Re: Re: An ethical question about self driving cars
Not arguing. Not angry. Just pointing out: so you should not be able to control your car in some extreme situations (defending your life), but others should be able to control your car in any situation whenever they want to (police wanting that hot dude/babe).
Not only could all sorts of damage occur if people make unauthorized modifications to their cars, but . . .
all sorts of damage could occur if people make unauthorized modifications to their toasters.
Their clothes dryers.
And back in the day, you weren't supposed to open that 25 inch console television set either. You remember: "No User Serviceable Parts Inside." There was danger from the 25,000 volts used for the big CRT. There was danger of implosion.
Maybe Congress needs to pass a law that nobody should be allowed to modify anything. For their safety.
And all of this mischief starts with those pesky kids who have unbound curiosity to understand how things work. Let's put a stop to that also.
We'll all be a lot safer.
If they had a chemistry set (thank goodness there are no more of those) they might learn to become terrorists.
If they learn programming at a young age, they might become hackers who cost Hollywood TRILLIONS of dollars per day.
Suppose law enforcement (at every level) had a golden key that would allow them to send your car simple messages. * lock the doors * pull over * take occupants to certain location (eg, police station, or secret unofficial police torture location)
Naturally the Federal government will want this. Even branches such as the IRS. Or National Park Service.
All state governments will need access to this facility.
All local governments will need this. (How many is that?)
And of course, all of these are trustworthy. That is, all of them are the 'good guys'. Defending Truth Justice and the Corporate Way.
And all these golden key holders will naturally use security best practices. Even Po Dunk Sticksville.
Control of cars will never fall into the wrong hands. Nosiree.
And this certainly would not get abused. Just as Stingray would never be abused.
And finally this brings me to. . . the next one to get in line for this will be the corporations. Why can't they order your car to lock the doors and drive you to their bill payment collection center?
And I suppose copyright owners must have access to control your car because . . . PIRACY! And artists must be protected! They lose TRILLIONS of dollars a year! This is killing Hollywood. Etc.
What if a local business could make sure your car drove you by their big sign to be sure you could see it? Maybe add a fifteen second unskippable pause before contining on to your destination (or the next businesses' unskippable advertisement).
If they want to make that assumption that's fine. I just think there should be some significant statutory damages for falsely making that assumption. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If they don't want the penalty, then they should properly know exactly what rights they own, and to what -- just as they expect everyone else to know.
If they don't like permissive licenses. Then they should be the ones who do not use works under those licenses. What is so hard about that?
If I want exclusive rights over something I publish, like source code, then I will make sure all my copyright ducks are in a row. All i's dotted, t's crossed. If I use other source code that is under permissive licenses, then I will make sure I comply fully with those licenses to the letter. Every single line of code must be either (1) something I write myself, or (2) something that I absolutely have a proper license for. (Not something from GitHub which has no license, or something out of a magazine article.) And item 2, licensed code, can just as well mean commercial licensed code that is license compatible with everything else I may be using.
Why should it be any different for copyright trolls to fully document the copyright on every pixel in their photograph, just as I would do for every line of code?
This is why we need a Statutory Fine of $150,000 per bogus copyright troll shakedown.
And per bogus DMCA takedown.
If the pro-copyright crowd is really trying to protect their artists (yeah right), then they would know exactly what work the artist had created, and how it was misused. In this case the artist (eg photographer) would know that the background was not his own work, but was from another source.
This kind of thing needs to BITE WITH REAL TEETH trolls like Getty who make such false claims. If they are going to claim you have stolen something, they have a duty to be really sure.
Copyright maximallists seem to think it everyone else's duty to be really sure of the copyright provenance of everything everyone else uses. Why don't they have the same duty when they make a claim?
And it wouldn't just be an individual asserting rights, it would be a bunch of greedy corporations.
The guy who proposes infinite copyright is also advocating stricter copyright laws. I can only assume this would include the expansion of what is eligible for copyright. How about things that are presently patentable like ideas? Or rectangles with rounded corners. Or colors. Clothing cut patterns. Clothing colors.
Just think what the world looks like only 200 years down the road. It is impossible to express any idea. Any tune. Any kind of text of speech whatsoever. Somewhere in history, that combination of words, chords, colors, etc will have been used. And stricter copyright means that ever smaller and smaller elements should be protectable. Forget Rigthhaven's copyright on words, how about copyrighted letters of the alphabet. Or simply combinations of digrams or trigrams of letters strung together. I, for one, claim copyright on the letters "T" and "H" consecutively put together.
There could be no two maps that are of the same place. I'm sure copyright owning corporations would work out which map makers get the 'copyright' over maps for certain geographical regions like states, or even counties.
Let's do it. Ever stronger copyright. Ever expanding copyright rights. And infinite copyright. Pass the popcorn. This is going to be fun to watch the economic havoc.
The best way to get rid of an unjust law is to enforce it.
The copyright office has been promising for years to digitize their catalog and make it searchable.
But searchable would mean it is like . . . (gasp!) Google!
And digitizing anything to make it searchable is even more unspeakably similar to Google's diabolical efforts to make books searchable and knowledge more generally available!
And that must, um, somehow, mean . . . infringement!
Is making a public catalog searchable really the kind of thing that we want our government to be doing? Doing something like that would have been previously unthinkable. Now we mention it like it's no big deal. What is the world coming to.