You go on to assert: "Because that's how the laws are set up.. Well, yes, but, presumably, laws that do not recognize the right of an individual to barter skills and labor for money would provoke a range of serious problems.
Of course, laws that accept copying and immitation do not restrict the right of an individual to barter skills for labor and money.
They might say it, but it isn't true. The statement is imprecise. One doesn't "hear" a song. One hears a performance of a song. You can't acquire ownership of a song by listening to its performance anymore than you can acquire ownership of New York City by riding on a tour bus in Manhattan.
And of course, if I ride a bus thru NewYork city, and completely memorize the layout, and build an exact replica of the city. Then it is my right to do whatever the hell I want with that replica.
If I have retained rights to the distribution and reproduction of my chair, you have made an illegal copy.
Unless you got some kind of patent on that chair, it is not illegal to copy no matter how unique you made it. Ever hear of the IBM compatable PC? The big lawsuits against AMD and Compaq?
Again, if I retain rights to distribution and reproduction, you have made an illegal copy. Your creation of that illegal copy does, in fact, deprive me of future potential gain from the reproducing and distributing my work. Your statement implies that the only reason I might create something is for my own, sole, personal pleasure. To the contrary, I might just as readily make something for the sole purpose of deriving revenue from its marketing. When you make an illegal copy, you deprive me of the revenue otherwise due me by a sale to you and of potential lost revenue when you start distributing illegal copies of my work.
My statement did not imply that. It implies that I have the absolute right to copy things even if it deprives you market share, sales of your own, and it is was originally created and brought into existence by you. By letting the cat out of the bag, you forfit any right to controll what pepole do with it. It is irrational to assume rights even after you forfiet them to people who have no obligation to you.
If you make a chair, you own it. If I make a copy of it, then I own my copy and you own your copy. To argue otherwise is to argue against logic and reality.
Before I make a copy of the chair, there is no copy of the chair. When I make the copy, the copy exists. Who owns it? I do. Since the chair's copy had no previous existence, it is clearly impossible for anyone else to own it.
The same is true with information. Me copying your information does not deprive you of your original, and doing whatever the heck you want with it. You own the copy you created, I own the copy I created. I have no right to deprive you of your copy, you have no right to deprive me of my copy.
The way I see it was that is that Microsoft had these billions of dollars that they couldn't invest in the next latest and greatest paradigm - LINUX!, without creating a suvere conflict of interest to their stock holders. But when they pay out dividends, then that frees up the cash on the open market to persue whatever technology is better without the conflict of interest. IMHO, this is really a good day for Linux.
Information is not property because the government says it is. Information is property because it is something that belongs to the person who created it.
Excuse me, but the very letters you are typing were created by someone. Are you paying royalities to their heirs? Have you created your own mathematics, languages, terms, fact tables, or payed the proper royalities to their orgins. Or are you just being the ultimate hypocrite because no creator is an island. We all build on information knowledge and works passed down to us over time and from our peers. How do you know these weren't created on the terms that all derivitave creative works be shared freely? Considering that you got it without royality, I would suggest that my proposition is stronger that yours.
Perhaps you feel you should own a monopoly on distribution just because you created something, but property rights don't come about because of feelings, they come about because of realities like natural limits in supply and demand. The simple fact is that if someone makes 10 million coppies of your creation - you can still do what ever the hell you want with your original, anything else is bullshit morality.
O'Reilly is dead on right. All this shit is just commodity for the applications built upon it that actually generate income. Superiority of one platform over another is a moot point. No one decides to buy a book at Amazon because of Linux, instead of Barnes and Noble because they run on IIS, so get over it.
Supperiority of the Linux opperating system, and it's useability in business was never the point. It has always been supperiority of the GPL and how the freedom it secures creates more opportunities than the alternatives. GNU/Linux takes advantage of the fact that information can be coppied freely rather than treating it as a threat. GNU/Linux treats information like information rather than a false property right - that has no rational place in a world where true property derives from true physical limits and the fact that not everybody can have everything at the same time. Well with information they can, it is irrational to treat it any other way, and contrary to what everybody says - copyrights are more like information regulations than any sort of free market property right, ones that might have been bearable when the only issue was copy machines, but just don't have a place in the information age.
Intellectual property is perfectly acceptable and has been for hundreds of years. Just because nowadays some people choose to use the relevant laws to ensure that their intellectual property is distributed widely free from certain restrictions often placed on intellectual property belonging to others hasn't suddenly invalidated the whole concept.
Hold on, "intellectual property" hasn't been acceptable for 100's of years. the entire renissance happened without it. The first copyrights were granted by royality in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. This is not some glorious part of natural law or free market economics. We can really do without this. Our society might have been able to handle the burdon 25 years ago when the biggest issue was copy machines, but now it is too much - we just need to get rid of it and all the stupid lawsuits that have come along with it.
Instead of arguing about SCO boing right or wrong, good or bad, what we should be arguing is wether IP is morally acceptable to begin with. When we don't do that, we are just arguing on their terms, jumping thru their hoops, playing the game by their rules. It is a sure path to disapointment.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES...
The way I see it, by suing another contributor, IBM, SCO has violated their BSD license and has forfieted the rights to the BSD code in their software.
Is is well known that SCO relies heavially on BSD code. But the BSD license, while it allows forking, strictly forbids suing over derived code. Since linux and BSD share alot of code - I could envision SCO loosing controll over all of their 'intellectual property'
[Intellectual Property] lumps together diverse laws--copyright law, patent law, trademark law and others--which really have little in common.'"
This is true, but in each case "intellectual property" is still a dishonest concept. With Trademarks - it is dishonest, because most trademark violations could better be covered under fraud laws where cases like suing people for painting a mickey mouse on the preschool walls is much less likely. But going after someone who claims to be IBM when they're not is still just as possible.
Copyrights and patents monopolies are dishonest applications of property all together. Both of them restrict what others can do because "I don't have an incentive!". That is a fraud, perhaps I don't have an incentive to grow potatos unless I can rip up your yard and plant some too, perhaps I don't have an incentive to process cotton unless I can own slaves on the plantaion. This kind of logic has resulted in countless murders and atrocities for centuries. I challenge anyone to prove that they have a moral right to restrict what inventions and creative works people can copy and immitate.
In the information age, information is so easy to copy and manipulate, that you either half to try to controll all of it - or you will end up controlling none of it. Both the RIAA and the MPAA underastand this very well, so we should too.
Copyrights are unenforceable forever more and are effectively dead, so the only way out of this mess is thru defiance. The sooner we drive them out of business, the sooner we will choke off the revenue stream that they are using to attack and litigate us and be able to break free.
I've seen it happen to a number of people. The economey has gone to hell, they can't get enough money to live (esp in Florida - have you seen the cost of living there), and when they can't go any further they flip out. I say lets go easy on they guy, would we do this to a guy thrashing and splahing drowning in a pool, I'd be willing to bet that once things stabilize - he'll be back to codeing on the LRP, and a lot more wiser.
Lets just fce it, people can do everything right and still get nailed. It's just the way the world is, capitalist or not - at this point of course he's fusterated, burnt out, at the end of his rope. And I hate to say it, but things will probably get worse before they get better. However, I too don't think he should regret his efforts - whether he can put cash in the bank right now or not, he still did himself a favor that will have positive long term consequences.
To be honest, I don't think technology is on their side. Other than the occasional string up someone and make an example out of them, or the occasional beat someone down who admits it publicly, I think that 99.99% of the population could share information freely and never be touched.
In a way that is the point. The purpose of politics (and less directly government) is that it's better to fight wars with words rather than with blood. But to copy things does not require coercion at all, the rules are not the same, we are not dealing with limited resources where when one person gains another looses. They will not get disenfranchised help, they will not get public support, and they will not get personal fufillment helping a bunch of hollywood brats act like the gestapo.
first we are given a number rather than our names, like dogs with tags
then we are tracked, and can't make a buck without it
then it is easy to forge, and everybody misuses it
then it's required for all sorts of services it should have nothing to do with - like why the hell do I need one to get medical insurance
and finally, worst of all, it is attached to one of the largest, most fraudlent ponzi, pyramid, investment aleged retirement schemes in the history of human existence.
we would really do better getting rid of it, I'm glad they posted these numbers, it really hits the point home
During alchol prohabition some (wont mention names) politicians learned that all the MOB violence had an interesting side effect of allowing the general populus to put up with taxes that never would have been dreamed of otherwise (in the name of protecting the public, of course). With this money, many funded sweetheart deals that made them very personally wealthy.
Unfortunately, that tradition contunues today. It was especially bad during the 80's - whenever rich people started to get fed up with the high taxes and move their assets offshore, all of a sudden a bunch of "token niggers" (sorry - not ment to disrespect anyone) would get murdered in high profile drug wars/or busts, and all the papers would start running articles about offshore money laundering for drugs. Funny how it had the miraculous side effect of keeping taxpayers at home.
Anyhow, now we have a much more powerfull excuse: the war on terror. If that isn't a motivation to keep people from moving their money to offshore accounts, than what is? Don't get me wrong, there are alot of evil people out there who would love to ruin freedoms in America - who just need to be dealt with once and for all. But, I can do things to protect my family from terror - but from a corrupt and cold blooded government, how do I protect my family from that?
I think that is the worse thing IBM could possibly do. First, that is exactly what SCO wants (to be purchased to save the sinking ship). Second, that would (in some ways) admit guilt on IBM's part, making them look bad, and justifying further retarded lawsuits. Third, it's the principal of the matter. SCO *SHOULD* take this to court so they can loose, and IBM can counter sue for damages. Now that would be a win win.
Fourth, this is just a practice battle for what's going to happen when Microsoft really starts hurting from linux. God help us then, all hell wil break loose, and they will be too big to buy out.
IMHO, the real issue isn't the death of SCO, but the death of "intellectual property" as a dishonest property right in gernetal. Both from the Linux side and the p2p side, "intellectual property" is quickly becomming irrelavent, and people who bet the farm on it are going to suffer alot like they probably deserve.
Every time I turn arround, the govt is making some dumbass policy decision for the "protection" of the general public, twice so in technology related matters. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't want the law involved. They will surely screw things up likewise. If someone's busting into your house, and your'e about to shoot em, - ok then that would be a good time to call the police, otherwise I am very reluctant to put up with the incompetence. Not that law enforcement aren't good people (sometimes), but they are held accountable to different forces.
He should have just called his ISP, and if things didn't change in a reasonable amount of time, he should dump them, and perhaps warn others that he knows of. ISP's are a comodity nowdays.
AARGH!!! Nothing is wrong with hyperactive kids
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
For God's sake. Please don't take any of that crap, especially rydlin
After suffering under hyperactivity through childhood, I've come to the conclusion that Hyperactivity is really more a problem of impatient or ignorant parents and teachers who are more interested in kids who conform than kids who think and act for themselves. They'd rather medicate than put in some elbo grease and do the work that's required to deal with people who don't conform to their model person. There is nothing wrong with hyperactivity, it is normal, and wasn't even noticed as a problem until we started trying to shove people into cbuicle lifestyles. Infact most hyperactive kids have IO's that are higher than average. It amazes me how society tries to shove them into a system that treates them like freaks of nature, and then sits back and wonders why things turn out so screwed up. Try sunshine, exercise, a healthy diet, and dicipline - (a good dose of which is good for any kid or adult) and other than that, deal with it.
Looking back, I never suffered much from hyperactivity, but I suffered plenty from adults and teachers (and yes peers too) who would become impatient and lash out both verbally and physically. Often "payback" was delayed and anonymous, so by time they got their revenge, I wouldn't even know what I was suffering for. Hyperactivity, only becomes your problem later on in life. By then, all the crap that you've taken from people who tried to force you to conform starts to take an emotional toll. Most hyperactive people suffer serious depression later on in life, but will also not likely find the help they need for the same reasons. Taking a pill will only make it worse, because (like alchol) it will cover up the problem until it is out of controll. IMHO, you are far better off just fighting thru the shit you are sure to encounter, and keep trying. I wish luck to anyone who has to deal with it, it will be a hard journey.
a copyright in it's 2nd year or it's 100th year has to be backed up by the full force of the US govt. I could see using that force with physical property where one persons posession of property autimatically limits and deprives another, but for a song?
The government can't tell people that they have this right to restrict copying, and then never enforce it. So that begs the question, how far are we willing to push it when people refuse to cooperate. Are going to bankrupt them, toss them in jail, shoot them depending on how hard they resist.
I do think that reducing copyright terms would greatly reduce the harm caused by copyrights, and reducing it enough might even make them bearable again for awhile, but I don't really think at this point it could ever be 14 years. In the eyes of the copyright "lords" it is an all or nothing game, in they eyes of the victims it is too - never give them another seed to nickle and dime our rights away with again.
BTW, one more thing. I really understand where you're comeing from. I used to believe in copyrights so strongly, and took me 7 years worth of thinking about it, and questioning myself, and experiencing crap in the software industry, and seeing first hand how they could take perfictly productive orginisations and turn them into dirt before I concluded that copyrights are crap, they are not free market, they do not help creators, and society could do without them. Just think about it, that's all I ask.
If there is one thing we should learn from this SCO suit, it's that for both sides this is an all or nothing game. IMHO, copyrights are like the slavery of the information age, they are a form of controll that just won't work anymore. Dont be like those who thought that the free states could get along with the slave states.
I don't really know either how the outcome would be for artists or creations that will be brought to society, but I do know that copyrights don't help artists, and they especially don't help small artists. For everyone that makes it big, there are hidden thousands that copyrights don't help a bit and even squish like a bug. For chrissake, even church choiros are restricted in their venues. Many artists are even forbidden from using their own creations in public, other ones are royaltied out of existence. If an artist looses a govt backed monopoly over copying their works but in the process gains free use of a zillion other works, I suspect that most that care about art would consider that a net gain. Those that most care about money.... well? I also know that copyrights tend to skew the kind of art that we have in society, it tends to put great value on art and creations that get the most hype at the expense of creations that tend to be connected to value and service. IMHO that paradigm might prop up big media companies, but it tends to leave artists in the dust.
25 years ago when the biggest issue with copyrights was xerox machines - it was probably bearable. But in the information age, information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can't be a middle ground. You either half to controll all of it or none of it. Hollywood knows this, SCO probably does too, and so should we.
There's nothing immoral about expecting a regime to exist where you can offer to create something in exchange for people who make use of what you create paying you for it.
You're right. There's nothing wrong with that, I get paid every day to do that. Copyrights are not such a regime though - first, I have no problem paying a creator to create something, I have a problem with a monopoly imposed on copying after the fact. Second, copyrights do not help creators, for every creator they help there are thousnads that they restrict and harm.
Why are all talking about who coppied who's code. The real issue isn't about code, but about the morality of copyrights to begin with. It reminds me of St. Thomas Moore, who refused to state what religion he was - so they put on a big trial to proove that he didn't support the Kings religion. While everybody was debating about what religion he really believed - they should have been debating about wether it was OK for King to execute someone for their religious beliefs.
The same is true with copyrights. They are not valid, they are unethical, and they ruin peoples lives - yet nobody wants to dare challenge them openly because it seems to radical too risky. Sheesh, freedom of religion is radical - instead of worying about being radical, lets worry about being right.
Slashdot Mirror
You go on to assert: "Because that's how the laws are set up.. Well, yes, but, presumably, laws that do not recognize the right of an individual to barter skills and labor for money would provoke a range of serious problems.
Of course, laws that accept copying and immitation do not restrict the right of an individual to barter skills for labor and money.
They might say it, but it isn't true. The statement is imprecise. One doesn't "hear" a song. One hears a performance of a song. You can't acquire ownership of a song by listening to its performance anymore than you can acquire ownership of New York City by riding on a tour bus in Manhattan.
And of course, if I ride a bus thru NewYork city, and completely memorize the layout, and build an exact replica of the city. Then it is my right to do whatever the hell I want with that replica.
If I have retained rights to the distribution and reproduction of my chair, you have made an illegal copy.
Unless you got some kind of patent on that chair, it is not illegal to copy no matter how unique you made it. Ever hear of the IBM compatable PC? The big lawsuits against AMD and Compaq?
Again, if I retain rights to distribution and reproduction, you have made an illegal copy. Your creation of that illegal copy does, in fact, deprive me of future potential gain from the reproducing and distributing my work. Your statement implies that the only reason I might create something is for my own, sole, personal pleasure. To the contrary, I might just as readily make something for the sole purpose of deriving revenue from its marketing. When you make an illegal copy, you deprive me of the revenue otherwise due me by a sale to you and of potential lost revenue when you start distributing illegal copies of my work.
My statement did not imply that. It implies that I have the absolute right to copy things even if it deprives you market share, sales of your own, and it is was originally created and brought into existence by you. By letting the cat out of the bag, you forfit any right to controll what pepole do with it. It is irrational to assume rights even after you forfiet them to people who have no obligation to you.
If you make a chair, you own it. If I make a copy of it, then I own my copy and you own your copy. To argue otherwise is to argue against logic and reality.
Before I make a copy of the chair, there is no copy of the chair. When I make the copy, the copy exists. Who owns it? I do. Since the chair's copy had no previous existence, it is clearly impossible for anyone else to own it.
The same is true with information. Me copying your information does not deprive you of your original, and doing whatever the heck you want with it. You own the copy you created, I own the copy I created. I have no right to deprive you of your copy, you have no right to deprive me of my copy.
The way I see it was that is that Microsoft had these billions of dollars that they couldn't invest in the next latest and greatest paradigm - LINUX!, without creating a suvere conflict of interest to their stock holders. But when they pay out dividends, then that frees up the cash on the open market to persue whatever technology is better without the conflict of interest. IMHO, this is really a good day for Linux.
Information is not property because the government says it is. Information is property because it is something that belongs to the person who created it.
Excuse me, but the very letters you are typing were created by someone. Are you paying royalities to their heirs? Have you created your own mathematics, languages, terms, fact tables, or payed the proper royalities to their orgins. Or are you just being the ultimate hypocrite because no creator is an island. We all build on information knowledge and works passed down to us over time and from our peers. How do you know these weren't created on the terms that all derivitave creative works be shared freely? Considering that you got it without royality, I would suggest that my proposition is stronger that yours.
Perhaps you feel you should own a monopoly on distribution just because you created something, but property rights don't come about because of feelings, they come about because of realities like natural limits in supply and demand. The simple fact is that if someone makes 10 million coppies of your creation - you can still do what ever the hell you want with your original, anything else is bullshit morality.
O'Reilly is dead on right. All this shit is just commodity for the applications built upon it that actually generate income. Superiority of one platform over another is a moot point. No one decides to buy a book at Amazon because of Linux, instead of Barnes and Noble because they run on IIS, so get over it.
Supperiority of the Linux opperating system, and it's useability in business was never the point. It has always been supperiority of the GPL and how the freedom it secures creates more opportunities than the alternatives. GNU/Linux takes advantage of the fact that information can be coppied freely rather than treating it as a threat. GNU/Linux treats information like information rather than a false property right - that has no rational place in a world where true property derives from true physical limits and the fact that not everybody can have everything at the same time. Well with information they can, it is irrational to treat it any other way, and contrary to what everybody says - copyrights are more like information regulations than any sort of free market property right, ones that might have been bearable when the only issue was copy machines, but just don't have a place in the information age.
Intellectual property is perfectly acceptable and has been for hundreds of years. Just because nowadays some people choose to use the relevant laws to ensure that their intellectual property is distributed widely free from certain restrictions often placed on intellectual property belonging to others hasn't suddenly invalidated the whole concept.
Hold on, "intellectual property" hasn't been acceptable for 100's of years. the entire renissance happened without it. The first copyrights were granted by royality in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. This is not some glorious part of natural law or free market economics. We can really do without this. Our society might have been able to handle the burdon 25 years ago when the biggest issue was copy machines, but now it is too much - we just need to get rid of it and all the stupid lawsuits that have come along with it.
Instead of arguing about SCO boing right or wrong, good or bad, what we should be arguing is wether IP is morally acceptable to begin with. When we don't do that, we are just arguing on their terms, jumping thru their hoops, playing the game by their rules. It is a sure path to disapointment.
I did RTFL, inculding the part ....
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ...
The way I see it, by suing another contributor, IBM, SCO has violated their BSD license and has forfieted the rights to the BSD code in their software.
Is is well known that SCO relies heavially on BSD code. But the BSD license, while it allows forking, strictly forbids suing over derived code. Since linux and BSD share alot of code - I could envision SCO loosing controll over all of their 'intellectual property'
[Intellectual Property] lumps together diverse laws--copyright law, patent law, trademark law and others--which really have little in common.'"
This is true, but in each case "intellectual property" is still a dishonest concept. With Trademarks - it is dishonest, because most trademark violations could better be covered under fraud laws where cases like suing people for painting a mickey mouse on the preschool walls is much less likely. But going after someone who claims to be IBM when they're not is still just as possible.
Copyrights and patents monopolies are dishonest applications of property all together. Both of them restrict what others can do because "I don't have an incentive!". That is a fraud, perhaps I don't have an incentive to grow potatos unless I can rip up your yard and plant some too, perhaps I don't have an incentive to process cotton unless I can own slaves on the plantaion. This kind of logic has resulted in countless murders and atrocities for centuries. I challenge anyone to prove that they have a moral right to restrict what inventions and creative works people can copy and immitate.
In the information age, information is so easy to copy and manipulate, that you either half to try to controll all of it - or you will end up controlling none of it. Both the RIAA and the MPAA underastand this very well, so we should too.
Copyrights are unenforceable forever more and are effectively dead, so the only way out of this mess is thru defiance. The sooner we drive them out of business, the sooner we will choke off the revenue stream that they are using to attack and litigate us and be able to break free.
I've seen it happen to a number of people. The economey has gone to hell, they can't get enough money to live (esp in Florida - have you seen the cost of living there), and when they can't go any further they flip out. I say lets go easy on they guy, would we do this to a guy thrashing and splahing drowning in a pool, I'd be willing to bet that once things stabilize - he'll be back to codeing on the LRP, and a lot more wiser.
Lets just fce it, people can do everything right and still get nailed. It's just the way the world is, capitalist or not - at this point of course he's fusterated, burnt out, at the end of his rope. And I hate to say it, but things will probably get worse before they get better. However, I too don't think he should regret his efforts - whether he can put cash in the bank right now or not, he still did himself a favor that will have positive long term consequences.
To be honest, I don't think technology is on their side. Other than the occasional string up someone and make an example out of them, or the occasional beat someone down who admits it publicly, I think that 99.99% of the population could share information freely and never be touched.
In a way that is the point. The purpose of politics (and less directly government) is that it's better to fight wars with words rather than with blood. But to copy things does not require coercion at all, the rules are not the same, we are not dealing with limited resources where when one person gains another looses. They will not get disenfranchised help, they will not get public support, and they will not get personal fufillment helping a bunch of hollywood brats act like the gestapo.
first we are given a number rather than our names, like dogs with tags
then we are tracked, and can't make a buck without it
then it is easy to forge, and everybody misuses it
then it's required for all sorts of services it should have nothing to do with - like why the hell do I need one to get medical insurance
and finally, worst of all, it is attached to one of the largest, most fraudlent ponzi, pyramid, investment aleged retirement schemes in the history of human existence.
we would really do better getting rid of it, I'm glad they posted these numbers, it really hits the point home
During alchol prohabition some (wont mention names) politicians learned that all the MOB violence had an interesting side effect of allowing the general populus to put up with taxes that never would have been dreamed of otherwise (in the name of protecting the public, of course). With this money, many funded sweetheart deals that made them very personally wealthy.
Unfortunately, that tradition contunues today. It was especially bad during the 80's - whenever rich people started to get fed up with the high taxes and move their assets offshore, all of a sudden a bunch of "token niggers" (sorry - not ment to disrespect anyone) would get murdered in high profile drug wars/or busts, and all the papers would start running articles about offshore money laundering for drugs. Funny how it had the miraculous side effect of keeping taxpayers at home.
Anyhow, now we have a much more powerfull excuse: the war on terror. If that isn't a motivation to keep people from moving their money to offshore accounts, than what is? Don't get me wrong, there are alot of evil people out there who would love to ruin freedoms in America - who just need to be dealt with once and for all. But, I can do things to protect my family from terror - but from a corrupt and cold blooded government, how do I protect my family from that?
I think that is the worse thing IBM could possibly do. First, that is exactly what SCO wants (to be purchased to save the sinking ship). Second, that would (in some ways) admit guilt on IBM's part, making them look bad, and justifying further retarded lawsuits. Third, it's the principal of the matter. SCO *SHOULD* take this to court so they can loose, and IBM can counter sue for damages. Now that would be a win win.
Fourth, this is just a practice battle for what's going to happen when Microsoft really starts hurting from linux. God help us then, all hell wil break loose, and they will be too big to buy out.
IMHO, the real issue isn't the death of SCO, but the death of "intellectual property" as a dishonest property right in gernetal. Both from the Linux side and the p2p side, "intellectual property" is quickly becomming irrelavent, and people who bet the farm on it are going to suffer alot like they probably deserve.
Every time I turn arround, the govt is making some dumbass policy decision for the "protection" of the general public, twice so in technology related matters. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't want the law involved. They will surely screw things up likewise. If someone's busting into your house, and your'e about to shoot em, - ok then that would be a good time to call the police, otherwise I am very reluctant to put up with the incompetence. Not that law enforcement aren't good people (sometimes), but they are held accountable to different forces.
He should have just called his ISP, and if things didn't change in a reasonable amount of time, he should dump them, and perhaps warn others that he knows of. ISP's are a comodity nowdays.
For God's sake. Please don't take any of that crap, especially rydlin
After suffering under hyperactivity through childhood, I've come to the conclusion that Hyperactivity is really more a problem of impatient or ignorant parents and teachers who are more interested in kids who conform than kids who think and act for themselves. They'd rather medicate than put in some elbo grease and do the work that's required to deal with people who don't conform to their model person. There is nothing wrong with hyperactivity, it is normal, and wasn't even noticed as a problem until we started trying to shove people into cbuicle lifestyles. Infact most hyperactive kids have IO's that are higher than average. It amazes me how society tries to shove them into a system that treates them like freaks of nature, and then sits back and wonders why things turn out so screwed up. Try sunshine, exercise, a healthy diet, and dicipline - (a good dose of which is good for any kid or adult) and other than that, deal with it.
Looking back, I never suffered much from hyperactivity, but I suffered plenty from adults and teachers (and yes peers too) who would become impatient and lash out both verbally and physically. Often "payback" was delayed and anonymous, so by time they got their revenge, I wouldn't even know what I was suffering for. Hyperactivity, only becomes your problem later on in life. By then, all the crap that you've taken from people who tried to force you to conform starts to take an emotional toll. Most hyperactive people suffer serious depression later on in life, but will also not likely find the help they need for the same reasons. Taking a pill will only make it worse, because (like alchol) it will cover up the problem until it is out of controll. IMHO, you are far better off just fighting thru the shit you are sure to encounter, and keep trying. I wish luck to anyone who has to deal with it, it will be a hard journey.
hmmm,
ok how about this...
a copyright in it's 2nd year or it's 100th year has to be backed up by the full force of the US govt. I could see using that force with physical property where one persons posession of property autimatically limits and deprives another, but for a song?
The government can't tell people that they have this right to restrict copying, and then never enforce it. So that begs the question, how far are we willing to push it when people refuse to cooperate. Are going to bankrupt them, toss them in jail, shoot them depending on how hard they resist.
I do think that reducing copyright terms would greatly reduce the harm caused by copyrights, and reducing it enough might even make them bearable again for awhile, but I don't really think at this point it could ever be 14 years. In the eyes of the copyright "lords" it is an all or nothing game, in they eyes of the victims it is too - never give them another seed to nickle and dime our rights away with again.
BTW, one more thing. I really understand where you're comeing from. I used to believe in copyrights so strongly, and took me 7 years worth of thinking about it, and questioning myself, and experiencing crap in the software industry, and seeing first hand how they could take perfictly productive orginisations and turn them into dirt before I concluded that copyrights are crap, they are not free market, they do not help creators, and society could do without them. Just think about it, that's all I ask.
If there is one thing we should learn from this SCO suit, it's that for both sides this is an all or nothing game. IMHO, copyrights are like the slavery of the information age, they are a form of controll that just won't work anymore. Dont be like those who thought that the free states could get along with the slave states.
I don't really know either how the outcome would be for artists or creations that will be brought to society, but I do know that copyrights don't help artists, and they especially don't help small artists. For everyone that makes it big, there are hidden thousands that copyrights don't help a bit and even squish like a bug. For chrissake, even church choiros are restricted in their venues. Many artists are even forbidden from using their own creations in public, other ones are royaltied out of existence. If an artist looses a govt backed monopoly over copying their works but in the process gains free use of a zillion other works, I suspect that most that care about art would consider that a net gain. Those that most care about money .... well? I also know that copyrights tend to skew the kind of art that we have in society, it tends to put great value on art and creations that get the most hype at the expense of creations that tend to be connected to value and service. IMHO that paradigm might prop up big media companies, but it tends to leave artists in the dust.
25 years ago when the biggest issue with copyrights was xerox machines - it was probably bearable. But in the information age, information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can't be a middle ground. You either half to controll all of it or none of it. Hollywood knows this, SCO probably does too, and so should we.
There's nothing immoral about expecting a regime to exist where you can offer to create something in exchange for people who make use of what you create paying you for it.
You're right. There's nothing wrong with that, I get paid every day to do that. Copyrights are not such a regime though - first, I have no problem paying a creator to create something, I have a problem with a monopoly imposed on copying after the fact. Second, copyrights do not help creators, for every creator they help there are thousnads that they restrict and harm.
Why are all talking about who coppied who's code. The real issue isn't about code, but about the morality of copyrights to begin with. It reminds me of St. Thomas Moore, who refused to state what religion he was - so they put on a big trial to proove that he didn't support the Kings religion. While everybody was debating about what religion he really believed - they should have been debating about wether it was OK for King to execute someone for their religious beliefs.
The same is true with copyrights. They are not valid, they are unethical, and they ruin peoples lives - yet nobody wants to dare challenge them openly because it seems to radical too risky. Sheesh, freedom of religion is radical - instead of worying about being radical, lets worry about being right.