I would propose: Copyright plus zero years after death, period. Heck, 30 years or death, whichever comes first. If it's truly a form of welfare or pension, make it work like a pension plan, expire the time or split total to a beneficiary after death.
Patents, seven years period, no extensions, nothing.
Trademarks is the only one that defies my awesome ability to cut through the bullshit.
Or half a buck per album. If my favorite artist offered direct FLAC downloads of the album for two bucks, great, I know it's going right to the dudes. Otherwise, I'll just go cheap/easy and wait out the storm.
Thief? Maybe, but in reaction to the alternatives.
So much wrong with this sentence: "A free service run by taxpayers should be run by professionals who know how to control the system and prevent active illegal filesharing."
It's not free, the taxpayers paid for it.
The people running it are professionals, unless they do not draw a salary to run it, which is highly unlikely.
Preventing active illegal "anything" is as possible as the same preventive measures you take for anything else the taxpayer funded for public use: roads, schools, buildings. Do we shut down roads because a bank robber fled on it? No, you find the bank robber. Do we close schools and board them up because someone gets hurt? No.
So why does the MPAA get to stop a piece of public infrastructure? Because you let them.
what.cd is ostensibly about music... maybe they thought they were squeaking past if they were constrained to music sharing; law enforcement/ investigation tools of this profile on the other hand might have ruined A Good Thing.
Maybe they just don't want to buy it from Comcast, a de facto monopoly wherever its franchises are located. Maybe, and it's just a wild thought, consumers don't like being told *who* they have to buy content from. Crazy, but if the actual infrastructure was divorced from the services, you could, oh, I dunno, *compete on service offerings*.
It's not even the same thing. Yes Men did not take on the actions of the CoC, they just crafted a very subtle parody. Why must a parody be overtly obvious in order to be a parody?
I'd pitch in ten bucks to have Megadeth record a thrash version of "Jingle Bells". I'm sure other weirdos would jump in to get, say, Meshuggah to cover "Silent Night" in their own ironic way; and The Mars Volta to re-interpret "When Doves Cry". Shit like that should be eminently possible, especially if they have their own studios to do this.
C'mon, who wouldn't want to download a handful of covers by Slayer for XMas?
They might not, but let's allow a man to have a sunny, optimistic expectation about it. Furthermore, let's also assume the risk of being wrong about "bottom-up" is low, since just about everything cool in the world tends to be better without corporate overlords.
Typically CS majors are inculcated into the idea of software engineering, without really getting any specific s/w engineering training, such as detailed code review training, project management, or even coding techniques. This is left as an exercise to the reader, and it shouldn't be. CS curricula are focused on the science/ research aspects with s/w engineering as an afterthought. This is as it should be, since the word "science" is not to be taken lightly or watered down.
However, if what you want are s/w engineers, you need a related track and some different prereqs. What a low-cost online course offering can do is get students the prereqs, then get them into what amounts to advanced technical training with respect to software engineering.
This properly bifurcates CS into the science and practitioner tracks, and while CS majors will become scarce, we can now focus the right attention on developing a true engineering discipline for computing.
It's a great idea for most; it's just a bad idea *for you*. It could confuse and frustrate that unfortunate subset of color-blind individual -- so don't use it. It's probably going to be a toggled setting.
Even if it's not, don't be the kind of person to remove a useful function from the majority, code up a greasemonkey script to see the colors and turn them into a pattern.
You give the users a locked-down PC, replete with onerous Pointsec whole-disk encryption so that your stupid email announcements are safe from prying eyes, and no one can repair the HDD in case Windows doesn't shut down properly. Right, you do that, but then you also allow users to run a VM image of a standard WinXP build. They can do whatever they want in the VM, blow it up, infect it, whatever. The VM has no access to anything internal to the corp. Also, the VM isn't backed up, so if it gets too far removed from safety, it gets nuked, and a new one installed.
Done. And done. People at work are bringing in their own laptops and launching their daily reads on the corporate network... there's little to stop them from crossing the domain barrier and infecting the corporate network. With a VM, at least you can build images that won't ever do that.
Pearl Jam didn't publish lyrics for their album "Ten". alt.music.pearljam had lively discussions about what they'd heard, in addition to what they meant.
I don't see the infringement at all. I never will. I heard it, he heard it, we compared notes, we agree it's probably "somebody else's sky". Make the compelling argument that I can't freely discuss this with someone else, or make the text available for anyone else to read and evaluate.
"As long as the original copyright has expired"... which would be fine if we were talking about 28 years. Now we're talking about author's death plus 90. Who benefits from that? No one. It's a monopoly on a work that's potential a hundred years in the past, and for what?
28 years, period. No extensions, no lifetime benefits. It's ridiculous.
If you affiliate with a known criminal enterprise, you've already declared yourself ex social. As such, you should be fair game for immediate dismissal from the society, by whatever means are deemed appropriate.
In other words, you flash Crip signs and dress the part, bullet in the head. The game has changed, the rules have changed, and law enforcement is still forced to play on a different field. No. That's enough.
Putting games online makes it much easier to grab untold millions of potential viewers that cannot be served by local television. Think of the myriad of agreements that would need to be negotiated for each market.
Now think of the single agreement, managed by the Premier League, negotiated directly with subscribers. It's really simple: they can cut out the middleman.
Furthermore, here's the kicker: traditional broadcasters can work in concert with the Premier League to add their own value, i.e. commentary, insight, etc to get a slice of the pie. Choose a broadcast version, commentary or no, basic video or no, etc. The MLB has a provable model of business, and it does work.
The only downside is MLB locks up all local radio simulcasts on the Internet, so you can't watch a graphical game play out with your favorite broadcaster calling the action. The "added value" presumably kicks back to the radio team in some way. Fair enough, AM radios are cheap.
RSS
Twitter
Disobey (as Christopher)
It's the only way to proceed.
I would propose: Copyright plus zero years after death, period. Heck, 30 years or death, whichever comes first. If it's truly a form of welfare or pension, make it work like a pension plan, expire the time or split total to a beneficiary after death.
Patents, seven years period, no extensions, nothing.
Trademarks is the only one that defies my awesome ability to cut through the bullshit.
A nickel a song. (as Christopher)
Or half a buck per album. If my favorite artist offered direct FLAC downloads of the album for two bucks, great, I know it's going right to the dudes. Otherwise, I'll just go cheap/easy and wait out the storm.
Thief? Maybe, but in reaction to the alternatives.
Corporate disobedience (as Christopher)
Defy them and push the issue.
Re: I wonder how it was downloaded (as Christopher)
So much wrong with this sentence: "A free service run by taxpayers should be run by professionals who know how to control the system and prevent active illegal filesharing."
It's not free, the taxpayers paid for it.
The people running it are professionals, unless they do not draw a salary to run it, which is highly unlikely.
Preventing active illegal "anything" is as possible as the same preventive measures you take for anything else the taxpayer funded for public use: roads, schools, buildings. Do we shut down roads because a bank robber fled on it? No, you find the bank robber. Do we close schools and board them up because someone gets hurt? No.
So why does the MPAA get to stop a piece of public infrastructure? Because you let them.
Re: Same with the Space Needle (as Christopher)
I would just release the images into the public domain until they cried "Uncle". This is what torrents are for.
maybe it's about cohesion? (as Christopher)
what.cd is ostensibly about music... maybe they thought they were squeaking past if they were constrained to music sharing; law enforcement/ investigation tools of this profile on the other hand might have ruined A Good Thing.
-C
Consumers wrong? Really? (as Christopher)
Maybe they just don't want to buy it from Comcast, a de facto monopoly wherever its franchises are located. Maybe, and it's just a wild thought, consumers don't like being told *who* they have to buy content from. Crazy, but if the actual infrastructure was divorced from the services, you could, oh, I dunno, *compete on service offerings*.
The consumers are right. They are *always right*.
-C
Re: Re: A new "test"? (as Christopher)
It's not even the same thing. Yes Men did not take on the actions of the CoC, they just crafted a very subtle parody. Why must a parody be overtly obvious in order to be a parody?
No real case here.
Re: Re: What you can sell (as Christopher)
I'd pitch in ten bucks to have Megadeth record a thrash version of "Jingle Bells". I'm sure other weirdos would jump in to get, say, Meshuggah to cover "Silent Night" in their own ironic way; and The Mars Volta to re-interpret "When Doves Cry". Shit like that should be eminently possible, especially if they have their own studios to do this.
C'mon, who wouldn't want to download a handful of covers by Slayer for XMas?
Re: (as Christopher)
do we do +1 funny here? We should.
(as Christopher)
You're just trying to bait economists into doing a free analysis... I approve!
Re: Hold up a sec... (as Christopher)
They might not, but let's allow a man to have a sunny, optimistic expectation about it. Furthermore, let's also assume the risk of being wrong about "bottom-up" is low, since just about everything cool in the world tends to be better without corporate overlords.
-C
Interesting disruption in CS (as Christopher)
Typically CS majors are inculcated into the idea of software engineering, without really getting any specific s/w engineering training, such as detailed code review training, project management, or even coding techniques. This is left as an exercise to the reader, and it shouldn't be. CS curricula are focused on the science/ research aspects with s/w engineering as an afterthought. This is as it should be, since the word "science" is not to be taken lightly or watered down.
However, if what you want are s/w engineers, you need a related track and some different prereqs. What a low-cost online course offering can do is get students the prereqs, then get them into what amounts to advanced technical training with respect to software engineering.
This properly bifurcates CS into the science and practitioner tracks, and while CS majors will become scarce, we can now focus the right attention on developing a true engineering discipline for computing.
-C
Re: Color Coding (as Christopher)
It's a great idea for most; it's just a bad idea *for you*. It could confuse and frustrate that unfortunate subset of color-blind individual -- so don't use it. It's probably going to be a toggled setting.
Even if it's not, don't be the kind of person to remove a useful function from the majority, code up a greasemonkey script to see the colors and turn them into a pattern.
Why not a VM sandbox? (as Christopher)
You give the users a locked-down PC, replete with onerous Pointsec whole-disk encryption so that your stupid email announcements are safe from prying eyes, and no one can repair the HDD in case Windows doesn't shut down properly. Right, you do that, but then you also allow users to run a VM image of a standard WinXP build. They can do whatever they want in the VM, blow it up, infect it, whatever. The VM has no access to anything internal to the corp. Also, the VM isn't backed up, so if it gets too far removed from safety, it gets nuked, and a new one installed.
Done. And done. People at work are bringing in their own laptops and launching their daily reads on the corporate network... there's little to stop them from crossing the domain barrier and infecting the corporate network. With a VM, at least you can build images that won't ever do that.
-C
Hmmm, let's talk it out. (as Christopher)
Pearl Jam didn't publish lyrics for their album "Ten". alt.music.pearljam had lively discussions about what they'd heard, in addition to what they meant.
I don't see the infringement at all. I never will. I heard it, he heard it, we compared notes, we agree it's probably "somebody else's sky". Make the compelling argument that I can't freely discuss this with someone else, or make the text available for anyone else to read and evaluate.
-C
such as free speech (as Christopher)
I saw it, I can talk about it, period.
troll much? (as Christopher)
"As long as the original copyright has expired"... which would be fine if we were talking about 28 years. Now we're talking about author's death plus 90. Who benefits from that? No one. It's a monopoly on a work that's potential a hundred years in the past, and for what?
28 years, period. No extensions, no lifetime benefits. It's ridiculous.
Hardly it. (as Christopher)
If you affiliate with a known criminal enterprise, you've already declared yourself ex social. As such, you should be fair game for immediate dismissal from the society, by whatever means are deemed appropriate.
In other words, you flash Crip signs and dress the part, bullet in the head. The game has changed, the rules have changed, and law enforcement is still forced to play on a different field. No. That's enough.
Are you a semi-evolved form of troll? (as Christopher)
Putting games online makes it much easier to grab untold millions of potential viewers that cannot be served by local television. Think of the myriad of agreements that would need to be negotiated for each market.
Now think of the single agreement, managed by the Premier League, negotiated directly with subscribers. It's really simple: they can cut out the middleman.
Furthermore, here's the kicker: traditional broadcasters can work in concert with the Premier League to add their own value, i.e. commentary, insight, etc to get a slice of the pie. Choose a broadcast version, commentary or no, basic video or no, etc. The MLB has a provable model of business, and it does work.
The only downside is MLB locks up all local radio simulcasts on the Internet, so you can't watch a graphical game play out with your favorite broadcaster calling the action. The "added value" presumably kicks back to the radio team in some way. Fair enough, AM radios are cheap.
-C