But if they then want to implement the new enhanced features added to the closed source version, then they do have to reinvent the wheel again.
Yes, they do. However, the features might give them new ideas for developing the open source version. The attribution mentioned by the earlier poster might attract additional developers to the project. It might help their personal professional lives to have their names on this product as well. These aren't the world's largest benefits, sure, but I think we're operating under different assumptions. I believe, and forgive me if I'm mistaken, you're assuming that if it was licensed under the GPL, the work would've been done and the changes returned. I'm assuming that if it wasn't under the BSD license, they wouldn't have done the work in the first place.
Just to bring things full circle, let's make an analogy comparing guns to, say, BitTorrent.
I'd have to say the number of citizens who have downloaded legal software is MUCH lower than the number of people that use BitTorrent to commit copyright infringement.
Does that mean we should outlaw BitTorrent?
(Not necessarily pro-gun, just amused by the off topic irony)
Error Messages
on
**No Title**
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Never before has "Nothing to see here. Please move along" been so relevant.
Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.
on
LokiTorrent Shut Down
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Actually, the answer to your questions is a pretty much universal no. The only tricky one is whether it is legal or not to make one copy for yourself. And having that one copy and giving the original to your friend, let alone anyone else, is illegal. The boundaries themselves aren't all that vague, actually, you bought a license to a particular format and can't keep it while giving a copy to anyone else. The backup copy for personal use is the only sticking point, but most likely you can make as many copies as you want as long as no one else besides you sees them.
I will absolutely agree with you that the penalty for the crime is unreasonably harsh, but I don't think it's rather obvious what you are and aren't allowed to do for the most part.
That's not strange in general. Gamestop and EB both do that, more or less depending on who's working that day and how strict their district manager is. Granted that sometimes they'll just ask you how old you are instead of demanding to see ID, figuring kids under 18 won't know enough to say they're older. Or something.
The basic idea, far as I understand it anyway, is that it doesn't piss off the majority of the customers and it makes a few (say, some of the nearby parents) feel better about the store. It's all business.
Let me take this part of your post as key: For some reason the rest of the world seems to believe this too.
If the rest of the world hates Bush, and removing him makes them hate us less, I see that as a positive thing to do. Should we vote based on what a preference poll in another country says? Of course not. But there's no reason you can't consider that as one of the factors helping you make your decision.
Not the OP, but I'll comment. I accept your rationale that the publisher should not be able to do anything. They have no right to make a profit, they only have the right to have created something, not something most people would define as a right but we have to start somewhere. I won't even call it theft. Although while we're here, saying we're stealing the letters from the Latin alphabet -- created by no one person -- is a bit silly. A good example is why you can't copy chapters out of Return of the King, but you can write in Elvish. (Or whatever Elvish is called.. I never actually read it)
In any case, here's where your argument breaks down a bit: If I don't want to support Rockstar, this is not your business, this is not govenment's, FBI's or BSA's business - this is strictly between me and Rockstar - I either pay them or I don't.
I accept that. You have that choice, except that you left off half of it. You can either choose to pay them and receive their good, or you can choose not to, and you don't. What I want to know is where your right to add a third choice, to not pay them and to receive their good, comes from? The closest thing to a rationale that I can find is a bit about everyone being supposed to have free access to all knowledge and art, which is rather more a conclusion than a reason, don't you think?
I thought a lot of software/movie EULAs didn't allow for resales. Wouldn't that be just as illegal as copying it?
In short? No. Although just as illegal is sort of a tricky phrase. The thrust of it is that violating a EULA, which has its own sketchy legal standing, will get you in trouble with the license holder who will probably then sue you. Even without the existence of a EULA, copying a copyrighted work such as a game or movie is illegal. There's also the First Sale Doctrine, which of course may or may not be valid anymore itself.
In any case, assuming you're talking about the USA here, by necessity I am ethnocentric when talking about law, copying a piece of software is always a crime, reselling a piece of software could be a crime, probably is a license violation, and may be completely legal. Therefore, probabilistically speaking if nothing else, copying it is more illegal.
At least the totals will show that SOME voters are not suckers and can think for themselves.
This is the line that really gets to me, and I see it all the time when people are discussing third party candidates. I respect both your frustration with the major candidates, and your professed desire to have your balls suckeled, and I would expect that same consideration to be returned. The fact is, there are us voters out there who have considered the issues, looked up third party candidates, and have decided to still support a Democrat or a Republican. This is often a question of moderation, not pragmatism, as the fringe candidates are often necessarily radical in one sense or another. And yes, most of us still know that the practical goal of a third party isn't to win a presidency, but to get one of the two big parties to shift their views rather than have their votes 'stolen' by some fringe group. I mean, it's entirely possible that we sincerely do not want the Democrats to adopt the position of the Green party, or the Republicans the Libertarians, isn't it?
Not to mention being part of the research team that found the Cure for Cancer (capital letters, it's a Wonder of the World) would probably be enough renown to live on for the rest of your life. Think Watson and Crick touring the university circuit for decades.
Well, first off, that's the 'fat fingers' nanotech problem. The tool on a nanobot would have to be made out of atoms, making it tough to manipulate things on a sub-atomic level. Secondly, you're missing the point. The grey goo isn't waste, it's the nanomachines themselves. If they replicate exponentially without end, you get this flood of lil' bots consuming everything, and the grey goo eats the Earth. You can see how that'd be a problem.
I believe the April Fool's joke in this story is the same as the coffee one right above it. That is, if you take a close look at the story title the department that they are both from is the "real-submissions-unedited dept."
So the supposedly humorous thing is seeing what actually gets submitted, in addition to the story itself being rather silly. So I conjecture, anyway.
GTA and GTA3 are nearly the same exact game, with the main exceptions being lack of multiplayer and the presence of better graphics and sound in GTA3.
I think you are seriously trivializing the changes between the first and third games. The switch between 2D and 3D alone makes it practically a different game, not to mention most of what makes the third game so significantly better is how immersive the game world is. All of the little improvements to the storyline and setting make the game that much more involving, which is part of what got the game such rave reviews, even if that's not what everyone is looking for.
In any case, I'll take the same points you made and come to a different conclusion. I don't think society became that much more accepting as time passed -- Postal 1 and 2 were reviewed much the same way, that is, badly -- but the first GTA was an open-ended game with a great premise and a decent action-based execution, and the third one was an all-around better game with the same premise, and that's what it takes to become a "classic."
Not to mention in most schools less than twelve credits a semester is considered part time instead of full time, which can screw up a great number of things including financial aid. What college was the grandparent at?
Yes. But if I recall correctly, Wizards of the Coast allows you to redeem your electronic/virtual cards for physical ones when you have a complete set. So it's not as if they're buying anything that can never be turned into a real, physical product.
Sure, let's say it's the same point. So we should give the spammers the right to not submit their email to the archive by not emailing anyone using the filter. I can only hope they exercise this right.
I think that a lot of people would disagree that Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King are sequels.
From Mirriam-Webster: (Emphasis in original) Sequel [n] -
2 a : subsequent development b : the next installment (as of a speech or story); especially: a literary or cinematic work continuing the course of a story begun in a preceding one
I think that a lot of people would be wrong, then.
We're stuck because of pragmatism, not poor judgment. I won't speak for the rest of the voting/. population, but I have enough problems convincing 3-5 friends to not click on the attachments labeled "NOT A VIRUS. REA11Y!" It's rather hard to create a pyramid scheme convincing people that third parties have any shot of winning.
It's perhaps a poor attitude to have, "Well, they can't possibly win now, so why bother," but it's more or less accurate. Start campaigning for Congresspeople to be from third parties, then move on to Governors and Senators before you try to tackle the President. For now, worry about picking the lesser of two evils, because the last thing you want is the worse team to win by less than the number of votes that your third party guy got.
It's one thing if you're talking about attacks that are breaking past Microsoft security, but I was under the impression that a DDoS attack involves a whole lot of quick, repeated requests on the server, not a real cracker trying to get through.
In which case, it's more like someone throwing a ton of pebbles at your Pinto's windshield, and suing Ford when eventually it cracks.
Slashdot Mirror
But if they then want to implement the new enhanced features added to the closed source version, then they do have to reinvent the wheel again.
Yes, they do. However, the features might give them new ideas for developing the open source version. The attribution mentioned by the earlier poster might attract additional developers to the project. It might help their personal professional lives to have their names on this product as well. These aren't the world's largest benefits, sure, but I think we're operating under different assumptions. I believe, and forgive me if I'm mistaken, you're assuming that if it was licensed under the GPL, the work would've been done and the changes returned. I'm assuming that if it wasn't under the BSD license, they wouldn't have done the work in the first place.
Just to bring things full circle, let's make an analogy comparing guns to, say, BitTorrent.
I'd have to say the number of citizens who have downloaded legal software is MUCH lower than the number of people that use BitTorrent to commit copyright infringement.
Does that mean we should outlaw BitTorrent?
(Not necessarily pro-gun, just amused by the off topic irony)
Never before has "Nothing to see here. Please move along" been so relevant.
Righteous Fire
"I can't believe someone my Steltek gun!"
Actually, the answer to your questions is a pretty much universal no. The only tricky one is whether it is legal or not to make one copy for yourself. And having that one copy and giving the original to your friend, let alone anyone else, is illegal. The boundaries themselves aren't all that vague, actually, you bought a license to a particular format and can't keep it while giving a copy to anyone else. The backup copy for personal use is the only sticking point, but most likely you can make as many copies as you want as long as no one else besides you sees them.
I will absolutely agree with you that the penalty for the crime is unreasonably harsh, but I don't think it's rather obvious what you are and aren't allowed to do for the most part.
That's not strange in general. Gamestop and EB both do that, more or less depending on who's working that day and how strict their district manager is. Granted that sometimes they'll just ask you how old you are instead of demanding to see ID, figuring kids under 18 won't know enough to say they're older. Or something.
The basic idea, far as I understand it anyway, is that it doesn't piss off the majority of the customers and it makes a few (say, some of the nearby parents) feel better about the store. It's all business.
That's not the circle of life, that's perpetual motion. In this messageboard we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
Let me take this part of your post as key:
For some reason the rest of the world seems to believe this too.
If the rest of the world hates Bush, and removing him makes them hate us less, I see that as a positive thing to do. Should we vote based on what a preference poll in another country says? Of course not. But there's no reason you can't consider that as one of the factors helping you make your decision.
Not the OP, but I'll comment. I accept your rationale that the publisher should not be able to do anything. They have no right to make a profit, they only have the right to have created something, not something most people would define as a right but we have to start somewhere. I won't even call it theft. Although while we're here, saying we're stealing the letters from the Latin alphabet -- created by no one person -- is a bit silly. A good example is why you can't copy chapters out of Return of the King, but you can write in Elvish. (Or whatever Elvish is called.. I never actually read it)
In any case, here's where your argument breaks down a bit:
If I don't want to support Rockstar, this is not your business, this is not govenment's, FBI's or BSA's business - this is strictly between me and Rockstar - I either pay them or I don't.
I accept that. You have that choice, except that you left off half of it. You can either choose to pay them and receive their good, or you can choose not to, and you don't. What I want to know is where your right to add a third choice, to not pay them and to receive their good, comes from? The closest thing to a rationale that I can find is a bit about everyone being supposed to have free access to all knowledge and art, which is rather more a conclusion than a reason, don't you think?
I thought a lot of software/movie EULAs didn't allow for resales.
Wouldn't that be just as illegal as copying it?
In short? No. Although just as illegal is sort of a tricky phrase. The thrust of it is that violating a EULA, which has its own sketchy legal standing, will get you in trouble with the license holder who will probably then sue you. Even without the existence of a EULA, copying a copyrighted work such as a game or movie is illegal. There's also the First Sale Doctrine, which of course may or may not be valid anymore itself.
In any case, assuming you're talking about the USA here, by necessity I am ethnocentric when talking about law, copying a piece of software is always a crime, reselling a piece of software could be a crime, probably is a license violation, and may be completely legal. Therefore, probabilistically speaking if nothing else, copying it is more illegal.
I'll wait until there are broompusher jobs in space for slobs like me before I make the big hop to orbit.
Just make sure you watch out for those Sariens, Roger.
At least the totals will show that SOME voters are not suckers and can think for themselves.
This is the line that really gets to me, and I see it all the time when people are discussing third party candidates. I respect both your frustration with the major candidates, and your professed desire to have your balls suckeled, and I would expect that same consideration to be returned. The fact is, there are us voters out there who have considered the issues, looked up third party candidates, and have decided to still support a Democrat or a Republican. This is often a question of moderation, not pragmatism, as the fringe candidates are often necessarily radical in one sense or another. And yes, most of us still know that the practical goal of a third party isn't to win a presidency, but to get one of the two big parties to shift their views rather than have their votes 'stolen' by some fringe group. I mean, it's entirely possible that we sincerely do not want the Democrats to adopt the position of the Green party, or the Republicans the Libertarians, isn't it?
Not to mention being part of the research team that found the Cure for Cancer (capital letters, it's a Wonder of the World) would probably be enough renown to live on for the rest of your life. Think Watson and Crick touring the university circuit for decades.
Well, first off, that's the 'fat fingers' nanotech problem. The tool on a nanobot would have to be made out of atoms, making it tough to manipulate things on a sub-atomic level. Secondly, you're missing the point. The grey goo isn't waste, it's the nanomachines themselves. If they replicate exponentially without end, you get this flood of lil' bots consuming everything, and the grey goo eats the Earth. You can see how that'd be a problem.
I hope they find him soon. The bastard keeps resetting my connection!
I believe the April Fool's joke in this story is the same as the coffee one right above it. That is, if you take a close look at the story title the department that they are both from is the "real-submissions-unedited dept."
So the supposedly humorous thing is seeing what actually gets submitted, in addition to the story itself being rather silly. So I conjecture, anyway.
Has there ever been a 4th iteration of a movie that didn't suck?
Yes. Star Trek IV: The Good Star Trek Movie
GTA and GTA3 are nearly the same exact game, with the main exceptions being lack of multiplayer and the presence of better graphics and sound in GTA3.
I think you are seriously trivializing the changes between the first and third games. The switch between 2D and 3D alone makes it practically a different game, not to mention most of what makes the third game so significantly better is how immersive the game world is. All of the little improvements to the storyline and setting make the game that much more involving, which is part of what got the game such rave reviews, even if that's not what everyone is looking for.
In any case, I'll take the same points you made and come to a different conclusion. I don't think society became that much more accepting as time passed -- Postal 1 and 2 were reviewed much the same way, that is, badly -- but the first GTA was an open-ended game with a great premise and a decent action-based execution, and the third one was an all-around better game with the same premise, and that's what it takes to become a "classic."
Quote the article: "Even if the new movie makes money, it will be at least a decade before Godzilla returns, Tomiyama said."
That's pretty much telling us there's not going to be another sequel for a while no matter what. At least, unless you think he's lying.
Not to mention in most schools less than twelve credits a semester is considered part time instead of full time, which can screw up a great number of things including financial aid. What college was the grandparent at?
Yes. But if I recall correctly, Wizards of the Coast allows you to redeem your electronic/virtual cards for physical ones when you have a complete set. So it's not as if they're buying anything that can never be turned into a real, physical product.
Sure, let's say it's the same point. So we should give the spammers the right to not submit their email to the archive by not emailing anyone using the filter. I can only hope they exercise this right.
I think that a lot of people would disagree that Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King are sequels.
From Mirriam-Webster: (Emphasis in original)
Sequel [n] - 2 a : subsequent development b : the next installment (as of a speech or story); especially: a literary or cinematic work continuing the course of a story begun in a preceding one
I think that a lot of people would be wrong, then.
We're stuck because of pragmatism, not poor judgment. I won't speak for the rest of the voting /. population, but I have enough problems convincing 3-5 friends to not click on the attachments labeled "NOT A VIRUS. REA11Y!" It's rather hard to create a pyramid scheme convincing people that third parties have any shot of winning.
It's perhaps a poor attitude to have, "Well, they can't possibly win now, so why bother," but it's more or less accurate. Start campaigning for Congresspeople to be from third parties, then move on to Governors and Senators before you try to tackle the President. For now, worry about picking the lesser of two evils, because the last thing you want is the worse team to win by less than the number of votes that your third party guy got.
It's one thing if you're talking about attacks that are breaking past Microsoft security, but I was under the impression that a DDoS attack involves a whole lot of quick, repeated requests on the server, not a real cracker trying to get through.
In which case, it's more like someone throwing a ton of pebbles at your Pinto's windshield, and suing Ford when eventually it cracks.