New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
no
Then why not buy the movies to support them instead of just stealing? It's like you're paying to steal content, I don't see how that works.
How are they evil since they came up with an idea and made it a reality? Sounds like you're jealous.
Remind me not to sell anything to you.
Because a patent is a license for a forced monopoly, as I already said.
XDD you think I was going to buy from you
On a more serious note, the goal of copyright law as stated in the United States Constitution is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". (Note: observe that this purpose is directly stating that these authors and inventors are granted a monopoly over their IP to achieve the goals. So not sure why you think attacking the word "monopoly" is at all reasonable.)
This is why the term "intellectual property" is misleading. Copyright and similar laws only came into existence around 1600, and the purpose was to encourage innovation; otherwise, people might be discouraged from spending the time to make cool stuff that we all enjoy. It was not to satisfy some mysterious innate exclusive right to one's ideas.
Either way, the big question today is whether these laws are really serving their purpose. After all, when copyright extends for seventy years instead of fourteen years (as it was two hundred years ago), it's significantly harder for other people to build on top of the work (thus now the law discourages innovations). Of course people have different opinions on this.
At this point I realized that everything I'm saying has already been explained much more clearly by others, so if you're interested in another viewpoint that is explained more clearly than what you can find in LET posts then one okay one is http://us.creativecommons.org/archives/947
Eh, this one has a stronger argument since it's not a prepared statement to Congress -- http://wiki.lessig.org/Against_perpetual_copyright
LoLoLoLoLoL
Yes but content creators will continue to feel entitled to have a monopoly for 12345653 years, inheritable by their grandchildren, for something that someone with a clear mind would not even consider "copyrightable, with the same ferocity that some show when defending their purchase online (apple vs android etc).
When you design and make a product, you'll have a different philosophy.
Don't care tbh, if I had it my way, I'd filter out specific torrent sites and trackers by using an IDS/IPS on the network.
But it helps the inventor to not worry about competition, although the same thing could be accomplished in 14 years.
You like having a monopoly, we get it. Murderers also like killing.
I still don't see why content creators don't have a right to own the content they make.
What exactly are you responding to? As I said, copyright and patent law are intended to promote innovation, and I believe they are important. However, when copyright and patents preserve the exclusive content right for so long, it can discourage innovation as others cannot build on the work (e.g. Steamboat Willie). It was only in the last 100 years or so that copyright length was extended to what it is today, and I think the current durations are excessive.
Murders get prison sentences and patent violators get sued.
You can't "own" the content. "Own" doesn't mean anything when we are referring to abstract ideas, so it is counterproductive to use that word. The right that they get from copyright law is an exclusive right over the content, which may include controlling distribution, derivative works, public performance, etc. They get this right for a limited duration to promote public interests (to encourage innovation). If the copyright extends for too long, society loses because other members cannot build on the work.
Also one if the big issues with copyright today is that it's necessary to make a copy for so many purposes. In the past you could share a book or CD with other people, or even sell it, and the content creator had no authority over that. Now when you download software or an e-book you don't even own it, you just get some rights to use it or view it from the EULA or whatever because everything is a copy in the computer age.
Can you clarify why you believe content creators should have this exclusive right for so long? What benefit does that provide to society?
The patent holder is the one who needs to go to jail, along with those who enforce his monopoly and enable him to steal from society by preventing producers from producing. You see, in any decent human's view, stealing is a bad thing and advocating of stealing is at least despicable.
I believe that copyright law in some form is necessary to promote innovation. Current laws in the United States have resulted in an imbalance that I don't agree with, but without any notion of copyright I do think that people would be discouraged from innovating and I think that's bad.
Promoting society's interests requires a delicate balance, and I don't see how a complete lack of copyright law would serve that. If I invent something and others can immediately use the same ideas in their own products, then what incentive did I have to dedicate the time and resources towards that invention? How does society reward me for my contribution? If we then agree that people will be discouraged from inventing things, or at the very least discouraged from communicating their inventions to others (keep it a trade secret instead), then how does that support progress?
Back on topic. Stick with French providers. Kimsufi/anything at OVH is a good choice or Online.net. If you wanted to keep this super cheap (since you're saying 128-256MB ram) - you'll probably want to find a provider that allows torrents who hosts with either of those providers.
I don't know of anyone ever receiving an abuse/DMCA complaint at OVH/Online.net in my group of friends. Just don't send in a sales ticket to a host asking if they'll let you break the law - the answer will always be 'no' or 'we only allow legal (or private tracker) torrents'. If their upstream is relaxed, and they allow torrents on their VPS' (within whatever limitations they have re: port speed, disk i/o), you'll never hear a peep from anyone.
a) I wonder how you explain progress in all science like Math, Physics etc etc.
b) Monopolies hamper it. Why they hamper it should be totally obvious but in case you need me to explicitly say it, just ask.
c) The inventor is rarely a unique snowflake. Historically, simultaneous inventions are the norm. If YOU don't do it, someone else will.
d) You get the actual entreprenerial advantage every entrepreneur gets - first to market.
It buys the stuff you produce, which are (the stuff) your actual contribution.
Why? They came up with the research first. Why not join the group and participate in the same work?
They made the media. If the copyright law can't help the producer then a specific lawful license agreement can be drawn up to make sure it gets followed by everyone. For buying media, just to watch/listen/read it.
Innovating what? This?
You don't think the ~1m-2m earned from that video + say 6 months exclusive record sales rights would have been enough payment?
It's sick that she has "exclusive rights" for how long? 70 years? and a new antibiotic "only" for 20 years (which I find almost justifiable for something as important as an antibiotic).
edit: don't forget she will earn money from the video for the rest of her life either way
edit2: And don't forget even more worthless videos like this one
Which is great and the Nobel/recognition should be theirs alone.
The problem is preventing by force the production of physical items by producers. This means higher prices and/or lower quality, as in every monopoly. This cost is forcibly incurred upon the people and thus it is stealing.
A lot of that is fueled by grant money, which comes from the government. Another way of promoting progress. After all, researchers have to get paid somehow. Doesn't make much sense in the industry world though, unless we are arguing against capitalism (which I agree would be a valid argument, maybe capitalism isn't the best system).
This happens, but I don't agree that the opposite is rare. Where's your evidence for that claim?
Sure, and as I said at the same time I have an incentive to keep the mechanisms of my invention a trade secret so that others can't replicate my ideas. This goes against society's interests, thus patents.
Yah because she made the content in question (to an extent, record labels, media agreements, etc...), she has control over what happens to it.
That's like saying a Ford Mustang should have everything the Corvette Z06 does just because it's better and it's a Chevy exclusive. It's called competition dude.
And if a large company keeps the means of production a secret, then in the same way a monopoly is born, it's just not supported by the government but instead on an array of innovations that are kept hidden from the rest of society while the company can keep building on it (ever hear the story about hard drive in Bell Labs that got dismissed as they thought it might threaten phone business?). On the other hand, the government has much more control when it supports the monopoly, and if it offers a patent system that is attractive to companies, it can cut off the monopoly after two or N years (hopefully a small number, but obviously not the case today).
If you don't patent something, how you can sue them for violating it or making someone pay for a license?
Science was flowering loooong before that. The fact that it is now funded by taxes ("free money") simply drove away the need for it to get funds as it did before.
Mostly my experience in academia - everything there is incremental. Anectodal evidence of high profile inventions is easy to find: the telephone, the automobile just to name a few from my head.
Wait, are you saying that you being protective of your engineering process is mitigated by preventing everyone else to try to replicate it?
If you want to argue that those videos are worthless, then tell it to the people who view them. Better yet, if they're so worthless, then why do you care about the copyright protection on them? Did you plan on releasing a derivative work?
Wut?
Yep, and that's exactly what a monopoly makes sure to prevent.
Patronage, e.g. this. As I said, researchers have to be paid somehow.
You argued that it's the norm, not that merely that it happens frequently. I agree that it happens, but in this era ideas flow around much more quickly than before, while before it was easier to have simultaneous innovations where there were a couple years where they inventors didn't have contact. So keep the patent duration small.
What? I am saying that me being protective of my engineering process runs counter to the interests of society. In other words, society has a vested interest in me sharing my engineering process so that other members of society can replicate it and possibly build on it. Without patents, I have no incentive (arguing under the ideas in capitalism here, which is the current system, we can argue against capitalism but that's a separate issue) to share those ideas. Patents promote that sharing of knowledge, or at least they're supposed to; because patents require the inventor to clearly describe the process in a way that's recorded publicly. With a shorter patent lifespan and stronger requirements on the detail and clarity with which the invention in described, I think patents can achieve that (as they did in the past before the patent system got fucked up; fourteen years is too long these days).
You already mentioned yourself that a patent is a monopoly. I don't care if you describe your process if I am forced not to produce the damn thing. The description of the process is not valuable. It can be reverse engineeered (ask the Chineese about it). The ability to produce stuff IS the valuable component.