Jonathan Zittrain On The Spiderweb of Copyright Law 194
Jonathan Zittrain, director of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society, takes an unusual approach to critiquing copyright in this Legal Affairs article. He explains with an analogy to the bizarre patchwork of United States tax codes a reason that (in the words of one of Zittrain's colleagues) "all the cyberprofs hate copyright." It goes beyond simple indignation that current copyright laws often grant seemingly unfair monopoly powers, and into the tangled minutia of the laws themselves.
TIme to start over, folks (Score:5, Interesting)
Time to scrap the heap of copyright laws and start over (why not begin with what the Constitution says, as a suggestion?). When laws are being created to prevent toddlers from accidentally becoming felons, simply because they want to listen to their teddy bear read them a story, you know things have gotten out of hand.
Look, here at /. we know all about the music (hello, RIAA!), movies (hello, MPAA!) and software (hello, UCITA!) examples. But here is an example that is just absurd. Fix the problem? Please, just gut the laws and start over.
Wait a minute, what am I saying?! Any laws rewritten from scratch nowadays would be far more draconian. Maybe this time they would put in provisions to haul the 3-year-olds off to prison...
Re:TIme to start over, folks (Score:4, Funny)
The little tyke would run screaming, "Mom! Mom! Teddy Ruxin's posessed!"
Re:TIme to start over, folks (Score:3, Informative)
Re:TIme to start over, folks (Score:2)
Gasp! (Score:5, Insightful)
What does the government expect? Copyright laws have not been properly developed and then updated independently of the interests of those with influence (read: money) but have instead been accumulated over time by gradual accretion. Is it really any surprise then that they parallel other equally confusing works such as James Joyce's Ulysses, developed in an identical way. Copyright law started out as making some sense for the purpose of protecting an artist's rights while allowing public domain material to say public domain. Now they continuously tinker with it. Rich organisations constantly press for nonsensical and exact new stipulations, and because people try to exploit every loophole at every opportunity because of this they have to introduce even more arbitrary limits:
What bullshit! The thing that makes this even worse is that this isn't unusual: it's just a microcosm of law these days: a series of idiotic and numerically precise restrictions with no justification suffering from excessive detail with every little fucking detail having to be dictated due to the foolhardy allowance given for defence lawyers in exploiting any undefined part of each law.
Re:Gasp! (Score:2, Insightful)
We need a constitutional amendment here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We need a constitutional amendment here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We need a constitutional amendment here. (Score:5, Insightful)
That original law was perfectly adequate to encourage authors and artists to keep creating. It was always done for the benefit of society as a whole, not a few greedy profiteers. It did not create "intellectual property", a highly offensive misnomer, it created a temporary loan from the public domain, to which all ideas belong once expressed. There is similar language in the laws of many other countries. Copyright extentions have totally ruined the purpose of copyright to the point that just undoing them may not fix it any more. Perhaps copyright should simply be abolished. Yes, that would take an amendment, but overturning extentions would only take simple legislation. Too bad the greedy profiteers who oppose it own congress. We need to vote the bums out!
Re:We need a constitutional amendment here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you. This is the best summary of the entire issue I've red thus far, and reflects my feelings exactly. I can't imagine a more offensive concept than "intellectual property" and can't imagine anyone who is not of the most base bourgeois sensibility feeling any differently.
Also nonsense (Score:4, Interesting)
Nonsense, the common law treated Copyright as intangible personal property since the adoption of the Statute of Anne, long before there was a United States or a United States Constitution. There are no significant differences between
Perhaps copyright should simply be abolished. Yes, that would take an amendment, but overturning extentions would only take simple legislation. Too bad the greedy profiteers who oppose it own congress. We need to vote the bums out!
Abolishment of Copyright clearly does not require an amendment to the Constitution -- nothing in the Constitution guarantees any author the right to the monopoly described in Article I, Section 8 -- the power to grant or deny Copyright is within the sound discretion of the Congress. An interesting question of whether the abolishment would constitute a "taking," however remains -- if the Congress took Disney's rights to its films, perhaps Disney would have rights under eminent domain to the value of the asset at the time of the taking.
Such speculations are pointless, for this will never happen, and so we needn't really spend too much time counting Angels on the head of the pin.
Re:We need a constitutional amendment here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. All the constitution says is that congress MAY create copyright law, and only for a specific purpose, and only for limited duration. Repealing the entirety of copyright law would be perfectly constitutional. All it would take would be one act of congress.
Copyright law can be a good thing within those narrow limits. But copyright law has grown like a cancer beyond its original intent. There is no inherent right to to get copyright protection. Int
Re:We need a constitutional amendment here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Very important. If being treated as part of criminal law, copyright is a carte blanche for the industry to write their own criminal law statutes, without a need to ask any parliament.
And that's really a big step away from democracy.
Re:We need a constitutional amendment here. (Score:2)
Actually not. Copyright law is merely an option given to Congress, which Congress doesn't have to exercise. Congress could end copyright law with one bill.
Re:We need a constitutional amendment here. (Score:2)
And all that's required for that to happen is for Count Dracula to turn them all into vampire zombies controlled by his force of will.
Nonsense! No amendment required (Score:3, Informative)
new Study (Score:2, Funny)
Irony here, academia hates copyright? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Irony here, academia hates copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Irony here, academia hates copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plagiarism is copying work from others and publishing it als your own (i.e. pretend it is entirely your own work). It is like renaming a metallica mp3 as Sardonis\'_Hefty_Metal_Band-Roll_Now.mp3 (or whatever) and pretending I wrote the music/text and did the performance, recording, mixing, etc.
Copyright infringers copy a work without permission, but usually give lots of credit. Someone sharing mp3's from metallica is usually quite upfront about the fact that they are made by metallica.
Not ironic at all. It's a natural given. (Score:2)
Credit isn't a form of control, it's merely a from of aknowledgement or what you have contributed to the
KFG
Bugger, screwed up my tags and didn't preview (Score:3, Interesting)
Credit isn't a form of control, it's merely a from of aknowledgement of what you have contributed to the public domain.
KFG
No irony--no money in academia (Score:2, Interesting)
Conversely, corporatization of ideas are the element that copyright law has a problem with, (often precisely because those ideas are now controlled by th
Re:Irony here, academia hates copyright? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think Slashdot should have a plagarism option for moderation. I am sure it happens on Slashdot occassionaly.
What got me thinking about this was the following two post s in the recent "Microsoft to do for Usenet what it did for Email & The Web?" discussion.
once again, google leads the way (Score:5, Interesting)
jd142 (129673) on Sunday Augus
Re:Irony here, academia hates copyright? (Score:2)
For those of you who can't read... (Score:4, Informative)
1. Copyright law was never meant to apply to the individual
2. It does now
3. It is way too specific in some areas, but not specific enough in others.
4. It often stifles creativity, but when used correctly, it encourages it.
5. Copyright law is NOT BAD, just our implementation of it.
so... conclusion:
Add some sort of "fee" to our taxes (maybe just on ISPs, more like on everyone) that allows us, as individuals, to use any copyrighted material we want, as long as we don't try to sell it, without robbing the owners of the copyright - cause we are paying them.
I like it...
By the way... read the damn article before posting.
Re:For those of you who can't read... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For those of you who can't read... (Score:2)
Re:For those of you who can't read... (Score:3, Informative)
Good Ideas, But They'll Never Fly (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, though this would be th easiest of solutions to implement, it would never pass...
-ISP's and their users would complain that it's a "tax", and would fight it to the end.
-Artists with big followings (U2, Garth Brooks, Pink Floyd, etc etc) would complain that this method shortchanges them in revenues. Bands and record companies fight it to the end.
We're not going to get rid of copyright, and we're not going to get rid of DRM at this point either. Instead of splitting our energies and efforts, we should be focusing on getting two things done...
-Lobbying Congress with all of our might to have copyright terms reduced to a reasonable exemption. Either a set term, like 20 years, or the lifetime of the artists. No extensions beyond that.
-Pressuring record companies through a campaign of public relations and a music boycott to get an Apple Store-like solution up for all copyrighted music at reasonable rates, like 99 cents a song. And this pressure should not include copyright violations. That destroys any moral credibility we may have.
Re:Good Ideas, But They'll Never Fly (Score:2)
Yeah, violating an unjust law never gets you anywhere. Just look at the various minority rights movements. If Susan B Anthony would have voted in that election, well that would have destroyed all her credibility, and nothing would have changed. Or that Rosa Parks chick. She knew her place.
In summary, we need to bend over and take it in the ass, it's the only way we will ever win!
Re:Good Ideas, But They'll Never Fly (Score:2)
-ISP's and their users would complain that it's a "tax", and would fight it to the end.
I didn't see everyone fighting tooth and nail against the "tax" on recordable media. I don't think the public has enough awareness of the situation to mount any sort of defense against such a tax. That said, I think you're correct about the opposition we'd see from the Recording Industry. Reducing the terms to something sensible is really the only way to go. 20 years I could live with, but not much beyond that or i
Re:Good Ideas, But They'll Never Fly (Score:2)
The one where I have to pay attention and buy CDs labeled "Data" instead of "Music"? Wow, that really takes a lot of fighting...
Re:Good Ideas, But They'll Never Fly (Score:2)
Yes, you can get around it easily, but you'd think the very idea of having to pay a sort of pre-emptive tax based on the assumption that they are going to commit copyright infringement would piss people off. Especially when it remains a crime to do so even if they've paid the tax.
You do that, and I'll... (Score:2)
They won't be able to sell their work, because people will point to the "tax", and refuse to pay -- even though it's good.
Or if I don't break the system, somebody will. That system is so messed up that it could not fly.
The solution is not to standardize what is broken; the solution is to get rid of broken IP laws (to use the offensive term).
Copyright: Broken. V
Re:For those of you who can't read... (Score:2)
Exactly.
2. It does now
See number 1: Copyright law was never meant to apply to the individual. (As long as we don't try to sell it.)The entire problem lies in trying to apply copyright law were it was never intened to apply. It is generally easy to identify anyone who commercially exploits a work. It is extremely effective to sue anyone who commercially exploits a work. Traditional copyright law is easy and effective at doing the job it was int
Re:Copyright law is NOT a "good thing" (Score:2)
I meant it in the same way you intend. Copyright law is a "good thing" when it actually accomplishes the goal it was intended to accomplish with an absolute minimum of other negative impact.
Restricting copyright to civil suits seizing profits achieves the goal and negative consequences are nearly zero. Copyright duration should come way down too, though that problem becomes almost negligible if copyright is limited to commercial use.
ISPs remit to p
But it will never change! (Score:5, Insightful)
The lawyers don't want change even though they see the problems everyday since it will keep more cases out of court and decrease their job opportunities.
The monied corps don't want to change them because the ambiguity helps their cases as they can just throw money at lawyers and the courts in order to win their cases.
The politicians don't want to change them because they are paid well for opposing such changes.
Therefore, the only people who want them changed are people like you and me... The ones who are informed and see the problem. The only thing is that we are a small minority of the voting public.
Re:But it will never change! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But it will never change! (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree. Lawyers actually tend to argue for or against copyright on policy arguments. Some lawyers think that copyright can be a good thing if it meets certain criteria. Others feel it's like a property right and ought to be inherent.
But I've never heard of any lawyer arguing for copyrights just so that they can stay in work.
a bitter protest against copyrights (Score:2)
A new peer to peer model ?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now of course, I'm not suggesting that y'all start firing up windows, but I find this point really intriguing - filesharing using the SMB protocol over port 139 a'la redmond. What (c|w)ould the RIAA do about that ?
Re:A new peer to peer model ?? (Score:5, Informative)
Has been done. A company called scour.com used to use SMB. It got sued by the MPAA and RIAA and NMPA and subsequently went bankrupt.
Re:A new peer to peer model ?? (Score:2)
If you want to do something like that, there's a better way.
Set up an ftp server or some other share. Leave one directory visible to anonymous. Encrypt the username and password as part of that directory. For example, ftp://my.warez.net/idrt-qsdd
Would mean
Why all the confusion (Score:2)
IANAL, but why is everyone else having so much trouble seeing this? I suggest this is only because they've created this holy war and want to change copyright law to suit their battle tactics.
The courts should know better and be able to act as a stablizing force, but they're not technologists so they can't be sure there shouldn't be a difference. Judgement: the courts need to continue to tr
Re:Why all the confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, really? Well, you're an infringer. You see, you've made a copy of the slashdot article and probably of the main article, too. You didn't get the explicit permission of the copyright holder, either. And maybe you've covered your dirty little crime by clearing your browser's cache, but the fact remains: To have read the article at all, you had to willfully cause to be created a copy of that article.
Ludicrous? Sure. Implicit in the whole idea of how the Net and the Web work? Certainly. In contradiction of "traditional" copyright? Without a doubt.
And before you unload on me, consider that (a) Congress had to add language providing for "emphemeral" copies and (b) the Copyright Cartel fought tooth-and-nail to stop such language from being added.
Re:Why all the confusion (Score:3, Interesting)
-
Lets See (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright
Trademark
Patent
Trade Secret
The rules governing them overlap, contradict and in the case of patent are usually poorly applied(prior art).
Toss in 200 years of technological progress that have reduced difficult or impossible tasks to completely trivial tasks. (Publishing books, reproducing music, etc)
Add in the fact that the laws were originally designed to deal with works that were matters of entertainment or education now deal with pedestrian business tools. (Theres not many businesses that will stop because a copyrighted book is unavailable. Theres quite a few that will stop if the copy protection on their software goes bezerk).
My point is it took a Harvard Law prof. to figure out the system is broke ? The only people its not broke for are the I.P. lawyers and for them its a license to extort money.
Re:Lets See (Score:2, Informative)
Really they're all quite different types of protection, with different origins, and the policies behind them are different as well. That's why it's so silly to lump them together as IP
Re:Lets See (Score:2)
Trade Secret
Actually, "Trade Secrets" have no formal legal status. The only way they're protected is if someone breaches a contract that says they can't reveal them. The concept that they were protected got started with the DeCSS case, where the MPAA claimed that DeCSS was illegal because CSS had "trade secret" protections, and so could not be legally re-implemented.
The only people its not broke for are the I.P. lawyers and for them its a license to extort money.
Especially since its practically im
Re:Lets See (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL but I have had considerable experience on both sides of the fence in this particular issue, its apparent that those replying either haven't had the same level of experience or are deliberately being deceptive.
Lets take the aboves example.
The target logo. This can be trademarked as a business mark, it can be copyrighted as a visual work, it can be registered as a design patent, if it were used to calibrat
student copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
This raises an interesting question. turnitin [turnitin.com] claims to detect plagiarism in essays turned in by students. But those essays are then stored by turnitin in order to detect future plagiarism (of course since we can't track the use of the essay, I have wondered if turnitin isn't feeding the essays out to one of the essay sales sites). If the essay is copyright by the author, this seems to me to be out of the realm of fair use. Perhaps a few students should go after turnitin in the courts.
Interesting Point (Score:4, Insightful)
From their site.
http://www.turnitin.com/static/legal_document.h
Commercial use of a work may still be "fair use" under U.S. Copyright Law
That superficially solid, however by using it to detect plagurism decreases the marketability of the work.
One of the stated purposeses of turnitin.com is to destroy the business of "paper mills" or "digital paper mills". As such these actions likely do decrease the marketability of the work either directly or indirectly.
Plagarism at school is NOT a crime AFAIK.
Copyright infringement IS a crime. Copying works to impair the marketability of the work by the copyright holder is most certainly illegal, and morally wrong.
thanks for the pointer (Score:2)
Re:Interesting Point (Score:3, Funny)
LOL! What a beautifully twisted analysis
-
Cookie (Score:3)
It isn't a twisted analysis.
Group A provides a service, Group B wishes to provide another service. Group B must violate the copyright of Group A to do so.
Either Group B should not be permitted to do this, or they should do so in a way that does not infringe on the IP of Group A.
Hmmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Best to have a good grade going in. Be ready to drop the course and avoid the instructor in the future.
OK, so I
Re:Hmmmm (Score:2)
And for *gasp* misquoting without even providing a proper attribution! Plagiarism for sure! ;)
The changing times? (Score:2, Funny)
In theory, of course, Title 17 applies to everyone. Even the Sony case of 1984 included a token individual defendant, a VCR owner who was the alleged direct infringer. But no one demanded that he pay damages or change his behavior. More recently the Recording
Re:The changing times? (Score:2, Interesting)
hmm isnt that extortion? m-w [m-w.com]
Cable and Copyright Infringement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cable and Copyright Infringement (Score:2)
Google: TV bathroom contract [google.com] (I'm Feeling Lucky)
Jamie Kellner, Chairman and CEO of AOL/Time Warner's Turner Broadcasting division. "Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots," he says. "Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis." He says that people who use VCRs or Personal Video Recorders to record shows and then skip through the commercials during playba
great summary.. (Score:2)
Let's tear the whole thing up. (Score:3, Insightful)
The kneejerk reaction, however, ignores the fact that copyright law has evolved because of specific problems and exists in its current form because that is what producers believe they require to turn a profit.
Zittrain touches on this patchwork evolution of copyright with a comarison to tax law:
The original provisions for copyright law have been frequently quoted, because back when they were written they were deemed sufficient to get people to produce content. However, each time the producers (at first authors/composers and later corporations) felt they got screwed they lobbied for an extension.
Examples of this problem / solution approach to law explain many of the changes. For instance, authors in the 1800s frequently were destitute in their later years because their works went out of copyright. Nothing like Sir Walter Scott as your poster boy to get sympathy.
And what about those geniuses who die young before their works become popular (e.g. Stephen Crane). Their heirs were *really* pleased. Can anyone say life plus 50?
Skip to a modern example from the article: look at the rediculous 55 inch TV rule. That's the result of bars competing with cinemaplexes without having to pay royalties for what they showed on huge screens. The resulting (stupid) rule gives a maximum size for a TV screen that does not qualify as competiting with the movies.
Bear in mind each badly written novel generally takes at least a year to write and then several months for a team of people to edit, and each dirivitive pop CD takes about 6 months to write plus several months for a team of people to produce, and we all know about the effort put into each lousy movie. People (and corporations) don't want to see that effort go down the drain, and with profit margins being low in the various content creation industry, they'll fight like dogs for even more draconian rules unless they can be convinced relaxing the rules will help them.
The publishing ogliarchy exists, ironically enough, because people don't like to waste their time listening to garbage. The industry offers people certain (minimal) guarantees, so most people listen to them. That, not money, is what gives them their clout. If we rewrote the law, lawmakers would listen to them out of the because they don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Thus, without addressing producer's concerns, we'd have to write *more* draconian laws
I'd say salvation would come from addressing these concerns more then viva la revolucion style burning of the old laws. For instance, listening to my brother's downloaded music has pushed me towards buying CDs I wouldn't otherwise have known about. That is something content producers need to know before we get rational copyright law: Sharing can help them.
Of course, since I'm writting this on a Mac, I have to add that salvation will come from the Apple Music store, just to gloat.
IANAL, just an english major with an emphasis in publishing.
Re:Let's tear the whole thing up. (Score:2)
Wah. Really. If a janitor or a teacher or a computer programmer, or 99% of people retire, they don't continue to get paid for the work they have done. Why should that 1% be any different? Why should children get paid for the work of their parents?
Mod Parent Up! (Score:2)
Re:Let's tear the whole thing up. (Score:2)
Heirs are not generally entitled to benefit from their ancestors' work. They may receive an inheritance from the ancestors' estate, but that depends on how the will was drawn up and what assets were left behind by the ancestor. In the case of an ancestors' premature death (esp. if the ancestor is a parent), there is this thing called life insur
Great article, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Founding Fathers (Score:3, Informative)
The first problem was publishing of books. Few could afford to distribute information (publishers), and it was not worthwhile to publish a book, if all the competing publishers could just sell the same book as well.
This is the well known problem, and not really relevant these days - when distribution of information is a non-issue.
Another probl
Re:The Founding Fathers (Score:2)
So, how do you think such a system would affect the world?
Re:Let's do away with all property! (Score:2)
Re:Let's do away with all property! (Score:2)
Re:Great article, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, it's not people like Zittrain that think this -- it's people like Jack Valenti and others who believe we need stronger copyright protection who believe this.
People like Zittrain -- i.e., IP scholars -- believe that IP laws are here not to incentivize creativity, but to incentivize the *maximum amount of creativity versus the costs.* Everyone kn
Re:Great article, but... (Score:4, Informative)
There once existed a means to achieve needed intellectual goods, namely the University, but that institution is now a mere handmaiden to market interests. Of course, with the creative output of academia now hobbled by "market relevance" and special interest lobbies, no engine of intellectual freedom is left. So of course, public policy has to shift toward strengthened intellectual property law. Hence as universities weaken and academic freedom erodes, there is a corresponding rise in the breadth and venom of intellectual property protection.
To cite one example, Richard Stallman created the Free Software Foundation as a reaction to the commercialization of academic research. Perhaps there would be no Free Software movement at all if our universities were as strong and free as they ought to be. Nor, of course would there be the current boundless monopolies in intellectual property that have moved in to fill the void left by the death of academia. The university has let its proper role in society be usurped by charlatans.
Re:Great article, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a perfectly valid question, but it's not one that has an easy answer. Your example of a cure for cancer is fine, but the question of "need" is much subtler. Who is to say what is "needed"? For drugs, it's somewhat easier -- of course we'd rather have a cure for
Re:Great article, but... (Score:2)
You've lost the game in that case. The Good and the Right are everything when deciding how laws should or should not be made. People in positions of authority and power are *required* to make such decisions many times a day. By *not* being willing to decide such things you have already let someone else make the decision.
Re:Great article, but... (Score:2)
When it comes to intellectual, expressive creations, THERE IS NO GOOD AND RIGHT. Over my dead body will people in positions of authority and power decide what's good and right music, what
Re:Great article, but... (Score:2)
We don't *need* a certain kind of music. We need music PERIOD. As long as there's some kind of music, the need is satisfied. When you're sick you need a certian type of treatment, but that's not the case for music. That's why it ought not to be protected by copyright at all.
Music is much healthier when the creators are closer to the consumers, when the consumers are participants, as in a live performance. Music is healthier when it can be freel
Re:Great article, but... (Score:2)
We already have music. We would have music without IP law. My point is that it's always better to have MORE music. If there is a certain amount of additional music that may be produced because of IP protection, then that's great. I
Re:Great article, but... (Score:2)
It is *not* the job of a lawmaker to increase the production of music. That's not even the job of record executives. It's nobody's job, and that's the way it ought to be. Even the poppiest of pop stars doesn't see it as their responsibility to increase the production of music. They do what they think is good and wh
Re:Great article, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The "information owners" lobby is too powerful for incremental change to work in favour of public interest or good. Since the members of that group also control the public dialogue on such matters via their distribution channels, it becomes doubly difficult to press back gently.
Moreover, current IP is a blunt instrument that lends itself to abuse because it deals with overly broad classes of material, with no provision for measuring merit. There's lots of noise generated, but not much signal.
Is that really the best we can do? Who knows? No one is proposing alternatives because the airwaves are choked with received opinion and regurgitated pap courtesy of the knowguls (ya know, like moguls).
Re:Great article, but... (Score:2)
Copyright law is good. (Score:2, Interesting)
trade free music, protected by a free
license.
That's all..
All you complaining about not being able to share
commercial documents, don't understand the value
of work and the rules of business.
NOW what you could do is to build campaign against
the buying of commercial art. With competiting free art.
This is the only reasonable path. The one adopted by the people of the free software.
You can adopt it too and design free art,
that can be freely shared.
Now stop whining and act: b
good points.. (Score:2, Interesting)
indeed. Copyright was created to encourage innovation, fair enough..
Sadly, a great
Okay, here's how. (Score:2)
(2) Put warm turd on hard surface (like plate)
(3) Put turd in walk-in freezer
(4) Get cloth and shoe polish
(5) Put cloth in freezer
(6) When frozen, take cloth out, apply a small amount of shoe polish to cloth. Blacken. Repeat step 6 until turd is completely covered with shoe polish.
(7) Explain to restaurant manager and Dept. of Health official the philosophical implications of your experiment, and the importance that it will have for PHBs all over the business world.
(8
Moderators: Mod parent down (Score:2)
What should be illegal... (Score:4, Insightful)
This way Americans might feel the copyright system is more fair than many obviously feel it is now.
BSA poisoning the minds of the children (Score:4, Funny)
Help the weasel (how ironic!) protect the city from pirates and pirated software and prevent the deep freeze!
The funniest point is that there is no goal to the game at all, you keep going until you lose. So you do your best to protect the city from pirated software and software pirates, but eventually, you will lose and the pirates take over.
How true! To bad the BSA can't take their own advice!
Re:BSA poisoning the minds of the children (Score:2)
Re:BSA poisoning the minds of the children (Score:2)
Ferrets are members of the weasel family:
The family Mustelidae has been around for a very long time; it is probably the oldest extant (living) family in the Carnivora, which means there are lots of different subgroups within the major group. Weasels include weasels, mink, ferrets and polecats; martens include martens and fishers; skunks include all types of skunks; badgers include badgers and wolverine; and otters include sea and river otters. Sometimes martens are grouped within the badgers, us
Back to the Original Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
All of the squealing on behalf of the poor creators and authors and how file sharing is hurting them is misguided drivel. If it's available on the commercial market, the author has already sold their right to the work.
The copyright should end once the author has lost control of the work -- as in virtually every recording contract existing today.
The laws were designed to protect the authors -- not the publishers. The RIAA is the publishers. The software companies are the publishers. None of the creators owns their rights any longer.
Therefore, most of this discussion is so far off base that it is all irrelevant.
I know, this will get a flamebait modifier, but I don't care. Copyright has been twisted so severely that even those who are staunchly defending it are still arguing against the basic principle upon which the copyright laws were founded.
All the legal antics miss the real point. It's the authors, dammit. In today's system, they get screwed, regardless.
Re:Too lazy to click? Read it here! (Score:3, Funny)
Oh of course, the record label needs all the money they can get to keep suing kazaa users.
Re:Too lazy to click? Read it here! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ideas.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They? Who is this mysterious they? Think about what you're saying. You're thinking of some specific people who you feel have abused copyright and proposing a change in the system to punish them. However, your solution would quickly screw over anyone who creates unique material and doesn't get it immediately to market. The result would likely be that the large conglomerates which you're targetting would be the only way an author, an artist, a poet, or a composer could hope to do make a living. Everyone would need a massive advertising splurge to push interest for a month, create the newest fad, and sell all that's possible in the miniscule window of two years.
And that's ignoring the fact that the GPL exists only under the auspices of copyright. You'd destroy that too. Such a proposal as you've made is completely short-sighted.
Re:Ideas.. (Score:2)
As for the GPL, Frankly, I do not think that the GPL has much to worry about. There would always be distrubition, so the commercial copyright would maintain itself. Frankly, non-commercial violations are NOT a major concern.
Re:Ideas.. (Score:2)
Eliminating the GPL is a good thing. Its stated purpose is (or was) to undermine unjust and immoral copyright laws. If copyright laws are changed to be more open and facilitate sharing, a lot of the justification that made the GPL necessary disappears.
Re:Ideas.. (Score:2)
I seem to recall that RMS basically says this in one of his philosophy essays - that the purpose of copyleft is to use copyright law (which prevents sharing of information and knowledge) against itself. Without copyright, there is no need for copyleft, because there is no legal backing behind attempts to keep knowledge secret.
Re: Ideas.. (Score:2)
What I want to know is what happens in 75 (or 100 or 3500 or however long the term gets) years' time, when software that's currently GPLed enters the public domain...
Re:Ideas.. (Score:2)
Try again.
Re:Ideas.. (Score:2)