Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Mickey Mouse copyirght extenstions... (Score 1) 138 138

You may not do what you want with it. You paid a lousy $10 or $50 for a copy for personal use. That's it. The actual asset may cost millions or billions. So if you pay less than $100 for something worth millions/billions, it automatically means you can't do what you want with it. Try using some common sense next time.

You have lost your mind. If I pay less than $100 for something then that means that's ALL it's worth. And if I paid for it, it's mine. Period. You don't like property rights at all, apparently. Your whole viewpoint is you want the government to control everybody and you get to dictate terms. Sorry, that's not how it works. I absolutely can redistribute it if I want. You do NOT get to control me or what I do with my property, no matter what you think your crap is worth.

And it doesn't hurt your culture, because you can still buy the work from the store.

Unless it sucks as bad as your crap does, so the store doesn't want to sell it. And that applies to LOTS of works, many that don't suck as bad as the crap you create. So you used the public domain works, past artists, Shakespeare's words, quotes from Psalms, mistrals songs, folk songs, legends passed down by word of mouth for generations - it all went into the works created after it. You don't get to use all that and then distribute and make money off of it by standing on the shoulders of those giants and then turn around and deny future generations the same ability. You're not special, you're not a snowflake. You're just a flake.

And what gives you the right to decide how much money someone can make off their work?

Because that's the way the market works. Your stuff isn't worth the ink it's written on, of course, but I'll pay for a copy of a work from a good artist if the cost is reasonable. You don't get a right to get paid for your work. You have to market it and hope someone will pay for it. Other people create stuff, too, and some people even distribute their work for free. They can ASK whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they will GET anything. I guess you think you should be able to set a price and have somebody go around with guns and collect money for you by force. Tyrant. TYRANT!

Comment Re:Invasion of the DMCA trolls? (Score 1) 138 138

The artist created the work so he owns it just like you own your body and mind, no one else does.

By your logic, every artist should have the right to erase the memories of every person that ever heard one of their songs, because there is a copy of the song in those peoples' brains. Is that what you are asserting? That the songwriter owns my brain because his song is in it?

Next think you know, you'll be asking your neighbors to help pay for your porch light, because it reaches their yards and they are using your light.

Just because to AGREE to steal/seize someone's work after a set amount of time, does not absolve you from theft.

So ... you are claiming copyright expiration is a seizure. How does that happen? Do jack-booted thugs show up at your house to take it away from you? No - you still have it. In fact, you can still sell copies. But you can no longer decide that the 2 dozen people that already have copies of your work cannot make more copies. Now there are 25 copies. Did you lose anything? NO. In fact, you were already paid by 24 people that were stupid enough to think a copy of your crap is worth paying for.

Comment Re: Mickey Mouse copyirght extenstions... (Score 1) 138 138

Exclusive right to a work is not a god given right

It may not be god-given, but it should be the ethical and legal right.

It already is. You have exclusive right to anything you create. Now, if you want to distribute it for a fee, then you are given a monopoly on the ability to make copies of that work. The only copy any owners of a copy of your work may create is the one in his/her brain. I have exclusive control of all the books on my bookshelf. Some of them I can scan into my computer and print all the copies I want. Some, however, I am forbidden from doing so by federal law. If I do so, the grantee of the exclusive right to make copies may sue me for infringement. If you create something and you don't want anyone from accessing it, you have a [god-given][inherent][whatever] right to keep it to yourself. When you make a copy for me, it is governed by "first sale doctrine" and I own that copy - exclusively - and may do with it what I want. See - it's not yours any more. That copy is mine.

You paid exactly squat for the talent of the artist, his training and the hard work that went into creating his/her copyrighted works.

That has nothing to do with anything. If the artist releases his work, it's done by creating copies. Those are paid for and owned by the purchasers. I have created MANY works using my brilliance and talent that I have never received any payment for. You do not have a right to be paid for everything you do. Nobody gives a shit about your time or talent if none of it is marketable.

Don't you have a legal government provided right to be safe from physical harm by malicious people, to have protection from thieves who would happily steal your money and property? You do. Well, this is the same exact right that should be provided to artists (from pirates and the freeloading, anti-copyright masses).

Nope, that is incorrect. Property is tangible, and when stolen, you no longer have it. Copyright is not property. It is a right to make copies. A more rational analogy would be that corporations are stealing from people that buy copies of CDs with music on them, by manufacturing them with a limited lifespan. Without the right to make copies of that CD, purchasers are at some point deprived of their property (a copy of some musical bits) without compensation.

My point, it's not a favor provided by the government. It's more like their duty to protect their copyright-holding citizens.

And as I have shown above, your point is demonstrably false. They already protect their copyright-holding citizens. By allowing them to sue someone that makes copies of their works without authorization.

Most artists will create new works even after they're financially successful.

But do they continue for 70 years after they are dead? Because the exclusive right to make copies of their works lasts that long. And it deprives the public of its cultural heritage and the ability to honor and celebrate their artists after they are gone.

So? There are many descendents of people who owned real estate, farms, businesses, hotels and restaurants that are enjoying the fruits of their parents' hard work and investments. How about forcing these descendents to donate their parents' assets to the public domain, just like copyrighted works?

Your inability to see the difference between a tangible asset (and depriving the owner of that tangible asset), and the grant of an exclusive right to perform an activity (copying), is truly a stunning example of your myopic view. The world does not owe you a living. And it certainly does not owe you and your kids a lifetime of earnings for a extremely short-term amount of work.

Comment Re:Mickey Mouse copyirght extenstions... (Score 1) 138 138

1000 years is still a "limited Time"

So is a trillion years. Perhaps we should extend all copyrights to a trillion years, by that logic.

Proponents have argued that the law should be changed to allow them for "forever minus one day". Same affect as your proposal, but the Mary Bono was testifying before Congress when she suggested it, and she was serious.

Comment Re:Top secret data accessable from Internet. (Score 1) 122 122

Honestly, I have to ask why this isn't considered an act of war. We've kicked countries' asses over much less.

Because the indications that it was "Der Chiners" was just innuendo and speculation by media reporters. There is NO evidence that it was the Chinese, and no official statement that China was involved or that they had evidence to that effect. It's just as likely that it was some kid in his parent's basement in Jersey.

Comment Re:extracting "fuel" from the very fabric of space (Score 1) 508 508

This thing isn't going to get 1G. No known power source could provide enough power-to-weight ratio sustained, and even if one could the engine would melt in seconds. Forget even 0.1m/s/s, and think thrusts measured in milinewtons.

That's not true. Using a matter/anti-matter annihilation drive, you can get to the nearest star at 1g acceleration with just 10 kg of fuel for each kg of payload. Now, it's true we don't have such an engine, but we do have (a tiny amount of) anti-matter, and the energy output is 100% efficient. So it's a known power source which can provide sustained acceleration with only about 10x the fuel to payload ratio, maybe a bit more to make up for a less than perfectly efficient thrust engine.

Comment Re:2 time the gravity thought (Score 2) 134 134

Note this world is rather denser than Earth - 5x the mass packed into 4x the volume. Should be a great place for heavy metal poisoning. Or toxic wastelands.

Or gold mining! Yea, that's the ticket to get the prospectors out there to colonize the place. Interstellar gold rush!

Comment Re:Not a factor in actually secure environments (Score 1) 227 227

We had a contractor here one time that brought in a portable AP. It was set to broadcast the SSID which was "I Shoot Kids". This was shortly after the Sandy Hook incident. The admin called security and he was ejected permanently.

The more data I punch in this card, the lighter it becomes, and the lower the mailing cost. -- S. Kelly-Bootle, "The Devil's DP Dictionary"