Slashdot Mirror
We Pledge Allegiance to the Penguin
tres3 writes "Wired magazine has an excellent four page article discussing Brazil's new approach to Intellectual Property rights. It discusses everything from battling with the international pharmaceutical industries, to song sampling, to the national adoption of Linux. Richard Stallman
stated that India's political commitment to free software is second only to Brazil's after attending a weeklong free software teach-in for members of the Brazilian national congress, where 161 out of 594 members of congress, from a broad range of parties, had signed up with the free software caucus - making it one of the largest caucuses in the Brazilian government."
Plus, you just gotta love that little penguine.
Yes, because to an average politician's mind, free Brazilian language software is a great way to foster a homegrown software industry based on earning money...
;)
The point is that Free Software will make Brazil (hopefully) more productive on computers, quicker and cheaper. The way it should be
Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
Wow, a spelling error that still makes sense on a completely different level.
I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
I suppose that I'd also gush over the lemony OpenSource goodness of my hosts, particularly if they flew me to Rio for a week.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
american corporations/government will never let something free like linux to take such a market-share that it would shut microsoft down. same thing with telco companies. there are such great alternatives out there. VOIP, way better internet alternatives to shitty 3MB cable (japan has 100MB fiber to house) american corporations hold us back, i think it's time we FIGHT! P.S. i live in america, and actually work for fed govt.
President Bush Supporter
is this.
Democratizing knowledge so that anyone/everyone can benefit.
I expect this trend wil continue to emerge.
"Poorer" countries will be the main adopter of Open Source. It will be cheaper; and it will encourage creativity and growth of IT.
Timang tinggi tinggi
parang sudah asah
alang alang mandi
biar sampai basah
This should give Brazil's economy a big boost, too. Let's just hope that the usual suspects don't manage to undo all the progress in a few years. This should be popular with the populists, so maybe they won't screw it up. That still leaves the fascists and the socialists and the international corps to work to screw it up, unfortunately.
I predict that the most effective opposition will come from the U.S. and the E.U. governments. I hope Brazil stands up to them; I'd really like to be able to move South for economic opportunity!
See what I've been reading.
This is about freedom of information, freedom of ideas. Linux is a part of that in that embodies freedom in software, but to only look at Linux is to miss the broader context.
There is no marginal cost to the sharing of digital or intellectual content, beyond the cost of transmission and storage. This fight is about taking ideas out of the hands of a few powerful entities with a vested interest in maintaining their power, and shifting it to everyone.
The world will benefit. The fucked nature of the existing system is no better demonstrated than in the US - where you'd think that having all the power would make life better. But medicine is more expensive there than in almost any other Western country.
-- james
PS please don't start feeding me bullshit about how you have to be paying more for drugs to support the companies. I cannot believe people actually tow this line. It's human health, for chrissakes
I'm all for free software and cheap drugs, but we still need to respect the copyrights and patients of the developers.
Like the hell we do. It's one thing to acknowledge their contribution to the world - it's another to assume that there should be some kind of a god given right for personal monopolies - even when millions of people in Africa are dying of AIDS. Like cows to the slaughter, people just assume that because a bunch of people declare something a glorious free market property right - that it must be so. But really, do you own slaves?
India's political commitment to free software is second only to Brazil's
Well, it stands to reason. In the Indain sub-continent (which includes Pakistan and Banglsdesh) where they have railed against high software prices for decades (and incidentally Pakistan produced the first virus - apparently aimed deliberately at foreigners who could afford to fly in to buy cheap copies of pirate software), then "Free and legal" is better than "Free, 'cos it's pirated"
"She's furniture with a pulse"
Wired magazine has an excellent four page article discussing Brazil's new approach to Intellectual Property rigths. Discussing everything from battling with the international pharmacutical industries, to song sampling, to the national adoption of Linux. Richard Stallman stated that India's political commitment to free software is, second only to Brazil's after attending a weeklong free software teach-in for members of the Brazilian national congress, where 161 out of 594 members of congress, from a broad range of parties, had signed up with the free software caucus - making it one of the largest caucuses in the Brazilian government. Later that week Stallman donned a robe and a halo made out of a compact disc and declared himself "Saint IGNUcius of the Church of Emacs" but was surprised to be upstaged when Gilberto Gil, Brazil's newly appointed minister of culture, said: "this whole process that led to the computer, to the personal computer, to Silicon Valley, this extraordinary degree of cognition that arose from the intersection of math and design and the crystallographic structures of quartz was made possible by acid trips." It even has its fair share of MS bashing for those whose goal in life it is.
The story was pending for over five hours. I think they were waiting for someone to submit one that didn't equate drug use to computers! I was merely quoting the Brazilian Culture Minister (p. 4). Just a quick FYI.
Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
And India is known for having tons of programmers. I'm sure programmers never produce any intellectual property at all.
There's also a Brazillian company that sells a Linux distribution that's reasonably popular in the area. So Linux is also providing income to locals, which tends to earn political support.
It's a good thing that developing nations are not overrun with banks of lawyers and corporate-puppet politicians out to abuse the legal system" in order to "enforce IP rights" and essentially abuse the legal system. Either that, or they have different more important priorities to take care of rather than pursue extreme protectionism based on artificially created property, like's happening in the developed countries.
Whatever the case is, it's good to see *somebody* take a sane stand on the issue of Shared Knowledge, which has been that way for a few thousand years in human history now.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Which was exactly what America did when most of the IP was coming from the "Old World". Back in those days, English authors were up in arms about the blatent and widespread piracy of English books in America because of lax IP laws and enforcement. It was only after America started producing stuff on its own that it became an IP Nazi. India et al. are only doing to America what America did to the Old World when it was still young and developing.
Many of these comments are weak. It's not just about getting free stuff, and it has nothing to do with the fact that Brazil exports very little IP. It's about big, important, multinational patent holders playing fair. Notice that Roche sat on their patent throne until Brazil threatened to make their own drugs. Notice that they were able to sell the stuff at *less than half the original price* when Brazil actually held good on the threat. Is this unlike Microsoft's behaviour? I think not. They crank up the prices of their OS and Office constantly, even though they are raking in the dough - that is until emerging markets are unwilling to put up with it. All of a sudden code starts to be released, discount editions are offered, and cooperation with foreign governments begins. And guess what? They are still raking in the dough. Who would have thunk? Just because Americans are willing to put up monopolies, inflated prices, and unfair patents doesn't make it right. Maybe it's time to learn something from the third world.
C'mon, man, Richard Stallman is like the *next word* in that paragraph! Show some respect!
Some of us contribute to the cause, be it with code, with documentation, with support... Do you know who brought the wonders of Debian's APT to the RPM world? Conectiva, the leading Brazilian Linux distributor. WindowMaker? A brazilian wrote it. How about the kernel itself? The 2.4 branch is currently maintained by a brazilian, too. OpenOffice.org has received many contributions from the Brazilian team, as well as GNOME, Debian, and so far so on. Therefore, while not everyone has the skills to contribute to free software, those who have them more often than not do contribute to free software.
And yes, some of us brazilians also actually pay for our distros; the biggest problem with that is that it is more difficult to pay for a foreign (read American) distribution, due to rate changes and bureaucracy. However, when there is an easy way to pay, we do; Conectiva is there to prove it.
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
India has one of the largest movie Industries in the world. They also have a large number of programmers, authors, musicians etc.
Just because it's not in english doesn't mean it doesn't really exist, or is worthless, or doesn't make a lot of money for their makers. A billion people in your domestic market can make you quite rich.
You think anyone outside of America, has even heard of a quarter of the people you think are famous?
Terry Pratchett, makes a lot of money from his books, how many do you think he sells in India?
If a first you don't succeed, your a programmer...
I find myself caught between two desires. I love the OSC, what it stands for, and the desire to see Microsofts monopoly crumble. On the other hand, I love that I live in a country where I don't get paid $240 a month for the work I do, and I realize that Microsoft and the other companies that hold patents on drugs, and other exportable goods, bring in the money to keep the US employees... well... employed. Inherently I loath the restrictions of big companies on what I want to do with goods I've purchased... for example -- on my ability to create an MP3 from a CD that I purchased. Or rip a DVD to have on my computer in digital format instead of hard copy... if for no other reason, than because I choose to. When it comes to health care, and what hurts people, I believe in, and support, Brazils move to 'bite their thumbs' at big companies in defense of the Brazilian population. I just worry that things have gotten so far out of wack within the US in terms of patent, that people can be sued for coming up with the same idea in two different locations, and in two different ways, independently, and the person who gets to the patent office first wins... what mess. Sometimes I guess you just have to take a couple steps back from the nonsense, and use common sense instead.
Forget not that labor is very cheap in Brazil. So, the TCO is mostly the cost of what you have to pay to the owners of the software.
There aren't "many, many more" windows admins than Linux admins in Brazil; there aren't that many of either. Brazil is a developing nation. I have good hopes for it, and it could be a major power in pushing Linux (its economy is already approaching Britain's in size).
There seems to be a strong "cooperative" sense in Latin America, as opposed to in the US. A friend of mine from Argentina started an organization called Cooperarte (Cooperar + Arte). I asked about the name, and he mentioned that every other organization in Argentina these days, it seems, has a reference to cooperation in it.
Now Brazil has, by a significant margin, elected a Socialist leader (Lula), who if anything is criticized for not being socialistic enough. Brazil often hosts counter-WTO events; there's a strong sense of "fighting for the common man", instead of for corporate interests (especially foreign corporate interests, which have been seen as trying to use Latin America for cheap labor and resources)
Congrats to Brazil for taking a stand on so many issues; I wish Brazil the best on its attempts to make Open Source their standard, and offer them my congratulations on their recent successful rocket launch (it's about time there was a Latin American space program!)
POTUS Witch Hunt tracker: 75 charges filed against 19 witches, 4 witches cooperating and 5 witches have pled guilty.
There is no marginal cost to the sharing of digital or intellectual content, beyond the cost of transmission and storage.
I will say this as simply as possible:
The cost of reproducing a digital asset is completely unrelated to the cost of creating the asset.
People who say otherwise have obviously never created anything worth selling. If I spend 100 hours to invent a new widget, I will probably make blueprints or some other form of diagram. I can make copies of those documents in a local copy shop for ~2 cents apiece. Does that mean my time spent creating the new widget is worth what I spend for the copies? That is absolutely ridiculous: for some reason people expect commercial entities to do their R&D for free and sell the result for the cost of media. I can't imagine how that begins to make sense to anyone.
This fight is about taking ideas out of the hands of a few powerful entities with a vested interest in maintaining their power, and shifting it to everyone.
Those "powerful entities" are the ones that created the intellectual property. Their "vested interest" is completely justified: designing and developing products is expensive, and compaines recoup that expense by - get this - selling the product.
Using lofty terms like "this fight" is silly, and the result of people expecting to get everything for free. Wake up, Sparky - some things actually cost money, and trying to spin your desire for zero-cost products as some sort of noble effort makes you look like ap spoiled child.
PS I am speaking here about commercial entities and products, not F/OSS (which should be obvious).
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
The project that started it all is called FUST, a nationwide initiative to connect schools to the Internet. The project, in its first release, required Microsoft Windows in all servers and clients (such preferences are irregular in Brazil, by the way; one should only specify features and technical specs, not brand names).
Microsoft, of course, was OK with being named the sole participant in the project and saw nothing wrong with it.
But the project was changed under the new government and now it requires open source (any open source software, not just Linux).
And now you see Microsoft going around saying how wrong it is for the government to leave them out of the party. It's rich!
However, they misrepresent the situation. They were not left out of the party. All they have to do is open (really open, not "share") the source of their OS (yes, they can continue to charge for it; free as in freedom, not price). FUST is not a Linux-only project.
Microsoft IS invited to join in. They won't, of course, because they can't meet the technical requirements, but that's their choice.
"Take India, for example. While they may have pop singers and the like who are enormously popular domestically, the global market for such music doesn't even begin to approach that of America's."
... And thats just one artist. Obviously Rahman is more motivated than Britney and Madonna to protect his IP. And taken solely in terms of music sales, Rahman's "IP" is as valuable as Madonna's and Britney's put together. The reason that India lags behind in generating Tech IP is that it is nowhere near the US in terms of industrialization. But please, lets not talk about Movie or Music IP.
This reeks of blissful ignorance. Lets get some facts straight. Repeat after me: India's population is slightly higher than North America and Europe put together.
Consequence ? Even if they sell one CD outside india, the "global" sales can far outstrip any artist in US. You think Britney is popular ? How about Madonna ? Ever heard of Rahman ? Quoted from the article: "In terms of sales, Rahman is already bigger than the biggest. His music has already sold over 200 million cassettes. That's more than Madonna and Britney Spears put together."
How do the millions of people dying of AIDS have any claim whatsover to the drugs? The drugs that wouldn't have been there if your evil drug companies hadn't spent the $$ to make them? It's not like drugs fall from the sky and they're being hoarded, like diamonds or something. Without the drug companies you know what you have? NOT A FUCKING THING. With them, you get something, an infinite percent improvement. If you get some free, or some cheap, be grateful.
Excuse me, but your glorious pharmacutical companies are making it impossible for researchers to collaberate on AIDS remedys because they want grab key patents and lock out competitors. In addition, they actively interfere with research on cheaper and simple remidies that could be even more beneficial - but can not be patented. This is not a glorious free market forces at all - it is bullshit, and people are FUCKING dying because of it. I don't owe the pharmacuticals a Goddam thing - But people have rights and deserve freedoms inspite of them not because it suits their profits.
In order to use M$, Brazil has to pay $$ (as in "USD"). And because Brazil does not (you inconsiderate clods...) have a convertable currency, it has to convert something tangible -- soybeans will do -- into $$. Since the marginal cost of reproducing open-source software is more or less zero, whereas the marginal cost of producing soybeans (or whatever) is decidedly greater than zero, it's an easy decision.
The US, in contrast, simply prints more dollars (figuratively -- actually we sell treasury bills) and, as long as other countries (read: China, Japan) accept those freshly printed dollars, we get stuff without necessarily having to generate a comparable amount of items (a.k.a. "trade deficit").
Nice deal, as long as it works. And it will work forever, won't it? Won't it???
Start practicing your Portuguese...
"All successful systems accumulate parasites" -- Hal Hixon
Linux is like Walmart....
it is a race to the bottom on cost. Yes their are benefits like Walmart to the pocketbook but long term are they good??
You are _so_ wrong, I have to go get my cluebat.
I use the most expensive platform on earth and the most closed (ie hardware, software), Apple's Macintosh and find it to be far more useful than Linux.
Expensive to acquire, yes, but expensive to run and use? Think again. I don't use Macs myself, but like them a lot.
The main problem I have is Linux doesn't innovate, it copies what Apple and MS do so it is always in catch up mode.
This is kind of the whole point in open source. We build on the successes of others, or get ideas on how to do it better from what other people have done. It's a collaborative, iterative process and it works wonders. Most worth while things did not just magically spring from someone's 'Eureka!' moment - they are built on previous ideas from previous 'innovators'. Software is unique in that is information that allows information to be copied and transmitted - often resulting in better information. Recursive algorithms rock.
One can't make money doing that unless you rape people on the service contracts....
And here's where the cluebat comes into play. Money is sometimes not directly involved in somethings value, you narrow minded twit. RTFA, bud - you'll find that the Brazillians want freedom, not free. Linux is actually a race to owning thier own digital future with zero regard to monetary issues. Myself, I want no gate keepers between me and my fellow humans - I want to communicate my ideas to them, so we all can learn and grow that much faster. We'll just have to make money some other way than trying to be toll collectors on communications channels.
Linux costs plenty, but when I sign up for it, I know that I'm usually Standards Compliant, I can look for back doors, add new stuff, do whatever I like with my systems. This is not so with proprietary systems - and that means that part of my systems aren't truly mine.
BTW, I think you mean "One can't make the same amount of money as Microsoft or Oracle doing that unless you rape people on the service contracts....". Some of us don't want another William H. Gates III or *shudder* Larry Ellison in this world, thank you very much.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
On the flip side, if through hard work and determination, I create something useful to others and attempt to make money from it in order to feed my family should you, who did nothing to bring about its creation, be allowed to simply take it from me without compensating me for my time and effort to do with as you please?
Yes I should, because I have a family to feed to, and your invention likely builds on zillions of things, experiences, and knowledge, that society gave you freely - now to turn arround and say they owe you a monopoly is bullshit. Not to mention that 90% of patents especially cover incremental improvements that were going to be invented anyhow with or without a monopoly. So basically, you're not benefiting society - you're just getting in the way of future innovation, why should you be rewarded for that?
Being a brazilian, I think I have something to say...
I don't know what you mean by "hardware piracy", but most of the hardware sold in Brazil is contraband from China. I mean, Dell, Compaq, HP, Epson and others sell hardware here, and these are doing it the right way, paying their taxes and really helping brazilian economy.
But if you go buy MoBo's, NIC's, video cards, memory, HDD's, you're almost 100% sure to be buying product from contraband. It's the only way to get a cheap computer here. Tax rates for imported electronics are absurdly huge!
The same goes for software. Think of a brazilian worker paying 350~400 dollars for a modest Celeron... How do you think he's gonna buy Windows and Office? Windows XP Home costs 220 dollars and Office 2003 Standard costs 470 dollars! You can almost buy 2 computers with that money!
That's why it's so easy to buy pirated software in Brazil. People know what they're buying. They don't need manuals, boxes and stuff: the pirated CD's are CD-R copies with cracks included! And they cost 3 dollars each.
It's absolutely important that the brazilian government commits to open source and free software. If children start using Linux at school, they're not going to buy pirated software in the future. It wouldn't even make sense because they'd know for sure that they can have an equivalent for free.
Also, the brazilian goverment is switching their systems from Windows to Linux. I think it's the right path to follow because I pay my taxes and don;t want to see that money going to Redmond for something that they can get for free.
And, for the "rightist" people over here, the current president's party is "kind of leftist" (the Worker's Party). Contrary to what you would believe, my fear is that the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (the former president's party) do something bad in the future because there's a great chance they'll come back to the govern.
Democratizing knowledge so that anyone/everyone can benefit.
That's got to be the most asinine comment I've heard it a while.
Democracy is not about giving intellectual property rights of an (insert here: idea, song, book, etc.) to everyone.
Democracy is about giving everyone the chance to VOTE on how they will be RULED.
As for intellectual property, the idea is that A PERSON who DEVELOPS an IDEA can give it to EVERYONE.
Or THAT PERSON can RESTRICT IT to WHOMEVER they choose, be it a friend or a CUSTOMER.
That's the whole idea of PROPERTY in general.
If Brazil wants to create a means (or adopt a means) of allowing people TO GIVE away IDEAS, no problem.
But if Brazil wants to create a means (or adopt a means) TO SEIZE the IDEAS of UNWILLING PERSONS and give them to EVERYONE, then there's a big problem, and that's called CONFISCATION.
If you begin to confiscate IP and give it away without the approval of the originator of the IP, then you remove the monetary incentive for them to create. And you'll decrease the overall total creativity in a society. (see COMMUNISM, EFFECTS OF in Wickipedia or Google. Or read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand).
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
Biopiracy, n. The smuggling of species of plants, animals and fungi, typically from tropical, 3rd-world countries to temperate, 1st-world ones, for the purpose of isolating substances which are then patented as inventions and levied as taxes on the same countries where the substances came from.
Yes, kids, it exists. You'll find it nowhere in US and European media because it's not convenient to anyone, but people are arrested regularly for it in international airports of developing nations for it (including the selfsame Brazil). The pharmaceutical industry isn't quite the paragon of correctness and hard effort you make them out to be.
Why is it that in the countries listed as most "restrictive" in terms of IP laws, that those that directly produce the least IP own the most and use/abuse the laws the most?
Take the US for example. While they have pop singers and the like enormously popular domestically AND internationally, their ownership of IP doesn't even begin to apporach that of the members corporations of RIAA and MPAA. Or technology: most of America's brightest minds take employment with large corporations and contininue to generate IP for the corporation, or have their IP taken from them ( Philo Farnsworth didn't get rich from inventing the modern television, but RCA sure got rich from his work).
It's a lot easier to take a stand on IP when you don't have to invent your own and have a crapload of money to buy it or take it from others.
It's so easy to forget the original economic rationale for patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. The rationale has *little or nothing* to do with fair/deserved (or outrageous/undeserved, whatever the case may be!) compensation for the intellectual rights holders. It has *everything* to do with solving a fundamental economic problem with the provision of (nearly) public goods; goods with high initial/fixed costs and near-zero marginal costs.
Intellectual rights protections are about providing incentives for innovation and production. Perhaps it's fashionable to talk about "tropicalizing" (yes, I read TFA), but we should always ask what the incentive structure for innovation/production will look like when rights protections are changed. Perhaps there's a viable model of software development (open-source) outside traditional copyright law, but is there a viable model for producing books, music, movies, technological innovation, and all the other activities protected by IP laws?
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
No, my logic is like saying: their property is theirs, not anyone else's.
My geo-metro is my property - a copy of it is not. In fact, please make a copy - I won't be violated. In fact, there are 10 million coppies, I am not violated. It is bullshit morality. As far as I'm concerned - 'the pharmacuticals' can have all the property they want, and I wouldn't care. But that's not what they're asking for - they are asking for controll over who can make replicas. That is NOT a property (repeat after me, the right to replicate is not a property ... repeat after me, the right to replicate is not a property) , and it is not even good for society, and I can prove it because it has all sorts of consequences that you seem to like blowing off - but other countries like brazil can not, because people are dying over it. And your assertion that cures would never be found anyhow, is bullshit.
From the article:
In 1556, not long after the Portuguese first set foot in Brazil, the Bishop Pero Fernandes Sardinha was shipwrecked on its shores and set about introducing the gospel of Christ to the native "heathens." The locals, impressed with the glorious civilization the bishop represented and eager to absorb it in its totality, promptly ate him.
Now, if only they had retained that attiude for Windows missionaries. =)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Unfortunately this article, while interesting does not show the context of the series of articles in which this one appeared. The series was talking about Gilberto Gil and how he (and Brazil) have embraced the Creative Commons copyright licenses.
Creative Commons is based on a few simple principles, one of which being that new things are built from the past. Copying/stealing ideas and modifying or improving them is how we get new and better technology, art, and other things. Very little of what you see today is truely innovative and not based on anything prior.
The Linux pricetag isn't a marketing scheme (or at least wasn't Linus' intent originally). It's free because Linus (and others) wanted to share what a collective of people worked together to build, and invited others to help improve it. As mentioned by others, Apple does some innovation, but mostly they innovate by taking what exists and modifying it to look cool and be hip.
Apple didn't create the GUI interface, Xerox did - Apple stole it and MS stole it from Apple. Apple didn't create it's OS X core, they took the BSD kernel, tweaked it, and then slapped on a shiny UI. Don't get me wrong, I really like OS X and what Apple's done with a BSD kernel (especially after my own attempts at running FreeBSD) and a nicer UI than X. But I would not say I ever thought twice about owning a Mac prior to OS X - I didn't. They were ugly and underpowered without the ability to do true multitasking (much like Windows 3.1).
Finally, your analogy is weak in that WalMart is a large (multi?)national chain owned by a single, small group of people/stakeholders. Linux is an open, community-owned system that cannot easily be contributed to one person anymore. Yes, Linus is still in charge of what gets into the kernel, but he's not developing it all. He's not writing all the kernel modules for new devices and hardware.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Why is it that the countries listed as the most "permissive" in terms of intellectual property laws are the ones that seem to create the least amount of intellectual property worth protecting?
Before we begin, perhaps you can let us all know why you believe that some people's material is worth protecting more than others. Shouldn't all of it be protected exactly the same?
Take India, for example.
Yes, lets.
While they may have pop singers and the like who are enormously popular domestically, the global market for such music doesn't even begin to approach that of America's
First of all, that's complete bullshit. Please provide a link to back up your claims. And even if you were correct (which you are not) are you saying that popularity is relevant as to whether something should receive copyright? As in "if something is more unpopular, then it shouldn't receive copyright protection" - if so, your hypocrisy is palpable.
It's a lot easier to take that kind of stand on IP (I.E. that it's not worth protecting) when you have nothing of your own to protect and everything to take.
So what have *you* come up with? What songs/stories/movies have you written/perofrmed?
Yeah, I thought so.
Reasons why Linux is like Walmart:
1. Cheats me out of overtime
2. Uses labor that doesn't come from the U.S.
3. Ask the people who work with it about anything and they are little help and are often annoyed that you even asked.
4. Makes me work off the clock
5. Devalues the neighborhood
6. Raises the crime rate
Okay, I'm really struggling here... can't come up with any really good ones...
Democracy is about giving everyone the chance to VOTE on how they will be RULED.
Right. So I gave a democratic choice to the ants in my kitchen. If they wanted me to be their absolute ruler, they should walk to the right, otherwise they should turn to the left. Then I dropped some sugar on the right side.
Without free access to information, democracy is useless, it does not exist at all.
As for intellectual property, the idea is that A PERSON who DEVELOPS an IDEA can give it to EVERYONE.
Or THAT PERSON can RESTRICT IT to WHOMEVER they choose, be it a friend or a CUSTOMER.
What if the idea is developed independently? Ironically, in the 1970's Gilberto Gil himself sued Rod Stewart for plagiarism, and won. I'm not sure that Stewart actually copied Gil's music, perhaps it was a coincidence that the same sequence of notes occurred to both of them independently and Gil was lucky to publish earlier.
That's what I consider the biggest weak point in declaring that an idea can be considered property. The telephone is another good example, the patent was granted to Alexander Graham Bell because he filed it at the USPTO a few hours before Elisha Gray submitted a remarkably similar invention.
Ideas happen to people in a given intellectual environment, and similar ideas may happen to people living in similar environments. Elisha Gray worked hard to develop his ideas, he should not be denied their use just because someone else, working in secret, developed similar ideas.
If you begin to confiscate IP and give it away without the approval of the originator of the IP, then you remove the monetary incentive for them to create.
That practical consideration is the only reason for the whole concept of "intellectual" property. IP law is NOT motivated by any ethical reason, just practical ones. In case of doubt, read the Constitution of the USA.
And today IP law is having the opposite effect. Lobbying to prolong copyrights has a much better return on investment than creating new intellectual works.
And you'll decrease the overall total creativity in a society. (see COMMUNISM, EFFECTS OF in Wickipedia or Google. Or read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand).
You are ignoring the difference between the communization of physical property, where the giver loses the property when it's given away, and the sharing of intellectual property, where no one becomes more ignorant when they give information away.
America, if you dont know, its a continent. There is South America, NORTH AMERICA and Central America. So, if you say that the Bush page cant be visited by people outside America then you are referring to the entire continent! We live in Argentina, and i cant visit the Bush's page. Argentina its in America Continent!!! how could be that people who reads slashdot cant understand the difference bettwen A CONTINENT and a COUNTRY!!! The worlds go bads if the people of the most powerful country of the earth are so ignorant. Sorry my english. Here in Argentina we have subway, internet, cars, directv. For those that thinks that we lives like the indians (in old times!).
So charge a lot for the first copy. Simple as that. You can even GPL it, just don't release the first copy until you get paid.
Let's say I run a commercial software company. For the sake of using round numbers, let's say I have five developers who all work full-time for two weeks, and each developer costs me $50/hour. Let's further assume that I only want to break even (i.e. not make a profit).
5 developers * 80 hours * ($50/hour) = a cost to me of $20,000.
Does it make sense for me to charge $20,000 for the first copy and then GPL the rest? Of course not, because I would never be able to sell the first copy. Would you pony up and buy the first copy if you knew the app would be GPLd immediately thereafter? I doubt it. Neither would other right-thinking people. Now what?
We are left with the idea of selling 20 copies for $1,000 each, 50 copies for $400 each, or at some other price point until I recoup the $20,000. The number of copies (and associated price point) would have to be based on a realistic assessment of the market: I wouldn't want to charge $1 and expect to sell 20,000 copies.
In the real world I would expect to make a profit through sales of the product. Let's say I decided to sell it at $400/copy, and I have sold 100 copies. That's $40,000 - a profit of $20,000. If the product is still selling well, what is my motivation to cut off the revenue stream by releasing the product under the GPL?
From an economic standpoint it really only makes sense for me to GPL the software when I will no longer make enough money from it to justify support, patches, etc. Ideally - for the F/OSS community at large - the app will be GPLd as soon as possible. However, I suspect the F/OSS community is not the primary concern of a commercial entity; if the company is public, i.e. has shareholders, the F/OSS community better not be a priority. (The primary focus should be the shareholders.)
It appears (to me, at least) that quite a lot of purported members of the F/OSS community don't give a rip about the ideals [of F/OSS] and just insist that all software should be free-as-in-beer, regardless of the associated development costs. That is a naive, irksome, and ultimately harmful attitude.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.