So when Australians get shitted off because the US strong armed us into accepting some majorly shitty copyright laws or face more trade barriers on our primary industry, thats just us having a tyranical government. Righto.
I dunno man, I think we are a poorer society without our philosophers. I was looking back at the archives at my uni, and they had old records from philosophers., that families used to sit around the phonogram and listen to. I suspect we'd be a lot more thoughtful society if people still revered philosophers like they used to.
Ive said it before, but I sometimes think if "marxism" is ever going to make sense to anyone, it'll be the musicians.
We've long since cottoned on to the fact that the industry is definately not acting in musicians interests, because while the Music industry are busy criminalising and raping the musicans best friend, the kids, we still aint seeing a cent for our endevours.
Hows about the "bosses", get out the way and let us muso's do what we always did best; SELF promote. We have the net these days, our "means of production", as those whacky old russians used to call it. We can do it ourselves.
Seaside most certainly looks amazing. Is there a way to, say......., not use squeak?
I tried to evaluate seaside recently but was blown away by what resembled a car accident involving heaps of exploding clowns. It was like umbrellas and floppy boots everywhere.
Which is all good and fine for multimedia, but it doesnt engender confidence with a web app.
Alan, with deference to you and all, he's acting for Linux mark. You know. The trust thingee linus entrusted the his Linux Trademark to. But you should know that right?
The whole deal has to do with Linux australia, acting for Linux Mark, filed to register the trademark to stop unscrupulous mobs claiming it or whatever. The judge has noted other companies are already using it.
So the letter went out to companies with linux in the name to just simply state for them that they are using the name under licence from Linus Torvalds via Linux Mark/Linux Australia.
Its possible a figure has to be attached to it to make it a real deal.
Somewhere in the mess, this has all gotten mushed up in the madness of the press.
Believe me Alan, Jeremy is well known in the Aust Open Source scene. This isnt a scam, and privately between you and me (and the rest of slashdot), I'd take a wager he wont follow thru on the bill. Because thats not actually what this is about.
he didn't when he represented me (being that I was unemployed at the time).
Ok. Jeremy is my Lawyer, and folks actually need to understand he's a bloody good guy who helped out a community journalism group I'm involved with free of charge once because , well we where poor asses and he's got a heart.
Jeremy is doing this as LINUS's rep here so as to assert that the trademark application is REAL, so as to stop unsrupulous companies abusing the name "Linux" or trying to trademark it.
I dont know if they intend to collect on the money, my suspicion is that its pretty damn negotiable. Its just to assert that linus's trademark is a real one.
I don't know what the deal is with Jeremys Scientology suite was. I know he stepped down from the EFA over it, which was the ethical thing to do. Either way, I doubt Jeremy can answer that concern for you because of the lawyer/client confidentiality thing. I guess everyone has a black -spot in the history.
[b]THERES ALWAYS MORE TO THE STORY THAN MEETS THE EYE[/b]
Jeremy is a geek. A raging geek. He's proud of it too. He gives a damn about linux, and you can be assured this is not some SCO type grab.
Then he said "SYKE! I never got paid royalties. Like most composers, the government (the king) paid me to do what I do, and my music was performed for the paeons to keep them happy. My music was passed around for free for generations after that through the earliest form of open source P2P , music lessons and badly copied versions of sheet music"
A) Just like linux "steals" value from windows by making it less attractive comercially. Thats the arguement of a disgruntled competitor.
Remember, reducing the price value of the goods is a *good* thing, NOT a bad thing. Seriously, games industry is practically 3 or 4 entities these days. There are multiple billion other entities (humans) out there. Fuck those 3 or 4 entities. By reducing cost to the rest of the planet humanity gains.
B) I dont pay for linux. Have I stolen from linus. Ford would definately like you to NOT buy GM cars. Are you stealing from ford when you buy GM?
C) Circular. The whole argument revolves around why I shouldnt give a stuff whether I have permission. Buying a CD does not make the CD company my boss. I am there client, not the other way around.
D) Ridiculous. The record/software company did not expend a single joule of energy when I copied that CD, unless you are proposing some sort of spooky action at a distance.
Yeah, but thats not how it tends to work. Granted profit margins do play a part of prices, the key factor is whether the product is going to sell at all. Now when the price comes down, assuming the market is functioning correctly, and it usually does, volume increases, and assuming the company has done its sums correctly, profit as a whole goes up and thus the scope for R&D.
Keep in mind also, that quality plays a part in it as well.
Say I'm a musician and I'm using a copy of Cakewalk (or whatever they use these days) to make my midi compositions on. Being poor as fuck, I cant afford the $300 , so I scan the "War3z broz" ftp site and find a nice cracked copy thats had the dongle busted off it. Its OK. It works, but its glitchy due to the fairly brutal nature of the hacks involved, but it works. Now I'm factoring a few issues in here; My need, The quality, and how much I think its worth. I'm also keeping in mind theres a low level risk to myself of the cops kicking in the door. So theres a pay off and a trade off. Now Cakewalk suddenly notices that theres a bunch of musicians who arent buying there software, but instead grabbing the cracked version. They have two options. (1) Lower the price and (2) Increase the quality to provide me an incentive to buy the product. Chances are they will take a combination of the two.
Now theres a $220 version of it that now features "wizzdangling" and "froogle looping" and it won't crash as long as the dongle is in. I evaluate my current buggy copy , go "oooh. It'd be nice to be able to wizzdangle, and I hate losing my work. Shit hey, it'd also be nice to be able to have a nice box and the safety of having a non warezed version. And I can now afford it." So I hand over my $220 to cakewalk , go home and install it and start froogle looping and wizzdangling away.
Cakewalk also just made a sale, and are now able to divert that money into R&D. Whereas without the piracy, I might still be stuck with a pen and paper and wishing I had enough money to buy Cakewalk which still can't wizzdangle, because theres no competition and thus no incentive to innovate.
An interesting take, but I don't see any logic to support it, and I doubt you have even the most basic grasp of any flavor of economics. Software companies are competing with other software companies, not with pirates. You have absolutely no idea what the profit margins are on any "large scale production software" so please save the bullshit and stop implying any knowledge of the subject.
Ok. ra ra rara. Bunch of ad hominen. I did a a bit of it in my minor, I do infact have an idea what I'm on about.
So lets explain this a bit further. Music Companies *DO* infact compete with Software Bootleggers due to the fact a consumer (which classical economics presumes to be rational and therefore likely to optimise choices to maximise bang for buck) can chose between the "authorised" product or the "unauthorised" product. The two directly compete. Due to an increased supply of the product relative to a more stable demand (not *everyone* needs a cad program), the crossover point between the suply curve and the demand curve settles at a cheaper point and prices lower.
CD prices may not be a brilliant example , but lets even assume that, we see here http://banners.noticiasdot.com/termometro/boletine s/docs/consultoras/riaa/2002/riaa_CDValueStudy2002.pdf That while there has been a modest price rise, relative to inflation, CD prices (as expected) have dropped. Now, lets take into the direct result of MP3 sharing, which is legal services such as itunes and emusic, and we see music now dropping dramatically in price. I can get a subscription to emusic and for $19.99 I get 90 MP3 downloads, all quite legal. (Not sure iTunes prices, they aint here in australia yet. I gather there a bit more expensive).
The Price fixing and the like has little to do with economics and everything to do with industry corruption. Thats why price fixing is considered pernicious, because it *distorts* the market away from consumer interests. Yes Bootlegging distorts the market, but it does so by pushing prices down.
Adam Smiths invisible hand rarely fails.
And yes, I am aware that the lower price offerings are partly to stem open source adoption. But Microsoft has also been adamant that its also motivated by high levels of Bootlegging in developing countries, including in government and industry (areas fairly compliant in the first world).
Bootlegging is the more acurate term as oposed to piracy, because bootlegging refers to the manafacture of illicit goods (traditionally liquor) whereas Piracy tended to involve theft.
As have been pointed out by many , Bootlegging music and software can not be objectively called "Theft" because theft by its definition is an act of taking something that is yours and making it mine without your permission. If I take my CD of , say, Frank Zappa, or whatever, and copy it to my friend, nobody lost anything, but someone gained something. The music publisher still has precisely the same stock level and capital reserves. I still have my CD, but a friend now has a new copy of Hot rats to listen to.
The arguement that bootlegging is theft, *relies* on the arguement that unauthorised competition could be theft. And if you accept that arguement , then you have to accept that bootlegging is competition and thus under classical economics benificial to the consumer and I would suggest it could be also applied to Open Source. Infact that is precisely the scam the Software industry is trying to pull with patent laws where intellectual property (devised originally to protect small publishers from having books copied by large monopolists) is abstracted further into the idea of software itself.
I much prefer Stallmans idea of not calling it piracy , but rather "sharing with a friend".
Actually the oposite is true. Large scale production software has such ridiculously high profit margins, that bootlegging actually greatly reduces the cost to the end user be forcing the companies to compete with the bootleggers.
Examples can be found in the music industry (lowering of prices) , and in software (Microsoft introducing budget versions to compete with bootleggers).
Basically, if you reduce bootlegging, software will go up in price as competition reduces. Its basic economics really.
Really, people need to start calling out the Software companies for insulting everyones intelligence with the whole "piracy increases prices". Whats sad is even governments repeat it, even while knowing full well that it actually benifits the consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Although I would say that if you DO name the professor, then back the claim the fuck up , or expect to cop some razzing for it.
I really think this kid needs to say "NO! Fuck it, Im not accepting probation and Im not accepting community service", and just take it to a judge.
As far as Im concerned, the kid is the victim here, and that dental school owes him an apology.
So when Australians get shitted off because the US strong armed us into accepting some majorly shitty copyright laws or face more trade barriers on our primary industry, thats just us having a tyranical government. Righto.
*Slaps self across face* Dont respond to trolls.
Or have These guys channel them using brain beams, or with dolphins or ghost pirates or something.
I dunno man, I think we are a poorer society without our philosophers. I was looking back at the archives at my uni, and they had old records from philosophers., that families used to sit around the phonogram and listen to. I suspect we'd be a lot more thoughtful society if people still revered philosophers like they used to.
Ive said it before, but I sometimes think if "marxism" is ever going to make sense to anyone, it'll be the musicians.
We've long since cottoned on to the fact that the industry is definately not acting in musicians interests, because while the Music industry are busy criminalising and raping the musicans best friend, the kids, we still aint seeing a cent for our endevours.
Hows about the "bosses", get out the way and let us muso's do what we always did best; SELF promote. We have the net these days, our "means of production", as those whacky old russians used to call it. We can do it ourselves.
Gnyeah! Its Gnot as if Gnome or Gnu Gnvelopers are StickiGn arbitrary K'sgn everywhergn! Gnumericly speaking.
New must-have! metadata!
Coming soon! The macintosh.
Seaside most certainly looks amazing. Is there a way to, say......., not use squeak?
I tried to evaluate seaside recently but was blown away by what resembled a car accident involving heaps of exploding clowns. It was like umbrellas and floppy boots everywhere.
Which is all good and fine for multimedia, but it doesnt engender confidence with a web app.
Alan, with deference to you and all, he's acting for Linux mark. You know. The trust thingee linus entrusted the his Linux Trademark to. But you should know that right?
The whole deal has to do with Linux australia, acting for Linux Mark, filed to register the trademark to stop unscrupulous mobs claiming it or whatever. The judge has noted other companies are already using it.
So the letter went out to companies with linux in the name to just simply state for them that they are using the name under licence from Linus Torvalds via Linux Mark/Linux Australia.
Its possible a figure has to be attached to it to make it a real deal.
Somewhere in the mess, this has all gotten mushed up in the madness of the press.
Believe me Alan, Jeremy is well known in the Aust Open Source scene. This isnt a scam, and privately between you and me (and the rest of slashdot), I'd take a wager he wont follow thru on the bill. Because thats not actually what this is about.
he didn't when he represented me (being that I was unemployed at the time).
Glad to see you've learned all about Australian Defamation laws by reading about American defamation laws.
I might have to try that one. Shit. Maybe I can take up pot smoking and when the cops come, quote the dutch legal code.
The guy isnt an enemy of open source. He's spent years advising people, often for free, how to protect themselves and protect open source.
Which is consistent, since this whole action is about protecting Linus Torvald's trademark.
It'd be nice if people RESEARCHED IT before slagging people off.
He fucking is so a practicing lawyer.
LOOK AT WHO THE CLIENT HE IS ACTING FOR. ITS LINUX MARK!!!!
Frigging hell this board gets stupid sometimes.
Ok. Jeremy is my Lawyer, and folks actually need to understand he's a bloody good guy who helped out a community journalism group I'm involved with free of charge once because , well we where poor asses and he's got a heart.
Jeremy is doing this as LINUS's rep here so as to assert that the trademark application is REAL, so as to stop unsrupulous companies abusing the name "Linux" or trying to trademark it.
I dont know if they intend to collect on the money, my suspicion is that its pretty damn negotiable. Its just to assert that linus's trademark is a real one.
I don't know what the deal is with Jeremys Scientology suite was. I know he stepped down from the EFA over it, which was the ethical thing to do. Either way, I doubt Jeremy can answer that concern for you because of the lawyer/client confidentiality thing. I guess everyone has a black -spot in the history.
[b]THERES ALWAYS MORE TO THE STORY THAN MEETS THE EYE[/b]
Jeremy is a geek. A raging geek. He's proud of it too. He gives a damn about linux, and you can be assured this is not some SCO type grab.
emusic can be as useless as tits on a bull
but MAN do they have a wicked Frank zappa back catalog.
Then he said "SYKE! I never got paid royalties. Like most composers, the government (the king) paid me to do what I do, and my music was performed for the paeons to keep them happy. My music was passed around for free for generations after that through the earliest form of open source P2P , music lessons and badly copied versions of sheet music"
Frank Zappa. Right on. I have his entire discography and then some. Some people say I'm obsessed. I then say to the some people, "Shut the fuck up."
;)
I hear ya brother. I even paid for it. (The nice shiny covers are the added bonus that makes it competitive with the bootleg
A) Just like linux "steals" value from windows by making it less attractive comercially. Thats the arguement of a disgruntled competitor.
Remember, reducing the price value of the goods is a *good* thing, NOT a bad thing. Seriously, games industry is practically 3 or 4 entities these days. There are multiple billion other entities (humans) out there. Fuck those 3 or 4 entities. By reducing cost to the rest of the planet humanity gains.
B) I dont pay for linux. Have I stolen from linus. Ford would definately like you to NOT buy GM cars. Are you stealing from ford when you buy GM?
C) Circular. The whole argument revolves around why I shouldnt give a stuff whether I have permission. Buying a CD does not make the CD company my boss. I am there client, not the other way around.
D) Ridiculous. The record/software company did not expend a single joule of energy when I copied that CD, unless you are proposing some sort of spooky action at a distance.
Yeah, but thats not how it tends to work. Granted profit margins do play a part of prices, the key factor is whether the product is going to sell at all. Now when the price comes down, assuming the market is functioning correctly, and it usually does, volume increases, and assuming the company has done its sums correctly, profit as a whole goes up and thus the scope for R&D.
Keep in mind also, that quality plays a part in it as well.
Say I'm a musician and I'm using a copy of Cakewalk (or whatever they use these days) to make my midi compositions on. Being poor as fuck, I cant afford the $300 , so I scan the "War3z broz" ftp site and find a nice cracked copy thats had the dongle busted off it. Its OK. It works, but its glitchy due to the fairly brutal nature of the hacks involved, but it works. Now I'm factoring a few issues in here; My need, The quality, and how much I think its worth. I'm also keeping in mind theres a low level risk to myself of the cops kicking in the door. So theres a pay off and a trade off. Now Cakewalk suddenly notices that theres a bunch of musicians who arent buying there software, but instead grabbing the cracked version. They have two options. (1) Lower the price and (2) Increase the quality to provide me an incentive to buy the product. Chances are they will take a combination of the two.
Now theres a $220 version of it that now features "wizzdangling" and "froogle looping" and it won't crash as long as the dongle is in. I evaluate my current buggy copy , go "oooh. It'd be nice to be able to wizzdangle, and I hate losing my work. Shit hey, it'd also be nice to be able to have a nice box and the safety of having a non warezed version. And I can now afford it." So I hand over my $220 to cakewalk , go home and install it and start froogle looping and wizzdangling away.
Cakewalk also just made a sale, and are now able to divert that money into R&D. Whereas without the piracy, I might still be stuck with a pen and paper and wishing I had enough money to buy Cakewalk which still can't wizzdangle, because theres no competition and thus no incentive to innovate.
An interesting take, but I don't see any logic to support it, and I doubt you have even the most basic grasp of any flavor of economics. Software companies are competing with other software companies, not with pirates. You have absolutely no idea what the profit margins are on any "large scale production software" so please save the bullshit and stop implying any knowledge of the subject.
e s/docs/consultoras/riaa/2002/riaa_CDValueStudy2002 .pdf That while there has been a modest price rise, relative to inflation, CD prices (as expected) have dropped. Now, lets take into the direct result of MP3 sharing, which is legal services such as itunes and emusic, and we see music now dropping dramatically in price. I can get a subscription to emusic and for $19.99 I get 90 MP3 downloads, all quite legal. (Not sure iTunes prices, they aint here in australia yet. I gather there a bit more expensive).
Ok. ra ra rara. Bunch of ad hominen. I did a a bit of it in my minor, I do infact have an idea what I'm on about.
So lets explain this a bit further. Music Companies *DO* infact compete with Software Bootleggers due to the fact a consumer (which classical economics presumes to be rational and therefore likely to optimise choices to maximise bang for buck) can chose between the "authorised" product or the "unauthorised" product. The two directly compete. Due to an increased supply of the product relative to a more stable demand (not *everyone* needs a cad program), the crossover point between the suply curve and the demand curve settles at a cheaper point and prices lower.
CD prices may not be a brilliant example , but lets even assume that, we see here http://banners.noticiasdot.com/termometro/boletin
The Price fixing and the like has little to do with economics and everything to do with industry corruption. Thats why price fixing is considered pernicious, because it *distorts* the market away from consumer interests. Yes Bootlegging distorts the market, but it does so by pushing prices down.
Adam Smiths invisible hand rarely fails.
And yes, I am aware that the lower price offerings are partly to stem open source adoption. But Microsoft has also been adamant that its also motivated by high levels of Bootlegging in developing countries, including in government and industry (areas fairly compliant in the first world).
Finally, I'll refer you to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html.
Bootlegging is the more acurate term as oposed to piracy, because bootlegging refers to the manafacture of illicit goods (traditionally liquor) whereas Piracy tended to involve theft.
As have been pointed out by many , Bootlegging music and software can not be objectively called "Theft" because theft by its definition is an act of taking something that is yours and making it mine without your permission. If I take my CD of , say, Frank Zappa, or whatever, and copy it to my friend, nobody lost anything, but someone gained something. The music publisher still has precisely the same stock level and capital reserves. I still have my CD, but a friend now has a new copy of Hot rats to listen to.
The arguement that bootlegging is theft, *relies* on the arguement that unauthorised competition could be theft. And if you accept that arguement , then you have to accept that bootlegging is competition and thus under classical economics benificial to the consumer and I would suggest it could be also applied to Open Source. Infact that is precisely the scam the Software industry is trying to pull with patent laws where intellectual property (devised originally to protect small publishers from having books copied by large monopolists) is abstracted further into the idea of software itself.
I much prefer Stallmans idea of not calling it piracy , but rather "sharing with a friend".
Actually the oposite is true. Large scale production software has such ridiculously high profit margins, that bootlegging actually greatly reduces the cost to the end user be forcing the companies to compete with the bootleggers.
Examples can be found in the music industry (lowering of prices) , and in software (Microsoft introducing budget versions to compete with bootleggers).
Basically, if you reduce bootlegging, software will go up in price as competition reduces. Its basic economics really.
Really, people need to start calling out the Software companies for insulting everyones intelligence with the whole "piracy increases prices". Whats sad is even governments repeat it, even while knowing full well that it actually benifits the consumer.
Yes you do ;-
,arkansas,atlanta,austin,baltimore,big ,buddy ,binghamton ,boston ,buffalo ,charlottesville ,chicago ,cleveland ,colorado ,danbury, ct , dc ,hawaii ,houston ,hudson mohawk , idaho ,ithaca ,kansas city ,la ,madison ,maine ,miami ,michigan ,milwaukee ,minneapolis/st. paul ,new hampshire ,new jersey ,new mexico ,new orleans ,north carolina ,north texas ,nyc ,oklahoma ,philadelphia ,pittsburgh ,portland , richmond ,rochester ,rogue valley ,saint louis ,san diego ,san francisco ,san francisco bay area, ,santa cruz, ca ,seattle ,tallahassee-red hills ,tampa bay ,tennessee ,united states , urbana-champaign, utah ,vermont ,western mass ,worcester
.indymedia.org in front and have a read what the locals are upset about today.
Indy Media sites in the United States;-
arizona
santa barbara
(badly compiled list there. sorry)
For pretty much any of them stick
indymedia is full of cranks and wild-eyed woo-woos, but at least they dont try to hide their bias (honest cranks? heh.)
:) Just some of us ;) ;)
We are not ALL cranks and wild eyed woo-woos
But yes, many of us believe its much more honest to be up front about our biases.
And EVERYONE has them.
AS an indy editor I'd disagree its filled mainly with socialists, at least in the conventional sense of the term.
Its mostly a left-libertarian thing, where anyone can play as long as they arent bigoted pricks.
for the record I dont speak for the network.
Except that its still there on his website, and its still a GPL violation
i ld310.exe
: www.imblaze.com/+imblaze&hl=en&client=firefox-a
So he's lying.
Anyway I notice the links gone missing of the front page.
Oh here it is in googles cache!
http://www.imblaze.com/download/IMBlazeVersion1Bu
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Q33uMOaXnEUJ
Yeah the law was [i]still[/i] being broken.
ten months after it was pointed out.
No. Not reasonable. Fraudulent.
Somewhere, an English teacher is crying,
And somewhere else, a bridge is missing its troll.