"and Peking changed to Beijing because of a change in Mandarin pronunciation, not anything related to English bastardization. Otherwise Locke was spot on..."
Peking is actually pronounced "beijing" in the wade-giles system for learning mandarin (which isn't really used anymore). However, when most Americans see it, they say it the way it sounds in English.
DRM is only a result of mass pirating...not the other way around. If you want to blame someone for this, blame many of the people on this forum who have no problem downloading and sharing software that they didn't buy.
"With the DRM, the criminalization of their customers, and the big fat lies like this one, I don't see why I would want to give these people money at all."
DRM is only a result of mass pirating...not the other way around. If you want to blame someone for this, blame many of the people on this forum who have no problem downloading and sharing software that they didn't buy.
"its not depriving someone of the use of or value of some item, and so is not theft/stealing of software, because copyright infringement is not stealing. "
When someone takes all of your personal info and takes out loans and ruins your credit. We call it identity theft, yet nothing is physically stolen. Should we rename it to identity infringement?
I read an article recently about someone that installed a skimmer on an ATM machine. He was getting copies of debit card numbers and also taking money from those accounts. The accounts are just numbers that represent value, similar to software. Would we not call this theft?
"for instance it is well known that microsoft has happily tolerated copyright infringement of their operating systems over their history, as the value of having a larger market share is greater than allowing someone to possibly choose from the competition."
Is that kind of like saying we should look into the positive aspects of rape? (hey, she might have enjoyed it). Microsoft is one of the largest software companies in the world. They might be able to take a loss in revenue due to piracy. The smaller companies are a different story.
"then there is the free advertising that musicians, other artists, and copyright holders, obtain through copyright infringers."
Free Advertising. Right. So those copyright infringers tell all of their friends how they got something for free and where to get it (or they will give it to them). I'm sure this has many benefits to a company trying to sell legitimate software.
often what is sought is a differentiated response, where certain hub individuals have a greater influence and stronger social connections, this might intersect with the set of people who are more like to have the technical proficiency to circumvent drm.
"in certain situations the copyright holder knowingly benefit from copyright infringement, or greater leniency in the presence of drm. such as when a game publisher releases patches sometime after a release removing drm such as the requirement to have the dvd in the drive or to be authenticated online, etc. now this is the smart thing to do, and it shows _recognition_ that from the consideration of purely maximizing profit, some degree of leniency and provision of copyright infringement is beneficial. so while publicly the MAFIA loudly protest that they economy is suffering so much that draconian laws are required, their members show that privately they recognize and acknowledge the benefit to be harnessed from copyright infringement, and it cannot be both ways. so their actions betray the truth, that they pragmatically make more by harnessing copyright infringement than if it was completely eliminated."
How is it really helping the RIAA? It's really only hurting consumers in the long-run. Before piracy, if something wasn't making any money, companies would know that their product must not be good and they need to make changes. Now, they don't know if it's due to piracy or a bad product (song, software, game).
"i propose that we think hard about a falsifiable way of measuring the difference between the amount consumed when something is obtained at zero cost vs the amount when its not. there would exist psychological studies into this human dynamic, it would be interesting to see if they apply to the situation of copyright infringement."
If something is free, it's going to get downloaded more than if it costs money. What will this prove?
"but why should we all smile and pretend we admire Zuckerberg just because his site happened to become the biggest?"
I just can't believe that Facebook is a result of "luck and timing". Myspace was around at the exact same time and it was crushing all other social networking sites. Most people were happy with Myspace at the time, but Facebook somehow managed to destroy it within a few years.
This isn't the result of luck or timing. It's the result of intelligent strategy and new features that were added to Facebook.
Zuckerberg wasn't lucky. He was smart. It's this difference that results in having the one of the most successful sites on the Internet.
"A lot of what is considered "business savvy" these days is really just a matter of some decent knowledge of a subject"
It's more than this. Having decent knowedge of a subject will not make you a success. Have you ever tried to run a successful business in a saturated market?
Your post leads me to believe that you think that a successful business mostly has to do with luck rather than skill. Luck is involved with anything we do in life, but it's closer to a 1% contributing factor rather than an 80% one.
"One did something long ago, the other advocated killing people of different religions this decade."
One actually set off bombs with the intention of hurting people. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#Radical_history. The other just has opinions you don't agree with. Which one is more dangerous?
"This to me speaks volumes; the number of intelligent, educated people who are liberal."
I've heard this same thing before. My response is that there are also serial killers that are very intelligent.
The left constantly aligns itself with terrorists, militants, and dictators. Most universities are also filled with elitists. People that think they are not only smarter, but know what's better for the unwashed masses. It's this kind of thinking that leads to a dictatorship.
In a world of leftist/liberal thinking, republicans are becoming the new counter-culture.
"Hint: if it costs you nothing that I copy your game, you didn't lose jack shit. If you don't like it, make your game more entertaining than the pirated version."
LOL. Seeing as how the pirated version is an exact copy of the original, I don't see how you can even make this argument. Especially because once a company makes the game more entertaining, the pirates just copy it.
You are making it sound like piracy is open source software. Pirates don't innovate. They are just copying, nothing more.
"If Blizzard wanted, they could make it impossible for the private server developers to keep up. Nobody would bother to reverse engineer an encrypted protocol that changes with every patch. What do they do instead? They add content to their own and swim in the money it generates."
Would you be happy with all software being a service?
"Only two groups of people should be upset by this revelation: any thieves exploiting the weakness who may soon lose their money stream, and the banks who have to plug these holes."
It's foolish to think that banks will be able to fix these holes instantly. Even if they knew about it today, it could take months to fix these flaws.
Releasing it to the world may push the banks to fix it. But it could also result in innocent people getting their money stolen because the banks couldn't fix it fast enough.
"The only reason the banks should have to be mad is that they may not have budgeted the costs of these fixes for this year. Well that's too bad, I'm all broke up for them."
Would it be okay if your money got stolen using one of these flaws and you couldn't get access to it for months while they were investigating? You would probably blame the banks.
It's irresponsible for these guys (or anyone) to release these types of flaws without first telling the banks and allowing them enough time to fix the problem.
"So again I ask, why you are mad? Are you a banker or a thief? (And yes those are usually different unless you're on Wall Street.)"
I have to LOL at this. This is similar to: The government should be able to search your private home without a warrant. If you don't agree to this, you MUST have something to hide.
"Quite honestly, it is time to eliminate patents. As we've seen from countries with lax IP enforcement (AKA China), if you have a quality product, the knock-offs can't compete. The entire point of patents is to add to public knowledge, but that isn't happening. So really, we need shorter patent protection times, or just eliminate it all together."
I can't wait until we eliminate patents. Mostly because It will give me the opportunity to cherry-pick smaller companies that are just starting out. Since they probably don't have the resources to properly market and or release their patentable product, my much larger company with the money and the resources can take their idea and re-sell it before they get off the ground.
You think it's bad now, think about a market where the little guy has absolutely no protection. Patents work both ways. It seems like you don't care because you have never created anything that you want to bring to market (and protect).
"However I have plenty of desire, and ability, to develop cheap and flexible robots that would be able to easily replace all toilet cleaners in the world."
Most people that clean toilets don't just clean toilets. It's just part of their cleaning duties. The rest of the duties (cleaning the office, taking out the garbage, etc.) would probably be too difficult for a robot with our current technology.
"government spends money on weapons, and my electronics/programming work has to be limited to entertainment industry, or I would not be able to pay for my food and shelter."
Because the government spends it's money on weapons (which isn't the only thing the military spends its money on)..you are forced to program for the entertainment industry? wow, I don't think I've seen a post this delusional on Slashdot in awhile.
"The problem is not with me, toilets or people's motivation, it's with society that is controlled by those who want to hurt and humiliate the poor under the guise of motivation."
Ever hear of unions? Many unions have prevented companies from automating many jobs. Many people don't have the skills to get a better job. By keeping these positions around (and not using robots), we giving more people an opportunity to make a living.
The problem here is your entitlement. If you really want robots to start cleaning our toilets, create a company and start selling them (or give them away). You do have the freedom to do this in the US.
"In a non-copyright world all software authors would have to adopt the opensource business models of selling support and services if they wanted to profit from their creations."
It would pretty much push all of the little guys out of the software market, since support and services generally doesn't work well with a small amount of employees.
The difference is that right now, businesses have the freedom to choose: They can go with the open source way of business or the proprietary one. In this new world of no copyrights, businesses have no choice. They will be forced to sell services/support or die.
It will also encourage the selling of broken, hard-to-use software (If my business relied on support, why would I want to make it any easier for you to use it for free?)
"Of course, in a world without software copyrights it would be useful to just release to the public domain, but in the world we live now, your works could be repackaged against users."
How would this not happen without copyrights?
Unless there were specific laws against it, if there were no copyrights, you would see free software (which now has no protection) released as binaries only. Sure, the user could copy and share it..but they wouldn't have the source, which is the original goal of the GNU.
In addition to this, it would make it very easy for bigger companies to steal ideas and products from smaller companies (that don't have the resources). It would push many more people to secrecy than ever before and we would start seeing more SAS (software as a service).
"Not in my book. My ISP started doing some redirection and they got an immediate complaint from me. In person, at their local office. If there was an alternative to their service I would have switched ISP's immediately."
I love how the general slashdot public has this "I should be able to do what I want with my property" attitude with things like file sharing. But when an ISP decides to use that same logic (since you are using their lines to access the Internet) you get pissed off.
"The Dead used the free model long before free software. You could record, copy, and trade their concerts - they even encouraged it. They made their money from concerts, memorabilia sales, and (gasp) records. It simply was uncool to bootleg Dead records; caus ethey were cool about letting you trade their concert tapes. It's about the music, man."
This will work for less than 1% of artists. The rest will starve.
"i'm simply describing the matter-of-fact future you need to adapt to, or die"
It's funny. The FSF doesn't seem to be following this. If you use GNU licensed code in proprietary software, they can and will take you to court, similar to the RIAA/MPAA. Some companies have even been forced to hire "compliance officers".
It seems when the tables are turned, you see the true colors of most Free software supporters. Rather than fighting for the freedom of all, you are fighting for the freedom for your own political ideology.
If that's not enough to cover costs, then maybe the invisible hand is telling them they're investing too much."
Maybe. In a market without copyright infringement. But in a world where you can make an exact duplicate with little effort, paying nothing becomes really easy.
"Copyright infringement remains different from stealing. As in "we will stop stealing when you stop calling it stealing"."
Why don't you come up with another excuse? When one excuse doesn't work anymore, copyright infringers will always have another to justify why they deserve something for free.
Copyright infringement isn't stealing. It's counterfeiting, which is worse. When you steal a physical product, like a tv, the company that makes it can still sell more tvs.
When there is mass counterfeiting of music, software, or games, it has the potential to destroy the original business. If piracy is not prevented, people get the idea that it's okay to just get your stuff for free. Over time, this will devalue it because most IP is only worth what people are willing to pay.
When Napster first came out, people said that the artists weren't making enough money and that albums were way too expensive (this is why they downloaded music for free). Now that any artist can make a living online without a recording contract and you can pretty much get any song for 99 cents or less on services like iTunes, there are a whole new set of excuses.
The community won't be happy until there are no restrictions on all music, books, software, and games and it's all free (costing $0), which is pretty fucking selfish.
"There's also a steady stream of open source volunteer developers selling their time at $0.00/hr. Given our propensity for being economic fools selling ourselves short (and giving credence to the line pointy haired accountants love "you don't do this job for the money, you do it for the passion" -- and they're oh so tempted to reply "so can we charge you to work for us then?") is it any wonder companies think they can get away with undervaluing development staff?"
I have been saying this for a couple of years now. Eventually, open source developers will either devalue their own position or put themselves out of a job (and many other developers).
It takes an engineer to create many of the open source applications that are out there now. It only takes a code monkey to make changes to those same applications. When business owners catch on to this, which is already starting to happen, many software developer positions will be taken by less-educated and less-experienced (and most importantly, paid less) developers because the difficult code that requires engineering is already out there for free.
In this situation, I can imagine that the pro-union people will be screaming that developers need to be unionized.
"When your skills are "a strong back and a weak head" there is no reason for the employer to negotiate. Without unions having fought in the past for things such as a 40hr week, minimum wage, no child labour, safe working conditions, minimum rest breaks, etc, the un-skilled would be still working and dying in Victorian era sweatshops and coal mines. "
I'm glad they fought for these things. The laws are in place, why do we still need them?
"Since you've obviously never dug ditches for a living I can understand that the benifits of collective negotiation to the worker may be difficult for you to appreciate from the comfort of your office chair."
you know nothing about me.
The comfort of an office chair? I earned that comfort through years of minimum wage jobs, hundreds of hours developing software in my free time, and getting a degree.
What I don't understand is why a job that pretty much anybody with two hands can do should be protected by a union.
I have seen the results of the auto unions first-hand. Union members getting paid 4 and 5 times what they should be getting paid and putting a stanglehold on any company that doesn't bend to their wishes. Most Unions mean well in the beginning, but end up just as money-hungry and greedy as a corporation in the end. This doesn't seem to matter to you though..as long as it's protecting the little guy.
"There's also a lot of programmers working 80 hours a week now. Too bad information workers have a genetic pre-disposition toward avoiding unionization."
or a back-bone. Nobody is forcing you to work 80-120 hours a week. If enough developers refused, the practice would stop. The problem is that there is always a supply of developers that will work those insane hours.
I personally detest the idea of Unions and I'm glad programmers have avoided them. In most unions, your potential raise is dependent on all the other union members in your department. You also don't negotiate raises, your union lawyers/reps do. No thank you.
A union is almost like a small version of a communist country. Everyone is equal.
All of my development jobs for the past 10 years have 40 hours with occasional work after hours. The one job I had that required more than 40 hours on a weekly basis, I quit.
If you have the skills, you will always find someone that wants you. If not, then a union shouldn't be propping you up or forcing a company to pay you a salary any higher than what you deserve.
The free market works both ways. It's not a businesses fault that most people don't have the balls to demand a raise or walk.
"Well, from people who consider that "piracy" also encompasses the use of P2P tools (because, you know, free culture just doesn't exist)"
Go to any P2p network and you will find about 90% copyrighted material and 10% free. This is why they consider the p2p networks piracy.
"In France, for instance, pirates are not "copyright infringers" but counterfeiters."
Copyright infringement is counterfeiting. People always get in a tizzy when you try to compare copyright infringement to stealing, but in reality, it's worse. It has the potential to destroy an entire business rather than just be counted as a loss due to theft.
"Fifteen men on a dead man's chest, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum etc..."
I find most geeks that say things like this hilarious. Words change over time. Gay no longer means happy and Pirate no longer means of the high seas (although there are some exceptions).
"These "clowns" are actually running for political office and working from within the democratic system. If nothing else, the fact that they're acknowledged as a legitimate political party gives them access to a lot of extra soapboxes. TV interviews, debates, questions, these all serve to raise awareness about privacy concerns and governments selling out to big media."
I can't really take a political group seriously when they base their entire position on copyright infringement. When they can actually show me they want to change copyright, without taking away the rights of all the existing and future copyright holders, I might change my mind. It also seems like they all just want to get free stuff. Nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
"and Peking changed to Beijing because of a change in Mandarin pronunciation, not anything related to English bastardization. Otherwise Locke was spot on..."
Peking is actually pronounced "beijing" in the wade-giles system for learning mandarin (which isn't really used anymore). However, when most Americans see it, they say it the way it sounds in English.
DRM is only a result of mass pirating...not the other way around. If you want to blame someone for this, blame many of the people on this forum who have no problem downloading and sharing software that they didn't buy.
"With the DRM, the criminalization of their customers, and the big fat lies like this one, I don't see why I would want to give these people money at all."
DRM is only a result of mass pirating...not the other way around. If you want to blame someone for this, blame many of the people on this forum who have no problem downloading and sharing software that they didn't buy.
"its not depriving someone of the use of or value of some item, and so is not theft/stealing of software, because copyright infringement is not stealing. "
When someone takes all of your personal info and takes out loans and ruins your credit. We call it identity theft, yet nothing is physically stolen. Should we rename it to identity infringement?
I read an article recently about someone that installed a skimmer on an ATM machine. He was getting copies of debit card numbers and also taking money from those accounts. The accounts are just numbers that represent value, similar to software. Would we not call this theft?
"for instance it is well known that microsoft has happily tolerated copyright infringement of their operating systems over their history, as the value of having a larger market share is greater than allowing someone to possibly choose from the competition."
Is that kind of like saying we should look into the positive aspects of rape? (hey, she might have enjoyed it). Microsoft is one of the largest software companies in the world. They might be able to take a loss in revenue due to piracy. The smaller companies are a different story.
"then there is the free advertising that musicians, other artists, and copyright holders, obtain through copyright infringers."
Free Advertising. Right. So those copyright infringers tell all of their friends how they got something for free and where to get it (or they will give it to them). I'm sure this has many benefits to a company trying to sell legitimate software.
often what is sought is a differentiated response, where certain hub individuals have a greater influence and stronger social connections, this might intersect with the set of people who are more like to have the technical proficiency to circumvent drm.
"in certain situations the copyright holder knowingly benefit from copyright infringement, or greater leniency in the presence of drm. such as when a game publisher releases patches sometime after a release removing drm such as the requirement to have the dvd in the drive or to be authenticated online, etc. now this is the smart thing to do, and it shows _recognition_ that from the consideration of purely maximizing profit, some degree of leniency and provision of copyright infringement is beneficial. so while publicly the MAFIA loudly protest that they economy is suffering so much that draconian laws are required, their members show that privately they recognize and acknowledge the benefit to be harnessed from copyright infringement, and it cannot be both ways. so their actions betray the truth, that they pragmatically make more by harnessing copyright infringement than if it was completely eliminated."
How is it really helping the RIAA? It's really only hurting consumers in the long-run. Before piracy, if something wasn't making any money, companies would know that their product must not be good and they need to make changes. Now, they don't know if it's due to piracy or a bad product (song, software, game).
"i propose that we think hard about a falsifiable way of measuring the difference between the amount consumed when something is obtained at zero cost vs the amount when its not. there would exist psychological studies into this human dynamic, it would be interesting to see if they apply to the situation of copyright infringement."
If something is free, it's going to get downloaded more than if it costs money. What will this prove?
"so we can vilify them, castigate them, and otherwise snark."
Why?. They aren't doing anything wrong. After all, they aren't "stealing" anything. If they use the code, the code still remains free.
This article is equivalent to what the RIAA/MPAA say about piracy, yet for some reason most of the people here agree with it.
Hypocrisy at its best.
"but why should we all smile and pretend we admire Zuckerberg just because his site happened to become the biggest?"
I just can't believe that Facebook is a result of "luck and timing". Myspace was around at the exact same time and it was crushing all other social networking sites. Most people were happy with Myspace at the time, but Facebook somehow managed to destroy it within a few years.
This isn't the result of luck or timing. It's the result of intelligent strategy and new features that were added to Facebook.
Zuckerberg wasn't lucky. He was smart. It's this difference that results in having the one of the most successful sites on the Internet.
"A lot of what is considered "business savvy" these days is really just a matter of some decent knowledge of a subject"
It's more than this. Having decent knowedge of a subject will not make you a success. Have you ever tried to run a successful business in a saturated market?
Your post leads me to believe that you think that a successful business mostly has to do with luck rather than skill. Luck is involved with anything we do in life, but it's closer to a 1% contributing factor rather than an 80% one.
"Check out the Tea Party rallies and you can see for yourself."
Or the anti-bush rallies during his administration.
"One did something long ago, the other advocated killing people of different religions this decade."
One actually set off bombs with the intention of hurting people. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#Radical_history. The other just has opinions you don't agree with. Which one is more dangerous?
"This to me speaks volumes; the number of intelligent, educated people who are liberal."
I've heard this same thing before. My response is that there are also serial killers that are very intelligent.
The left constantly aligns itself with terrorists, militants, and dictators. Most universities are also filled with elitists. People that think they are not only smarter, but know what's better for the unwashed masses. It's this kind of thinking that leads to a dictatorship.
In a world of leftist/liberal thinking, republicans are becoming the new counter-culture.
"Hint: if it costs you nothing that I copy your game, you didn't lose jack shit. If you don't like it, make your game more entertaining than the pirated version."
LOL. Seeing as how the pirated version is an exact copy of the original, I don't see how you can even make this argument. Especially because once a company makes the game more entertaining, the pirates just copy it.
You are making it sound like piracy is open source software. Pirates don't innovate. They are just copying, nothing more.
"If Blizzard wanted, they could make it impossible for the private server developers to keep up. Nobody would bother to reverse engineer an encrypted protocol that changes with every patch. What do they do instead? They add content to their own and swim in the money it generates."
Would you be happy with all software being a service?
"Only two groups of people should be upset by this revelation: any thieves exploiting the weakness who may soon lose their money stream, and the banks who have to plug these holes."
It's foolish to think that banks will be able to fix these holes instantly. Even if they knew about it today, it could take months to fix these flaws.
Releasing it to the world may push the banks to fix it. But it could also result in innocent people getting their money stolen because the banks couldn't fix it fast enough.
"The only reason the banks should have to be mad is that they may not have budgeted the costs of these fixes for this year. Well that's too bad, I'm all broke up for them."
Would it be okay if your money got stolen using one of these flaws and you couldn't get access to it for months while they were investigating? You would probably blame the banks.
It's irresponsible for these guys (or anyone) to release these types of flaws without first telling the banks and allowing them enough time to fix the problem.
"So again I ask, why you are mad? Are you a banker or a thief? (And yes those are usually different unless you're on Wall Street.)"
I have to LOL at this. This is similar to: The government should be able to search your private home without a warrant. If you don't agree to this, you MUST have something to hide.
"Quite honestly, it is time to eliminate patents. As we've seen from countries with lax IP enforcement (AKA China), if you have a quality product, the knock-offs can't compete. The entire point of patents is to add to public knowledge, but that isn't happening. So really, we need shorter patent protection times, or just eliminate it all together."
I can't wait until we eliminate patents. Mostly because It will give me the opportunity to cherry-pick smaller companies that are just starting out. Since they probably don't have the resources to properly market and or release their patentable product, my much larger company with the money and the resources can take their idea and re-sell it before they get off the ground.
You think it's bad now, think about a market where the little guy has absolutely no protection. Patents work both ways. It seems like you don't care because you have never created anything that you want to bring to market (and protect).
"However I have plenty of desire, and ability, to develop cheap and flexible robots that would be able to easily replace all toilet cleaners in the world."
Most people that clean toilets don't just clean toilets. It's just part of their cleaning duties. The rest of the duties (cleaning the office, taking out the garbage, etc.) would probably be too difficult for a robot with our current technology.
"government spends money on weapons, and my electronics/programming work has to be limited to entertainment industry, or I would not be able to pay for my food and shelter."
Because the government spends it's money on weapons (which isn't the only thing the military spends its money on)..you are forced to program for the entertainment industry? wow, I don't think I've seen a post this delusional on Slashdot in awhile.
"The problem is not with me, toilets or people's motivation, it's with society that is controlled by those who want to hurt and humiliate the poor under the guise of motivation."
Ever hear of unions? Many unions have prevented companies from automating many jobs. Many people don't have the skills to get a better job. By keeping these positions around (and not using robots), we giving more people an opportunity to make a living.
The problem here is your entitlement. If you really want robots to start cleaning our toilets, create a company and start selling them (or give them away). You do have the freedom to do this in the US.
"In a non-copyright world all software authors would have to adopt the opensource business models of selling
support and services if they wanted to profit from their creations."
It would pretty much push all of the little guys out of the software market, since support and services generally doesn't work well with a small amount of employees.
The difference is that right now, businesses have the freedom to choose: They can go with the open source way of business or the proprietary one. In this new world of no copyrights, businesses have no choice. They will be forced to sell services/support or die.
It will also encourage the selling of broken, hard-to-use software (If my business relied on support, why would I want to make it any easier for you to use it for free?)
"Of course, in a world without software copyrights it would be useful to just release to the public domain, but in the world we live now, your works could be repackaged against users."
How would this not happen without copyrights?
Unless there were specific laws against it, if there were no copyrights, you would see free software (which now has no protection) released as binaries only. Sure, the user could copy and share it..but they wouldn't have the source, which is the original goal of the GNU.
In addition to this, it would make it very easy for bigger companies to steal ideas and products from smaller companies (that don't have the resources). It would push many more people to secrecy than ever before and we would start seeing more SAS (software as a service).
"Not in my book. My ISP started doing some redirection and they got an immediate complaint from me. In person, at their local office. If there was an alternative to their service I would have switched ISP's immediately."
I love how the general slashdot public has this "I should be able to do what I want with my property" attitude with things like file sharing. But when an ISP decides to use that same logic (since you are using their lines to access the Internet) you get pissed off.
"The Dead used the free model long before free software. You could record, copy, and trade their concerts - they even encouraged it. They made their money from concerts, memorabilia sales, and (gasp) records. It simply was uncool to bootleg Dead records; caus ethey were cool about letting you trade their concert tapes. It's about the music, man."
This will work for less than 1% of artists. The rest will starve.
"i'm simply describing the matter-of-fact future you need to adapt to, or die"
It's funny. The FSF doesn't seem to be following this. If you use GNU licensed code in proprietary software, they can and will take you to court, similar to the RIAA/MPAA. Some companies have even been forced to hire "compliance officers".
It seems when the tables are turned, you see the true colors of most Free software supporters. Rather than fighting for the freedom of all, you are fighting for the freedom for your own political ideology.
"It's worth whatever I feel like paying for it.
If that's not enough to cover costs, then maybe the invisible hand is telling them they're investing too much."
Maybe. In a market without copyright infringement. But in a world where you can make an exact duplicate with little effort, paying nothing becomes really easy.
"Copyright infringement remains different from stealing. As in "we will stop stealing when you stop calling it stealing"."
Why don't you come up with another excuse? When one excuse doesn't work anymore, copyright infringers will always have another to justify why they deserve something for free.
Copyright infringement isn't stealing. It's counterfeiting, which is worse. When you steal a physical product, like a tv, the company that makes it can still sell more tvs.
When there is mass counterfeiting of music, software, or games, it has the potential to destroy the original business. If piracy is not prevented, people get the idea that it's okay to just get your stuff for free. Over time, this will devalue it because most IP is only worth what people are willing to pay.
When Napster first came out, people said that the artists weren't making enough money and that albums were way too expensive (this is why they downloaded music for free). Now that any artist can make a living online without a recording contract and you can pretty much get any song for 99 cents or less on services like iTunes, there are a whole new set of excuses.
The community won't be happy until there are no restrictions on all music, books, software, and games and it's all free (costing $0), which is pretty fucking selfish.
"There's also a steady stream of open source volunteer developers selling their time at $0.00/hr. Given our propensity for being economic fools selling ourselves short (and giving credence to the line pointy haired accountants love "you don't do this job for the money, you do it for the passion" -- and they're oh so tempted to reply "so can we charge you to work for us then?") is it any wonder companies think they can get away with undervaluing development staff?"
I have been saying this for a couple of years now. Eventually, open source developers will either devalue their own position or put themselves out of a job (and many other developers).
It takes an engineer to create many of the open source applications that are out there now. It only takes a code monkey to make changes to those same applications. When business owners catch on to this, which is already starting to happen, many software developer positions will be taken by less-educated and less-experienced (and most importantly, paid less) developers because the difficult code that requires engineering is already out there for free.
In this situation, I can imagine that the pro-union people will be screaming that developers need to be unionized.
"When your skills are "a strong back and a weak head" there is no reason for the employer to negotiate. Without unions having fought in the past for things such as a 40hr week, minimum wage, no child labour, safe working conditions, minimum rest breaks, etc, the un-skilled would be still working and dying in Victorian era sweatshops and coal mines. "
I'm glad they fought for these things. The laws are in place, why do we still need them?
"Since you've obviously never dug ditches for a living I can understand that the benifits of collective negotiation to the worker may be difficult for you to appreciate from the comfort of your office chair."
you know nothing about me.
The comfort of an office chair? I earned that comfort through years of minimum wage jobs, hundreds of hours developing software in my free time, and getting a degree.
What I don't understand is why a job that pretty much anybody with two hands can do should be protected by a union.
I have seen the results of the auto unions first-hand. Union members getting paid 4 and 5 times what they should be getting paid and putting a stanglehold on any company that doesn't bend to their wishes. Most Unions mean well in the beginning, but end up just as money-hungry and greedy as a corporation in the end. This doesn't seem to matter to you though..as long as it's protecting the little guy.
"There's also a lot of programmers working 80 hours a week now. Too bad information workers have a genetic pre-disposition toward avoiding unionization."
or a back-bone. Nobody is forcing you to work 80-120 hours a week. If enough developers refused, the practice would stop. The problem is that there is always a supply of developers that will work those insane hours.
I personally detest the idea of Unions and I'm glad programmers have avoided them. In most unions, your potential raise is dependent on all the other union members in your department. You also don't negotiate raises, your union lawyers/reps do. No thank you.
A union is almost like a small version of a communist country. Everyone is equal.
All of my development jobs for the past 10 years have 40 hours with occasional work after hours. The one job I had that required more than 40 hours on a weekly basis, I quit.
If you have the skills, you will always find someone that wants you. If not, then a union shouldn't be propping you up or forcing a company to pay you a salary any higher than what you deserve.
The free market works both ways. It's not a businesses fault that most people don't have the balls to demand a raise or walk.
"Well, from people who consider that "piracy" also encompasses the use of P2P tools (because, you know, free culture just doesn't exist)"
Go to any P2p network and you will find about 90% copyrighted material and 10% free. This is why they consider the p2p networks piracy.
"In France, for instance, pirates are not "copyright infringers" but counterfeiters."
Copyright infringement is counterfeiting. People always get in a tizzy when you try to compare copyright infringement to stealing, but in reality, it's worse. It has the potential to destroy an entire business rather than just be counted as a loss due to theft.
"Fifteen men on a dead man's chest, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum etc..."
I find most geeks that say things like this hilarious. Words change over time. Gay no longer means happy and Pirate no longer means of the high seas (although there are some exceptions).
"These "clowns" are actually running for political office and working from within the democratic system. If nothing else, the fact that they're acknowledged as a legitimate political party gives them access to a lot of extra soapboxes. TV interviews, debates, questions, these all serve to raise awareness about privacy concerns and governments selling out to big media."
I can't really take a political group seriously when they base their entire position on copyright infringement. When they can actually show me they want to change copyright, without taking away the rights of all the existing and future copyright holders, I might change my mind. It also seems like they all just want to get free stuff. Nothing more.