I wonder how many more times members they will have as a result of this despicable action by the MPAA. Perhaps, in the end, it will be the EFF who should be thanking them.;)
No, I mean they'd just jetisson all packets bound for the central napster metaserver or whatever it has. If they evaded that by moving IP addresses, they could just blackhole the entire network.
Of course, that would be totally ineffective against anyone with a little bit of time on their hands.
Well, they could ban all connections to napster's machines, that's easily done with a simple firewall rule. But I guess the main way they will ban it is by saying "you aren't allowed to do this", and then trying to throw out anyone who continues to do so.
Forbidding stuff is an amazingly ineffective way of stopping students from doing it.
No it's an essay. It explains my point. Please read it, there's a link to it someone where in this thread. Then at least you will be able to understand where I am coming from, even if you still disagree.
Ok, so it seems you are a little better at English now. I said it was akin to extortion practiced by the government. After all, the means are very similar. (you aren't allowed to do something you would be otherwise allowed to do, and the reason why you aren't to do it is that if you do, people will imprison you, fine you, etc...) If it turns out the right the government enforces is unjustifiable, it is extortion. However, if it turns out to be justifiable, then it isn't. The very fact that customers are now rebelling and choosing non-proprietary software, despite the special legislative treatment proprietary software has, is a suggestion that perhaps the disadvantages of such a right outweigh the advantages. You seem to be anti-OpenSource. I think this may because you are afraid of it, that you are afraid that your customers will find out that you have been not giving them a very good deal all along. (Did you know that there is a technical term for when an industry decides to not be competetive for supposed mutual benefit. It's called a cartel).
Rights are a social construct that promote a better society. I don't consider the right to licence proprietary software an important human right. The only reason that right exists was because some people thought that it might promote the advancement of Science and the Arts.
Please take some basic reading comprehension classes.
Did I say that it was wrong? No, I didn't. I said it isn't necessarily right.
Now, I happen to agree with property rights, as I think they ultimatley benefit everyone. Therefore I am willing to tolerate selective government violence to enforce propery rights.
The benefit to society for proprietary software is a lot less clear. The fact that open source software has become a viable alternative despite unfavourable treatment from the governments, leads me to suspect that, in fact, the legislative interference has set back the quality and development of software, probably by many years. Certainly the Microsoft tyranny would never had been possible if they had not been backed by legislation.
I do agree that it would be unfair to effectively nationalise (or should I say internationalise) software, without giving due compensation to the owners.
However, if proprietary software cannot compete with open source software, then please excuse a total lack of sympathy from me. They brought it on themselves.
Please read the Magic Cauldron. It might help you understand economics as applied to software. Software is not a manufacturing industry, no matter how hard they try to make people believe it.
On the contrary, proprietary software is akin to extortion. It's just extortion done by companies with the backing of the government. (if you don't give us money, we will send you to jail). Does that make it right? Not necessarily.
That's an interesting way of putting it. Would you also say that Police Forces have (or try to at lesat) destroyed anyone's chances of making money from extortion, theft, and so on?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, it could also be read as an attempt to push US law onto the free world, which I regard as a shame.
It's true! If someone manages to factor 13, we've had it! People will be able to decode our messages instantly!
No, still says they are text/plain. Wierd.
Very nice. Do you think you could fix the Content-Type: header for them?
Remember, most people are stupid.
I wonder how many more times members they will have as a result of this despicable action by the MPAA. Perhaps, in the end, it will be the EFF who should be thanking them. ;)
If you download something you are "copying" it under copyright law.
(That's not legal advice, I am not a lawyer).
Of course, that would be totally ineffective against anyone with a little bit of time on their hands.
Forbidding stuff is an amazingly ineffective way of stopping students from doing it.
Yeah. That makes it "non-free" in debian terms. It also makes it not "open source" software.
They are callsigns.
No it's an essay. It explains my point. Please read it, there's a link to it someone where in this thread. Then at least you will be able to understand where I am coming from, even if you still disagree.
Apologies for the multiple postings, the link to the states burped. :(
And I'm sure I'd love to talk to you in the future, but, as you might have noticed, you are an anonymous coward.
Go away and read the Magic Cauldron. Come back when you understand that software is a service industry, not a manufacturing industry.
Go away and read the Magic Cauldron, by Eric Raymond. Come back when you understand that software is a service industry, not a manufacturing industry.
Ok, so it seems you are a little better at English now. I said it was akin to extortion practiced by the government. After all, the means are very similar. (you aren't allowed to do something you would be otherwise allowed to do, and the reason why you aren't to do it is that if you do, people will imprison you, fine you, etc...) If it turns out the right the government enforces is unjustifiable, it is extortion. However, if it turns out to be justifiable, then it isn't. The very fact that customers are now rebelling and choosing non-proprietary software, despite the special legislative treatment proprietary software has, is a suggestion that perhaps the disadvantages of such a right outweigh the advantages. You seem to be anti-OpenSource. I think this may because you are afraid of it, that you are afraid that your customers will find out that you have been not giving them a very good deal all along. (Did you know that there is a technical term for when an industry decides to not be competetive for supposed mutual benefit. It's called a cartel).
Rights are a social construct that promote a better society. I don't consider the right to licence proprietary software an important human right. The only reason that right exists was because some people thought that it might promote the advancement of Science and the Arts.
Did I say that it was wrong? No, I didn't. I said it isn't necessarily right.
Now, I happen to agree with property rights, as I think they ultimatley benefit everyone. Therefore I am willing to tolerate selective government violence to enforce propery rights.
The benefit to society for proprietary software is a lot less clear. The fact that open source software has become a viable alternative despite unfavourable treatment from the governments, leads me to suspect that, in fact, the legislative interference has set back the quality and development of software, probably by many years. Certainly the Microsoft tyranny would never had been possible if they had not been backed by legislation.
I do agree that it would be unfair to effectively nationalise (or should I say internationalise) software, without giving due compensation to the owners.
However, if proprietary software cannot compete with open source software, then please excuse a total lack of sympathy from me. They brought it on themselves.
Please read the Magic Cauldron. It might help you understand economics as applied to software. Software is not a manufacturing industry, no matter how hard they try to make people believe it.
On the contrary, proprietary software is akin to extortion. It's just extortion done by companies with the backing of the government. (if you don't give us money, we will send you to jail). Does that make it right? Not necessarily.
Pine is a proprietary program with a rather vicious licence. Is its inclusion deliberate, and if so, why is it the only proprietary program here?
That's an interesting way of putting it. Would you also say that Police Forces have (or try to at lesat) destroyed anyone's chances of making money from extortion, theft, and so on?
In reality, scientists didn't know how bumblebees fly until recently. This is very different from concluding that they can't.
No. He's hoping that if he says it enough types, it will stop being false. Using assignment helps that. :)