It's one thing to have the ability to find a exploit and take advantage of it. It's an entirely different thing to personally go through all of the code running on your machine and remove all exploits.
I actually *would* love them. If they didn't suck.
I'm willing to acknowledge the fact that virtually everything I get 'for free' from the internet is, ultimately, either created by people for free, or by people getting paid through advertising revenue.
I don't go out of my way to block ads because ads support the websites I love. Even running a personal site has costs associated with it. If someone can recoup some of that with a banner-ad; more power to them.
And if the banner-ad could be stuff I actually want.....wow, even better. Now I'm shopping for things I need, while supporting the websites I like, win-win.
But, in practice, those ads always suck. Here is how it goes.
1.) Decide I need a new X 2.) Find a new X on the internet 3.) Order X 4.) Spend the next month or so seeing ads about X, something I'm not interested in, because I just purchased one.
It's annoying. Far more annoying than random ads. I just purchased a new bed, I don't need a new bed anymore. Not for *years*. If the ads were smart enough to wait 5-6 years and remind me of the age of my bed, that would be awesome. But showing me ads, particularly, ones for THE SAME product I purchased, it's just stupid.
I don't want to be a party-pooper; but I don't think that is going to be enough.
I'm reasonably tech savvy, running Windows 7, fully updated, fully patched, running as a non-admin user, running FireFox. About two weeks ago, I found a website that was able to infect my computer with malware. All it took was my opening the website. The website was in the top 10 results returned by Google.
After cleaning it, I went back to the website to verify that it really did infect my PC and that it really required zero interaction on my part. And just like the first time, I was infected again.
And yes, I had anti-virus software running at the time.
So, as much as I hate to admit it, most Windows Users are one click from a Google Search Result page from being infected.
It doesn't matter if it does or doesn't affect them. It only matters if they *think* it affects them.
It took a lot of marketing and fear-mongering to convince people they needed to make drugs illegal to pro-actively prevent addicts from raping and killing their daughters.
Which is why, to this day, it's so much easier to get a GUI up and running in other OS's other than Windows.
While most other OS's will 'just work' getting Windows to display the GUI can be an involved and frustrating task requiring the modification of.conf files or running command line based configuration tools.
My argument is that IP laws are important because much of the good things we value in life and society would not exist without them.
That's not to say that ALL forms of creativeness would disappear.
Your claim that OSS, while profitable, isn't designed with profit in mind is questionable at best. Especially when you look at the biggest contributors to OSS. Last I checked, Google was the biggest; and if you think they aren't out to make money, I think you are crazy.
Let's also not forget about the quality of the finished project. You can go to YouTube right now and see works that people have done of their own free will. Comparing any of that to what Hollywood does is....well....as bad as some Hollywood movies are; it's a whole world apart.
Our ideas aren't mutually exclusive though...
We can still have laws that protect IP of those people who want their IP protected; and we can still have people who create because they love to and release it for free.
You friends, who write books and make movies; they can give them away. They own those things and if they want to let the world have them - it's up to them.
So, at not point, does any of this justify the copying of someone else's IP without their permission. It's uncertain as to whether or not people would continue to create new IP at the same rate, with the same quality; but we know that nothing about IP laws stops people from creating IP and giving it away freely.
1.) Your point has been stated many times, already.
2.) The argument was in the context of a fictional device that would allow the OP to duplicate *CARS* as easily as someone could download software.
Yes - expanding the scenario to allow fictional, magical devices that can produce as much of anything you want; it would be a completely different ball game.
I haven't seen anyone, ever, argue otherwise.
But yeah - you really showed us! Look at you, thinking all outside the box and stuff.
I'm certainly not going to argue that our laws are perfect, or that they haven't been influenced by lobbyists for the particular industries.
But I still find the argument against the need for IP laws to be lacking. The main reason for this is because, as the owner of IP, you have the right to forfeit it.
The fact that virtually everything of value I see when I look around is protected by IP laws of some sort or another, makes me think that it's a good thing.
The people arguing against the need for IP are FREE to create all the IP they want and give it away, completely. But they don't.
It's easy for me to conclude IP laws are beneficial.
The easy way to prove me wrong is to show me movies that were created without IP laws to protect it. Movies that are available freely, that anyone can do whatever they want with. If those movies are as good as the movies I'm used to watching, I'll admit that I was mistaken.
Certainly, with so many people dismissing the need for them, stating that people will make awesome movies anyway, some of these like minded individuals would have gotten together and produced a movie. And the quality would be comparable or better, to what studios produce now.
Nobody has monopoly rights on ideas. Particularly with trivial things like entertainment.
Anyone can make a movie, so long as it isn't a blatant rip-off of a movie already made.
So, fight the man! Go hire a crew, write a script, star in, your own movie. Spend however much you think it takes to create a great movie. Make the next big blockbuster.
And give it away.
Distribute it however you want. If you decide to give it away, like you are advocating, and the movie really is as good as what Holywood produces - reply to this post when it's out. And I'll watch it. And I'll admit, fully, that I was wrong.
Or even, post a link to a free movie that I can watch tonight, legally. That was developed by people who 'love' to make movies, and wanted to distribute it freely....that is of the same quality as a full length, feature film, produced by Hollywood.
I've been less than impressed with the overall abilities of the 'GP' doctors I've been to. If you need a common prescription or a sports physical - sure. Beyond that, in my experience, you might as well just ask a nurse. You'll get the same answer.
I had a sore wrist. Went to a GP and he told me not to do pushups and that when I get out of a chair I should hold my wrist like this, and not like that. I looked at him like he was crazy.
I went online, did some research, and concluded that I *most likely* had something called a ganglion cyst. I went to a hand and wrist specialist and said, 'Hey Doc, I think I've got a ganglion cyst in my left wrist.' He took a look and said, 'Yeah, I think you are right'
In a free market, the market decides the value of goods.
Anyone can make a movie and give it away. I've never seen a full-length feature film of that nature. I've certainly never heard of a successful one.
If you think actors are overpaid and don't deserve to make whatever they make; you are certainly free to enter the market. Sell your services as an actor for whatever price the market will support.
The fact that everyone *claims* we don't need IP laws to protect the movie industry; but nobody is producing any movies without IP laws to protect them makes me think their argument is suspect.
Maybe someone could tell me about a country that has no IP laws, but that produces movies that are on par, or better than, what Hollywood produces?
Math isn't invented; it's discovered or understood. But it's always Math. Like much of physics - it's the study of how things *are*.
That's completely and fundamentally different from creating something that doesn't *need* to exist. Regardless of whether or not humans understand it - PI, that concept, EXISTS. But a movie....not so much. A computer game? Nope. A car engine? Certainly not.
Yes - given that everyone really does have a replicator and the replicator can generate anything, the world would significantly change.
In a fictional hypothetical in the context of the argument to justify why it's okay to magically duplicate cars with a replicator that can only duplicate cars - I think it would be a problem for the reasons I've given.
I *don't* have to convince you; I just have to be able to enforce it.
And I don't mean, me personally. The government has plenty of agents with guns and badges and, even tanks, that can do it on my behalf.
The law is pretty clear. I'm sure everyone has heard about the Hurt Locker pirates being sued. All it will take to reduce piracy to virtually nothing; is a 50% change of getting sued for 10k every time you download a movie.
Yes, some countries are outside of the enforceable jurisdiction. Yes, some people would be smart enough to avoid getting caught (true of all crimes).
But like I said, the law is clear and has recently been changed to be more severe against pirates. Piracy is a criminal act now, it wasn't in the past (unless you were selling what you stole).
I think you should run with it. Create a studio, make movies, and distribute the content in a way you see fit.
Of course, some people might say that what YOU think is reasonable, isn't.
"20 years? That's insane. How can anyone own an idea anyway. F*** it, I'll just pirate it."
But I mean, that's totally your call. You'd be free to distribute however you see fit, within the confines of the law. Just like the movie studios now.
You typed a lot of words - but I'll just point out the important ones....
'We're paying for the research'
See? We agree. Without $$$ things don't get done.
Here's the best part of the whole argument. There is nothing that says ideas HAVE to be protected under the law. *YOU* can come up with an amazing idea, an amazing concept, a movie, a song, whatever you want. And *YOU* can say, 'Hey - we don't need IP laws....they are silly! I don't own this software I spent the last year building! Everyone can have it!'.
You could do that.
But then you'd be giving up something of value. And that's not fun.
It's always people arguing that other people, who have already done something, be forced to give up that something. For free. Because they want it!
There is NOTHING AT ALL stopping people from saying, 'Screw all these headaches with DVDs. I'm going to make my own movie, pay my own actors, write my own script and make it awesome, and give it away!'.
But nobody does. Some people try - and they produce crap. And as much as rag on Hollywood for making crappy movies, their level of crap is so far above the level of crap seen in elsewhere...it's not even funny.
Given that 1.) You can give away your IP 2.) All of the coolest stuff I see is created by people who do not give away their IP and try to profit from it
I'm left to conclude that IP is good.
You could prove me wrong. You could make a movie - a blockbuster movie - a huge hit - and let the world download it. And if enough people did that, and I started to notice that the best movies were free and the old movie studios weren't as good - I'd change my mind.
I'd be like, 'Wow - look at all this great stuff that was created without any IP laws! Those IP laws were so silly'.
But - I haven't seen that. Until I do, this is just a hypothetical argument where a bunch of d-bags try to justify why they should get the benefit of other people's work for free, because they want it.
If we take the fictional replicator concept to the extreme; yes.
We could all forgot about jobs and income and live in a Utopia where everyone is free to pursue whatever they want.
But in the more practical sense of 'if I could duplicate cars like I duplicate software' where the world isn't very different from ours - we do need income and we don't have an endless supply of unicorn farts to feed us, it doesn't work out so good.
But yes, laws to protect ideas are good. Disregarding those laws are bad.
And, everyone arguing otherwise is free to release THEIR ideas for free. But they don't.
I guess you should have taken a few extra seconds...and maybe read the first few lines.
"The project is still far from producing a real car, but the progress has been continuous for some years."
I'm talking about innovation above and beyond what our current system produces. You are talking about some guys with a pipe dream that haven't produced the designs for a single car - much less - one that is better than what we've already got.
You say this has been done 'countless' times with software. I'm not sure that I agree. Besides which, I'm not sure that I've ever seen an open source project that wasn't protected under the same laws as closed source software.
See the 'GNU General Public License'
Additionally, a very large number of the people actually doing the development for open source software acknowledge the need for IP laws to protect their work.
"In its Amicus Brief to the US Supreme Court on the Bilski case, IBM is arguing that "patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code [...] which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development.""
So, open source is not at all synonymous with the copy anything you want, at will.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, I'm not sure I agree.
It's one thing to have the ability to find a exploit and take advantage of it. It's an entirely different thing to personally go through all of the code running on your machine and remove all exploits.
I actually *would* love them. If they didn't suck.
I'm willing to acknowledge the fact that virtually everything I get 'for free' from the internet is, ultimately, either created by people for free, or by people getting paid through advertising revenue.
I don't go out of my way to block ads because ads support the websites I love. Even running a personal site has costs associated with it. If someone can recoup some of that with a banner-ad; more power to them.
And if the banner-ad could be stuff I actually want.....wow, even better. Now I'm shopping for things I need, while supporting the websites I like, win-win.
But, in practice, those ads always suck. Here is how it goes.
1.) Decide I need a new X
2.) Find a new X on the internet
3.) Order X
4.) Spend the next month or so seeing ads about X, something I'm not interested in, because I just purchased one.
It's annoying. Far more annoying than random ads. I just purchased a new bed, I don't need a new bed anymore. Not for *years*. If the ads were smart enough to wait 5-6 years and remind me of the age of my bed, that would be awesome. But showing me ads, particularly, ones for THE SAME product I purchased, it's just stupid.
What alternatives exist that are secure?
For PDFs - I know of a few other applications that can open them. For Flash? Is there anything?
I don't want to be a party-pooper; but I don't think that is going to be enough.
I'm reasonably tech savvy, running Windows 7, fully updated, fully patched, running as a non-admin user, running FireFox. About two weeks ago, I found a website that was able to infect my computer with malware. All it took was my opening the website. The website was in the top 10 results returned by Google.
After cleaning it, I went back to the website to verify that it really did infect my PC and that it really required zero interaction on my part. And just like the first time, I was infected again.
And yes, I had anti-virus software running at the time.
So, as much as I hate to admit it, most Windows Users are one click from a Google Search Result page from being infected.
Like the endless number of websites taken down by fark or /.
It doesn't matter if it does or doesn't affect them. It only matters if they *think* it affects them.
It took a lot of marketing and fear-mongering to convince people they needed to make drugs illegal to pro-actively prevent addicts from raping and killing their daughters.
Computing 101 or whatever isn't going to be enough to make a difference.
Which is why, to this day, it's so much easier to get a GUI up and running in other OS's other than Windows.
While most other OS's will 'just work' getting Windows to display the GUI can be an involved and frustrating task requiring the modification of .conf files or running command line based configuration tools.
It's including a javascript file called pacman.
http://www.google.com/logos/js/pacman10-hp.2.js
Inside the javascript file you can search for .swf and find
param name="movie" value="logos/swf/pacman10-hp-sound.swf"
My argument is that IP laws are important because much of the good things we value in life and society would not exist without them.
That's not to say that ALL forms of creativeness would disappear.
Your claim that OSS, while profitable, isn't designed with profit in mind is questionable at best. Especially when you look at the biggest contributors to OSS. Last I checked, Google was the biggest; and if you think they aren't out to make money, I think you are crazy.
Let's also not forget about the quality of the finished project. You can go to YouTube right now and see works that people have done of their own free will. Comparing any of that to what Hollywood does is....well....as bad as some Hollywood movies are; it's a whole world apart.
Our ideas aren't mutually exclusive though...
We can still have laws that protect IP of those people who want their IP protected; and we can still have people who create because they love to and release it for free.
You friends, who write books and make movies; they can give them away. They own those things and if they want to let the world have them - it's up to them.
So, at not point, does any of this justify the copying of someone else's IP without their permission. It's uncertain as to whether or not people would continue to create new IP at the same rate, with the same quality; but we know that nothing about IP laws stops people from creating IP and giving it away freely.
If you think those things don't create revenue, you are mistaken.
The majority of open source software is done by full-time developers at companies like Google, IBM and Oracle.
And the work is still protected by IP laws.
1.) Your point has been stated many times, already.
2.) The argument was in the context of a fictional device that would allow the OP to duplicate *CARS* as easily as someone could download software.
Yes - expanding the scenario to allow fictional, magical devices that can produce as much of anything you want; it would be a completely different ball game.
I haven't seen anyone, ever, argue otherwise.
But yeah - you really showed us! Look at you, thinking all outside the box and stuff.
Ironically, all of your examples are protected by IP laws.
In fact, some of the largest contributors to Open Source software have said, explicitly, that IP laws are needed.
Here's a nice complicated page detailing the licensing agreement for FireFox.
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/
Do you have any examples that actually support your claims?
I'm certainly not going to argue that our laws are perfect, or that they haven't been influenced by lobbyists for the particular industries.
But I still find the argument against the need for IP laws to be lacking. The main reason for this is because, as the owner of IP, you have the right to forfeit it.
The fact that virtually everything of value I see when I look around is protected by IP laws of some sort or another, makes me think that it's a good thing.
The people arguing against the need for IP are FREE to create all the IP they want and give it away, completely. But they don't.
It's easy for me to conclude IP laws are beneficial.
The easy way to prove me wrong is to show me movies that were created without IP laws to protect it. Movies that are available freely, that anyone can do whatever they want with. If those movies are as good as the movies I'm used to watching, I'll admit that I was mistaken.
Certainly, with so many people dismissing the need for them, stating that people will make awesome movies anyway, some of these like minded individuals would have gotten together and produced a movie. And the quality would be comparable or better, to what studios produce now.
Nobody has monopoly rights on ideas. Particularly with trivial things like entertainment.
Anyone can make a movie, so long as it isn't a blatant rip-off of a movie already made.
So, fight the man! Go hire a crew, write a script, star in, your own movie. Spend however much you think it takes to create a great movie. Make the next big blockbuster.
And give it away.
Distribute it however you want. If you decide to give it away, like you are advocating, and the movie really is as good as what Holywood produces - reply to this post when it's out. And I'll watch it. And I'll admit, fully, that I was wrong.
Or even, post a link to a free movie that I can watch tonight, legally. That was developed by people who 'love' to make movies, and wanted to distribute it freely....that is of the same quality as a full length, feature film, produced by Hollywood.
Just *one*.
I'll wait here.
I've been less than impressed with the overall abilities of the 'GP' doctors I've been to. If you need a common prescription or a sports physical - sure. Beyond that, in my experience, you might as well just ask a nurse. You'll get the same answer.
I had a sore wrist. Went to a GP and he told me not to do pushups and that when I get out of a chair I should hold my wrist like this, and not like that. I looked at him like he was crazy.
I went online, did some research, and concluded that I *most likely* had something called a ganglion cyst. I went to a hand and wrist specialist and said, 'Hey Doc, I think I've got a ganglion cyst in my left wrist.' He took a look and said, 'Yeah, I think you are right'
In a free market, the market decides the value of goods.
Anyone can make a movie and give it away. I've never seen a full-length feature film of that nature. I've certainly never heard of a successful one.
If you think actors are overpaid and don't deserve to make whatever they make; you are certainly free to enter the market. Sell your services as an actor for whatever price the market will support.
The fact that everyone *claims* we don't need IP laws to protect the movie industry; but nobody is producing any movies without IP laws to protect them makes me think their argument is suspect.
Maybe someone could tell me about a country that has no IP laws, but that produces movies that are on par, or better than, what Hollywood produces?
Math isn't invented; it's discovered or understood. But it's always Math. Like much of physics - it's the study of how things *are*.
That's completely and fundamentally different from creating something that doesn't *need* to exist. Regardless of whether or not humans understand it - PI, that concept, EXISTS. But a movie....not so much. A computer game? Nope. A car engine? Certainly not.
Fair enough.
Yes - given that everyone really does have a replicator and the replicator can generate anything, the world would significantly change.
In a fictional hypothetical in the context of the argument to justify why it's okay to magically duplicate cars with a replicator that can only duplicate cars - I think it would be a problem for the reasons I've given.
You are right and wrong, IMHO
I *don't* have to convince you; I just have to be able to enforce it.
And I don't mean, me personally. The government has plenty of agents with guns and badges and, even tanks, that can do it on my behalf.
The law is pretty clear. I'm sure everyone has heard about the Hurt Locker pirates being sued. All it will take to reduce piracy to virtually nothing; is a 50% change of getting sued for 10k every time you download a movie.
Yes, some countries are outside of the enforceable jurisdiction. Yes, some people would be smart enough to avoid getting caught (true of all crimes).
But like I said, the law is clear and has recently been changed to be more severe against pirates. Piracy is a criminal act now, it wasn't in the past (unless you were selling what you stole).
That sounds really cool.
I think you should run with it. Create a studio, make movies, and distribute the content in a way you see fit.
Of course, some people might say that what YOU think is reasonable, isn't.
"20 years? That's insane. How can anyone own an idea anyway. F*** it, I'll just pirate it."
But I mean, that's totally your call. You'd be free to distribute however you see fit, within the confines of the law. Just like the movie studios now.
Just sayin....
You typed a lot of words - but I'll just point out the important ones....
'We're paying for the research'
See? We agree. Without $$$ things don't get done.
Here's the best part of the whole argument. There is nothing that says ideas HAVE to be protected under the law. *YOU* can come up with an amazing idea, an amazing concept, a movie, a song, whatever you want. And *YOU* can say, 'Hey - we don't need IP laws....they are silly! I don't own this software I spent the last year building! Everyone can have it!'.
You could do that.
But then you'd be giving up something of value. And that's not fun.
It's always people arguing that other people, who have already done something, be forced to give up that something. For free. Because they want it!
There is NOTHING AT ALL stopping people from saying, 'Screw all these headaches with DVDs. I'm going to make my own movie, pay my own actors, write my own script and make it awesome, and give it away!'.
But nobody does. Some people try - and they produce crap. And as much as rag on Hollywood for making crappy movies, their level of crap is so far above the level of crap seen in elsewhere...it's not even funny.
Given that
1.) You can give away your IP
2.) All of the coolest stuff I see is created by people who do not give away their IP and try to profit from it
I'm left to conclude that IP is good.
You could prove me wrong. You could make a movie - a blockbuster movie - a huge hit - and let the world download it. And if enough people did that, and I started to notice that the best movies were free and the old movie studios weren't as good - I'd change my mind.
I'd be like, 'Wow - look at all this great stuff that was created without any IP laws! Those IP laws were so silly'.
But - I haven't seen that. Until I do, this is just a hypothetical argument where a bunch of d-bags try to justify why they should get the benefit of other people's work for free, because they want it.
If we take the fictional replicator concept to the extreme; yes.
We could all forgot about jobs and income and live in a Utopia where everyone is free to pursue whatever they want.
But in the more practical sense of 'if I could duplicate cars like I duplicate software' where the world isn't very different from ours - we do need income and we don't have an endless supply of unicorn farts to feed us, it doesn't work out so good.
But yes, laws to protect ideas are good. Disregarding those laws are bad.
And, everyone arguing otherwise is free to release THEIR ideas for free. But they don't.
Every car ever made in the history of man vs. zero
I'm just sayin....
I guess you should have taken a few extra seconds...and maybe read the first few lines.
"The project is still far from producing a real car, but the progress has been continuous for some years."
I'm talking about innovation above and beyond what our current system produces. You are talking about some guys with a pipe dream that haven't produced the designs for a single car - much less - one that is better than what we've already got.
You say this has been done 'countless' times with software. I'm not sure that I agree. Besides which, I'm not sure that I've ever seen an open source project that wasn't protected under the same laws as closed source software.
See the 'GNU General Public License'
Additionally, a very large number of the people actually doing the development for open source software acknowledge the need for IP laws to protect their work.
"In its Amicus Brief to the US Supreme Court on the Bilski case, IBM is arguing that "patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code [...] which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development.""
So, open source is not at all synonymous with the copy anything you want, at will.