Currently, copyright law allows something that the FSF and others consider to be wrong, namely allowing someone to put computer code under lock and key and claim ownership of it, depriving all others of any right to make use of, modify, or in many cases even look at the code in question.
Exactly. But you're mixing apples and oranges, namely freedom and morality. I have the freedom to cheat on my wife. However, it is morally wrong to do so. If we legislated adultery and made it illegal, we would get a net loss of freedom, but a net gain of morality.
That's the basis of how the FSF argues it. A loss of individual freedom (i.e., the freedom to withhold changes to GPL source code) in exchange for a net gain of morality.
I actually would have more respect for the FSF if they would stop the language battle and just come out and say what they mean. Unfortunately, they deliberately confuse "individual freedom", "group freedom" and "morality" in order to make their points.
The FSF's goal and philosophy call for a world in which all information is available to everybody under what amounts to BSD style conditions,
That is absolutely, positively wrong. The FSF's goal and philosophy call for a world in which everyone is FORCED to share information. The BSD license does not have forced sharing. The BSD license, in essence, says "I am sharing this with you in the true spirit of sharing... without the expectation of something of return. We hope you find this useful. Use it in any way you like."
The FSF has a task to perform--freedom. The GPL is the tool, not the task.
The rub is the definition of "freedom". Many would define freedom as "The ability to do anything I want with the this piece of code", as you implied in your original post. This is incompatible with the goals of the FSF. Excerpts from the What is freedom document:
"In order for the freedom to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software."
In other words, I am required to supply source code.
"For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them."
In other words, I am not allowed to do what I want with the code, even if I make my own changes to it. People are NOT allowed to "use their data however they want", as you asserted.
No. The philosophy behind the GPL is that people should be allowed to use their data however they want (including sharing with others).
Good God! Maybe you actually read what Gnu is about, instead of making unbelievably wrong assumptions about it.
The philosophy of GPL is NOT "that people should be allowed to use their data however they want". There are very specific restrictions on what people are allowed to do with GPL code, including 1) Source code must be distributed, 2) Source code which isn't GPL'd becomes GPL'd when GPL code is used within it (the "viral" aspect of the GPL).
If there were no IP laws, the GPL would be impossible.
If anything, you're thinking of BSD-style licenses, which are almost unrestricted.
On the Mac, the menu is there so you can go File > New or you can use the key shortcut Command+N.
I consider that a bug, not a feature.:) Personally, I find it much more logical to open an application in order to create a file. It's all in what you're used to, I suppose. Point taken that you can't get to that menu without going through file explorer, though.
The Mac UI has consistent shortcuts for common things like File > New/Open/Save/Print/Quit and Edit > Undo/Cut/Copy/Paste/Select All. These shortcuts are the same everywhere, and they're all the Command modifier key plus one letter, such as Command+Q for quitting an app.
So does Windows, except for misbehaved apps that don't follow the conventions. The most notorious offender is Adobe, unfortunately, who is not even consistent between their own apps.
The only key shortcut thing that Windows is better at is forgoing the mouse completely and selecting a menu item with the ALT key. Is this popular, though?
I do it all the time. I can navigate the entire operating system without ever leaving the keyboard. It's very efficient. The beauty is that you have all the standard keyboard shortcuts, plus you can navigate to ANY other function through standard keys like ALT, TAB and arrows.
I don't care AT ALL about your presentation, as long as it doesn't distract me from the content. Anything beyond breaking your ideas into paragraphs, using some punctuation, and maybe capitalizing where it makes sense is a distraction.
So you admit that punctuation and capitalization enhances communication. That's presentation. Italics (as I used above), boldface and yes, the dreaded fonts can all be used to enhance communication, and that's the point.
If people like you ran the world, we'd all live in concrete, unpainted cubes without windows. After all, a home should be about protection from the elements. Who needs all that useless presentation?
If that's your attitude, then why do you have a link embedded in your.sig? Wouldn't it be better to just have plain text?
If you need blinking red text in a javascipt rollover image on top of an animated gif tiled in the background to distract me while your embedded java applet plays music JUST so you can communicate with me via email, you shouldn't be communicating with me via email.
Overstatement is a sign of a weak mind. You know that's not what I'm talking about. Just as I used italics above to reasonable effect, I can do the same in e-mail. Just because some people can't use restraint with a tool doesn't mean the tool should be banned.
I'm using one right now, and I can feel the knuckle of my index finger and the muscles on that side of the hand moving every time I use the wheel.
I don't have any problem, but my hands are pretty big and I use the MS optical intellimouse, which is known for pretty good ergonomics.
Windows is designed with two buttons in mind, and that makes it nearly impossible to do tasks like getting properties without a two button mouse.
Actually, Windows is designed with one button in mind; it's just more efficient to use the second button. You can always get properties by selecting and then going to the menu (just like the Mac).
One way Windows is superior to the Mac however is that all applications can be used without a mouse. One way the Mac really stinks is in the area of keyboard traversal. Sometimes it's much more efficient to be able to not have to reach for the mouse. Yes, some Mac applications have keyboard shortcuts for common functions, but Windows has it built into the low-level GUI.
OK, I can understand Apple only having one button, as misguided as it is. But why not include a wheel? I can't imagine living without a scroll wheel, and that would not add more confusion.
Probably the usual Apple Not-Invented-Here syndrome.
Entertainment conglomerates have skillfully -- and at great cost -- distorted the purpose of copyright law and are jumbling two very different issues: the rights of artists, and the rights to exorbitant corporate profits.
Jon, perhaps you could define for us exactly how much people (yes, people -- people own corporations, they are not alive) have a right to profit.
You seem to imply that corporation do not have a right to "exorbitant" profits, and that is just an incredibly foolish attitude. When government jack-boots its way into private business, and starts dictating profits -- in other words, legislating prices -- you are on the road to economic ruin.
I hope I am just misinterpreting what you are saying. If not, please review the history of the Soviet Union for lessons in what happens when government removes the right to profit.
And I think we can ALL agree that HTML mail is a bug, not a feature.
Maybe you and the other dinosaurs want to live in the dark ages, but as far as I'm concerned HTML mail is a standard, not a bug. And HTML postings to Usenet is a standard, not a bug.
If you don't want formatting, then use a mail/news reader that strips it out. Technology should not be held back by green-screen luddites.
That doesn't stop her from looking over my shoulder and saying "I wish I could do X like you're doing."
Er, just of curiosity, what "X" does she ever wish she could do that Linux does? I can't think of single thing, except maybe virtual desktops (whoop-de-doo).
Why do I say the word "average" so much? Because it seems to me that your comments go towards the fortunate few
No, not all people have the "entitlement" attitude. But look at some of the posts on this thread, particularly the one from the guy who thought the industry owed him something because of his big $$ educational investment. My point is that the industry owes him nothing. It's up to him to prove that he's useful to someone.
I'm not saying that someone coming out of college shouldn't have the goal of getting the big salary -- through excellence. My beef is with thinking they deserve a big salary for no legitimate reason.
And then you know the rest of the story, since I bet you are on your 60's or 70's.
Actually, I'm 35. I dropped out of college mid-term to get the big software engineering salary. I've owned several companies and have made a lot of money. You seem to think I'm some old fogey who is jealous of "those young whipper-snappers who've got it so durn easy, not like in my day when we had move 2 ton computers and we we're glad to have the work!"
Believe me, I am the last person to begrudge someone money if they can get it. I don't even begrudge them money if they're incompetent and don't deserve it. It's the attitude that they are not willing to earn what they get in life; that they are expecting to have everything handed to them by people who work and are talented (such as, say, musicians).
We are not looking forward to 3% yearly increases. Just because you had no choice, does not mean we don't have either.
If you can get stock options, then more power to you. But there are a lot of college students right now who are in for a rude awakening in the next few years when the start-up boom dries up, and only people that are truly hard working and smart are going to get them. Again, it's about the attitude that someone is entitled to be an IPO millionaire.
If there are stations on cable TV that have no comercials, why shouldn't we have the same with our internet connections?
Because part of the price of your cable goes to the station, rather than charging for commercials. Web sites do not get a subsidy from your ISP bill.
Something, someone, has to pay the bills. When you demand that a web site be free and without advertising, you are basically saying: "Thank you for this cool web site. However, I demand that you pay for it out of your own pocket, rather than my being slightly inconvenienced by having to download an extra few seconds of data." It's an unbelievably selfish, self-centered attitude.
You are a lost case of senility. Go play checkers or something.
And Yes, After spending close to $100,000 on my education, plus getting 2 1/2 years of actual co-op time in the computer industry, and spending a couple of thousand dollars to get my Oracle and MCSE, A+, and other certifications, I think that I should get at least 80K+ when I get out of school next year.
Guess what? How much you spent on your education has nothing to do with how much you are paid. You may want to take an economics course, because the concept of supply and demand hasn't sunk in.
You might get your $80K; hard to say. But you're a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You feel entitled to that $80K salary because you've invested all this money in your education. Well, companies pay you to do a job. If there is a glut of people with your knowledge, particularly people with real paid experience, then you might get $25K. If the knowledge is scarce, then you might get the higher salary.
Talk to some Aerospace engineers during the 90s about how much all their knowledge and experience was worth. It's not worth jack if there is no demand for it.
So you would rather see people die and suffer than make health care available to everyone? Very compassionate.
No, I would rather have 90%+ of people get the best health care in the world, than 100% get poor, crappy health care while waiting six months for a non-life-threatening surgery.
My girlfriend, through no fault of her own, does not have health insurance.
Through no fault of her own??? Unless she has been totally disabled and unable to work, she could have bought health insurance. You know, there is no law against buying your own insurance, and it's not that expensive.
And guess what happens when they come to the hospital, pleading for a doctor, begging for their lives? That's right -- they turn them away, because they don't have the cash.
Very dramatic, but wrong. They get treated -- by law. Hospitals cannot turn away people needing medical care.
Do you really think that even if he wasn't making any money from it that Carlos Santana would stop playing guitar?
It wasn't for "the money", you probably would never have heard of Carlos Santana, and history would have one less artist to look back on and appreciate.
Excuse me, but have you ever heard of Vincent Van Gogh?
Ever heard of Mozart or Michaelangelo? They did not "do it for the money", but they were well paid for their efforts. And good thing, too. How many sculptures would Michaelangelo have not completed if rich patrons had not bought quality marble? The sistine chapel would never have happened if it wasn't for the money paid by the church.
Yes, you can find lots of artists who starved their entire careers, and in fact, probably needed to starve in order to create their art. But you can also find plenty of artists who never would have flowered if it wasn't for the money.
The fact is that your attitude is snobbish. "If it made a lot of money, then it must be pop-art garbage". Art is either good or it's bad, depending on the observer, and the amount of money it cost, or the amount of money it made are irrelevent.
First of all, DOS attacks are illegal. If the RIAA is connected to this sort of activity they'll wind up in a lawsuit they're guaranteed to lose.
Don't be too sure. Let's not call it a DOS attack -- let's call it "participating in the network". If they return enough garbage to searches -- or return valid searches, but give back crap files -- it would have the same effect as shutting down the network. Remember, there is no "acceptable use" policy for Gnutella. Maybe someone will try and slap a license on in the future, but it gets very gray when there is no license holder. And once there is, then there is someone to sue by the music industry.
The only thing that could happen is a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Gnutella users, and then you have to go into the morass of what is "acceptable use" of a virtual network with no central control.
Having said that, I don't necessarily disagree that there might be a legal problem, but it's not cut-and-dried.
Second, I think the OSS method of Gnutella development may be able to patch vulnerabilities faster than people can invent them.
Remember, to make any significant changes to the Gnutella protocol requires everyone upgrading their clients. Sure, you'll get the hard-core upgrading, but again, that's not what the industry cares about. They care about Joe Consumer. If Joe Consumer falls behind in the arms race, then they've won.
And third, Gnutella is just an intermediate technology -- the real threat to the industry is Freenet, which already has schemes to protect against the attacks you mention.
There are two problems with Freenet. 1) There is no search capability, and no promises of ever having one, and 2) Freenet depends on a HUGE volunteer server effort. I know I don't care enough about Freenet to volunteer server space, and I'll bet that's going to be the average case such that Freenet will never gain a critical mass of servers to make it viable, particularly for something like mass music distribution.
Technologically, the RIAA is screwed. Having a dinosaurian brain, however, they haven't noticed this yet.
Actually, I would say technologically they are on the strongest footing. It's legally (as you point out) that they are possibly vulnerable.
Because music was meant to be performed live, and i am willing to support bands that i enjoy listening to in that fashion.
Do you realize how incredibly arrogant that statement is? It's not up to you decide how music should be enjoyed by everyone else. Music is intended to be listened to.
Recorded music allows me to listen to the Venice Philharmonic Orchestra without travelling to Venice. Maybe you enjoy listen to any third rate musicians live, but I would far rather listen to good recorded music than bad live music.
And if you ask any REAL musician whether or not they'd still be playing if all music were free...and they'd give you a resounding "hell yeah!"
Again, it's not about what you think anyone should be doing. It's about artists having control of their creations, and allowing them to choose how they want to distribute their music.
Not at all. If anyone thinks Gnutella can't be stopped, you are sadly mistaken. The only question is whether "they" will choose to stop it.
The decentralized nature of Gnutella would make it trivial to launch DOS attacks. If the music industry wanted to shut it down, they would just have to have various clients return garbage to queries, send nonsense messages, etc. Yes, future Gnutella clients could have some protections built in, but it's an arms race Gnutella would lose.
"Yeah, but I could just set up private networks among my friends." Sure you could, and then the music industry wins. They don't care about you sharing with your friends, they care about mass, anonymous sharing.
My only question is whether they would choose to do it.
You said the magic word: "choose". And other artists have chosen not to. Their choice should be respected, just like, say, my choosing a GNU license for my software should be respected.
I should have to buy _trucks_ for my distribution because people like you want to prop up the RIAA?
This has nothing to do with the RIAA. If Napster aggressively made sure that coprighted music did not appear on their index, and only music by artists such as you who grant permission to redistribute, there would be no issue. And yes, it is technically possible to do that.
With all due respect to your music, the truth is that Napster couldn't care less about people like you. What makes Napster popular is the music that has not been granted redistribution rights.
I for one applaud the judge having the guts to drop the hammer on The Entitlement Generation. This proves that the justice system does get it, and is not intimidated by crap like "it's a new world, and you better get on board before you get left behind."
The Entitlement Generation is an attitude that began with the hippies of the 60s, but is going full-force among the GenX crowd. They feel they are entitled to the big salary coming out of college. They feel entitled to free health care. They feel entitled to stock options. They feel entitled to free web sites without any advertising.
And yes -- they feel entitled to the work of recording artists.
I would bet that most of the people outraged by this decision have never created anything of value in their lives, and most likely never will. They will never watch the fruits of their labor ripped off. They are the people who suckle at the teat of society.
What sickens me are the people who justify their actions by rationalizations like "music should be about the art, not about money." Well, to those people I say that it's nice of you to make the decision for the artist.
When I see people with their pseudo-socialistic attitude that they deserve everything for free, it makes me think that the old days of requiring property ownership before you can vote weren't such a bad idea.
What I find amazing is how many services are enabled per default on these distributions.
This is one of the attitudes I don't understand. Why shouldn't I have every blasted service turned on if I want to? Are the Linux services so riddled with security holes that the only safe configuration is to have the whole computer turned off?
But one of the main problems for people trying to overthrow these corrupt governments is that they are supported, militarily and in other ways, by powerful countries like the USA. Right?
Yes, you're right. I don't exempt much of the U.S. from the "we are the world" mentality. There are way too many people willing to appease tyrants rather than support fighters for freedom.
You are absolutely right that world hunger (especially in Africa) has mostly political and economic causes, but "to help the people overthrow their government" is crazy. The anarchist in me likes it, by the realist doesn't.
"Overthrow" is the wrong word. What I mean to say (which you said better anyway) is that political stability has to attained. Preferably, that should happen non-violently through free elections, etc.
We're going OT here, but this isn't a full picture at all. A lot of the shortages are because of (c) crop failure and (d) people being driven from their homes.
I should have singled out "crop failure" as a cause, which obviously is a short-term problem that needs to be addressed by "dumping food and money". I was mostly focusing on the solutions to long term, chronic problems, which was the original posters focus.
Slashdot Mirror
Currently, copyright law allows something that the FSF and others consider to be wrong, namely allowing someone to put computer code under lock and key and claim ownership of it, depriving all others of any right to make use of, modify, or in many cases even look at the code in question.
Exactly. But you're mixing apples and oranges, namely freedom and morality. I have the freedom to cheat on my wife. However, it is morally wrong to do so. If we legislated adultery and made it illegal, we would get a net loss of freedom, but a net gain of morality.
That's the basis of how the FSF argues it. A loss of individual freedom (i.e., the freedom to withhold changes to GPL source code) in exchange for a net gain of morality.
I actually would have more respect for the FSF if they would stop the language battle and just come out and say what they mean. Unfortunately, they deliberately confuse "individual freedom", "group freedom" and "morality" in order to make their points.
The FSF's goal and philosophy call for a world in which all information is available to everybody under what amounts to BSD style conditions,
That is absolutely, positively wrong. The FSF's goal and philosophy call for a world in which everyone is FORCED to share information. The BSD license does not have forced sharing. The BSD license, in essence, says "I am sharing this with you in the true spirit of sharing... without the expectation of something of return. We hope you find this useful. Use it in any way you like."
--
The FSF has a task to perform--freedom. The GPL is the tool, not the task.
The rub is the definition of "freedom". Many would define freedom as "The ability to do anything I want with the this piece of code", as you implied in your original post. This is incompatible with the goals of the FSF. Excerpts from the What is freedom document:
In other words, I am required to supply source code.
In other words, I am not allowed to do what I want with the code, even if I make my own changes to it. People are NOT allowed to "use their data however they want", as you asserted.
--
No. The philosophy behind the GPL is that people should be allowed to use their data however they want (including sharing with others).
Good God! Maybe you actually read what Gnu is about, instead of making unbelievably wrong assumptions about it.
The philosophy of GPL is NOT "that people should be allowed to use their data however they want". There are very specific restrictions on what people are allowed to do with GPL code, including 1) Source code must be distributed, 2) Source code which isn't GPL'd becomes GPL'd when GPL code is used within it (the "viral" aspect of the GPL).
If there were no IP laws, the GPL would be impossible.
If anything, you're thinking of BSD-style licenses, which are almost unrestricted.
--
On the Mac, the menu is there so you can go File > New or you can use the key shortcut Command+N.
I consider that a bug, not a feature. :) Personally, I find it much more logical to open an application in order to create a file. It's all in what you're used to, I suppose. Point taken that you can't get to that menu without going through file explorer, though.
The Mac UI has consistent shortcuts for common things like File > New/Open/Save/Print/Quit and Edit > Undo/Cut/Copy/Paste/Select All. These shortcuts are the same everywhere, and they're all the Command modifier key plus one letter, such as Command+Q for quitting an app.
So does Windows, except for misbehaved apps that don't follow the conventions. The most notorious offender is Adobe, unfortunately, who is not even consistent between their own apps.
The only key shortcut thing that Windows is better at is forgoing the mouse completely and selecting a menu item with the ALT key. Is this popular, though?
I do it all the time. I can navigate the entire operating system without ever leaving the keyboard. It's very efficient. The beauty is that you have all the standard keyboard shortcuts, plus you can navigate to ANY other function through standard keys like ALT, TAB and arrows.
--
I don't care AT ALL about your presentation, as long as it doesn't distract me from the content. Anything beyond breaking your ideas into paragraphs, using some punctuation, and maybe capitalizing where it makes sense is a distraction.
So you admit that punctuation and capitalization enhances communication. That's presentation. Italics (as I used above), boldface and yes, the dreaded fonts can all be used to enhance communication, and that's the point.
If people like you ran the world, we'd all live in concrete, unpainted cubes without windows. After all, a home should be about protection from the elements. Who needs all that useless presentation?
--
If that's your attitude, then why do you have a link embedded in your .sig? Wouldn't it be better to just have plain text?
If you need blinking red text in a javascipt rollover image on top of an animated gif tiled in the background to distract me while your embedded java applet plays music JUST so you can communicate with me via email, you shouldn't be communicating with me via email.
Overstatement is a sign of a weak mind. You know that's not what I'm talking about. Just as I used italics above to reasonable effect, I can do the same in e-mail. Just because some people can't use restraint with a tool doesn't mean the tool should be banned.
--
I'm using one right now, and I can feel the knuckle of my index finger and the muscles on that side of the hand moving every time I use the wheel.
I don't have any problem, but my hands are pretty big and I use the MS optical intellimouse, which is known for pretty good ergonomics.
Windows is designed with two buttons in mind, and that makes it nearly impossible to do tasks like getting properties without a two button mouse.
Actually, Windows is designed with one button in mind; it's just more efficient to use the second button. You can always get properties by selecting and then going to the menu (just like the Mac).
One way Windows is superior to the Mac however is that all applications can be used without a mouse. One way the Mac really stinks is in the area of keyboard traversal. Sometimes it's much more efficient to be able to not have to reach for the mouse. Yes, some Mac applications have keyboard shortcuts for common functions, but Windows has it built into the low-level GUI.
--
OK, I can understand Apple only having one button, as misguided as it is. But why not include a wheel? I can't imagine living without a scroll wheel, and that would not add more confusion.
Probably the usual Apple Not-Invented-Here syndrome.
--
You do have a right to try and make a profit by engaging in business, but succeeding and making money is not gauranteed.
I wasn't trying to imply that there is a "right to success", only a "right to opportunity". Katz seems to think that opportunity should be limited.
--
Entertainment conglomerates have skillfully -- and at great cost -- distorted the purpose of copyright law and are jumbling two very different issues: the rights of artists, and the rights to exorbitant corporate profits.
Jon, perhaps you could define for us exactly how much people (yes, people -- people own corporations, they are not alive) have a right to profit.
You seem to imply that corporation do not have a right to "exorbitant" profits, and that is just an incredibly foolish attitude. When government jack-boots its way into private business, and starts dictating profits -- in other words, legislating prices -- you are on the road to economic ruin.
I hope I am just misinterpreting what you are saying. If not, please review the history of the Soviet Union for lessons in what happens when government removes the right to profit.
--
And I think we can ALL agree that HTML mail is a bug, not a feature.
Maybe you and the other dinosaurs want to live in the dark ages, but as far as I'm concerned HTML mail is a standard, not a bug. And HTML postings to Usenet is a standard, not a bug.
If you don't want formatting, then use a mail/news reader that strips it out. Technology should not be held back by green-screen luddites.
--
That doesn't stop her from looking over my shoulder and saying "I wish I could do X like you're doing."
Er, just of curiosity, what "X" does she ever wish she could do that Linux does? I can't think of single thing, except maybe virtual desktops (whoop-de-doo).
--
Why do I say the word "average" so much? Because it seems to me that your comments go towards the fortunate few
No, not all people have the "entitlement" attitude. But look at some of the posts on this thread, particularly the one from the guy who thought the industry owed him something because of his big $$ educational investment. My point is that the industry owes him nothing. It's up to him to prove that he's useful to someone.
I'm not saying that someone coming out of college shouldn't have the goal of getting the big salary -- through excellence. My beef is with thinking they deserve a big salary for no legitimate reason.
And then you know the rest of the story, since I bet you are on your 60's or 70's.
Actually, I'm 35. I dropped out of college mid-term to get the big software engineering salary. I've owned several companies and have made a lot of money. You seem to think I'm some old fogey who is jealous of "those young whipper-snappers who've got it so durn easy, not like in my day when we had move 2 ton computers and we we're glad to have the work!"
Believe me, I am the last person to begrudge someone money if they can get it. I don't even begrudge them money if they're incompetent and don't deserve it. It's the attitude that they are not willing to earn what they get in life; that they are expecting to have everything handed to them by people who work and are talented (such as, say, musicians).
We are not looking forward to 3% yearly increases. Just because you had no choice, does not mean we don't have either.
If you can get stock options, then more power to you. But there are a lot of college students right now who are in for a rude awakening in the next few years when the start-up boom dries up, and only people that are truly hard working and smart are going to get them. Again, it's about the attitude that someone is entitled to be an IPO millionaire.
If there are stations on cable TV that have no comercials, why shouldn't we have the same with our internet connections?
Because part of the price of your cable goes to the station, rather than charging for commercials. Web sites do not get a subsidy from your ISP bill.
Something, someone, has to pay the bills. When you demand that a web site be free and without advertising, you are basically saying: "Thank you for this cool web site. However, I demand that you pay for it out of your own pocket, rather than my being slightly inconvenienced by having to download an extra few seconds of data." It's an unbelievably selfish, self-centered attitude.
You are a lost case of senility. Go play checkers or something.
I'll try and find my Alzheimer's medication.
--
And Yes, After spending close to $100,000 on my education, plus getting 2 1/2 years of actual co-op time in the computer industry, and spending a couple of thousand dollars to get my Oracle and MCSE, A+, and other certifications, I think that I should get at least 80K+ when I get out of school next year.
Guess what? How much you spent on your education has nothing to do with how much you are paid. You may want to take an economics course, because the concept of supply and demand hasn't sunk in.
You might get your $80K; hard to say. But you're a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You feel entitled to that $80K salary because you've invested all this money in your education. Well, companies pay you to do a job. If there is a glut of people with your knowledge, particularly people with real paid experience, then you might get $25K. If the knowledge is scarce, then you might get the higher salary.
Talk to some Aerospace engineers during the 90s about how much all their knowledge and experience was worth. It's not worth jack if there is no demand for it.
--
So you would rather see people die and suffer than make health care available to everyone? Very compassionate.
No, I would rather have 90%+ of people get the best health care in the world, than 100% get poor, crappy health care while waiting six months for a non-life-threatening surgery.
My girlfriend, through no fault of her own, does not have health insurance.
Through no fault of her own??? Unless she has been totally disabled and unable to work, she could have bought health insurance. You know, there is no law against buying your own insurance, and it's not that expensive.
And guess what happens when they come to the hospital, pleading for a doctor, begging for their lives? That's right -- they turn them away, because they don't have the cash.
Very dramatic, but wrong. They get treated -- by law. Hospitals cannot turn away people needing medical care.
--
Do you really think that even if he wasn't making any money from it that Carlos Santana would stop playing guitar?
It wasn't for "the money", you probably would never have heard of Carlos Santana, and history would have one less artist to look back on and appreciate.
Excuse me, but have you ever heard of Vincent Van Gogh?
Ever heard of Mozart or Michaelangelo? They did not "do it for the money", but they were well paid for their efforts. And good thing, too. How many sculptures would Michaelangelo have not completed if rich patrons had not bought quality marble? The sistine chapel would never have happened if it wasn't for the money paid by the church.
Yes, you can find lots of artists who starved their entire careers, and in fact, probably needed to starve in order to create their art. But you can also find plenty of artists who never would have flowered if it wasn't for the money.
The fact is that your attitude is snobbish. "If it made a lot of money, then it must be pop-art garbage". Art is either good or it's bad, depending on the observer, and the amount of money it cost, or the amount of money it made are irrelevent.
--
First of all, DOS attacks are illegal. If the RIAA is connected to this sort of activity they'll wind up in a lawsuit they're guaranteed to lose.
Don't be too sure. Let's not call it a DOS attack -- let's call it "participating in the network". If they return enough garbage to searches -- or return valid searches, but give back crap files -- it would have the same effect as shutting down the network. Remember, there is no "acceptable use" policy for Gnutella. Maybe someone will try and slap a license on in the future, but it gets very gray when there is no license holder. And once there is, then there is someone to sue by the music industry.
The only thing that could happen is a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Gnutella users, and then you have to go into the morass of what is "acceptable use" of a virtual network with no central control.
Having said that, I don't necessarily disagree that there might be a legal problem, but it's not cut-and-dried.
Second, I think the OSS method of Gnutella development may be able to patch vulnerabilities faster than people can invent them.
Remember, to make any significant changes to the Gnutella protocol requires everyone upgrading their clients. Sure, you'll get the hard-core upgrading, but again, that's not what the industry cares about. They care about Joe Consumer. If Joe Consumer falls behind in the arms race, then they've won.
And third, Gnutella is just an intermediate technology -- the real threat to the industry is Freenet, which already has schemes to protect against the attacks you mention.
There are two problems with Freenet. 1) There is no search capability, and no promises of ever having one, and 2) Freenet depends on a HUGE volunteer server effort. I know I don't care enough about Freenet to volunteer server space, and I'll bet that's going to be the average case such that Freenet will never gain a critical mass of servers to make it viable, particularly for something like mass music distribution.
Technologically, the RIAA is screwed. Having a dinosaurian brain, however, they haven't noticed this yet.
Actually, I would say technologically they are on the strongest footing. It's legally (as you point out) that they are possibly vulnerable.
--
Because music was meant to be performed live, and i am willing to support bands that i enjoy listening to in that fashion.
Do you realize how incredibly arrogant that statement is? It's not up to you decide how music should be enjoyed by everyone else. Music is intended to be listened to.
Recorded music allows me to listen to the Venice Philharmonic Orchestra without travelling to Venice. Maybe you enjoy listen to any third rate musicians live, but I would far rather listen to good recorded music than bad live music.
And if you ask any REAL musician whether or not they'd still be playing if all music were free...and they'd give you a resounding "hell yeah!"
Again, it's not about what you think anyone should be doing. It's about artists having control of their creations, and allowing them to choose how they want to distribute their music.
--
Not at all. If anyone thinks Gnutella can't be stopped, you are sadly mistaken. The only question is whether "they" will choose to stop it.
The decentralized nature of Gnutella would make it trivial to launch DOS attacks. If the music industry wanted to shut it down, they would just have to have various clients return garbage to queries, send nonsense messages, etc. Yes, future Gnutella clients could have some protections built in, but it's an arms race Gnutella would lose.
"Yeah, but I could just set up private networks among my friends." Sure you could, and then the music industry wins. They don't care about you sharing with your friends, they care about mass, anonymous sharing.
My only question is whether they would choose to do it.
--
and I choose to give my music away,
You said the magic word: "choose". And other artists have chosen not to. Their choice should be respected, just like, say, my choosing a GNU license for my software should be respected.
I should have to buy _trucks_ for my distribution because people like you want to prop up the RIAA?
This has nothing to do with the RIAA. If Napster aggressively made sure that coprighted music did not appear on their index, and only music by artists such as you who grant permission to redistribute, there would be no issue. And yes, it is technically possible to do that.
With all due respect to your music, the truth is that Napster couldn't care less about people like you. What makes Napster popular is the music that has not been granted redistribution rights.
--
I for one applaud the judge having the guts to drop the hammer on The Entitlement Generation. This proves that the justice system does get it, and is not intimidated by crap like "it's a new world, and you better get on board before you get left behind."
The Entitlement Generation is an attitude that began with the hippies of the 60s, but is going full-force among the GenX crowd. They feel they are entitled to the big salary coming out of college. They feel entitled to free health care. They feel entitled to stock options. They feel entitled to free web sites without any advertising.
And yes -- they feel entitled to the work of recording artists.
I would bet that most of the people outraged by this decision have never created anything of value in their lives, and most likely never will. They will never watch the fruits of their labor ripped off. They are the people who suckle at the teat of society.
What sickens me are the people who justify their actions by rationalizations like "music should be about the art, not about money." Well, to those people I say that it's nice of you to make the decision for the artist.
When I see people with their pseudo-socialistic attitude that they deserve everything for free, it makes me think that the old days of requiring property ownership before you can vote weren't such a bad idea.
--
What I find amazing is how many services are enabled per default on these distributions.
This is one of the attitudes I don't understand. Why shouldn't I have every blasted service turned on if I want to? Are the Linux services so riddled with security holes that the only safe configuration is to have the whole computer turned off?
--
What kind of a system administrator would settle for a default install?
A reasonable one! Why should anyone expect an operating system to be shipped with security holes?
Put it this way -- would you extend the same courtesy to Microsoft if you installed NT and it was riddled with security holes?
--
But one of the main problems for people trying to overthrow these corrupt governments is that they are supported, militarily and in other ways, by powerful countries like the USA. Right?
Yes, you're right. I don't exempt much of the U.S. from the "we are the world" mentality. There are way too many people willing to appease tyrants rather than support fighters for freedom.
--
You are absolutely right that world hunger (especially in Africa) has mostly political and economic causes, but "to help the people overthrow their government" is crazy. The anarchist in me likes it, by the realist doesn't.
"Overthrow" is the wrong word. What I mean to say (which you said better anyway) is that political stability has to attained. Preferably, that should happen non-violently through free elections, etc.
We're going OT here, but this isn't a full picture at all. A lot of the shortages are because of (c) crop failure and (d) people being driven from their homes.
I should have singled out "crop failure" as a cause, which obviously is a short-term problem that needs to be addressed by "dumping food and money". I was mostly focusing on the solutions to long term, chronic problems, which was the original posters focus.
--