Posts by Steve Barnes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Oh, I suppose you want me to qualify that.
Ok. All music will be free with an accompanying lunch. We will all wear flowing robes and dance in the sunshine and the CD burners will lie down with the Lions of the recording industry. We shall forge our copyrights into fileshares and we shall frolic in the meadows of freedom and no tree shall fall sad and lonely in the forest without a soul to hear it's song. And all will be wonder and light an sound an shit. Anat n stuff init. ;-) -
Anyone else got a vision of how things might work?
Yes.
-
Therefore. That music you are listening to cannot be mine.
Was meant to say
Therefore. That song you are listening to cannot be mine.
Where is that damned EDIT button?
-
Actually, you can prove a negative.
Well of course you can.
ie. "I am not not here" logically it means "I am here"
But the statement was "you can't prove a negative"
ie." it is not true that I am not here"
Both statements are double negatives, conradictions.
I think the whole "you can't prove a negative"thing is one of those factoids logicians throw around to show how clever they are.
I was taught this, ironically, by a man called Girle.
Anypoo. I have proven that the statement "I am here" must be true but as you read this you may look around and find find that I am not, as you perceive, here.
Therefore. That music you are listening to cannot be mine.
Because. If I write a song about a tree falling in the forest without there being a person to hear it and then allow it to be recorded and played back in a forest without a person to hear it. Is it still a song?
;-) -
do they own the patent for nails as granted to them by law?
Why should they?
And let's say the plans for the house were copyright of, say, Initial homes for instance. Would I be breaking any law if I built my house to those plans? (assuming I didn't copy the plans themselves and I was building the house for myself) -
On J K being two faced
He said it himself. -
a key part of my point is what has public good got to do with it if you don't apply it equally to all areas of your society.
We, sort of, do.
Say I want to build a house and I decide to make my own nails. Does the "nail manufactures association" have a right to charge me for the use of a concept? -
I am still waiting for my beer and socks. WADDAYA MEAN I HAVE TO WRITE SOMETHING? damn it, this is appalling I have never encountered such abominable service. I'm going to write to my MP.
Dear Lockwood,
Could you lend me a small hand in this matter,....... what are you smiling at? do you think this is funny?
GRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!! -
But what I really what to know is why it's impossible to turn the TV on and not be in the middle of an ad break?
If it's a Sony that is considered a feature ;-)
-
I always thought I understood the concept of copyright. Robbery's concept of longer periods of copyright seems, to my mind, to negate the "public good" (if the good is determined as a benefit or a "good" as in goods) I also think the creator of a work deserves a period of exclusivity in terms of reproduction as does any person or company that aids it's production and/or distribution but this should be balanced against benefit to society as a whole (this is, of course, an idealogical point of view). If you look at the laws of thermodynamics with regard to work then you see why there is no such thing as a free lunch. ( I also think economists should consider those laws instead of game theory but that is a point for another day)
However and it is a big however. In all the opinions and statements there has been nothing said about gifting, there is plenty about lending, hiring, reselling, copying, storing for retrieval etc. etc. but gifting has not been mentioned. So. It is quite legal to buy a CD, listen to it and then give it to your Mum for Christmas but if I copy it to listen to on my iPod I have broken the law, if I copy it to my hard drive I have broken the law if I allow others to share that file I have broken the law, If I play it in listening range of the public without paying a royalty fee I have broken the law, if I whistle the tune in public I have broken the law.
So. All I can do legally is to listen to the CD on my own in private and if i want to allow anyone else to hear it I must give it away and for this privilege I have to cough up $30 or so.
SuX eh?