women were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. The stalking laws are ridiculous. The same response should be made when a woman is threatened. But to quote from another Fincher movie, "We tolerate it because it's common".
In 1998, the RCMP blew up a shack near a gas well, in order to give "credibility" to an informant. It was near Hythe, Alberta, and I remember talking to my uncle (a teacher in Hythe) who was scared sh!tless. Everyone thought the shack explosion was a terriorist attack (against the Oil Industry).
For those that don't know, the informant eventually sold some dynamite to Wiebo Ludwig and Ludwig was charged with conspiracy.
Coombs (on Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada) has had goats on the roof for years. I remember going there as a child because my grandparents lived in Qualicum Beach (just outside of Coombs). See their website: http://www.oldcountrymarket.com/
"Home of the Goats on the Roof"
> Authors have a natural right to exclude others from their
> writings (in their possession) - because others are NOT
> in possession of them (must commit burglary in order to
> obtain them).
A secret is something you tell no one. Like a diary. If I wanted your diary, I'd have to break into your house.
Once you tell someone, it is not a secret, and you have no right to control what they do with it. The government figured that if there wasn't some control, no one would talk, so they created Copyright.
The "natural right" is for me to do whatever I want with what I hear, read or see. It is lunacy to suggest otherwise. If you don't like that, keep it a secret.
Re: Re: Re: Natural rights gives a straightforward explanation
I agree with crade, there are no natural rights. The US has the death penalty, which takes away the "right to life" you think "nature imbues you with".
Humans have a drive for self-preservation, but that is because evolution tends to weeds out those people who don't have it. But that is different than a "natural right".
You are correct, that burning releases toxins. Most regular pot smokers use water filters or vaporizers. But with any toxin, as you know, dosage is the key. The average pot smoker smokes 10x less than the average cigarette smoker. (So if it takes 20 years to get lung cancer from cigarettes, it will take 200 from pot.)
To say it is as dangerous as smoking a cigarette or drinking is just retarded. Go look at the numbers of annual deaths due to smoking, drinking, and pot.
On the post: How The US Response Turns 'Failed' Terrorist Attacks Into Successes
Ignore them
The only way to beat them is to ignore them.
On the post: MIT's Tech Review Comes Out In Favor Of Patent Trolls
Re: Re: Re: Trolls
It is the difference between getting out and working hard every day, or sitting on the couch scratching lottery tickets hoping to win.
On the post: YouTube Star VenetianPrincess Silenced By Music Publishers Claiming Parody Isn't Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Weird Al
>
> Al does get permission from the original writers of the
> songs that he parodies. While the law supports his
> ability to parody without permission, he feels it's
> important to maintain the relationships that he's built
> with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants
> to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as
> writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of
> the royalties.
From Weird Al's website. He considers his songs parodies, and doesn't believe he needs permission. I agree with him.
On the post: Company Making Cab/Limo Rides More Efficient Ordered To Stop
Re: Re: Re: Re: Supply and Deman isn't straight-forward.
> and mistaking it with notions of the superiority of *raw
> capitalism*, when it's NOT.
It is not like capitalism has no regulation. Look, here's how it would run. Every driver must be licenced to drive a cab and would have to pass training of some sort (e.g., safe driving). Every cab must be inspected every year so it is safe to transport people. Other than that, all the other stuff you describe, the "cycles of boom and bust" is just capitalism, which is the most effective system for allocating scarce resources.
> See, even "next in line" is a *convention* agreed upon by
> regulated drivers
Wrong. The airport determines the convention. An airport is private property, not a free for all. For example, my city airport just signed an agreement with a cab company to provide all the outgoing pickups at the airport. This is totally in-line with capitalism.
If a car is safe, and the driver isn't a crazy person, I couldn't give a s**t if he isn't making more than minimum wage. Why should the municipal government prop up a monopoly? There are many other similar services -- plumbers, caterers, etc. -- that don't get an artificial monopoly; why should cabbies?
On the post: Comic Book 'Pirated' On 4Chan, Author Joins Discussion... Watches Sales Soar
Re:
> not so certain it would be so in every case.
If you want a steady income, get a day job.
> For instance, if Lars Ulrich were to do the same thing
> with a music file, I can't see sales rising all that much
> as a result.
I think the exposure from piracy tends to help small acts and hurt large acts.
> There is an up-front capital cost to making art
Fine, that is the way it is now, but it doesn't have to be. In fact, art is better when it is under duress. People paid to do things get lazy. People doing things to get paid work much harder.
> But the product cycle for putting out an album has
> increased a lot in the last 30 years, and that's got to
> be accounted for as well.
This makes no sense, and actually shows the bloating and inefficiencies due to the monopoly. In every other industry, as technology increases, cycle time goes down. Frankly, I don't believe you. What may have happened is more people have a hand in the pie, just like film-making (which also has bloated to a ridiculous level). There is no reason why a band couldn't put out a new song every few months.
On the post: Traders Convicted For Figuring Out Auto Trading Algorithm; How Is That Illegal?
Re: Inside Information
WRONG. Martha Stewart was not convicted of insider trading. She was convicted of lying.
On the post: Officer Bubbles Sues To Find Out Identity Of Anonymous YouTubers
Re: Re: Re:
> Techdirt insider.
Don't read too much into being an "Insider". It just means I had $35 laying around.
And I'm about 72% serious. But I still think it would be funny to see some emo smash-and-grabber with gauged out ears get bean-bagged upside the head.
On the post: Officer Bubbles Sues To Find Out Identity Of Anonymous YouTubers
Re:
> actions at the G20
As a Canadian, I was horrified about the G20 summit for two reasons: the $1.1B price tag, and why there was so much footage of "protesters" smashing cars and windows.
Maybe I'm old, but why weren't these tight black jean, ironic t-shirt wearing terrorists being shot left and right with bean-bag shotguns, stun guns, and tear gas? Oh, so not agreeing with capitalism allows you to take a bat to a storefront window? And then we get the ridiculous charge that the police were out of line? Give me a f**kin break. I'm not going to be happy until I see several dozen d-bag college kids serve real jail time for the destruction that happened.
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Flame on!
Good point.
"What is your falsifiable hypothesis?" is all you need to say to chase away most creationist/ID believer.
Ask them "What proof would I need to show you to change your mind?" A scientists will tell you. A fanatic will not.
On the post: Apple Ordered To Pay Over $600 Million... For Patent Infringement Of Cover Flow?
Re: Re:
> in relation to software that was truly unique and deserving of a patent
I agree.
Here's why I don't think software should be patentable. Software is written in a programming language, which was created by others. If the programming language didn't exist, then the software can't exist.
If you try and generalize software to the point where the programming language doesn't matter, then it crosses the expression/idea boundary and becomes an idea, which is not patentable.
Another way to look at it is, if I create the rules for a board game (like chess), I have also created all the possible states of the game. You couldn't copyright one set of moves, because those moves were already created when the rules of the game were created. The moves may not have been _discovered_ yet, but that is irrelevant.
On the post: Big Casinos May Now Regret That They Had Congress Ban Internet Gambling
Re: Ha
I'm not sure if you're joking. It was a ridiculous plan, if they were eventually going to get into online gaming. When the US outlawed online gaming, it did hurt Pokerstars and FullTilt, but what they did was aggressively focus on Europe. Now they don't need Americans (even though many still play online). When HarrahsOnline, or whatever, tries to come in, they won't have a chance. For online poker, at least, you need to have enough people playing so there is always a game going. At 3am, I can register for a 90 person sit-and-go, and it will be full in a few minutes. There is no way any Vegas online casino could even hope to get those kind of numbers.
On the post: Drug Rep Accidentally Admits There's No Justification For Massive Markup Over Generics
Re:
You're right, corporations are run by cackling maniacs who sit in a hot tub of diamonds and throw stacks of bills on the fire.
What the hell are you talking about? Corporations have shareholders and boards who DEMAND dividends. There are no "greedy few" at the top. There are the greedy many, lots of whom are everyday people who own mutual funds with Pharmaceutical companies in them.
On the post: More Stories Of People Arrested For Making Joke Threats On Social Networks
Where are these police ...
/rant
On the post: FBI Made Up 'Threats' At Peace Rally, Lied To Congress, To Justify Spying Activity
We do it in Canada too
For those that don't know, the informant eventually sold some dynamite to Wiebo Ludwig and Ludwig was charged with conspiracy.
On the post: Man Claims Trademark On 'Goats On A Roof'
This already exists in Coombs, BC
http://www.oldcountrymarket.com/
"Home of the Goats on the Roof"
On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems...
Re: The Constitution is nevertheless consistent
> writings (in their possession) - because others are NOT
> in possession of them (must commit burglary in order to
> obtain them).
A secret is something you tell no one. Like a diary. If I wanted your diary, I'd have to break into your house.
Once you tell someone, it is not a secret, and you have no right to control what they do with it. The government figured that if there wasn't some control, no one would talk, so they created Copyright.
The "natural right" is for me to do whatever I want with what I hear, read or see. It is lunacy to suggest otherwise. If you don't like that, keep it a secret.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Natural rights gives a straightforward explanation
Humans have a drive for self-preservation, but that is because evolution tends to weeds out those people who don't have it. But that is different than a "natural right".
On the post: A Rose Is A Rose Is A Rose... Until Police See It On CCTV, Say It's A Knife & Throw You In Jail For 3 Months
Re: Re: Thrown in jail for carrying a knife?
> doing a very good job at reducing the crime.
Deterrence. All crime reduction is deterrence. Therefore response time is not as critical as conviction rate.
Ask your local cop how many "crimes in progress" they've stopped (besides moving violations).
On the post: Anonymous Mexican Blog Becomes Go To Source For Drug War Info, 'Pro' Journalists Upset
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are correct, that burning releases toxins. Most regular pot smokers use water filters or vaporizers. But with any toxin, as you know, dosage is the key. The average pot smoker smokes 10x less than the average cigarette smoker. (So if it takes 20 years to get lung cancer from cigarettes, it will take 200 from pot.)
To say it is as dangerous as smoking a cigarette or drinking is just retarded. Go look at the numbers of annual deaths due to smoking, drinking, and pot.
On the post: Shameful News Industry Willing To Sacrifice Wikileaks To Get Shield Law
Re:
You are right, reporters tend to be left wing. But editors and owners are not. Guess who controls content?
Next >>