GPL is not being compared to "plain old copyright law" in that example; it is being compared to the absence of any legal restraint. GPL puts restrictions on how you may redistribute something.
Since when is forcing someone to behave in a certain manner considered "freedom"?
Google can do what google wants to do as long as it's within the limits of the law
The law, of course, is about forcing someone to behave in a certain manner; there is always a tradeoff between the decrease in freedom in telling someone what to do and the payoff which may be an increase in freedom. The law restricts your freedom to lock me in a closet without my consent because that leads to a net increase in freedom for me and anyone else you might think about locking up.
Open source licenses like GPL are intended to force people to behave a certain way (decreasing someone's freedom) because its net benefit enhances everyone's freedom. Now, requiring open source in an industry by law is a little different than a license like the GPL -- it's debatable whether the increase in freedom is worth the cost in any particular situation; personally I would not be in favor of mandating open source across the board, though I probably would support mandating open source in public sector agencies for example. But it is overly simplistic to simply take the perspective that you do, that restricting people's behavior with regard to software development, or anything else, is automatically "anti-freedom."
The current administration is extremely militant, party with cause, and party without cause. Their ideology is based on 'first strike' principles - on elimiting potential threads as they surface. It is only logical to assume that this ideology extends to all possible fronts.
This administration is also profoundly corrupt and incompetent. Since 9/11 it has squandered world sympathy, bungled the war on terrorism, created the kind of havoc in the Middle East that can only be beneficial to terrorists, and leaked national security secrets in order to settle petty political squabbles. I certainly hope you are wrong that this administration's tunnel-vision ideology and thoroughgoing incompetence extends to cyberspace too, but if the past few years are any guide, we might as well give up the cyberwar now.
This is cool and all, but for those who want to use unix on a treo now, check out pssh, which allows you to ssh into a functioning unix box from palmOS. It works quite well and, while it's not the same as having linux on the local file system, it allows you to use unix remotely without sacrificing the apps available on palmOS (e.g. the phone, the organizer, and everything else you probably bought the treo for in the first place). Not to put down this project -- I'm all for putting linux on anything and everything -- but this has a long way to go before you have a usable system.
I'm with you up until here: "It's all the lottery people's fault." You're not following the author's logic closely enough. It's clearly Apple's fault that you didn't win money in the lottery.
Apple won't license their DRM. Therefore, a collection of iTMS songs can only be played on Apple hardware, and a collection of songs from other stores cannot be played on iPods. If you don't consider that lock-in, then you're simply redefining the word so that it doesn't apply to Apple.
Bullshit. You can play an mp3 on anything that plays mp3s; the DRM doesn't stop you from doing that. If another store has DRM that is incompatible with iPod, take that up with the other store -- the iPod plays most common formats, like mp3 for example.
You might do it, but Napster/Yahoo/Real can't build a business on it.
Well, then, perhaps Napster, Yahoo, or Real should find something else to build a business on other than leeching Apple customers with false information about Apple's DRM?
This reminds me of the "Apple is dying" hogwash. iTMS sales are down a bit so now Apple is holding back the music industry? Give me a break. It if wasn't for iTMS, the music industry's main mode of doing business with the internet would be the same as it was in 1998-9 -- suing the hell out of Napster, Gnutella, etc. users, and extorting money from anyone forward-thinking enough to invest in such endeavors. Apple came along and showed the industry that there was a way to make money selling legal downloads, and now they are bitching that it's not enough. They want the price raised; they want more DRM; they want more restrictions and more costs added until we are paying full album sticker price every time we listen to a song, and they're still complaining that sales are going down. Even then it won't be enough for these greedy corrupt egotistical blowhards. Given their attitude they should be happy anyone buys any music from them at all.
If something is "published" it doesn't matter if anyone actually reads it; it would still be considered defamation (unless the poster can prove with wikipedia logs that nobody read it; even then I think it would only mitigate damages). U.S. common law does require that it be transmitted to a third party, so whispering in the closet doesn't cut it, but posting it on the internet, to a popular page or not, would likely be regarded as such transmission.
Why would an "extortionist" communicate with something other than a cell phone or land line? Using a camera phone tossed in by the cops for communication seems alarmingly stupid... and if the perp is that stupid there is probably a cheaper way to stop him....
Slashdot Mirror
GPL is not being compared to "plain old copyright law" in that example; it is being compared to the absence of any legal restraint. GPL puts restrictions on how you may redistribute something.
The law, of course, is about forcing someone to behave in a certain manner; there is always a tradeoff between the decrease in freedom in telling someone what to do and the payoff which may be an increase in freedom. The law restricts your freedom to lock me in a closet without my consent because that leads to a net increase in freedom for me and anyone else you might think about locking up.
Open source licenses like GPL are intended to force people to behave a certain way (decreasing someone's freedom) because its net benefit enhances everyone's freedom. Now, requiring open source in an industry by law is a little different than a license like the GPL -- it's debatable whether the increase in freedom is worth the cost in any particular situation; personally I would not be in favor of mandating open source across the board, though I probably would support mandating open source in public sector agencies for example. But it is overly simplistic to simply take the perspective that you do, that restricting people's behavior with regard to software development, or anything else, is automatically "anti-freedom."
Because the new one's only half as cool.
If I wanted to buy a watch that guaranteed I would never get laid, I certainly wouldn't have to spend that much on it.
What could possibly go wrong?
The church will be exempt from taxation!!! At least until they decide to, ummm, appraise the Lord....
I think they would be hesitant to point that out if your IP address was used to commit a crime....
The Pentagon's web page one day was replaced with a page that said "Hacked by Chinese."
This administration is also profoundly corrupt and incompetent. Since 9/11 it has squandered world sympathy, bungled the war on terrorism, created the kind of havoc in the Middle East that can only be beneficial to terrorists, and leaked national security secrets in order to settle petty political squabbles. I certainly hope you are wrong that this administration's tunnel-vision ideology and thoroughgoing incompetence extends to cyberspace too, but if the past few years are any guide, we might as well give up the cyberwar now.
if someone would just write a palmOS app that displays the penguin on your screen.
This is cool and all, but for those who want to use unix on a treo now, check out pssh, which allows you to ssh into a functioning unix box from palmOS. It works quite well and, while it's not the same as having linux on the local file system, it allows you to use unix remotely without sacrificing the apps available on palmOS (e.g. the phone, the organizer, and everything else you probably bought the treo for in the first place). Not to put down this project -- I'm all for putting linux on anything and everything -- but this has a long way to go before you have a usable system.
Don't leave us hangin, man; did they learn why?
The chimps did even better when compared to parents.
shouldn't that be "interface gnazis"?
I'm with you up until here: "It's all the lottery people's fault." You're not following the author's logic closely enough. It's clearly Apple's fault that you didn't win money in the lottery.
Switch to OS X already. Rhapsody is way out of date.
Bullshit. You can play an mp3 on anything that plays mp3s; the DRM doesn't stop you from doing that. If another store has DRM that is incompatible with iPod, take that up with the other store -- the iPod plays most common formats, like mp3 for example.
You might do it, but Napster/Yahoo/Real can't build a business on it.
Well, then, perhaps Napster, Yahoo, or Real should find something else to build a business on other than leeching Apple customers with false information about Apple's DRM?
This reminds me of the "Apple is dying" hogwash. iTMS sales are down a bit so now Apple is holding back the music industry? Give me a break. It if wasn't for iTMS, the music industry's main mode of doing business with the internet would be the same as it was in 1998-9 -- suing the hell out of Napster, Gnutella, etc. users, and extorting money from anyone forward-thinking enough to invest in such endeavors. Apple came along and showed the industry that there was a way to make money selling legal downloads, and now they are bitching that it's not enough. They want the price raised; they want more DRM; they want more restrictions and more costs added until we are paying full album sticker price every time we listen to a song, and they're still complaining that sales are going down. Even then it won't be enough for these greedy corrupt egotistical blowhards. Given their attitude they should be happy anyone buys any music from them at all.
Yeah because god knows we can't look at another source or do some research ourselves to verify whether something is true or false.
Your claim against wikipedia is far too absolutist to have any meaning.
you misspelled "gourmand's nightmare."
What I do love, though, is anything that prompts the New York Times to publish a joke about "tube steak."
On the page it rates the "difficulty" of this operation as "novice."
If something is "published" it doesn't matter if anyone actually reads it; it would still be considered defamation (unless the poster can prove with wikipedia logs that nobody read it; even then I think it would only mitigate damages). U.S. common law does require that it be transmitted to a third party, so whispering in the closet doesn't cut it, but posting it on the internet, to a popular page or not, would likely be regarded as such transmission.
looks like a pr0n site to me.
Or perhaps your comment was stupid. The moderators' agenda isn't the only reason things get modded down around here.
Why would an "extortionist" communicate with something other than a cell phone or land line? Using a camera phone tossed in by the cops for communication seems alarmingly stupid... and if the perp is that stupid there is probably a cheaper way to stop him....