251–260 of 438 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it wise to sink your time into something you don't really like doing? If it pays your bills and gives you spare time to do what you like, then often yes.
So you're betting your rent money on future royalties which might never appear even if piracy were impossible?
or it might. Your own answer acknowledges that with the 'might'. So yes, you measure the odds then throw the dice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it wise to sink your time into something you don't really like doing? If it pays your bills and gives you spare time to do what you like, then often yes.
So you're betting your rent money on future royalties which might never appear even if piracy were impossible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Project Gutenberg is missing a lot of content that is public domain, and the oldest entries are often pretty poor in quality (and some of the oldest entries aren't lucky enough to get redone like Carroll's work has been).
Which just goes to prove parent's point. As much as it might seem otherwise, IPR restrictions are not the main bottleneck to widespread availability of content (at least book-like content); actually making the content available is far more important! (Also, keep in mind that content is now entering the public domain every year, and projects like PG are nowhere close to keeping up with that flow of newly-unrestricted…
Again, it's just insane to me that we don't even much have a meaningful discussion of: "Hey, wait, literally everyone could have the entire library of Alexandria in their house for a couple hundred bucks per person. Like, all the knowledge ever. Maybe that should be considered the good default of things. At least one in every town that everyone could use, for free, forever, without restriction to ANY of the knowledge…
That's already the case minus the last ~70 years or so. The overwhelming majority of our knowledge is in the public domain, in particular cultural artifacts. It's a nice sentiment but like, people can already go to gutenberg.org and download pretty much most important works of literature in existence and most books have like 5k downloads so there's that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There should be a fine line in intellectual property rights. I see where you are coming from - quite often intellectual property is used a a moat to protect insane revenues and, as a repercussion, delay or slowdown our progress as humanity. But it is also use to protect unique creator revenue and encourage to create more. If you ask where the fine line should be I have no immediate answer, but abolishing intellectual…
> But it is also use to protect unique creator revenue and encourage to create more. This thinking is an artifact of an economic system so dependent on scarcity for its motivation that it is now generating most of the scarcity in the world. We now have the technology for creative implementations of "From each according to its ability, to each according to its needs". Just keep track of how much each thing is used, an…
Excellent. I hope more and more people start to see how absurd and evil the concept of "intellectual property" is. It should be totally rejected and any form of keeping useful information for yourself should be shunned and tabooized. In todays world, many have been programmed to believe that the would could not exits without such immoral restrictions, which is horrible.
I've just spent 2 years writing something which ain't got anything else like it. It was technically pretty difficult and needed a lot of background knowledge. Should I be disallowed to commercialise it? I partly get where you stand but if I was in a society that you seem to endorse my first question would be, other than for the love of doing it, why sink so much effort into a thing only to get nothing back. It almost…
I believe you are mis-phrasing the question. What you're actually asking is:
> Should the state criminalize and punish people who make copies of my work, to facilitate my commercial activity with it?
And our answer is "No".
You can go ahead and engage in whatever commercial activity you like, based on open access to your work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways There's always someone who just has to spread the despair and helplessness. Every bloody time. Tell me, in what way does this add to the discussion? I wish there was a ban on these kind of comments. > right to commercialization has nothing to do with intellectual property. I don't understand. If I don't own it I can't market it, right?
> There's always someone who just has to spread the despair and helplessness. Every bloody time. Tell me, in what way does this add to the discussion? I wish there was a ban on these kind of comments. It you only want answers you like go talk to a mirror. The way this adds to the discussion should be pretty obvious, but let me spill it out: If one of the main arguments for IP is wrong it's costs/benefits have to be r…
Excellent. I hope more and more people start to see how absurd and evil the concept of "intellectual property" is. It should be totally rejected and any form of keeping useful information for yourself should be shunned and tabooized. In todays world, many have been programmed to believe that the would could not exits without such immoral restrictions, which is horrible.
Otherwise, I am having a really hard time understanding how can you suggest that I don't own the book I spend a *decade* to write. It is just as mine as the car you drive is yours.
To tighten regulations around intellectual property to make sure that it is not abused - sure.
To ban? Obviously never.
Excellent. I hope more and more people start to see how absurd and evil the concept of "intellectual property" is. It should be totally rejected and any form of keeping useful information for yourself should be shunned and tabooized. In todays world, many have been programmed to believe that the would could not exits without such immoral restrictions, which is horrible.
It could also result in far more draconian DRM, as that would be the only way left to protect your work.
Now drastically lowering the time of copyright might be well worth it, something in the realm of 20 years should be enough. As copyright needs to get back to a point where things you consumed in your lifetime, make it into the public domain in your lifetime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen it too, and it's a weird mistake to me because I am certain that at least one of my friends who makes the mistake did not make it in the past. I wonder if there's a kind of memetic effect happening online, where people who lack confidence in their English spelling ability see somebody make this mistake and somehow think that it's correct, so they switch how they write it.
cf. revert / reply
I have come across similar use of "revert" in private correspondence from old-fashioned lawyers at small high-street law firms in England. As a rule of thumb, if a solicitor writes that they will "revert to you shortly" you may expect:
* They are fairly close to retirement. * They don't know much about laws that have changed since about 1980. * They almost certainly won't get back to you in a reasonable time unless you repeatedly send reminders. They are probably hoping that they will be able to retire before having to invent a meaningful response to your enquiry.