What gives a company a right to define what a "nefarious purpose" is and to advocate that modifications are criminal activity. To go a step beyond: "technology should not be banned simply because some people might use that technology for nefarious purposes."
Re: Re: Re: Well, I guess I have a stupid question then
There are two aspects. One the book, which is something physical and the content, which is abstract. What is copyrighted is the abstract content. Subsequent selling/trading of the physical book does not affect the copyright privilege.
You are also, unfortunately, buying into the concept promoted by the content industry that the buyer never obtains an ownership privilege to the physical book. This is an absurdity. This land-grab by the content industry needs to be ended.
If one applies the expansive licensing concepts promoted by the content and tech industries to all retail products you wouldn't even be able to change the spark plugs in your car without going to an authorized vendor approved customer service satisfaction center.
The purpose of copyright has morphed from providing a content creator with a limited right to foster creativity to a "toll-booth" to extort revenue. Not only that, but it criminalization has also been added. Try to circumvent the "toll-both" - get penalized.
Unanswered is the meaning of Britannica's "looking forward". Will they continue investing resources in the encyclopedia to further it as a quality source of content that people seek to use - OR - will they quietly stop investing in it and milk it as a cash cow? Then - when the content becomes "obsolete" - just quietly shut down the whole operation and declare bankruptcy.
What About the Luggage with Wheels and Extendable Rods?
Another insane rule. Seems that a lot of luggage with the wheels and extendable metal rods could be designed to be easily broken down and re-configured into a weapon. So why are they allowed and scissors aren't?
It seems that the those in charge have to create some evil bogeyman to justify continued repression to fight this or that "war". Perhaps the biggest threat to our national security is continued unrestrained deficit spending. The Chinese can simply buy our debt and use it to legally buy US companies to acquire whatever technology that they seek. An easy end-run to by-pass any cybersecurity.
Unfortunately, the concept of operating this country with a balanced budget would mean that our esteemed politicians would have to make real decisions and do some real work. Easier to fan the flames of public outrage, declare a "war" and then pass more useless)repressive legislation.
Based on the stage that has been set so-far, it would seem in 2013 that either Obama and Romney, if elected President, would loudly beat the drums-of-war. The inauguration speech may well be serve as a prelude.
Seems that the US continues with the philosophy that the seller somehow defines the rule of a "sale" to the exclusion of any rights that the buyer may have.
If the seller insists that the buyer is entering into a contract, then they should have an authorized representative present at the point-of-sale so that the buyer can truly negotiate. Of course, they won't - too expensive - they would say. If that is the case, then all EULA/TOS should be voided.
After a while the endless mind numbing display of these messages becomes "invisible". Not only do they become another irritant to be avoided, but the message not to do something becomes lost.
Laws tend to be complied with to the extent that they reflect societal norms. Admonitions, such as compliance with industry defined copyright, will be increasingly ignored by the "customer crooks". In the extreme - respect for the law (as a concept) will be treated as a joke. If the content industry wishes to have real compliance with the law by the "customer crooks" they need to stop their massive land-grab and acknowledge the rights of the "customer crooks" to the use of their ("customer crooks") content.
Another example where technological advancement is being used to subvert the concept of contracts. One aspect of contract law is that the two parties enter into a mutual agreement defining each-others responsibilities and obligations. Now, one party (the seller) is able to issue a so-called "contract" that can be changed at any time without the consent of the other party and which reserve all rights to that one party (the seller). It is unfortunate that our judicial system has not adapted to preserve contractual relationships.
As That Anonymous Coward wrote: "What it has become and continues to grow into is a horrible thing." Copyright is no longer about creativity, it has morphed into the concept that content creators are entitled to a perpetual revenue stream enforced by the power of the State.
Not only that but content creators are taking extreme liberties to aggressively reach-out and claim that anything remotely with the look-and-feel of their content is infringement.
Leah Day's experience clearly illustrates these trends.
When a person buys a product they acquire a property right to that product. The term "jailbreaking" carries numerous connotations:
1. Device you "bought" is really not yours.
2. Concept of "Sale" is being eliminated
3. Concept of reverse engineering is being eliminated
4. Manufacturer retains post-sale control over the device.
Again, there is the ye olde car analogy. Historically, people have been able to modify their cars as they desired. Want install a Ford engine in your Chevy car - go ahead.
Based on the historical right to tinker with your products, the electronic device industry should not have acquired a right to prohibit people from tinkering. Furthermore, the electronic device industry has no right to deprive the purchaser of their acquired property right when they buy a product.
Yes it was interesting to read. However, it never gets into the issue that the content industry is changing the law to make formerly legal activities criminal in nature. Furthermore, that as technology advances that the content industry claims rights that they did not previously possess. It is not simply an issue of infringement but of continued diminution of the public domain and elimination of the civil liberties of the public.
"Las Vegas police agree to pay $100,000 to beaten videographer" from the Mar. 21, 2012 edition of Las Vegas Review Journal.
Las Vegas Review-Journal reports: "The Metropolitan Police Department has agreed to pay $100,000 to a Las Vegas man who said he was beaten by an officer as he shot video from his driveway. ... As Colling was driving away, he stopped his car, got out and approached Crooks. ... He ordered Crooks to stop filming, and when Crooks refused, Colling beat him, according to the lawsuit."
Following super-Tuesday, I was flabbergasted when Santorum spoke of preserving liberty. A couple of days later, Santorum evidently made statements (that I have missed)that we need to initiate a "war" on pornography. Seems that Santorum lacks an understanding of the word "liberty".
Anyway, since this is a forum concerning so-called "intellectual property"; Ron Paul should sue Santorum for stealing the look and feel of Paul's candidacy. (just joking for those who take this too seriously.)
You raise a very fundamental question. When a company seeks to explore new business areas; can that be considered "code" speak for eventually abandoning the encyclopedia itself.
Companies have been known to take a high quality product that customers like and cheapen the product to jack-up the profit margin. When the customers stop buying the product; it simply "dies". Will that be the future for Britannica?
This is another instance of an industry leader that has failed to adapt to changing technology. One thing that made an me an instant convert to Wikipedia was its ability to have "small" stories concerning new content that Britannica would never bother with. (For example newly released movies).
The encyclopedia purest police have lambasted Wikipedia concerning quality control. Yes that is an issue, but I have also been able to find in Wikipedia analysis on obscure historical events that seem to be missing from Britannica. I will even suggest that Britannica is "censoring" history by limiting their articles to only "approved" pundits. And who is to say that the "approved" pundits are unbiased anyway.
Once again we have a new law that essential removes the property rights of buyers to the physical items that they supposedly buy. Not only that, but that the selling entity can, post-sale, do whatever it likes with the devices in the possession of the supposed buyer.
Do something the selling entity does not like. Go directly to jail, no due-process or appeal rights. Besides the concept of sale being eliminated, the legal process is being gutted.