If DRM didn't work for music, why on Earth does Microsoft think it will work for p2p software?
Another question: If we have a DRM-free p2p protocol like BitTorrent, why on Earth does Microsoft think that people are going to flock to their proprietary, restricted protocol?
If software like OpenOffice was any good whatsoever, companies would brand it and sell the media in stores.
If software like OpenOffice was no good whatsoever, nobody would use it. Period. The fact that it's obviously used by at least some people implies that it's worth using.
Is Open Office better then MS Office? No? Is GIMP better than Photoshop or PSP or anything? No?
Yes and yes. Your opinions are just that, your opinions.
Is Linux easier to use than OEM Windows or Mac? Absolutely not?
Fantastic job on completely omitting all qualities of software besides ease of use, which is subjective anyway.
Wait, why do I care about this again? What if I don't have a fanatical hatred of all things proprietary? What if I am not a freetard, but a productive member of society who needs to use the computer as a tool and not a time wasting obsession?
Yeah, this part alone made me think you need to be modded troll. You're implying that anyone who believes in the philosophy of free software is a nonproductive and therefore useless person. You're further implying that running GNU/Linux (or free software in general) is a "time-wasting obsession" when in fact it brings many positives with it (which, for the pure convenience of your own argument, you ignore). For these implications and assumptions, I ask that you kindly blow it out your ass.
In short, anyone idealistic enough to run free software is already doing so.
Wrong again! You ignore the number of people who don't know about free software or its benefits. That's what these campaigns are about- raising awareness. Debate the effectiveness of their methods all you like, but in the end, people don't know about free software and the FSF wants to change that and give them a voice to which to listen besides Microsoft and their "open source is evil" bullshit. Honestly, if each currently ignorant-of-free-software Windows user were suddenly presented with a stable, functional Linux OS and were magically able to make an informed choice, I bet a good number of people would try it (since you can actually DO that with Linux) and a good number of those people would stick with it.
Now, hang on a second. A few things about this. First, I agree that free software (not simply "open source" software) is a good thing and we need more of it. However, I am not so easily convinced that free software is/enough/ of a good thing to prevent the drastic reform of modern copyright. Yes, free software is good. However, proprietary stuff and maximalist copyright control are VERY bad. They are bad enough to outweigh the benefits from the GPL and other free licenses. I am a free software supporter, but despite this, I would rather see the record labels and publishing companies and such lose the massive power they have. Besides, even if Debian were to pass into the public domain, I doubt it would turn proprietary.;) (I run Debian.)
Anyway. For this, and other reasons, I don't think we should ban p2p software. Yes, it is primarily used for copyright infringement- but in my eyes, this is more the fault of our copyright laws than the p2p users who violate these laws. These laws are outdated and desperately in need of fixing, in order to reflect the will of people in these modern times. p2p software helps show the rest of the world what those people want: less copyright, basically.
Also, doesn't p2p provide a benefit to FOSS in that it is more easily distributed? I, for one, much prefer to download my GNU/Linux distros via BitTorrent.
Slashdot Mirror
If DRM didn't work for music, why on Earth does Microsoft think it will work for p2p software? Another question: If we have a DRM-free p2p protocol like BitTorrent, why on Earth does Microsoft think that people are going to flock to their proprietary, restricted protocol?
If software like OpenOffice was no good whatsoever, nobody would use it. Period. The fact that it's obviously used by at least some people implies that it's worth using.
Yes and yes. Your opinions are just that, your opinions.
Fantastic job on completely omitting all qualities of software besides ease of use, which is subjective anyway.
Yeah, this part alone made me think you need to be modded troll. You're implying that anyone who believes in the philosophy of free software is a nonproductive and therefore useless person. You're further implying that running GNU/Linux (or free software in general) is a "time-wasting obsession" when in fact it brings many positives with it (which, for the pure convenience of your own argument, you ignore). For these implications and assumptions, I ask that you kindly blow it out your ass.
Wrong again! You ignore the number of people who don't know about free software or its benefits. That's what these campaigns are about- raising awareness. Debate the effectiveness of their methods all you like, but in the end, people don't know about free software and the FSF wants to change that and give them a voice to which to listen besides Microsoft and their "open source is evil" bullshit. Honestly, if each currently ignorant-of-free-software Windows user were suddenly presented with a stable, functional Linux OS and were magically able to make an informed choice, I bet a good number of people would try it (since you can actually DO that with Linux) and a good number of those people would stick with it.
Now, hang on a second. A few things about this. First, I agree that free software (not simply "open source" software) is a good thing and we need more of it. However, I am not so easily convinced that free software is /enough/ of a good thing to prevent the drastic reform of modern copyright. Yes, free software is good. However, proprietary stuff and maximalist copyright control are VERY bad. They are bad enough to outweigh the benefits from the GPL and other free licenses. I am a free software supporter, but despite this, I would rather see the record labels and publishing companies and such lose the massive power they have. Besides, even if Debian were to pass into the public domain, I doubt it would turn proprietary. ;) (I run Debian.)
Anyway. For this, and other reasons, I don't think we should ban p2p software. Yes, it is primarily used for copyright infringement- but in my eyes, this is more the fault of our copyright laws than the p2p users who violate these laws. These laws are outdated and desperately in need of fixing, in order to reflect the will of people in these modern times. p2p software helps show the rest of the world what those people want: less copyright, basically.
Also, doesn't p2p provide a benefit to FOSS in that it is more easily distributed? I, for one, much prefer to download my GNU/Linux distros via BitTorrent.