Can we please not talk about those kinds of people? It caused me to look-up what this "Storage Wars" show was about and now I am uncontrollably sobbing for the fate of humanity. Who the hell came up with the concept of shows named "Random Boring Profession Wars"? I want to sue them for emotional damages!
I think the way to kill copyright is to kill the industries that thrive on it. We need to wipe the big labels and the big studios off the face of the earth. Then we can start lobbying Congress to wipe out copyright.
Code is also a list of symbols stored on a hard drive. Code is definitely covered by copyright.
Actually, the FSF considers the whole program includes dynamic libraries and so if the libraries under GPL the whole program must be under GPL. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF)
"You want them to accept piracy, except it is absolutely impossible to have real and true price discovery until there is some sort of standard piracy enforcement."
There has been price discovery. The price has fallen around 0 for old music and a little bit higher for very recent tracks.
"Labels need to be able to see what the true market holds."
They see it. They just refuse to accept it.
I think a lot of us don't really care whether they succeed or fail. The problem is that their wildly flailing around incompetently is hurting a lot of us. So given that fact, it would be better if they failed fast so we could move on with our lives.
If you cry without buying tear gas, you're a thief!
I think a good way to think of Anonymous is to think of it similarly to "We The People". Who is "We The People"? Nobody really knows because it changes depending upon who is saying it. It's really more of a label which indicates a broad idea rather than a label indicating a specific group of people.
Does the truck door count as DRM for the purposes of the DMCA?
I waiting for the thieves to give a press conference explaining that tear gas costs money and that if people don't stop pirating games, the thieves will loose their jobs.
I vote patents. While it is true that copyright is painful, it is relatively easy to steer clear of it. Just don't copy anything. On the other hand, you can infringe on patents without ever knowing. Furthermore, there is plenty of free culture to go around and so giving up on the consumption of much of copyrighted content is very much feasible. But patents kill people by denying them access to medicine. They destroy companies which infringe on patents without knowing so. Overall, I would say the evils of patents are much worst than the already horrible list of copyright's evils.
Oh look. People with government-granted monopolies are making boat-loads of money... What a novel trend!
In other news liars promise to stop lying. We can believe them because they are no longer liars and therefore what they say is true.
I don't understand... What is $1,300 paying for? Researchers do peer-reviews for free. Being a journal editor is in many fields an honor that many will fight for. Just publicly host your papers on your websites and let the market figure out how to make money off of it. Most likely some search engine will emerge in just a few months.
Oh, I am sure. I just don't understand how they will do that barring outlawing electronic communication that has not been approved by the body in question. (not that I would put it past law-making-critters) If you break the internet, we will just invent MP, the Multinet Protocol which will bind the Multinet together. Sure, re-writing the software will be a pain, but we can always get around that.
I never understand this. The Internet basically works via consensus. The Internet is a network of networks. If a network does not play by the rules that have been mutually agreed upon, we don't need a central agency to tell them to straighten up and fly right. The other networks will simply find it unfeasible to stay connected to the rogue network and drop them.
Anyways, the only thing that needs to be agreed upon is IP. Everything after that can be point to point communication without any further cooperation except between the clients.
Can you perhaps enlighten us as to the all-knowing source of morality that allows you to see what we are blind to?
Wait, this is bi-partisan agreement not in favor of powerful interest groups. Are they even allowed to do that? OK, no more questioning. I'm just going to do a victory dance and hope this lasts until the vote.