Re: Anything that can weaken protections for artists
I'll say it yet again.
Artists must get rewarded for creating things people value. I don't know anyone who disagrees.
But copyright is no longer a good way to do it.
It used to be a good way - before copying became trivially easy.
Now we need a new way.
Personally I like automated patronage - electronic "tip jars" that ensure micropayments go straight to artists (not middlemen) each time a work is enjoyed.
But I'm sure there are other ways as well. We have to stop defending the dead horse of copyright, and start moving on to something that will actually help artists.
Speed limits are to tell fallible humans how fast is "too fast".
Most drivers don't need speed limits at all - one standard way of setting them is to use the 80th percentile speed drivers choose when the road has no marked limit.
It's the < 20% of human drivers that are nuts (drunk, teenagers with hormone poisoning, etc.) who need the speed limit signs.
Self-driving cars shouldn't need *any* speed limits. They should be able to figure out, for themselves, how fast they can safely go.
Happily for the rest of us, IT Guy is unlikely to be programming his own self-driving car.
I find it amusing that people are saying things like "No doubt at all" and "No question" when it comes to prioritizing their own child vs. a busload (or city full, or world full) of other people's kids.
The phrase really shows it's an emotional statement, not a reasoned one. "No question" means, literally, that the speaker hasn't thought it about it. Just is reacting emotionally.
I don't know why your mother got fined, but in my experience the authorities are very reasonable about this sort of thing.
If you break a traffic law in order to avoid an accident, you're extremely unlikely to be penalized. 99% of cops will not issue a ticket in that circumstance (although they could), and 90% of courts will waive the penalty if you explain.
My own wife got out of a speeding ticket by explaining to the court why it was unsafe to stay near a weaving driver.
The whole question is idiotic. Automated cars will do the best they can to avoid accidents, just as people do. Period.
The traffic laws have been tweaked for over 100 years - they're pretty good. If everyone follows the rules cars will virtually never smash into each other or pedestrians. In the rare cases where outside factors (mechanical failures, weather, etc.) intervene, the car will simply do the best it can.
There really aren't cases where such choices need to be made, and there's no payback for even worrying about it.
Human drivers don't think about this in accidents - things happen too fast for that.
(Which is why manual override is not a solution.)
Even in the crazy hypotheticals, it just doesn't matter. Automated cars will avoid 99/100 or 999/1000 of the accidents that happen today.
Who the 1 in 100 or 1000 are that don't get saved doesn't matter. What matters is that 99/100 or 999/1000 are saved.
I can spend millions digging holes and filling them up again - that doesn't entitle me to a reward for my "time and effort".
If I look at the image on their website and get pleasure from the beauty of it, that doesn't harm them in any way or cost them a penny. They *already* made the image for their own reasons. Whether I get pleasure from it doesn't affect them.
If their use of the image harmed the creator economically - lost sales in this case (as with the free download of the game), then (and only then) you have a case for limiting that use.
Clearly the dealership is confused, and who can blame them - the whole structure of current IP law is incomprehensible to most people.
I imagine even if the dealership knew the image came from a video game, they thought "hey we're selling cars, not competitive with a game in any way", so no problem.
And if the law were reasonable, that wouldn't be a bad way to think.
Certainly the game people deserve credit for the image, but I don't see how they suffered any economic harm at all - use of the image doesn't take a penny from their pocket. If anything it's free advertising for their game (at least if they'd gotten credit).
Re: Re: It's not new, it's just how USG people think
Sure, industrial espionage is as old as industry, and espionage is as old as states (or older).
But the warnings we got in the '90s weren't much about that - it was mostly "you'll be arrested on made-up charges and have no rights", etc. They made as if they were genuinely concerned with our safety.
In Switzerland.
(As far as I know, nobody took their advice, and did as they pleased on weekends without telling anyone. We chuckled about their nannying...privately.)
On the post: Ton Of Tech Industry Leaders Say Trump Would Be A Complete Disaster For Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Johnson/Weld
If everyone thinks they don't have a chance, and so don't vote for them, they don't have a chance.
If people vote for who they really prefer, regardless of whether they have "a chance" or not - then they DO have a chance.
On the post: Ton Of Tech Industry Leaders Say Trump Would Be A Complete Disaster For Innovation
Re: a very tough time being a bigger disaster
Supposedly Einstein said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result".
How about we try something new?
https://www.johnsonweld.com/
On the post: Ton Of Tech Industry Leaders Say Trump Would Be A Complete Disaster For Innovation
Re: Nether canidate is worth a pile of beans
How about a pair of popular and successful two-term governors?
Both of whom are neither corrupt nor insane.
They're not ideal, but compared to Clinton and Trump, the choice seems pretty clear to me.
https://www.johnsonweld.com/
On the post: Store Owner Sues Baton Rouge Police For Seizing His CCTV Recording Of Alton Sterling Shooting
Re: Re: Re: "legal" crime wave
On the post: Why The Latest Supreme Court Ruling In Kirtsaeng May Have A Much Bigger Impact On Copyright & Fair Use
Re: Anything that can weaken protections for artists
Artists must get rewarded for creating things people value. I don't know anyone who disagrees.
But copyright is no longer a good way to do it.
It used to be a good way - before copying became trivially easy.
Now we need a new way.
Personally I like automated patronage - electronic "tip jars" that ensure micropayments go straight to artists (not middlemen) each time a work is enjoyed.
But I'm sure there are other ways as well. We have to stop defending the dead horse of copyright, and start moving on to something that will actually help artists.
On the post: Ford Dealership Swipes Game Image For Ad, Thinks It's Kosher Because It Came From A DMCA Compliant Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No harm, no foul?
What else did you have in mind?
On the post: People Support Ethical Automated Cars That Prioritize The Lives Of Others -- Unless They're Riding In One
Re: Re: robot speed limit is 50 MPH more ! ! !
Speed limits are to tell fallible humans how fast is "too fast".
Most drivers don't need speed limits at all - one standard way of setting them is to use the 80th percentile speed drivers choose when the road has no marked limit.
It's the < 20% of human drivers that are nuts (drunk, teenagers with hormone poisoning, etc.) who need the speed limit signs.
Self-driving cars shouldn't need *any* speed limits. They should be able to figure out, for themselves, how fast they can safely go.
On the post: People Support Ethical Automated Cars That Prioritize The Lives Of Others -- Unless They're Riding In One
Re: Re: All you anti-scientific philosophers
I find it amusing that people are saying things like "No doubt at all" and "No question" when it comes to prioritizing their own child vs. a busload (or city full, or world full) of other people's kids.
The phrase really shows it's an emotional statement, not a reasoned one. "No question" means, literally, that the speaker hasn't thought it about it. Just is reacting emotionally.
On the post: People Support Ethical Automated Cars That Prioritize The Lives Of Others -- Unless They're Riding In One
Re: Re: All you anti-scientific philosophers
On the post: Ford Dealership Swipes Game Image For Ad, Thinks It's Kosher Because It Came From A DMCA Compliant Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: No harm, no foul?
On the post: People Support Ethical Automated Cars That Prioritize The Lives Of Others -- Unless They're Riding In One
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I hate this dumb question
I'm saying if everyone follows the existing rules, crashes are astronomically unlikely.
On the post: People Support Ethical Automated Cars That Prioritize The Lives Of Others -- Unless They're Riding In One
Re: Re: I hate this dumb question
If you break a traffic law in order to avoid an accident, you're extremely unlikely to be penalized. 99% of cops will not issue a ticket in that circumstance (although they could), and 90% of courts will waive the penalty if you explain.
My own wife got out of a speeding ticket by explaining to the court why it was unsafe to stay near a weaving driver.
On the post: People Support Ethical Automated Cars That Prioritize The Lives Of Others -- Unless They're Riding In One
Re: Re: Re: I hate this dumb question
The whole question is idiotic. Automated cars will do the best they can to avoid accidents, just as people do. Period.
The traffic laws have been tweaked for over 100 years - they're pretty good. If everyone follows the rules cars will virtually never smash into each other or pedestrians. In the rare cases where outside factors (mechanical failures, weather, etc.) intervene, the car will simply do the best it can.
There really aren't cases where such choices need to be made, and there's no payback for even worrying about it.
Human drivers don't think about this in accidents - things happen too fast for that.
(Which is why manual override is not a solution.)
Even in the crazy hypotheticals, it just doesn't matter. Automated cars will avoid 99/100 or 999/1000 of the accidents that happen today.
Who the 1 in 100 or 1000 are that don't get saved doesn't matter. What matters is that 99/100 or 999/1000 are saved.
On the post: US Intelligence Agencies To Americans Travelling Abroad: Trust No One, Use Burner Phones, They're All Out To Get You
Re: To be fair, this attitude was more valid when visiting the second world during the Cold War.
The same goes for companies operating under the rule of law - much as they might like to obliterate their competitors, they can't get away with it.
On the post: Ford Dealership Swipes Game Image For Ad, Thinks It's Kosher Because It Came From A DMCA Compliant Site
Re: Re: No harm, no foul?
A crime that doesn't harm anyone isn't a crime.
On the post: Ford Dealership Swipes Game Image For Ad, Thinks It's Kosher Because It Came From A DMCA Compliant Site
Re: Re: No harm, no foul?
I can spend millions digging holes and filling them up again - that doesn't entitle me to a reward for my "time and effort".
If I look at the image on their website and get pleasure from the beauty of it, that doesn't harm them in any way or cost them a penny. They *already* made the image for their own reasons. Whether I get pleasure from it doesn't affect them.
If their use of the image harmed the creator economically - lost sales in this case (as with the free download of the game), then (and only then) you have a case for limiting that use.
On the post: People Support Ethical Automated Cars That Prioritize The Lives Of Others -- Unless They're Riding In One
All you anti-scientific philosophers
The solution to the trolley problem is easily found by the scientific method.
Try the experiment repeatedly and observe what people do.
Solved. :-)
On the post: Ford Dealership Swipes Game Image For Ad, Thinks It's Kosher Because It Came From A DMCA Compliant Site
No harm, no foul?
I imagine even if the dealership knew the image came from a video game, they thought "hey we're selling cars, not competitive with a game in any way", so no problem.
And if the law were reasonable, that wouldn't be a bad way to think.
Certainly the game people deserve credit for the image, but I don't see how they suffered any economic harm at all - use of the image doesn't take a penny from their pocket. If anything it's free advertising for their game (at least if they'd gotten credit).
On the post: US Intelligence Agencies To Americans Travelling Abroad: Trust No One, Use Burner Phones, They're All Out To Get You
Re: Re: It's not new, it's just how USG people think
But the warnings we got in the '90s weren't much about that - it was mostly "you'll be arrested on made-up charges and have no rights", etc. They made as if they were genuinely concerned with our safety.
In Switzerland.
(As far as I know, nobody took their advice, and did as they pleased on weekends without telling anyone. We chuckled about their nannying...privately.)
On the post: US Intelligence Agencies To Americans Travelling Abroad: Trust No One, Use Burner Phones, They're All Out To Get You
That much projection into a single video
Did some Snowdenish wise guy in the USG script and produce this to implicitly ridicule USG policy (and warn foreigners)?
Or am I ignoring Hanlon's Anti-razor (Never attribute to beneficence that which is adequately explained by incompetence)?
Next >>