The RIAA and MPAA aren't fighting to protect anyone except themselves.
Just like the people who want to "free the music".
The RIAA has been doing things like this for over 20 years, if it wasn't all about you getting music for free, why have people only started to bitch since the demise of napster?
Fighting so very hard, in fact, that musicians get around $1.37 per CD
They don't have do release their music with a record company, but it's a hell of a lot harder to sell any music without their promotion machine.
Fighting so hard that one musician goes so far as to say that he would rather have his music be given out free than through his label?
Im gonna guess that he was rejected by one of the major labels, and is now bitter.
Oh really? Perhaps you might like to trawl a little wider for a broader range of views before you so confidently make such an assertion.
There may be cases of racism that placed some people in prison ( 1%), but saying that's the reason there are so many african-americans in the US prison system is just as narrow minded.
I guess the reason there are any african-americans are in college is because of affirmative action.
That's me "treasonous." I would rather live in a country that has just laws and doesn't lock up whole classes of people (Africans)
the fact that there is a higher percentage of african-americans in the US prison system, has nothing to do with racism.
What about the only country in the world that will give you a higher chance of getting into a desired college because of your skin color. (affirmative action)
GERMANY is a freer and more just country than the US?
There are 10X the amount of people trying to enter the US...Why?
give me an example of why German is SO much better thgan the US.
Anyhoo, I grew up speaking German so what's the fucking difference?
where do you live now? If it's in the US, you have already lost your own argument.
Great... cyberwar, massive DoS, blah... I keep in touch with people over the internet in China, and I will NOT be blocking them at my level, but what happens if the US mandates all chinese traffic be blocked? Then what do I do?
The US isn't china. I seriously doubt they are going to start blocking traffic any time soon.
But anyway, I am willing to believe you, if you actually tell me what he has coded, and why it is "genius". Really, I'd love to know. Can you point to a piece of code that he has done that is as "genius" as some of the stuff RMS or Bill Joys work?
RMS a genius programmer? yeah...right.. Everything RMS, bill joy, or 90% of the other linux community programmers copy programs written by microsoft or 60's technology. (REAL innovative there).
Just because RMS started the FSF doesn't mean he is a gifted programmer.
Hmmm, you get paid, yes, but your paycheck is only a tiny itty bitty speck of how much money the code you write makes. Unless you make $28,000,000 a year, you are being RIPPED OFF. Doing 99.9% of the work and getting paid 0.000001% of the profit doesn't sound like a good deal to me. In fact, giving your code away for free and getting a reputation for being an excellent coder with innovative ideas will pay off MUCH more in the long run.
Do you realize how many programmers microsoft employees? Under your figures, there are only about 1000, when in reality, there are probably 10 or 20 times that much (not including support teams for all the products).
In fact, giving your code away for free and getting a reputation for being an excellent coder with innovative ideas will pay off MUCH more in the long run.
true, but I would rather have both.
Doing 99.9% of the work and getting paid 0.000001% of the profit doesn't sound like a good deal to me
I hardly think one programmer does that much work.
Ah... If you can't respond, just spout a tired worn-out cliche. The standard strategy of the mental incompetent. Dipshit, if you don't respond, expect people to take your agreement as given. That's the way it fucking works. You claim there's no substantive difference, I point out 5 differences, you respond to two. That means that you were admitting 3, and that means that substantive differences exist between the licenses, which means your basic claim is, as usual, a crock of shit.
cliche? really? I thought I was the only person brilliant enough to use that statement.
Read. The. Fucking. Article. Idiot. The code that was released was an implementation of these specs. The license is on the specs and patents as well as the code. PEOPLE DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE CODE. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM REIMPLEMENTING THE CODE. Matter of fact, Samba's already PRE-implemented the code. You're the one who's trying to change the subject, no one else gives a rat's ass about the code. If the license ONLY applied to the code, you might have a point. It doesn't, so you don't
Open source is supposed to be free, remember?
And? So fucking what? Even if you WERE right, it still doesn't change the fact that the GPL doesn't contain the kind of lying bullshit FUD that the Microsoft language does.
What's the FUD? the fact that they don't want slimy socalist fucks using their code?
it is their RIGHT.
Your CHANGES are your work. The rest of the fucking code isn't, and to claim it's all yours (which is what Microsoft is doing) is plagiarism. You knowingly chose to base your work on GPL'd software. You have to accept the original license. Microsoft changed IBM's work, then imposed their own terms on it. This is nothing like releasing your own code under the GPL. Is your feeble mind capable of seeing the difference?
Really? then why do I have to release my changes when using the GPL? Why not just release the original sourcecode?
I point out 5 differences, you respond to two. That means that you were admitting 3, and that means that substantive differences exist between the licenses, which means your basic claim is, as usual, a crock of shit
You pointed out 4, and I responded to all four. Please take your head out of your ass.
Read. The. Fucking. Article. Idiot. The code that was released was an implementation of these specs. The license is on the specs and patents as well as the code. PEOPLE DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE CODE. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM REIMPLEMENTING THE CODE. Matter of fact, Samba's already PRE-implemented the code. You're the one who's trying to change the subject, no one else gives a rat's ass about the code. If the license ONLY applied to the code, you might have a point. It doesn't, so you don't.
You mean that dribble written by bruce perens?
Keeping a protocol proprietary is perfectly legal. The fact that you THINK the gnu community needs it for compatibility doesn't change a thing.
Oh, and are you conceding the point that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist who's violating their parole agreement?
Although what microsoft has done in the past is wrong, I think the main reason they are despised, is because it represents the complete opposite of the online socialist movement (the GNU).
Do you believe that microsoft was in the wrong for buying DOS, and making 10 times as much from it?
The same isn't true if you implement code from scratch using Microsoft's specs. Dumbfuck.
Then don't use microsoft's protocols. If microsoft software so so shitty, then why are 99.999% of all GPLd software just second-rate copies of their programs?
at any rate, you're changing the argument completely. This a patent issue, not a Microsoft Licensing issue. I was originally comparing the latest (or future) release of microsoft sourcecode to the GPL, not netbeui (or any other protocol) specs.
And what about the other points I brought up? Since you didn't mention them, shall I take it you're agreeing with me, and admitting that your asinine claim that the GPL is as evil as Microsoft's license is the load of shit that it is?
Open source, closed mind.
4. The GPL governs one's own work. SMB is based on IBM's work with NetBIOS. It's not their work they're restricting, idiotboy.
So If I make a change to a GPL'd piece of software, those changes aren't MY work? It is a restriction of others' work.
1. The GPL does not contain language to knowingly dishonestly FUD specific other licenses
Because if they did, no-one would release their source under it.
Other differences would include: 2. The GPL was not created with the main purpose of SLAPPing a competitor out of existence.
Yes it is. Its main competitor is proprietary licenses. The GPL destroys these with its virus like nature.
3. The GPL governs program executables and binaries. The Microsoft license governs specs and patents. You have the right to reimplement GPL'd code if you do not agree with the license. You do not have the right to reimplement Microsoft code if you do not agree with the license.
So If I wish to "implement" someone's code and release it under a proprietary license, I don't have to release my soucecode, right?
Did you somehow manage to miss the hundred-odd posts in each story that brought up these minor details? Well, given how idiotic you've already proved yourself to be..
you mean the propaganda. Most is just other slashdotters licking each others' balls with MS comments.
It's simple, really. They encrypt e-books so that they will be able to use the DMCA on anyone that dares reverse the encryption, regardless of whether or not the reversal was for piracy or not. Can you say "Dmitry Sklyarov"?
I doubt it.
They encrypt books because they know human nature. People are greedy as hell, and would rather get their books for free.
Apply that school of thought to mp3's as well and you can see that they (mp3's) are not as evil as the Recording Industry Ass. of America makes them out to be. Having said that, going back to literary works, I did hear that Steven King's last internet-only story wasn't a big seller, but it would be interesting to know if it bolstered the sales of his existing paperbacks.
The book stephen king put online only proves one thing: people are greedy. He allowed anyone to download and read his E-book, and gave them a choice on whether to pay a donation. Most people couldn't even manage to give a dollar.
I guess you see what would happen in an online "gift" economy.
That's the problem. It's repeated again and again, as propaganda, but with no backing proof..
but I'm bored at work
I hardly think any respectable business would employee a moron like you. Especially Since you probably spend 90% of your time fucking off on slashdot.
Replace work with Middle School, and I might belive you.
Nope, I look like the Undertaker with glasses, little boy. Sorry, I know you find the Simpson's character sexually attractive, but you're not my type. For one thing, I prefer something approaching human-level intelligence.
a little insecure are we?
Re:What's wrong with the kids today?
on
Coding Fair Use
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately the HAVES don't really consider it a problem.
which is why the majority of slashdotters are more in favor of no IP rights.
Nope, it was the truth the first time you were told, dipshit. How about explaining why it's not the fucking truth? Fucking lying idiot
im not the one claiming the GPL is any more free than what microsoft is doing.
No, I'm what is known as a "mentally competent individual", too intelligent to fall for your lies. Not that that really says much, given how fucking idiotic your lies really are.
ass-monkeys like you don't even deserve a response. Really, I could care less what you think. I don't, and probably will never use the infectious GPL license in any of my work.
Do you look like the comic-book guy on the simpsons?
What if suddenly, the Microsoft Grocery Store suddenly lobbied congress, and made it illegal to shop there AND grow your own food.. what's next? Lobbying to make it illegal to grow your own food and ONLY be able to buy it from them??
Your analogy is a little off-base. Food is natural. Growing food is the fruit of your own labors.
microsoft owns the sourcecode, they can do as they please with it. (including a restrictive as hell license).
Just don't use their sourcecode in GPL projects. Similarly, if I am writing a commericalized application, and I do not wish to release any of my sourcecode back into the community, I don't use GPL'd code.
Users of your software are human beings, and as such the right to learn from and improve their tools is fundamental.
Really? I would like to know how to create a hydrogen bomb with enough power to exterminate mass amounts of people. Do you think the U.S. government will tell me how?
it's "fundamentally" wrong not to tell me.
Your desire to control them is obscene, and until we find a way to stop your kind we can at least refuse to subsidize you
Control is all around you. Open your eyes (and your mind) for once. Your version of control is no different than mine. just a means to an end.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it make sense for classes like clerics to get some kind of experience for what they really do, like healing people?
Where the hell is the fun or challenge in that?
That's similar to the barney game for the sega genesis that was made a few years back, where the goals were to hug everyone.
Go ahead. Don't accept it. What, exactly, do you think you are going to do with it without the rights that the GPL grants you?
Free the software, in my commericalized applications.
Actually, if you haven't agreed to the EULA, you can do whatever you like with the software within the limits of copyright law.
Does it also mean, if I strip a GPL'd piece of software of the GNU license that I don't have to abide by it either?
Its products have consistently been inferior to its competitors in nearly every measurable degree since the late 1980s
If Microsoft was always inferior to its competitors, it wouldn't be the monopoly it is today.
Compare Win9X to anything else that is or was on the market: OS2? X-Windows?
It (Win9X) is far more superior, and that is why people used it in the first place.
Microsoft of Borg. Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated into our "XBox" plans
if you think about it, linux is more like the borg than microsoft is (they are more like the klingons).
the borg: they all work together as one, to create a super-force.
The RIAA and MPAA aren't fighting to protect anyone except themselves.
Just like the people who want to "free the music".
The RIAA has been doing things like this for over 20 years, if it wasn't all about you getting music for free, why have people only started to bitch since the demise of napster?
Fighting so very hard, in fact, that musicians get around $1.37 per CD
They don't have do release their music with a record company, but it's a hell of a lot harder to sell any music without their promotion machine.
Fighting so hard that one musician goes so far as to say that he would rather have his music be given out free than through his label?
Im gonna guess that he was rejected by one of the major labels, and is now bitter.
Oh really? Perhaps you might like to trawl a little wider for a broader range of views before you so confidently make such an assertion.
There may be cases of racism that placed some people in prison ( 1%), but saying that's the reason there are so many african-americans in the US prison system is just as narrow minded.
I guess the reason there are any african-americans are in college is because of affirmative action.
That's me "treasonous." I would rather live in a country that has just laws and doesn't lock up whole classes of people (Africans)
the fact that there is a higher percentage of african-americans in the US prison system, has nothing to do with racism.
What about the only country in the world that will give you a higher chance of getting into a desired college because of your skin color. (affirmative action)
GERMANY is a freer and more just country than the US?
There are 10X the amount of people trying to enter the US...Why?
give me an example of why German is SO much better thgan the US.
Anyhoo, I grew up speaking German so what's the fucking difference?
where do you live now? If it's in the US, you have already lost your own argument.
don't understand why /.ers bitch so heavily about spam from China. 99% of the spam I get in my inbox is straight from the US.
Asian porn sites anyone?
Great... cyberwar, massive DoS, blah... I keep in touch with people over the internet in China, and I will NOT be blocking them at my level, but what happens if the US mandates all chinese traffic be blocked? Then what do I do?
The US isn't china. I seriously doubt they are going to start blocking traffic any time soon.
But anyway, I am willing to believe you, if you actually tell me what he has coded, and why it is "genius". Really, I'd love to know. Can you point to a piece of code that he has done that is as "genius" as some of the stuff RMS or Bill Joys work?
RMS a genius programmer? yeah...right.. Everything RMS, bill joy, or 90% of the other linux community programmers copy programs written by microsoft or 60's technology. (REAL innovative there).
Just because RMS started the FSF doesn't mean he is a gifted programmer.
IE: samba
X-windows
linux, based off of unix
and the list goes on....
Hmmm, you get paid, yes, but your paycheck is only a tiny itty bitty speck of how much money the code you write makes. Unless you make $28,000,000 a year, you are being RIPPED OFF. Doing 99.9% of the work and getting paid 0.000001% of the profit doesn't sound like a good deal to me. In fact, giving your code away for free and getting a reputation for being an excellent coder with innovative ideas will pay off MUCH more in the long run.
Do you realize how many programmers microsoft employees? Under your figures, there are only about 1000, when in reality, there are probably 10 or 20 times that much (not including support teams for all the products).
In fact, giving your code away for free and getting a reputation for being an excellent coder with innovative ideas will pay off MUCH more in the long run.
true, but I would rather have both.
Doing 99.9% of the work and getting paid 0.000001% of the profit doesn't sound like a good deal to me
I hardly think one programmer does that much work.
Microsoft because the business model doesn't support that style of organisation.
such as making a profit?
Ah... If you can't respond, just spout a tired worn-out cliche. The standard strategy of the mental incompetent. Dipshit, if you don't respond, expect people to take your agreement as given. That's the way it fucking works. You claim there's no substantive difference, I point out 5 differences, you respond to two. That means that you were admitting 3, and that means that substantive differences exist between the licenses, which means your basic claim is, as usual, a crock of shit.
cliche? really? I thought I was the only person brilliant enough to use that statement.
Read. The. Fucking. Article. Idiot. The code that was released was an implementation of these specs. The license is on the specs and patents as well as the code. PEOPLE DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE CODE. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM REIMPLEMENTING THE CODE. Matter of fact, Samba's already PRE-implemented the code. You're the one who's trying to change the subject, no one else gives a rat's ass about the code. If the license ONLY applied to the code, you might have a point. It doesn't, so you don't
Open source is supposed to be free, remember?
And? So fucking what? Even if you WERE right, it still doesn't change the fact that the GPL doesn't contain the kind of lying bullshit FUD that the Microsoft language does.
What's the FUD? the fact that they don't want slimy socalist fucks using their code?
it is their RIGHT.
Your CHANGES are your work. The rest of the fucking code isn't, and to claim it's all yours (which is what Microsoft is doing) is plagiarism. You knowingly chose to base your work on GPL'd software. You have to accept the original license. Microsoft changed IBM's work, then imposed their own terms on it. This is nothing like releasing your own code under the GPL. Is your feeble mind capable of seeing the difference?
Really? then why do I have to release my changes when using the GPL? Why not just release the original sourcecode?
I point out 5 differences, you respond to two. That means that you were admitting 3, and that means that substantive differences exist between the licenses, which means your basic claim is, as usual, a crock of shit
You pointed out 4, and I responded to all four. Please take your head out of your ass.
Read. The. Fucking. Article. Idiot. The code that was released was an implementation of these specs. The license is on the specs and patents as well as the code. PEOPLE DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE CODE. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM REIMPLEMENTING THE CODE. Matter of fact, Samba's already PRE-implemented the code. You're the one who's trying to change the subject, no one else gives a rat's ass about the code. If the license ONLY applied to the code, you might have a point. It doesn't, so you don't.
You mean that dribble written by bruce perens?
Keeping a protocol proprietary is perfectly legal. The fact that you THINK the gnu community needs it for compatibility doesn't change a thing.
Oh, and are you conceding the point that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist who's violating their parole agreement?
Although what microsoft has done in the past is wrong, I think the main reason they are despised, is because it represents the complete opposite of the online socialist movement (the GNU).
Do you believe that microsoft was in the wrong for buying DOS, and making 10 times as much from it?
The same isn't true if you implement code from scratch using Microsoft's specs. Dumbfuck.
Then don't use microsoft's protocols. If microsoft software so so shitty, then why are 99.999% of all GPLd software just second-rate copies of their programs?
at any rate, you're changing the argument completely. This a patent issue, not a Microsoft Licensing issue. I was originally comparing the latest (or future) release of microsoft sourcecode to the GPL, not netbeui (or any other protocol) specs.
And what about the other points I brought up? Since you didn't mention them, shall I take it you're agreeing with me, and admitting that your asinine claim that the GPL is as evil as Microsoft's license is the load of shit that it is?
Open source, closed mind.
4. The GPL governs one's own work. SMB is based on IBM's work with NetBIOS. It's not their work they're restricting, idiotboy.
So If I make a change to a GPL'd piece of software, those changes aren't MY work? It is a restriction of others' work.
1. The GPL does not contain language to knowingly dishonestly FUD specific other licenses
Because if they did, no-one would release their source under it.
Other differences would include:
2. The GPL was not created with the main purpose of SLAPPing a competitor out of existence.
Yes it is. Its main competitor is proprietary licenses. The GPL destroys these with its virus like nature.
3. The GPL governs program executables and binaries. The Microsoft license governs specs and patents. You have the right to reimplement GPL'd code if you do not agree with the license. You do not have the right to reimplement Microsoft code if you do not agree with the license.
So If I wish to "implement" someone's code and release it under a proprietary license, I don't have to release my soucecode, right?
Did you somehow manage to miss the hundred-odd posts in each story that brought up these minor details? Well, given how idiotic you've already proved yourself to be..
you mean the propaganda. Most is just other slashdotters licking each others' balls with MS comments.
The only true free license is public domain...
It's simple, really. They encrypt e-books so that they will be able to use the DMCA on anyone that dares reverse the encryption, regardless of whether or not the reversal was for piracy or not. Can you say "Dmitry Sklyarov"?
I doubt it.
They encrypt books because they know human nature. People are greedy as hell, and would rather get their books for free.
Jesus, would you stop lying already? It's been backed up ten thousand and one times. Your reading comprehension issues are not my problem.
where is the proof? im waiting oh wise one.
I will re-iterate my argument on why I think the Gnu license is equal to the freedom microsoft is giving with their latest sourcecode release:
Microsoft: they are releasing their source code, but not allowing it to be used with the GNU license.
GNU: software released under this license can be used by others, but source code must be accompanied with its release.
Microsoft is restricting users of the GNU license.
The GNU is restricting all proprietary licenses.
Why you cannot see the parallels without me having to spell them out for you is beyond me.
Apply that school of thought to mp3's as well and you can see that they (mp3's) are not as evil as the Recording Industry Ass. of America makes them out to be. Having said that, going back to literary works, I did hear that Steven King's last internet-only story wasn't a big seller, but it would be interesting to know if it bolstered the sales of his existing paperbacks.
The book stephen king put online only proves one thing: people are greedy. He allowed anyone to download and read his E-book, and gave them a choice on whether to pay a donation. Most people couldn't even manage to give a dollar.
I guess you see what would happen in an online "gift" economy.
I don't feel like repeating it again
That's the problem. It's repeated again and again, as propaganda, but with no backing proof..
but I'm bored at work
I hardly think any respectable business would employee a moron like you. Especially Since you probably spend 90% of your time fucking off on slashdot.
Replace work with Middle School, and I might belive you.
Nope, I look like the Undertaker with glasses, little boy. Sorry, I know you find the Simpson's character sexually attractive, but you're not my type. For one thing, I prefer something approaching human-level intelligence.
a little insecure are we?
Unfortunately the HAVES don't really consider it a problem.
which is why the majority of slashdotters are more in favor of no IP rights.
Nope, it was the truth the first time you were told, dipshit. How about explaining why it's not the fucking truth? Fucking lying idiot
im not the one claiming the GPL is any more free than what microsoft is doing.
No, I'm what is known as a "mentally competent individual", too intelligent to fall for your lies. Not that that really says much, given how fucking idiotic your lies really are.
ass-monkeys like you don't even deserve a response. Really, I could care less what you think. I don't, and probably will never use the infectious GPL license in any of my work.
Do you look like the comic-book guy on the simpsons?
heh.
What if suddenly, the Microsoft Grocery Store suddenly lobbied congress, and made it illegal to shop there AND grow your own food.. what's next? Lobbying to make it illegal to grow your own food and ONLY be able to buy it from them??
Your analogy is a little off-base. Food is natural. Growing food is the fruit of your own labors.
microsoft owns the sourcecode, they can do as they please with it. (including a restrictive as hell license).
Just don't use their sourcecode in GPL projects. Similarly, if I am writing a commericalized application, and I do not wish to release any of my sourcecode back into the community, I don't use GPL'd code.
When the price drops, people will no longer need to copy music, they will be willing to pay for it.
This is a false statement. There will always be an excuse in the minds of people sharing music.
Users of your software are human beings, and as such the right to learn from and improve their tools is fundamental.
Really? I would like to know how to create a hydrogen bomb with enough power to exterminate mass amounts of people. Do you think the U.S. government will tell me how?
it's "fundamentally" wrong not to tell me.
Your desire to control them is obscene, and until we find a way to stop your kind we can at least refuse to subsidize you
Control is all around you. Open your eyes (and your mind) for once. Your version of control is no different than mine. just a means to an end.