"Lots of public music is shared on the internet and in other ways. Indies don't mind and are hoping for a nice contract some day. If they don't get it, they're still playing.
In the end it looks to me like it's a buyer's choice."
Buyer's choice would be choosing indy music over major labels. This is not the case. People are outright taking major label's music, without their permission.
"They're not trying to innovate. The only innovation that looks to be in place is higher quality ripping or distribution."
Higher quality ripping and distribution? As i said before, iTunes is out, which is legal (and is just as high quality). The only difference is that it costs money. Most rips online are lower quality (movies are cams..software is cracked..and songs are at a lower bitrate than the original)
"Are we supposed to have a categorical system like the music industry and all of its suppliers and artists set up with the same media and methods available to the consumer? Were those with the horse and buggy angered by the automobile introduction? Sure they were. Did that stop it?"
You can always create your own music and give it out for free on youtube or your blog. You are advocating taking someone else's work (which took many people, creativity, and lots of money) and counterfeiting it (it's not stealing, but the value of the original work is devalued over time, almost like counterfeiting currency)...which is completely different.
"No offense intended at all, but usually when I hear these types of statements, they come from someone who is either involved with someone in the music industry, are a musician themselves and hope to make it some day, or are trying to pick a statement that they consider the truth and fight for it, regardless of information that sits right in front of them"
It's funny when someone says "no offense", they really intend on offending. I gave you the facts. Sorry if you don't want to believe them. You sound like someone who copies and shares music, movies, and software and gives excuses as to why it's "right".
"I'm the type that has ideas. I ask for counterpoints and respond with corrections -or- acceptance, moving on to another solution. In the end, there's a basic solution or give-up.
Think of me as Data from STTNG;)"
Spoken like someone who doesn't really want to discuss truth and facts, but only wants to get his point across. I told you why you were wrong, but you don't seem to want to listen.
It's funny how these discussions always end up as thinly veiled attempts to justify not paying. I haven't really seen any good arguments to prove otherwise (You can find comments from 10 years ago with the same arguments).
Funny, when the GNU is violated, people start to equate it to "stealing" (just look at the articles here on slashdot from the past month), when it's essentially the exact same thing as copyright infringement the RIAA and many other companies are against.
"Oh, indeed! They do. History stated: once they do, people will find new ways around it. It's settled. Heck, some hackers/pirates probably just find ways around new copy prevention methods because they refuse to allow the entertainment industry to win."
As long as they can keep the masses from downloading their material, they will still stay in business. A few pirates here and there won't really matter.
"Knowing this will last forever, I figure a better way is not just blocking the attackers again, but coming up with something that can't be electronically copied in a useful format. Oh, wait, that's been done. Now we have high-def media and technology. So what's next?"
Software as a service comes to mind. Eventually, most people will have high-speed Internet (If not already) and you will be required to use all software on a remote server. Turbo tax already does this, and it works very well.
"I think, on my own, that the next idea to consider is something that can't be copied digitally. Something physical. Something that can never be experienced again (a theater with smells, physical vibrations or other movements, etc). Then, give the copied versions away for free. They lack the extras, but that keeps the buyer wanting more and the freebies developing desire;) They'll be back out again to experience the next one and draw others in. Hell, I would;)"
Why should they have to? When people stopped buying the horse-and-buggy, there was a good reason: better technology. However, the pirates are not in this position. They are just taking what's already out there..and giving it out for free. There is no innovation. This is why companies will not come out with something better. They know that people still like what they are selling, they just need a way to stop freeloaders from illegally giving it out for free on the Internet.
I might respect the community a little more if they were actually competing with these industries by releasing something new, different, and creative. But, they would much rather steal existing content and claim it as a right.
I still remember when napster came out in '99. The excuse was that music was too expensive. Now, you can use iTunes and many other online services (like pandora) and get free or very cheap, legal, music. Has piracy dropped? no. It's continued and even gotten worse. There is no excuse. The industries have complied and given you very easy ways to get legal content.
"It doesn't directly. Someone who pirates something that they genuinely wouldn't have paid the asking price for hasn't increased the price for anyone else. By contrast, stealing a physical item that they wouldn't have paid the asking price for does impose costs on those that it is stolen from."
Yes it does. For starters, once person may not be a direct loss in sales, but as it's shared more and more and easily accessible by the masses, the owner of the copyrighted material will see less sales over time. Also, if companies know it's easy to pirate their stuff, they will start investing more money in protection, which will drive the price up for the consumer.
"The old ways of selling entertainment aren't valid anymore in majority. Sure, people still go to movie theaters on release date because it's fun and interpersonal. That said, there are other ways to get people to rush rush RUSH and buy buy BUY!"
The problem is that it's not a competing technology that is winning. People are taking the same work (the film industry is still making all of the advances) and giving it out for free (which is the easy, lazy, not new work part). This is the difference.
People still want entertainment. This is why it is downloaded so frequently. The entertainment industry just needs to find another way to lock out the pirates.
"If you support fining people up to 50 grand for downloading a movie then you're an asshole. Pure and simple."
My problem is that people sharing and downloading movies are bankrupting the film industry (and the music, software, (anything that can be digital).
It's not a 1-1 ratio (IE: 1 download does not equal one lost sale). However, over time, if enough people think it's alright (and access to it becomes very easy for anyone), people won't pay for DVDs anymore. This is why it needs to be stopped, and fear of huge fines seems to be the only thing that works.
"It doesn't give them a competitive advantage, it gives them the same advantages you had (ie ready made code, no need to write from scratch)"
This isn't true. If I add my changes to GNU PROJECT X, my changes are my competitive advantage (because it differentiates me from another company trying to do the same thing). Because it's GNU, the other companies now have my changes + the advatages I had (the original code).
"but if all they do is use your code unchanged then they are at a disadvantage - having at best a direct clone of your product but no value-add and probably very poor service if they don't employ any developers who understand the code."
It also makes it easy for much larger companies to swoop in and destroy smaller companies trying to sell open source. When it comes to support/service, larger companies almost always have the advantage (because smaller companies just don't have the man-power).
also, why would you want to utilize code that automatically almost guarantees competition and reduces your chances of company survival? Once software companies understand this, they will steer clear of anything GNU.
"It saves everything being tied up in legal limbo. Not only do you get to leach all the code you can eat, without licences/fees, but your developers can just submit any patches that suit your company's products/clients without having to bring in lawyers (yours and every other company/group involved in the project's) for a six month mutual licensefest."
Although lawyers won't be involved, it won't matter because you won't be able to make any sort of profit. There are thousands of small, closed-source companies making a living for the many developers and other people involved with the company. I can only think of a handful of companies actually making money with open source (and it's on support, which isn't that scalable as a business model and very difficult to do well as a small company).
I don't think you have any idea what it takes to run a business.
"Saves time, saves money, saves aggravation. Sets your developers free.
"The BSD licence offers more freedom to developers. The GPL offers more freedom to end users."
To end users, the BSD and GPL license are the same. They can use the software for free and won't get in trouble for sharing (or downloading). This is the same with nearly all open source license.
"You just can't do some things, when everybody can read the source."
For a company selling software, it's not just about reading the source. Using the GPL means that anyone can give out the source for free, sell it, or compile it and release the binaries. This essentially means you have no business (or it can easily be taken away by anyone with access to bittorrent or a $5/month hosting plan).
"I'd go so far as to say, that if a company uses closed source, it is a big indicator, that they want to rip you off and somehow trick you in some crooked way. A big red blinking warning sign."
Not really. I would say that if they use closed source, they will have a higher chance of surviving and being around in 5 years.
Look at the stats. There are only a handful of oss-based software companies surviving (and most are backed by much larger companies making money with something other than selling software). However, there are thousands of Misvs selling closed-source software and surviving (they aren't making billions of dollars, but they are making enough for the few people in the company to make a living..which means there will be support in the future).
The problem is that the entire community (including the FSF) continues to call it "free", which has multiple meanings in the english language. I wonder of they could counter-sue the FSF for calling it free. It seems deliberate to me..to get more companies to adopt it.
"Once the programmers, and indeed people like you, understand enough to present the cost/benefit analysis as it truly is, then this may stop happening."
More and more companies will stop using GPL software because it's a liability.
"Don't even think _hidden_, don't fool yourself or others. It's right there in the language of the GPL plain as day. Just like it's supposed to be. And thats the good thing that separates it from the BSD license which has no cost at all. That is the _whole_ reason to pick one over another as a licensor."
"You completely missed his point, his point is that the companies benefit because the software (and any improvements made by competitors) will remain free!"
and how will they benefit when anyone can take the source and sell it, giving them now competitive advantage?
It helps non-software companies that are using linux and other OSS projects to save licensing costs..and that's about it.
"I'm so sick of hearing people crying about how they can build on another's work at no cost, but then have to reciprocate. Either call the friggin whaambulance, or STFU and code it all yourself."
I'm fine with this. As long as the GNU community stops calling it free, knowing full well that this has multiple meanings in the English language.
It's okay though. The more press Linux and the GNU license gets like this, the more companies will start moving away from the license because it's a liability.
"that paying a programmer a salary is the same as giving an artist's grandchildren a cashflow. i say an artist should instead only get cash for you know, actually working a job: touring concerthalls. and that this is akin to working for a salary like a programmer or an accountant."
Artist's work sometimes takes months and years of their life to create. If they want to charge $10 for a song, and people continue to pay for it (because they like it), why is this a problem? When a song sucks, or becomes unpopular, people will stop paying for it.
However, when it still is popular, and people are getting it for free, it's unfair for the artist. If you don't want to pay for something, don't download it or listen to it. Also, the more this happens, the more it will hurt all artists. People will get the idea that all music is free, and artists will no longer be able to make a living. This seems to be fine to you, however, I really just wish you would admit that you are hurting the artist. Not big, faceless corporations, but the actual artists.
In the end, it will only result in more DRM like schemes..and hurt the consumer.
"You sound like another fool complaining about the computer. I'd rather be the fool with a dayjob than a fool that laments the rise of the internet and the freedoms and spaces it provides."
I'm not complaining. Businesses always will find a way to make money. The consumer just ends up suffering as a result. I was just pointing out that by sharing music, it was hurting the artist.
on what moral basis does that mean my grandchildren should be paid for that?"
Because they also get enjoyment out of it. They aren't required to pay for it to listen to it. They could listen to it on the radio (or streaming on the Internet).
"a real artist gets paid in fame. fame can be capitalized on in many forms, many ancillary flows of cash. "
A real artists loves what they do and it becomes their life. If they have to work a regular 9-5 (because they can't make an honest living selling their music), their art will suffer. I'm not saying they deserve money..just that they don't deserve to get ripped off.
"but trying to enforce a distribution system the internet has made defunct by suing college students and grandmothers isn't sustainable. its just legal goons trying to rule by fear, rather than understanding how things work. no, legal goons are trying to enforce how things USED TO work"
It's not difficult to understand how things work. College students (and others) are downloading music for free, which are hurting artists.
"you give your songs out for free. this radical concept is similar to the radical communist method you know as "radio airplay". then you make money touring, live concerts. exactly what is so weird about that? please, tell me"
By forcing artists to give their music or art away for free, you are taking away their rights. You don't have to buy it..or listen to it.
"the distribution model of the age of cassette tapes and vinyl is not written in the bible. things change."
They do. Look at things like iTunes. It allows customers to get songs for very cheap in a nice, digital format. Has this stopped piracy? no.
"deal with it. or don't, and grumble about freeloading kids. as if that's the whole point of what i am saying!
you're out of touch with reality"
You are the one out of touch with reality. Kids in colleges that want to start New bands, people trying to make movies, or author books will soon see the peril of their ways.
Since you seem to enjoy taking away other people's rights, how about you work for me..for free. If not, then you must be out of touch with reality.
"creators: i'm sorry your grandchildren can't live off your one hit wonder. i'm sorry you won't be a billionaire for "inventing" shamwow. but you can still get a great job as a respected engineer and you can still get great money from touring. sorry, thems the breaks: get to work like the rest of us dumb shlubs"
Sounds like another jealous asshole that is stuck in his corporate job and wants others to experience your shitty life. Yes, you can make a billion dollars by inventing a product and selling it.
"the original idea that guided the creation of the notion of intellectual property: rewarding creators, has been completely corrupted as a way to reward distributors. the legal goon squads make sure actual creators get less $, and consumers fork over more $. in a preinternet world, distributors were necessary, but this is a scenario the internet has destroyed. now distributors are just unnecessary parasites."
The Internet has not only gotten rid of distributors, but also made it impossible for actual *creators* to make a living with their hard work. It's funny because I seem to remember the excuse for copyright infringement among many slashdotters and the pirate community has been to help the artists against the big, bad RIAA. Will the infringement stop when all artists are independent? More Artists now are independent and piracy has only increased.
"intellectual property has betrayed its philosophical underpinnings, and we, the people, who are supposed to be the ones in charge, now have a duty to do our best to ignore, and/ or detroy intellectual property, since the legal system, which is supposed to serve us, serves corporate masters beholden to nothing but more cash for less reason"
Most people that are against intellectual property laws just want shit for free. I don't see what the problem is. If you don't want to pay for an artists work (movie, music, etc). Don't pay for it..and don't download it either. If you do, then you will have to suffer the consequences. It's just that simple.
"However, you're completely correct in pointing out that GPL-licensed software can be commercialized. Linux itself would not exists as it is today if it weren't for the commercialization of it by companies like RedHat and Suse (and Caldera, et al)."
Those companies make money on support and services, not the software itself.
"But the GPL itself was written to protect software freedom, not specifically to enable (or destroy) commercialization of the software."
It does destroy commercialization of the software. If you try to sell GPLd software, your customers have a right to take it and offer what they purchased for free to anyone that wants it. Over time, this would make impossibly for you to sell it (because anyone can get it for free).
You could make money on support, but then this wouldn't be commercialization of the software anymore.
"Try reading that again and understanding. The Europeans and Canadians are the ones calling for it to stop; the Americans are the ones calling for it to continue. How come?"
You are the one that is mistaken. Here is what you said (taken from the above post):
OP:
"A big problem in Pharma is that only the US is paying for R&D costs (since most of the R&D takes place here some in the nation benefit from it), but if the US "fixes" the drug price problem, Europe and Canada would have to start footing more of the bill."
You:
"It's interesting that I've never, ever, heard a Canadian or European raise this as a point: only Americans."
In the context of the discussion, you said that Americans are the only ones that bring up the point that they pay for the majority of R&D. You don't even seem to understand your own posts.
"I doubt it very much..."
You also don't seem to be aware of actual costs involved with R&D.
"It's interesting that I've never, ever, heard a Canadian or European raise this as a point: only Americans."
Only because you are the recipients of our R&D, resulting in cheap costs for you. Why would you want this to stop?
"I'm incredibly grateful that you're so eager to do me this favour, but you know, I reckon I could probably afford the extra couple of pounds towards the NHS to cover the drug costs, so you feel free to go ahead and fix your price problem. I'm astonished you've been so self-sacrificing for so long."
I think it's going to be a little more than "a couple of pounds"
"mmmm, freedom to take your TCP stack, bundle it into my product, gain a monopoly, tweak my TCP stack a little to be incompatible (becoming defacto standard), and then sue your ass if you try to copy or reverse-engineer my incompatible changes."
And..what's your point. Your original code is still available for free. The proprietary changes a company makes is code they wrote (IE: not yours).
"We really need to get away from pretending we are special and will become millionaires with our brilliant (read stupid to everyone else) idea. Lets agree that free/open software is done to benefit us all."
Tell that to the many companies the FSF sues for infringement.
And people wonder why California is going bankrupt?
I hope the "black-hat hackers" that are stealing city funds by not paying the parking meter also do not expect the state to also pay for things like health care.
A few people getting free parking is one thing, but giving out an instruction manual which may result in lots of revenue being taken away from the city is another.
"If a kid who kills someone at 13 can be treated as an adult, then how can a 15 year old not be one?"
In a situation where a 13 year old kills someone, they are not the victim (the person they killed is), so they are charged as an adult. If a 19 year old has sex with a 14 year old, the 19 year old is the adult in the situation. They should have the foresight and responsibility to not have sex with the 14 year old.
"Just like people know not to drive if they've had anything to drink, but they do it anyways."
Right...and if they kill someone while drunk, they also have to spend time in prison. Even if "you do it anyway", you still have to take responsibility for your actions, which may mean going to prison or getting on a sex-offenders list.
"I just take issue with being labeled as a pervert for the REST OF MY LIFE. Particularly for something that happens every day, when there's no victimization."
Do you think there would have been victimization between a 40 year old guy and a 14 year old girl?
also,
How did the police find out you two had sex in the first place? Someone had to make the first move
"By the way, your hypothetical "may save" someone argument doesn't help your point very much, which is why I dismissed it so quickly."
I don't care, because the law is on my side. All states have publicly available information about sex offenders..and it's not going to stop any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
"Lots of public music is shared on the internet and in other ways. Indies don't mind and are hoping for a nice contract some day. If they don't get it, they're still playing.
In the end it looks to me like it's a buyer's choice."
Buyer's choice would be choosing indy music over major labels. This is not the case. People are outright taking major label's music, without their permission.
"They're not trying to innovate. The only innovation that looks to be in place is higher quality ripping or distribution."
Higher quality ripping and distribution? As i said before, iTunes is out, which is legal (and is just as high quality). The only difference is that it costs money. Most rips online are lower quality (movies are cams..software is cracked..and songs are at a lower bitrate than the original)
"Are we supposed to have a categorical system like the music industry and all of its suppliers and artists set up with the same media and methods available to the consumer? Were those with the horse and buggy angered by the automobile introduction? Sure they were. Did that stop it?"
You can always create your own music and give it out for free on youtube or your blog. You are advocating taking someone else's work (which took many people, creativity, and lots of money) and counterfeiting it (it's not stealing, but the value of the original work is devalued over time, almost like counterfeiting currency)...which is completely different.
"No offense intended at all, but usually when I hear these types of statements, they come from someone who is either involved with someone in the music industry, are a musician themselves and hope to make it some day, or are trying to pick a statement that they consider the truth and fight for it, regardless of information that sits right in front of them"
It's funny when someone says "no offense", they really intend on offending. I gave you the facts. Sorry if you don't want to believe them. You sound like someone who copies and shares music, movies, and software and gives excuses as to why it's "right".
"I'm the type that has ideas. I ask for counterpoints and respond with corrections -or- acceptance, moving on to another solution. In the end, there's a basic solution or give-up.
Think of me as Data from STTNG ;)"
Spoken like someone who doesn't really want to discuss truth and facts, but only wants to get his point across. I told you why you were wrong, but you don't seem to want to listen.
It's funny how these discussions always end up as thinly veiled attempts to justify not paying. I haven't really seen any good arguments to prove otherwise (You can find comments from 10 years ago with the same arguments).
Funny, when the GNU is violated, people start to equate it to "stealing" (just look at the articles here on slashdot from the past month), when it's essentially the exact same thing as copyright infringement the RIAA and many other companies are against.
"Oh, indeed! They do. History stated: once they do, people will find new ways around it. It's settled. Heck, some hackers/pirates probably just find ways around new copy prevention methods because they refuse to allow the entertainment industry to win."
As long as they can keep the masses from downloading their material, they will still stay in business. A few pirates here and there won't really matter.
"Knowing this will last forever, I figure a better way is not just blocking the attackers again, but coming up with something that can't be electronically copied in a useful format. Oh, wait, that's been done. Now we have high-def media and technology. So what's next?"
Software as a service comes to mind. Eventually, most people will have high-speed Internet (If not already) and you will be required to use all software on a remote server. Turbo tax already does this, and it works very well.
"I think, on my own, that the next idea to consider is something that can't be copied digitally. Something physical. Something that can never be experienced again (a theater with smells, physical vibrations or other movements, etc). Then, give the copied versions away for free. They lack the extras, but that keeps the buyer wanting more and the freebies developing desire ;) They'll be back out again to experience the next one and draw others in. Hell, I would ;)"
Why should they have to? When people stopped buying the horse-and-buggy, there was a good reason: better technology. However, the pirates are not in this position. They are just taking what's already out there..and giving it out for free. There is no innovation. This is why companies will not come out with something better. They know that people still like what they are selling, they just need a way to stop freeloaders from illegally giving it out for free on the Internet.
I might respect the community a little more if they were actually competing with these industries by releasing something new, different, and creative. But, they would much rather steal existing content and claim it as a right.
I still remember when napster came out in '99. The excuse was that music was too expensive. Now, you can use iTunes and many other online services (like pandora) and get free or very cheap, legal, music. Has piracy dropped? no. It's continued and even gotten worse. There is no excuse. The industries have complied and given you very easy ways to get legal content.
"It doesn't directly. Someone who pirates something that they genuinely wouldn't have paid the asking price for hasn't increased the price for anyone else. By contrast, stealing a physical item that they wouldn't have paid the asking price for does impose costs on those that it is stolen from."
Yes it does. For starters, once person may not be a direct loss in sales, but as it's shared more and more and easily accessible by the masses, the owner of the copyrighted material will see less sales over time. Also, if companies know it's easy to pirate their stuff, they will start investing more money in protection, which will drive the price up for the consumer.
"The old ways of selling entertainment aren't valid anymore in majority. Sure, people still go to movie theaters on release date because it's fun and interpersonal. That said, there are other ways to get people to rush rush RUSH and buy buy BUY!"
The problem is that it's not a competing technology that is winning. People are taking the same work (the film industry is still making all of the advances) and giving it out for free (which is the easy, lazy, not new work part). This is the difference.
People still want entertainment. This is why it is downloaded so frequently. The entertainment industry just needs to find another way to lock out the pirates.
"If you support fining people up to 50 grand for downloading a movie then you're an asshole. Pure and simple."
My problem is that people sharing and downloading movies are bankrupting the film industry (and the music, software, (anything that can be digital).
It's not a 1-1 ratio (IE: 1 download does not equal one lost sale). However, over time, if enough people think it's alright (and access to it becomes very easy for anyone), people won't pay for DVDs anymore. This is why it needs to be stopped, and fear of huge fines seems to be the only thing that works.
"It doesn't give them a competitive advantage, it gives them the same advantages you had (ie ready made code, no need to write from scratch)"
This isn't true. If I add my changes to GNU PROJECT X, my changes are my competitive advantage (because it differentiates me from another company trying to do the same thing). Because it's GNU, the other companies now have my changes + the advatages I had (the original code).
"but if all they do is use your code unchanged then they are at a disadvantage - having at best a direct clone of your product but no value-add and probably very poor service if they don't employ any developers who understand the code."
It also makes it easy for much larger companies to swoop in and destroy smaller companies trying to sell open source. When it comes to support/service, larger companies almost always have the advantage (because smaller companies just don't have the man-power).
also, why would you want to utilize code that automatically almost guarantees competition and reduces your chances of company survival? Once software companies understand this, they will steer clear of anything GNU.
"It saves everything being tied up in legal limbo. Not only do you get to leach all the code you can eat, without licences/fees, but your developers can just submit any patches that suit your company's products/clients without having to bring in lawyers (yours and every other company/group involved in the project's) for a six month mutual licensefest."
Although lawyers won't be involved, it won't matter because you won't be able to make any sort of profit. There are thousands of small, closed-source companies making a living for the many developers and other people involved with the company. I can only think of a handful of companies actually making money with open source (and it's on support, which isn't that scalable as a business model and very difficult to do well as a small company).
I don't think you have any idea what it takes to run a business.
"Saves time, saves money, saves aggravation. Sets your developers free.
I hope you are joking.
"The BSD licence offers more freedom to developers. The GPL offers more freedom to end users."
To end users, the BSD and GPL license are the same. They can use the software for free and won't get in trouble for sharing (or downloading). This is the same with nearly all open source license.
"You just can't do some things, when everybody can read the source."
For a company selling software, it's not just about reading the source. Using the GPL means that anyone can give out the source for free, sell it, or compile it and release the binaries. This essentially means you have no business (or it can easily be taken away by anyone with access to bittorrent or a $5/month hosting plan).
"I'd go so far as to say, that if a company uses closed source, it is a big indicator, that they want to rip you off and somehow trick you in some crooked way. A big red blinking warning sign."
Not really. I would say that if they use closed source, they will have a higher chance of surviving and being around in 5 years.
Look at the stats. There are only a handful of oss-based software companies surviving (and most are backed by much larger companies making money with something other than selling software). However, there are thousands of Misvs selling closed-source software and surviving (they aren't making billions of dollars, but they are making enough for the few people in the company to make a living..which means there will be support in the future).
"It's a very simple message - the sort of lesson that good parents teach children early on."
Funny, how one license violation is "no big deal" and another is "the sort of lesson good parents teach children early on".
"In point of fact there is _nothing_ "hidden" about the cost of using GPL software in a product."
It's not hidden, it's just not in the best interest of most companies to include GPL software. This article is a perfect example as to why.
"If you go the Microsoft Wince (I didn't name it 8-) route, you pay many dollars up-front, and some dollars per-unit."
With a Microsoft license, you only need to pay money. Most companies understand this.
"The whole problem is the perception that this is "hidden" in the first place. When the tech people sell the GPL software to their managers they, in their naiveté, usually don't know to make a distinction between free(beer) and free(open)."
The problem is that the entire community (including the FSF) continues to call it "free", which has multiple meanings in the english language. I wonder of they could counter-sue the FSF for calling it free. It seems deliberate to me..to get more companies to adopt it.
"Once the programmers, and indeed people like you, understand enough to present the cost/benefit analysis as it truly is, then this may stop happening."
More and more companies will stop using GPL software because it's a liability.
"Don't even think _hidden_, don't fool yourself or others. It's right there in the language of the GPL plain as day. Just like it's supposed to be. And thats the good thing that separates it from the BSD license which has no cost at all. That is the _whole_ reason to pick one over another as a licensor."
THe BSD license offers more freedoms to the user.
"You completely missed his point, his point is that the companies benefit because the software (and any improvements made by competitors) will remain free!"
and how will they benefit when anyone can take the source and sell it, giving them now competitive advantage?
It helps non-software companies that are using linux and other OSS projects to save licensing costs..and that's about it.
"I'm so sick of hearing people crying about how they can build on another's work at no cost, but then have to reciprocate. Either call the friggin whaambulance, or STFU and code it all yourself."
I'm fine with this. As long as the GNU community stops calling it free, knowing full well that this has multiple meanings in the English language.
It's okay though. The more press Linux and the GNU license gets like this, the more companies will start moving away from the license because it's a liability.
"that paying a programmer a salary is the same as giving an artist's grandchildren a cashflow. i say an artist should instead only get cash for you know, actually working a job: touring concerthalls. and that this is akin to working for a salary like a programmer or an accountant."
Artist's work sometimes takes months and years of their life to create. If they want to charge $10 for a song, and people continue to pay for it (because they like it), why is this a problem? When a song sucks, or becomes unpopular, people will stop paying for it.
However, when it still is popular, and people are getting it for free, it's unfair for the artist. If you don't want to pay for something, don't download it or listen to it. Also, the more this happens, the more it will hurt all artists. People will get the idea that all music is free, and artists will no longer be able to make a living. This seems to be fine to you, however, I really just wish you would admit that you are hurting the artist. Not big, faceless corporations, but the actual artists.
In the end, it will only result in more DRM like schemes..and hurt the consumer.
"You sound like another fool complaining about the computer. I'd rather be the fool with a dayjob than a fool that laments the rise of the internet and the freedoms and spaces it provides."
I'm not complaining. Businesses always will find a way to make money. The consumer just ends up suffering as a result. I was just pointing out that by sharing music, it was hurting the artist.
"its a great song, loved by many
on what moral basis does that mean my grandchildren should be paid for that?"
Because they also get enjoyment out of it. They aren't required to pay for it to listen to it. They could listen to it on the radio (or streaming on the Internet).
"a real artist gets paid in fame. fame can be capitalized on in many forms, many ancillary flows of cash. "
A real artists loves what they do and it becomes their life. If they have to work a regular 9-5 (because they can't make an honest living selling their music), their art will suffer. I'm not saying they deserve money..just that they don't deserve to get ripped off.
"but trying to enforce a distribution system the internet has made defunct by suing college students and grandmothers isn't sustainable. its just legal goons trying to rule by fear, rather than understanding how things work. no, legal goons are trying to enforce how things USED TO work"
It's not difficult to understand how things work. College students (and others) are downloading music for free, which are hurting artists.
"you give your songs out for free. this radical concept is similar to the radical communist method you know as "radio airplay". then you make money touring, live concerts. exactly what is so weird about that? please, tell me"
By forcing artists to give their music or art away for free, you are taking away their rights. You don't have to buy it..or listen to it.
"the distribution model of the age of cassette tapes and vinyl is not written in the bible. things change."
They do. Look at things like iTunes. It allows customers to get songs for very cheap in a nice, digital format. Has this stopped piracy? no.
"deal with it. or don't, and grumble about freeloading kids. as if that's the whole point of what i am saying!
you're out of touch with reality"
You are the one out of touch with reality. Kids in colleges that want to start New bands, people trying to make movies, or author books will soon see the peril of their ways.
Since you seem to enjoy taking away other people's rights, how about you work for me..for free. If not, then you must be out of touch with reality.
"creators: i'm sorry your grandchildren can't live off your one hit wonder. i'm sorry you won't be a billionaire for "inventing" shamwow. but you can still get a great job as a respected engineer and you can still get great money from touring. sorry, thems the breaks: get to work like the rest of us dumb shlubs"
Sounds like another jealous asshole that is stuck in his corporate job and wants others to experience your shitty life. Yes, you can make a billion dollars by inventing a product and selling it.
"the original idea that guided the creation of the notion of intellectual property: rewarding creators, has been completely corrupted as a way to reward distributors. the legal goon squads make sure actual creators get less $, and consumers fork over more $. in a preinternet world, distributors were necessary, but this is a scenario the internet has destroyed. now distributors are just unnecessary parasites."
The Internet has not only gotten rid of distributors, but also made it impossible for actual *creators* to make a living with their hard work. It's funny because I seem to remember the excuse for copyright infringement among many slashdotters and the pirate community has been to help the artists against the big, bad RIAA. Will the infringement stop when all artists are independent? More Artists now are independent and piracy has only increased.
"intellectual property has betrayed its philosophical underpinnings, and we, the people, who are supposed to be the ones in charge, now have a duty to do our best to ignore, and/ or detroy intellectual property, since the legal system, which is supposed to serve us, serves corporate masters beholden to nothing but more cash for less reason"
Most people that are against intellectual property laws just want shit for free. I don't see what the problem is. If you don't want to pay for an artists work (movie, music, etc). Don't pay for it..and don't download it either. If you do, then you will have to suffer the consequences. It's just that simple.
"However, you're completely correct in pointing out that GPL-licensed software can be commercialized. Linux itself would not exists as it is today if it weren't for the commercialization of it by companies like RedHat and Suse (and Caldera, et al)."
Those companies make money on support and services, not the software itself.
"But the GPL itself was written to protect software freedom, not specifically to enable (or destroy) commercialization of the software."
It does destroy commercialization of the software. If you try to sell GPLd software, your customers have a right to take it and offer what they purchased for free to anyone that wants it. Over time, this would make impossibly for you to sell it (because anyone can get it for free).
You could make money on support, but then this wouldn't be commercialization of the software anymore.
"Try reading that again and understanding. The Europeans and Canadians are the ones calling for it to stop; the Americans are the ones calling for it to continue. How come?"
You are the one that is mistaken. Here is what you said (taken from the above post):
OP:
"A big problem in Pharma is that only the US is paying for R&D costs (since most of the R&D takes place here some in the nation benefit from it), but if the US "fixes" the drug price problem, Europe and Canada would have to start footing more of the bill."
You:
"It's interesting that I've never, ever, heard a Canadian or European raise this as a point: only Americans."
In the context of the discussion, you said that Americans are the only ones that bring up the point that they pay for the majority of R&D. You don't even seem to understand your own posts.
"I doubt it very much..."
You also don't seem to be aware of actual costs involved with R&D.
"It's interesting that I've never, ever, heard a Canadian or European raise this as a point: only Americans."
Only because you are the recipients of our R&D, resulting in cheap costs for you. Why would you want this to stop?
"I'm incredibly grateful that you're so eager to do me this favour, but you know, I reckon I could probably afford the extra couple of pounds towards the NHS to cover the drug costs, so you feel free to go ahead and fix your price problem. I'm astonished you've been so self-sacrificing for so long."
I think it's going to be a little more than "a couple of pounds"
"mmmm, freedom to take your TCP stack, bundle it into my product, gain a monopoly, tweak my TCP stack a little to be incompatible (becoming defacto standard), and then sue your ass if you try to copy or reverse-engineer my incompatible changes."
And..what's your point. Your original code is still available for free. The proprietary changes a company makes is code they wrote (IE: not yours).
"We really need to get away from pretending we are special and will become millionaires with our brilliant (read stupid to everyone else) idea. Lets agree that free/open software is done to benefit us all."
Tell that to the many companies the FSF sues for infringement.
And people wonder why California is going bankrupt?
I hope the "black-hat hackers" that are stealing city funds by not paying the parking meter also do not expect the state to also pay for things like health care.
A few people getting free parking is one thing, but giving out an instruction manual which may result in lots of revenue being taken away from the city is another.
"If a kid who kills someone at 13 can be treated as an adult, then how can a 15 year old not be one?"
In a situation where a 13 year old kills someone, they are not the victim (the person they killed is), so they are charged as an adult. If a 19 year old has sex with a 14 year old, the 19 year old is the adult in the situation. They should have the foresight and responsibility to not have sex with the 14 year old.
"Just like people know not to drive if they've had anything to drink, but they do it anyways."
Right...and if they kill someone while drunk, they also have to spend time in prison. Even if "you do it anyway", you still have to take responsibility for your actions, which may mean going to prison or getting on a sex-offenders list.
"I just take issue with being labeled as a pervert for the REST OF MY LIFE. Particularly for something that happens every day, when there's no victimization."
Do you think there would have been victimization between a 40 year old guy and a 14 year old girl?
also,
How did the police find out you two had sex in the first place? Someone had to make the first move
"By the way, your hypothetical "may save" someone argument doesn't help your point very much, which is why I dismissed it so quickly."
I don't care, because the law is on my side. All states have publicly available information about sex offenders..and it's not going to stop any time soon.
"Since OP was making the same point I was, I'll just refer you to her reply"
wow, "it's useless" sure shows your point.