Are you just some completely dogmatic anarcho-capitalist??
The idea that someone with true integrity like Kucinich could be completely dismissed indicates merely that you have not learned to be open-minded. Given you agree on this, maybe you could learn that with effort to see other's views, you'll find that *some* of them make sense. You shouldn't agree with him or anyone automatically on everything either, but if you've been that judgmental about Kucinich or his views… Well, I hope you take this as a lesson to check yourself and listen more and don't make up your mind in advance.
The use of a journal article for the purpose of filing a patent is a totally *transformative* USE compared to the normal purpose of journal articles. It didn't transform the article itself, that's not the point.
This is a broken system. They get their funding up-front from people who are already paying, the community paid already. There's no justice patenting this! We need to get rid of this patent nonsense. And Techdirt shouldn't be promoting that people fund new patents.
YouTube is hurting music careers because there is MORE music. It's better business to provide something really scarce. The problem is that good music isn't scarce now. This pianist wants most music recordings and videos destroyed because then he would be more in demand.
Lots of people like pre-1972 music more than pre-1927 music. Those people might pay for pre-1972 music if forced to, but once they are thinking about spending some $, they might choose to instead go for some post-1972 or even post-2012 music. If you make pre-1972 music public domain, then everyone will have enough free music they like and might not bother paying as much in general for music. It's good for current artists if old music is sabotaged because it'd be harder to compete with the public domain if the public domain were better.
No, I don't support sabotaging the public domain. But this is a reason the maximalists support but will never admit.
Re: "Apple ... devices ... used by adults" -- Hmm, nope, haven't seen THAT.
Do people just automatically report out_of_the_blue's posts?? This comment is perfectly fine and worth restating. Apple is like Disneyland, and childish fantasy world, complete with all the problems and injustices of that sort of controlled environment. Why did people flag this comment?
Noah, all you are saying is: In the U.S. the government is a significant player in healthcare, and healthcare is insane (as the article shows). Then you conclude: therefore the insanity is caused by the government.
Textbook example of illogical thinking. You have provided no basis to blame the government here. I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm just saying your conclusion is completely unsupported by your premise, especially given that you are replying to someone saying that a complete government-run system in the UK is excellent.
A few years ago, I thought nobody would go this far
I used the public library argument years ago thinking that nobody would say that the public library was bad. So then, what difference does it make if I download vs get from the library? Etc. discuss please.
But now people are taking the bait and digging in instead of questioning their previous positions. This is absurd and scary. I never thought I'd see this.
What's disrespectful about showing ads?
Nothing *necessarily* except that most of the time, advertising is in fact disrespectful. Ads encourage wasteful consumption, are manipulative, intrusive, create conflicts of interest, etc etc. Ads STINK. A world of ubiquitous advertising is an unhealthy world.
What people want is BOTH Free and no ads. And we can have this actually. The model is Free/Libre software and culture and such.
Practically though, a select portion of ads are perfectly ethical, they are just the tiny minority.
Actually, John, you and I agree and we both agree with Mike.
I was not saying anything about who is the customer etc. I was saying that advertising is almost always manipulative and has other problems and so is usually unethical. Ads are usually awful and that's that. The point is that I want a world without these ads. And yes, that world is the world of Free/Libre/Open software and culture, not a world of proprietary paying customers who buy restrictive licenses.
Argh, don't suggest the NC restriction. It's not a good thing. It fails to stop exploitation any better than SA and it divides the commons because it is incompatible with truly free licenses!
Summary: you *want* to restrict commercial use, so you use NC. Result: your decision has little or no impact on actual commercial uses, but you seriously hamper non-commercial users who you wanted to support. That's what happens with NC. It's a broken license, don't use it!
See my example here:
Wrong. Once a work is CC0, she could publish it again with modifications and a different license, but she can't remove the CC0 from the copy you download today and which you can share with the world unrestricted.
What nonsense completely divorced from reality. I myself was a fully active participant in fighting these awful bills. I blacked out my site, signed petitions, made calls, and spread the word to others. I also am a critic of Google, do not like their business model, and nothing I did was in any way directed or influenced by Google.