That's besides the point really. Having the possibility to replace client-side software with another version you'd prefer, doesn't mean you have to do so.
And if, doing so, you rely on (or design yourself) a crappy version, then you ought to take full responsibility for the consequences.
I think the main problem with the Gimp is that most potential professional users are not coders, and it takes coders to add features through scripting. And most coders interested in contributing lack understanding of the needs of professional graphists.
So, in terms of professional features, and if we put asides some shortcommings that are intrinsict to the current base engine, the "community will provide" approach common to many such FOSS projects seems to lack efficiency in the case of the Gimp. It certainly doesn't work as well as it works with FireFox, for example.
Well, yes, it does actually. Morals are defined by the masses, and if the masses support something as being an acceptable activity (which judging by the scale of piracy it is) then it cannot be defined as morally wrong except on a personal level.
As has been pointed, this particular argument doesn't work and can be disproved easily.
What can be stated, however, is that "intellectual property" (in its various forms) is not a "natural" right, but one that has been designed as a compromise between the interests of various actors, in order to favor a greater social benefit.
On this basis, it can be argued that the terms of the compromise have changed and that it doesn't work as intended anymore, providing less social benefits than it could. Which supports your point but is very, very different from stating that morals are defined by the masses.
Actually, the net impact of illegal filesharing on the music industry is far from certain: data about this is unconclusive, and many other factors have been suggested to explain the majors' decrease in turnover (not necessarily in profits, by the way).
However, new models based on legal filesharing, if they turn out viable for artists to make a living, would indeed necessarily have a negative impact on the majors, since they would lose market shares.
I wouldn't say "without copyright": free licenses are based on copyright after all. I reckon you mean "not on the basis of charging copies", and I agree with you.
Well there are ways. For example, some web services providers (mostly free of charge services) propose their subscribers to pick items in a list of domains they may be interested in receiving commercial mail about. Then they sell selective access to this customer base to companies working in said domains.
The consequences are rather vertuous:
The web service is kept free of charge for the subscribers, or at least cheaper than it could be.
The subscribers receive commercial mail that is relevant to their areas of interest.
The client companies have an efficient targeting on potential customers.
And this is only one example of a model that works well if done properly.
And it's even more creepy. And more shady too, at least by EU's standards (the gathering and use of personal informations is not taken lightly in Europe).
The freemasons have no pretense of being a religious organisation. Not any obedience I've heard of anyway. Now the problem is that they partially match cynicsreport's second criterion, and definitely match the third. This is due to their history. When freemasonry appeared in the eighteenth century (so no, not 700 years ago, far from it), it was a philosophical society that discussed political matters, in areas where this was considered possibly offensive. They have suffered some kinds of persecution at that time, particularly from religious authorities.
Nowadays, though, the habit of secrecy is largely baseless. I think its survival is at least partially due to a childish excitement for the whole "secret society" stuff (which kid never played with that?). In a modern, secular society, I feel it hurts freemasonry rather than serves it. For example, by perpetuating defiance, by giving the least honorable members opportunities to cover fishy stuff, which in turn, when uncovered, reinforces said defiance.
There was one further reason for the Italians to surrender (and to have poor morale): their tanks (Ansaldo-Fiat L3) were just crap, and the field troops knew it, while the commandment refused to aknowledge it.
As a French who learnt German in school (and forgot most of it - I'm currently struggling to recover my former knowledge of it), I'd say it's a complex language, but it's very consistant. There may be many irregular verbs, but most of them can be grouped in a small number of categories that follow the same conjugasons - to the point it's questionable that they really can be called irregular at all. I've never had a really hard time with German grammar (more with assimilating the vocabulary), for it holds very few traps.
Some little rectifications
The 1000 euros requested by the plaintiff wasn't punitive damage, which doesn't exist in French law. Damage has to be "real" (physical, moral or financial) to be evaluated by the courts. In this case, it was for the overall inconvenience of the affair and alleged personal and familial problems caused by it, which the court ruled as unproved.
The 150 euros are for the plaintiff's expenses related to the case. He presented his case without a lawyer (which is possible in this kind of courts), but if he'd hired a lawyer, this part would have been basically for the lawyer's payment (and certainly higher).
Slashdot Mirror
That's besides the point really. Having the possibility to replace client-side software with another version you'd prefer, doesn't mean you have to do so.
And if, doing so, you rely on (or design yourself) a crappy version, then you ought to take full responsibility for the consequences.
I think the main problem with the Gimp is that most potential professional users are not coders, and it takes coders to add features through scripting. And most coders interested in contributing lack understanding of the needs of professional graphists.
So, in terms of professional features, and if we put asides some shortcommings that are intrinsict to the current base engine, the "community will provide" approach common to many such FOSS projects seems to lack efficiency in the case of the Gimp. It certainly doesn't work as well as it works with FireFox, for example.
Well, yes, it does actually. Morals are defined by the masses, and if the masses support something as being an acceptable activity (which judging by the scale of piracy it is) then it cannot be defined as morally wrong except on a personal level.
As has been pointed, this particular argument doesn't work and can be disproved easily.
What can be stated, however, is that "intellectual property" (in its various forms) is not a "natural" right, but one that has been designed as a compromise between the interests of various actors, in order to favor a greater social benefit.
On this basis, it can be argued that the terms of the compromise have changed and that it doesn't work as intended anymore, providing less social benefits than it could. Which supports your point but is very, very different from stating that morals are defined by the masses.
Except for a few visits early on to sites with names like "tentacleporn.com" this has been sufficient.
Mmmmh, Squid, tentacle... I see kind of a pattern here.
Duh? Modded "Insightful" instead of "Funny"?
The possible implications are mind-boggling...
If you add to this a dose of Veblen Effect, well... rationality seems overrated.
Indeed, something similar is brewing in France. Although it's likely to be rendered unenforceable by an upcoming EU bill.
Actually, the net impact of illegal filesharing on the music industry is far from certain: data about this is unconclusive, and many other factors have been suggested to explain the majors' decrease in turnover (not necessarily in profits, by the way).
However, new models based on legal filesharing, if they turn out viable for artists to make a living, would indeed necessarily have a negative impact on the majors, since they would lose market shares.
I wouldn't say "without copyright": free licenses are based on copyright after all. I reckon you mean "not on the basis of charging copies", and I agree with you.
The consequences are rather vertuous:
- The web service is kept free of charge for the subscribers, or at least cheaper than it could be.
- The subscribers receive commercial mail that is relevant to their areas of interest.
- The client companies have an efficient targeting on potential customers.
And this is only one example of a model that works well if done properly.And it's even more creepy. And more shady too, at least by EU's standards (the gathering and use of personal informations is not taken lightly in Europe).
According to my findings, the Romanian term would be roughly "secta" (I can't type the accent on the "a").
The freemasons have no pretense of being a religious organisation. Not any obedience I've heard of anyway. Now the problem is that they partially match cynicsreport's second criterion, and definitely match the third. This is due to their history. When freemasonry appeared in the eighteenth century (so no, not 700 years ago, far from it), it was a philosophical society that discussed political matters, in areas where this was considered possibly offensive. They have suffered some kinds of persecution at that time, particularly from religious authorities.
Nowadays, though, the habit of secrecy is largely baseless. I think its survival is at least partially due to a childish excitement for the whole "secret society" stuff (which kid never played with that?). In a modern, secular society, I feel it hurts freemasonry rather than serves it. For example, by perpetuating defiance, by giving the least honorable members opportunities to cover fishy stuff, which in turn, when uncovered, reinforces said defiance.
There was one further reason for the Italians to surrender (and to have poor morale): their tanks (Ansaldo-Fiat L3) were just crap, and the field troops knew it, while the commandment refused to aknowledge it.
As a French who learnt German in school (and forgot most of it - I'm currently struggling to recover my former knowledge of it), I'd say it's a complex language, but it's very consistant. There may be many irregular verbs, but most of them can be grouped in a small number of categories that follow the same conjugasons - to the point it's questionable that they really can be called irregular at all. I've never had a really hard time with German grammar (more with assimilating the vocabulary), for it holds very few traps.
Some little rectifications The 1000 euros requested by the plaintiff wasn't punitive damage, which doesn't exist in French law. Damage has to be "real" (physical, moral or financial) to be evaluated by the courts. In this case, it was for the overall inconvenience of the affair and alleged personal and familial problems caused by it, which the court ruled as unproved.
The 150 euros are for the plaintiff's expenses related to the case. He presented his case without a lawyer (which is possible in this kind of courts), but if he'd hired a lawyer, this part would have been basically for the lawyer's payment (and certainly higher).