For the same reason that you pay EI on your paycheque even if you never collect it, the same reason that you pay for health care even if you only go for a check-up once every year, and the same reason you pay GST and (unless you're Albertan) PST.
But these are, I assume, some form of insurance - they benefit the population, they do not make the assumption that if you buy a CDR you should be assumed to be using it for illegal purposes (despite a multitude of legal uses for CDRs).
This is the worst kind of kludge, it tries to paper over the massive cracks in copyright law by imposing an arbitrary tax on users of CDRs. Who will be taxed next? Perhaps all computers - they can be used for piracy. Perhaps cars? People can sit in their cars and listen to pirated music. Before long, the government will be paying SOCAN directly out of taxpayer's pockets.
For example, currently all CDR sales are taxed, with the proceeds going to copyright holders. Of course, the real question is who gets the money, who wants to bet that it goes straight to the RIAA or a similar organisation which, no doubt, ensures that the little-guy gets his fair share
This idea is laughably broken - and anti-capitalist - what is next? Perhaps they will tax walking and give those taxes to Exxon, after all, it hurts oil companies when people don't drive.
Why should someone who uses CDRs for, say, duplicating software such as Linux, have to pay money into the coffers of the record industry?
Where is the competition that is supposed to drive capitalism when companies are being paid directly from government imposed tarrifs?
This is a repost of a comment I contributed to a Microsoft Vs Open Source debate hosted by Silicon Valley forum which is rather relevant to this story
I think that I see the disconnect here, and it actually lies in the distinction between Open Source, and Free Software. As I see it, the difference is that the motivation behind Free Software, as advocated by Richard Stallman, is to advance humanity as a whole, without concern for commercial viability. The motivation behind Open Source is that a company can benefit commercially from use of an Open Source license. Now, it is clear that there are definite benefits for a company to use Open Source software, however I think a good case can be made as to why it may not be in a company's best interests to create such software, and I suspect that this is the case that underpins Craig's argument.
The question then is - which argument are we having here? I think that it is fair to say that advocates of Open Source tend to shift their position as it suits them - effectively using a strawman argument. Since we are discussing Microsoft's use of a Shared Source license, and Microsoft is, of course, motivated by profit, it seems that at least partially the Open Source advocates, in criticizing Shared Source, are making the weaker case that it is in Microsoft's interests to create Open Source software. It is also clear, however, that most of their justifications for this position are, in fact, justifications for the stronger case that Open Source is in the public interest.
This is a strawman since in arguing with Craig they imply that he is trying to say that Open Source is not in the public interest, and argue against that (which isn't hard). The reality, however, is that Craig is actually thinking in terms of a for-profit corporation's best interest (which is perfectly natural), and then presumably relying on the Ayn Rand philosophy that capitalism will ultimately advance the public interest.
I therefore challenge the participants to make their position clear. Do they feel that:
It is in a for-profit organisation's interest to create Open Source software
It is in a for-profit organisation's interest to use Open Source software
It is not in a for-profit organisation's interest to create Open Source software, but it is in the public interest
It is not in anyone's interest to create Open Source software
I think that we need to acknowledge that for-profit corporations will do whatever they can, within the law, to advance their own interests, and it is the responsibility of government to protect the public interest.
If the editors of/. want it to be a serious news site, then the need to include the words "and obviously, this is a rumor" should disqualify any article immediately. Of course, I am sure in most cases it would, but in this case, the site on the receiving end happens to be a competitor.
I know that it is getting fashionable to criticise slashdot these days, and most of the time, my answer is "if you don't like it, don't visit the site", however I think that this definitely steps over the line.
So are we to see a relaxation of any editorial standards whenever the opportunity arises to take a swipe at a competitive news site?
So we learned with Adobe that opportunistic lawyers can sue people who infringe on trademarks, take a cut, and give the rest to the company they sued.
So, putting 2 and 2 together, why can't the GPL be enforced in the same way? The lawyers get a cut, and the GPL gets enforced without the FSF or anyone else spending a penny.
--
Has anyone actually read the article?
on
IANAL
·
· Score: 2
It is rather amazing that at this time, none of the top rated comments suggest that their authors have even read the NYT article in question.
Was abolition of slavery bad because it devalued the economic worth of the people they worked for? Is it bad to build a better mouse-trap since you might put existing mouse-trap manufacturers out of business?
Believe me, your protectionist attitude has nothing to do with capitalism, and much to do with the left-wing socialism that I suspect you think you disagree with.
I see no justification in your quotations for your assertion. Sure, Stallman was pissed off at Symbolics, and the reason he was pissed off was that he felt that they were not advancing humanity's interests in Stallman's view.
You might not like Stallman or his methods, but there is little question as to the underlying philosophical motivation as to what he is doing.
Here was a post I sent recently to the SiliconValley forum which hosted a debate between some Microsofties and Open Source luminaries which, while slightly off-topic, may be of some interest to readers of this article:
Open Source advocates: A strawman argument?
I think that I see the disconnect here, and it actually lies in the distinction between Open Source, and Free Software. As I see it, the difference is that the motivation behind Free Software, as advocated by Richard Stallman, is to advance humanity as a whole, without concern for commercial viability. The motivation behind Open Source is that a company can benefit commercially from use of an Open Source license. Now, it is clear that there are definite benefits for a company to use Open Source software, however I think a good case can be made as to why it may not be in a company's best interests to create such software, and I suspect that this is the case that underpins Craig's argument.
The question then is - which argument are we having here? I think that it is fair to say that advocates of Open Source tend to shift their position as it suits them - effectively using a strawman argument. Since we are discussing Microsoft's use of a Shared Source license, and Microsoft is, of course, motivated by profit, it seems that at least partially the Open Source advocates, in criticizing Shared Source, are making the weaker case that it is in Microsoft's interests to create Open Source software. It is also clear, however, that most of their justifications for this position are, in fact, justifications for the stronger case that Open Source is in the public interest.
This is a strawman since in arguing with Craig they imply that he is trying to say that Open Source is not in the public interest, and argue against that (which isn't hard). The reality, however, is that Craig is actually thinking in terms of a for-profit corporation's best interest (which is perfectly natural), and then presumably relying on the Ayn Rand philosophy that capitalism will ultimately advance the public interest.
I therefore challenge the participants to make their position clear. Do they feel that:
It is in a for-profit organisation's interest to create Open Source software
It is in a for-profit organisation's interest to use Open Source software
It is not in a for-profit organisation's interest to create Open Source software, but it is in the public interest
It is not in anyone's interest to create Open Source software
I think that we need to acknowledge that for-profit corporations will do whatever they can, within the law, to advance their own interests, and it is the responsibility of government to protect the public interest.
I am surprised that I have not yet seen mention of Nano, a Pico clone that is more featureful, stable, and Open Source. I first learned email with Pine and Pico, and while pico wasn't the most powerful editor in the world, it was simple, intuitive, and had all the functionality I needed. Nano takes this to the next level. My current email preference is Mutt+Nano.
Bear in mind that I.M, and the people they support, thrive on provoking confrontation with authority, for publicity. Given this, it could be argued that the FBI dropping the case actually deprives them of a source of PR.
To be honest, my impression of IndyMedia is that they are just as biased, if not more so, than the mainstream media they want to subvert.
Burnt out: What happens to an active developer on an Open Source project who is forced to leave due to persistent flaming from the peanut gallery to which they don't have the time or energy to respond.
--
What about Redhat's users though!
on
GCC 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 2
I can't quite tell if this post is serious or not, assuming it is:
It may be great for GCC that RedHat provided them with a wide-scale test of their software, but what about users of RedHat who were stuck with a buggy version of GCC for months?
Not to be nitpicky, but you mention providing marketable skills & performance isn't the issue. If Java is a slow performer, wouldn't it tend to hurt students more learning a language that is slow, and klunky? Last I checked, there were plenty of jobs available for C & C++ programmers. I have a feeling that Java may be a fad, and C/C++ will be around and fall back in favor unless Java really takes off.
Whenever a language is released that makes life easier for the programmer, it is always assused of being too slow, I am sure the same was said of C by assembly programmers. The reality is, however, that the value of speeding up a development effort can be far greater than the value of a marginal runtime speed increase. Just think of the debugging time spent finding memory leaks in software, yet this - for the most part - is simply not a problem for java.
Computers are getting faster all the time, but programmers won't unless they can use languages which take care of some of the housekeeping for them. It is this more pragmatic philosophy which underpins Java, not to mention most other modern languages.
I was disappointed to see that Python adopts a similar strategy to C++ in-terms of its object orientated architecture, namely that it looks like an afterthought (of course, in C++ this was the case since they were trying to remain backward compatable with C, but apparently O.O was in Python from the start). The use of clunky keywords like __init__ gives the impression of trying to hammer O.O into a syntax not designed for it. The nice thing about Java is that the syntax of the language seems designed to accomodate O.O from square one.
Is there anyone who has ever achieved anything who you couldn't accuse of self-promotion? Perhaps you would prefer a world where nobody tried to make anything better lest they be accused of having an inflated ego.
It was turned down by Ian because he thought it
was a non-issue.
This wasn't the main reason, the main reason is that Freenet thrives on making new connections, the architecture simply won't work if it can't do this. The 0.4 Freenet node will actually incorporate functionality which achieves the same thing, but without preventing the formation of new connections.
Firstly - on a more general point, all of those "XXX for Dummies" books could be interpreted as being insulting, but most people recognise them for the tongue-in-cheek joke they are, which explains their incredible popularity.
Having said that, the usage guide you point to isn't actually the usage guide at all, the actual usage guide you are thinking of is at http://freenetproject.org/quickguide/
and has been for months, and AFAIK there are no references to "fools" anywhere - so I really don't understand what you are talking about.
I don't think that splitting the network in two is really a great way to achieve scalability, in fact, it is more accurately described as a way to deal with a lack of scalability.
I would certainly be interested to hear why you think that it is more anonymous and more scalable than Freenet? Nothing I can see supports your claim.
Firstly, this doesn't really address the same problem as Freenet, it is more akin to Mixmaster from what I can see (although Mixmaster has a better pedigree). Secondly, the fact that every message seems to be broadcasted to every peer, forcing them to periodically split the network, really isn't a very scalable approach at all.
These guys would be well-served to investigate the "Dining Cryptographers" problem, which is a way that a group of peers can transmit information to each-other but remain anonymous (within the group) with mathematical certainty. Again, it isn't very scalable, and is subject to DOS attacks, but it does work.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the worst kind of kludge, it tries to paper over the massive cracks in copyright law by imposing an arbitrary tax on users of CDRs. Who will be taxed next? Perhaps all computers - they can be used for piracy. Perhaps cars? People can sit in their cars and listen to pirated music. Before long, the government will be paying SOCAN directly out of taxpayer's pockets.
--
This idea is laughably broken - and anti-capitalist - what is next? Perhaps they will tax walking and give those taxes to Exxon, after all, it hurts oil companies when people don't drive.
Why should someone who uses CDRs for, say, duplicating software such as Linux, have to pay money into the coffers of the record industry?
Where is the competition that is supposed to drive capitalism when companies are being paid directly from government imposed tarrifs?
--
I think that I see the disconnect here, and it actually lies in the distinction between Open Source, and Free Software. As I see it, the difference is that the motivation behind Free Software, as advocated by Richard Stallman, is to advance humanity as a whole, without concern for commercial viability. The motivation behind Open Source is that a company can benefit commercially from use of an Open Source license. Now, it is clear that there are definite benefits for a company to use Open Source software, however I think a good case can be made as to why it may not be in a company's best interests to create such software, and I suspect that this is the case that underpins Craig's argument.
The question then is - which argument are we having here? I think that it is fair to say that advocates of Open Source tend to shift their position as it suits them - effectively using a strawman argument. Since we are discussing Microsoft's use of a Shared Source license, and Microsoft is, of course, motivated by profit, it seems that at least partially the Open Source advocates, in criticizing Shared Source, are making the weaker case that it is in Microsoft's interests to create Open Source software. It is also clear, however, that most of their justifications for this position are, in fact, justifications for the stronger case that Open Source is in the public interest.
This is a strawman since in arguing with Craig they imply that he is trying to say that Open Source is not in the public interest, and argue against that (which isn't hard). The reality, however, is that Craig is actually thinking in terms of a for-profit corporation's best interest (which is perfectly natural), and then presumably relying on the Ayn Rand philosophy that capitalism will ultimately advance the public interest.
I therefore challenge the participants to make their position clear. Do they feel that:
I think that we need to acknowledge that for-profit corporations will do whatever they can, within the law, to advance their own interests, and it is the responsibility of government to protect the public interest.
--
I know that it is getting fashionable to criticise slashdot these days, and most of the time, my answer is "if you don't like it, don't visit the site", however I think that this definitely steps over the line.
So are we to see a relaxation of any editorial standards whenever the opportunity arises to take a swipe at a competitive news site?
--
--
So, putting 2 and 2 together, why can't the GPL be enforced in the same way? The lawyers get a cut, and the GPL gets enforced without the FSF or anyone else spending a penny.
--
In fact, it is depressing.
--
Was abolition of slavery bad because it devalued the economic worth of the people they worked for? Is it bad to build a better mouse-trap since you might put existing mouse-trap manufacturers out of business?
Believe me, your protectionist attitude has nothing to do with capitalism, and much to do with the left-wing socialism that I suspect you think you disagree with.
--
You might not like Stallman or his methods, but there is little question as to the underlying philosophical motivation as to what he is doing.
--
--
--
To be honest, my impression of IndyMedia is that they are just as biased, if not more so, than the mainstream media they want to subvert.
--
--
It may be great for GCC that RedHat provided them with a wide-scale test of their software, but what about users of RedHat who were stuck with a buggy version of GCC for months?
--
Computers are getting faster all the time, but programmers won't unless they can use languages which take care of some of the housekeeping for them. It is this more pragmatic philosophy which underpins Java, not to mention most other modern languages.
--
--
--
--
--
--
Having said that, the usage guide you point to isn't actually the usage guide at all, the actual usage guide you are thinking of is at http://freenetproject.org/quickguide/ and has been for months, and AFAIK there are no references to "fools" anywhere - so I really don't understand what you are talking about.
--
I would certainly be interested to hear why you think that it is more anonymous and more scalable than Freenet? Nothing I can see supports your claim.
--
--
--
These guys would be well-served to investigate the "Dining Cryptographers" problem, which is a way that a group of peers can transmit information to each-other but remain anonymous (within the group) with mathematical certainty. Again, it isn't very scalable, and is subject to DOS attacks, but it does work.
--