Please be patient. The manual has to travel all the way from the Netherlands, and Ton has taken steps since the first shipments to speed things up (mine took about 3 weeks).
Because the whole idea of property depends on scarcity (scarcity of resources, scarcity of access, etc.).
I view these as economic issues. If I remember my econ 101 class correctly, economics deals with "the allocation of scarce resources." Both time and expertise qualify as scarce resources, don't they?
Legally, property is defined as something to which a business or person has a legal title (direct from Webster's). This definition can include practically anything, including software.
I read your essay, and I'd like to address a specific point that, in my view, is at the root of the "free software" issue:
What the intellectual property purveryors don't appear to recognize is that, by making available a digital "object" (an image, a movie, a program, etc.), they are not offering you any raw material.
While it is absolutely correct that a software program exists as a large sequence of physical "states" (i.e., binary 0's and 1's), and as such, does not qualify as "raw material" like the stone used for a sculpture. On the other hand, it's the OTHER side of the equation that is being completely overlooked by the notion of free software...the whole issue of VALUE. Why, for example, would someone pay $10,000 for one sculpture, and not another? And once acquired, what can the sculpture physically do to make my life easier, or allow me to accomplish something with less effort? Nothing! Why would anyone want to pay this much for a sculpture, then? Value.
Let's look at software. Software, though it costs nothing to duplicate, provides value. It allows someone to accomplish something they couldn't do otherwise, or to accomplish something they can do otherwise, but with greater efficiency. Would Amazon.com, for example, be anything CLOSE what it is without software that can run their servers? E-Bay is another prime example. Clearly, these businesses are deriving significant value from the use of their software, but according to the FSF, since software should be free, this value goes completely unrecognized.
Put in perhaps its most simple terms, when it comes to software, why is it reasonable to expect something (and in some cases, somethng very significant) for nothing?
Let's suppose that I agree that, in a physical sense, a software program is information. The premise, then, is that all information should be free, correct? ALL information? Think about this.
I see an inherent danger in allowing software patents, so I agree on this point. But patents and copyright are different issues, and though the FSF is against patents, it makes no distinction between the two. Even if software patents were deemed invalid, the FSF would still insist on the elimination of copyright, something I find beyond the fringes of rational thought.
Thanks for directing me to the Free Software Foundation's web page. After a bit of reading, I find myself more opposed to the philosophy than before. The FSF makes the claim, for example, that just because software is easy to copy (as opposed to a book), that this is why you should be able to copy it and distribute it at will. What does the ease with which something can be reproduced have to do with a perceived right to distribute someone else's property? Do they not recognize that something that can be copied in a matter of seconds, may have taken YEARS to develop?
Further, they use the term "information" to describe software. Why? Software is not information - it is a series of instructions, carefully assembled in such a manner to perform a number of specified tasks. In doing so, it provides value for those using it.
Information has value in its own right, but no one can own the fact that John Q. Public lives at 111 Xyz St., in Anywhere, USA. No can own the fact that Maryland is on the East coast, or that Denver is 5,183 feet above sea level.
The difference here is quite clear, and to equate the two seems to defy logic.
The problem with "morals," is that people often associate "morality" with "religion." Morality can and does exist without religion. Of course, this provides ample opportunity for religionists to start talking about "relativism," which is their way of saying "without religion, we make our morals whatever we want them to be," but this doesn't hold water. The core of what we consider "morality" is based on some surprisingly simple, and fairly consistent ideas that have survived for eons.
And the last time you contributed a column was...
on
Feature:Distortions
·
· Score: 1
NEVER?????
If the contributions are so poor here on Slashdot, please...enlighten us. Show us the way.
To correct your analogy, it's a restriction of people's right to free speech if you were to give a speech, and then forbid anyone from quoting any part of it, or telling anyone anything about the construction of the speech, or even trying to understand the ideas behind and inspiration for the speech.
What you've cited isn't the problem. The problem is that the speech is the property of its creator. Unless specifically granted, what right do you have to take this material (someone else's property) and use it for your own benefit? Why should such a right exist?
Information is a unique beast in this aspect. I agree that nobody should be able to force you to give up arbitrary information, but once you give out that information, it no longer belongs exclusively to you, and you should not be able to dictate what people can do with it.
Since when is listening to (or reading) a speech tantamount to granting ownership of its contents?
You're obviously dreaming
on
Wired on RMS
·
· Score: 1
Your child will live long after you, and in doing so will improve the world as you have taught him/her to do.
Did Hitler improve the world? Wasn't he someone's child?
the LAWYERS! I heard one news story suggesting that lawyers were "salivating" over the opportunities for litigation associated with Y2K. I don't doubt it for a minute.
The article was well-written, if not a little long, but I'd like to offer some additional perspective.
First, while there are plenty of entities that engage in "wall-building," both to protect their interests and limit the interests of others, I think people only have themselves to fear - people have a tendency to build their own walls. Take Amazon, for example. It's probably not far from becoming a household word. Familiarity often breeds complacency, and when people become complacent, there isn't much incentive to change (that is, to look at alternatives). So, while Go.com may be building its own walls, I'm not so sure that the average person familiar with Amazon, has much incentive to look elsewhere. So, will the internet truly offer a culture without walls, or will they be just as prevalent, only in different form?
Second, Katz, pointing to the effect that MP3 has had on the music industry, seems to suggest that all of the free music people can access somehow facilitates the removal of walls that have existed in this industry for decades. I take issue with this: what Katz mistakes for "walls" are merely rules for fair play. The rule is, "You download my music, and in return, I get X amount of money. There's no "wall" about it- it's a simple exchange of value. I don't support the RIAA, but I have a real problem with the notion that music should be free.
It happens all the time. People who have a few years in seniority, have been at their jobs for a while, and who have sunken into a repugnant form of complacency, sit back and claim that there's nothing wrong with any commercial interest posing an even GREATER threat to personal privacy.
Younger people sometimes lack perspective, but the ones who are intent on making something of themselves have a level of energy and curiosity, and the intelligence to question stuff that's thrown in their face.
If it's necessary to brand ANYONE as sheep, give credit where credit is due...how about the corporations who lap up what ever Intel and M$ dish out.
Don't get me wrong, I run an AMD and an Intel system, and I'll be the first to go get a K7 when it comes out. But quit thinking that the current top processor company is going to sit idle while another company passes them by. Not gonna happen.
Once the king of the mainframe world, and replete with a bloated infrastructure and inbred complacency, no one ever thought this giant would have to wake up one day and actually face reality. Reality is that if there's someone smaller, better, and offers value, you'd best take them seriously. If anything, this simply reaffirmed that company size and customer base are no guarantee of continued success.
They've been ripping the consumer off forever, and now that the consumer has a chance to fight back they get scared and sue.
Has anyone from Nintento ever forced, coerced, or otherwise made you shell out $60 for a game? NO! This is the market, people, and Nintendo isn't to blame for this, the consumers are. Your suggestion here, that it's OK to rip off Nintendo because they've been "ripping off the consumer," is rediculous. If it's such a rip-off, don't buy the game. Anyone who claims that Nintendo is ripping off the consumer, and then turns right around and pirates the ROM in retaliation, is a complete hypocrite.
They attract piraters i mean christ, the console systems will run you 200 bucks, the games between 50 and 70, what do you expect people to use them for?
It's all a question of market economics. As long as people are willing to pay $150 for a console and $60-$70 per game, that's what the game developers will be charging. Consumers have the loudest voice in the world...their money. As a group, they just don't have the discipline necessary to use it effectively.
One critic who was appeased by Intel's new plan to ship the PSNs in the off position was Steve May, a Republican member of the Arizona House of Representatives. He said that he won't submit a bill banning the production or sale of Pentium IIIs, which are manufactured in his state, because Intel is taking steps to address the security and privacy concerns.
I hope Rep. May is just as vocal about the government's habit of abusing the privacy of unsuspecting citizens, lest he be a complete hypocrite. Oh wait...politician...hypocrite...is it possible???
This is a nation that was "formed" by a bunch of violent, murderous thugs who slaughtered the native inhabitants in pursuit of their own self-centered interests. If this is "Christian," it's not something I'd be stating with any degree of pride.
Information is just one aspect of privacy. Here are the locations of some 2,397 PUBLIC surveylance cameras throughout the streets of Manhatten. I imagine other large cities are not far behind.
Consumers bring on some of this all by themselves. My sister relayed a story where an acquaintance of hers "purchased" a large-screen television for the sole purpose of entertaining some friends during a major televised sporting event, and then returned it. They had no plans whatsoever to keep it beyond that. If I were the merchant, and I knew this, I'd be pretty TICKED.
This is quite correct. The SSN was originally developed for the sole purpose of distributing social security benefits. The Privacy Act of 1974 (a misnomer if I've ever seen one) was designed to govern the use of the SSN by other government agencies as well. Today, it's used by any number of entities as a means of identification, including credit bureaus, insurance companies, hospitals and doctors' offices, schools, etc. If people are skeptical about just what can happen, check out this site, which exists for the sole purpose of providing information about people. Since there doesn't seem to be any laws protecting citizens against the use of their personal information as a commodity, tracking a user's processor ID will add but one more means of invasion.
There's also an interesting article in this month's issue of Scientific American that compares the laws passed by European nations (the European privacy directive), with what (little) is in place to protect Americans. Ironically, some very big names (America Online, Bank of America, Bell Atlantic, IBM, EDS, Equifax, and Direct Marketing Association) all oppose specific legislation to protect the use of personal information (and why not - they've got a lot to lose). The whole notion of an embedded processor ID just raises the stakes a little higher.
Slashdot Mirror
Please be patient. The manual has to travel all the way from the Netherlands, and Ton has taken steps since the first shipments to speed things up (mine took about 3 weeks).
Because the whole idea of property depends on scarcity (scarcity of resources, scarcity of access, etc.).
I view these as economic issues. If I remember my econ 101 class correctly, economics deals with "the allocation of scarce resources." Both time and expertise qualify as scarce resources, don't they?
Legally, property is defined as something to which a business or person has a legal title (direct from Webster's). This definition can include practically anything, including software.
I read your essay, and I'd like to address a specific point that, in my view, is at the root of the "free software" issue:
What the intellectual property purveryors don't appear to recognize is that, by making available a digital "object" (an image, a movie, a program, etc.), they are not offering you any raw material.
While it is absolutely correct that a software program exists as a large sequence of physical "states" (i.e., binary 0's and 1's), and as such, does not qualify as "raw material" like the stone used for a sculpture. On the other hand, it's the OTHER side of the equation that is being completely overlooked by the notion of free software...the whole issue of VALUE. Why, for example, would someone pay $10,000 for one sculpture, and not another? And once acquired, what can the sculpture physically do to make my life easier, or allow me to accomplish something with less effort? Nothing! Why would anyone want to pay this much for a sculpture, then? Value.
Let's look at software. Software, though it costs nothing to duplicate, provides value. It allows someone to accomplish something they couldn't do otherwise, or to accomplish something they can do otherwise, but with greater efficiency. Would Amazon.com, for example, be anything CLOSE what it is without software that can run their servers? E-Bay is another prime example. Clearly, these businesses are deriving significant value from the use of their software, but according to the FSF, since software should be free, this value goes completely unrecognized.
Put in perhaps its most simple terms, when it comes to software, why is it reasonable to expect something (and in some cases, somethng very significant) for nothing?
Let's suppose that I agree that, in a physical sense, a software program is information. The premise, then, is that all information should be free, correct? ALL information? Think about this.
I see an inherent danger in allowing software patents, so I agree on this point. But patents and copyright are different issues, and though the FSF is against patents, it makes no distinction between the two. Even if software patents were deemed invalid, the FSF would still insist on the elimination of copyright, something I find beyond the fringes of rational thought.
Thanks for directing me to the Free Software Foundation's web page. After a bit of reading, I find myself more opposed to the philosophy than before. The FSF makes the claim, for example, that just because software is easy to copy (as opposed to a book), that this is why you should be able to copy it and distribute it at will. What does the ease with which something can be reproduced have to do with a perceived right to distribute someone else's property? Do they not recognize that something that can be copied in a matter of seconds, may have taken YEARS to develop?
Further, they use the term "information" to describe software. Why? Software is not information - it is a series of instructions, carefully assembled in such a manner to perform a number of specified tasks. In doing so, it provides value for those using it.
Information has value in its own right, but no one can own the fact that John Q. Public lives at 111 Xyz St., in Anywhere, USA. No can own the fact that Maryland is on the East coast, or that Denver is 5,183 feet above sea level.
The difference here is quite clear, and to equate the two seems to defy logic.
Why is it again that software should be free?
Why is it that people should have unfettered access to someone else's creation (property)?
This isn't a question of freedom, it's a question of ethics.
The problem with "morals," is that people often associate "morality" with "religion." Morality can and does exist without religion. Of course, this provides ample opportunity for religionists to start talking about "relativism," which is their way of saying "without religion, we make our morals whatever we want them to be," but this doesn't hold water. The core of what we consider "morality" is based on some surprisingly simple, and fairly consistent ideas that have survived for eons.
NEVER?????
If the contributions are so poor here on Slashdot, please...enlighten us. Show us the way.
To correct your analogy, it's a restriction of people's right to free speech if you were to give a speech, and then forbid anyone from quoting any part of it, or telling anyone anything about the construction of the speech, or even trying to understand the ideas behind and inspiration for the speech.
What you've cited isn't the problem. The problem is that the speech is the property of its creator. Unless specifically granted, what right do you have to take this material (someone else's property) and use it for your own benefit? Why should such a right exist?
Information is a unique beast in this aspect. I agree that nobody should be able to force you to give up arbitrary information, but once you give out that information, it no longer belongs exclusively to you, and you should not be able to dictate what people can do with it.
Since when is listening to (or reading) a speech tantamount to granting ownership of its contents?
Your child will live long after you, and in doing so will improve the world as you have taught him/her to do.
Did Hitler improve the world? Wasn't he someone's child?
the LAWYERS! I heard one news story suggesting that lawyers were "salivating" over the opportunities for litigation associated with Y2K. I don't doubt it for a minute.
The article was well-written, if not a little long, but I'd like to offer some additional perspective.
First, while there are plenty of entities that engage in "wall-building," both to protect their interests and limit the interests of others, I think people only have themselves to fear - people have a tendency to build their own walls. Take Amazon, for example. It's probably not far from becoming a household word. Familiarity often breeds complacency, and when people become complacent, there isn't much incentive to change (that is, to look at alternatives). So, while Go.com may be building its own walls, I'm not so sure that the average person familiar with Amazon, has much incentive to look elsewhere. So, will the internet truly offer a culture without walls, or will they be just as prevalent, only in different form?
Second, Katz, pointing to the effect that MP3 has had on the music industry, seems to suggest that all of the free music people can access somehow facilitates the removal of walls that have existed in this industry for decades. I take issue with this: what Katz mistakes for "walls" are merely rules for fair play. The rule is, "You download my music, and in return, I get X amount of money. There's no "wall" about it- it's a simple exchange of value. I don't support the RIAA, but I have a real problem with the notion that music should be free.
It happens all the time. People who have a few years in seniority, have been at their jobs for a while, and who have sunken into a repugnant form of complacency, sit back and claim that there's nothing wrong with any commercial interest posing an even GREATER threat to personal privacy.
Younger people sometimes lack perspective, but the ones who are intent on making something of themselves have a level of energy and curiosity, and the intelligence to question stuff that's thrown in their face.
If it's necessary to brand ANYONE as sheep, give credit where credit is due...how about the corporations who lap up what ever Intel and M$ dish out.
Don't get me wrong, I run an AMD and an Intel system, and I'll be the first to go get a K7 when it comes out. But quit thinking that the current top processor company is going to sit idle while another company passes them by. Not gonna happen.
Once the king of the mainframe world, and replete with a bloated infrastructure and inbred complacency, no one ever thought this giant would have to wake up one day and actually face reality. Reality is that if there's someone smaller, better, and offers value, you'd best take them seriously. If anything, this simply reaffirmed that company size and customer base are no guarantee of continued success.
Actually, early Mac models did have a chip called the Integrated Woz Machine (IWM for short).
I think it's fascinating to see the different directions that both Jobs and Woz have chosen.
They've been ripping the consumer off forever, and now that the consumer has a chance to fight back they get scared and sue.
Has anyone from Nintento ever forced, coerced, or otherwise made you shell out $60 for a game? NO! This is the market, people, and Nintendo isn't to blame for this, the consumers are. Your suggestion here, that it's OK to rip off Nintendo because they've been "ripping off the consumer," is rediculous. If it's such a rip-off, don't buy the game. Anyone who claims that Nintendo is ripping off the consumer, and then turns right around and pirates the ROM in retaliation, is a complete hypocrite.
Here's an article I came across in the newsgroups.
They attract piraters i mean christ, the console systems will run you 200 bucks, the games between 50 and 70, what do you expect people to use them for?
It's all a question of market economics. As long as people are willing to pay $150 for a console and $60-$70 per game, that's what the game developers will be charging. Consumers have the loudest voice in the world...their money. As a group, they just don't have the discipline necessary to use it effectively.
One critic who was appeased by Intel's new plan to ship the PSNs in the off position was Steve May, a Republican member of the Arizona House of Representatives. He said that he won't submit a bill banning the production or sale of Pentium IIIs, which are manufactured in his state, because Intel is taking steps to address the security and privacy concerns.
I hope Rep. May is just as vocal about the government's habit of abusing the privacy of unsuspecting citizens, lest he be a complete hypocrite. Oh wait...politician...hypocrite...is it possible???
This is a christian nation.
This is a nation that was "formed" by a bunch of violent, murderous thugs who slaughtered the native inhabitants in pursuit of their own self-centered interests. If this is "Christian," it's not something I'd be stating with any degree of pride.
Information is just one aspect of privacy. Here are the locations of some 2,397 PUBLIC surveylance cameras throughout the streets of Manhatten. I imagine other large cities are not far behind.
Consumers bring on some of this all by themselves. My sister relayed a story where an acquaintance of hers "purchased" a large-screen television for the sole purpose of entertaining some friends during a major televised sporting event, and then returned it. They had no plans whatsoever to keep it beyond that. If I were the merchant, and I knew this, I'd be pretty TICKED.
here
This is quite correct. The SSN was originally developed for the sole purpose of distributing social security benefits. The Privacy Act of 1974 (a misnomer if I've ever seen one) was designed to govern the use of the SSN by other government agencies as well. Today, it's used by any number of entities as a means of identification, including credit bureaus, insurance companies, hospitals and doctors' offices, schools, etc. If people are skeptical about just what can happen, check out this site, which exists for the sole purpose of providing information about people. Since there doesn't seem to be any laws protecting citizens against the use of their personal information as a commodity, tracking a user's processor ID will add but one more means of invasion.
There's also an interesting article in this month's issue of Scientific American that compares the laws passed by European nations (the European privacy directive), with what (little) is in place to protect Americans. Ironically, some very big names (America Online, Bank of America, Bell Atlantic, IBM, EDS, Equifax, and Direct Marketing Association) all oppose specific legislation to protect the use of personal information (and why not - they've got a lot to lose). The whole notion of an embedded processor ID just raises the stakes a little higher.
Now, the story is available at here.