No matter the extent you believe in the freedom of information, few believe anyone should then be free to profit from someone else's work without attribution.
You seem to think it would be okay for disney to market and charge for my own personal original characters and art, claiming them as their own original idea. Why is that?
Yes. I 100% unironically believe that anyone should be able to use anyone else's work royalty/copyright free after 10-20 years instead of 170 in the UK. Could you please justify why 170 years is in any way a reasonable amount of time?
The copyright last 70 years after the death of the author, so 170 years would be rare (indeed 190 years would be possible). This was an implementation of a 1993 EU directive:
That itself was based on the 1886 Berne Convention. "The original goal of the Berne Convention was to protect works for two generations after the death of the author". 50 years, originally. But why? Apparently Victor Hugo (he of Les Miserables) is to blame. But why was he bothered?
Edit: it seems the extension beyond the death of the author was not what Hugo wanted. "any work of art has two authors: the people who confusingly feel something, a creator who translates these feelings, and the people again who consecrate his vision of that feeling. When one of the authors dies, the rights should totally be granted back to the other, the people." So I'm still trying to figure out who came up with it, and why.
So far as I can tell, the idea behind extending copyright two generations after the author's death was so that they could leave the rights to their children and grandchildren, and this would keep old or terminally ill authors motivated.
I mean, it's fun. Ever listened to the KLF, and things from the era before sampling was heavily sat on, such as the album 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) - ? I don't claim it's very good, but it was definitely fun. And the motivation for using existing works, instead of creating your own, is similar to the motivation for using existing words, instead of creating your own. They're reference points, people recognize them, you can communicate with them instead of having to extract patience from the audience like they have to learn a new language for each work. And of course in practice the rules are fuzzy, so everybody sails close to the wind by imitating others and in this way we share a culture. Stealing their work is just sharing the culture more closely.
> is similar to the motivation for using existing words
I don't think it's like that. If we take music, for example, the existing word would be a note or a scale or a musical instrument or a style, but a melody would be an existing sentence. As for sampling, there is creative usage of samples, like Prodigy for example where it is difficult to even recognize the source.
Also today there is some leeway in copyright enforcement. For example, I often see non-commercial amateur covers of commercial songs and the videos don't get taken down.
I put it to you that same difference. These matters of degree are what copyright lawyers haggle over. It implies to me that the whole edifice is forced into being, for its desirable (?) effects, and has no concrete foundation. Nothing pure and elegant and necessary about copyright.
Well, you asked why, anyway, and there's why: it's a natural thing to do.
> Lacto-ferment chillis with your choice of veg and/or fruit in a brine solution for a couple of weeks at room temperature.
Room temperature is no kind of standard. Optimal fermentation is up to about 75f max. I live in the south and most of the year room temp for me is at least 76. I've ruined several batches of lacto-fermented experiments before making that connection.
Don't get me started on vague salt measurements like "seawater" taste.
This did not work for me in the USA and Canada, where the pre-authorisation attempt failed with a debit card but worked with a credit card (from the same bank) in 3 different places when renting cars.
Pre-auth amounts over hit over maximum withdrawal limits for debit cards. Often times those are furiously low, like 300-500 dollars a day. Call your bank and find out.
That’s interesting. I suppose having an “old bank” also affects things.
For example, some times in other situations my debit card also rejects big purchases or new countries or some reservations of funds from some new hotel when I check in. But because they are pretty modern they also have an app that notifies me of the rejection at the same time as the terminal is told that it was rejected and so I can go in to the app and say this is actually ok and then I try again and then it goes through.
Maybe what people need is really this kind of thing like what I have with my card and the app.
I have zero interest in arguing with a candidate who, when asked to implement bubble sort argues the requirements instead of the implementation. I have NDA's that may preclude me from telling you the details of the stack you'll be working on. The job listing should reasonably describe the environment (embedded, data warehousing, frontend, whatever). You're being asked to implement something super basic to prove you can code yourself out of a wet paper bag basically.
Many cannot, and those that argue the premise don't even get a chance to try.
If you think you're being evaluated on your knowledge of the stdlib's sort(), you misunderstand the purpose. You're being tested not because you can hit compile and it passes, but you're being tested on if you're able to follow directions, work within scope, solve problems and explain your thinking. If your thinking stops at "I'd never do that", so does mine.
Evidently not enough for libraries to abandon books from publishers.
If they had the selection and quality people were seeking, people wouldn’t be arguing to kill copyright but rather just pointing people to free equivalents. The Internet Archive would just distribute those alternatives.
When a free equivalent does exist, that is what happens. Nobody is demanding legislation to force Oracle to lower database licence prices. We just use Postgres.
I think the point the commenter was making is, why not just archive those books in that case?
Just ignore the books with authors that have released the works for monetary gain. I don't know whether or not such an archive is at all attractive to anyone? But maybe over time it might start to move the needle?
Ross Radford - Lead Software Engineer, DevOps, QA automation specialist, seasoned enterprise veteran and former founder looking to lead a team to create world-class software.
Confirmed. I took a year off for my startup attempt, currently looking for another 9-5 and they really don't know what to do with me.
I think the bias is merely confusion. In recruiter land anything uncertain is a pass.
The primary problem I suspect is I seem overqualified. Having a diverse skill set in all things software such as product development and engineering AND management AND devops (etc.) is just too much to process for a recruiter. Also for hiring managers in general. It's great if you're applying to say a director level position but if you NEED A JOB and try for an IC role it's a tough sell. Proficiency in multiple tech stacks is the same negative signal.
Secondary is perceived or real attitude misalignment. The problems most corporate tech companies are solving are boring and they know it. They must never admit it, and candidates especially need to demonstrate complete obliviousness. Candidates need to walk the line, simultaneously signaling technical ultra-competence and naive enough to consider yet another CRUD legacy app maintenance task challenging and interesting.
I personally don't have a problem working on boring problems, and I'm less inclined to create unnecessary challenges by using bleeding edge tech to pad my resume. Both qualities I can never admit to a recruiter. To actually get interviews, I severely cut down my resume to fit each open role. Recruiters can intuit my experience somehow anyway, and just about every senior IC role I've interviewed for lately came with a big disclaimer that this role will NEVER include management responsibilities. I guess to hedge against senior ICs expecting compensation for the management tasks they absolutely will be doing.
No matter the extent you believe in the freedom of information, few believe anyone should then be free to profit from someone else's work without attribution.
You seem to think it would be okay for disney to market and charge for my own personal original characters and art, claiming them as their own original idea. Why is that?