Nothing so funny. Though... "DoubleClick Banner Ad" patent has already been crashed by one of bounty hunters on BountyQuest. 1-Click has been partially crashed there, too. If you find the best prior-art regarding any of the BountyQuest's listed patents, you win $10,000.
Creativity is the word. Everybody can become a creative person. No matter whether a programmer or a philosopher or a worker. Everything can have its aestetics. The question is: "Who is able to recognize beautiness of creative process (=art) in this or that?" If all people can recognize it in mathematics, it could be called art. (And it is for sure). On the other hand I am not able to eat big part of what is called "art for masses".
Can you see an ad answering to the antilinux one of MS? Do you have the same funny imaginations about how to express degenerative basics of Windows? Please, paint it and show it all of us!:)
Go to hell with RIAA! The only way I see is to make peer-to-peer nets where MUSICIANS THEMSELVES set prices of their songs. And voila - here you are with freedom and evolution. Forget all greedy piggy bastards and help to create freedom. Anyway...you geeks...talking, talking, talking... But what about to help musicians with direct action and to create nets for them and all listeners that want to compensate them - mo matter if 1 or 30 cents a download?
Napster is a filesystem over which users share files containing sound. It turns out that, given a filesystem, users will share copyrighted sounds. Really not Napster's problem any more than it's Kodak's problem that child pornographers use their film.
You have got a hole in your argument. Producer of films has income from selling films, no matter how and for what a user uses it. Creator and/or producer of music or literature etc. gets nothing at all if his work is pirated. As for new, untouched film - you can steal it or buy it. Not to copy it (== pirate it).
You can not make material copies of new films in any easy way. You can make material copies of songs very easily. Yes - both of them are made of mass (constructed from ordered atoms). Computer file exists in any disc or memory in a material form. If it is possible to read formed molecules and atoms of a film and re/materialize it (to make exact copy of it), then you are caught in nearly the same (but not exactly the same) hardly solved problem - do you spoil anybody's right (some kind of copyright)?
So I can ask - is any electronic copy of a song materialization of it? It takes some place in physical world. If you record a song in ROM, it is really coded in mass, it takes physical place the same way as any other mass. If you delete a file from disk, it does not mean that in deleted area there exist absolutely nothing. No "nothing" exists at all.
If somebody steals a mass he/she is theft. If anybody steals eg. car and later throws it away it is the same as if he/she steals a song and later he/she deletes it from any recording device.
The problem is in the right of use. Not just in possibility of making (or deleting) copies. Nobody can say that if he/she makes an electronic copy of anything that he/she takes nothing from the author just because the author also has his own copy, no matter how many copies are being done by others.
How would you comment if somebody makes copies of your thoughts that are materialized in your brain (in its neurons)? Is that OK? No? Why? Just because you gave no right to anybody to copy that? Right so. So that - who gives anybody any right to copy anything without clear permission of its source (author)?
GPL gives its kind of permission to users of GPL software. You can take anything with GPL, transfer it to you and materialize it in an area of your HDD, and start to use it without paying for it. But you can not take any software from eg. Torvalds if you have not his own permission. You can not copy and use any song (for your pleasure) if you have no permission of its creator. Is that clear?
Why do you position Linus so high? If he was so holly as you want others to be, he would have to give all his intellectual works for free. It is absolutely no truth. Some geeks say: musicians have no right to get a penny for their music files. They are completely wrong and speak as thieves. Only thieves decide about rights of other people and manipulate them for their own profit. No matter if this is money profit or entertaining profit or any other kind of profits. No matter if a thief grabs a buck from your pocket or commands you to work for him for free. You have profit from listening to music. Musicians, writers etc. do not want to become your slaves. It is you who want to establish new kind of slavery by new technological means. If you want to grab musicians's right to decide themselves about price of their works, you grab one of very basic rights from all. It is very bad starting point leading to grabbing any other right from anybody. Seems like you do not think of you at all. If you take part in this grabbing, one day somebody comes and take any of your rights from you. Another mistaken point - no geek can live from programming free software only for whole his life. But you say that IP is bad, that intellectual work must not be paid. How does it come geeks take money for their programming? Are geeks so hypocritic? Do not try to use sofistics kinda "they do it for rich people and every rich person must pay". It would be terrible lie - because if a poor man would like a geek to make a code for him, 99,9% of geeks would not move their finger for free. Geeks know value of their time very well. How a time can have a value? Is it a property? Is it the geeks's property? Do they sell it? Yes, they do. All of us do it. If you know to fulfill time with quality that you and others make happy, it is perfect. But it is only you who can decide about price of what you offer. No other man can take this right from you. If he/she does, he/she is thief and/or slaver. New technologies are about destruction of old systems of production, presentation and distribution of anything, now mainly of works that can be distributed as electronic data. Internet distribution of music is about destruction of RIAA and greedy bosses of old recording industry. It is OK to destroy world of parasites, where writers and musicians have nearly no rights. Bosses took their rights from them. And what now? Music listeners are the next, new, much bigger mass that is going to take all rights from musicians? Will they be even more dangerous and evil than recording bosses? New systems of distribution must share not only files but also must think about sources. Without them not only musicians or writers could live and develop its arts, but there also could not start all necessary new infrastructures - it will have absolutely no sources. Musicians themselves are very frustrated from mass stealing of their works. They see no future thanks to that. Do they really have new cruel bosses - Internet thieves? Thieves that shout about freedom for all - except of people that are robbed by them (total hypocracy). Freedom needs SOURCES for its living - NOT ROBBING! I see no reason for not paying 5 cents for a song I like. And I will never agree with stealing a song. If 1 million people pay 5 cents for a song it gives $50,000. If there exist billions of songs on the Net worldwide how many of them can wonder about 1 million downloads? But their writers and interpreters will hope to get at least something to see if they can continue. Yes, there would travel billions of dollars being paid in micropayments. But big part of it could be invested into infrastructers and development of further new ways of presentation and distribution. Also electronic industry would get new impulses to come with new devices. You can not make people free without necessary conditions for their development (by making them as poorest as possible). It is no freedom. It is ultrabossism, way right to death. If you are going to continue stealing you are going to destroy conditions for development. I have read some suggestions that musicians could get money for their living in some other ways, eg. selling T-shirts, dishes, sell hamburgers etc. New stalinists also allow performances in clubs to be paid. What a good advice to others if advisors themselves would never do anything like that for whole their lives. I say NO! to that all. Let the artist decide themselves about how they want to make and offer their music. Let people decide themselves how they want to share what they know and like to do. Geeks making free software in their free time are not the only ones in the world that do something for free - not at all! If you manipulate and steal in names of whatever ideological constructions, you kill freedom and development.
Aren't you mostly geeks/nerds? You have everything in your hands/brains/keyboards. Stop shouting on musicians and make a new way of music distribution to forget RIAA forever and to help music overcome.
Solution is in meaningful distribution format and micropayments - it doesn't exist till now (ask RIAA why:) If a musician wants to give away something, everybody gets info it's free. If he/she wants 5 cents, for instance you would have to be able to listen to a piece once and if you like it and play it again, micropayment system takes 5 cents from you. Etc.
There would be no more unhappy people among musicians that can't get into old monkey business of RIAA companies and have no other chances to make some small money for their living.There would be no more confused people that do not know whether they steal a song if they download it from Napster or Gnutella etc.
Make a distribution format and micropayment system as an open source and see how glad all people will get. With that you can iniciate absolutely new laws of living of music thanks to the Net and for the Net - and for the Net users and for musicians as well. You CAN give the world a key to open new ecology of cultures around the world.
Shouting is bad. Cleverness is much better. Take your chance to come with needed changes. IT'S JUST UP TO YOU.
Slashdot Mirror
Survelliance Camera Players. Others are in the UK: mtp2001, in Belgium here or in Germany - Chaos Curcuit Club.
If you want to think about all of pros and cons of camera systems, read Public Surveillance System Privacy Guidelines.
Nothing so funny. Though... "DoubleClick Banner Ad" patent has already been crashed by one of bounty hunters on BountyQuest. 1-Click has been partially crashed there, too. If you find the best prior-art regarding any of the BountyQuest's listed patents, you win $10,000.
If you think electrons our out of this physical world, well...then you yourself are full of strange demons.
Creativity is the word. Everybody can become a creative person. No matter whether a programmer or a philosopher or a worker. Everything can have its aestetics. The question is: "Who is able to recognize beautiness of creative process (=art) in this or that?" If all people can recognize it in mathematics, it could be called art. (And it is for sure). On the other hand I am not able to eat big part of what is called "art for masses".
Can you see an ad answering to the antilinux one of MS? Do you have the same funny imaginations about how to express degenerative basics of Windows? Please, paint it and show it all of us!:)
Go to hell with RIAA! The only way I see is to make peer-to-peer nets where MUSICIANS THEMSELVES set prices of their songs. And voila - here you are with freedom and evolution. Forget all greedy piggy bastards and help to create freedom. Anyway...you geeks...talking, talking, talking... But what about to help musicians with direct action and to create nets for them and all listeners that want to compensate them - mo matter if 1 or 30 cents a download?
You have got a hole in your argument. Producer of films has income from selling films, no matter how and for what a user uses it. Creator and/or producer of music or literature etc. gets nothing at all if his work is pirated. As for new, untouched film - you can steal it or buy it. Not to copy it (== pirate it).
You can not make material copies of new films in any easy way. You can make material copies of songs very easily. Yes - both of them are made of mass (constructed from ordered atoms). Computer file exists in any disc or memory in a material form. If it is possible to read formed molecules and atoms of a film and re/materialize it (to make exact copy of it), then you are caught in nearly the same (but not exactly the same) hardly solved problem - do you spoil anybody's right (some kind of copyright)?
So I can ask - is any electronic copy of a song materialization of it? It takes some place in physical world. If you record a song in ROM, it is really coded in mass, it takes physical place the same way as any other mass. If you delete a file from disk, it does not mean that in deleted area there exist absolutely nothing. No "nothing" exists at all.
If somebody steals a mass he/she is theft. If anybody steals eg. car and later throws it away it is the same as if he/she steals a song and later he/she deletes it from any recording device.
The problem is in the right of use. Not just in possibility of making (or deleting) copies. Nobody can say that if he/she makes an electronic copy of anything that he/she takes nothing from the author just because the author also has his own copy, no matter how many copies are being done by others.
How would you comment if somebody makes copies of your thoughts that are materialized in your brain (in its neurons)? Is that OK? No? Why? Just because you gave no right to anybody to copy that? Right so. So that - who gives anybody any right to copy anything without clear permission of its source (author)?
GPL gives its kind of permission to users of GPL software. You can take anything with GPL, transfer it to you and materialize it in an area of your HDD, and start to use it without paying for it. But you can not take any software from eg. Torvalds if you have not his own permission. You can not copy and use any song (for your pleasure) if you have no permission of its creator. Is that clear?
Why do you position Linus so high? If he was so holly as you want others to be, he would have to give all his intellectual works for free. It is absolutely no truth. Some geeks say: musicians have no right to get a penny for their music files. They are completely wrong and speak as thieves. Only thieves decide about rights of other people and manipulate them for their own profit. No matter if this is money profit or entertaining profit or any other kind of profits. No matter if a thief grabs a buck from your pocket or commands you to work for him for free. You have profit from listening to music. Musicians, writers etc. do not want to become your slaves. It is you who want to establish new kind of slavery by new technological means. If you want to grab musicians's right to decide themselves about price of their works, you grab one of very basic rights from all. It is very bad starting point leading to grabbing any other right from anybody. Seems like you do not think of you at all. If you take part in this grabbing, one day somebody comes and take any of your rights from you. Another mistaken point - no geek can live from programming free software only for whole his life. But you say that IP is bad, that intellectual work must not be paid. How does it come geeks take money for their programming? Are geeks so hypocritic? Do not try to use sofistics kinda "they do it for rich people and every rich person must pay". It would be terrible lie - because if a poor man would like a geek to make a code for him, 99,9% of geeks would not move their finger for free. Geeks know value of their time very well. How a time can have a value? Is it a property? Is it the geeks's property? Do they sell it? Yes, they do. All of us do it. If you know to fulfill time with quality that you and others make happy, it is perfect. But it is only you who can decide about price of what you offer. No other man can take this right from you. If he/she does, he/she is thief and/or slaver. New technologies are about destruction of old systems of production, presentation and distribution of anything, now mainly of works that can be distributed as electronic data. Internet distribution of music is about destruction of RIAA and greedy bosses of old recording industry. It is OK to destroy world of parasites, where writers and musicians have nearly no rights. Bosses took their rights from them. And what now? Music listeners are the next, new, much bigger mass that is going to take all rights from musicians? Will they be even more dangerous and evil than recording bosses? New systems of distribution must share not only files but also must think about sources. Without them not only musicians or writers could live and develop its arts, but there also could not start all necessary new infrastructures - it will have absolutely no sources. Musicians themselves are very frustrated from mass stealing of their works. They see no future thanks to that. Do they really have new cruel bosses - Internet thieves? Thieves that shout about freedom for all - except of people that are robbed by them (total hypocracy). Freedom needs SOURCES for its living - NOT ROBBING! I see no reason for not paying 5 cents for a song I like. And I will never agree with stealing a song. If 1 million people pay 5 cents for a song it gives $50,000. If there exist billions of songs on the Net worldwide how many of them can wonder about 1 million downloads? But their writers and interpreters will hope to get at least something to see if they can continue. Yes, there would travel billions of dollars being paid in micropayments. But big part of it could be invested into infrastructers and development of further new ways of presentation and distribution. Also electronic industry would get new impulses to come with new devices. You can not make people free without necessary conditions for their development (by making them as poorest as possible). It is no freedom. It is ultrabossism, way right to death. If you are going to continue stealing you are going to destroy conditions for development. I have read some suggestions that musicians could get money for their living in some other ways, eg. selling T-shirts, dishes, sell hamburgers etc. New stalinists also allow performances in clubs to be paid. What a good advice to others if advisors themselves would never do anything like that for whole their lives. I say NO! to that all. Let the artist decide themselves about how they want to make and offer their music. Let people decide themselves how they want to share what they know and like to do. Geeks making free software in their free time are not the only ones in the world that do something for free - not at all! If you manipulate and steal in names of whatever ideological constructions, you kill freedom and development.
Aren't you mostly geeks/nerds? You have everything in your hands/brains/keyboards. Stop shouting on musicians and make a new way of music distribution to forget RIAA forever and to help music overcome.
Solution is in meaningful distribution format and micropayments - it doesn't exist till now (ask RIAA why:) If a musician wants to give away something, everybody gets info it's free. If he/she wants 5 cents, for instance you would have to be able to listen to a piece once and if you like it and play it again, micropayment system takes 5 cents from you. Etc.
There would be no more unhappy people among musicians that can't get into old monkey business of RIAA companies and have no other chances to make some small money for their living.There would be no more confused people that do not know whether they steal a song if they download it from Napster or Gnutella etc.
Make a distribution format and micropayment system as an open source and see how glad all people will get. With that you can iniciate absolutely new laws of living of music thanks to the Net and for the Net - and for the Net users and for musicians as well. You CAN give the world a key to open new ecology of cultures around the world.
Shouting is bad. Cleverness is much better. Take your chance to come with needed changes. IT'S JUST UP TO YOU.