Heh, great post DH, but one touch on common truth: Do you pay much attention to current quantum theory? The LHC is, in a sense, attempting to pull truth out of fiction. To make a particle that does not exist in our universe, exist in our universe.
Just sayin', the truth might be out there, but it damn sure isnt fixed :P
That would be plagiarism, but no one is arguing against that.... do you not get that? Plagiarism IS morally wrong, no one said otherwise. So why bring it up other than to obfuscate the argument?
Breach of 'implied' contract? For real? That exists in your country? How could one possibly prove that a non-verbal clause in a non-verbal contract was implied as opposed to inferred?
Get out your checkbook Mike, you wont be freeloading off our comments for much longer!
On a more serious note, has this guy ever browsed the internet? Has he ever used google? I think if he were to pay google even $0.01 / google search, he would QUICKLY find out the benefit of exposure vs. upfront cash in hand..
Also, books will be written without copyright, 100%. Books are tools, and thus will always be written. Some of the greatest books ever were written without copyright, so the idea that no books would be written without copyright is laughable. Copyright is young compared to both prose and music.
Can I double vote insightful for this? This is the absolute core of the entire debate. Capitalism ALWAYS rewards the person who takes everything they want and need at the absolute lowest cost. In fact the entire thrust of our technological march forward is to make EVERYTHING cost less, towards zero. This has been the result of millions of job losses and the export of the entire manufacturing industry overseas. So if its OK for the legal fictions that own these copyrights to do this, why is it wrong for me to do this? All I'm doing when I copy a file 'illegally' is maximizing my profits and minimizing my costs.
So what about the person who doesnt buy? Hmm? The point about copyright law is that its all encompassing contract law that doesnt require agreement to be enforceable.
No, he published it on the internet (like an MP3) and you consumed it. Im not going to pay him, because I believe his information is freely shared, but you dont. So pay up.
No law should be a moral argument. Because morality isnt absolute. Even the law against murder isnt about morality, but about safety. You give up your 'right' to murder me, i give up my 'right' to murder you. Thats what's known as balance in law. When people talk about balance in copyright, they are usually talking about something else entirely.
Mike usually has it right, in saying that a balanced copyright would balance the creator against society as a whole, not the creator against an infringing party.
You keep flipping your argument around. There is specialized AND generalized knowledge on wiki. Theres as much knowledge there as people put there. Maybe if universities started accepting it more, more university level knowledge would make its way there...
So wait. First there are omissions that are subtle, yet subversive to learning. Second, there is too much information that puts obscure information alongside relevant?
Listen, when you list contradictory ideas and use them both as criticism for something it becomes apparent that you are simply digging for reasons to criticize. It undermines your point. The fact is that there is less 'systematic bias' in Wikipedia than other SIMILAR general knowledge sources. Is it as comprehensive as an article of knowledge dedicated to a single topic? No. But I bet you can find that article of knowledge linked to on wiki...
Re: Re: Re: Passwords should not be kept in the clear...
I dont see how I'm missing the point, I'm just stating that as far as I know, Facebook and Google should be the last 2 companies answering questions about privacy breaches, or taking any heat at all over them.
And my point about having passwords encrypted is that in Europe or the US, the government could just spoof the CA and break anything they want, assuming they couldnt just pressure the CA to give them copies of the certs. Plain text or not makes little difference at that point, if the government demands it, its theirs, encrypted or not.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Promote progress' never mentioned copyright!
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: This site is just out of touch.
Just sayin', the truth might be out there, but it damn sure isnt fixed :P
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: This site is just out of touch.
Or, are you saying that your morality is as shifty as partisan politics?
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This site is just out of touch.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: This site is just out of touch.
On the post: Dumbest Lawsuit Ever? HuffPo Sued By Bloggers Who Agreed To Work For Free... But Now Claim They Were Slaves
Re:
On the post: Dumbest Lawsuit Ever? HuffPo Sued By Bloggers Who Agreed To Work For Free... But Now Claim They Were Slaves
Re: Um...
On a more serious note, has this guy ever browsed the internet? Has he ever used google? I think if he were to pay google even $0.01 / google search, he would QUICKLY find out the benefit of exposure vs. upfront cash in hand..
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re:
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re:
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re:
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re:
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Mike usually has it right, in saying that a balanced copyright would balance the creator against society as a whole, not the creator against an infringing party.
On the post: Professor Gets Tenure With The Help Of His Wikipedia Contributions
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Professor Gets Tenure With The Help Of His Wikipedia Contributions
Re: Wikipedia & Academia
Listen, when you list contradictory ideas and use them both as criticism for something it becomes apparent that you are simply digging for reasons to criticize. It undermines your point. The fact is that there is less 'systematic bias' in Wikipedia than other SIMILAR general knowledge sources. Is it as comprehensive as an article of knowledge dedicated to a single topic? No. But I bet you can find that article of knowledge linked to on wiki...
On the post: Professor Gets Tenure With The Help Of His Wikipedia Contributions
Re: Re: Re:
hmm?
On the post: Google, Facebook Go To Court In France: Claim Data Retention Rules Violate Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Passwords should not be kept in the clear...
And my point about having passwords encrypted is that in Europe or the US, the government could just spoof the CA and break anything they want, assuming they couldnt just pressure the CA to give them copies of the certs. Plain text or not makes little difference at that point, if the government demands it, its theirs, encrypted or not.
On the post: Google, Facebook Go To Court In France: Claim Data Retention Rules Violate Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Passwords should not be kept in the clear...
On the post: Google, Facebook Go To Court In France: Claim Data Retention Rules Violate Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Passwords should not be kept in the clear...
Next >>