I don't think Todd was saying he wanted a one-size solution for everything, but that he wanted to minimize his support headaches... who doesn't want that? :)
But I agree.. if Todd would like to share a checklist for resource allocation, that might be kinda useful.
yes, I think the possibility of a spam flood is enough to prevent us from trying this out in the near future... It's a nice idea, but spammers are the reason why "we can't have nice things".
Based on the International Space Station... looks like NASA uses liquid heat exchangers that help radiate heat to the vacuum of space... Not sure if such a system would really be necessary if humans weren't co-habitating with the electronics...
Actually, a similar thing happened to me at WalMart... and while annoying, the solution is that WalMart has a form that you can fill out which offers a way for you to declare that you are the copyright owner (presumably shifting the liability from WalMart to the consumer at the same time).
The point I am trying to make is that adding rivalrous/non-rivalrous to the definion of theft, when that condition (non-/rivalrous)applies to both legal and illegal transactions is neither logical nor practical.
Seriously? It's not logical or practical to separate "theft" from "copyright infringement"? The penalties for theft vs copyright infringement are treated very differently by the law. I agree both are illegal, but the two actions are not the same.
Loss of use is not unique to theft... sure. But that doesn't mean that "rivalrous" can't be part of the definition. Taking stuff isn't unique to theft, so does that mean taking stuff can't be a valid part of the definition of theft?
I suppose you're trying to say that "theft" is the superset of "copyright infringement" -- but that that does not negate that there is a difference between the two concepts.
I'm not making an "argument" here. This is a definition.
Theft is defined (conventionally) as taking a rivalrous good without permission from its owner. A police office can arrest people if the value of the rivalrous good is non-trivial. That's how theft usually works.
Is it generally considered "theft" if you tell me a joke and I repeat that joke elsewhere? No, because jokes usually have trivial value. So what if you have a very valuable piece of advice -- if you told it to me thinking that I would keep it secret, but then I told many more people... is that really theft? What if I just told one other person, and you never found out about it? Is that theft?
Songs and stories and ideas are fundamentally different from rivalrous goods. That is a definition, not a strawman argument. Treating non-rivalrous goods the same way you treat rivalrous goods is a decision that society can make. But it doesn't have to be that way.
The argument here is that non-rivalrous goods should be treated differently from theft because the offense of spreading an idea (without permission) is not the same as the offense of taking a car (without permission).
If you wish to define theft in such a broad manner that unauthorized communications are treated in the same criminal fashion as stealing a car, you are welcome to hold that opinion, but I'm pointing out that not everyone holds that opinion -- and in some cases, that definition of theft can be detrimental to the progress of society.
Imagine if you could only give a man a fish... and it was considered theft to teach a man to fish.
Obviously... you can't directly compare movies with $200 million budgets with movies produced for less than a tenth of that budget.
But the point here is that entertaining movies can be produced (and will be produced) for less than $20 million -- and these kinds of projects follow a model that appeal to fans, instead of accusing fans of possibly being thieves. And this "treat your fans right" philosophy can be practiced by any film producer, regardless of budget.
aha.. is that's what going on with your comments, INtrigued?
personally, I hate my lenovo keyboard cuz the arrow keys are right next to the "back" button -- so sometimes when I want to move the cursor.. I'll hit "back" by mistake and lose whatever text I was entering. grr!
On the post: Dealing With Server Sprawl
Re:
All clear now. :)
Thanks,
mikeho
On the post: Submitting Post Ideas Or News To Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought
On the post: Submitting Post Ideas Or News To Techdirt
Re: It is always exciting for me
Thanks!
mikeho
On the post: Submitting Post Ideas Or News To Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: A thought
On the post: Submitting Post Ideas Or News To Techdirt
Re: New topics?
If you see a topic that's appropriate -- choose it from the drop-down selection... if not... well.. we'll choose one of them for you. :P
Any suggestions for new topics?
Thanks!
mikeho
On the post: Dealing With Server Sprawl
But I agree.. if Todd would like to share a checklist for resource allocation, that might be kinda useful.
On the post: Submitting Post Ideas Or News To Techdirt
Re: A thought
On the post: Modular Data Centers Can Move With You (And Survive Earthquakes)
Re: Re: Re: orbiting servers...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast21mar_1.htm
On the post: Modular Data Centers Can Move With You (And Survive Earthquakes)
Re: orbiting servers...
heh. apparently, you missed this post:
http://techdirt.com/blog/itinnovation/articles/20091123/0010157045.shtml
mikeho
On the post: Author Sherman Alexie's Rants On Colbert Against Ebooks, Piracy And 'Open Source Culture'
Re: fixed
On the post: Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims
Re: Stupid...
On the post: Zombieland Director Goes After Fans, Doesn't Understand Popularity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on Techdirt
Seriously? It's not logical or practical to separate "theft" from "copyright infringement"? The penalties for theft vs copyright infringement are treated very differently by the law. I agree both are illegal, but the two actions are not the same.
Loss of use is not unique to theft... sure. But that doesn't mean that "rivalrous" can't be part of the definition. Taking stuff isn't unique to theft, so does that mean taking stuff can't be a valid part of the definition of theft?
I suppose you're trying to say that "theft" is the superset of "copyright infringement" -- but that that does not negate that there is a difference between the two concepts.
On the post: Star Wreck Filmmakers Experiment With Iron Sky
Re: War Bonds vs. Shares
On the post: Star Wreck Filmmakers Experiment With Iron Sky
Re: Worldwide rights are owned?
I was more interested in the "connect with fans" part that included accessories for the movie. eg. "war bonds", video game, etc.
On the post: Zombieland Director Goes After Fans, Doesn't Understand Popularity
Re: Re: Re: Come on Techdirt
Theft is defined (conventionally) as taking a rivalrous good without permission from its owner. A police office can arrest people if the value of the rivalrous good is non-trivial. That's how theft usually works.
Is it generally considered "theft" if you tell me a joke and I repeat that joke elsewhere? No, because jokes usually have trivial value. So what if you have a very valuable piece of advice -- if you told it to me thinking that I would keep it secret, but then I told many more people... is that really theft? What if I just told one other person, and you never found out about it? Is that theft?
Songs and stories and ideas are fundamentally different from rivalrous goods. That is a definition, not a strawman argument. Treating non-rivalrous goods the same way you treat rivalrous goods is a decision that society can make. But it doesn't have to be that way.
The argument here is that non-rivalrous goods should be treated differently from theft because the offense of spreading an idea (without permission) is not the same as the offense of taking a car (without permission).
If you wish to define theft in such a broad manner that unauthorized communications are treated in the same criminal fashion as stealing a car, you are welcome to hold that opinion, but I'm pointing out that not everyone holds that opinion -- and in some cases, that definition of theft can be detrimental to the progress of society.
Imagine if you could only give a man a fish... and it was considered theft to teach a man to fish.
On the post: Star Wreck Filmmakers Experiment With Iron Sky
Re: Some thoughts
I look forward to more updates for Iron Sky -- the concept sounds really interesting.... any other plot or background story details to share? :P
On the post: Star Wreck Filmmakers Experiment With Iron Sky
not a direct comparison...
But the point here is that entertaining movies can be produced (and will be produced) for less than $20 million -- and these kinds of projects follow a model that appeal to fans, instead of accusing fans of possibly being thieves. And this "treat your fans right" philosophy can be practiced by any film producer, regardless of budget.
On the post: UK Gov't Official: Innocent People Won't Get Kicked Off The Internet; Trust Us
Re: What's wrong with people?
personally, I hate my lenovo keyboard cuz the arrow keys are right next to the "back" button -- so sometimes when I want to move the cursor.. I'll hit "back" by mistake and lose whatever text I was entering. grr!
ok rant off.
On the post: What If You Could Recreate Live Performances By Dead Artists On A Computer?
Re: If these were smart lawyers *Oxymoron?*
On the post: Romance Publishing Giant Offering Ebooks Without DRM; Reporter Upset By This
Re: Link is wrong
Next >>