Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Corollary: It's difficult to be "clever" in Jav (Score 1) 407

by Ksevio (#49745417) Attached to: The Reason For Java's Staying Power: It's Easy To Read
I think that's one thing that makes Java both desired and despised. There are a lot of "clever" code chunks in other languages that are short AND easier to read. Even if it's not as easy to read, it's much nicer to decipher 4 lines of "clever" code than 100 lines of enterprise code spread over multiple files. To find out what a function does, you sometimes have to dig down through several layers of classes and compare across files. It's straightforward if you have the time to deal with it and you don't have to know too much about complicated theories to do it.

Comment: Re:If you didn't sing it... (Score 1) 226

by Ksevio (#49602403) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down
If someone rents a house, they cannot rent it to another person during that time. A house has physical value, making a new house costs money. The same is not true for a song.

I think there is value in shorter copyright periods. It gives artists protections against their works being ripped off, Longer copyrights don't help that case as much since most works are popular when they are first released, not 150 years after.

Can you tell me the benefit of copyright on works where the artist is dead?

Comment: Re:If you didn't sing it... (Score 1) 226

by Ksevio (#49600585) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

Why? What's "odd" about it? If you build — or purchase — a house, you and your ancestors can live in it forever. Why must a song be ever confiscated from its owner?

If a person makes a house and sells it, then it is no longer theirs to sell (or as you'd say, it's "confiscated"). There are also lots of other people around to sell houses. If you're selling your house for too much, I can buy it from the guy next door.

If we had better laws regarding copyright then we wouldn't need the GPL (though that's also a response to non-open-source software which is a different matter). Code licensing should also not be perpetual

So, we can use the term "stolen", when referring to intangible things, after all? Good to know...

That was a jab at people who say you can "steal" music - glad you got it!

You are right! Under the current system an artist is free to release their works "into the wild" whenever they please. They have a choice between trying to profit and trying to gain renown. You want to take that away (steal) from them, mandating some arbitrary (and short) time limit. I fail to see, how this can possibly be considered "fair".

I'm not advocating for the elimination of copyright - just shortening it to a reasonable period. If copyright lasted 3-7 years (government protected monopoly), artists would still make most of the money they do now (most songs aren't even going to be making money for that long) while society would benefit from having the works come into public domain. Really a win-win situation unless you're a media mega-corp.

Comment: Re:If you didn't sing it... (Score 1) 226

by Ksevio (#49595279) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down
It's sort of an odd arrangement that we provide them a government mandated monopoly over their songs essentially forever. The original intent of copyright was for artists to share their works and in exchange after a limited time, the works would move to the public domain.

Due to abusive legislation, that has been stolen from us. Your great grand-children will be dead before the song you heard on the Top-40 station this morning is in public domain. Even Elon Musk's batteries will be out of patent protection in a couple decades.

Most artists make music because they like it. YouTube is full of artists sharing their works for free. They wouldn't suffer with shorter copyright and we as society wouldn't suffer. Many people see this disconnect which is why services like Grooveshark were able to thrive - they provided an alternative that was easy to use. There shouldn't be any right-to-profit that harms society more than it benefits the profiter.

Comment: Re:It's finally time (Score 2) 314

by Ksevio (#49572095) Attached to: Feds Say It's Time To Cut Back On Fluoride In Drinking Water

Although military spending is a nice chunk of the federal budget, most of it is spent on Social Security and Medicare:

That's a point some people have been pushing hard to get out there, but those programs are both funded separately from the rest of the budget so they are really not relevant when looking at spending/debt.

Elegance and truth are inversely related. -- Becker's Razor