I'm working on 1p2U.com which aims to enable readers to pay bloggers a penny for each article they post. This will charge no commission. Every penny out of each dollar received goes to a blogger.
After finding my comments were no longer being accepted for publication, I submitted an anonymous and innocuous comment that Patry pleasantly replied to. When I later submitted a comment that revealed my authorship, it did not get published, and moreover, he unpublished my anonymous comment and his reply. This convinced me that he had ceased accepting my comments for publication not based upon their content, but based upon the identity of their author. I e-mailed him in case I could find out his reasons, but had no reply.
I am still mystified by this strange behaviour (unless simply intended to persuade me not to comment). It may nevertheless shed light otherwise.
Bad: Misrepresenting a copy as the original or the work of the original producer.
Good: Copying someone, or building upon their work.
Legal: Suing someone for copying you.
Subject to Opprobrium: Suing someone for doing good.
Once you understand these things, then you recognise why Hasbro gets into trouble despite doing everything by the book. Sometimes the book is simply wrong.
The constitution is applicable. It means that the government may NOT regulate ISPs or the Internet if by doing so it interferes with citizens' speech or violates their privacy - even if such regulation is apparently to assure some half-baked notion of 'neutrality'.
What the government can do is to rectify local monopolies, and thus enable the market to rectify any commercial bias in communications.
Unfortunately, state, publishers, and broadcasters are all interested in regulation/control of communications, so 'net neutrality' regulation is the Trojan horse that will achieve it.
I reckon those blasted revisionists have been mucking around with the dictionary database again.
They've already adjusted the date for the earliest use of the word 'pirate' as the unauthorised reproduction of copyrighted works by a couple of centuries.
Anyway, thank you for bringing this definition to my attention, however, I remain insistent that 'network neutrality' is not primarily about regulating ISPs in their provision of networking services to 'consumers' thereof, but about protecting citizens' rights to privacy and free speech, i.e. without invasion or interference.
The Internet is not an entertainment delivery mechanism.
Don't you mean CIVIL RIGHTS? or even Human rights?
We're talking about privacy and freedom of speech here, not whether manufacturers should be obliged to detail the calorific content of their soda pop so that consumers have a better clue as to what the heck they're consuming.
Citizens do not consume communication, they speak publicly, or privately, and they listen.
I hope to have it tested and demonstrated by the end of the year. 1p2u.com (GPLed PHP MediaWiki plug-in) demonstrating contingencymarket.com (a commission free web service).
I'm still working on the revenue mechanism that I hope will soon enable bedroom coders such as yourself to be rewarded (by your hopefully growing audiences) for the publication of copyleft games.
Contract is not a substitute for copyright just as it is not a substitute for slavery.
Liberty is inalienable.
Its recognition in the form of free speech has been abrogated by copyright. That the state can so contract it away is the only thing that leads people to believe that the right to free speech can also be contracted away by an individual in receipt of an intellectual work.
Without copyright, there is nothing to justify the individual contracting with an artist to non-disclosure and non-reproduction.
So, contract is not a means by which you can engage the state in forcing all those who publish derivatives of your work to also publish their source code.
In the absence of copyright you do not need to compel disclosure of source (it is only forgivable for the GPL to do this in the presence of copyright). An exchange of money for source is the equitable and ethical solution. You only need freedom to the source you purchase or are given, not to the source that you haven't purchased or haven't been given.
Contract upholds your right to receive your money back or the source code you've offered it for. It doesn't entitle you to employ the state to sequestrate the future work of deriving coders. They will want the same right you had, to sell their unpublished source code for money. Slavery is getting someone's work through force or without their consent. That's not exactly cricket. I'd say it was highly unethical.
I'm quite happy with the way the GPL neutralises copyright, but it remains important to respect the natural right to privacy.
I do not believe a compulsion to disclose source code is necessary in the absence of copyright.
After all it would be strange if those lovers of freedom said that they'd rather have copyright and the ability to use it to compel disclosure of source, than no copyright and everyone to have the liberty to freely copy and derive software from published source code. After all, who would would buy binaries given they could be freely copied? You'd only pay for source code improvements as these would be the only things worth buying. The binary would be used to demonstrate that the source code did the job prior to selling the source for money.
Yes, copyright abolition is a far better idea, but it'll be a few years yet before a significant number of people call for it.
However, forcing people to disclose source code is a very bad idea. Are you going to send thugs round to arrest little Jimmy because he released a binary without providing source code?
I suggested something similar a couple of years ago, which would make a new work freely copyable by default, but that could subsequently be registered for a reproduction monopoly with renewal fee.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The inanity of the anti-IP bolsheviks
Not quite. I am talking about IP theft, not material theft.
If you leave a manuscript in a public street and it is clearly not abandoned, yet is expected to be publicly visible (perhaps affixed to a public noticeboard) it remains your manuscript. However, it can be freely read and copied by any member of the public. Just as the car remains yours, but it can be photographed or 3D scanned (without causing damage or otherwise violating your privacy).
No, I argued that the GPL doesn't apply to those who don't recognise copyright. Those who don't recognise copyright, consequently don't recognise the GPL. Not quite the same as your contraction.
The GPL is designed precisely to thwart those who, believing in copyright, would use it to suspend the liberty of the public.
Re: Hardly an accurate representation of my points
The difference between mortal individuals and immortal corporations is as to the difference between Ancient Greeks and their gods.
Copyright is a weapon designed for, and only able to be wielded by, publishing corporations. The fact that it has been so cruelly used against individual citizens should not mislead you into believing that it can be used by individuals, whether against corporations or other individuals.
The only thing an individual self-publishing citizen can do is to neutralise copyright in their works by using a copyleft license such as the GPL.
It is extremely unfortunate that Lawrence Lessig via Creative Commons created a variety of licenses instead of simply sticking to a single copyleft license, but there you go. We now have his legacy where people who use any license apart from CC-SA will eventually discover they aren't worth the digital bits they're represented with.
Copyright or copyleft. Ineffective, anachronistic privilege for publishing corporations, or natural rights for individual human beings. There is no middle ground, no means of privileging one man above another.
You may well not want to confront this, but it should help you understand why what's happening is happening and why there's not much you can do about it. :-/
This privilege violates the public's natural right to share and build upon cultural works precisely in order to create the privilege of copyright. So let's get it straight whose rights are being violated and whose privileges are being infringed.
Copyright legislates recipients of published works against making copies or derivatives they'd otherwise naturally be able to manufacture - without the copyright holder's permission.
Which part of the Flickr API manufactures such a copy or derivative? It's no doubt very careful not to do so.
I suggest any infringements are performed by recipients of authorised copies, subsequent to their use of Flickr.
A photographer who publishes their work and wishes to constrain the public's use of the work they have received is a Canute against the tide. It doesn't matter what the legislature says. If the people are reclaiming their natural rights, contrary to their suspension by copyright, then there's not much those entitled to copyright can do about it.
Let's keep this in perspective. It's not a matter of the public stealing a photographer's property, but a matter of the public enjoying the natural rights to their own property (the artworks in their legitimate possession) and ignoring the photographer's grant of a monopoly over the reproduction of their published works.
What's the solution? Sell your art, not copies - given the public is quite happy and able to make copies. Making art is the tricky part, whereas making copies is a doddle. So sell your art. The market for copies has ended.
In the media, waterboarding is called "simulated drowning," but that's a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.
Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.
How much of this the victim is to endure depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim's face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs that show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.
Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia - meaning, the loss of all oxygen to the cells.
There is actual pain (try inhaling water sometime). You are actually drowned. The only difference is that your lungs are emptied and you are resuscitated before brain death occurs (if your torturers prefer the continuation of your life - usually to repeat the 'waterboarding').
This is like wondering whether Chinese dissidents due for execution have given permission for their organs to be harvested.
No cold hearted bastard should give a toss whether royalties have been collected from use of their work for torture. The first thought should be to petition for the human rights of the torture victim.
Even when rights to life, privacy, or truth aren't impacted, for all copyright infringements, consider that even this suspends the public's natural right to cultural liberty.
On the post: The Hidden Costs Of Micropayments Go Beyond The Penny Gap
Re: Micropayments should be mandatory for email
On the post: Congress Moves Forward With Plan To Make Universities Copyright Cops
Re: Re:
I am still mystified by this strange behaviour (unless simply intended to persuade me not to comment). It may nevertheless shed light otherwise.
On the post: Hasbro's Nightmare: Scrabulous Returns With New Name And (A Few) New Rules
Re:
Good: Copying someone, or building upon their work.
Legal: Suing someone for copying you.
Subject to Opprobrium: Suing someone for doing good.
Once you understand these things, then you recognise why Hasbro gets into trouble despite doing everything by the book. Sometimes the book is simply wrong.
On the post: Hasbro's Nightmare: Scrabulous Returns With New Name And (A Few) New Rules
Traditional solution
Thus the developers release software which is dissimilar by default, but when a particular configuration file is loaded appears very similar.
The developers then rely upon the users to produce and distribute the 'infringing' configuration file.
On the post: Don't Be Too Quick To Cheer On FCC On Its Net Neutrality Response
Re: Re: Re: Re: The misnomer of consumer rights
What the government can do is to rectify local monopolies, and thus enable the market to rectify any commercial bias in communications.
Unfortunately, state, publishers, and broadcasters are all interested in regulation/control of communications, so 'net neutrality' regulation is the Trojan horse that will achieve it.
Oh well... :-/
On the post: Don't Be Too Quick To Cheer On FCC On Its Net Neutrality Response
Re: Re: The misnomer of consumer rights
They've already adjusted the date for the earliest use of the word 'pirate' as the unauthorised reproduction of copyrighted works by a couple of centuries.
Anyway, thank you for bringing this definition to my attention, however, I remain insistent that 'network neutrality' is not primarily about regulating ISPs in their provision of networking services to 'consumers' thereof, but about protecting citizens' rights to privacy and free speech, i.e. without invasion or interference.
The Internet is not an entertainment delivery mechanism.
On the post: Don't Be Too Quick To Cheer On FCC On Its Net Neutrality Response
The misnomer of consumer rights
We're talking about privacy and freedom of speech here, not whether manufacturers should be obliged to detail the calorific content of their soda pop so that consumers have a better clue as to what the heck they're consuming.
Citizens do not consume communication, they speak publicly, or privately, and they listen.
On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider Copyright Abolishment
On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider Copyright Abolishment
I'm still working on the revenue mechanism that I hope will soon enable bedroom coders such as yourself to be rewarded (by your hopefully growing audiences) for the publication of copyleft games.
I did check out libregamewiki.org recently. Good work.
Looks like you've probably already come across Jason Rohrer. Did you find the BCBM via his interesting article on Free Distribution?
On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider Copyright Abolishment
Liberty is inalienable.
Its recognition in the form of free speech has been abrogated by copyright. That the state can so contract it away is the only thing that leads people to believe that the right to free speech can also be contracted away by an individual in receipt of an intellectual work.
Without copyright, there is nothing to justify the individual contracting with an artist to non-disclosure and non-reproduction.
So, contract is not a means by which you can engage the state in forcing all those who publish derivatives of your work to also publish their source code.
In the absence of copyright you do not need to compel disclosure of source (it is only forgivable for the GPL to do this in the presence of copyright). An exchange of money for source is the equitable and ethical solution. You only need freedom to the source you purchase or are given, not to the source that you haven't purchased or haven't been given.
Contract upholds your right to receive your money back or the source code you've offered it for. It doesn't entitle you to employ the state to sequestrate the future work of deriving coders. They will want the same right you had, to sell their unpublished source code for money. Slavery is getting someone's work through force or without their consent. That's not exactly cricket. I'd say it was highly unethical.
On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?
Re: Re: Re: Consider Copyright Abolishment
I do not believe a compulsion to disclose source code is necessary in the absence of copyright.
After all it would be strange if those lovers of freedom said that they'd rather have copyright and the ability to use it to compel disclosure of source, than no copyright and everyone to have the liberty to freely copy and derive software from published source code. After all, who would would buy binaries given they could be freely copied? You'd only pay for source code improvements as these would be the only things worth buying. The binary would be used to demonstrate that the source code did the job prior to selling the source for money.
Free as in speech, not as in beer.
On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?
Re: Consider Copyright Abolishment
However, forcing people to disclose source code is a very bad idea. Are you going to send thugs round to arrest little Jimmy because he released a binary without providing source code?
On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?
Copyleft by default
I called it Good Copyright, Bad Copyright.
On the post: Rather Than Giving Banks A Patent Exemption, Why Not Fix The Patent System?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The inanity of the anti-IP bolsheviks
If you leave a manuscript in a public street and it is clearly not abandoned, yet is expected to be publicly visible (perhaps affixed to a public noticeboard) it remains your manuscript. However, it can be freely read and copied by any member of the public. Just as the car remains yours, but it can be photographed or 3D scanned (without causing damage or otherwise violating your privacy).
On the post: Blaming The Flickr API For Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: GPL
The GPL is designed precisely to thwart those who, believing in copyright, would use it to suspend the liberty of the public.
On the post: Blaming The Flickr API For Copyright Infringement?
Re: Hardly an accurate representation of my points
Copyright is a weapon designed for, and only able to be wielded by, publishing corporations. The fact that it has been so cruelly used against individual citizens should not mislead you into believing that it can be used by individuals, whether against corporations or other individuals.
The only thing an individual self-publishing citizen can do is to neutralise copyright in their works by using a copyleft license such as the GPL.
It is extremely unfortunate that Lawrence Lessig via Creative Commons created a variety of licenses instead of simply sticking to a single copyleft license, but there you go. We now have his legacy where people who use any license apart from CC-SA will eventually discover they aren't worth the digital bits they're represented with.
Copyright or copyleft. Ineffective, anachronistic privilege for publishing corporations, or natural rights for individual human beings. There is no middle ground, no means of privileging one man above another.
You may well not want to confront this, but it should help you understand why what's happening is happening and why there's not much you can do about it. :-/
On the post: Blaming The Flickr API For Copyright Infringement?
What rights are violated?
This privilege violates the public's natural right to share and build upon cultural works precisely in order to create the privilege of copyright. So let's get it straight whose rights are being violated and whose privileges are being infringed.
Copyright legislates recipients of published works against making copies or derivatives they'd otherwise naturally be able to manufacture - without the copyright holder's permission.
Which part of the Flickr API manufactures such a copy or derivative? It's no doubt very careful not to do so.
I suggest any infringements are performed by recipients of authorised copies, subsequent to their use of Flickr.
A photographer who publishes their work and wishes to constrain the public's use of the work they have received is a Canute against the tide. It doesn't matter what the legislature says. If the people are reclaiming their natural rights, contrary to their suspension by copyright, then there's not much those entitled to copyright can do about it.
Let's keep this in perspective. It's not a matter of the public stealing a photographer's property, but a matter of the public enjoying the natural rights to their own property (the artworks in their legitimate possession) and ignoring the photographer's grant of a monopoly over the reproduction of their published works.
What's the solution? Sell your art, not copies - given the public is quite happy and able to make copies. Making art is the tricky part, whereas making copies is a doddle. So sell your art. The market for copies has ended.
On the post: Music As Torture: Are Musicians Whose Music Is Blasted At Gitmo Compensated For Public Performance?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CM
In the media, waterboarding is called "simulated drowning," but that's a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.
Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.
How much of this the victim is to endure depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim's face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs that show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.
Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia - meaning, the loss of all oxygen to the cells.
On the post: Music As Torture: Are Musicians Whose Music Is Blasted At Gitmo Compensated For Public Performance?
Re: Re: Re: Re: CM
On the post: Music As Torture: Are Musicians Whose Music Is Blasted At Gitmo Compensated For Public Performance?
The right to life
No cold hearted bastard should give a toss whether royalties have been collected from use of their work for torture. The first thought should be to petition for the human rights of the torture victim.
Even when rights to life, privacy, or truth aren't impacted, for all copyright infringements, consider that even this suspends the public's natural right to cultural liberty.
Rights first. Royalties last. Privileges never.
Next >>