This is nothing more than facebook wanting phone call data. The advantage for users is almost nonexistent. Its the modern way of stealing (or as they put it in their shiny presentations "harvesting") data.
But they are so coooool. And that super secure lab that professor had in that science fiction movie I saw, had this tooo.
This stuff is all good as long as its well documented which genes were changed and why. Because copyright (or patents) (or even (worst of all) trade secrets) on human DNA is the worst thing that can happen to our human society. We don't want only the well born to have better genes. But of course this won't happen. There will be a strong gene copyright lobby, and it will demand DNA to be copyrightable, to make research pay off.
Also, we should think of the possible pressure future parents may be in, in giving their children the best genes. Perhaps one day (rather sooner than later) we can change genes of living humans, too, e.g. with viruses, and then at least you can revide your parent's choices about your body.
I imagine some/many artists get screwed by the labels by giving up their copyrights. But at least some retain copyright of their work. In other cases, it's not abuse but just transfer of risk from artist to publisher. If your work is probably going to make between $10,000 and $1,000,000, wouldn't you rather sell it for $250,000 and let the publisher deal with the risk? At least conventional medium artists get copyrights, whereas almost all software devs handover copyright of their works to their employers.
Software development usually is done with the developer being hired by the company.
Also, which incentive does it create for content creators to extend periods of existing works?
No matter how much money they make, they still want more. How many financially successful businessmen and artists quit their profession after making a ton of money? Not many. They enjoy their work and they enjoy making money.
So, you agree there is no additional incentive?
What has become out of bash styled mail address combination?
Its hard to copy a piece of land, and now have two of it.
While you can't copy it, you can simulate a copy by building multistory buildings like highrises and skyscrapers.
And this is generally allowed, isn't it?
Also, the law wasn't written for descendants to live off ideas of their anchestors.
Who cares? The copyrighted content is a commercial asset and usually descendents benefit from them. There is no need to write a special law about obvious things.
Yes, it is a commercial asset, but in many countries the clock starts to tick with the death of the creator.
When you are creating some content, like a book, neither its initial success nor its long term success is measurable. This is abused by labels which you have to give your whole copyright rights to. It either has some value, or its completely worthless.
Also, which incentive does it create for content creators to extend periods of existing works? Will they produce more content? I mean the copyright already fills their lifespan, what is there more to do? If periods are extended, then it should only happen for new works.
Real estate isn't something that's created by humans. Its part of our planet
So you're arguing that humans should have more ownership rights over something they did not create, land, and less ownership rights over something they did create, copyrighted content? Hmmm.
Its hard to copy a piece of land, and now have two of it.
The creators themselves won't bother whether the copyright becomes public domain 50 years or 70 years after their death.
I'm sure the copyright content creator and his descendents disagree.
Please note that the creator doesn't own the content anymore, often they have to give it to a company. Also, the law wasn't written for descendants to live off ideas of their anchestors. The 50 years rule has been made so that people can economically adjust to their parent's death, so that additional to the loss of the beloved family member there also isn't an immediate economic crisis.
Real estate isn't something that's created by humans. Its part of our planet, which is limited. You can easily copy content. The only purpose copyright exists is to create an incentive for people to create works. The creators themselves won't bother whether the copyright becomes public domain 50 years or 70 years after their death.
Read his answer on the shorter copyright question here, where he opposes a 5 year term too:
http://interviews.slashdot.org...
This. All this "smart tv" nonsense is only about collecting data and, through "upgrades" like this, forcing people to only use devices which are not older than 3 years.
The EU should consider this too when they are reviewing google: google and all other tech companies should use standards. What would happen if every single railway company would have different track gauges?
You can however at least limit the time that certificate is valid.
Yes, This is pretty much press bloat. Improving hidden services has been a long time goal of them, read their blog. This is just a press release that they've got funding, and actually started working on that.
There are multiple problems with hidden services, for example you can't delegate your domain, meaning that you can't keep a root key containing your master keys offline, and have a VPS or similar server (which you don't trust) run the onion page.
This has been written in a very pro-selldata approach:
For example, if the proxy that’s providing a user’s address is located in a different city from that user, then location data that could aid in targeting ads would be unusable, he said.
So, should ipv6 be enabled because it kills privacy? This article is stupid shit. I really don't like if internet protocols are designed with "targeting ads" in mind. This is where the google involvement into internet standardisation has brought us to: an internet built to spy on us. Google is not very much more than that: a company getting billions from running the most profitable internet ad network in the world (visit this, and search for "Advertising revenues"), and running other services in order to show those ads on.
I think that in countries with many ipv4 addresses per internet user, we won't see any change soon, they still can support one ip per home. The US is one of those. It has tons of IPs. In countries without much ipv4 addresses, the companies (especially new ones, which don't sit on millions of addresses) will see the pressure, and will run a carrier grade NAT & native ipv6 approach.
Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard
