Free Software has absolutely nothing to do with the napster/music/mp3/copyright issue. NOTHING.
Are you sure? Can you tell me what the difference is? I can write a program that would be unique, someone else would never combine quite the same issues. What would that not be the same?
I was under the impression that some bands did publish their music on the net for people to share. This was aimed at making them more popular. If this isn't the case then the duality isn't corrent, sorry.
I think we more-or-less agree. I would though also include the likes of Michael Jordan are other "sports" stars. We don't live in a socialist society and I am not a socialist. In the UK I would vote for the conservative party (if they didn't have a stupid leader at the moment). In the US you don't really have that much of a choice between the parties and it is becoming the same in the UK. Both (main parties, although we do have some real others) are tending towards right of centre.
He does make very good points in general I do agree with what he says. I guess this goes against the Free Software morallity though, programmers can't financially benefit from their work, so why should musicians? I don't think we (as a society) are in that position yet and people still do need to derive something from their work, be it a musician or a doctor.
Many entertainers are grossly overpaid, why should (to pick a name at random) Tom Cruise get paid many orders of magnitude more than a teacher? Why really does benefit society more?
Anyway, to conclude, I think he should "win" in the sense that people should not be giving away what is not theirs to give. Bands who "GPL" their music should be allowed to use Napster-like services though, so there is no reason for it to be stopped.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure? Can you tell me what the difference is? I can write a program that would be unique, someone else would never combine quite the same issues. What would that not be the same?
I was under the impression that some bands did publish their music on the net for people to share. This was aimed at making them more popular. If this isn't the case then the duality isn't corrent, sorry.
I think we more-or-less agree. I would though also include the likes of Michael Jordan are other "sports" stars. We don't live in a socialist society and I am not a socialist. In the UK I would vote for the conservative party (if they didn't have a stupid leader at the moment). In the US you don't really have that much of a choice between the parties and it is becoming the same in the UK. Both (main parties, although we do have some real others) are tending towards right of centre.
Hi All,
He does make very good points in general I do agree with what he says. I guess this goes against the Free Software morallity though, programmers can't financially benefit from their work, so why should musicians? I don't think we (as a society) are in that position yet and people still do need to derive something from their work, be it a musician or a doctor.
Many entertainers are grossly overpaid, why should (to pick a name at random) Tom Cruise get paid many orders of magnitude more than a teacher? Why really does benefit society more?
Anyway, to conclude, I think he should "win" in the sense that people should not be giving away what is not theirs to give. Bands who "GPL" their music should be allowed to use Napster-like services though, so there is no reason for it to be stopped.
Stephen J. Gowdy
I get the same....
I hate to point out the obvious, but where is Linux originate? The internet wasn't used before the Web, where was that from?