The Law (TM) changes over time, and is different in every country. The Law is not something that I feel the need to respect in a universal and generic way simply because it is The Law. And, being a US citizen, I'm rather glad that the USA's founding fathers apparently felt the same way.
Linux uses copyleft, which is a terrible hack of copyright which uses copyright in order to prevent people from exercising copyright. Linux only uses copyright in order to get around issues regarding copyright; Linux would in no way be harmed if copyright went away.
News sources use it
Huh? Last I checked, it is not a crime to run the same story as a competing news source, and it is inherently disreputable to copy their exact words/images, with or without copyright law.
Our society practically requires it to function properly
Sadly true. But I would argue that this is only because our society has been brainwashed to believe that ideas are property that can be owned.
You completely missed the point of his argument. It wasn't "sell better quality products". It was "make the products more easily accessible". Piracy happens not only because it is free, but because it is one of the most convenient ways of getting a product. By making your product more easily accessible, you win over many would-be pirates.
the media needs to aim for shocking penalties for those caught... stealing from people who are literally defenceless
lmao. Also, I find the number of times you refer to "theft" and "stealing" to be quite hilarious.
There's more to "Open" than just "Open source". For example, suppose I want to make an iPhone app. I need to buy a mac, and use xcode. Android is clearly more "open" in regard to developer tools.
Because we here at slashdot are strong supporters of the imaginary^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H intellectual property system. It is a well-designed and fair system.
If I say "Steve Jobs", my entire immediate family, and most extended family, know who I'm talking about.
If I say "Dennis Ritchie", not a single relative knows who I'm talking about.
And my relatives are generally not Apple fanboys. A few cousins, maybe.
I have a G1. It runs plain old Android 1.6. I still have "the Internet in my pocket". I don't see what updates have to do with this at all; if your friend cares about having the latest and greatest, but doesn't actually care about being able to configure or control very much about his device, then the hipster factor would point him to an iPhone anyways.
This is simply the wrong way to think about it. We, the human race, with online courses, will now be able to be more efficient with our use of manpower. I don't mean to diminish the role of those who enjoy lecturing, but instead of lecturing, those people can now spend even more time diving into their field of study accomplishing good things.
I am definitely not an Apple fanboy, but I was deeply moved by Jobs' death. For better or for worse, Steve Jobs made a big difference in personal computing. As I reflected on my feelings, I said to myself "the only death of a figure in the tech field that I would find more moving than Jobs would probably be RMS". I'm not the biggest fan of what RMS has said about Steve Jobs here, but similar to my non-Apple-fanboyism, that won't change in the slightest my deep respect for RMS and his contribution to FOSS.
Use tagging *and* search. Run a global search, and scan the results for the tags you think you most likely applied to the email you are searching for. It doesn't have to be a dichotomy.
The idea is to let you choose how much money you want to waste on TV. If you want the popular, lucrative channels, then you may pay for them. Or not. This is not a bait and switch. This is someone whining that they will now have to pay slightly more for the channels they want to watch, rather than forcing the rest of the viewership to subsidize them. Just because the cable companies will end up getting more money doesn't mean this is a bad thing for me; it just means that a lot of people are dumb enough to shell out more money for the dumb things they watch on TV.
What, you don't think artists want longer copyrights?
I'm pretty sure most of them are satisfied that it lasts their whole life. Life plus X years is probably meaningless to most of them. (Hooray, my great-grandkids can still extort money out of people for this piece of "art" that I made 60 years ago? I'm pretty sure J.R.R. is rolling in his grave.)
Thank you, generic Google-defender. I love me some Google, too. But this is criticism straight from RMS, you know, someone who actually *cares* passionately about "openness" (as opposed to MSFT, AAPL, etc)
If you actually read section 15, it includes instructions for how to opt out of the waiver: send a letter to Sony HQ. Now, let's be honest, this is absolutely retarded. It would be 1000x easier for the customer if there were a web-based way to do this. Send an email. Check this checkbox. Whatever. It seems apparent that Sony feels obligated (legally, perhaps, definitely not morally) to provide this option, but they want to provide it in such a way that the absolute minimum number of customers will take advantage of it. I'd love to see statistics on how many people actually send an opt-out letter.
So, if you configure your torrenting client to only connect to official tinyBuild seeders, and to not seed to anyone, then as you download it no one breaks the law. Of course that defeats the purpose of the BitTorrent protocol, but whatever.
This is getting screwy. First, it's "we promise that copyrighted material will fall into to the public domain in 14 years". Then they're all like "No, wait, we meant to say 30 years. Definitely this stuff will be in public domain in 30 years." And then they're like "Fifty years, people definitely deserve to reap the benefits for fifty years. 30 years is totally unfair why would we have ever said only a mere 30 years?" And now they dare venture to say that "Actually 70 years. We gotta incentivise...stuff...you know...and...if you just wait for 70 years then it will so TOTALLY be in public domain. Promise." Sorry, guys, we've been waiting for 36 extra years already, and the initial 14 years was probably longer than we should have waited in the first place. You honestly think that we are OK with waiting another 20??? Even if we were willing to wait, do you really think we would be stupid enough to believe you this time? It's eerie how relevant this clip is: Lucy swiping the football from Charlie Brown.
Open Source != Open Development Process. I know lots of people are going for this warm fuzzy community feeling around the term "open source", but really, "open source" just means the source is released to the public under a permissive license. Nothing more.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Open Development Process is totally the way to go. But don't think that everyone that says "open source" means "open development process".
Slashdot Mirror
2 unintentional puns that I somehow dug out of this:
Math surrounds us and binds us all together
how's that for an incomprehensible mourning hours post?
The Law (TM) changes over time, and is different in every country. The Law is not something that I feel the need to respect in a universal and generic way simply because it is The Law. And, being a US citizen, I'm rather glad that the USA's founding fathers apparently felt the same way.
I beg to differ. Copyright is not good.
Linux uses it
Linux uses copyleft, which is a terrible hack of copyright which uses copyright in order to prevent people from exercising copyright. Linux only uses copyright in order to get around issues regarding copyright; Linux would in no way be harmed if copyright went away.
News sources use it
Huh? Last I checked, it is not a crime to run the same story as a competing news source, and it is inherently disreputable to copy their exact words/images, with or without copyright law.
Our society practically requires it to function properly
Sadly true. But I would argue that this is only because our society has been brainwashed to believe that ideas are property that can be owned.
You completely missed the point of his argument. It wasn't "sell better quality products". It was "make the products more easily accessible". Piracy happens not only because it is free, but because it is one of the most convenient ways of getting a product. By making your product more easily accessible, you win over many would-be pirates.
the media needs to aim for shocking penalties for those caught ... stealing from people who are literally defenceless
lmao. Also, I find the number of times you refer to "theft" and "stealing" to be quite hilarious.
There's more to "Open" than just "Open source". For example, suppose I want to make an iPhone app. I need to buy a mac, and use xcode. Android is clearly more "open" in regard to developer tools.
Because we here at slashdot are strong supporters of the imaginary^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H intellectual property system. It is a well-designed and fair system.
At least *one* of us has to pretend like we believe this is a credible story.
If I say "Steve Jobs", my entire immediate family, and most extended family, know who I'm talking about.
If I say "Dennis Ritchie", not a single relative knows who I'm talking about.
And my relatives are generally not Apple fanboys. A few cousins, maybe.
I have a G1. It runs plain old Android 1.6. I still have "the Internet in my pocket". I don't see what updates have to do with this at all; if your friend cares about having the latest and greatest, but doesn't actually care about being able to configure or control very much about his device, then the hipster factor would point him to an iPhone anyways.
This is simply the wrong way to think about it. We, the human race, with online courses, will now be able to be more efficient with our use of manpower. I don't mean to diminish the role of those who enjoy lecturing, but instead of lecturing, those people can now spend even more time diving into their field of study accomplishing good things.
I am definitely not an Apple fanboy, but I was deeply moved by Jobs' death. For better or for worse, Steve Jobs made a big difference in personal computing. As I reflected on my feelings, I said to myself "the only death of a figure in the tech field that I would find more moving than Jobs would probably be RMS". I'm not the biggest fan of what RMS has said about Steve Jobs here, but similar to my non-Apple-fanboyism, that won't change in the slightest my deep respect for RMS and his contribution to FOSS.
Use tagging *and* search. Run a global search, and scan the results for the tags you think you most likely applied to the email you are searching for. It doesn't have to be a dichotomy.
The idea is to let you choose how much money you want to waste on TV. If you want the popular, lucrative channels, then you may pay for them. Or not. This is not a bait and switch. This is someone whining that they will now have to pay slightly more for the channels they want to watch, rather than forcing the rest of the viewership to subsidize them. Just because the cable companies will end up getting more money doesn't mean this is a bad thing for me; it just means that a lot of people are dumb enough to shell out more money for the dumb things they watch on TV.
What, you don't think artists want longer copyrights?
I'm pretty sure most of them are satisfied that it lasts their whole life. Life plus X years is probably meaningless to most of them. (Hooray, my great-grandkids can still extort money out of people for this piece of "art" that I made 60 years ago? I'm pretty sure J.R.R. is rolling in his grave.)
Thank you, generic Google-defender. I love me some Google, too. But this is criticism straight from RMS, you know, someone who actually *cares* passionately about "openness" (as opposed to MSFT, AAPL, etc)
In a word: yes.
In two words: by far.
In three words: very much so.
Who is this "we" that the TFS mentions?? .. now git off my lawn.
We == all teh hipstas?
If you actually read section 15, it includes instructions for how to opt out of the waiver: send a letter to Sony HQ. Now, let's be honest, this is absolutely retarded. It would be 1000x easier for the customer if there were a web-based way to do this. Send an email. Check this checkbox. Whatever. It seems apparent that Sony feels obligated (legally, perhaps, definitely not morally) to provide this option, but they want to provide it in such a way that the absolute minimum number of customers will take advantage of it. I'd love to see statistics on how many people actually send an opt-out letter.
So I guess Microsoft is now admitting that Silverlight is worthless?
A lot of your "not evil" points can be offset by the "is evil" point: "Google only does things that are in their business' best interest."
So...you're saying capitalism within a competetive market is evil? I'd call it good business.
So, if you configure your torrenting client to only connect to official tinyBuild seeders, and to not seed to anyone, then as you download it no one breaks the law. Of course that defeats the purpose of the BitTorrent protocol, but whatever.
How does it make you feel that There are actually people stupid enough to believe that shit?
About 2/3 superiority, 1/6 incredulity, 1/6 detesting humanity.
This is getting screwy. First, it's "we promise that copyrighted material will fall into to the public domain in 14 years". Then they're all like "No, wait, we meant to say 30 years. Definitely this stuff will be in public domain in 30 years." And then they're like "Fifty years, people definitely deserve to reap the benefits for fifty years. 30 years is totally unfair why would we have ever said only a mere 30 years?" And now they dare venture to say that "Actually 70 years. We gotta incentivise...stuff...you know...and...if you just wait for 70 years then it will so TOTALLY be in public domain. Promise." Sorry, guys, we've been waiting for 36 extra years already, and the initial 14 years was probably longer than we should have waited in the first place. You honestly think that we are OK with waiting another 20??? Even if we were willing to wait, do you really think we would be stupid enough to believe you this time? It's eerie how relevant this clip is: Lucy swiping the football from Charlie Brown.
That sent a cold chill up my spine.
Open Source != Open Development Process. I know lots of people are going for this warm fuzzy community feeling around the term "open source", but really, "open source" just means the source is released to the public under a permissive license. Nothing more. Don't get me wrong, I think that Open Development Process is totally the way to go. But don't think that everyone that says "open source" means "open development process".