RMS' claims that people who don't like his license aren't truly free come off much as those who question the patriotism of anti-war citizens.
Woah, bingo. Wish I had mod points.
I originally clicked through to the comments with some trepidation, as the overwhelming "slashbot" viewpoint seems to be a right-libertarian one. It is always refreshing for me to see that there exist others, whether in the United States or no, who possess more or less my same views on subjects such as this one. Oh, there are a few of us out here.:)
~A Democratic Socialist (from the US)
When I use Open Source apps, I do so knowing that there are many developers and hobbyists that have looked over the code, so I know that there aren't any glaring security flaws.
Imagine this had been an Open Source product for a minute... instead of an article just saying that it read/etc/ files, it would have said this part of the code reads the files, this is why it is nessasary, or here is a patch to stop it from doing this.
I'm sorry, you misunderstood, that it's a form of government protectionism isn't what makes it inherently bad. It's what makes it incompatible with other forms of paying artists.
Copyright is a form of government protectionism.... So it's really not that simple. The existance of IP makes it a lot harder for IP-free business models to succeed.
Slight difference...There isn't any law preventing me from making a copy of my computer and giving it to my friend.
Comparing copyright to the right to private property just muddies the waters without actually proving anything. It's just a bad analogy, ok? Stop using it.
But the problem is that the IP system is broken. It does more harm to the state of art than good, therefore, the IP system we currently use needs to be gotten rid of completely and replaced by something better (unlikely) or completely revamped and slowly merged with something better (more likely).
If you don't think the IP system (more specifically, copyright, I am not nearly as familiar with patents or trademarks, although I have heard that they are in a similar situation) is broken, look at it this way, copyright seeks to encourage art by helping artists to make money with their creations, correct? (I assume you reply, "Why yes, that is the purpose of copyright.")
Then why is it that it is being used to suppress the spread of art (by preventing it from entering the PD, for an indefinate time, as long as certain corporations *cough*Disney*cough* have their way) and isn't really helping artists to make money?
Think about it, anyone who doesn't pirate art, wouldn't do it anyway if the artist just said "Please don't copy my work without paying me." Anyone who would pirate art, is going to whether copyright is there or not. Copyright has no teeth as it is, look at all the suing the RIAA/MPAA is doing, and music/movie piracy is on the rise.
Copyright is broken, it doesn't work. All it does is hinder art.
But your physics book would do the most good if it was available for anyone to use, free of charge, and easy to get. It might not benefit you as much, but it would do the most good. The goal should be to find a way to reward authors and other artists, without the need of copyright. I do not have such a solution, but if we got some top economists on it, I'm sure they could find a model that was both beneficial to the artists and the consumers (hate that word) and that didn't go against the digital grain, as it were.
At the risk of diverting this thread into yet another open source discussion, I would say that the Gimp, Audacity, etc, step in.
That is, assuming Adobe doesn't just continue to make photoshop. Why would copyright being eliminated stop them from making proprietary applications? The only reason it's so vital to the GPL is because the code is there for anyone to use, so copyright is what makes you follow the license. The code to photoshop is a closely guarded secret anyway, you never see pirated copies of photoshop source.
Also, I would argue (am arguing) that the drive to create is separate from the drive for money. There would still be artists if creating art was punishable by death, it has nothing to do with making money.
The connection between creating art and becoming rich and famous was propagated by the middle men who looked at artists and said, "You know, I could really make a killing by distributing this." That is capitalism.
Now that we are in the "Digital Age" and distribution can be widespread and done by anyone, the middle-men are threatened and are reacting, sometimes by adapting to the new technology, sometimes by suing everyone in sight.
The ideal solution would be to find a way to reward artists, without restricting the distribution of art. That is the goal, remember?
You are making an assumption that producers/publishers backing is necessary to create art.
There was a time when this was at least mostly true. But now it is entirely possible for anyone to create high-quality music, photography, and (almost, we're still working on this one) movies with digital tools, and to distribute this art, along with their novels, short stories, poetry, theatrical scripts, and just about anything else you can think of, over the internet for little to nothing.
Why do you think we still need the middle-men (publishers, record companies, etc)?
There is a room full of people and you are standing next to the door leading out of the room. When the first person exits the room you attempt to shake hands with that person, but instead of shaking hands, the person punches you in the face. When the next person comes out, you are wary, but go ahead and attempt to shake hands. This person slaps you across your jaw. This continues for 20-30 people. Now, do you go ahead and treat each person coming out of the room as an individual and continue to attempt to shake hands with them? Or do you shy away from anyone coming out of the room?
You don't know for sure that the next guy coming out of the door is going to sucker-punch you, but that doesn't stop you from flinching when he walks up to you and holds out his hand.
It's stereotypical to think everyone of a certain group believes the same things, and it must be respectfully avoided. All Republicans are right-wing nut-jobs. All Democrats are liberal pansies. Choose your line and get back in it.
Anything else gets bad ratings on the entertain^Wnews networks.
Software issues shouldn't be left to be fixed by repair people, If you have to call someone in, you should be there for it.
Hardware issues, which is what I was referring to, can take some time for parts to come in, etc, so leaving it with repair people is acceptable, but not with your harddrive still in.
If you take your computer in for repair, it is possible the repair person will copy any files he or she wants. You leave your harddrive in when you leave your computer with repair people? That's just a bad idea all over.
Really? It seems kind of strange to have no Public Domain. Who do they consider to be the copyright holder of works where the author isn't known and is long gone? Like cave paintings or ancient sculpture?
Microsoft looks like the right choice. Most decisions in government are not bought and sold, they are negotiated based on the better argument. Mod parent Funny!
Slashdot Mirror
Woah, bingo. Wish I had mod points.
Hey, if he doesn't want to share his comment, leave it to him, he can take it and go home. Here, have mine instead. :)
Not everyone has to, just one person.
/etc/ files, it would have said this part of the code reads the files, this is why it is nessasary, or here is a patch to stop it from doing this.
When I use Open Source apps, I do so knowing that there are many developers and hobbyists that have looked over the code, so I know that there aren't any glaring security flaws.
Imagine this had been an Open Source product for a minute... instead of an article just saying that it read
Slight difference...There isn't any law preventing me from making a copy of my computer and giving it to my friend.
Comparing copyright to the right to private property just muddies the waters without actually proving anything. It's just a bad analogy, ok? Stop using it.
But the problem is that the IP system is broken. It does more harm to the state of art than good, therefore, the IP system we currently use needs to be gotten rid of completely and replaced by something better (unlikely) or completely revamped and slowly merged with something better (more likely).
If you don't think the IP system (more specifically, copyright, I am not nearly as familiar with patents or trademarks, although I have heard that they are in a similar situation) is broken, look at it this way, copyright seeks to encourage art by helping artists to make money with their creations, correct? (I assume you reply, "Why yes, that is the purpose of copyright.")
Then why is it that it is being used to suppress the spread of art (by preventing it from entering the PD, for an indefinate time, as long as certain corporations *cough*Disney*cough* have their way) and isn't really helping artists to make money?
Think about it, anyone who doesn't pirate art, wouldn't do it anyway if the artist just said "Please don't copy my work without paying me." Anyone who would pirate art, is going to whether copyright is there or not. Copyright has no teeth as it is, look at all the suing the RIAA/MPAA is doing, and music/movie piracy is on the rise.
Copyright is broken, it doesn't work. All it does is hinder art.
- Copyright is a poor and inefficient way to do that.
- Publishers/Producers aren't necessary for you to do that.
Not that it isn't possible that one day it will be free/extremely cheap to create as well as distribute.But your physics book would do the most good if it was available for anyone to use, free of charge, and easy to get. It might not benefit you as much, but it would do the most good. The goal should be to find a way to reward authors and other artists, without the need of copyright. I do not have such a solution, but if we got some top economists on it, I'm sure they could find a model that was both beneficial to the artists and the consumers (hate that word) and that didn't go against the digital grain, as it were.
At the risk of diverting this thread into yet another open source discussion, I would say that the Gimp, Audacity, etc, step in.
That is, assuming Adobe doesn't just continue to make photoshop. Why would copyright being eliminated stop them from making proprietary applications? The only reason it's so vital to the GPL is because the code is there for anyone to use, so copyright is what makes you follow the license. The code to photoshop is a closely guarded secret anyway, you never see pirated copies of photoshop source.
See my reply here.
Also, I would argue (am arguing) that the drive to create is separate from the drive for money. There would still be artists if creating art was punishable by death, it has nothing to do with making money.
The connection between creating art and becoming rich and famous was propagated by the middle men who looked at artists and said, "You know, I could really make a killing by distributing this." That is capitalism.
Now that we are in the "Digital Age" and distribution can be widespread and done by anyone, the middle-men are threatened and are reacting, sometimes by adapting to the new technology, sometimes by suing everyone in sight.
The ideal solution would be to find a way to reward artists, without restricting the distribution of art. That is the goal, remember?
You are making an assumption that producers/publishers backing is necessary to create art.
There was a time when this was at least mostly true. But now it is entirely possible for anyone to create high-quality music, photography, and (almost, we're still working on this one) movies with digital tools, and to distribute this art, along with their novels, short stories, poetry, theatrical scripts, and just about anything else you can think of, over the internet for little to nothing.
Why do you think we still need the middle-men (publishers, record companies, etc)?
There is a room full of people and you are standing next to the door leading out of the room. When the first person exits the room you attempt to shake hands with that person, but instead of shaking hands, the person punches you in the face. When the next person comes out, you are wary, but go ahead and attempt to shake hands. This person slaps you across your jaw. This continues for 20-30 people. Now, do you go ahead and treat each person coming out of the room as an individual and continue to attempt to shake hands with them? Or do you shy away from anyone coming out of the room?
You don't know for sure that the next guy coming out of the door is going to sucker-punch you, but that doesn't stop you from flinching when he walks up to you and holds out his hand.
Anything else gets bad ratings on the entertain^Wnews networks.
Brilliant quote, the key thing being that what really stopped McCarthy wasn't the justice system itself, it was the public turning against him.
You forgot attempting to do the same thing with the internet.
Linky.
I believe the relevant link is this one. The rest are court documents etc.
Software issues shouldn't be left to be fixed by repair people, If you have to call someone in, you should be there for it.
Hardware issues, which is what I was referring to, can take some time for parts to come in, etc, so leaving it with repair people is acceptable, but not with your harddrive still in.
Maybe the money saved isn't enough for vista basic users to learn Chinese?
Just a thought.
Really? It seems kind of strange to have no Public Domain. Who do they consider to be the copyright holder of works where the author isn't known and is long gone? Like cave paintings or ancient sculpture?
Seconded.
Gnome just feels cleaner than KDE to me.
It's really that easy.
GOTO: 20091703