It was well known that the earth was round in Columbus's day. In fact the circumference had been calculated to within 500 miles by the Greeks. The reason no one would finance him was because he was obviously wrong about its size.
In a way, I almost hope it happens. It will push the technology like nothing else! The new encrypted de-centrallized network would be much more resilient to this tampering.
Are you an idiot? Yes, that's the way the current, dying system works. It's hard to be a gatekeeper when there are no longer any walls. The middle men are are no longer needed. Tough. This is an exciting time to be a musician though!
It is NOT illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater! It is illegal to incite a panic. If the theater was indeed on fire, you damn well BETTER be yelling fire. God, what a stupid argument.
It's seems pretty clear that I:8:8 is setting up the limited monopoly. Yes, it is an infringement of individuals' natural rights, though its intent is to benefit society. Jefferson's quote seems to explain why the authors of the constitution thought this was a good idea.
"Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody."
We can debate whether it's a good idea or not, but it seems that this limited monopoly was intended.
You clearly haven't Thomas Jefferson's explanation of how ideas cannot be owned, and the purpose of the artificial monopoly of copyright. Karl's post below details it quite succinctly. In your example, you own a piece of paper with the idea on it, not the idea. Once I read the idea, it's in my head as well. You can't undo an idea.
It's only a "natural right" as long as you keep it in your own head. Express it and it belongs to everyone that can understand it. At least according to Thomas Jefferson.
Exactly how would you explain Article I, Section 8, Clause 8?
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Copyright and patent protections had long existed in the UK at the time of writing the constitution.
Re: Re: Re: I can understand the thought process here
It was well known that the earth was round in Columbus's day. In fact the circumference had been calculated to within 500 miles by the Greeks. The reason no one would finance him was because he was obviously wrong about its size.
Too early for turkeys
Where's the part about t-shirts?
Re: Re: It's not "media piracy", it's "content" piracy.
Thank you. Nuff said.
Re: Why they should fail
Amen!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In a way, I almost hope it happens. It will push the technology like nothing else! The new encrypted de-centrallized network would be much more resilient to this tampering.
Re: Re: Don't be fooled by label propaganda
Are you an idiot? Yes, that's the way the current, dying system works. It's hard to be a gatekeeper when there are no longer any walls. The middle men are are no longer needed. Tough. This is an exciting time to be a musician though!
Re:
And your point is?
Re: Re: It's a lost sale
I suspect you're attempting to be snarky, but companies have actually done this.
Re: Leaving Spotify cuts them off as grifters.
Just like that newfangeled radio thing.
Re:
And how many "exceptions" does it take to become the "rule"?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Change... not for the better.
Does Google not work on your intarwebs?
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zone
Re:
It is NOT illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater! It is illegal to incite a panic. If the theater was indeed on fire, you damn well BETTER be yelling fire. God, what a stupid argument.
Exactly how is this not a clear violation of freedom of the press?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is clear about the Constitution
It's seems pretty clear that I:8:8 is setting up the limited monopoly. Yes, it is an infringement of individuals' natural rights, though its intent is to benefit society. Jefferson's quote seems to explain why the authors of the constitution thought this was a good idea.
"Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody."
We can debate whether it's a good idea or not, but it seems that this limited monopoly was intended.
Re: Re: Re: What is clear about the Constitution
Ooh, thanks for the link Karl!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is clear about the Constitution
You clearly haven't Thomas Jefferson's explanation of how ideas cannot be owned, and the purpose of the artificial monopoly of copyright. Karl's post below details it quite succinctly. In your example, you own a piece of paper with the idea on it, not the idea. Once I read the idea, it's in my head as well. You can't undo an idea.
Re: Re: Re: What is clear about the Constitution
It's only a "natural right" as long as you keep it in your own head. Express it and it belongs to everyone that can understand it. At least according to Thomas Jefferson.
Re: What is clear about the Constitution
Exactly how would you explain Article I, Section 8, Clause 8?
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Copyright and patent protections had long existed in the UK at the time of writing the constitution.
RE: No
block⋅ade
2. any obstruction of passage or progress: We had difficulty in getting through the blockade of bodyguards.