Steve Jobs designed the Mac so that it could only be opened by special tools. So it's more that Apple has "controlled the whole wigit" (with a brief period of licensing to clones when Jobs wasn't in charge) since then. The Apple II was open - but since then, not so much.
Discourse on the iniquities of intellectual property is Slashdotter red meat in the same way that gay marriage and guns is red meat to the viewers of Fox News.
I was careful to generalize and say "most people" not "all people".
Most people, when given the option of free or fee for the same product will go free. That's what I was mentioning with the comment about normalized. And piracy isn't difficult - especially for a generation that grew up with it as normal behavior.
India doesn't have software patents (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/04/4837.ars) and we can see clearly how Indian software has left our patent encumbered western system in the dust with its amazing innovations.
That's part of the reason that many authors actually make more money running writing workshops than writing books. Neal Stephenson said at an interview once that one of the most common questions he got from other writers was "so where do you teach your writing classes"
The creative class as a driver of the local economy was always a big stretch. If a guy (or girl) sitting in a coffee shop in Seattle can do something for $X, it's likely that a guy (or girl) sitting in a coffee shop in Estonia can do the same thing for a fraction of $X. Smart people that make up the creative class are evenly distributed across the planet. There will be places where you can support yourself on a creative class income, but it's not likely to be most of the places that people read/.
Part of the issue there was quality. A cassette you purchased had a higher fidelity than the one you recorded off the radio. When you played the cassette a lot the sound quality degraded. You bought the album (or CD) because while you had the song, you had the song on your cassettes at a much lower quality than it sounded like on the radio or on a cassette purchased from the store. Today you can get a copy that's indistinguishable from what you can purchase - in the past you couldn't (well you probably could if you had insanely expensive kit and you payed good money for cassettes where one cost about three times as much as the cheap bulk packs you could get from the supermarket.
In the past people might throw a buck at a creator if they pirated something because they felt a little bad about it. Today, with piracy normalized (hey everyone does it), most people don't feel any nagging sense that they might have done something "not right" when they consume a creator's output without providing any form of compensation.
This is because deep down most people believe that entertainment is an optional extra. People make the rational decision when given the option of paying for it or not paying for it. They save their resources and pay for the necessities.
Perhaps in the long run, people will be less likely to invest in creating expensive entertainment ( lets face it, the SyFy Channel has pretty much bailed on it already because their existing "make money on the DVD sales" model collapsed). Whether the lack of expensively produced entertainment is actually a bad thing is another discussion entirely.
When you earn enough income from your writing to have to make mention of it on your tax return, you're in a position to call yourself an author. Even more realistic if it's the bulk of your income on a tax return.
There's an old adage. You're only an author when someone whose books you own calls you an author. You might want to creep up on that benchmark before you conflate pumping out a few thousand words a day for a couple of weeks with being an author.
The "If it's not done the "True Open Source way", I'm going to infect your computer with malware" attitude that keeps Open Source office software in its own little ghetto.
Resorting to vandalism doesn't get anyone to adopt the software. Writing excellent software gets people using software.
The major manufacturers would have only come to terms with Microsoft if they came to the conclusion that in a drawn out court battle, Microsoft would win. Small parties have won against Microsoft in the past - we saw it with an XML decision recently - all of these firms that have signed up haven't done this because they are cowed by Microsoft's awesome juggernaughty power - they've done it because their lawyers have looked at what's on the table and said "best we go with that". You go to the barricades when you think you can win. You settle when you know you're going to lose.
Where Google hung their partners out to dry was in asserting the fiction that patents don't matter and that under the current system you could get something (an advanced phone operating system) for nothing (no patent licensing fees). Google is full of smart people. They knew these issues were around Android. They could have sorted them out a long time ago if they had so chosen. But Google didn't go and fight that fight - if they had wanted to, they could have indemnified their partners and gone directly into battle with Microsoft on this issue. Instead the company chose not to.
They've always had the war chest and could have tied Microsoft up in court for an eternity if they knew they were in the right. Instead they've let a situation develop where they are giving away an operating system for free that has their partners putting dollars into the pocket of a competitor.
Talk about stifling innovation is cheap - if Google were serious about all of this they would have gone to the barricades on it. If they really believed in the rhetoric, they would have either gone down swinging or taken down the "patent trolls".
The reason that Open Source documentation is generally rubbish is that it's almost impossible to make a buck writing it. No bucks = no sustained effort.
It you're happy for the majority of all textbooks to be written at the level of Open Source documentation, then by all means get rid of copyright and make it highly problematic for people to make a profession out of the production of textbooks.
Your enlightened libetarian fantasy society won't happen if all the books are poorly written amateur screeds.
This came about during the Great Depression and is something that authors and publishers have wanted to get rid of ever since, but the bookstores will not allow it (google Books Reserves Held Against Advance).
For the last 60 or so years, bookstores have ordered books in a risk free manner. If the book doesn't sell, they return it to the publisher and get their money back. The publisher certainly doesn't like that. Authors don't like it either as even when the publisher sell books to bookstores, your royalty statement will assume a percentage of those will be returned - so you won't earn any royalties on them.
"So, Microsoft really needs to stop with the FUD and accept that Google really is an altruistic and idealistic organization that truly cares only about making life better for everyone."
They gave me a bunny.
Seriously though dude, a little less Kool Aid with your cornflakes. Google is a corporation and has shareholders. Their sole purpose is to generate revenue. The "altruism" thing is just marketing, like when Apple tells you they "think different".
As others have pointed out, a lot of those quotes come off as suspiciously similar.
(all the tweets from partners all use use "Goggle" "committed" "defending Android" "it's password" in a very similar way)
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/googles-coalition-speaks-with-one-voice/3771
Which sounds like they all got the same tasty sandwich from Google PR and went with it.
I remember, when I first started posting on Slashdot (using a different account with a late 90's UID) when people would howl in rage at Microsoft saying that Apple was justified with their early 90's Look and Feel lawsuit. That Microsoft had ripped off Apple and deserved to be punished. It seemed as thought the mind of the consensus thought Apple was the good guy for litigating the look and feel lawsuit and MSFT was the bad guy.
Spin forward almost 15 years and suddenly Apple is the bad guy for doing exactly what it did to Microsoft.
What I'm interested to know is - have opinions revised themselves so that the original Apple lawsuit is considered a bad overreach (remember that Apple only lost on a licensing technicality) - or is this another "when it's done to Microsoft it's good/when it's done to Android it's bad" case of Slashdot cognitive dissonance?
Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs designed the Mac so that it could only be opened by special tools. So it's more that Apple has "controlled the whole wigit" (with a brief period of licensing to clones when Jobs wasn't in charge) since then. The Apple II was open - but since then, not so much.
Hah - at least he's getting paid. What are you getting out of posting to Slashdot besides a few minutes of your life wasted?
Simply untrue. Windows 7 market share now exceeds Windows XP's market share. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows
Discourse on the iniquities of intellectual property is Slashdotter red meat in the same way that gay marriage and guns is red meat to the viewers of Fox News.
Stallman combines the rhetorical nuance of an asteroid impact with the diplomactic tact of a woodchipper.
Not only is there wisdom in knowing precisely what to say, there is also wisdom in knowing when not to say it.
I was careful to generalize and say "most people" not "all people".
Most people, when given the option of free or fee for the same product will go free. That's what I was mentioning with the comment about normalized. And piracy isn't difficult - especially for a generation that grew up with it as normal behavior.
India doesn't have software patents (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/04/4837.ars) and we can see clearly how Indian software has left our patent encumbered western system in the dust with its amazing innovations.
That's part of the reason that many authors actually make more money running writing workshops than writing books. Neal Stephenson said at an interview once that one of the most common questions he got from other writers was "so where do you teach your writing classes"
The creative class as a driver of the local economy was always a big stretch. If a guy (or girl) sitting in a coffee shop in Seattle can do something for $X, it's likely that a guy (or girl) sitting in a coffee shop in Estonia can do the same thing for a fraction of $X. Smart people that make up the creative class are evenly distributed across the planet. There will be places where you can support yourself on a creative class income, but it's not likely to be most of the places that people read /.
Part of the issue there was quality. A cassette you purchased had a higher fidelity than the one you recorded off the radio. When you played the cassette a lot the sound quality degraded. You bought the album (or CD) because while you had the song, you had the song on your cassettes at a much lower quality than it sounded like on the radio or on a cassette purchased from the store. Today you can get a copy that's indistinguishable from what you can purchase - in the past you couldn't (well you probably could if you had insanely expensive kit and you payed good money for cassettes where one cost about three times as much as the cheap bulk packs you could get from the supermarket.
In the past people might throw a buck at a creator if they pirated something because they felt a little bad about it. Today, with piracy normalized (hey everyone does it), most people don't feel any nagging sense that they might have done something "not right" when they consume a creator's output without providing any form of compensation.
This is because deep down most people believe that entertainment is an optional extra. People make the rational decision when given the option of paying for it or not paying for it. They save their resources and pay for the necessities.
Perhaps in the long run, people will be less likely to invest in creating expensive entertainment ( lets face it, the SyFy Channel has pretty much bailed on it already because their existing "make money on the DVD sales" model collapsed). Whether the lack of expensively produced entertainment is actually a bad thing is another discussion entirely.
Won't happen. The ribbon is licensed in such a way that it can be used for everything *but* competing Office software. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_(computing)
When you earn enough income from your writing to have to make mention of it on your tax return, you're in a position to call yourself an author. Even more realistic if it's the bulk of your income on a tax return.
There's an old adage. You're only an author when someone whose books you own calls you an author. You might want to creep up on that benchmark before you conflate pumping out a few thousand words a day for a couple of weeks with being an author.
The "If it's not done the "True Open Source way", I'm going to infect your computer with malware" attitude that keeps Open Source office software in its own little ghetto.
Resorting to vandalism doesn't get anyone to adopt the software. Writing excellent software gets people using software.
The major manufacturers would have only come to terms with Microsoft if they came to the conclusion that in a drawn out court battle, Microsoft would win. Small parties have won against Microsoft in the past - we saw it with an XML decision recently - all of these firms that have signed up haven't done this because they are cowed by Microsoft's awesome juggernaughty power - they've done it because their lawyers have looked at what's on the table and said "best we go with that". You go to the barricades when you think you can win. You settle when you know you're going to lose.
Where Google hung their partners out to dry was in asserting the fiction that patents don't matter and that under the current system you could get something (an advanced phone operating system) for nothing (no patent licensing fees). Google is full of smart people. They knew these issues were around Android. They could have sorted them out a long time ago if they had so chosen. But Google didn't go and fight that fight - if they had wanted to, they could have indemnified their partners and gone directly into battle with Microsoft on this issue. Instead the company chose not to.
They've always had the war chest and could have tied Microsoft up in court for an eternity if they knew they were in the right. Instead they've let a situation develop where they are giving away an operating system for free that has their partners putting dollars into the pocket of a competitor.
Talk about stifling innovation is cheap - if Google were serious about all of this they would have gone to the barricades on it. If they really believed in the rhetoric, they would have either gone down swinging or taken down the "patent trolls".
The reason that Open Source documentation is generally rubbish is that it's almost impossible to make a buck writing it. No bucks = no sustained effort. It you're happy for the majority of all textbooks to be written at the level of Open Source documentation, then by all means get rid of copyright and make it highly problematic for people to make a profession out of the production of textbooks. Your enlightened libetarian fantasy society won't happen if all the books are poorly written amateur screeds.
Knowledge is not free. That's why people who know things get paid a lot more than people that are ignorant.
Reefs. How do they work?
This came about during the Great Depression and is something that authors and publishers have wanted to get rid of ever since, but the bookstores will not allow it (google Books Reserves Held Against Advance). For the last 60 or so years, bookstores have ordered books in a risk free manner. If the book doesn't sell, they return it to the publisher and get their money back. The publisher certainly doesn't like that. Authors don't like it either as even when the publisher sell books to bookstores, your royalty statement will assume a percentage of those will be returned - so you won't earn any royalties on them.
The are the SAME BLOKE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_M_Banks (yes I realize you could be trolling - especially as you know where he lives)
Wow dude. Awesome swig of the Kool Aid. You're wasted posting comments here - you should have a job on Madison avenue selling desert to Kangaroos.
They gave me a bunny.
Seriously though dude, a little less Kool Aid with your cornflakes. Google is a corporation and has shareholders. Their sole purpose is to generate revenue. The "altruism" thing is just marketing, like when Apple tells you they "think different".
As others have pointed out, a lot of those quotes come off as suspiciously similar. (all the tweets from partners all use use "Goggle" "committed" "defending Android" "it's password" in a very similar way) http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/googles-coalition-speaks-with-one-voice/3771 Which sounds like they all got the same tasty sandwich from Google PR and went with it.
Rip off the idea of a successful Chinese company in China and see what it brings you. It won't be a slap on the wrist.
I remember, when I first started posting on Slashdot (using a different account with a late 90's UID) when people would howl in rage at Microsoft saying that Apple was justified with their early 90's Look and Feel lawsuit. That Microsoft had ripped off Apple and deserved to be punished. It seemed as thought the mind of the consensus thought Apple was the good guy for litigating the look and feel lawsuit and MSFT was the bad guy. Spin forward almost 15 years and suddenly Apple is the bad guy for doing exactly what it did to Microsoft. What I'm interested to know is - have opinions revised themselves so that the original Apple lawsuit is considered a bad overreach (remember that Apple only lost on a licensing technicality) - or is this another "when it's done to Microsoft it's good/when it's done to Android it's bad" case of Slashdot cognitive dissonance?