>There's really no need for encryption to increase in power.

The "increase in power" is likely to be in the form of more useful distributed and encrypted storage via cheaper storage, with faster access via faster networks.

The actual algorithms for encryption don't have to be improved upon (though I have no doubt that they will be) for the general line of thought to be valid.

Encryption that is tough to use and understand how to use isn't useful. Integrated Encryption that occurs automatically with better storage and management of security keys will be an "increase in power" even if the algorithms themselves are the same. I did not intend for the "easier to use" component to be divorced from the "increase in power" component of the statement.

My 14 year old likes Big Band and Swing music. But you are right, he doesn't go out and buy it, but just listens to it on various podcasts.

No, the length of copyright is an incentive for the investors (I would say publishers/labels/studios/etc. ) to take ownership of the copyrights, and deny the creators compensation at all.

ever! Just do like you just did. Make a subsequent post. Fixed comments are what keeps Slashdot ahead of the rest.

Funny that you left the Subject alone. Ironic, no?

Copyright extends 70 years after the Content Producer is dead and buried. If more than half the term is after they are dead, how is that an incentive for the producers of works of art to keep producing?

Have you bought a new Cash album lately? Watched a new Hope movie? A new Carry Grant film?

How about a new hit from the folks that brought you "Happy Birthday?" (I would have used their name, but we don't really know who wrote it, but Time Warner Music still gets 2 Million a year off its copyright anyway).

I think there would be more incentive to produce if Content Providers had to compete with a larger body of free work. Their stuff would have to be better to sell, but hey! They could actually use "Happy Birthday" in their movie without paying Time Warner Music (That Great Content Producer!) 10 grand for the right to use a song written in the late 1800's.

Actually, if you are not murdering people, those that don't die benefit. Mostly this is the public, as weapons are rarely trained on the rich and the wealthy that can afford to avoid dangerous situations and pay for protection. It is the common man that mostly gets mowed down. And if the government is preventing the sell of new weapons systems to people, then those at the top are getting punished.

You are trying to tie the idea of the Government enforcing laws that protect the public with Strong Copyright which does not protect the public but just the favored few. Any amount of effort looking at the differences between copyright and weapons systems, and it is clear that your analogy totally breaks down. The right thing (control weapons to save lives) benefits the public and takes away from the profits of those at the top. The right thing (weaker copyright to grant more freedoms and less liability as people share and develop content) benefits the public and takes away from the profits of those at the top.

In the case of copyright, "those at the top" are not the actual content producers by far and large. Copyright now extends 70 years AFTER the content producer is dead and buried. How is copyright about funding content producers if more than half its term is after the content producer is dead?

Try again.

I don't download music, I don't torrent music, I don't P2P music.

I am a model citizen.

More about me:

* I am over 50
* I have bought maybe 10 Albums/Cassettes/8-Tracks/Digital Downloads in my *Entire* life.

Wouldn't the music industry love having an entire market of folks just like me!

"Strong Copyright is *not* about protecting the public"

sheesh.... No matter how hard I try to proof read, I still screw up! We need to be able to edit our own posts Slashdot!

The fundamental problem Strong Copyright has with piracy is that technology is going to *continue* to advance. This will make copying even easier in the future than it is now. Encryption and Peer to Peer networks are going to increase in power, and will be easier to use.

The only way to maintain Strong Copyright is through government force. Increasingly it isn't about stopping people from doing "bad things" like "stealing" content. Instead it becomes a Government managed and controlled system for collecting income for a few favored parties.

Strong Copyright is about protecting the public. It is about protecting the few at the top that can rake in the dough.

And I'm a .... whale.....

Seriously, I have a Google Nexus One, I am one of the 165K that bought the thing.

It has been a joy. No Telecom crap. A few applications I can't uninstall (grrrrr) but the UI and functionality has been peachy. I am always showing off how easy it is to do multitasking, navigation, web searches, ... All the stuff I want to do.

My wife's Atrix? Not so much. Maybe now that Google is buying them, Google can scrape the sludge of a UI Motorola slathered on their phones.

I AM a Computer Scientist!

A dominate product has more influence. But the real question is if there are so many products that look like the iPad before the iPad, where is the uproar about Apple copying *those* designs? Why does Apple get to copy, but nobody else does?

Measurements on my Jobsmeter give this image a reality distortion field of no more than 10 miliJobs. Apple's own distortions register 1000 miliJobs. Given that these measurements come from my objective Jobsmeter and not my opinion, I think (baring calibration issues) I must be right.

What about writing in your journal?

How about making a phone call? After all, someone could hear what is going on in the background.

How about closed circuit T.V.? The U.K is famous for having cameras everywhere. Isn't that a privacy issue?

How much of our ability to record the events in our lives is illegal under this logic, and subject to confiscation?

What if we just remember what we had for lunch? That could be terrible. Can we tweet about what we see? Is it okay to post a description of who you see at the mall?

Seriously, what does it mean to route to a destination? On just about any device, you can route to a set of destinations. Obviously, you can route people by a destination that the user didn't specify. Obviously this could be a retailer or other business, if you had any reason to do so. Obviously if they pay you to do so, that would be a reason.

Where is the "invention" here? It uses all the existing APIs. It uses standard business practice (i.e. you do something if someone pays you to do it).

Seriously I am struggling here. Does this mean you can patent "route avoids streets that have restaurants that serve meat" to accommodate strict Hindus? "route avoids paths that would make the driver pass a church" to accommodate flaming atheists?

I can play this game all day. You can route trips for all sorts of random reasons other than quickest path, shortest path, avoids tolls, avoids highways, is acceptable for walking, is acceptable for bicycles. Heck, maybe if no patents exist for these, they can be patented "first" now.

All of this is obvious, but worse it is obviously not an invention. Just an idea and a bit of api work and common (sadly) business practice.