"work from home and I need the Internet to connect to work. I have only one choice of ISP. My ISP has GREAT power over me. They can force me to MOVE OUT OF MY HOME or GET ANOTHER JOB if they decide that they do not want me as a customer."
You say this about anything. If my employer fires me, I will be forced to move out of my apartment if I can't find another job. Should the government force my employer to keep me employed?
You choose to give your ISP power over you, so you shouldn't be complaining. There are many alternatives. Satellite Internet, cell phone Internet (Most major providers have fast and affordable internet), DSL, and dialup. You could also take your laptop to many coffee shops and get free Internet.
"Somehow, that means that it does not require regulation? How does that follow? That argument can be used against the regulation of ANY technology."
You are naive to think that our privacy won't be violated when the FCC is involved in our Internet. This will be the first step for our government to start censoring the Internet.
"you cannot kill off this kind of Piracy, because it is an concept, not an actual group of people."
As technology gets better (bandwidth gets better and computers get faster), piracy won't be a problem for most big companies.
This is because everything will be a service. Turbo tax has already converted their main application into a service and it works very well. It's only a matter of time before others follow suit.
You may not like this idea because you want to be able to run it your own computer. But, just like the piracy movement, you may not have a choice.
The war on poverty doesn't work because people just want to throw money at it rather than getting to the root of the problem: education. But, how do you force parents to teach their kids the right way? You can't.
"Our culture does not respect those whose labor directly produces wealth. In fact, it doesn't even have a clue about how to become wealthy and stay wealthy now. The very fact that companies look at their domestic wealth-producing workers and think "these guys are optional" rather than going to H.R., middle management, etc. for budget cuts is proof of that."
In an army, the privates are important, but mostly replaceable. A general (and other people that are making important decisions), on the other hand, cannot be replaced easily.
Even though you don't want to hear it, it works the same way with companies. Most non-management jobs are important, but replaceable. It's just a fact of life. On top of this fact, we have an economy where there is a surplus of talent and employees.
You say that H.R and middle management are easily replaceable? I would have to disagree. Not everyone can do those positions well. I would not want the job of determining who gets fired. I also don't enjoy managing other programmers or filling my day with meetings.
The trick to not being replaced is to have some sort of domain knowledge that makes it painful for the company to find someone to replace you.
"Sorry I missed your point, but again you are wrong, and probably aren't married either. When we went shopping for a baker for our wedding, we went to three different bakeries, and they all gave us free samples of cake so we could try them out. We got four free meals in area restaurants because they wanted our business. Restaurants and bakeries and lots of other service oriented stores give demos. They aren't going to hedge on a 50 dollar meal when they could make several thousand dollars catering."
Something wrong with your analogy is that these restaurants willingly gave you these free samples. Would these restaurants still willingly give you a free sample if you just walked in and forcefully took it?
"You can argue all you like about the rights and wrongs of copying software, but it's not stealing. Keep your arguments to the facts, don't embellish them, and you'll go further with your point of view in the long run."
It's not stealing, it's counterfeiting. Which is actually worse than stealing. Oh, and if this isn't stealing, neither are GNU violations (which get classified as "stealing" by hoards of slashdotters every time the subject comes up).
When you take something physical, like a television, it only costs the company the cost of the television.
When you share something like software, it devalues it over time (eventually ruining the entire business). This is because the more access people have to it (through torrent sites, google, search engines, etc), the more people will get it for free and think that it is free.
Proof of this concept working is newspapers. They are going out of business left and right because people can get it for free online.
"Pirating something as opposed to not buying it effects a business how? Why should people abide by rules they do not agree with if to do otherwise has zero effect on anyone else?"
"No, because that would be stealing. You should use a replicator and duplicate the sod (which you aren't going to pay for, anyway) from over the fence."
If it took millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to create that sod, then yes, it should be considered stealing. But, sod is something that anybody can make.
Most people can't make photoshop. The bits can be duplicated, but, the unique work that went into creating it cannot.
"I'm not a fan of software piracy (and I am a software developer who enjoys earning money), but every time someone compares software piracy to physical theft, Zeus kills 10 kittens."
I am a software developer and every time someone says that software piracy does not cost companies money should really re-consider when their future job may depend on it.
"Do you mean liberalism as defined by the various political parties and interest groups in the US, or Liberalism, generally? Either way, I don't think that term is useful or productive, especially when the context here is Finland."
He means, liberalism as in the government forcing another program on its people that will eat away at their freedoms. Sure, you may be able to get great broadband in Finland after this passes, but people from the working class will be left without another choice because they are forced to pay for it with taxes.
Many people in Sweden, Finland, and Norway (and any other country with ridiculously high taxes) can barely save any money because the majority of it (majority = >60%) is taken and used toward taxes. This isn't freedom to me. I would like the freedom to spend the money that I earn in any way that I see fit.
"In the US, the crowds shout "We insist on being free so don't dare try and give us any stuff", while in Europe, it's "Keep giving us free stuff or we'll bring you down!" Left-wing? Perhaps. But I suspect one side is getting a good deal, while the other... well, what's the state of broadband in the US?;-)"
Pretty damn good if you ask me. I have had broadband here in the US since '97. You can get it in pretty much every city for an affordable price.
I suppose when most of your paycheck is going to the government, your priorities are a little different.
"This comment displays a lack of understanding of copyright's reason for existence. Copyright exists to encourage creators to share their ideas by giving them a limited monopoly on those ideas. To extend copyright's duration indefinitely defeats the purpose of having copyrights at all."
The only person here who has a lack of understanding when it comes to copyright law is you. Copyright is also there to protect your work from getting taken from you.
If there were no copyright laws, the only people that would be able to make a profit from otherwise copyrightable works would be large corporations.
If you were a smaller company and wanted to release a new product (music, movies, etc), a much larger company could easily take your ideas from you as soon as you attempted to sell it (since they would have more resources).
Copyright is there to protect. However, some companies have chosen to abuse it.
"Government bureaucracies aren't the only kind. You haven't lived until you've been raped by a corporate bureaucracy."
The difference is that you always have another choice with a corporate bureaucracy. When the government is in control you not only have no other choice, but you can go to jail if you don't comply.
"These are great straw men you keep demolishing. Are any of them related to reality in any way?"
It's not straw man if it's the truth. Take a look at any country with universal health care. It's convenient to call anything you don't agree with "straw men".
The truth cannot be hidden forever. No matter how much you try.
"I got stuck with about $1,000 in travel expenses when I was in college because I had to go to another state for an operation. There were perfectly good doctors here in NY. No reason I couldn't have the operation here. "
If the government was running your healthcare, you may not be able to get your operation at all. Would you rather have no operation (because of long waits) or $1000 in travel expenses?
also, the amount of money in taxes that you will have to pay every year (not just once) will be much more in the long run.
"My wife requires a good amount of medication to stay alive. She can't work. She's disabled, according to the government, so they cover her medical expenses. This is great, because there's no way in hell I could afford to pay for all her medication and doctors and whatnot. The problem is that I can't get a raise, or she's off disability, and we have to pay for it all. I can't add her to my insurance, because they won't cover her pre-existing condition. And my income would have to more than double in order to pay all her bills. So I've had to turn down several raises now, just to keep my wife insured by the state, so we can afford to keep her alive."
Your wife has it good now, because the system isn't overflowing with people. If we get universal health care, this will change.
I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in a country like Sweden or France where the average tax rate is 70%, which doesn't include V.A.T and the large amounts tacked on to everything you buy.
"To summarize, media cartels are parasites that steal from the public domain (or "myth pool" for the advanced readers out there) while contributing as little as possible. I hope this answers your question of how "they" have stolen from us."
The free software foundation has also stolen from us. They take away the freedoms of corporations and other people that decide to utilize source code in any way they see fit (which is true freedom).
"To summarize, media cartels are parasites that steal from the public domain (or "myth pool" for the advanced readers out there) while contributing as little as possible. I hope this answers your question of how "they" have stolen from us."
Why don't you just say that Disney has "stolen" from you? Disney is one example. Generalizing all businesses as a large entity out to get you is just wrong. It doesn't justify the sharing of copyrighted material owned by companies that have nothing to do with the extension of copyright laws.
"1. Disney pilfers the public domain to create a "new work", for example, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, or Aladdin. 2. Disney changes just enough to allow the work to be copyrighted. 3. Disney enjoys the privileges of copyright until they would expire, then purchases a renewal by way of lobbyists and campaign contributions."
If it's different enough to be copyrighted, they deserve it. I find it funny that you are complaining that you can't get free access to something that wasn't yours in the first place. It's not like someone is going to randomly create Mickey Mouse.
Campaign contributions are a way of life. Even our dear president Obama had help from the labor unions (during the elections, I got at least 10 or 15 calls from various unions around my area telling me to vote for Obama). In return, he has given them ownership in the car companies and preferential treatment in the new health care bill (which hasn't been passed yet).
"So, what you're saying is that they don't lose more money from me downloading a cd instead of not buying it ? It's not like it's a product where the word "Stealing" really mean something: To deprive the possession of somethings or the revenue from the selling of the said product. IMO, it would be stealing only if you'll make money over the selling of a product that is not your, depriving the companies from some revenue."
Many people on slashdot consider it stealing when companies use GNU software without giving back to the community. Think of it like this.
"Software never was a product. And it never will be. It's a service. A service done once. And that work is what you pay for. Not the result. Because that would be the sick twisted view that Gates introduced back then. (Yep, you can thank him for that too.)"
no, you are paying for the result, because the result is what you actually use.
"Think if it like we all throwing money in a pot, to pay for a big software project. Then if there is no more work to do, and we don't think that what was done is worth more than what we already payed, we stop paying."
I feel the same way about GNU software. It's my right to use it any way I see fit (including selling it an not giving back to the community). I'm glad we are on the same page.
"Oh yes, slightly less then theft. Even though you do realize that one download does not equal one lost sale or even come close to that, that most artists make their living based on tours and album sales really only serve to promote tours, and there are some artists who give away every piece of music (Johnathan Coulton and others) and still are -very- successful."
You are only hurting the small artists. I have known many musicians that don't make shit touring bars and clubs..but can make a living from albums and sometimes t-shirt sales.
Is using GNU software in a commercial app (without giving out the source) theft? Richard Stallman and the thug lawyers at the FSF would thinks so.
"Corporate controlled copyright has perverted copyright by exploiting artists more often than not, while increasing scarcity and decreasing quality of material."
With digital works, the scarcity is the talent needed to create said work, not the bits used to distribute it. Artists aren't forced into a contract at gun-point. They understand the terms of the contract when signing.
"People have always shared information, and while p2p reduces revenue, it's more a reduction from "obscenely fucking profitable" to just "fucking profitable"."
Not really. P2p and the Internet is putting any industry that can be digitally copied out of business. What's your excuse for movies? Are the Actors getting screwed? How about books? Do you not like the publishing contracts?
P2p is and always has been an easy way for freeloaders to get easy access to movies, music, and software. There is no noble cause behind it, and all of the excuses that are given are laughable.
"They steal from us, we steal from them. Let's see who breaks first. Maybe we'll reach a stage where some kind of peace agreement is the only way forward. Reasonable copyright terms being one of the clauses."
How exactly did "they" "steal" from you?
Companies release music and movies that they produced. If you don't agree to their terms, don't listen or watch them. It's that easy.
"You keep your US only Hulu and your DRMed iTunes, i keep my worldwide p2p file sharing sites and my anonymous p2p networks. If artists want money, they better start touring or taking direct donations, i don't believe in third parties "owning" content and exploiting said artists beyond their lives. Or the corporate state imposing their rule to the world."
You have your open source and GNU license, but I don't believe that my freedoms should be restricted. I believe that I have the right to sell and do whatever I want with the code (without giving back to the community).
"Frankly, I rarely pay for a book anymore. Until I see pricing on DIGITAL books around 1.99 I'll never buy. I think it's idiocy to charge 9.99 for a product that costs almost 0 in reproduction. "with special editions??wtf is that" costing 14.99"
You aren't paying for the copy (otherwise, the author would just give you a blank cd, dvd, or pdf), you are paying for the effort involved in creating it, which may have been thousands of man hours.
Your line of thinking is selfish (which seems to be popular here on slashdot) and prevents authors from actually making a living at what they love to do.
It's funny how this argument started back in '99 with "The big companies are screwing over the artists" and "Music/movies are too expensive" now that artists can make a living on their own and you can find movies and music at an affordable cost (songs are as low as 99 cents on itunes), piracy is worse than ever (and the reasons have changed). I have always felt it was a thinly veiled attempt for free-loaders to get what they wanted for free.
The open source movement ties into this as well, because it is putting developers out of jobs and cheapening the industry as a whole. Many companies now can just use open source for their needs and hire less experienced developers (which also means less pay) to create extensions rather than engineering a project.
Don't complain when you are either out of a job or your job gets outsourced to India.
"Tell you what, you get the military/industrial/intellectual-property complex to give up copyright and I bet you can get the open source people to go along."
Not really. The second copyright goes away, you can kiss the free software movement goodbye.
Nobody will be required to give out any source and the companies with the most money will easily be able to destroy anyone starting out (and the small companies will have little recourse..since the law that is actually there to protect them is gone).
"Just the ones who think using the term "piracy" for sharing something you already paid for is bullshit."
If I use GPL software in a proprietary app, is it bullshit for me to get in trouble?
after all, it's "free".
Even if a company uses GNU software in a proprietary app, the code isn't any less "free". The only code you don't get are the changes the company made..which weren't yours in the first place.
Just look at how the words "pirate" and "hacker" have evolved. No matter how much you try to fight it, the majority of people have a new definition. This is how language evolves.
Slashdot Mirror
"work from home and I need the Internet to connect to work. I have only one choice of ISP. My ISP has GREAT power over me. They can force me to MOVE OUT OF MY HOME or GET ANOTHER JOB if they decide that they do not want me as a customer."
You say this about anything. If my employer fires me, I will be forced to move out of my apartment if I can't find another job. Should the government force my employer to keep me employed?
You choose to give your ISP power over you, so you shouldn't be complaining. There are many alternatives. Satellite Internet, cell phone Internet (Most major providers have fast and affordable internet), DSL, and dialup. You could also take your laptop to many coffee shops and get free Internet.
"Somehow, that means that it does not require regulation? How does that follow? That argument can be used against the regulation of ANY technology."
You are naive to think that our privacy won't be violated when the FCC is involved in our Internet. This will be the first step for our government to start censoring the Internet.
"you cannot kill off this kind of Piracy, because it is an concept, not an actual group of people."
As technology gets better (bandwidth gets better and computers get faster), piracy won't be a problem for most big companies.
This is because everything will be a service. Turbo tax has already converted their main application into a service and it works very well. It's only a matter of time before others follow suit.
You may not like this idea because you want to be able to run it your own computer. But, just like the piracy movement, you may not have a choice.
The war on poverty doesn't work because people just want to throw money at it rather than getting to the root of the problem: education. But, how do you force parents to teach their kids the right way? You can't.
"Our culture does not respect those whose labor directly produces wealth. In fact, it doesn't even have a clue about how to become wealthy and stay wealthy now. The very fact that companies look at their domestic wealth-producing workers and think "these guys are optional" rather than going to H.R., middle management, etc. for budget cuts is proof of that."
In an army, the privates are important, but mostly replaceable. A general (and other people that are making important decisions), on the other hand, cannot be replaced easily.
Even though you don't want to hear it, it works the same way with companies. Most non-management jobs are important, but replaceable. It's just a fact of life. On top of this fact, we have an economy where there is a surplus of talent and employees.
You say that H.R and middle management are easily replaceable? I would have to disagree. Not everyone can do those positions well. I would not want the job of determining who gets fired. I also don't enjoy managing other programmers or filling my day with meetings.
The trick to not being replaced is to have some sort of domain knowledge that makes it painful for the company to find someone to replace you.
"Sorry I missed your point, but again you are wrong, and probably aren't married either. When we went shopping for a baker for our wedding, we went to three different bakeries, and they all gave us free samples of cake so we could try them out.
We got four free meals in area restaurants because they wanted our business. Restaurants and bakeries and lots of other service oriented stores give demos. They aren't going to hedge on a 50 dollar meal when they could make several thousand dollars catering."
Something wrong with your analogy is that these restaurants willingly gave you these free samples. Would these restaurants still willingly give you a free sample if you just walked in and forcefully took it?
"You can argue all you like about the rights and wrongs of copying software, but it's not stealing. Keep your arguments to the facts, don't embellish them, and you'll go further with your point of view in the long run."
It's not stealing, it's counterfeiting. Which is actually worse than stealing. Oh, and if this isn't stealing, neither are GNU violations (which get classified as "stealing" by hoards of slashdotters every time the subject comes up).
When you take something physical, like a television, it only costs the company the cost of the television.
When you share something like software, it devalues it over time (eventually ruining the entire business). This is because the more access people have to it (through torrent sites, google, search engines, etc), the more people will get it for free and think that it is free.
Proof of this concept working is newspapers. They are going out of business left and right because people can get it for free online.
"Pirating something as opposed to not buying it effects a business how? Why should people abide by rules they do not agree with if to do otherwise has zero effect on anyone else?"
Tell that to the FSF.
"No, because that would be stealing. You should use a replicator and duplicate the sod (which you aren't going to pay for, anyway) from over the fence."
If it took millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to create that sod, then yes, it should be considered stealing. But, sod is something that anybody can make.
Most people can't make photoshop. The bits can be duplicated, but, the unique work that went into creating it cannot.
"I'm not a fan of software piracy (and I am a software developer who enjoys earning money), but every time someone compares software piracy to physical theft, Zeus kills 10 kittens."
I am a software developer and every time someone says that software piracy does not cost companies money should really re-consider when their future job may depend on it.
"Do you mean liberalism as defined by the various political parties and interest groups in the US, or Liberalism, generally? Either way, I don't think that term is useful or productive, especially when the context here is Finland."
He means, liberalism as in the government forcing another program on its people that will eat away at their freedoms. Sure, you may be able to get great broadband in Finland after this passes, but people from the working class will be left without another choice because they are forced to pay for it with taxes.
Many people in Sweden, Finland, and Norway (and any other country with ridiculously high taxes) can barely save any money because the majority of it (majority = >60%) is taken and used toward taxes. This isn't freedom to me. I would like the freedom to spend the money that I earn in any way that I see fit.
"In the US, the crowds shout "We insist on being free so don't dare try and give us any stuff", while in Europe, it's "Keep giving us free stuff or we'll bring you down!" Left-wing? Perhaps. But I suspect one side is getting a good deal, while the other ... well, what's the state of broadband in the US? ;-)"
Pretty damn good if you ask me. I have had broadband here in the US since '97. You can get it in pretty much every city for an affordable price.
I suppose when most of your paycheck is going to the government, your priorities are a little different.
"This comment displays a lack of understanding of copyright's reason for existence. Copyright exists to encourage creators to share their ideas by giving them a limited monopoly on those ideas. To extend copyright's duration indefinitely defeats the purpose of having copyrights at all."
The only person here who has a lack of understanding when it comes to copyright law is you. Copyright is also there to protect your work from getting taken from you.
If there were no copyright laws, the only people that would be able to make a profit from otherwise copyrightable works would be large corporations.
If you were a smaller company and wanted to release a new product (music, movies, etc), a much larger company could easily take your ideas from you as soon as you attempted to sell it (since they would have more resources).
Copyright is there to protect. However, some companies have chosen to abuse it.
"Government bureaucracies aren't the only kind. You haven't lived until you've been raped by a corporate bureaucracy."
The difference is that you always have another choice with a corporate bureaucracy. When the government is in control you not only have no other choice, but you can go to jail if you don't comply.
"These are great straw men you keep demolishing. Are any of them related to reality in any way?"
It's not straw man if it's the truth. Take a look at any country with universal health care. It's convenient to call anything you don't agree with "straw men".
The truth cannot be hidden forever. No matter how much you try.
"I got stuck with about $1,000 in travel expenses when I was in college because I had to go to another state for an operation. There were perfectly good doctors here in NY. No reason I couldn't have the operation here. "
If the government was running your healthcare, you may not be able to get your operation at all. Would you rather have no operation (because of long waits) or $1000 in travel expenses?
also, the amount of money in taxes that you will have to pay every year (not just once) will be much more in the long run.
"My wife requires a good amount of medication to stay alive. She can't work. She's disabled, according to the government, so they cover her medical expenses. This is great, because there's no way in hell I could afford to pay for all her medication and doctors and whatnot. The problem is that I can't get a raise, or she's off disability, and we have to pay for it all. I can't add her to my insurance, because they won't cover her pre-existing condition. And my income would have to more than double in order to pay all her bills. So I've had to turn down several raises now, just to keep my wife insured by the state, so we can afford to keep her alive."
Your wife has it good now, because the system isn't overflowing with people. If we get universal health care, this will change.
I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in a country like Sweden or France where the average tax rate is 70%, which doesn't include V.A.T and the large amounts tacked on to everything you buy.
"Moral of the story? There isn't one. Moral issues have no relevance to people concerned with the functioning of the bureaucracies."
and people want their health care to be run like this..ha!
"To summarize, media cartels are parasites that steal from the public domain (or "myth pool" for the advanced readers out there) while contributing as little as possible. I hope this answers your question of how "they" have stolen from us."
The free software foundation has also stolen from us. They take away the freedoms of corporations and other people that decide to utilize source code in any way they see fit (which is true freedom).
"To summarize, media cartels are parasites that steal from the public domain (or "myth pool" for the advanced readers out there) while contributing as little as possible. I hope this answers your question of how "they" have stolen from us."
Why don't you just say that Disney has "stolen" from you? Disney is one example. Generalizing all businesses as a large entity out to get you is just wrong. It doesn't justify the sharing of copyrighted material owned by companies that have nothing to do with the extension of copyright laws.
"1. Disney pilfers the public domain to create a "new work", for example, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, or Aladdin.
2. Disney changes just enough to allow the work to be copyrighted.
3. Disney enjoys the privileges of copyright until they would expire, then purchases a renewal by way of lobbyists and campaign contributions."
If it's different enough to be copyrighted, they deserve it. I find it funny that you are complaining that you can't get free access to something that wasn't yours in the first place. It's not like someone is going to randomly create Mickey Mouse.
Campaign contributions are a way of life. Even our dear president Obama had help from the labor unions (during the elections, I got at least 10 or 15 calls from various unions around my area telling me to vote for Obama). In return, he has given them ownership in the car companies and preferential treatment in the new health care bill (which hasn't been passed yet).
"So, what you're saying is that they don't lose more money from me downloading a cd instead of not buying it ? It's not like it's a product where the word "Stealing" really mean something: To deprive the possession of somethings or the revenue from the selling of the said product. IMO, it would be stealing only if you'll make money over the selling of a product that is not your, depriving the companies from some revenue."
Many people on slashdot consider it stealing when companies use GNU software without giving back to the community. Think of it like this.
"Software never was a product. And it never will be. It's a service. A service done once. And that work is what you pay for. Not the result. Because that would be the sick twisted view that Gates introduced back then. (Yep, you can thank him for that too.)"
no, you are paying for the result, because the result is what you actually use.
"Think if it like we all throwing money in a pot, to pay for a big software project. Then if there is no more work to do, and we don't think that what was done is worth more than what we already payed, we stop paying."
I feel the same way about GNU software. It's my right to use it any way I see fit (including selling it an not giving back to the community). I'm glad we are on the same page.
"Oh yes, slightly less then theft. Even though you do realize that one download does not equal one lost sale or even come close to that, that most artists make their living based on tours and album sales really only serve to promote tours, and there are some artists who give away every piece of music (Johnathan Coulton and others) and still are -very- successful."
You are only hurting the small artists. I have known many musicians that don't make shit touring bars and clubs..but can make a living from albums and sometimes t-shirt sales.
Is using GNU software in a commercial app (without giving out the source) theft? Richard Stallman and the thug lawyers at the FSF would thinks so.
"Corporate controlled copyright has perverted copyright by exploiting artists more often than not, while increasing scarcity and decreasing quality of material."
With digital works, the scarcity is the talent needed to create said work, not the bits used to distribute it. Artists aren't forced into a contract at gun-point. They understand the terms of the contract when signing.
"People have always shared information, and while p2p reduces revenue, it's more a reduction from "obscenely fucking profitable" to just "fucking profitable"."
Not really. P2p and the Internet is putting any industry that can be digitally copied out of business. What's your excuse for movies? Are the Actors getting screwed? How about books? Do you not like the publishing contracts?
P2p is and always has been an easy way for freeloaders to get easy access to movies, music, and software. There is no noble cause behind it, and all of the excuses that are given are laughable.
"They steal from us, we steal from them. Let's see who breaks first.
Maybe we'll reach a stage where some kind of peace agreement is the only way forward. Reasonable copyright terms being one of the clauses."
How exactly did "they" "steal" from you?
Companies release music and movies that they produced. If you don't agree to their terms, don't listen or watch them. It's that easy.
The same rules apply to GNU software.
"You keep your US only Hulu and your DRMed iTunes, i keep my worldwide p2p file sharing sites and my anonymous p2p networks. If artists want money, they better start touring or taking direct donations, i don't believe in third parties "owning" content and exploiting said artists beyond their lives. Or the corporate state imposing their rule to the world."
You have your open source and GNU license, but I don't believe that my freedoms should be restricted. I believe that I have the right to sell and do whatever I want with the code (without giving back to the community).
"Frankly, I rarely pay for a book anymore. Until I see pricing on DIGITAL books around 1.99 I'll never buy. I think it's idiocy to charge 9.99 for a product that costs almost 0 in reproduction. "with special editions??wtf is that" costing 14.99"
You aren't paying for the copy (otherwise, the author would just give you a blank cd, dvd, or pdf), you are paying for the effort involved in creating it, which may have been thousands of man hours.
Your line of thinking is selfish (which seems to be popular here on slashdot) and prevents authors from actually making a living at what they love to do.
It's funny how this argument started back in '99 with "The big companies are screwing over the artists" and "Music/movies are too expensive" now that artists can make a living on their own and you can find movies and music at an affordable cost (songs are as low as 99 cents on itunes), piracy is worse than ever (and the reasons have changed). I have always felt it was a thinly veiled attempt for free-loaders to get what they wanted for free.
The open source movement ties into this as well, because it is putting developers out of jobs and cheapening the industry as a whole. Many companies now can just use open source for their needs and hire less experienced developers (which also means less pay) to create extensions rather than engineering a project.
Don't complain when you are either out of a job or your job gets outsourced to India.
"Tell you what, you get the military/industrial/intellectual-property complex to give up copyright and I bet you can get the open source people to go along."
Not really. The second copyright goes away, you can kiss the free software movement goodbye.
Nobody will be required to give out any source and the companies with the most money will easily be able to destroy anyone starting out (and the small companies will have little recourse..since the law that is actually there to protect them is gone).
"Just the ones who think using the term "piracy" for sharing something you already paid for is bullshit."
If I use GPL software in a proprietary app, is it bullshit for me to get in trouble?
after all, it's "free".
Even if a company uses GNU software in a proprietary app, the code isn't any less "free". The only code you don't get are the changes the company made..which weren't yours in the first place.
"No they fucking don't."
Haha.
Just look at how the words "pirate" and "hacker" have evolved. No matter how much you try to fight it, the majority of people have a new definition. This is how language evolves.
nice photoshop job.