Real things like what? Compiling GIMP for a few hours or X Windows for a few days? I know...maybe I should sit down and redo my Kernel config! Real work is whatever the end-user thinks he/she needs to do. That's been the basis of desktop computing for the last 20 years and it'll be the basis of desktop/mobile computing for the next 100. Grow up, child.
Is this gross exaggeration by the parent? Did this kid never look up from his iPhone or whatever to talk to his parents? I was born in 1986 and I'm a heavy computer user, I dare say I'm better able to socialize in person because of technology. I have things to talk about or I have things to do if I'm uninterested in the coversation(s) happening around me. I fail to see how that's a bad thing. It sounds like this guy needs some lessons on parenting -- I mean we're going from one end of spectrum to the other end. He's just going from extreme to extreme...and it's not that much different than parents who don't vaccinate their kids for ANYTHING because they heard about a bad vaccine.
It seems like to me, he should find a middle ground and regulate his kids technology usage...not knock it out of the house completely.
While not greater, are you assuming that not having a "legal right" to kill deters killers? Have you checked out the Mexican cartels lately? As for being heavily armed, the cartels are known for having quite a few nice weapons of their own. You don't need a tank or a fighter jet to cause a lot of damage.
Android phone w/ Cyanogenmod & an encrypted VoIP behind a firewalled, logged WIFI connection on a tablet without a phone radio would make it next to impossible to not be caught.
The previous generation has exploited my generation since before we were born. The increasing of educational costs nearly threefold since the 70s, the increase of healthcare 5-25x what it was in the 70s, and the killing of the economy by simply being too greedy. Not to mention the costs of 2 wars, a bank bailout, and an automotive bailout. Meanwhile that same generation who always goes back to "whaaaa this new generation is rude and selfish" is trying to kill social security (but still make sure THEY get what THEY put into it and yet not seeing how that's not screwing the rest of us over).
What about those of us IT people who can be paged or called into work? I set my phone to vibrate and I don't whip it out at a movie theater -- I still, however, need to be "connected". I work for a hospital and downtime is rarely an option.
Legally they're probably incorporated with a "doing business as" setup as McDonalds. He's probably still correct, quit worry about the small things in life.
What evidence do you have that show they rarely help improve anything? When I worked for Verizon Telecom/Frontier the union made sure our wages were above that of similar jobs in the area. They made sure our benefits were great. My union also went to bat if an employee's performance was deemed "less than satisfactory" and would look at the situation (it was a customer service/sales position that tried to sell inferior products at a rate far more expensive than competitors with crappier service) before management would cull the herd of sales people who didn't lie or leave out details like "this is a 2 year contract". There are plenty of good unions out there and I speak from experience.
So a company purposely makes shitty security so that they can break their own security whenever they want and people are OK with this? Sounds like an even better reason to stick/switch to Android. At least an open-source product has a better chance at security over some proprietary bullshit.
Chances are it does. Just because you're too stupid to believe there's no possible way a virus can get onto your phone, doesn't mean that there's someone out there with the know-how and the skill to do just that. There is (and has never been) anything that is 100% secure.
Apples and oranges. Solar energy technology helps society and doesn't hurt anyone directly nor take away their rights. Slavery takes rights and freedoms of people.
It seems like a lot of Apple fanbois are crawling all over this thread going "See, see when Apple does it...whhhaaaaa" or whatever. I never heard Google or Microsoft or Samsung go "gee, that's dumb." These are the companies and not the fanbois doing this, there is no "WHEN APPLE DID THIS YOU GAVE THEM SHIT" crap.
I'm also curious about all of the "we don't need this stinkin' stuff" mentality. Maybe it won't have that many uses -- what it does serve is helping to shrink components, increase battery life, and act a medium to future development of future technology. R&D needs money and sometimes consumer products are a great stepping stone. Smartphones would've never existed until your plain ol' brick-style non-touch screen, non-colored, 1" LCD screen, 1 hr of battery life cell phone became popular. But that technology along with consumer demand gave those with the $$$ to blow reason to invest their money.
Maybe Apple's idea was stupid, but I generally like when companies innovate. Although lately it seems Apple does more of buying/combining old technology and puking out some bastardization of it and then sue anyone who attempts anything remotely similar in nature. That may be why I personally cringe whenever Apple announces new products and why most of the Apple haters do too. When you're known for stifling competition through frivolousness lawsuits it becomes hard to cheer any product that will just cause an entire concept to be locked to the Apple world.
Really? Did you pay me for my work that you took? What gives you the right to have that work? Why do you feel like I shouldn't get what I think my work is worth, what my time is worth?
I'm not saying you HAVE to take my product. You're free to shop elsewhere. Would you be upset if I programmed in a software function that corrupted your data on your PC if you didn't pay for it? If you do backups and you won't lose anything, otherwise you just lost more time than if you had backups. Would that be OK with you?
Actually it is. America is about equality -- thus far you haven't commented on surrendering your client's files to me. You haven't commented on providing free legal services for at least 6 months out of the, including the payment of all expenses. Do you feel like you deserve to be paid or are inherently better than an author of some creative work? Why do you not live up to the standards you advocate to force on someone else? Before advocating for change, you should be willing to live it yourself -- are you prepared to give me some free legal services? If not, why? Why do you feel that you should be paid, but not me?
All you will accomplish is the forcing of consumers to accept highly restrictive contracts (not user agreements or licenses) that prevent you from doing anything with the software. Point #3 would ensure that I would code in special lockouts that prevent you from using the software and if I just felt like it, a yanking of your rights whenever I felt I couldn't trust that you didn't share your software.
Copyright law needs to be changed, but not yanked. Again, the law dictates that I have rights to my IP. You should know full well that when you take away my rights you effectively do something like repeating prohibition -- that worked out wonderfully.
"4) Placing works in the public domain immediately if they are published, under the imprimatur of the copyright holder, with DRM, and having a government-run program of distributing those public domain works and assisting in cracking DRM systems;"
You really are a bloodsucking lawyer, aren't you? You effectively just destroyed capitalism in the sense that I, as an author, should get paid for my work...unless I decide not to publish it, which means I can't make money off of it. Tell me something -- do you provide legal services for free? Should we pass a law dictating that all lawyers should be required to do 4382 hours of free legal services and pay 100% of all filing fees and if you lose you also pay 100% of whatever fees/settlements/penalties are imposed on the person you're representing?
I'm truly curious what your law practice is...where you practice, and hell what your practice's name is. I'd truly love an opportunity to put to test all of your theories and if you didn't meet my satisfaction...I'd copy all of your documents and share them to everyone -- with your permission of course. Yes, you may get disbarred, but you don't have a right to be a lawyer anyways. Would you be willing to put your practice up and work for free? If not, then you understand where I'm coming from and are just being a prick because you're too cheap to pay for the work I put into something.
"Although you seem to have taken the MAFIAA propaganda of otherwise to heart."
Perhaps, because I'm a small time developer. I don't employ DRM myself nor do I actively sue people who steal my work. But it is silly that you seem to take the stance that you can have free reign with my hardwork without being expected to pay me for it. If you're too poor, then you don't deserve to have it. Just as you seem to think that I don't deserve to take the stuff that you worked hard.
And yes, you have denied me something by stealing my software: my money. Otherwise you truly can't argue against me stealing your car, your wife, or burning down your house. I didn't deprive you of shelter -- you can live under a tree. I didn't deprive you of transportation -- you can walk. I just made it a whole lot more complicated.
"But once an author has willingly created a work and willingly shared that work with someone else, then all bets are off."
Again, we come back to the law. The law recognizes several types of property. You can't take away something I created from scratch -- I have the ability to wreck your life and, potentially, the lives of those around you. There's nothing you can say or do to stop it. Your beliefs otherwise are irrelevant and unimportant for the intents and purposes of this discussion. I HAVE a right to my property.
You're attempting to pull in various ideologies and philosophies into something that, as a lawyer, you should understand is simple: copyright and patent laws exist -- it's already been established: I have a right to my property. You should be arguing what levels of punishment is acceptable for when you steal my property...because at this point if you had any significant amount of downloads, I could wreck your life with a few pieces of paper and a comparatively small amount of cash.
How about your client's files? You're a lawyer -- I assume you have documentation that you don't share normally. Email it to me...all of it. It won't affect your business operations.:)
"You don't inherently have a right to prohibit people from copying it, distributing it, etc. So where's that leave us?
AFAICT you can't be forced to create something, or to share it with someone else, but if you do, you don't have any right to control what they (and then, others) do with it, unless they willingly give you that right. Which they might, if there were a good enough reason to."
That's entirely untrue. Do you own your home? Can I just come and take whatever I want out of your house? What's your address? I'd like your computer. How about your money...what's your credit card/debit card/bank account information? I feel like having a big juicy ribeye and you're going to pay for it. Right? Since you don't own it, right?
"The state and the taxpayers should not have to shoulder the burden for the private benefit of copyright holders in the absence of a damn compelling reason otherwise. Better to just legalize much of the offending behavior and be done with it."
I shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of a rapist who raped your mother. He didn't do anything to me, I don't care if he rapes your mom nightly. And yet there's that entire social aspect of society. Being a lawyer you sure don't seem to understand that society provides for intellectual property...which says that of which I create IS mine. To put it another way, if you build a house you created it, right? Using your logic I can just come and yank off your roof or door or property inside -- you don't have a right to prohibit me, do you? And if I share your house with other people...well that's just distributing isn't it?
I'm not arguing that the IP and patent laws of this country are stupid. But I also understand that creating shit costs money in some form or fashion and if I, as the creator, CHOOSE to surrender it for free...then that is my choice. But if I chose to say "No, this is mine until you pay for it" then you have no freaking right to take that away from me. No right whatsoever. It's like if I came in and stole your client's files and shared them with everyone around me -- I wouldn't doubt for a second you wouldn't stop until I had the maximum punishment allowed by law. Would you? If so you're a hypocrite...if not...where's your office, I'd like some dirt on a few people.
That's called an opinion. There are, undoubtedly, many people who like the music/movies/etc produced by major labels today. They pay for it. You don't inherently have a right to something I produce or create just as I don't have the right to your house, car, wife, or daughter. I do believe in ownership and I believe that a company can charge whatever the hell it wants for its product. I don't believe in massive fines for people who truly can't afford it. Community service, minimal fines, house arrest, and probation are ways to deal with this. Make someone's life inconvenient and a pain in the ass for a while and they're not likely to do it again. But you don't have the right to just take what I spent my time, money, talent, and passion.
Slashdot Mirror
Real things like what? Compiling GIMP for a few hours or X Windows for a few days? I know...maybe I should sit down and redo my Kernel config! Real work is whatever the end-user thinks he/she needs to do. That's been the basis of desktop computing for the last 20 years and it'll be the basis of desktop/mobile computing for the next 100. Grow up, child.
Is this gross exaggeration by the parent? Did this kid never look up from his iPhone or whatever to talk to his parents? I was born in 1986 and I'm a heavy computer user, I dare say I'm better able to socialize in person because of technology. I have things to talk about or I have things to do if I'm uninterested in the coversation(s) happening around me. I fail to see how that's a bad thing. It sounds like this guy needs some lessons on parenting -- I mean we're going from one end of spectrum to the other end. He's just going from extreme to extreme...and it's not that much different than parents who don't vaccinate their kids for ANYTHING because they heard about a bad vaccine.
It seems like to me, he should find a middle ground and regulate his kids technology usage...not knock it out of the house completely.
While not greater, are you assuming that not having a "legal right" to kill deters killers? Have you checked out the Mexican cartels lately? As for being heavily armed, the cartels are known for having quite a few nice weapons of their own. You don't need a tank or a fighter jet to cause a lot of damage.
Android phone w/ Cyanogenmod & an encrypted VoIP behind a firewalled, logged WIFI connection on a tablet without a phone radio would make it next to impossible to not be caught.
The previous generation has exploited my generation since before we were born. The increasing of educational costs nearly threefold since the 70s, the increase of healthcare 5-25x what it was in the 70s, and the killing of the economy by simply being too greedy. Not to mention the costs of 2 wars, a bank bailout, and an automotive bailout. Meanwhile that same generation who always goes back to "whaaaa this new generation is rude and selfish" is trying to kill social security (but still make sure THEY get what THEY put into it and yet not seeing how that's not screwing the rest of us over).
You're so right, we're just SO selfish.
What about those of us IT people who can be paged or called into work? I set my phone to vibrate and I don't whip it out at a movie theater -- I still, however, need to be "connected". I work for a hospital and downtime is rarely an option.
Legally they're probably incorporated with a "doing business as" setup as McDonalds. He's probably still correct, quit worry about the small things in life.
And? Just because a company has piss poor management, it doesn't mean the employees should be paid a crap wage that is then subsidized by tax payers.
What evidence do you have that show they rarely help improve anything? When I worked for Verizon Telecom/Frontier the union made sure our wages were above that of similar jobs in the area. They made sure our benefits were great. My union also went to bat if an employee's performance was deemed "less than satisfactory" and would look at the situation (it was a customer service/sales position that tried to sell inferior products at a rate far more expensive than competitors with crappier service) before management would cull the herd of sales people who didn't lie or leave out details like "this is a 2 year contract". There are plenty of good unions out there and I speak from experience.
Bullshit. Flies don't land in my food, there are no wasps, and even when it's snowing it's still a comfortable temperature. Outside has all the bad.
Mono?
So a company purposely makes shitty security so that they can break their own security whenever they want and people are OK with this? Sounds like an even better reason to stick/switch to Android. At least an open-source product has a better chance at security over some proprietary bullshit.
Chances are it does. Just because you're too stupid to believe there's no possible way a virus can get onto your phone, doesn't mean that there's someone out there with the know-how and the skill to do just that. There is (and has never been) anything that is 100% secure.
You mean for all, what, 50 people on it for the first few decades?
Apples and oranges. Solar energy technology helps society and doesn't hurt anyone directly nor take away their rights. Slavery takes rights and freedoms of people.
It seems like a lot of Apple fanbois are crawling all over this thread going "See, see when Apple does it...whhhaaaaa" or whatever. I never heard Google or Microsoft or Samsung go "gee, that's dumb." These are the companies and not the fanbois doing this, there is no "WHEN APPLE DID THIS YOU GAVE THEM SHIT" crap.
I'm also curious about all of the "we don't need this stinkin' stuff" mentality. Maybe it won't have that many uses -- what it does serve is helping to shrink components, increase battery life, and act a medium to future development of future technology. R&D needs money and sometimes consumer products are a great stepping stone. Smartphones would've never existed until your plain ol' brick-style non-touch screen, non-colored, 1" LCD screen, 1 hr of battery life cell phone became popular. But that technology along with consumer demand gave those with the $$$ to blow reason to invest their money.
Maybe Apple's idea was stupid, but I generally like when companies innovate. Although lately it seems Apple does more of buying/combining old technology and puking out some bastardization of it and then sue anyone who attempts anything remotely similar in nature. That may be why I personally cringe whenever Apple announces new products and why most of the Apple haters do too. When you're known for stifling competition through frivolousness lawsuits it becomes hard to cheer any product that will just cause an entire concept to be locked to the Apple world.
Really? Did you pay me for my work that you took? What gives you the right to have that work? Why do you feel like I shouldn't get what I think my work is worth, what my time is worth?
I'm not saying you HAVE to take my product. You're free to shop elsewhere. Would you be upset if I programmed in a software function that corrupted your data on your PC if you didn't pay for it? If you do backups and you won't lose anything, otherwise you just lost more time than if you had backups. Would that be OK with you?
Actually it is. America is about equality -- thus far you haven't commented on surrendering your client's files to me. You haven't commented on providing free legal services for at least 6 months out of the, including the payment of all expenses. Do you feel like you deserve to be paid or are inherently better than an author of some creative work? Why do you not live up to the standards you advocate to force on someone else? Before advocating for change, you should be willing to live it yourself -- are you prepared to give me some free legal services? If not, why? Why do you feel that you should be paid, but not me?
All you will accomplish is the forcing of consumers to accept highly restrictive contracts (not user agreements or licenses) that prevent you from doing anything with the software. Point #3 would ensure that I would code in special lockouts that prevent you from using the software and if I just felt like it, a yanking of your rights whenever I felt I couldn't trust that you didn't share your software.
Copyright law needs to be changed, but not yanked. Again, the law dictates that I have rights to my IP. You should know full well that when you take away my rights you effectively do something like repeating prohibition -- that worked out wonderfully.
"4) Placing works in the public domain immediately if they are published, under the imprimatur of the copyright holder, with DRM, and having a government-run program of distributing those public domain works and assisting in cracking DRM systems;"
You really are a bloodsucking lawyer, aren't you? You effectively just destroyed capitalism in the sense that I, as an author, should get paid for my work...unless I decide not to publish it, which means I can't make money off of it. Tell me something -- do you provide legal services for free? Should we pass a law dictating that all lawyers should be required to do 4382 hours of free legal services and pay 100% of all filing fees and if you lose you also pay 100% of whatever fees/settlements/penalties are imposed on the person you're representing?
I'm truly curious what your law practice is...where you practice, and hell what your practice's name is. I'd truly love an opportunity to put to test all of your theories and if you didn't meet my satisfaction...I'd copy all of your documents and share them to everyone -- with your permission of course. Yes, you may get disbarred, but you don't have a right to be a lawyer anyways. Would you be willing to put your practice up and work for free? If not, then you understand where I'm coming from and are just being a prick because you're too cheap to pay for the work I put into something.
Fair enough. Do you support legalizing my access to your client's files?
"Although you seem to have taken the MAFIAA propaganda of otherwise to heart."
Perhaps, because I'm a small time developer. I don't employ DRM myself nor do I actively sue people who steal my work. But it is silly that you seem to take the stance that you can have free reign with my hardwork without being expected to pay me for it. If you're too poor, then you don't deserve to have it. Just as you seem to think that I don't deserve to take the stuff that you worked hard.
And yes, you have denied me something by stealing my software: my money. Otherwise you truly can't argue against me stealing your car, your wife, or burning down your house. I didn't deprive you of shelter -- you can live under a tree. I didn't deprive you of transportation -- you can walk. I just made it a whole lot more complicated.
"But once an author has willingly created a work and willingly shared that work with someone else, then all bets are off."
Again, we come back to the law. The law recognizes several types of property. You can't take away something I created from scratch -- I have the ability to wreck your life and, potentially, the lives of those around you. There's nothing you can say or do to stop it. Your beliefs otherwise are irrelevant and unimportant for the intents and purposes of this discussion. I HAVE a right to my property. You're attempting to pull in various ideologies and philosophies into something that, as a lawyer, you should understand is simple: copyright and patent laws exist -- it's already been established: I have a right to my property. You should be arguing what levels of punishment is acceptable for when you steal my property...because at this point if you had any significant amount of downloads, I could wreck your life with a few pieces of paper and a comparatively small amount of cash.
How about your client's files? You're a lawyer -- I assume you have documentation that you don't share normally. Email it to me...all of it. It won't affect your business operations. :)
"You don't inherently have a right to prohibit people from copying it, distributing it, etc. So where's that leave us? AFAICT you can't be forced to create something, or to share it with someone else, but if you do, you don't have any right to control what they (and then, others) do with it, unless they willingly give you that right. Which they might, if there were a good enough reason to."
That's entirely untrue. Do you own your home? Can I just come and take whatever I want out of your house? What's your address? I'd like your computer. How about your money...what's your credit card/debit card/bank account information? I feel like having a big juicy ribeye and you're going to pay for it. Right? Since you don't own it, right?
"The state and the taxpayers should not have to shoulder the burden for the private benefit of copyright holders in the absence of a damn compelling reason otherwise. Better to just legalize much of the offending behavior and be done with it."
I shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of a rapist who raped your mother. He didn't do anything to me, I don't care if he rapes your mom nightly. And yet there's that entire social aspect of society. Being a lawyer you sure don't seem to understand that society provides for intellectual property...which says that of which I create IS mine. To put it another way, if you build a house you created it, right? Using your logic I can just come and yank off your roof or door or property inside -- you don't have a right to prohibit me, do you? And if I share your house with other people...well that's just distributing isn't it?
I'm not arguing that the IP and patent laws of this country are stupid. But I also understand that creating shit costs money in some form or fashion and if I, as the creator, CHOOSE to surrender it for free...then that is my choice. But if I chose to say "No, this is mine until you pay for it" then you have no freaking right to take that away from me. No right whatsoever. It's like if I came in and stole your client's files and shared them with everyone around me -- I wouldn't doubt for a second you wouldn't stop until I had the maximum punishment allowed by law. Would you? If so you're a hypocrite...if not...where's your office, I'd like some dirt on a few people.
The problem is the industry has produced any.
That's called an opinion. There are, undoubtedly, many people who like the music/movies/etc produced by major labels today. They pay for it. You don't inherently have a right to something I produce or create just as I don't have the right to your house, car, wife, or daughter. I do believe in ownership and I believe that a company can charge whatever the hell it wants for its product. I don't believe in massive fines for people who truly can't afford it. Community service, minimal fines, house arrest, and probation are ways to deal with this. Make someone's life inconvenient and a pain in the ass for a while and they're not likely to do it again. But you don't have the right to just take what I spent my time, money, talent, and passion.