I believe you are mistaken. To my knowledge, it is still free to remember music, but the RIAA is working with the US government to close this so-called 'neural hole'. They're really just looking after the good of the artists. Really.
For the most part I agree with you, except I don't know who should decide (or what standard they should use) which companies are unethical. I sort of feel about the free market like Churchill felt about democracy. It's the worst thing we have, except for all the other things we've tried.
No, he's legally obligated to protect his company's interests to the extent permitted by the law.
People are sharing music with each other, which is not legal according to US law. He is using legal means to prevent this from happening. This isn't the problem. The problem is the law that allows it to happen.
The whole point of this little conversation is that it's irrational to suggest (as you did) killing someone for doing a legal action, when the real problem lies with the laws that make his actions legal.
However, maybe rationality isn't your strong suit. After all, if suing someone to stop them from breaking the law makes a person evil, surely advocating the murder of these law-abiding citizens must surely make you much more evil?
Maybe so, but any officers or board members who did not attempt to maximize profits would likely quickly be replaced. And while you and I may agree that what they do is unethical, they may disagree. The human imagination is infinitely able to twist reality to suit an individual.
But whether or not these officers must pursue profit my main point stands in that the law that allows them to act in this way needs to change.
Slashdot Mirror
They're saying that MS Office costs $150-200, and OOo, being free is therefore $150-200 less than that.
I think.
Then pay from memory the music.
I believe you are mistaken. To my knowledge, it is still free to remember music, but the RIAA is working with the US government to close this so-called 'neural hole'. They're really just looking after the good of the artists. Really.
What if this improved scheduler algorithm indirectly saved x-hundred-thousand kids?
So you're saying there are several hundred thousand poorly scheduled children out there? Interesting.
...because they've only been in severe financial trouble for less than 90 days...
Ironically, what you suggest is almost certainly what the government will do to end the economic crisis: print more money.
For the most part I agree with you, except I don't know who should decide (or what standard they should use) which companies are unethical. I sort of feel about the free market like Churchill felt about democracy. It's the worst thing we have, except for all the other things we've tried.
Sigh. Whatever.
You're clearly the level-headed and intelligent one here, so I'll quit responding. Have a good one!
Thanks for proving Godwin's law. Butchering Jews and suing for copyright infringement are not the same thing.
And I doubt you would have done any different than all the other people who lived back then. To suggest otherwise is not only idiotic, but offensive.
So the head of the RIAA is the same as Saddam? Interesting.
No, he's legally obligated to protect his company's interests to the extent permitted by the law.
People are sharing music with each other, which is not legal according to US law. He is using legal means to prevent this from happening. This isn't the problem. The problem is the law that allows it to happen.
The whole point of this little conversation is that it's irrational to suggest (as you did) killing someone for doing a legal action, when the real problem lies with the laws that make his actions legal.
However, maybe rationality isn't your strong suit. After all, if suing someone to stop them from breaking the law makes a person evil, surely advocating the murder of these law-abiding citizens must surely make you much more evil?
Maybe so, but any officers or board members who did not attempt to maximize profits would likely quickly be replaced. And while you and I may agree that what they do is unethical, they may disagree. The human imagination is infinitely able to twist reality to suit an individual.
But whether or not these officers must pursue profit my main point stands in that the law that allows them to act in this way needs to change.
Simmer down.
The CEO of the RIAA is doing what he/she is legally obligated to do: maximize profits.
The problem is with the law that allows them to do what it is they are doing. That's what needs changing.
Dear thegoldenear,
Please send your recent post to every project on Sourceforge.
Kind regards,
robot_love
Because they should be exempt from the law as well? :) I don't see how that will help.
Don't worry. If their economy does disappear, they'll probably just get a nice fat bail-out from the federal government.
Sorry, Valve. You get in bed with DRM, you lose business. THAT is how DRM really works.
...except Valve is doing quite well and selling a lot of games. Something about your logic isn't right.
Well, I'm not really surprised no one's heard of it.
I choose to read the LingNoi's post as being a funny joke because the grandparent was about reading comprehension.
In case it was, I'm going to have to say...
WHOOOOOSH!
The classic communist-Russia joke:
"We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us."
I guess he needed a few more unit tests for his post. Or QA. Whichever.
That was damn-near poetry, meringuoid. If I had points I'd mod you up. But as it is, I'm just slightly drunk and posting to Slashdot.
You're on a roll today, Free the Cowards! :)
I've been looking for a t-shirt that says, "Thank God for science!"
I thought it would be funny.
If memory serves me correct, Behe's books were completely and utterly shredded in the recent Kansas court case.
I doubt you will, but you can start your reading here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
The "valid reason" is almost certainly that Microsoft paid them a lot of money.