The one thing that I think needs to be straightened out is who hates who. We are in their country and have been long before 9/11. I think what he is saying is this whatever is going on in the world that is very sad, what we need to focus on is what we can do to help people in this country, the people that are United States citizens that are and want to be a part of something. I am not saying ignore the rest of the world, I just think that not only are we doing to much other places, more of those resources could be helping people here. I think this country isn't bad, and I don't think it is doomed. I just think in the same way people are often better often taking their own advise than giving it, we could do more for this country by making this land as good as possible for us right here.
You can agree or disagree with the war, just don't try to tell me it isn't imperialism.
I hope this isn't a complete butcher, but my understanding of the 9th and 10th amendments were to reiterate that the constitution was a contract that created a federal government whose only powers where those that were explicitly stated in the constitution, and nothing else. If it wasn't a right named as such in the constitution, then that means on whatever that issue was, the federal government had no such power. Further, if it was an issue not addressed by the states, the federal government still did not have the power to come in and have their way.
Of course the South should have pursued other options instead of open hostilities, as a democratic people should have, but a people whose economy rests on the back of slaves can't be democratic.Not sure what you mean with by 'open hostilities', or at least not which in particular, but in this context I think the important issue was that the north invaded the South, not the other way around. I also don't see how this was a democratic thing at all. The north spent drastically more on the war than the south. The south not only had home field advantage, but while many people volunteered in the revolutionary war, the armies of the north were all conscripted. There were terrible morale issues, and Lincoln didn't care how much was lost for the north to win.
And to look at it a completely different way, I think it is difficult to put slavery into perspective these days. We think about slavery as these plantations with many hundreds of slaves that were abused. That was not the only kind of slavery. I will apologize in advance for not having any references, but to my knowledge, abuse of slaves only took place on plantations with 500 or more slaves. This isn't to say that slavery is right, but look at the times: It was work that guaranteed food and housing. Yes, slaves were less than citizens, but at a tool, property, equipment or farm animal, it would be in the best interest of any slave owner to ensure the best health and well being of slaves. People are expensive to take care of, and good slaves are were expensive. Animals that are intended for food are abused a lot more, but what good is a dog or a horse that you abuse all day? And how bad is a farmer burned if a horse or dog dies?
Let us compare that world, to what was going on in the north, and in the west. In the north, you had factories. There were no safety standards, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, overtime pay, 2 day weekends, medical leave, non-discrimination, or anything else. You lost a finger or hand, you were fired and easily replaced. If you died, there was no liability to the employer. A place to eat, sleep, or bathe came out of your pay if you could afford it, and employers could do whatever they want to get the work done. And there were a plenty of people desperate to work. When it is impossible to make a livable wage, there is no freedom. Meanwhile companies were making big money, but market entrance was prohibitively expensive.
In the mid-west to west, we got the rail roads. More out doors than factory work, but not only was there no room or board, but 6 month accounting cycle, and 6 month pay cycles. You had to work your first year before seeing a pay check. Not only were accidents frequent, but there are many stories of railroads across the country being built without ever having to pay a single person (mostly Chinese) because of planned accidents for workers nearing that first anniversary.
This tells me it was a bad time to be a poor immigrant in the US PERIOD. Didn't matter how you got here. Personally, I think the treatment of the Chinese was the worst of any group of people, but it is really on par with factory work. The reality I see? The slaves got the closest thing to a livable wage of any minority group.
By federal power grab you mean the attempt to limit the growth of slave states, am I right?
No
I mean the right of the federal government to declare war against a state that no longer wants to be a member of a union th
I think one reason "free pass" doesn't make a lot of sense (not to conflict necessarily with other things I have said) is that he was president during the only (what we call) civil war in this country. I think as far as history lessons go, schools really don't go into the issue of the flow of policies and their regard to constitution. Anything that might be characterized as "evil" by any president is quickly forgotten. No offense, but I am pretty sure the whole "Bush was the worst president ever" will soon be forgotten (relatively) once he is out of office.
which is ironic, cause the civil war was pretty much death to the 9th and 10th amendments, state sovereignty, and the voluntary nature of statehood as the constitution had intended. The end of slavery was inevitable. The US was the LAST civilized nation in the world to abolish slavery, not to mention the fact that it was abolished long after everyone else. The idea that the the civil war was about protecting human rights, despite whatever happened in retrospect or coincidently, it a really sick interpretation. I'll say I wish it wasn't so... but...
The north was struggling through an industrial revolution while the south was prosperous. Lincoln felt it necessary by any means necessary for the south to share the burden. Part of the "final straw" was when Lincoln attempted an embargo on European farming equipment for the south, despite the inferiority and expense of goods from the north. A war here was inevitable.
The civil war was an atrocity in so many ways. If it was about slavery, more could have been done in the case of Dread Scott. It really hurts how generalized that war has become in our history.
I am actually happy they stick to an issue. They are the National Rifle Association. I would rather join multiple groups that support my various beliefs than try to find the one that best represents all my opinions. I don't really want their opinion on other issues any more than I want to eat a Linux powered sandwich...
I think Lincoln raped our constitution pretty hard with regard to interpretation the voluntary nature of statehood, state sovereignty, 9th & 10th amendments, and eminent domain to just name a few. I am not trying to justify slavery, just that had there been any other means to that end would have been preferable. Also, very little of the civil war had to do with slavery, and much more to do with a federal power grab, to over-simplify the issue. There were also a lot of things that Lincoln did / tried to do that had nothing to do with the civil war or emancipation proclamation that, imho, would have put him as one of the worst presidents ever.
ok, now flame away about how I have no idea what I am talking about.
yeah, and others mentioned, that whole Red Scare / McCarthyism was pretty nasty.
I would love to see parent modded 'funny', as I really don't think any of Bushes decisions were ever influenced by what people might think of him when it comes to doing the right thing for the country... well at very least not this time. Also, in terms of "getting them off", I don't believe he is of the opinion that they did anything wrong, just that there is some kind of loop-hole that could be interpreted to say that what they were doing something wrong.
And how could it be wrong? It saved us from the terrorists, remember? </sarcasm>
An over simplification is that fair use is an affirmative defense, not a right. There is a big difference between embracing something and tolerating something. There is a certain irony to 'fair use' considering what natural rights existed before. To paraphrase Lessig, much of what is regulated use and 'fair use' today was not very long ago completely unregulated.>br> That is how "fair use does not [nor ever intended to] address free culture".
Example of how I see fair use in culture today is similar to regulations at an airport if things got a lot worse. Do away with the list of things you can't do or bring on a plane, and replace it with a very specific list of hypothetically acceptable things. Now, if you actually want to bring something onto the plane that may match something on the list, you need to explain where you got it, why you need it with you, and sign a waiver exempting the item from being covered by insurance in case it gets lost (kudos to anyone that understands the insurance part).
Excuse me, but just how can you call that "Rights".
Oh, and just in case it needs to be said, I did not mean to say that Free Culture does not address Fair Use, just that it is mono-directional understanding.
I agree you don't need to pay to be a part of your own culture. There are many free alternatives, but as much as I enjoy embracing free culture, it does feel like a fight in some ways. Embracing free culture hasn't been easy. I do not know a lot of people personally that embrace free culture, so often times it feels like culture is a relationship I have by myself with the computer / Internet.
Something I have tried to do in the last few months is working away from non-free, or what I might call luxury, culture. I have not purchased a CD since the whole Napster thing, but this more recent transition I have been working towards only listening to CC licensed music. The result wasn't what I expected. I find there is a lot more variety, not to mention expression in the work. It started as an anti big media thing, but now I see it as a great way to introduce great new music to friends that have likely not heard it before. The best part is being able to easily contact artists, and when I leave reviews, I frequently get messages back. Those experiences have made it feel much more like a culture than just stuff.
I guess what I have enjoyed has only strengthened my idealism. And to clarify, I don't want everything to be 'free' in a monetary sense, just free in a way that the business model would allow me to do what I want with it as something I paid for. I would ideally like it if an artist would be flattered for me to make copies of their music and give them to my friends to enjoy. I want to listen to a wide variety of music the way it is free in a library or on the radio, but in a way that harnesses digital technology, and pay money to go to concerts where the band is making a good cut of the ticket price, the kind of thing where the supply isn't artificially deflated to ensure optimal revenue at the expense of calling fans pirates. I know this model would not work for all artists, but imho, the artists that would loose in this situation are the ones that completely lack talent. I also think such a model would make record companies obsolete (as if they are not already) or stores that box little units of information and put a sticker on them. It wasn't a bad way to do things, it just seems out dated. Record companies haven't been around for a long time, but music certainly has. I really believe exposure directly relates to opportunity. The issue is that it just isn't the same opportunity of the past.
Also, I think there is an under appreciation / mis representation of what is "other peoples work". All creativity builds on the past and on nature. Nobody today creates anything without the assistance of many other people. People that whittle figurines out of drift wood unlikely smelted the metal for the knife, and who ever did smelt it didn't do so from scratch. I think you know where that can go forever. ALL THINGS build upon and express other things around you. Who gets credit for what is a matter of advertising. People should certainly get paid for their labor and creative expressions of our world, but it is everyone else that as a whole that help provide that world worth expressing. Further, art that is not an expression of our culture, world, or life typically have no worth. Good art, stories, music are those that resonate with people because part of the art is already inside that person that sees it, hears it, or appreciates it in any way.
I just think that to SOME extent, that in the way creators and consumers are all part of the same culture that there bee some shared rights. I further believe Creative Commons, and the voluntary nature of it (maybe even especially its voluntary nature) it a step in the right direction.
People with money have spent money in Washington to help uphold the rights of artists through the digital age. By itself, I think most of it has been good. My issue, with regard to Washington, is that big media has gotten more of an opportunity to share their opinion and 'educated' people about their rights than, say. the historical purpose of public libraries, classical
Fair use is burnt. It has been interpreted strongly, and while it should be protected better, fair use does not address free culture in any way. Modern cultural documentaries are virtually illegal with all the necessity to clear rights, even in a not for profit work. This is BAD. a remix freedom should be a different argument from fair use. I want the law to explain the rights people have to express themselves in the era of a digital literacy. It is simply something that has never been addressed. remember "fair use" comes from the copyright act of 1976. The problem is that the speed the law moves at, the issue of software is just such a new beast. Software is just SOOOO different in every way and what it does to everything it touches.
Agreed. As I mentioned before, common sense is not what we want, a kind of 'common sense' is the emo play hollywood has been using for years to convince people IP should retain control by the creator. The opinion is too all over the place. I don't think the progress clause of the constitution was just "common sense", I think that was something painfully, logically, and rationally hashed out after a lot of smart people really took a look at history.
Understanding and putting into law respect for the way artists are part of a commons, that a culture can not be owned in whole by its pieces is difficult. Putting that into words and regulation that people are going to respect and embrace will not be easy.
but I will admit Lessig has an amazing way of putting it into words that sound very 'common sense', or at least like they should be.
Common sense sounds great right up till you find out everyone disagrees with you. I'd rather stand firm on rationality right now.
very moderate? I have this picture of Richard Stallman piggyback riding Joseph Utsler through Disneyland with a flamethrower as a modest proposel.
I take some offense at the derogratory use of 'very moderate' to describe him. I will admit I am a bit of a fanatical fan, but I don't see how his 'moderation' could be interpreted as 'soft', as I feel you are implying.
Each side has declared war. Hollywood has gone so F***ing insane with copyright to buy and manipulate our culture and government that many people refuse to acknowledge any respect that copyright could hold. The Pirate Bay is a monument to the damage and hostility created by the content cartel. If there was any 'moderation', aka, embrace of current technology, and respect of the progress clause of the constitution, the Pirate Bay would not exist because there would be no need.
With opinions so violent on both sides, it is amazing Lessig has seen through all the BS, knowing what people want, was creators want, and the beauty of a read/write culture, he has given tools to artists like creative commons to artists that let them do what they always wanted to do. Lessig enables people around the bullshit, not someone going around trying to CONVINCE people things need to be a certain way. I feel he opens peoples hearts to what they already knew.
By contrast, we have FOSS guys like RMS. I respect him and use a lot of his software. I love what he has enabled. But His ideal is one that only respects freedom to consumers. I hate proprietary as much as any other Linux fanboy, but I don't think a developer that wants to keep some part of his project private is evil, so long as it doesn't become some kind of standard or requirement the way Windows is required for most computer purchases. I am reminded every once in awhile that my problem with proprietary is when it is not a choice, and I don't understand why.
and "utterly broken" is extreme. it is a binary opinion that generalizes it as a whole, to say that none of it works at all. That is extreme, and just not true. Lessig gets very technical about the parts that are broken. His focus in Free Culture, IMO, was scope, derivative / remixed works (fair use really wasn't about derivative works), orphaned works, and the hunting down and labeling of children as terrorists work wanting to be a part of their own culture.
One thing I think of in terms of a shorter copyright term is that it would apply to GPL works too. If copyright was, say, back to 14 years, how much of the Linux Kernel would become public domain where derivative works would no longer have the protection of "share-alike"?
I see him as an extremist who is well educated, and rational about about the feelings around copyright law. He is not a man without enemies for his opinions.
There are parts of copyright law that absolutely defy common sense, but there are parts that are technical and common sense does not bring about the right solution. For example, the constitution leaves the power of determining and changing the length of copyright term to best meet the needs of the people to promote science and the useful arts. And as far as common sense goes, Ashcroft WON on the 'common sense' argument of "why shouldn't Disney be able to retain complete control over what THEY made?'. I think what is lacking is some maybe difficult to understand science of what kind of copyright would "promote science and the useful arts", not common sense, because common sense may not be the understanding to most people what it is to you or I.
It is like free market: 'common sense' (of a certain uneducated type) says that the government should be able to come in and fix every little problem with just the right regulations and controls, but for those that have read the works Mesis or Smith would understand how 'economic planning' by a bureaucratic governmental entity doesn't work / can only work in certain ways.
I think common sense has taken over in government, replacing logic and rationality. My common sense says
The only respect I WILL give to the parent of your comment is that depending on the perspective, when copyright is longer than your own life, and with the rate of copyright term perpetually getting longer, everything ever created in my life will not ever expire for me. My own culture will never be free to me. So from the way things are, and my culture, and the way things have gone for the last 60+ years regarding change to copyright, they never expire, especially with one of the 4 entertainment corporations watching over everything.
I know that was not at all what Trouvist was saying or meant in any way, but thought worth mentioning.
Ok, I am confused. What message do we want to get to Microsoft? My only message is "Go away", but I have a strong feeling they won't care any more than I do about the "amazing new features" of Windows 7. Microsoft has their own way of doing things. I think the message needs to be to consumers that freedom is worth the little bit of work to learn something different. Just my opinion.
I am more interested in changing attitudes of consumers than how a company easily manipulates them.
Well, not to be rude, but I hope you have been paying attention, because this is what has been happening. Look at the recent Ubuntu thing. While I would be inclined to agree with you, I think the fact that, IMHO, Firefox is the most popular web browser of CHOICE, so they must be doing something right, and staying very flexible... just wanting to watch what is going on with their product. Sure, maybe not the MOST freedom, but I think this is completely within the spirit of FOSS and Free Market. Creative Commons has a great spirit: it doesn't so much focus on the rights of the consumer as give a tool for artists to understand the rights they have, pick the rights they wish to reserve, and express those rights in a clear way to the consumer. I'll agree Mozilla has taken on a new issue.
By contrast, would you argue that Mozilla should reserve the right to call it "Mozilla's Firefox" and let Joe Smith call it "Joe Smith's Firefox" rather than "Joe Smith Web Browser"? That is what Canonical does with Ubuntu. You can say "based on Ubuntu", but Canonical makes it very clear which distributions they officially support.
I, personally, refuse to use most software that isn't free. It's not hard, and I don't miss the software who's agenda is to rope me in and get control over me.
How long did it take to make the transition? What compelled you to make the effort? Was there something in particular that you were unable to do that made you decide that you needed to take a hard line and reject closed source software?
Actually, that is limitedly relevant. We are talking about open source versus closed source. Not DRM. Is there a great deal of difference between pirating source code and pirating a binary?
Having the source only enables people to build upon the work and develop the software further. It isn't terribly different than people reading books and using quotes to write their own stories. The difference is similar to music. People can either listen to music and figure out how it is played, or artists could just include the tabs for people to enjoy. Does it really matter how many people that listen to the music know how to play guitar too?
People pirate guitar tabs all the time, and people pirate mp3's all the time. What is the difference between the pirating of the tabs / code, and the pirating of the mp3 / binary?
Further, people look at software and copy it all the time, of course it is more work, just like having to listen to a song to learn to play it without the tabs. Is there a great difference between listening to music and making a derivative, and using tabs to make a derivative?
And while it may be a fairly recent thing, it is very possible to see if closed source software stole someone else's source.
And just another example. US has strict copyright, while China has very loose copyright. derivatives of comics (fan art) can land you in court or worse, while China has a thriving underground / black market (though not illegal) fan art comics. Hmm... just by my own observation, it appears that Chinese and Japanese Manga is THRIVING, while US comics are hardly doing as well today. It really does come down to a source code / freedom thing, and a stronger thriving software market is better for ALL programmers, even if you do have the wingdiggit.exe of the day
It is just that copyright is totally out of control as the process of adapting the law into the digital age has been terribly corrupted by those that had more control in the past. I see nothing wrong with proprietary software, but there are places it doesn't make sense, and that there is no alternative because of shady deals, bribery, threats, and lies. IBM and Sun Microsystems have each admitted to participating in such behavior in the past because they thought it was the most profitable. Now they have been forced to change because they found you can only screw people over for so long before you piss them off. Compared to Sun and IBM, Microsoft is still a relatively new player in the game.
The way I see it, software is generally used to do something. It is a tool, it is not something unto itself, other than games. The biggest purchasers of software, and really those for bleeding edge is big companies. FOSS says that if those big companies work together too develop those tools, the tools will be the best. Innovation does not necessarily come from having the best tools, but knowing how to use them. Now that is no motivation for an individual to release their own code as GPL... but in a world where businesses are bullies, threatened, and scared into not using FOSS because of lies, the community turns to the people who write the code and try to explain their argument.
If you write software you need to accomplish a task or calculation or whatever, or something just useful for you, then not using GPL or a similar license is self defeating. If you write software because it is something you think someone else needs, then when development only becomes a necessity to sell the product, then good development does not really matter and there is good reason to keep it proprietary.
I think the argument is "why not only write useful code?". It is more efficient, and the programmer is more motivated, let alone insightful, when they are making the product for themselves.
I get that it is more complicated than that, and programmers need the freedom to work with their code in ways that is going to work for them. It is just the dirty companies (not even saying that they make a bad product) that make "proprietary" look bad for everyone else. Sorry if that seems to contradict everything else I have said.
I think that is the whole "rights" argument with anything though. "You don't really exercise this right, so you probably wouldn't mind if we took it away". I think very few Americans exercise any rights... ever. We here about frivolous lawsuits, but how many people are wronged simply because they don't understand the situation, or what recourse they can take.
If it was about rights everybody needs and uses on a regular basis, then most "rights" seem really silly.
All art, culture, and science has been open source. Patents are actually limited to a period of time that is relevant to people alive today, and every detail can be seen in the patent office. Why do we do that? How many people have ever looked up a patent before? Is it some kind of right to be able to do that if you wanted to? How many people would be affected if the patent office felt it was necessary to keep all the information in the patent office proprietary? Would people really feel like their RIGHTS were being taken away?
Also, what are the rights of a consumer with a product that is patented? Hmm.. they can share it, they can modify it, they can share those modifications with anyone they please, they can use the tool how ever they like. If something is patented, you can duplicate a product and sell it, modify a product or incorporate a product into another and sell the product as a whole.
All these things have all kinds of protections, but they also grant freedoms because sharing is important? Or is it just something people haven't figured out how to control yet?
I reject the belief that culture has historically been free simply because it was difficult to control. Well, I think there have been people that have tried to control it, but I think it is something those that believe in freedom reject. Just because software is easier to control than any other medium in history doesn't mean that it should be.
"subjugation, isolation and exploitation" is exactly what proprietary software does, taking away rights from people in a situation where most people couldn't care less, just like every other right that has ever disappeared.
But I will agree we have created a sick world in the age of the MPAA and RIAA, dying monstrosities scaring people into believing that the only way artists can make money is through complete monopolistic control of IP. I doubt the unrelenting greed and fear will be repaired till the repeal of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, but we can keep arguing about it till people embrace and understand that Congress put together these rules based on corruption and bribes, not in the best interests of consumers and certainly not artists(programmers).
There is also a lot of vaporware that fills shelves, and there are many people that keep writing the same code that has been written many many times before simply because their code was always a part of proprietary software. It is just that software is such a different beast compared to music and books. Only in Software can artists completely hide the way their art or tools work, and completely control how it is used.
Long ago, few could read, and very few could write. Strong control ensured that creators were protected, and that consumers stayed consumers. Many were killed preserving this tradition. The printing press changed that, and the world was thrown into chaos. It was predicted that the printing press would mean that nobody would ever write another book again due to this rampant piracy.
Software code is the language of the modern day. Many "read" it without reading it, no right to know how it works, and no right to share it or discuss it as a book in mass print. People should learn to read and write. The way public Education works in the United States it is perceived as so important that children are near legally required to read, parents required to ensure their success. But our dead with software is "You don't need to know how to read, let one of our nice story tellers to read it to you". You may think this is far fetched, but think of kids that would rather sit in front of the TV and never learn to read because it isn't necessary. I don't see how it is so far the days when people went to Church to have the Bible read to them.
My heart goes out to you, but I think Mozilla is doing their own little Free Software thing similar to what GPLv3 did to GPLv2. I am a big fan of Creative Commons, particularly the Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. All Mozilla is asking is that you do whatever you like to it, with it, whatever. All they ask, unlike some, is DON'T put my name on it. Is that so bad?
Personally, I think the world would be a better place with much less copyright, and more focus on trademarks for exactly this reason. Branding means a lot to people, and it is often much more what has value than the actual product.
I consider myself a hard core fan of "open access / free culture". I think people's fear is that trademark can't be protected unless you completely restrict the product the trademark is going on. I think what we need to do is show people thjat their name and work can be respected in an open and free environment, and part of that is ensuring their trademarks are protected. I will admit that getting some important upstream patch implemented into the upstream for Firefox would be really cool, but I don't think that gives me the right to implement it myself after rejection and still call it the same thing. That is not the type of Freedom I am looking for in Free Software.
If there was nothing but Free Software in the world, I think branding would be as vital as version numbers.
I can see where you are coming from, but an issue with Trademark is that it has to be exact. Using the name XEvil, and adding a surname to it sounds like, at LEAST, the original creator was endorsing your work or had some level of involvement. IceWeasel is not Firefox, and it is more than the opposite of the name. They followed the terms of the license exactly, to a degree that I would think that Mozilla would greatly respect. Clever naming twists has always been at the heart of Linux. So often forks use names that are too similar, or try to distinguish themselves too much that people don't know that it is a twist of the same old thing.
I don't know which browsers are based on Firefox, not sure, haven't really investigated. On the other hand, I can't forget IceWeasel is Firefox because of the name.
And in the context of the fact that it is a build for Debian, IMHO Debian tends to use clever / unique naming schemes.
I guess I just think of the various "Ages of Free Software", and Debian and Firefox I think of as having come from the same Age of sorts (Stallman began it, Shuttlesworth is the newest generation). They were both trend setters in many ways early on. I have a strong feeling that Mozilla and Debian developers have a certain appreciation and respect for each other, even if users divide on some issues.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is what he means.
The one thing that I think needs to be straightened out is who hates who. We are in their country and have been long before 9/11. I think what he is saying is this whatever is going on in the world that is very sad, what we need to focus on is what we can do to help people in this country, the people that are United States citizens that are and want to be a part of something. I am not saying ignore the rest of the world, I just think that not only are we doing to much other places, more of those resources could be helping people here. I think this country isn't bad, and I don't think it is doomed. I just think in the same way people are often better often taking their own advise than giving it, we could do more for this country by making this land as good as possible for us right here.
You can agree or disagree with the war, just don't try to tell me it isn't imperialism.
I hope this isn't a complete butcher, but my understanding of the 9th and 10th amendments were to reiterate that the constitution was a contract that created a federal government whose only powers where those that were explicitly stated in the constitution, and nothing else. If it wasn't a right named as such in the constitution, then that means on whatever that issue was, the federal government had no such power. Further, if it was an issue not addressed by the states, the federal government still did not have the power to come in and have their way.
Of course the South should have pursued other options instead of open hostilities, as a democratic people should have, but a people whose economy rests on the back of slaves can't be democratic.Not sure what you mean with by 'open hostilities', or at least not which in particular, but in this context I think the important issue was that the north invaded the South, not the other way around. I also don't see how this was a democratic thing at all. The north spent drastically more on the war than the south. The south not only had home field advantage, but while many people volunteered in the revolutionary war, the armies of the north were all conscripted. There were terrible morale issues, and Lincoln didn't care how much was lost for the north to win.
And to look at it a completely different way, I think it is difficult to put slavery into perspective these days. We think about slavery as these plantations with many hundreds of slaves that were abused. That was not the only kind of slavery. I will apologize in advance for not having any references, but to my knowledge, abuse of slaves only took place on plantations with 500 or more slaves. This isn't to say that slavery is right, but look at the times: It was work that guaranteed food and housing. Yes, slaves were less than citizens, but at a tool, property, equipment or farm animal, it would be in the best interest of any slave owner to ensure the best health and well being of slaves. People are expensive to take care of, and good slaves are were expensive. Animals that are intended for food are abused a lot more, but what good is a dog or a horse that you abuse all day? And how bad is a farmer burned if a horse or dog dies?
Let us compare that world, to what was going on in the north, and in the west. In the north, you had factories. There were no safety standards, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, overtime pay, 2 day weekends, medical leave, non-discrimination, or anything else. You lost a finger or hand, you were fired and easily replaced. If you died, there was no liability to the employer. A place to eat, sleep, or bathe came out of your pay if you could afford it, and employers could do whatever they want to get the work done. And there were a plenty of people desperate to work. When it is impossible to make a livable wage, there is no freedom. Meanwhile companies were making big money, but market entrance was prohibitively expensive.
In the mid-west to west, we got the rail roads. More out doors than factory work, but not only was there no room or board, but 6 month accounting cycle, and 6 month pay cycles. You had to work your first year before seeing a pay check. Not only were accidents frequent, but there are many stories of railroads across the country being built without ever having to pay a single person (mostly Chinese) because of planned accidents for workers nearing that first anniversary.
This tells me it was a bad time to be a poor immigrant in the US PERIOD. Didn't matter how you got here. Personally, I think the treatment of the Chinese was the worst of any group of people, but it is really on par with factory work. The reality I see? The slaves got the closest thing to a livable wage of any minority group.
By federal power grab you mean the attempt to limit the growth of slave states, am I right?
No
I mean the right of the federal government to declare war against a state that no longer wants to be a member of a union th
That's cute
What? I thought Lincoln personally drafted and signed all those onto law!
I think one reason "free pass" doesn't make a lot of sense (not to conflict necessarily with other things I have said) is that he was president during the only (what we call) civil war in this country. I think as far as history lessons go, schools really don't go into the issue of the flow of policies and their regard to constitution. Anything that might be characterized as "evil" by any president is quickly forgotten. No offense, but I am pretty sure the whole "Bush was the worst president ever" will soon be forgotten (relatively) once he is out of office.
which is ironic, cause the civil war was pretty much death to the 9th and 10th amendments, state sovereignty, and the voluntary nature of statehood as the constitution had intended. The end of slavery was inevitable. The US was the LAST civilized nation in the world to abolish slavery, not to mention the fact that it was abolished long after everyone else. The idea that the the civil war was about protecting human rights, despite whatever happened in retrospect or coincidently, it a really sick interpretation. I'll say I wish it wasn't so... but...
The north was struggling through an industrial revolution while the south was prosperous. Lincoln felt it necessary by any means necessary for the south to share the burden. Part of the "final straw" was when Lincoln attempted an embargo on European farming equipment for the south, despite the inferiority and expense of goods from the north. A war here was inevitable.
The civil war was an atrocity in so many ways. If it was about slavery, more could have been done in the case of Dread Scott. It really hurts how generalized that war has become in our history.
I am actually happy they stick to an issue. They are the National Rifle Association. I would rather join multiple groups that support my various beliefs than try to find the one that best represents all my opinions. I don't really want their opinion on other issues any more than I want to eat a Linux powered sandwich...
... because people are just naming off bad things that happened and completely neglecting the context of the issue, or some other irony?
I think Lincoln raped our constitution pretty hard with regard to interpretation the voluntary nature of statehood, state sovereignty, 9th & 10th amendments, and eminent domain to just name a few. I am not trying to justify slavery, just that had there been any other means to that end would have been preferable. Also, very little of the civil war had to do with slavery, and much more to do with a federal power grab, to over-simplify the issue. There were also a lot of things that Lincoln did / tried to do that had nothing to do with the civil war or emancipation proclamation that, imho, would have put him as one of the worst presidents ever.
ok, now flame away about how I have no idea what I am talking about.
yeah, and others mentioned, that whole Red Scare / McCarthyism was pretty nasty.
I would love to see parent modded 'funny', as I really don't think any of Bushes decisions were ever influenced by what people might think of him when it comes to doing the right thing for the country... well at very least not this time. Also, in terms of "getting them off", I don't believe he is of the opinion that they did anything wrong, just that there is some kind of loop-hole that could be interpreted to say that what they were doing something wrong.
And how could it be wrong? It saved us from the terrorists, remember? </sarcasm>
An over simplification is that fair use is an affirmative defense, not a right. There is a big difference between embracing something and tolerating something. There is a certain irony to 'fair use' considering what natural rights existed before. To paraphrase Lessig, much of what is regulated use and 'fair use' today was not very long ago completely unregulated.>br>
That is how "fair use does not [nor ever intended to] address free culture".
Example of how I see fair use in culture today is similar to regulations at an airport if things got a lot worse. Do away with the list of things you can't do or bring on a plane, and replace it with a very specific list of hypothetically acceptable things. Now, if you actually want to bring something onto the plane that may match something on the list, you need to explain where you got it, why you need it with you, and sign a waiver exempting the item from being covered by insurance in case it gets lost (kudos to anyone that understands the insurance part).
Excuse me, but just how can you call that "Rights".
Oh, and just in case it needs to be said, I did not mean to say that Free Culture does not address Fair Use, just that it is mono-directional understanding.
I agree you don't need to pay to be a part of your own culture. There are many free alternatives, but as much as I enjoy embracing free culture, it does feel like a fight in some ways. Embracing free culture hasn't been easy. I do not know a lot of people personally that embrace free culture, so often times it feels like culture is a relationship I have by myself with the computer / Internet.
Something I have tried to do in the last few months is working away from non-free, or what I might call luxury, culture. I have not purchased a CD since the whole Napster thing, but this more recent transition I have been working towards only listening to CC licensed music. The result wasn't what I expected. I find there is a lot more variety, not to mention expression in the work. It started as an anti big media thing, but now I see it as a great way to introduce great new music to friends that have likely not heard it before. The best part is being able to easily contact artists, and when I leave reviews, I frequently get messages back. Those experiences have made it feel much more like a culture than just stuff.
I guess what I have enjoyed has only strengthened my idealism. And to clarify, I don't want everything to be 'free' in a monetary sense, just free in a way that the business model would allow me to do what I want with it as something I paid for. I would ideally like it if an artist would be flattered for me to make copies of their music and give them to my friends to enjoy. I want to listen to a wide variety of music the way it is free in a library or on the radio, but in a way that harnesses digital technology, and pay money to go to concerts where the band is making a good cut of the ticket price, the kind of thing where the supply isn't artificially deflated to ensure optimal revenue at the expense of calling fans pirates. I know this model would not work for all artists, but imho, the artists that would loose in this situation are the ones that completely lack talent. I also think such a model would make record companies obsolete (as if they are not already) or stores that box little units of information and put a sticker on them. It wasn't a bad way to do things, it just seems out dated. Record companies haven't been around for a long time, but music certainly has. I really believe exposure directly relates to opportunity. The issue is that it just isn't the same opportunity of the past.
Also, I think there is an under appreciation / mis representation of what is "other peoples work". All creativity builds on the past and on nature. Nobody today creates anything without the assistance of many other people. People that whittle figurines out of drift wood unlikely smelted the metal for the knife, and who ever did smelt it didn't do so from scratch. I think you know where that can go forever. ALL THINGS build upon and express other things around you. Who gets credit for what is a matter of advertising. People should certainly get paid for their labor and creative expressions of our world, but it is everyone else that as a whole that help provide that world worth expressing. Further, art that is not an expression of our culture, world, or life typically have no worth. Good art, stories, music are those that resonate with people because part of the art is already inside that person that sees it, hears it, or appreciates it in any way.
I just think that to SOME extent, that in the way creators and consumers are all part of the same culture that there bee some shared rights. I further believe Creative Commons, and the voluntary nature of it (maybe even especially its voluntary nature) it a step in the right direction.
People with money have spent money in Washington to help uphold the rights of artists through the digital age. By itself, I think most of it has been good. My issue, with regard to Washington, is that big media has gotten more of an opportunity to share their opinion and 'educated' people about their rights than, say. the historical purpose of public libraries, classical
Fair use is burnt. It has been interpreted strongly, and while it should be protected better, fair use does not address free culture in any way. Modern cultural documentaries are virtually illegal with all the necessity to clear rights, even in a not for profit work. This is BAD. a remix freedom should be a different argument from fair use. I want the law to explain the rights people have to express themselves in the era of a digital literacy. It is simply something that has never been addressed. remember "fair use" comes from the copyright act of 1976. The problem is that the speed the law moves at, the issue of software is just such a new beast. Software is just SOOOO different in every way and what it does to everything it touches.
Agreed. As I mentioned before, common sense is not what we want, a kind of 'common sense' is the emo play hollywood has been using for years to convince people IP should retain control by the creator. The opinion is too all over the place. I don't think the progress clause of the constitution was just "common sense", I think that was something painfully, logically, and rationally hashed out after a lot of smart people really took a look at history.
Understanding and putting into law respect for the way artists are part of a commons, that a culture can not be owned in whole by its pieces is difficult. Putting that into words and regulation that people are going to respect and embrace will not be easy.
but I will admit Lessig has an amazing way of putting it into words that sound very 'common sense', or at least like they should be.
Common sense sounds great right up till you find out everyone disagrees with you. I'd rather stand firm on rationality right now.
very moderate? I have this picture of Richard Stallman piggyback riding Joseph Utsler through Disneyland with a flamethrower as a modest proposel.
I take some offense at the derogratory use of 'very moderate' to describe him. I will admit I am a bit of a fanatical fan, but I don't see how his 'moderation' could be interpreted as 'soft', as I feel you are implying.
Each side has declared war. Hollywood has gone so F***ing insane with copyright to buy and manipulate our culture and government that many people refuse to acknowledge any respect that copyright could hold. The Pirate Bay is a monument to the damage and hostility created by the content cartel. If there was any 'moderation', aka, embrace of current technology, and respect of the progress clause of the constitution, the Pirate Bay would not exist because there would be no need.
With opinions so violent on both sides, it is amazing Lessig has seen through all the BS, knowing what people want, was creators want, and the beauty of a read/write culture, he has given tools to artists like creative commons to artists that let them do what they always wanted to do. Lessig enables people around the bullshit, not someone going around trying to CONVINCE people things need to be a certain way. I feel he opens peoples hearts to what they already knew.
By contrast, we have FOSS guys like RMS. I respect him and use a lot of his software. I love what he has enabled. But His ideal is one that only respects freedom to consumers. I hate proprietary as much as any other Linux fanboy, but I don't think a developer that wants to keep some part of his project private is evil, so long as it doesn't become some kind of standard or requirement the way Windows is required for most computer purchases. I am reminded every once in awhile that my problem with proprietary is when it is not a choice, and I don't understand why.
and "utterly broken" is extreme. it is a binary opinion that generalizes it as a whole, to say that none of it works at all. That is extreme, and just not true. Lessig gets very technical about the parts that are broken. His focus in Free Culture, IMO, was scope, derivative / remixed works (fair use really wasn't about derivative works), orphaned works, and the hunting down and labeling of children as terrorists work wanting to be a part of their own culture.
One thing I think of in terms of a shorter copyright term is that it would apply to GPL works too. If copyright was, say, back to 14 years, how much of the Linux Kernel would become public domain where derivative works would no longer have the protection of "share-alike"?
I see him as an extremist who is well educated, and rational about about the feelings around copyright law. He is not a man without enemies for his opinions.
There are parts of copyright law that absolutely defy common sense, but there are parts that are technical and common sense does not bring about the right solution. For example, the constitution leaves the power of determining and changing the length of copyright term to best meet the needs of the people to promote science and the useful arts. And as far as common sense goes, Ashcroft WON on the 'common sense' argument of "why shouldn't Disney be able to retain complete control over what THEY made?'. I think what is lacking is some maybe difficult to understand science of what kind of copyright would "promote science and the useful arts", not common sense, because common sense may not be the understanding to most people what it is to you or I.
It is like free market: 'common sense' (of a certain uneducated type) says that the government should be able to come in and fix every little problem with just the right regulations and controls, but for those that have read the works Mesis or Smith would understand how 'economic planning' by a bureaucratic governmental entity doesn't work / can only work in certain ways.
I think common sense has taken over in government, replacing logic and rationality. My common sense says
The only respect I WILL give to the parent of your comment is that depending on the perspective, when copyright is longer than your own life, and with the rate of copyright term perpetually getting longer, everything ever created in my life will not ever expire for me. My own culture will never be free to me. So from the way things are, and my culture, and the way things have gone for the last 60+ years regarding change to copyright, they never expire, especially with one of the 4 entertainment corporations watching over everything.
I know that was not at all what Trouvist was saying or meant in any way, but thought worth mentioning.
Ok, I am confused. What message do we want to get to Microsoft? My only message is "Go away", but I have a strong feeling they won't care any more than I do about the "amazing new features" of Windows 7. Microsoft has their own way of doing things. I think the message needs to be to consumers that freedom is worth the little bit of work to learn something different. Just my opinion.
I am more interested in changing attitudes of consumers than how a company easily manipulates them.
Well, not to be rude, but I hope you have been paying attention, because this is what has been happening. Look at the recent Ubuntu thing. While I would be inclined to agree with you, I think the fact that, IMHO, Firefox is the most popular web browser of CHOICE, so they must be doing something right, and staying very flexible... just wanting to watch what is going on with their product. Sure, maybe not the MOST freedom, but I think this is completely within the spirit of FOSS and Free Market. Creative Commons has a great spirit: it doesn't so much focus on the rights of the consumer as give a tool for artists to understand the rights they have, pick the rights they wish to reserve, and express those rights in a clear way to the consumer. I'll agree Mozilla has taken on a new issue.
By contrast, would you argue that Mozilla should reserve the right to call it "Mozilla's Firefox" and let Joe Smith call it "Joe Smith's Firefox" rather than "Joe Smith Web Browser"? That is what Canonical does with Ubuntu. You can say "based on Ubuntu", but Canonical makes it very clear which distributions they officially support.
I, personally, refuse to use most software that isn't free. It's not hard, and I don't miss the software who's agenda is to rope me in and get control over me.
How long did it take to make the transition? What compelled you to make the effort? Was there something in particular that you were unable to do that made you decide that you needed to take a hard line and reject closed source software?
Actually, that is limitedly relevant. We are talking about open source versus closed source. Not DRM. Is there a great deal of difference between pirating source code and pirating a binary?
Having the source only enables people to build upon the work and develop the software further. It isn't terribly different than people reading books and using quotes to write their own stories. The difference is similar to music. People can either listen to music and figure out how it is played, or artists could just include the tabs for people to enjoy. Does it really matter how many people that listen to the music know how to play guitar too?
People pirate guitar tabs all the time, and people pirate mp3's all the time. What is the difference between the pirating of the tabs / code, and the pirating of the mp3 / binary?
Further, people look at software and copy it all the time, of course it is more work, just like having to listen to a song to learn to play it without the tabs. Is there a great difference between listening to music and making a derivative, and using tabs to make a derivative?
And while it may be a fairly recent thing, it is very possible to see if closed source software stole someone else's source.
And just another example. US has strict copyright, while China has very loose copyright. derivatives of comics (fan art) can land you in court or worse, while China has a thriving underground / black market (though not illegal) fan art comics. Hmm... just by my own observation, it appears that Chinese and Japanese Manga is THRIVING, while US comics are hardly doing as well today. It really does come down to a source code / freedom thing, and a stronger thriving software market is better for ALL programmers, even if you do have the wingdiggit.exe of the day
It is just that copyright is totally out of control as the process of adapting the law into the digital age has been terribly corrupted by those that had more control in the past. I see nothing wrong with proprietary software, but there are places it doesn't make sense, and that there is no alternative because of shady deals, bribery, threats, and lies. IBM and Sun Microsystems have each admitted to participating in such behavior in the past because they thought it was the most profitable. Now they have been forced to change because they found you can only screw people over for so long before you piss them off. Compared to Sun and IBM, Microsoft is still a relatively new player in the game.
The way I see it, software is generally used to do something. It is a tool, it is not something unto itself, other than games. The biggest purchasers of software, and really those for bleeding edge is big companies. FOSS says that if those big companies work together too develop those tools, the tools will be the best. Innovation does not necessarily come from having the best tools, but knowing how to use them. Now that is no motivation for an individual to release their own code as GPL... but in a world where businesses are bullies, threatened, and scared into not using FOSS because of lies, the community turns to the people who write the code and try to explain their argument.
If you write software you need to accomplish a task or calculation or whatever, or something just useful for you, then not using GPL or a similar license is self defeating. If you write software because it is something you think someone else needs, then when development only becomes a necessity to sell the product, then good development does not really matter and there is good reason to keep it proprietary.
I think the argument is "why not only write useful code?". It is more efficient, and the programmer is more motivated, let alone insightful, when they are making the product for themselves.
I get that it is more complicated than that, and programmers need the freedom to work with their code in ways that is going to work for them. It is just the dirty companies (not even saying that they make a bad product) that make "proprietary" look bad for everyone else. Sorry if that seems to contradict everything else I have said.
I think that is the whole "rights" argument with anything though. "You don't really exercise this right, so you probably wouldn't mind if we took it away". I think very few Americans exercise any rights... ever. We here about frivolous lawsuits, but how many people are wronged simply because they don't understand the situation, or what recourse they can take.
If it was about rights everybody needs and uses on a regular basis, then most "rights" seem really silly.
All art, culture, and science has been open source. Patents are actually limited to a period of time that is relevant to people alive today, and every detail can be seen in the patent office. Why do we do that? How many people have ever looked up a patent before? Is it some kind of right to be able to do that if you wanted to? How many people would be affected if the patent office felt it was necessary to keep all the information in the patent office proprietary? Would people really feel like their RIGHTS were being taken away?
Also, what are the rights of a consumer with a product that is patented? Hmm.. they can share it, they can modify it, they can share those modifications with anyone they please, they can use the tool how ever they like. If something is patented, you can duplicate a product and sell it, modify a product or incorporate a product into another and sell the product as a whole.
All these things have all kinds of protections, but they also grant freedoms because sharing is important? Or is it just something people haven't figured out how to control yet?
I reject the belief that culture has historically been free simply because it was difficult to control. Well, I think there have been people that have tried to control it, but I think it is something those that believe in freedom reject. Just because software is easier to control than any other medium in history doesn't mean that it should be.
"subjugation, isolation and exploitation" is exactly what proprietary software does, taking away rights from people in a situation where most people couldn't care less, just like every other right that has ever disappeared.
But I will agree we have created a sick world in the age of the MPAA and RIAA, dying monstrosities scaring people into believing that the only way artists can make money is through complete monopolistic control of IP. I doubt the unrelenting greed and fear will be repaired till the repeal of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, but we can keep arguing about it till people embrace and understand that Congress put together these rules based on corruption and bribes, not in the best interests of consumers and certainly not artists(programmers).
There is also a lot of vaporware that fills shelves, and there are many people that keep writing the same code that has been written many many times before simply because their code was always a part of proprietary software. It is just that software is such a different beast compared to music and books. Only in Software can artists completely hide the way their art or tools work, and completely control how it is used.
Long ago, few could read, and very few could write. Strong control ensured that creators were protected, and that consumers stayed consumers. Many were killed preserving this tradition. The printing press changed that, and the world was thrown into chaos. It was predicted that the printing press would mean that nobody would ever write another book again due to this rampant piracy.
Software code is the language of the modern day. Many "read" it without reading it, no right to know how it works, and no right to share it or discuss it as a book in mass print. People should learn to read and write. The way public Education works in the United States it is perceived as so important that children are near legally required to read, parents required to ensure their success. But our dead with software is "You don't need to know how to read, let one of our nice story tellers to read it to you". You may think this is far fetched, but think of kids that would rather sit in front of the TV and never learn to read because it isn't necessary. I don't see how it is so far the days when people went to Church to have the Bible read to them.
My heart goes out to you, but I think Mozilla is doing their own little Free Software thing similar to what GPLv3 did to GPLv2. I am a big fan of Creative Commons, particularly the Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. All Mozilla is asking is that you do whatever you like to it, with it, whatever. All they ask, unlike some, is DON'T put my name on it. Is that so bad?
Personally, I think the world would be a better place with much less copyright, and more focus on trademarks for exactly this reason. Branding means a lot to people, and it is often much more what has value than the actual product.
I consider myself a hard core fan of "open access / free culture". I think people's fear is that trademark can't be protected unless you completely restrict the product the trademark is going on. I think what we need to do is show people thjat their name and work can be respected in an open and free environment, and part of that is ensuring their trademarks are protected. I will admit that getting some important upstream patch implemented into the upstream for Firefox would be really cool, but I don't think that gives me the right to implement it myself after rejection and still call it the same thing. That is not the type of Freedom I am looking for in Free Software.
If there was nothing but Free Software in the world, I think branding would be as vital as version numbers.
I can see where you are coming from, but an issue with Trademark is that it has to be exact. Using the name XEvil, and adding a surname to it sounds like, at LEAST, the original creator was endorsing your work or had some level of involvement. IceWeasel is not Firefox, and it is more than the opposite of the name. They followed the terms of the license exactly, to a degree that I would think that Mozilla would greatly respect. Clever naming twists has always been at the heart of Linux. So often forks use names that are too similar, or try to distinguish themselves too much that people don't know that it is a twist of the same old thing.
I don't know which browsers are based on Firefox, not sure, haven't really investigated. On the other hand, I can't forget IceWeasel is Firefox because of the name.
And in the context of the fact that it is a build for Debian, IMHO Debian tends to use clever / unique naming schemes.
I guess I just think of the various "Ages of Free Software", and Debian and Firefox I think of as having come from the same Age of sorts (Stallman began it, Shuttlesworth is the newest generation). They were both trend setters in many ways early on. I have a strong feeling that Mozilla and Debian developers have a certain appreciation and respect for each other, even if users divide on some issues.