tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post7779989071235889622..comments2024-03-18T23:08:20.960-05:00Comments on Althouse: Aggressive prosecution #2: Internet activist driven to suicide.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger156125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8097204753565249772013-01-15T14:45:26.215-06:002013-01-15T14:45:26.215-06:00Or to put it ore succintly. "there are only s...Or to put it ore succintly. "there are only seven main plots in all of literature". Yet how many novels were written on those basic plots. <br />If someone wants to learn about literature plots does taht entitle them to acces to every book every written? jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56045576163392691972013-01-15T14:41:30.974-06:002013-01-15T14:41:30.974-06:00Knowledge and interpretation of knowledge are two ...Knowledge and interpretation of knowledge are two different things. Lets say the laws of grammar is knowledge and Elements of Style is the interpretation of knowledge. THAT'S what's being copyrighted. Now, there are almost infinite ways to learn the laws of grammar. You could go to school and learn it or you could buy any number of books on the subject or you could see a movie about it or you could scour the internet for a free web page that has the same data.<br />In the interest of getting "The Elements of Style" you are not simply, learning grammar. No, you are in fact getting a product that was designed and contructed by those making "Elements of Style" which is an interpretation of the Rules of Grammar as defined by STrunk and published by the publisher.They dont own a copyright on "grammar" they own a copyright on "Elements of Style" which is about grammar.<br />How does them having a copyright on The Elements of Style inhibit any one anywhere from either writing a separate book about grammar not called "Elements of Style" or getting the information from another source that is not the book "elements of Style". <br />So then, what is the point of limiting the copyright on that expression, other than to say you've sold a lot of copies of Elements of Style, now I want a cut. <br />So long as the author is alive I don't see why you would penalize them for continuing to want to publish THEIR OWN WORK. <br />jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39666905143314426492013-01-15T14:01:04.462-06:002013-01-15T14:01:04.462-06:00If you don't like things like public domain, c...If you don't like things like public domain, creative commons, general public licenses, BSD licenses, and other aspects of publicly owned knowledge. PleaseMac with a hammer (BSD Kernel). Smash your cell phone. Never access the internet. Never use mathematics. Or science. Or medicine.<br /><br> I never said I don't like public domain or creative commons or publicly owned knowledge. But take pPple. A mac uses the BSD Kernel (thanks BSD) which is free. But the OS isn't free. Apple didn't HAVE to use the kernel and having used it doesnt mean that their product must now be free. A kernel is not the same as an OS. Apple determines the terms of it usage as well as what programming language to use and whether to charge or not for its OS. Not Aron Swartz and not you. And if they do charge and you don't want to pay the cost you have no right to use the OS in any way other than how Apple detemrined you should use it.<br />Cell phones? How has copyright stifled Cell phone creation? Does the fact that the idea for a cell phone being public knowledge meant that iphones or Androids are free? ARe they not distinct products built on a concept but unique in their own way? Should Apple be able to start making Androids simply becasue it wants to? SHould somoeone somewhere be able to use a 3d printer and sart manufacturing Androids simply because technology allows it? <br />Never use the internet? THe internet was built as an open platform, but if I go to my bank I ahave to enter a password. MY info is supposed to be secure. The fact that the internet itself is open shoudlnt give you access to my data, should it? It's a framework that allows people to build on it but that doenst mean that was is built is similarly free, any more than the fact that the land we stand on has roads built on top of it and houses on the roads. Just because I can drive down the street doesnt mean I can walk into your house, or appropriate your car. <br />Never use mathematics? How much has been built on mathematics? The idea that you somehow could copyright "mathematics" or "science' is ludicrious. But what a bout a text book on mathematics. If I wrote the DEFINITIVE text book on mathematics, why should I not be entitled to the proceeds of my text book for as long as I want to keep publishing it. Why should the Aron shit's of the world get to appropriate my work and disseminate it if I didn't give him permission to do so? Math is free, but my book isn't. And my book would not be the only means by which you could learn about math. If Aaron wants to distribute free books about mathematics to everyone he can write his own book and then put it up on a file sharing site. I wouldn't hold it against him. It's his work. <br />But I dont see how we should only allow him to have access to the rights to publish HIS book for 24 years beacuase someone else wants to give his book away after that or wants to publish it instead. <br />jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58403267739159891332013-01-15T13:45:10.979-06:002013-01-15T13:45:10.979-06:00Mark you write of General Public Licenses as if al...Mark you write of General Public Licenses as if all licenses MUST be General Public licenses simply because some licenses are.<br />Arguing the efficiency of general public licenses versus licenses that require you to buy software is a different question than whether you can force individuals or companies to adopt General Public Licenses for their work because other companies or work use General Public Licenses.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License<br /><br />Why is Linux free and Windows not free? Because that's how the makers of Linux want it. That doesnt mean that somehow you are now entitled to Windows simply becuase Linux is free does it?<br />And you can go through your computing experience never touching any aspect of Windows, or MS Office or anything MS related. How did that then stifle innovation on Linux's end? If you don't want to use Photoshop you can use Gimp. Gimp is free, though you still have to abide by the terms of the license. But having Gimp be free and Photosphop not being free says nothing about degrees of innovation does it? Both exist, one as a free product and one as a product you pay for. And you either pay for it or you find an alternative. <br />Why should someone else or some other company be able to tell Adobe that they, after spending millions on making Photoshop can't profit from Photoshop after a set period of time? or that someone who has had nothing to do with the making of Photoshop can simply give it away to a million of his friends on a filesharing service when Photoshop wants to charge for its usage.<br />Having Adobe allowed to make Photoshop didn't provent Corel from making it's product or Gimp from making it's product, which all ostensibly do the same thing. And yet the copyright is on those products and not on the concept of "A program that allows you to manipulate pictures". Noone HAS to use one porgram over the other and innovation isnt stifled if Adobe gets to keep making its' product for 12+12 years.<br />Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse. Why should he or the company that owns Mickey Mouse lose the right to continue to use Mickey Mouse if they want to keep it in perpetuity. Noone else HAS to use Mickey Mouse if they don't want to in order for animation or childrens entertainment to continue on. jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-269006010042131742013-01-15T13:24:52.455-06:002013-01-15T13:24:52.455-06:00Mark wrote:
I don't advocate anything that ext...Mark wrote:<br />I don't advocate anything that extreme. But, it is a simple metric that the shorter the copyrights. The faster the development of mathematics, sciences, and the arts. The longer the copyright, the slower the development.<br /><br />It is a fact of life. And using insulting comments with no basis in reality, like you did in your last statements, doesn't help your position. And stating that my comments for a return to the 14+14 copyright system as wanting to publish gun owner addresses or your bank accounts or whatever silly thought entered your head. Is plainly dumb.<br /><br />Can you explain why a return to 14+14 copyright would be harmful to the USA?<br /><br />My argument is that it would speed development of education, mathematics, sciences, etc. As demonstrated in the past.<br /><br> Except I think you have a problem with things that are public knowledge versus Isolated Knowledge.<br />What is Public Knowledge? If you are referring to a proprietary database, the very fact that it has the word Proprietary suggestst that it is not in fact Public. <br />And yet it is my argument that you are assuming things should be public which are not in fact so simply becuase it's more convenient for you.<br /><br />LEts take the idea of Music versus the idea of a song. Noone can own an A chord for example. But if Paul McCartney writes a song that incorporates music into a melody, that is his melody. You can build on the structure known as music wihtout making Paul McCartneys music Public Knowledge freely distributed to all. You write your own melody. You don't need to ever reference Paul McCartney EVER to still come up with your music. Therefore what is the point of making him lose copyright on his ideas after 12 years or whatever time frame you want to put on his creative content. Why should someone else get the benefit of using his song "Yesterday" if it's his song? They can write their own song, no? Music isn't ended as an idea if someone can't use his song is it? How does copyright then impact the development of music, when it comes to artists work? It doesn't. No artist MUST reference another artists work in order for art to continue. <br />The same is true for old databases. Or programming languages, or drugs. <br />Or take education. Copyright is on a specific work, not on history itself. If you write a book about the Civil War it doesn't mean that noone else can ever write a book about THe Civil War. But why shoudln't your individual thoughts on the civil war be protected from others appropriating your words in ways you didn't intend. (and i dont mean things like including a quote from your book in a bibliography of a separate work. so long as you give credit that is covered under fair use).<br /><br />You whole argument about how copyright stifles innovation is bunk. You can't copyright the law of relativity. BUt if you write a book about the law of relativity, why should you not be protected by copyright for your entire life for your own work? Does the fact that you wrote that book mean noone else can write a book covering the same topic? Where then is the stifiling of innovation you are talking about?<br /> <br />jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15486465130702373142013-01-15T12:59:48.445-06:002013-01-15T12:59:48.445-06:00Mark wrote:
If you don't like things like publ...Mark wrote:<br />If you don't like things like public domain, creative commons, general public licenses, BSD licenses, and other aspects of publicly owned knowledge. Please hit your Mac with a hammer (BSD Kernel). Smash your cell phone. Never access the internet. Never use mathematics. Or science. Or medicine.<br /><br> I have no problem with any of it. However, a company can set the terms of the use of it's product, not the consumer. Linux may be open source but that doesn't mean that Mac OS X must be simply becasue some jackass thinks it's the moral imperative to make all things free. <br />That goes for music, that goes for movies, books, and pretty much anything protected by a copyright.<br /><br />IF an artist, like say Paul McCartney decided he and his business partners made enough from their Beatles royalties and decided to give it all away for free and host it online and allowed free downloads. I certainly would welcome it. But only he should be allowed to make that determination. Not some doofus who thinks its a moral imparative to make all music free. <br />LEt the Aaron Swartz's of the world make that decision for the products or ideas THEY design not decide for others who aren't so inclined to agree.<br />jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47524091402824862762013-01-15T12:52:26.023-06:002013-01-15T12:52:26.023-06:00But sharing isn't immoral — it's a moral i...But sharing isn't immoral — it's a moral imperative. Only <br />those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy. <br /><br />Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate <br />require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they <br />have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who <br />can make copies. <br /><br> Fuck him!It costs millions of dollars to make a product. If the company sees fit to charge for that product and you decide to steal it and give it to all your friends, you have no right to do that. YOU are the greedy one for thinking you are entitled to the diseminating of someone else's work without recompense. And this jackass thinks he has a moral imperative to make things that people are charging free.<br />Robin Hood may have been stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, but he was still stealing.<br />In this case corporations are allowing access if you pay the cost to acccess. If the cost is too high, they don't force you to gain access to their info. <br />WHat doesnt this kid get though? If you want to see Star WARs in the movie theater you buy a ticket.<br />jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34076100907821922762013-01-15T12:46:37.191-06:002013-01-15T12:46:37.191-06:00Mark wrote:
You are sounding a little bit loony yo...Mark wrote:<br />You are sounding a little bit loony you know. That accusation that "all your information belongs to us" is rather crazy. This isn't about making all information public domain you nut.<br /><br>Here is Swartz's manifesto about what he thinks he's entitled to:<br />http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt<br /><br />Now, I have no problem if Swartz felt the best way to prove his point was to make his information that he wrote or produced free to all. THat is his right as a producer and a writer or artist to do so. Maybe his way is better and the world will learn from his example. But that's the extent of what he should be allowed to appropriate. HIS data. NOt your data and not my data.<br />Lets take abit of his manifesto and apply it to what you say sounds looney and I'll admit "Yeah it sounds looney" but thats because it is looney. THe free internet crowd are looney. <br /><br />Here's his manifesto in part:<br /><br><br /><i>"but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they <br />make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it's perfectly legal — <br />there's nothing we can do to stop them." But there is something we can, something that's <br />already being done: we can fight back. <br /><br />Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been <br />given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world <br />is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for <br />yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords <br />with colleagues, filling download requests for friends. <br /><br /><br /><br />Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been <br />sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by <br />the publishers and sharing them with your friends. <br /><br />But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It's called stealing or <br />piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a <br />ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral — it's a moral imperative. Only <br />those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy. <br /><br />Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate <br />require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they <br />have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who <br />can make copies. <br /><br />There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the <br />grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public <br />culture. <br /><br />We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with <br />the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need <br />to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific <br />journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open <br />Access. </i><br /><br><br />OK, so I just said I think that all of the info of reddit users should be put online for all to see. Their credit card info their personal info. I'm just fighting for Guerilla Open Access. Not only would it not be stealing it would be a moral imperative to get your credit card info out. Why should only Amazon or Google or your bank only have access to that data? <br /><br /><br /><br />jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68720393699898615052013-01-15T12:33:47.189-06:002013-01-15T12:33:47.189-06:00More, about Swartz: http://www.technologyreview.co...More, about Swartz: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/509841/why-aaron-swartzs-ideas-matter/ <br /><br />As a commenter points out, the prosecution was warned that Swartz was suicidal. Through other sources, I've heard that the prosecution offered to lock him up immediately. <br /><br />All ignorant lawyers who bully should be shamed.ByondPoliticshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03658861090610737282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45712441369250468092013-01-15T11:59:15.060-06:002013-01-15T11:59:15.060-06:00jr565 said...
I'm just channeling Shwarz's...<i>jr565 said...<br />I'm just channeling Shwarz's free culture ethos.<br /><br />and<br /><br />It's a good thing Aaron created Reddit because frankly he's not trustworthy enough to work at any company anywhere, what with his propensity to disseminate other people's work and ideas without permission.</i><br /><br />You are sounding a little bit loony you know. That accusation that "all your information belongs to us" is rather crazy. This isn't about making all information public domain you nut.<br /><br />This is about balancing two conflicting ideas. Isolated Knowledge and Public Knowledge. A good balance between the two is needed for a healthy growing society.<br /><br />Do you have any real idea of public domain? And intellectual property? You really need to read the history and the reasons why the USA had 14+14 copyrights. And not just public domain. And not just permanent control by the creator.<br /><br />If you don't like things like public domain, creative commons, general public licenses, BSD licenses, and other aspects of publicly owned knowledge. Please hit your Mac with a hammer (BSD Kernel). Smash your cell phone. Never access the internet. Never use mathematics. Or science. Or medicine.<br /><br />Strip naked and live outside.<br /><br />Because without building new stuff on public ideas you have nothing. The simple fact is that if we accepted today's insane copyright time frames back in the 1600's. Then we would be living like any poor dirt farmer of the 1700's.<br /><br />Thomas Jefferson was an advocate of the public building upon old knowledge proposed that a short time span for copyright be added to the Bill of Rights!<br /><br />Ever wonder why Germany in WW2 was so far ahead in science then the rest of the world? In mathematics? In rockets? In metal? In the study of atoms?<br /><br />Their LACK of a copyright law in the early age of the printing press made sure their mathematics and science development outpaced the world for then next 250 years.<br /><br />I don't advocate anything that extreme. But, it is a simple metric that the shorter the copyrights. The faster the development of mathematics, sciences, and the arts. The longer the copyright, the slower the development.<br /><br />It is a fact of life. And using insulting comments with no basis in reality, like you did in your last statements, doesn't help your position. And stating that my comments for a return to the 14+14 copyright system as wanting to publish gun owner addresses or your bank accounts or whatever silly thought entered your head. Is plainly dumb.<br /><br />Can you explain why a return to 14+14 copyright would be harmful to the USA?<br /><br />My argument is that it would speed development of education, mathematics, sciences, etc. As demonstrated in the past.markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132895109421423443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83882204087507174102013-01-15T10:28:05.624-06:002013-01-15T10:28:05.624-06:00I believe freedom and liberty include rights of ow...<i>I believe freedom and liberty include rights of ownership of property.</i><br /><br />And I don't disagree.<br /><br />The video shows his clear fear of government intrusion. <br /><br />His hacking, a crime, seems an issue separate from SOPA, or perhaps it was an extension of it as his idealistic challenge to government interference.lemondoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14606734670170393751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57804229857273897142013-01-15T10:03:22.122-06:002013-01-15T10:03:22.122-06:00Lemondog - while I share Swartz's abhorrence o...Lemondog - while I share Swartz's abhorrence of intrusive government, I believe freedom and liberty include rights of ownership of property. <br /><br />Swartz's notion that the "right to connect" on the Internet means that there is no intellectual property right protection is illogical. You can connect any way you want without usurpation of others work and innovation. <br /><br />SOPA/PIPA were bad pieces of legislation. Swartz aligned with "information companies" who fiercely protect their own work, while building business models that exploit other's work -- and there is nothing wrong with that so long as intellectual property rights are protected. <br /><br />SOPA was classic governmental overreach - as is involuntary collectivism by way of sanctioned theft of the work of others.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11409187431233481077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66588174138300329352013-01-15T08:58:50.679-06:002013-01-15T08:58:50.679-06:00Someone should leak the personal information of an...Someone should leak the personal information of anyone who ever posted in Reddit. Their bank records, their social security numbers their credit card info. And host a site for those who want to, say, engage in identity theft.<br />And why not? It's bits and bytes. No one is stealing anything by revealing the info (ie you still have your bank account and credit card) and its important (to me) that said info is disemminating. And Redditt is a company with info online. As such it's fair game. Your info is fair game. <br /><br />Ijr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-35242923312891027312013-01-15T08:53:11.546-06:002013-01-15T08:53:11.546-06:00It's a good thing Aaron created Reddit because...It's a good thing Aaron created Reddit because frankly he's not trustworthy enough to work at any company anywhere, what with his propensity to disseminate other people's work and ideas without permission.<br />Imagine if he worked for a law firm. He's leak all the info from Mwrgers and acquisitions in he intersect of disemminating free info.<br />Or he'd probably hack into all the partners accounts and then release whatever info he thought should be released.<br /><br />That goes for anyone believing in free Internet. Any company you work for should be fearful that you are going to violate your terms of agreement and just leak or reveal or distribute their data for your purposes or<br />Just because. jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-11656536455142281012013-01-15T07:43:27.536-06:002013-01-15T07:43:27.536-06:00Why is the publishing the list of gun owners onli...Why is the publishing the list of gun owners online somehow some horrible thing, but downloading or distributing I formation that a company doesn't want to publish some noble thing. if information should be freely available, then I want to see all the free cultures bank records, as well as the address of their kids.<br /> As well as their address and phone numbers and credit card information. Because its simply 1‘s and 0's bits and bytes tht should be freely available, and because knowledge is power.<br />How can you even say you stand for privacy if you think that info should be freely avaiable for people to hack and distribute. <br />We should see all of Swarz's medical records. We should know what ant depressants he was taking, who he was screwing, where his mom lives. And if she works for a company we should have her work phone number and any data tht her company produces. <br />We should know when the funeral is and have cameras there and blog it live, even if the parents want privacy.<br /><br />I'm just channeling Shwarz's free culture ethos. jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15395663867431639152013-01-15T07:35:50.806-06:002013-01-15T07:35:50.806-06:00Also, wasn't Swarz offered a deal to only go t...Also, wasn't Swarz offered a deal to only go to jail for 6 months? He should have taken the deal.<br /><br />His suicide was his choice alone.jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-65106162542941198142013-01-15T07:32:48.713-06:002013-01-15T07:32:48.713-06:00Look, the prosecutors didn't force him to kill...Look, the prosecutors didn't force him to kill himself. He did that on his own. And some of this is starting to smack a bit of emotional blackmail. The idea that we have to somehow validate him or make him into a martyr because he was hounded to his death by Javert.<br />Screw that. If you are going break the law on principle then you shold defend that principle. When MLK was marching for civil,rights he went to jail for his beliefs. This guy didn't have the courage to stand on principle. Hell, he might have won the case (he wouldn't have ,but lets pretend).<br />He would get to state his principles and defend them in court. Instead his followers are now trying to do a run around and validate their position because of his death. See for example the takeover of MIT as if MIT caused this kid to commit suicide. MIT is the one that this kid downloaded 4 'million articles from.<br /><br />I have to say, I have a major problem with this kids belief that he was entitled to all this information simply be ause it was available on the Internet. <br />Your banking info is available online. Why isn't that something that should be freely available and distributed. <br />Here's how someone's described his beliefs:<br />"He was also known for promoting free distribution and access to information on the Internet, sometimes called “free culture” — he also clashed with authorities over this. Last year, he was accused of illegally downloading 4 million academic articles.<br /><br />For Swartz, this wasn’t stealing. To him knowledge truly was power. He believed access to information on the Internet was a basic right — or should be — for everyone. To him, the idea was that unfettered access to knowledge would help everyone to realize their full potential.<br /><br />Put another way, Swartz advocated a redistribution of intellectual wealth.<br /><br />His view was pure and in many ways true. However, it has a major flaw. Free culture advocates ignore, or don’t care, that the producers of information — those who toil to produce research, report on issues, solve problems — deserve rewards for their work.<br /><br />Many of the free culture school believe information is like the right to breathe, and intellectual property rights just got in the way of a more perfect world. A flat-screen TV could be designed, produced and sold, but if you worked years to study microbes, paint the Mona Lisa, or produce psychiatric research, the Swartz school argued that if it could be uploaded and then downloaded, then tough luck."<br /><br />I have such a problem with his view of what he felt he was entitled to. Totally not respecting privacy, intellectual property or law. It's not his information to distribute. Who is he, Tyler Durden?<br />So he got caught after downloading 4 million articles. If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime. Or stand on principle and defend why that is right. It isn't right. And in fact he was nothing but a saboteur.jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15996278764303425102013-01-15T07:27:25.863-06:002013-01-15T07:27:25.863-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16187776252283390602013-01-15T07:09:00.986-06:002013-01-15T07:09:00.986-06:00Mark wrote:
And how can Apple make a copy if they ...Mark wrote:<br />And how can Apple make a copy if they don't exist? They will not exist in 120 years. Name a corporation older the 120 years. Not many of them.<br /><br> why would apple not be able to copy their own applications. This smacks of Y2k type fears. jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69110071894271576122013-01-15T06:49:26.700-06:002013-01-15T06:49:26.700-06:00Video of Aaron Swartz on SOPA and its defeat
Freed...Video of Aaron Swartz on SOPA and its defeat<br /><a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_1986" rel="nofollow">Freedom to Connect: Aaron Swartz (1986-2013) on Victory to Save Open Internet, Fight Online Censors</a><br /><br />Fear of intrusive government. A passion for freedom.lemondoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14606734670170393751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-32586774610034906492013-01-15T01:12:53.519-06:002013-01-15T01:12:53.519-06:00I'm still troubled by how badly you described ...I'm still troubled by how badly you described Mr. Swartz's actions. Our society is in real trouble when lawyers blather on about subjects as if we were in a previous century.<br /><br />It's ludicrous to equate him with one who knowingly committed a felony when he purposefully chose an open campus for his actions.<br /><br />It's bizarrely cold to question his motives before his mother has even had the chance to hold his funeral. Surely as a mother of similarly aged young men, you must see that.<br /><br />Perhaps one of your readers will find the following interesting: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mtpiii/the-terrible-logic-behind-the-governments-case-ag<br />It's written by an attorney with a better understanding of the facts.ByondPoliticshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03658861090610737282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-27828120604154383942013-01-15T00:09:25.084-06:002013-01-15T00:09:25.084-06:00Mark wrote:
Copy of the OS, illegal. Copyrighted b...Mark wrote:<br />Copy of the OS, illegal. Copyrighted by the OS software company for the next century. <br /><br />Copy the program, illegal. Copyrighted by the database software company no longer in existance for the next century.<br /><br />Copy the data structure, illegal. Copyrighted by the database software company no longer in existance for the next century.<br /><br />Hack out their information from the database, illegal. File format copyrighted by the database software company no longer in existance for the next century.<br /><br> if its legal or illegal that's the rules. Suppose you had to make a copy of the database and it fell in the time frame that you felt copyright should be allowed. It would still be inconvenient to not be able to copy the data off of the database, right? Would you then make the argument that copy right law should be changed from what you just said it should be set to because it was inconvenient to copy info from a database in that time frame too?<br /><br />I'm a fan of macs. And as you know they replace os 9 with OS X close to ten years ago. Some suggested try should release OS 9 as open source. It may be a good idea, but in my view its Apples to make. If they don't want that info to be freely available then even if its inconvenient for the rest of us, so be it. If you get your hands on Os 9 you can tinker with it, but do it on your time and try not to get caught. If you decide to distribute it though, you are clearly in violation.<br />jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75932356539423693172013-01-14T21:41:22.381-06:002013-01-14T21:41:22.381-06:00Mark,some interesting thoughts many of which are n...Mark,some interesting thoughts many of which are not inconsistent with the point of my post.<br /><br />That IP rights are limited by time is part of the genius of the Constitutional underpinning of IP law.<br /><br />There is indeed a lot of open source code, art work, music and invention which has lifted mankind technically, economically and culturally. Invariably commercial extension of open source IP is shrouded in some form of protection. Apple, Google, etc are hardly eleemosynary institutions even though they have built business models around adaptations of open source. At the same time, they are fiercely protective of their innovations. <br /><br />All of which leads me back to my original point. That is the genius of IP is not solely in the incentive to create, but the incentive to make innovation available to others. <br /><br />Added to that is the idea that once IP is available, others can innovate around it, extending it, adding to it, improving it. IP does not create an impenetrable monopoly. It creates a system of rewards to original authors and inventors, while at the same time providing a basis for further innovation.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11409187431233481077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13850589271666980272013-01-14T19:26:48.509-06:002013-01-14T19:26:48.509-06:00jr565 said...
Shouldn't AC/DC determine whethe...<i>jr565 said...<br />Shouldn't AC/DC determine whether to sell their music on itunes or to go open source and give their music away? Why do YOU get to make that choice?<br /><br />and <br /><br />In 120 years Im sure they can update their format so that the music will not in fact be lost. Can't they just make a copy of a digital file?</i><br /><br />First. Because I'm part of the public. We make that choice because we grant limited copyrights via law. And because we understand that copyrights are beyond music. Like I said. I don't care about protecting AC/DC. And their imagined rights for eternal money long after they are dead.<br /><br />The laws to protect them, harm YOU. They harm the public at large. For a reason. This was hashed out years ago with the creation of copyright laws. And the understanding that government monopolies are harmful for society. But, required for short term insentives to create works.<br /><br /><br />And how can Apple make a copy if they don't exist? They will not exist in 120 years. Name a corporation older the 120 years. Not many of them.<br /><br />Here is a simple example.<br /><br />I had a series of 20 year old 5 inch floppies handed to me. On them were a backup of a propritary database and operating system made right before they destroyed the computer. They asked if I could get the information out of the database.<br /><br />ANY work I would do for them would have been illegal.<br /><br />Copy of the OS, illegal. Copyrighted by the OS software company for the next century. <br /><br />Copy the program, illegal. Copyrighted by the database software company no longer in existance for the next century.<br /><br />Copy the data structure, illegal. Copyrighted by the database software company no longer in existance for the next century.<br /><br />Hack out their information from the database, illegal. File format copyrighted by the database software company no longer in existance for the next century.<br /><br />Too bad. They really really needed the data.<br /><br />My advise. Go back to 14 year + 14 year extension copyrights. And use 10 year + 10 year extension copyrights on software.markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132895109421423443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88558488937858554022013-01-14T18:40:58.627-06:002013-01-14T18:40:58.627-06:00"I'm amused/intrigued/dismayed by the num...<i>"I'm amused/intrigued/dismayed by the number of people who seem to think that all scholarly research is paid for by "the public," i.e. the government."</i><br /><br />Hell, 47% of the public didn't pay for the <i>government</i> supported work.<br />Original Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01714345479248980398noreply@blogger.com