No, the basic arguments aren't just that but they are so general its hard not to avoid them. Think about a patent of a method of making a vacuum cleaner, its a new idea it should be patented, thats fine, but how about a "machine that uses suction to clean" as a patent with little evidence that you even have one made, the second one represents most software patents of say "a method to download songs onto a hard disk to be played back at a later date" where there are very few "true" software patents that aren't held by patent trolls or monopolies.
In short, I can get a patent for making a vacuum cleaner (minus prior art and such) but most software patents try to patent "a cleaning device using suction" and many of them decide to then go for "a *insert adjective* device using suction" and "a cleaning device using *insert word here*". And that is what makes software patents different.
It sounds like a Putin-style media. Free-press is getting harder to find in the world.
No its much easier. With the Internet its very very easy to find free press./. is a good example, Wikileaks is another. CNN and Fox news aren't exactly much "free-press" and if this is "top news sites" that is probobly exactly what the Japanese government seeks to regulate the CNNs and Fox news of Japan not the/. and Wikileaks although they are probably next. So no, free press isn't hard to find, it is much easier then 50 years ago, you no longer need a printing press and paper just a 'net connection and a computer to report.
Actually, the source for just about everything minus some programs and GUI is open source so yes it is free.... but I think the poster was reffering too how you can try OS X in Apple stores.
1. If it is in the public domain, you can't "buy rights to it".
If it is in the public domain you can't buy rights to it yes, however if you are a large unethical company as many are, you sure can make it look like that public domain item was yours and sell it. If it truly is public domain then the author has no rights to it, he/she can't say "Thats my work" and if a large company gets your (of course) public domain work you have no defense to get the company to stop selling it.
2. You don't need to "buy rights to it" to sell it.
That is true, however it makes it a lot more convincing for the RIAA to say that you have downloaded a copyrighted song then a partly public domain song, and therefore to have full IP rights to it I am assuming most companies will buy/fake the rights to it.
Wait, wait, wait...
That would be different from the current situation?...
It really wouldn't. That was my point of posting it. However it is in someways worse in the fact that in the current situation of some company decides to use your *insert copyrighted/IP here* in a commercial or in their product you have the legal defense to tell them that that was your product. You may not have the resources to go to court over it but you would still have a defense for free. In the proposed system you have to pay for your defense and then the court costs and so it costs even more.
The answer is easy: nothing. You're never required to pay the property tax. It's just that you lose your copyright if you don't pay. Since I don't really care about the value of my slashdot comments, I wouldn't pay and they'd lapse into the public domain.
But what about the time limit you would have to register these? Surely it would be longer then immediate? But if that was too short whats to stop some large firm from buying whatever you have made and reselling it? As for the time, anything digital can be changed, what if say some classified documents were released by the government however because the government didn't pay the fee they would become public domain and legally anyone here or abroad could have them (yes I know with leaked documents this always happens even when its not legal but its the best example I can think of right now) legally. I'm not in opposition to a reformed copyright but really a tax is going to solve nothing other then give the RIAA what it needs: a monopoly.
No, but it should slip into the public domain unless you do.
So in other words only the rich now can make money on anything that would be considered IP such as books, poems, songs, software, etc. Because the larger companies can now buy the rights to your public domain IP and sell it? Yes that will probably be illegal but if its public domain its not like you have the rights to complain.
On the face of it, I love that idea. The bigger question would be how do you determine the value of the IP to assess it for taxation.
No the real question would be how much would you have to pay for that comment you just wrote. Because you have that piece of IP assigned to you you now have to pay say a $.01 tax to keep that registered to you. Im sure that it won't be that extreme if it does get implemented but governments are generally bad at keeping the interests of the people.
Its easy why it isn't, almost everyone owns some piece of IP. For example, this comment, it could be considered IP, now should I have to pay essentially a fee on that? No. Or what about a program I wrote, should I have to pay a tax to license it under say the GPL? What really needs to happen, is lower copyright terms and the abolishment of the "forever copyright" and also, what in the world does the government do with all their copyright fees?
that by far outnumber keyboard-mouse-and-monitor computers, and for large parts of the world will be the only "computers" they'll ever use.
I haven't traveled outside of the US for a while, but here in the US, I have never seen anyone type a major report via a mobile device (iPhone, Blackberry) or an internet tablet (N800, etc.) About the most I have seen anyone do with them is make very minor edits to reports and check their e-mail. However, most people who work on the road use a laptop to do most things rather then thier mobile device or internet tablet.
Besides gaming most tasks done on desktop computers could (and will) easily be done (albeit with better user interfaces - which is what the article discusses) on what is known as "Mobile Internet Devices" (webpads, mobiles,... ).
Ok, show me how someone types as fast on a "Mobile Internet Device" then a laptop or desktop computer... I for one have never seen anyone be able to type as fast and those that can usually have a keyboard on them. Also, for many people with larger fingers, typing on even a laptop-sized keyboard is painful for them, not to mention how hard it will be on smaller touch screens.
The desktop computer as a separate box is a dead end, and the reason you're seeing many companies moving into "mobile" is because they know this.
How is it a dead end? With a desktop computer I get a lifetime of around 4-5 years without upgrading RAM, hard drives and other components. Not to mention how easy it is to change operating systems (just pop in a CD and reboot) and to upgrade applications (sudo apt-get upgrade if your on Debian/Ubuntu) and maintenance tasks. With "Mobile Internet Devices" you get a lifetime of around 2-4 years if you are lucky, you can't usually upgrade RAM or flash memory. Its a pain to change operating systems and you even need to in order to use newer programs unlike the desktop/laptop. And setting up the device is a headache In most you have to synchronize all your data via a host PC, download programs usually from the host PC (and most are shareware/trialware or other proprietary products) and sometimes sign them. Mobile devices right now are a joke. You can't get most of your work done on them, the price to performance ratio is just sad, they need a host PC and if you have a smaller laptop why not just use that instead of getting a mobile device that will become obsolete in 2-4 years?
Why do you believe all devices have and/or will have keyboards now and/or in the future?
Because with the exception of phones and other "toy" devices most people need keyboards to get work done. I have never used a touch screen that I can type as fast and as accurate as I can on a keyboard. Also, most people know how to type on keyboards and the keyboard has been used ever since the typewriter. I don't see the keyboard going away anytime soon for any serious device.
Exactly, or at least opening the source to Windows 9X. About the only reason that I see MS being afraid of releasing its source is because its bad code. And I don't doubt it with the numerous bugs and security flaws. And I think that if MS releases XP or any other Window's source it will create doubts about MS's ability to code (which is already doubted) and to make good and fast code. This would make lots of since why Vista needs a really fast computer to make it run even really slow.
Think of it this way. Its very hard to run an online business on dial up. The more broadband we have here in the US the faster tech jobs will grow because people can actually use the internet. For example, downloading Linux ISOs, on a decent connection it might take an hour at the most, with dial up that could take days. Also dial-up users are less likely to download programs because a good sized program may take 10 minutes on dial up but take a few seconds on broadband. This is by far good news for Linux people and to people wanting more tech jobs.
The article includes arguments from those who believe file sharing is theft and those who strongly disagree. As it points out, the common analogies to theft are often incomplete or inaccurate
So in other words its just an article that is what Slashdot is like every time an *AA story gets posted? Some calling it theft and others saying its not?
Remind me again how pirating music (or anything for that matter) is a "victimless" crime?
Because what the RIAA calls "pirating" is what most people did in the record days and tape days. I didn't see the recording industry suddenly get bankrupt. What about VCRs that recorded TV did that suddenly make TV stations go bankrupt? Or the TiVo how it skips ads, because I know that it made TV shows stop airing because people "pirated" them and skipped the commercials. The fact is, "pirating" is doing the same job today as radio did 10-20 years ago, promotes the artist. People won't buy something without hearing or seeing it for free, same reason a bookstore will let you read an entire book if you really want to without paying for it. In the end though, even though it hurts the *AA's cashflow for a bit, it will increase it in the long run by gaining new music fans.
Exactly, Opera isn't Open Source so it isn't like Mozilla can just go in and patch the code. I honestly don't think how Opera can manage to stay in the browsers war without an open source browser or rendering engine. Although, their deals with Nintendo probably made them some cash.
Most major Windows games work fine with Wine. There are also a few native Linux games. You can even play Quake on Linux, WoW via Wine and many others either by a similar Linux game or via an emulation layer.
Thats mostly because it is Fedora, and therefore fully free. Have you tried Ubuntu? Things nearly always seem to work better from and end-user's standpoint. Fedora is one of the few big distros that is fully free and therefore requires more work to get simple things done such as install graphics drivers. Fedora is miles behind Ubuntu in terms in usability in my opinion.
Or, it's not spreading because it's just not a very good general-purpose desktop system.
How isn't it? It has as much as any basic user needs/wants. A decent word processor, spreadsheet, graphics program, a few generic games, several good media programs, excellent browsers, good hardware detection (and if it was OEM it would be better, compare a blank Windows install to a blank Ubuntu install and see the amount of hardware detected) and good support not to mention excellent security. While Linux lacks in a few specialty fields, I can't think of one program that is missing for an average user who doesn't try to think that Linux==Free Windows.
I expect that not much will happen till the day that the guys who pay Dell big bucks to have their trial software on Windows boxes start showing an interest in Linux. When/if that happens then Dell will start really pushing Linux boxes (since the profit on them will start being more than Windows boxes), and that will give Joe Sixpack a chance.
I really don't think that it will be Dell, HP or any other major OEM that will get Linux on the desktop I think it will be with the low-cost desktops/laptops like the gPC and the EEE PC. When Joe Sixpack will think, hey if I buy this computer at Wal-Mart its only $200 compared to at *insert large PC store* its $700 plus it comes with more software. And that attitude is what will push Linux to the desktop. My only fear is that it will be so specialized distros that it isn't "Linux" anymore but "Ubuntu" or "openSUSE" that people use and won't know what "Linux" is, just what Ubuntu is.
Might it be that Linux is considered more technically challenging by the common person?
No, it is that Linux isn't advertised much, just about everyone has something that runs Linux, however they usually don't know it. And it isn't more technically challenging if you haven't used a computer however because MS has drilled into peoples head computer==PC==Windows, they think that the Windows way of doing anything is better and because its not on shiny new hardware like a Mac they think it should behave just like Windows.
Might it be that the only people who promote Linux avidly are computer nerds?
That could be part of the reason, but that goes back to my first point that very few products that use Linux say that they do so people have no clue what Linux is.
Might it be that since Linux is less popular than Windows, Linux has a compatibility issue?
Compatibility with what? MS's OEM contracts that prevent Linux from being sold? Most hardware works out of the box with Linux then Windows ever does, take a blank Windows install with a blank Ubuntu install and see that Ubuntu detects more hardware then Windows does, its just that most people have Windows pre-installed which will change with the rise of low-cost desktops running Linux.
I am sure Linux is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but sliced bread sucks. Linux is the best, if you know what you are doing. Windows is the best, if your computer expert is a 12-year-old kid.
I don't see what you are meaning, most people have to pay third parties to (re) install Windows for them because it is so difficult. They also pay them to remove viruses/malware which is common in the Windows world. If we would compare the users doing the same tasks they pay other people to do with Windows with Linux, Linux is much easier, its just that the can't do it with Windows but yet if they can't do it in Linux suddenly Windows is more user-friendly.
Not that I advocate any of these companies but someone like Google or Adobe or Sony or Mozilla, etc etc. If someone along those lines was willing to jump on board and actually help make deals to have it installed at purchase time,
Honestly, all those companies have done something to help Linux. Google has devoted resources to help Linux agenst another SCO-style case, and has Google Code which helps the Free Software community which is mostly Linux. Adobe has Flash for Linux, and without that it would be a major point of how Windows is better then Linux. Sony has allowed Linux to be used on the PS3. And Mozilla has Firefox which because of the dent in IE's marketshare makes "I won't know how the surf the net on Linux" a null and void argument. Although none of these companies seems like they are helping Linux, they are. What we need is an OEM who isn't afraid to put mention of Linux in ads, unlike Dell who seems to confine Linux to a small corner of their website inaccessable from the main page with the heading "Are You Sure Open Source Is For You?" on it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the basic arguments aren't just that but they are so general its hard not to avoid them. Think about a patent of a method of making a vacuum cleaner, its a new idea it should be patented, thats fine, but how about a "machine that uses suction to clean" as a patent with little evidence that you even have one made, the second one represents most software patents of say "a method to download songs onto a hard disk to be played back at a later date" where there are very few "true" software patents that aren't held by patent trolls or monopolies.
In short, I can get a patent for making a vacuum cleaner (minus prior art and such) but most software patents try to patent "a cleaning device using suction" and many of them decide to then go for "a *insert adjective* device using suction" and "a cleaning device using *insert word here*". And that is what makes software patents different.
No its much easier. With the Internet its very very easy to find free press.
Actually, the source for just about everything minus some programs and GUI is open source so yes it is free.... but I think the poster was reffering too how you can try OS X in Apple stores.
sudo requires only the user password su requires the root password. You are not a true Linux geek.... or at least you haven't used Ubuntu
If it is in the public domain you can't buy rights to it yes, however if you are a large unethical company as many are, you sure can make it look like that public domain item was yours and sell it. If it truly is public domain then the author has no rights to it, he/she can't say "Thats my work" and if a large company gets your (of course) public domain work you have no defense to get the company to stop selling it.
2. You don't need to "buy rights to it" to sell it.
That is true, however it makes it a lot more convincing for the RIAA to say that you have downloaded a copyrighted song then a partly public domain song, and therefore to have full IP rights to it I am assuming most companies will buy/fake the rights to it.
It really wouldn't. That was my point of posting it. However it is in someways worse in the fact that in the current situation of some company decides to use your *insert copyrighted/IP here* in a commercial or in their product you have the legal defense to tell them that that was your product. You may not have the resources to go to court over it but you would still have a defense for free. In the proposed system you have to pay for your defense and then the court costs and so it costs even more.
But what about the time limit you would have to register these? Surely it would be longer then immediate? But if that was too short whats to stop some large firm from buying whatever you have made and reselling it? As for the time, anything digital can be changed, what if say some classified documents were released by the government however because the government didn't pay the fee they would become public domain and legally anyone here or abroad could have them (yes I know with leaked documents this always happens even when its not legal but its the best example I can think of right now) legally. I'm not in opposition to a reformed copyright but really a tax is going to solve nothing other then give the RIAA what it needs: a monopoly.
So in other words only the rich now can make money on anything that would be considered IP such as books, poems, songs, software, etc. Because the larger companies can now buy the rights to your public domain IP and sell it? Yes that will probably be illegal but if its public domain its not like you have the rights to complain.
No the real question would be how much would you have to pay for that comment you just wrote. Because you have that piece of IP assigned to you you now have to pay say a $.01 tax to keep that registered to you. Im sure that it won't be that extreme if it does get implemented but governments are generally bad at keeping the interests of the people.
Its easy why it isn't, almost everyone owns some piece of IP. For example, this comment, it could be considered IP, now should I have to pay essentially a fee on that? No. Or what about a program I wrote, should I have to pay a tax to license it under say the GPL? What really needs to happen, is lower copyright terms and the abolishment of the "forever copyright" and also, what in the world does the government do with all their copyright fees?
Stallman is from the FSF not EFF. The FSF helps make software free, the EFF battles the RIAA and patent trolls.
The first step of MS's strategy is always embrace....
I haven't traveled outside of the US for a while, but here in the US, I have never seen anyone type a major report via a mobile device (iPhone, Blackberry) or an internet tablet (N800, etc.) About the most I have seen anyone do with them is make very minor edits to reports and check their e-mail. However, most people who work on the road use a laptop to do most things rather then thier mobile device or internet tablet.
Besides gaming most tasks done on desktop computers could (and will) easily be done (albeit with better user interfaces - which is what the article discusses) on what is known as "Mobile Internet Devices" (webpads, mobiles,
Ok, show me how someone types as fast on a "Mobile Internet Device" then a laptop or desktop computer... I for one have never seen anyone be able to type as fast and those that can usually have a keyboard on them. Also, for many people with larger fingers, typing on even a laptop-sized keyboard is painful for them, not to mention how hard it will be on smaller touch screens.
The desktop computer as a separate box is a dead end, and the reason you're seeing many companies moving into "mobile" is because they know this.
How is it a dead end? With a desktop computer I get a lifetime of around 4-5 years without upgrading RAM, hard drives and other components. Not to mention how easy it is to change operating systems (just pop in a CD and reboot) and to upgrade applications (sudo apt-get upgrade if your on Debian/Ubuntu) and maintenance tasks. With "Mobile Internet Devices" you get a lifetime of around 2-4 years if you are lucky, you can't usually upgrade RAM or flash memory. Its a pain to change operating systems and you even need to in order to use newer programs unlike the desktop/laptop. And setting up the device is a headache In most you have to synchronize all your data via a host PC, download programs usually from the host PC (and most are shareware/trialware or other proprietary products) and sometimes sign them. Mobile devices right now are a joke. You can't get most of your work done on them, the price to performance ratio is just sad, they need a host PC and if you have a smaller laptop why not just use that instead of getting a mobile device that will become obsolete in 2-4 years?
Because with the exception of phones and other "toy" devices most people need keyboards to get work done. I have never used a touch screen that I can type as fast and as accurate as I can on a keyboard. Also, most people know how to type on keyboards and the keyboard has been used ever since the typewriter. I don't see the keyboard going away anytime soon for any serious device.
Exactly, or at least opening the source to Windows 9X. About the only reason that I see MS being afraid of releasing its source is because its bad code. And I don't doubt it with the numerous bugs and security flaws. And I think that if MS releases XP or any other Window's source it will create doubts about MS's ability to code (which is already doubted) and to make good and fast code. This would make lots of since why Vista needs a really fast computer to make it run even really slow.
Think of it this way. Its very hard to run an online business on dial up. The more broadband we have here in the US the faster tech jobs will grow because people can actually use the internet. For example, downloading Linux ISOs, on a decent connection it might take an hour at the most, with dial up that could take days. Also dial-up users are less likely to download programs because a good sized program may take 10 minutes on dial up but take a few seconds on broadband. This is by far good news for Linux people and to people wanting more tech jobs.
So in other words its just an article that is what Slashdot is like every time an *AA story gets posted? Some calling it theft and others saying its not?
Because what the RIAA calls "pirating" is what most people did in the record days and tape days. I didn't see the recording industry suddenly get bankrupt. What about VCRs that recorded TV did that suddenly make TV stations go bankrupt? Or the TiVo how it skips ads, because I know that it made TV shows stop airing because people "pirated" them and skipped the commercials. The fact is, "pirating" is doing the same job today as radio did 10-20 years ago, promotes the artist. People won't buy something without hearing or seeing it for free, same reason a bookstore will let you read an entire book if you really want to without paying for it. In the end though, even though it hurts the *AA's cashflow for a bit, it will increase it in the long run by gaining new music fans.
Exactly, Opera isn't Open Source so it isn't like Mozilla can just go in and patch the code. I honestly don't think how Opera can manage to stay in the browsers war without an open source browser or rendering engine. Although, their deals with Nintendo probably made them some cash.
Most major Windows games work fine with Wine. There are also a few native Linux games. You can even play Quake on Linux, WoW via Wine and many others either by a similar Linux game or via an emulation layer.
Thats mostly because it is Fedora, and therefore fully free. Have you tried Ubuntu? Things nearly always seem to work better from and end-user's standpoint. Fedora is one of the few big distros that is fully free and therefore requires more work to get simple things done such as install graphics drivers. Fedora is miles behind Ubuntu in terms in usability in my opinion.
How isn't it? It has as much as any basic user needs/wants. A decent word processor, spreadsheet, graphics program, a few generic games, several good media programs, excellent browsers, good hardware detection (and if it was OEM it would be better, compare a blank Windows install to a blank Ubuntu install and see the amount of hardware detected) and good support not to mention excellent security. While Linux lacks in a few specialty fields, I can't think of one program that is missing for an average user who doesn't try to think that Linux==Free Windows.
I really don't think that it will be Dell, HP or any other major OEM that will get Linux on the desktop I think it will be with the low-cost desktops/laptops like the gPC and the EEE PC. When Joe Sixpack will think, hey if I buy this computer at Wal-Mart its only $200 compared to at *insert large PC store* its $700 plus it comes with more software. And that attitude is what will push Linux to the desktop. My only fear is that it will be so specialized distros that it isn't "Linux" anymore but "Ubuntu" or "openSUSE" that people use and won't know what "Linux" is, just what Ubuntu is.
No, it is that Linux isn't advertised much, just about everyone has something that runs Linux, however they usually don't know it. And it isn't more technically challenging if you haven't used a computer however because MS has drilled into peoples head computer==PC==Windows, they think that the Windows way of doing anything is better and because its not on shiny new hardware like a Mac they think it should behave just like Windows.
Might it be that the only people who promote Linux avidly are computer nerds?
That could be part of the reason, but that goes back to my first point that very few products that use Linux say that they do so people have no clue what Linux is.
Might it be that since Linux is less popular than Windows, Linux has a compatibility issue?
Compatibility with what? MS's OEM contracts that prevent Linux from being sold? Most hardware works out of the box with Linux then Windows ever does, take a blank Windows install with a blank Ubuntu install and see that Ubuntu detects more hardware then Windows does, its just that most people have Windows pre-installed which will change with the rise of low-cost desktops running Linux.
I am sure Linux is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but sliced bread sucks. Linux is the best, if you know what you are doing. Windows is the best, if your computer expert is a 12-year-old kid.
I don't see what you are meaning, most people have to pay third parties to (re) install Windows for them because it is so difficult. They also pay them to remove viruses/malware which is common in the Windows world. If we would compare the users doing the same tasks they pay other people to do with Windows with Linux, Linux is much easier, its just that the can't do it with Windows but yet if they can't do it in Linux suddenly Windows is more user-friendly.
Honestly, all those companies have done something to help Linux. Google has devoted resources to help Linux agenst another SCO-style case, and has Google Code which helps the Free Software community which is mostly Linux. Adobe has Flash for Linux, and without that it would be a major point of how Windows is better then Linux. Sony has allowed Linux to be used on the PS3. And Mozilla has Firefox which because of the dent in IE's marketshare makes "I won't know how the surf the net on Linux" a null and void argument. Although none of these companies seems like they are helping Linux, they are. What we need is an OEM who isn't afraid to put mention of Linux in ads, unlike Dell who seems to confine Linux to a small corner of their website inaccessable from the main page with the heading "Are You Sure Open Source Is For You?" on it.