40 meg hard drive and 1 big meg of ram.

Wow...I had the same size drive...but 1meg?....Cripes...Jafo is jealous....

Wow...I had the same size drive...but 1meg?....Cripes...bakerstreet is jealous...

Ph34r my l33T b0xx3n!!. And it was even second hand and 'old school' at the time...

Sounds like something anti-homosexual marriage/abortion/etc. would use.

Please be careful about accusing me here, I take offense.

And to put it bluntly, there is also a monetary price for morality here.

I do not believe that there is a price for morality.

Bottom line is it is illegal, and I prefer to stay on the side of the law.

No one's accusing you of anything.

If you dislike the thought that your idea and rhetoric comes from a similar line of thinking as people you apparently seem to disagree with, then you should probably ponder that idea a bit more.

Such as "copyright is a NECESSARY evil" ......Spell checker

Nah, I said grammar errors, not spelling errors.

But seriously, copyright is something whose core purpose is to basically hurt consumers (to benefit publishers) in what is a zero sum game.

But seriously, copyright is something whose core purpose is to basically hurt consumers (to benefit publishers) in what is a zero sum game.

No..it's intent is to demonstrate and maintain ownership of something 'created'.

People put too damn much political bent on the concept of property rights....as if their [the person's] very existence on this planet makes them deserving of a free society or even socialism.

I am me, ergo all I see is mine.

Copyright has bugger-all to do with consumers, users. tea-totallers or any other 'ers'.

It is simply an affirmation of rights of ownership....something short of gouging great big initials in everything....

MY shoes..

MY car...

MY forehead....

I got about half way down the comments and all I was hearing was 'blah blah blah' you're all just going round in circles.
If you use 'bad' copies of XP you wont care about all this checking cause your'll just get a crack. (Using illegal software is a bad thing to do 'just say NO')
If you use legit copies no need to worry you have nothing to hide. You can call up to activate XP over the phone, to get the updates you need to be on the net so it won't make a differance.
Yeah it may take 5mins longer but what can you do, microsoft won't change it cause they think its helping to stop cracked copies of XP.

I look at it from an economic perspective. As a rational consumer, anything that'll jack up the price for me (like copyright), is bad. So are patents, which make monopolies, which are bad for consumers again (as well as other companies). As I said, it's a zero sum game. To give more money to publishers requires taking more money away from consumers.

The so-called "rights" of copyright are merely an artificial construct by publishers to enhance their bottom line at the expense of consumers.

Not to mention the lengths of copyrights are absurd, thanks to all that lobbying they do.

"The so-called "rights" of copyright are merely an artificial construct by publishers to enhance their bottom line at the expense of consumers."

That's either a gross oversimplification or sheer ignorance. Copyrights protect consumers, as well, and create an environment where creative people feel comfortable sharing their work.

You call it "protecting the bottom line". What about your bottom line? How would you feel if you submitted a work to a publisher, who then just sent you a thank you note and printed it, keeping all the credit and profit for themselves? What keeps them from doing that? Copyrights, maybe?

Who is in a better position to profit from theft? Little tykes sitting on their grandma's computers, or megalithic corprations with the ability to get their stolen material in stores lickety split? No, copyrights do benefit large companies, but in the long run they make sure the big companies pay for what they use.

Au contraire, it can be argued that copyrights actually hinder creative works more than it helps. Tell me again how exactly people are supposed to build on copyright works for their own creative works when things copyrighted in 1923 won't expire until 2019? You *may* have a point if copyrights actually expired within the lifetime of its creators. That, and if you can erase the history of people producing creative works even before concept of copyright (which did not occur until the printing press [note: not to be confused with monopolies, which did exist, but were generally controlled by the government, not private entities]).

Bingo! Like I said, copyrights benefit publishers. They were first sought after by *publishers*, NOT authors, and even after the Statute of Anne, copyrights benefit publishers the most, with most authors getting pennies for their works. Heck, who's the one benefitting from the decades of copyright after the author's death? (Hint: not the author )

Wha? Corporations already get volume discounts on most products (which isn't available to regular consumers either). Who benefits? Ask the majority of people in Asian countries who don't feel like spending a month's (or more) paycheck on de facto required software to run their computer. When I talk about companies benefitting from copyright, I'm not talking about corporations purchasing other corporation's copyrighted works. I'm talking about the corporations holding the copyrights benefitting by screwing regular non-corporate consumers. Your example doesn't even really work for most examples. I mean really, how many companies are going to buy Harry Potter, Galactic Civilizations/Grand Theft Auto, and Metallica/Britney Spears/whatever for their own use (i.e., not to be resold to non-corporate entities, but used on company grounds)

"Tell me again how exactly people are supposed to build on copyright works for their own creative works when things copyrighted in 1923 won't expire until 2019?"

How would you want someone to build upon your works? Perhaps by getting permission from the holder of the copyright? If you want to toil only to have some guy you never met sell CDs of your work on Ebay, fine. Don't force the rest of us to accept it such theft.

I think it is kind of sad that you discount any other method of 'use' beyond stealing. You realize, people build on old works all the time, right? Do they have to steal them to do so?

"Heck, who's the one benefitting from the decades of copyright after the author's death?"

Their family, estate, etc.

"When I talk about companies benefitting from copyright, I'm not talking about corporations purchasing other corporation's copyrighted works. I'm talking about the corporations holding the copyrights benefitting by screwing regular non-corporate consumers."

Screwing as in selling consumers a product they want, for the most they will pay, right? Odd, I don't remember them calling that "screwing" in either economics or biology class...

How would you rather be screwed? The reason I can stand up in a publisher and negotiate for them to publish my work is my copyright. Without it, they could do what they want, and sell it to whoever they want. The whole 'monopoly' argument is bullshit, frankly. I SHOULD have a monopoly on my own creative works. They are mine, until I decide for other people to use them.

If you want to live in some socialist state that fixes prices and tears your creative rights from you for the good of "the people" long before you stop benefitting from them, fine. Don't pretend it would be less corrupt, though. On the contrary, it would be vastly more corrupt, and artists would be grist for the uncreative mill.

How would you want someone to build upon your works? Perhaps by getting permission from the holder of the copyright? If you want to toil only to have some guy you never met sell CDs of your work on Ebay, fine. Don't force the rest of us to accept it such theft.

Even when they're dead? Actually, if I toil for these creative works, I'd probably be releasing them for free. So it doesn't quite work for me, nor the countless other freeware, open-source, etc. producers.

I think it is kind of sad that you discount any other method of 'use' beyond stealing. You realize, people build on old works all the time, right? Do they have to steal them to do so?

And if the copyright holders bother, they sometimes get taken to courts, thanks to the oh-so-wonderful laws.

Their family, estate, etc.

Assuming they even have a family, estate, etc. I'm sure the 8-14 cents per CD artists get really helps them. Nah, it's still the publishers who really benefit.

Screwing as in selling consumers a product they want, for the most they will pay, right? Odd, I don't remember them calling that "screwing" in either economics or biology class...

No, because it's probably not PC. Or do you really think that paying $50 more for some product (which you could've used to acquire other goods) just because you're capable and willing isn't extra burden on your finances? That's just plain naive.

How would you rather be screwed? The reason I can stand up in a publisher and negotiate for them to publish my work is my copyright. Without it, they could do what they want, and sell it to whoever they want. The whole 'monopoly' argument is bullshit, frankly. I SHOULD have a monopoly on my own creative works. They are mine, until I decide for other people to use them.

Or, just release it for free and benefit society. People did it before. People do it now. People will do it in the future.

If you want to live in some socialist state that fixes prices and tears your creative rights from you for the good of "the people" long before you stop benefitting from them, fine. Don't pretend it would be less corrupt, though. On the contrary, it would be vastly more corrupt, and artists would be grist for the uncreative mill.

Or maybe people could just produce creative works because, oh, that's their passion (see above on people releasing creative works for free)! There's no creative rights to be torn away if they don't exist in the first place.

*boggle*

"Even when they're dead?

Yes, like I said, the control of such copyrights would be transered with the estate.

"And if the copyright holders bother, they sometimes get taken to courts, thanks to the oh-so-wonderful laws."

if they steal, sure. You also see sequels and other derivitive works in the mainstream all the time and no one gets sued or goes to jail.

"Assuming they have a family, estate, etc. I'm sure the 8-14 cents per CD they get really helps them. Nah, it's still the publishers who really benefit."

Sounds like they needed a better agent. Regardless, it isn't for you to tell them how much they benefit from what they get. Under your plan they'd get nothing, and the CD company would STILL be making money.

"No, because it's not PC. Or do you really think that say, paying $50 more for some product (which you could've used to acquire other goods) just because you're capable and willing isn't extra burden on on your finances?"

No, because such a comparison is asinine. Do you really think paying $50 more for a product is "wrong"? People pay, or they don't. I fail to see the great evil in setting a price for the goods you sell.

I do, however, see a GREAT evil in mandating "fairness" and allowing people's work to be stolen, so that they gain no benefit at all.

"Or, just release it for free and benefit society. People did it before. People do it now. People will do it in the future."

You can, right now. Why aren't you? In the time you take telling other people what to do with their works, you could be making all sorts of stuff to give away, and use foodstamps, I suppose.

Isn't it enough that you have the right to release your works into the public domain? You want to force everyone else to do it, too?

Your particular take on copyrights doesn't seem to be about what you want to do with YOUR work. It appears to be you having a problem with other creative people having the right to choose how to sell their work and how much to sell it for.

There's no law against people being silly and giving things away. Go, now, make something nice and give it away. Then go work at McDonald's for 20 years and try and have the free time and will to make more stuff.

*boggle* Yes, like I said, the control of such copyrights would be transered with the estate. if they steal, sure. You also see sequels and other derivitive works in the mainstream all the time and no one gets sued or goes to jail.

Because they don't bother to go after them.

Sounds like they needed a better agent. Regardless, it isn't for you to tell them how much they benefit from what they get. Under your plan they'd get nothing, and the CD company would STILL be making money.

Under the plan, the CD company wouldn't make any money either. Remember, since they no longer have copyrights as well they can't stop people from just making copies of it and distributing it.

No, because such a comparison is asinine. Do you really think paying $50 more for a product is "wrong"? People pay, or they don't. I fail to see the great evil in setting a price for the goods you sell...

It's "wrong" in that it's a detriment to me. It's $50 that I can no longer spend on other products, which would benefit me even more, as well as the other companies I spend the money on.

You can, right now. Why aren't you? In the time you take telling other people what to do with their works, you could be making all sorts of stuff to give away, and use foodstamps, I suppose.

Technically, I do. The only thing I really make right now are forum image signature scripts though. You can get one that grabs your game stats from Savage at http://dracil.gwgaming.net/savage.zip, not that it'll do you much good unless you play it.

Isn't it enough that you have the right to release your works into the public domain? You want to force everyone else to do it, too?

Well, that *is* the idea with abolishing the concept of copyright.

Your particular take on copyrights doesn't seem to be about what you want to do with YOUR work. It appears to be you having a problem with other creative people having the right to choose how to sell their work and how much to sell it for. There's no law against people being silly and giving things away. Go, now, make something nice and give it away. Then go work at McDonald's for 20 years and try and have the free time and will to make more stuff.

It's there, go and make full use of it! You can use the peercast script as well when I finish re-coding it, and probably anything else I create that's not tied down by some corporation who believes in copyrights.

Since you seem to equate people giving things away as silly (is charity silly?) I guess the people who worked on Firefox are silly as well.

"Because they don't bother to go after them.

Please, you're trying to say that every derivitive work produced is illegal? ...and here I thought I was talking to someone that had at least a grip on reality...

"Under the plan, the CD company wouldn't make any money either. Remember, since they no longer have copyrights as well they can't stop people from just making copies of it and distributing it."

Hardly. That would mean anyone who wanted to sell it could. The Music Industry has a hammer-lock on production and distribution. The copyrights you are slurring now are the only thing keeping corporations from competing with you, selling your own work.

So, you'd have individuals vs. megalithic corporations. Just like now, only you would have taken away the only tool individuals have to protect themselves FROM megalithic corporations.

...and don't give me that downloads crap. At the height of Napster popularity, it barely effected music sales.

You talk like someone who's never paid for a server. How do you suppose you are going to pay for the millions of people downloading your 5 meg song, hotshot? Donations? Hardy har. Go talk to all the people who rely on them now, WITH exculsive rights to distribute. Bittorrent won't cut it, either.

"Well, that *is* the idea with abolishing the concept of copyright."

So, in the end this is just about you wanting a crack at other people's works whether they want you to or not. Nice. People already have the right to give things away. You just want to force them to under the ignorant perspecive that somehow corporations would suffer.

You'd be the first one bitching if Microsoft came along and started selling your supposed work. The only thing protecting you from it are the rights you are trying to undermine.

Then go work at McDonald's for 20 years and try and have the free time and will to make more stuff.

Careful Baker - Some of us do work in fast food. It's not a bad thing.