Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:O RLY? (Score 1) 38

Given that vastly more work is created and that work is distributed to vastly more people under copyright-supported activities than via any other economic model in human history, I think your "making it less efficient" claim needs some supporting evidence.

The point of copyright is to create an effective market where the same sorts of effects that motivate making more and better physical products also motivate making more and better creative works.

Comment Re:O RLY? (Score 1) 38

America's founders knew that ideas and innovations belonged to the public not locked up behind laws, that's why we have limited copyrights, so that eventually works will go into the public domain to spark new ideas.

Somehow I doubt the founding fathers had industrial scale barratry and copyright lasting longer than any human lifetime in mind, nor on the other hand that large businesses should be able to make staggering profits by exploiting the works of others in almost textbook examples of what copyright was meant to prevent and get away with it because of fair use or safe harbour provisions.

Comment Re:O RLY? (Score 1) 38

You do realise that the US is far more liberal with its fair use provisions than almost anywhere else in the world? And that this has been a frequent source of debate in both the creative industries and among international diplomats, since it's questionable whether the US is actually complying with its own treaty obligations while at the same time trying to push ever longer copyright durations and more restrictive practices in other areas onto others?

Ultimately, Google makes the vast majority of its money from advertising, and that advertising is attached in one way or another to content whose value was entirely generated by others, whether we're talking about the main search engine, YouTube, or almost any of Google's other major services.

This is not to say that their services can't be useful, but the idea that innovation is some terrible challenge if you can't exploit all the content that others create to the n-th degree is just silly. As a counterpoint to your arguments about tanking the economy, I give you China, where copyright enforcement is essentially non-existent and (by Western standards) so are the professional creative industries. The primary innovation in content creation in China is arguably their skill at copying the work of others without having to contribute anything back in return.

Comment Re:And so it goes... I hope it's not what I fear.. (Score 1) 62

That means the artists probably have to move somewhere else, which is fine I guess, unless it's only a matter of time before the new site gets too expensive to run and either dies or gets sold off.

Or... it's not a new site, and it all collapses into something like facebook. I am not on it, but it's harder to avoid it. I quit using instagram (for that reason, and because it's toxic) and I do use whatsapp to keep in touch with several friends in different states in a group chat. It does bother me that fb owns them though. It seems like only a few companies will 'own' the majority of the content of the internet, at least in terms of how the masses consume it.

Comment Re:another view... (Score 1) 119

And still... I don't want one.
I am a gear-head, and I don't think I could ever get away from that. Electric vehicles don't interest me much, even though some are amazing from a performance perspective. I think it would take a very long time to replace what we have now anyway. I think it will happen, but hopefully not completely. I am all for progress, and I think that the leaps that technology have made in the automotive industry are pretty incredible. Just don't take away our rich automotive history by outlawing/banning it. I still want my computer-less cars and motorcycles. If we get to 90% clean vehicles that's great! Just let me keep my loud polluters that I love.

Comment Re:The owner should be liable (Score 1) 223

Regardless of whom the law holds responsible, this is going to be an actuarial nightmare for the insurance company. A manufacturer might have a stellar track record for decades, then one day a security update introduces a bug that causes a lot of crashes. How can the insurance companies take account of that in their pricing?

Comment Re:Weak/nonexistent punishments for faulty notices (Score 1) 79

All patent applications are signed under penalty of perjury. However, the US Patent and Trademark office disbanded its enforcement department in 1974. So, you can perjure yourself on a patent application with impunity.

Unless it's testimony in a criminal case, or the perjury trap in front of a grand jury, or something they want to prosecute like lying on your tax form, the Federal government is in general lassiez faire about perjury, or even encouraging of it with their reluctance to prosecute, especially perjury committed by a so-called intellectual property holder.

Slashdot Top Deals

Just about every computer on the market today runs Unix, except the Mac (and nobody cares about it). -- Bill Joy 6/21/85