...exchange the word 'creative' for 'useful' in the excerpt to see if the meaning of the excerpt changes:
"...to give to the author of a creative work his just reward for the benefit he has bestowed on the community and also to encourage the making of further *useful* works. On the other hand, as copyright in the nature of a monopoly, the law should ensure, as far as possible, that the rights conferred are not abused and that study, research and education are not unduly hampered."
Copyright was not meant be used to prohibit creative or useful works, so the meaning of the excerpt does not change. Copyright was meant to give the original author his just reward, not control over how it is used by others. If the original author will not accept a reasonable fee through his monopoly of sale, then his copyright ought to be infringed upon with impunity because he acts in bad faith.
"...to give to the author of a creative work his just reward for the benefit he has bestowed on the community and also to encourage the making of further creative works. On the other hand, as copyright in the nature of a monopoly, the law should ensure, as far as possible, that the rights conferred are not abused and that study, research and education are not unduly hampered."
Note that this wording may describe 'creative' works, but exchange that word for 'useful' and tell me if the meaning should change at all. The owner still deserves a reasonable fee for the design and doesn't deserve control over another's work.
The copyrighted work here is being used to exclude others from using the work at all. In doing so, the owners are ignoring the whole point of copyright.
"The primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts—that is—knowledge. To accomplish this purpose, copyright ownership encourages authors/creators in their efforts by granting them a temporary monopoly, or ownership of exclusive rights for a specified length of time. However, this monopoly is somewhat limited when it conflicts with an overriding public interest, such as encouraging new creative and intellectual works, or the necessity for some members of the public to make a single copy of a work for non profit, educational purposes..."
The original owners ought to be entitled to a reasonable fee for using their design, not control over other works.
Those cloud ear buds I bought in April arrived this week. I don't know what happened, but it took four weeks to arrive. If that's normal, then sorry for my original post.
"It would actually be a great thing if the dollar was refused as a currency and that a new currency be started and the offshore hoarders suddenly had massive bank accounts worth nothing."
--The USG destroys countries that try to do this (Iraq & Libya).
Russia can't be hypocritical about mass surveillance because its people as a whole wouldn't buy it.
"In dictatorships we are more fortunate than you in the West in one respect. We believe nothing of what we read in the newspapers and nothing of what we watch on television, because we know it's propaganda and lies. Unlike you in the West, we've learned to look behind the propaganda and to read between the lines, and unlike you we know that the real truth is always subversive." --Zdener Urbanek
So you are saying that it is better to keep your data in the hands of thieves on the promise that if you keep it with them, they might respect some rights - even though they have shown that they have no problem violating rights?
Canonical ought to be celebrating this website for bringing to its attention a massive screw up on its part.
This 'feature' should be opt-in instead of opt-out. It should come with warning labels saying that everything you type into the dash will be sent over the internet while its default settings are active.
Just remember that while this bug is in place, you can turn it off. It was a mistake, and they should turn the default spyware off in the next version.
With that said, Canonical announced it would try the spyware, gave people an option to turn it off, didn't try to hide it, and even explained the benefits of having it on while shopping or searching from the dash. As it is now, it's a failure, but it has potential when it is selectively turned on.
So the experiment failed, and Canonical left an 'opt out' button. When was the last time Microsoft, Apple, the NSA, or Google gave 'opt out' options on all of their spyware?
Microsoft, without even telling me (they probably just buried it in the terms of service) allows the company I work for to remotely wipe my windows phone whenever it wants (this feature surreptitiously activates when you log into your corporate email from the device). Microsoft won't let me turn off its spyware, period, nor does it even tell me where or when I will be spied on (I assume everywhere). The only thing I can trust about it is that it will try to molest me whenever it can and make me subscribe for things that shouldn't be subscription based - developer license $99, windows store $50, have to be online once a month or else visual studio locks up, and other shenanigans. Apple won't let me do anything unapple and unapproved so help me God, and Google just pretends to be honest (you may only use this android flashlight if you give us permission to {download your contacts, make calls, access all memory, acquire location info, eat your babies}).
We have to fix mobile. Ubuntu is our best shot right now. If you really want to own your phone and move technology away from these walled gardens, we can eventually have everything. We can protect privacy, we can shut off spyware, and we can shove the assertion that true cross platform cannot be done right in the faces of Microsoft and Apple.
Then, the police look for answers everywhere except for the scene of the crime. They end up blaming triggers instead of our culture of stress and fear.
The victims end up as super victims, and we don't care. Cheating, bullying, and fear-mongering win here. We're already in a dystopia. We aren't much different than the world in this show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho-Pass
I wouldn't be surprised if the next leak says that some secret agency self-funds through drug trafficking. We already knew that, but for some reason... it's news!
The NSA is spying on everyone, saving everything ever sent, and trying to break cryptography everywhere it is. This is news? No, this is history. We've been bullying countries for decades, getting into wars on false premises, obliterating our own middle class, hunting down a benign plant (which happens to be winning), blah blah prison industrial complex, and on and on and on. I mean, seriously, if someone blows up your neighbor for profit and then says 'trust us we will be good,' then explodes the next town over, and then the next country, do you really think they will show some restraint when you come under the microscope? Are these revelations really the kinds of things we should be surprised about?
What I'm trying to say is this: I don't believe for a second that Edward Snowden is genuine. Look up the term 'limited hangout,' and then ask yourself what Snowden has revealed that we didn't already know. The only difference between pre-snowden and post-snowden worlds is that the establishment isn't even bothering with chicanery anymore. They are just out in the open with several contradictions at once, and the masses don't care.
How about we stop talking about restricting information and start talking about how our society forces dependence on employers. If the system turns you down, what are your options?
1. You can take a low wage job. Low wage jobs I hear give you fewer benefits than welfare does, so it doesn't make sense as an option (if slavery is an option).
2. You can be put on welfare. I have little experience with welfare, but I don't think it's really a viable option. You would imagine that the police would want to help the homeless and take care of things on behalf of a moral republic... but that is not our reality. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070603181156AAOBRZu
3. You can be homeless. Still not a good option, but it's where most people end up.
4. I don't know. However, shouldn't we be able to live for ourselves somehow, apart from an employer?
The majority of terrorism is our terrorism. For dubious reasons, we have bombed foreigners, overthrown governments, sided with dictators, started wars over fabricated incidents, bullied diplomats, and whatever else (and there's a lot) for decades. We've been the terrorists all along, and we pretend we're not.
As the terrorists, it seems that we also want to obliterate our freedoms. We have men in suits in Boston, New York, and Washington, all too happy to increase surveillance, break our rules, use force whenever convenient, and then say it's in the name of protecting those rules (which we just broke).
How can this go on? What happened? How can these people listen to this garbage? It is as if someone can come up to them and tell them, 'The sky is orange,' when it is blue, and they'll believe it!
Sadly, it is too late. We have already succeeded in destroying our freedoms. We already live in a dystopia. This event is just another absurdity in a long nonsensical chain. The next steps will probably be something out of science fiction, with death robot wardens for the poor and happy-land prisons for the rich. Oh yes, being rich might be a burden too. Just wait until officer clownface comes up to you and says, *HAPPINESS IS MANDATORY. UNHAPPINESS WILL NOT BE FORGIVEN...*pew pew*.
Cops like this make the job that much more dangerous for the rest. When police encounter someone that actually is going to kill them, the crowd is more than happy to do nothing but take pictures.
Please, bring this law into effect. Let it fail to stop real piracy, and let it drive people to develop their own hubs and libraries for their communities. The only true end result of this law is the obliteration of corporate control of information, and the birth of an unstoppable torrent of real content distribution.
I'm not just saying this for no reason. This idea has been implemented before. Have you ever set foot on one of those draconian college campuses that cuts students off from pirate websites? Their torrents stopped working. That didn't stop them. They brought piracy inside their networks and created massive, well documented libraries of pretty much everything you could ever want.
That is the way it should be. No censorship, period! If that interferes with established business models, then change those!
The game changed. The only thing stopping piracy from exploding are these weak chains that the masses don't realize they can break. Tighten them up, piss off the elephant, then get trampled by the irony of trying to stop something that could and should be helping your businesses.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Daniel Joseph Calvanese.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Itself Is Wrongly Used Here
"...to give to the author of a creative work his just reward for the benefit he has bestowed on the community and also to encourage the making of further *useful* works. On the other hand, as copyright in the nature of a monopoly, the law should ensure, as far as possible, that the rights conferred are not abused and that study, research and education are not unduly hampered."
Copyright was not meant be used to prohibit creative or useful works, so the meaning of the excerpt does not change. Copyright was meant to give the original author his just reward, not control over how it is used by others. If the original author will not accept a reasonable fee through his monopoly of sale, then his copyright ought to be infringed upon with impunity because he acts in bad faith.
Re: Re: Copyright Itself Is Wrongly Used Here
"...to give to the author of a creative work his just reward for the benefit he has bestowed on the community and also to encourage the making of further creative works. On the other hand, as copyright in the nature of a monopoly, the law should ensure, as far as possible, that the rights conferred are not abused and that study, research and education are not unduly hampered."
Note that this wording may describe 'creative' works, but exchange that word for 'useful' and tell me if the meaning should change at all. The owner still deserves a reasonable fee for the design and doesn't deserve control over another's work.
Copyright Itself Is Wrongly Used Here
"The primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts—that is—knowledge. To accomplish this purpose, copyright ownership encourages authors/creators in their efforts by granting them a temporary monopoly, or ownership of exclusive rights for a specified length of time. However, this monopoly is somewhat limited when it conflicts with an overriding public interest, such as encouraging new creative and intellectual works, or the necessity for some members of the public to make a single copy of a work for non profit, educational purposes..."
The original owners ought to be entitled to a reasonable fee for using their design, not control over other works.
Confirming Product Arrival
Those cloud ear buds I bought in April arrived this week. I don't know what happened, but it took four weeks to arrive. If that's normal, then sorry for my original post.
--Daniel Joseph Calvanese
Product Never Arrived
Re: Depression
--The USG destroys countries that try to do this (Iraq & Libya).
Let Me Guess His Proposal
One million dollars per month for protection...
(untitled comment)
"In dictatorships we are more fortunate than you in the West in one respect. We believe nothing of what we read in the newspapers and nothing of what we watch on television, because we know it's propaganda and lies. Unlike you in the West, we've learned to look behind the propaganda and to read between the lines, and unlike you we know that the real truth is always subversive." --Zdener Urbanek
(untitled comment)
Ubuntu needs FixUbuntu
This 'feature' should be opt-in instead of opt-out. It should come with warning labels saying that everything you type into the dash will be sent over the internet while its default settings are active.
Just remember that while this bug is in place, you can turn it off. It was a mistake, and they should turn the default spyware off in the next version.
With that said, Canonical announced it would try the spyware, gave people an option to turn it off, didn't try to hide it, and even explained the benefits of having it on while shopping or searching from the dash. As it is now, it's a failure, but it has potential when it is selectively turned on.
So the experiment failed, and Canonical left an 'opt out' button. When was the last time Microsoft, Apple, the NSA, or Google gave 'opt out' options on all of their spyware?
Microsoft, without even telling me (they probably just buried it in the terms of service) allows the company I work for to remotely wipe my windows phone whenever it wants (this feature surreptitiously activates when you log into your corporate email from the device). Microsoft won't let me turn off its spyware, period, nor does it even tell me where or when I will be spied on (I assume everywhere). The only thing I can trust about it is that it will try to molest me whenever it can and make me subscribe for things that shouldn't be subscription based - developer license $99, windows store $50, have to be online once a month or else visual studio locks up, and other shenanigans. Apple won't let me do anything unapple and unapproved so help me God, and Google just pretends to be honest (you may only use this android flashlight if you give us permission to {download your contacts, make calls, access all memory, acquire location info, eat your babies}).
We have to fix mobile. Ubuntu is our best shot right now. If you really want to own your phone and move technology away from these walled gardens, we can eventually have everything. We can protect privacy, we can shut off spyware, and we can shove the assertion that true cross platform cannot be done right in the faces of Microsoft and Apple.
Already in a dystopia.
Then, the police look for answers everywhere except for the scene of the crime. They end up blaming triggers instead of our culture of stress and fear.
The victims end up as super victims, and we don't care. Cheating, bullying, and fear-mongering win here. We're already in a dystopia. We aren't much different than the world in this show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho-Pass
[SPOILERS]
The NSA is spying on everyone, saving everything ever sent, and trying to break cryptography everywhere it is. This is news? No, this is history. We've been bullying countries for decades, getting into wars on false premises, obliterating our own middle class, hunting down a benign plant (which happens to be winning), blah blah prison industrial complex, and on and on and on. I mean, seriously, if someone blows up your neighbor for profit and then says 'trust us we will be good,' then explodes the next town over, and then the next country, do you really think they will show some restraint when you come under the microscope? Are these revelations really the kinds of things we should be surprised about?
What I'm trying to say is this: I don't believe for a second that Edward Snowden is genuine. Look up the term 'limited hangout,' and then ask yourself what Snowden has revealed that we didn't already know. The only difference between pre-snowden and post-snowden worlds is that the establishment isn't even bothering with chicanery anymore. They are just out in the open with several contradictions at once, and the masses don't care.
The real issue is employer dependence.
1. You can take a low wage job. Low wage jobs I hear give you fewer benefits than welfare does, so it doesn't make sense as an option (if slavery is an option).
2. You can be put on welfare. I have little experience with welfare, but I don't think it's really a viable option. You would imagine that the police would want to help the homeless and take care of things on behalf of a moral republic... but that is not our reality.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070603181156AAOBRZu
3. You can be homeless. Still not a good option, but it's where most people end up.
4. I don't know. However, shouldn't we be able to live for ourselves somehow, apart from an employer?
...but we're the terrorists?
As the terrorists, it seems that we also want to obliterate our freedoms. We have men in suits in Boston, New York, and Washington, all too happy to increase surveillance, break our rules, use force whenever convenient, and then say it's in the name of protecting those rules (which we just broke).
How can this go on? What happened? How can these people listen to this garbage? It is as if someone can come up to them and tell them, 'The sky is orange,' when it is blue, and they'll believe it!
Sadly, it is too late. We have already succeeded in destroying our freedoms. We already live in a dystopia. This event is just another absurdity in a long nonsensical chain. The next steps will probably be something out of science fiction, with death robot wardens for the poor and happy-land prisons for the rich. Oh yes, being rich might be a burden too. Just wait until officer clownface comes up to you and says, *HAPPINESS IS MANDATORY. UNHAPPINESS WILL NOT BE FORGIVEN...*pew pew*.
Someone else will pay for his abuse of power.
Subscriptions are the ans...
Oh wait, only American teacher douches do that.
This law will have the reverse effect.
I'm not just saying this for no reason. This idea has been implemented before. Have you ever set foot on one of those draconian college campuses that cuts students off from pirate websites? Their torrents stopped working. That didn't stop them. They brought piracy inside their networks and created massive, well documented libraries of pretty much everything you could ever want.
That is the way it should be. No censorship, period! If that interferes with established business models, then change those!
The game changed. The only thing stopping piracy from exploding are these weak chains that the masses don't realize they can break. Tighten them up, piss off the elephant, then get trampled by the irony of trying to stop something that could and should be helping your businesses.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Daniel Joseph Calvanese.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt