But he's forgetting something, the 'can be done' attitude is what will prevail for a simple reason: short of shutting down the net, you can't stop information from being transmitted. It's the same in the case against Napster. Just because you shut one program down doesn't mean you've solved the problem.
You can scan for bit patterns all you want, someone's just gonna come up with a new way to organize those bits. As long as the information is allowed to pass from point A to point B, you can check it all you want, but if the information is well hidden, it's gonna get through.
This post both saddens and worries me. It is just this sort of hubris, this sort of arrogance, that, uncorrected, will seal the doom of freedom on the net.
It is, I guess, understandable. A group of people are used to being the effective rulers, the kings of the court. Most importantly, that group is used to viewing itself as omni-competent. A good feeling. Must be very difficult to face the possiblity that, given the tasks and risks that lie ahead, one's skill set may currently be inadequate, that there are others, who while certainly not smarter, are more knowledgeable in now relevant data and theory, that one is no longer one of the rulers.
Must be really irritating, prehaps humiliating, to face the possibility that one can code in six different languages, and sys admin four different linux distributions and three brands of BSD, manage routers, handle encryption... and then have to bow down to an attorney, a scum bag attorney, because he has a subpoena and a complaint and, though you don't want to admit it, some knowledge you do not have -- knowledge of the law.
I've heard cliches -- the internet was designed to survive an nuclear attack. The net routes around blockage. Bullshit.
The net is grounded in physical reality. Servers, buildings, companies, corporations, people. People who don't want to be arrested, or sued, or lose risk their homes, their jobs or their childrens' college fund. No matter how much you might wish it, the net is beyond neither the reach of the law nor the jurisdiction of the court.
I've already seen the fight played out on the usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology regarding the Scientology secret scriptures. The hubris, the arrogance, the reliance on "technical" solutions, the inevitable result. Yes, the secret scriptures were placed on a server in Russia, and then in China, and people had great fun. People relied on anonymous remailers -- until they were threatened with lawsuits. For awhile the secret scriputres were publicly all over the place. And where are they now? Nowhere. Oh, I'm sure somebody here could point me to a gopher site somewhere that still has them, or some hidden directory of a web site, or someplace else hidden, but that wasn't the point of the net, was it? If it isn't visible on Yahoo or Google or Hot Bot or Alta Vista, it is not there -- not unless your only purpose is to communicate with the "in" crowd, those already in the know. In the meantime one technically very smart, very well meaning, brave alt.religion.scientology person has a $75,000 judgment against him and has filed bankruptcy. Why? Because he thought he was so f*cking smart that his interpretation of the law was correct, he could represent himself in pro per, and all of the lawyers were full of shit. (Sigh, this is perhaps a bit harsh. I've just seen far too many "netizens" assume that all lawyers and judges are scum and idiots, who learn nothing in either law school or practice, and that one can learn it in a weekend.) Why did the other alt.religion.scientology people lose the battle over the secret scriptures? Because they relied only on remailers and distant web sites, and wouldn't bother to learn the law of fair use. (Again, this is a probably a bit unfair, in that some did try to learn, and stay within fair use, but not enough. You get my point.)
Forgive me for perhaps overreacting to your post, and perhaps striking down a strawman that was not there. No offense intended. I actually mean well.:)
Again, there is a belief among some Slashdoters, and perhaps a need... a craving to believe, that the net is beyond the governments, the law, the jurisdiction of courts. Perhaps a need to believe that one is completely self-reliant, and that one doesn't need attorneys, or to learn the law.
I can predict at least one inevitable response to this post. Freenet. Freenet will save us. If you think that the governments, the legal systems, the societies of the world are really going to allow a completely uncontrolled, unregulated, extra-legal international forum capable of sending child porn, defamtion, slander, trade secrets, and the the binary data for every program, song, film or scanned book ever made to anyone anywhere anytime, you don't get it, and you really really need to. I already saw what happened with the anonymous remailers re: Scientology.
Again, I appolize if I sound harsh. Please consider it tough love. I want you to protect yourselves.
I think I understand. You have decided that (a) Brittany Spears is not "creative" or "artisitic" but sells because, and only because of marketing; (b) millions young girls don't know what they really want, but are brainwashed; and (c) the copyright system therefore does not fulfill its purpose of promoting creativity. The opinions and desires of millions of people do not matter, because you disagree they are obviously brain washed. Because you have decided these things, the copyright system should be scrapped, and people have a moral right to copy and distribute Brittany Spears music, and any other music for that matter, with neither permission nor payment.
Does the same appy to books? Some consider Grisham to be a mere product of marketing, and not creative. Can I morally and ethically scan his latest book and upload it onto my web page for anyone to download without compensation?
People would buy a Brittany Spears album and "share" it with their 100 friends on the net, and each one of those would share it with their closest 100 friends, etc.
If people care so little about Brittany that they won't pay to support her, well, I guess that means she won't be able to pay her bills. I believe that's called capitalism. Whether or not they get to listen to her music is incidental to the matter. If the only way you can get people to pay you is to hold a figurative gun to their head, what a sad state of affairs it is for you.
You "believe that's called capitalism? For people to decide after they have taken or copied something whether, and how much, they are going to pay for it?
Let me see if I understand you. I purchase a 300 page novel. Scan it. Upload it onto my web page for anyone to download. People do so. If people care so little about the author they they won't pay to support him, well, I guess that means he won't be able to pay his bills. That is called capitalism. If the author can only get people to pay by holding a figurative gun to their heads, well that really is a sad state of affairs.
I agree completely with above. However, once they bought it, it is theirs to do whatever they want to do with it. Listen to it. Break it. Convert it to mp3. Sell it for double price. Sell it for half price. Sell it with contract that requires buyer to give their soul. Give it away for free. Pay someone to take it away. Whatever. Since it is now theirs, THEY (and not original seller) can make terms.
Or hireing or landing it to anyone (even to my neighbour, even thou I won't charge him a dime).
Two questions. Are there any limitations on this? And does this reasoning apply to books? Assume I purchase a 300 page novel. Is it morally and ehtically ok for me to make 50 copies of it and hand it out to friends? Is it morally and ethically ok for me to scan it, load it onto my web page, and allow anyone to download it? After all, after I've bought it, it is mine to do whatever I want to do with it.
Does this apply to software? Say you write a program, and sell it, or even GPL it. Is it morally and ethically ok for me to strip off the license agreement, load it onto my web page, and allow anyone to download it?
The question is, do we need to? The financial incentive was invented because it promoted more creativity. I sincerely doubt that it actually does promote creativity anymore; what the RIAA are involved in is not a form of creativity, it is a form of marketing.
Today, the vast majority of creativity *is* unrewarded. In the forms of all those unpaid artists, wether music makers or painters or others.
I think I see an argument here that I freequently see on Slashdot. I don't mean to create a strawman, but I'm confident somebody will correct me if I've misintrepreted you.:)
I think you may be arguing that the intellectual property law in general, and copyright law in particular, have not fulfilled their purpose of promoting creativity because popular culture is, well, crap. I call this the Brittany Spears argument.:) But the question is, who decides what is "crap" and what is "creative?" You? I don't think so.:) Indivual consumers do. And whether we would agree or not, f*cking million of people want more Brittany Spears "music." They want it so much they are willing to pay for it. I know this is a bit simplistic, but if the majority of cosumers wanted the currently unpaid artist, they would probably get him or her. Quite frankly, the record companies don't care if it is "artistic" or if it is "crap," if it is Brittany Spears or Joan Armatraging (sp. sorry, she is great). And they want to do is move product, which is means giving people what they want.
I'm troubled by the possible implication in your post -- I could be wrong -- that everything is crap, therefore: (a) the artist does not deserve any compensation; and (b) we should get it for free, or for whatever we, not the artist, decides it's worth.
I think it may come down to this. If people truely believe that a given product of popular culture is not "creative" and is otherwise without value, fine, don't buy it. But then please don't decide to copy it without permission and without compensation.
Sorry for the mistake re: posting. Hit the wrong button.:( Allow me to fix the format:
if you're paying for cds, which cost something to produce each one, then every single one that is purchased should be paid for. the problem is, things that are produced once and distributed without an individual cost to the creator are being sold as thought they do. that's wrong.
Why is it wrong?
Please consider this hypothetical. I want to see the X-Men movie (for the third time:). The theatre is open. Some people have already paid for their tickets. Why shouldn't I be able to walk in for free? Damn it, I have a right to walk in for free! After all, it doesn't cost the producer's of the movie anything more to let me in for free. Assuming the showing is not sold out, it doesn't even even cost the theatre owner anything - I'm not depriving anyone of a seat. If I had to pay (again) I wouldn't go, so they aren't losing anything by letting me in for free.
but we cannot ignore that this technology is present, the laws and workings of this system must adapt to fit the developments in technology that so deeply affect it.
Now I'm going to say something that you, and many people on Slashdot, are may like. It is horrible. It is this. Sometimes, just sometimes, technology is forced to adapt to the legal system. Because something is technically possible does not mean it legally possible, much less morally correct.
It may, just may, be the case that the internet is not completely beyond the operation of the law.
if you're paying for cds, which cost something to produce each one, then every single one that is purchased should be paid for. the problem is, things that are produced once and distributed without an individual cost to the creator are being sold as thought they do. that's wrong.
Why is it wrong?
Please consider this hypothetical. I want to see the X-Men movie (for the third time:). The theatre is open. Some people have already paid for their tickets. Why shouldn't I be able to walk in for free? Damn it, I have a right to walk in for free! After all, it doesn't cost the producer's of the movie anything more to let me in for free. Assuming the showing is not sold out, it doesn't even even cost the theatre owner anything - I'm not depriving anyone of a seat. If I had to pay (again) I wouldn't go, so they aren't losing anything by letting me in for free.
but we cannot ignore that this technology is present, the laws and workings of this system must adapt to fit the developments in technology that so deeply affect it.
Now I'm going to say something that you, and many people on slashdot, are not going to like. It is horrible. It is this. Sometimes, just sometimes, technology is forced to adapt to the legal system. Because something is technically possible does not mean it legally possible, much less morally correct.
It may, just may, be the case that the internet is not completely beyond the operation of the law.
What's really disturbing to me about these pointless advocacy debates is the hidden presumption that everybody must be forced into one standard interface despite their personal preferences.
I disagree. I believe the vast majority of people -- consumers who see a computer as a tool, and just want to get work done -- want one standard interface. If they have to sit down at a new computer, or open up a new application, they don't want to have to learn a new interface. And for those that do, with Linux there are plenty of alternatives.
I suspect you don't want to hear this, but Linux is not going to make it on the desktop if consumers perceive that they must deal with all sorts of confusing, competing, inconsistent desktops.
And why should you care if Linux makes it on the desktop? So that you can get all of the drivers and hardware support you need. So you get the mass market behind you, instead of in your way.
Also, to be honest, I'm sure that businesses want to be able to reduce training costs. To the extent that Gnome, KDE, Enlightenment, etc., etc., are dissimilar, they businesses don't want to have people wrestling with different desktops.
Oh, and I should point out that a leasehold interest isn't property. It is a "contractual interest".
Really? Then how do you explain this summary of landlord - tenant law by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School:
The basis of the legal relationship between a landlord and tenant is grounded in both contract and property law. The tenant has a property interest in the land (historically a non-freehold estate) for a given period of time.
Do you honestly believe that the amount of theft or unauthorized, uncompensated copying would decrease if the record companies sold "ISO9660 CDROM with professionally encoded MP3's?"
Yes, I do. Try, for example, to download a good (that is, one which mpg123 returns no errors on) copy of the entire Mark Twang album by John Hartford. How long does it take you? How much is your time worth? How much money did it save you? Oh, but I forgot -- you can't buy what you just downloaded. It's literally priceless!
FWIW, I honestly believe that *you* would pay for it, and not copy it for all of your friends, or put it on a network so that 1,000 other people could copy it for free. I also believe that you are falling into the trap of assuming that others are as good and self-disciplined as you are. While not all people would act in the way I fear, a substantial number, I believe a majority, certainly would. Certainly more than are doing so now, because it would be so much easier. People would buy a Brittany Spears album and "share" it with their 100 friends on the net, and each one of those would share it with their closest 100 friends, etc.
The problem here is that copyrights are NOT property. Property as defined in the traditional capitalist economic theory is forever.
This is simply untrue. The law recognizes as property interests that, by definition, do not last forever. One example, a leasehold interest in land is property.
It exists because one object cannot be owned by two persons at the same time. They cannot use it both.
This is also untrue. Tenants in common of land both own a complete, undivided interest in the land. Same is true of joint tenants.
Your understanding of property law is simply wrong, and has been for centuries.
Can I go into a store and buy an ISO9660 CDROM with professionally encoded MP3's on it? No. So how can you say that I'm stealing something?
If the RIAA wants to complain about theft, let them sell what they claim people are stealing.
I disagree. Just because somebody is unwilling to sell you something does not give you the *right* to steal it -- or, for those who object to the word "steal" in this context (and I understand their objections), the *right* to copy it with niether permission nor payment.
If I have written a book, but refuse to sell it to you or anyone else, that does not give you the right to steal it? If I was good enough to loan it to you, that does not give you the right to photocopy the entire thing without my permission?
Do you honestly believe that the amount of theft or unauthorized, uncompensated copying would decrease if the record companies sold "ISO9660 CDROM with professionally encoded MP3's?" Absolutely not. The amount of theft or unauthorized, uncompensated copying would skyrocket because technically less sophisticated people would no longer have to learn how to either rip cds or "master" Napster, Gnuetella, etc.
The record companies are not obligated to provide music in an inherently insecure format just because you want them to. And their failure to satisfy your desire does not give you the right to steal or copy their work.
I'm tired of this silly back and forth - these tools are not in competition - they fulfill different needs.
This is an honest question, albeit one that demonstrates my ignorance:), and not a troll. Why are Perl and Python not in competition? What are the different needs that they fulfill? What does Perl do that Python doesn't, and vice versa? What does Python do better than Perl, and vice versa?
My purpose is NOT to start a religious war, but to honestly learn which to work with.
Why would any selfrespecting linux user put AOL anything on his box?
I am a Linux user. I currently have one machine devoted to Red Hat 6.2, while my other machine multiboots Caldera 2.4 and Win 98.
For ISPs, I use both Earthlink and, yes, gasp, AOL.
Why do I still have AOL?
The sophisticated, let's see if I can show how smart I am, buzzword answer: network effects.
The practical reason: That is where *many* of my friends are. They are great people -- smart, intelligent, well educated, funny, caring, and perhaps most importantly for our purposes, diverse. Artists, musicians, political activists, attorneys, religious people, mothers, fathers, grandparents, and children.
A large number of these people don't know a lot about computers, and most importantly, they don't really want to know any more than they do. To the vast majority of these people, the computer is now, in addition to being a word processor, a communcation device -- a telephone, but without long distance charges. A way to talk about common insterests. A way to socialize. A way not to be alone at night.
In the past, I've tried to move these people to Earthlink + IRC. No way. Even with a graphical IRC client like MIRC, it is *way* too complicated for them. They don't want to learn. It's not as easy as operating a telephone. And why should they learn? Because *you* think they should? Please. Collectively and individually they learn, master, delelop and create an enormous number of beautiful, useful, and important things everyday. It just so happens they don't have any interest in doing so in the area of computers.
Can I communicate with them via the various AOL clients for Linux? I have, and do. (I use Tik. Indeed, I found that after I installed Tik I was spending a lot more time in Linux, and a lot less time in Windows.) But I discovered something important. It is not the quite the same. I'm outside the group discussion, and not quite an equal member of the group.
The horrible, embarrassing truth? It is worth $20 a month for me to be able to go into a chat room whenever I want, know that a number of my friends are going to be there, and talk with them. Yes, I also talk to friends on IRC. But these important friends are on, and only on, AOL.
Other advantages: E-mail is instantaneous. Plus, you can tell when somebody has received your e-mail.
The other surprising advantage: I frequently get better FTP throughput when connected via AOL than I do under Earthlink, or than I ever did under Mindspring.
I went to the west coast premier of the X-Men. It was held at 12:01 a.m. Friday at the Avco Theater in Westwood (a part of Los Angeles), CA. I had a great time.
It appears the premier was organized by Counting Down. You can find their X-Men fan site here. People started lining up the Monday before the movie. At 5:00 p.m. Friday night a mock "rally" was held to "protest Senator Kelly and his poisonous agenda." It was all in good fun, and some of the drivers on Wilshire Blvd. honked their horns in support.
The nicest thing about the premier was that Tyler Mane, the actor who plays Sabertooth, showed up. (A former WCW wrestler, he is a *big* guy.) Tyler was a great guy, introducing himself to the people in line, signing autographs and even taking the tickets at the door. (Got an autograph for a friend.)
The theater let us in about an hour early. Everybody got a X-Men pin and/or poster, plus Senator Kelly's campaign literature. They tossed beach balls into the audience to keep us occupied (it did), and then held an X-Men trivia contest. Among the prizes were t-shirts, trading card sets, red sun glasses (very popular), and a Sony Playstation complete with X-Men game. (I won a Xavier School for Gifted Youngserts t-shirt.) I very much liked the fact they made sure the little kid next to me got a set of trading cards.
As you will suspect, the audience *loved* the movie. Everyone had a great time
I also saw the movie with a friend on Saturday night, which was interesting. While this audience also obviously enjoyed the movie, it was clear that they didn't get a lot of the inside jokes. Still, it was worth seeing twice.
If you want to know if you are a mutant, you might want to check out Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters. (Warning: Flash "enabled" site -- but fun.:)
If you are concerned about mutant rights, you might want to check out Mutant Rights. They don't have much there yet, but promise more in the furture.
"the same trademark concerns the Abisource people have regarding trademarks."
Duh! Sorry. Talk about redundant. That is what I get for posting prior to my first cup of coffee. Obviously, the above should be something like "the same concerns the Abisource people have regarding trademarks."
I couldn't find the license agreement on the web site. I downloaded the VisualPython-0.1.tar.gz file. After extracting same, I found the file/VisualPython-0.1/Copying that appears to contain the license. That file states:
Terms and Conditions
Copyright (c) 2000 Phil Thompson (phil@river-bank.demon.co.uk)
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Except as contained in this notice, the name of the copyright holder shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from the copyright holder.
At first glance, this appears to be a variation of the BSD license.
The addtional paragraph stating that, except as provided, "the name of the copyright holder shall not be used in advertising" is interesting. The purpose of this paragraph appears to be to address, or at least attempt to address, the same trademark concerns the Abisource people have regarding trademarks..
Slashdot Mirror
This post both saddens and worries me. It is just this sort of hubris, this sort of arrogance, that, uncorrected, will seal the doom of freedom on the net.
It is, I guess, understandable. A group of people are used to being the effective rulers, the kings of the court. Most importantly, that group is used to viewing itself as omni-competent. A good feeling. Must be very difficult to face the possiblity that, given the tasks and risks that lie ahead, one's skill set may currently be inadequate, that there are others, who while certainly not smarter, are more knowledgeable in now relevant data and theory, that one is no longer one of the rulers.
Must be really irritating, prehaps humiliating, to face the possibility that one can code in six different languages, and sys admin four different linux distributions and three brands of BSD, manage routers, handle encryption... and then have to bow down to an attorney, a scum bag attorney, because he has a subpoena and a complaint and, though you don't want to admit it, some knowledge you do not have -- knowledge of the law.
I've heard cliches -- the internet was designed to survive an nuclear attack. The net routes around blockage. Bullshit.
The net is grounded in physical reality. Servers, buildings, companies, corporations, people. People who don't want to be arrested, or sued, or lose risk their homes, their jobs or their childrens' college fund. No matter how much you might wish it, the net is beyond neither the reach of the law nor the jurisdiction of the court.
I've already seen the fight played out on the usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology regarding the Scientology secret scriptures. The hubris, the arrogance, the reliance on "technical" solutions, the inevitable result. Yes, the secret scriptures were placed on a server in Russia, and then in China, and people had great fun. People relied on anonymous remailers -- until they were threatened with lawsuits. For awhile the secret scriputres were publicly all over the place. And where are they now? Nowhere. Oh, I'm sure somebody here could point me to a gopher site somewhere that still has them, or some hidden directory of a web site, or someplace else hidden, but that wasn't the point of the net, was it? If it isn't visible on Yahoo or Google or Hot Bot or Alta Vista, it is not there -- not unless your only purpose is to communicate with the "in" crowd, those already in the know. In the meantime one technically very smart, very well meaning, brave alt.religion.scientology person has a $75,000 judgment against him and has filed bankruptcy. Why? Because he thought he was so f*cking smart that his interpretation of the law was correct, he could represent himself in pro per, and all of the lawyers were full of shit. (Sigh, this is perhaps a bit harsh. I've just seen far too many "netizens" assume that all lawyers and judges are scum and idiots, who learn nothing in either law school or practice, and that one can learn it in a weekend.) Why did the other alt.religion.scientology people lose the battle over the secret scriptures? Because they relied only on remailers and distant web sites, and wouldn't bother to learn the law of fair use. (Again, this is a probably a bit unfair, in that some did try to learn, and stay within fair use, but not enough. You get my point.)
Forgive me for perhaps overreacting to your post, and perhaps striking down a strawman that was not there. No offense intended. I actually mean well.
Again, there is a belief among some Slashdoters, and perhaps a need... a craving to believe, that the net is beyond the governments, the law, the jurisdiction of courts. Perhaps a need to believe that one is completely self-reliant, and that one doesn't need attorneys, or to learn the law.
I can predict at least one inevitable response to this post. Freenet. Freenet will save us. If you think that the governments, the legal systems, the societies of the world are really going to allow a completely uncontrolled, unregulated, extra-legal international forum capable of sending child porn, defamtion, slander, trade secrets, and the the binary data for every program, song, film or scanned book ever made to anyone anywhere anytime, you don't get it, and you really really need to. I already saw what happened with the anonymous remailers re: Scientology.
Again, I appolize if I sound harsh. Please consider it tough love. I want you to protect yourselves.
I think I understand. You have decided that (a) Brittany Spears is not "creative" or "artisitic" but sells because, and only because of marketing; (b) millions young girls don't know what they really want, but are brainwashed; and (c) the copyright system therefore does not fulfill its purpose of promoting creativity. The opinions and desires of millions of people do not matter, because you disagree they are obviously brain washed. Because you have decided these things, the copyright system should be scrapped, and people have a moral right to copy and distribute Brittany Spears music, and any other music for that matter, with neither permission nor payment.
Does the same appy to books? Some consider Grisham to be a mere product of marketing, and not creative. Can I morally and ethically scan his latest book and upload it onto my web page for anyone to download without compensation?
You "believe that's called capitalism? For people to decide after they have taken or copied something whether, and how much, they are going to pay for it?
Let me see if I understand you. I purchase a 300 page novel. Scan it. Upload it onto my web page for anyone to download. People do so. If people care so little about the author they they won't pay to support him, well, I guess that means he won't be able to pay his bills. That is called capitalism. If the author can only get people to pay by holding a figurative gun to their heads, well that really is a sad state of affairs.
Two questions. Are there any limitations on this? And does this reasoning apply to books? Assume I purchase a 300 page novel. Is it morally and ehtically ok for me to make 50 copies of it and hand it out to friends? Is it morally and ethically ok for me to scan it, load it onto my web page, and allow anyone to download it? After all, after I've bought it, it is mine to do whatever I want to do with it.
Does this apply to software? Say you write a program, and sell it, or even GPL it. Is it morally and ethically ok for me to strip off the license agreement, load it onto my web page, and allow anyone to download it?
I think I see an argument here that I freequently see on Slashdot. I don't mean to create a strawman, but I'm confident somebody will correct me if I've misintrepreted you.
I think you may be arguing that the intellectual property law in general, and copyright law in particular, have not fulfilled their purpose of promoting creativity because popular culture is, well, crap. I call this the Brittany Spears argument.
I'm troubled by the possible implication in your post -- I could be wrong -- that everything is crap, therefore: (a) the artist does not deserve any compensation; and (b) we should get it for free, or for whatever we, not the artist, decides it's worth.
I think it may come down to this. If people truely believe that a given product of popular culture is not "creative" and is otherwise without value, fine, don't buy it. But then please don't decide to copy it without permission and without compensation.
Sorry for the mistake re: posting. Hit the wrong button.
Why is it wrong?
Please consider this hypothetical. I want to see the X-Men movie (for the third time
Now I'm going to say something that you, and many people on Slashdot, are may like. It is horrible. It is this. Sometimes, just sometimes, technology is forced to adapt to the legal system. Because something is technically possible does not mean it legally possible, much less morally correct.
It may, just may, be the case that the internet is not completely beyond the operation of the law.
Why is it wrong?
Please consider this hypothetical. I want to see the X-Men movie (for the third time
I disagree. I believe the vast majority of people -- consumers who see a computer as a tool, and just want to get work done -- want one standard interface. If they have to sit down at a new computer, or open up a new application, they don't want to have to learn a new interface. And for those that do, with Linux there are plenty of alternatives.
I suspect you don't want to hear this, but Linux is not going to make it on the desktop if consumers perceive that they must deal with all sorts of confusing, competing, inconsistent desktops.
And why should you care if Linux makes it on the desktop? So that you can get all of the drivers and hardware support you need. So you get the mass market behind you, instead of in your way.
Also, to be honest, I'm sure that businesses want to be able to reduce training costs. To the extent that Gnome, KDE, Enlightenment, etc., etc., are dissimilar, they businesses don't want to have people wrestling with different desktops.
Really? Then how do you explain this summary of landlord - tenant law by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School: See Landlord-Tenant Law: An Overview. See also Restatement (Second) of Property --Property/Landlord Tenant.
FWIW, I honestly believe that *you* would pay for it, and not copy it for all of your friends, or put it on a network so that 1,000 other people could copy it for free. I also believe that you are falling into the trap of assuming that others are as good and self-disciplined as you are. While not all people would act in the way I fear, a substantial number, I believe a majority, certainly would. Certainly more than are doing so now, because it would be so much easier. People would buy a Brittany Spears album and "share" it with their 100 friends on the net, and each one of those would share it with their closest 100 friends, etc.
This is simply untrue. The law recognizes as property interests that, by definition, do not last forever. One example, a leasehold interest in land is property.
This is also untrue. Tenants in common of land both own a complete, undivided interest in the land. Same is true of joint tenants.
Your understanding of property law is simply wrong, and has been for centuries.
I disagree. Just because somebody is unwilling to sell you something does not give you the *right* to steal it -- or, for those who object to the word "steal" in this context (and I understand their objections), the *right* to copy it with niether permission nor payment.
If I have written a book, but refuse to sell it to you or anyone else, that does not give you the right to steal it? If I was good enough to loan it to you, that does not give you the right to photocopy the entire thing without my permission?
Do you honestly believe that the amount of theft or unauthorized, uncompensated copying would decrease if the record companies sold "ISO9660 CDROM with professionally encoded MP3's?" Absolutely not. The amount of theft or unauthorized, uncompensated copying would skyrocket because technically less sophisticated people would no longer have to learn how to either rip cds or "master" Napster, Gnuetella, etc.
The record companies are not obligated to provide music in an inherently insecure format just because you want them to. And their failure to satisfy your desire does not give you the right to steal or copy their work.
My purpose is NOT to start a religious war, but to honestly learn which to work with.
I am a Linux user. I currently have one machine devoted to Red Hat 6.2, while my other machine multiboots Caldera 2.4 and Win 98.
For ISPs, I use both Earthlink and, yes, gasp, AOL.
Why do I still have AOL?
The sophisticated, let's see if I can show how smart I am, buzzword answer: network effects.
The practical reason: That is where *many* of my friends are. They are great people -- smart, intelligent, well educated, funny, caring, and perhaps most importantly for our purposes, diverse. Artists, musicians, political activists, attorneys, religious people, mothers, fathers, grandparents, and children.
A large number of these people don't know a lot about computers, and most importantly, they don't really want to know any more than they do. To the vast majority of these people, the computer is now, in addition to being a word processor, a communcation device -- a telephone, but without long distance charges. A way to talk about common insterests. A way to socialize. A way not to be alone at night.
In the past, I've tried to move these people to Earthlink + IRC. No way. Even with a graphical IRC client like MIRC, it is *way* too complicated for them. They don't want to learn. It's not as easy as operating a telephone. And why should they learn? Because *you* think they should? Please. Collectively and individually they learn, master, delelop and create an enormous number of beautiful, useful, and important things everyday. It just so happens they don't have any interest in doing so in the area of computers.
Can I communicate with them via the various AOL clients for Linux? I have, and do. (I use Tik. Indeed, I found that after I installed Tik I was spending a lot more time in Linux, and a lot less time in Windows.) But I discovered something important. It is not the quite the same. I'm outside the group discussion, and not quite an equal member of the group.
The horrible, embarrassing truth? It is worth $20 a month for me to be able to go into a chat room whenever I want, know that a number of my friends are going to be there, and talk with them. Yes, I also talk to friends on IRC. But these important friends are on, and only on, AOL.
Other advantages: E-mail is instantaneous. Plus, you can tell when somebody has received your e-mail.
The other surprising advantage: I frequently get better FTP throughput when connected via AOL than I do under Earthlink, or than I ever did under Mindspring.
I went to the west coast premier of the X-Men. It was held at 12:01 a.m. Friday at the Avco Theater in Westwood (a part of Los Angeles), CA. I had a great time.
It appears the premier was organized by Counting Down. You can find their X-Men fan site here. People started lining up the Monday before the movie. At 5:00 p.m. Friday night a mock "rally" was held to "protest Senator Kelly and his poisonous agenda." It was all in good fun, and some of the drivers on Wilshire Blvd. honked their horns in support.
The nicest thing about the premier was that Tyler Mane, the actor who plays Sabertooth, showed up. (A former WCW wrestler, he is a *big* guy.) Tyler was a great guy, introducing himself to the people in line, signing autographs and even taking the tickets at the door. (Got an autograph for a friend.)
The theater let us in about an hour early. Everybody got a X-Men pin and/or poster, plus Senator Kelly's campaign literature. They tossed beach balls into the audience to keep us occupied (it did), and then held an X-Men trivia contest. Among the prizes were t-shirts, trading card sets, red sun glasses (very popular), and a Sony Playstation complete with X-Men game. (I won a Xavier School for Gifted Youngserts t-shirt.) I very much liked the fact they made sure the little kid next to me got a set of trading cards.
As you will suspect, the audience *loved* the movie. Everyone had a great time
I also saw the movie with a friend on Saturday night, which was interesting. While this audience also obviously enjoyed the movie, it was clear that they didn't get a lot of the inside jokes. Still, it was worth seeing twice.
If you want to know if you are a mutant, you might want to check out Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters. (Warning: Flash "enabled" site -- but fun.
If you are concerned about mutant rights, you might want to check out Mutant Rights. They don't have much there yet, but promise more in the furture.
Quoting myself: Duh! Sorry. Talk about redundant. That is what I get for posting prior to my first cup of coffee. Obviously, the above should be something like "the same concerns the Abisource people have regarding trademarks."
I couldn't find the license agreement on the web site. I downloaded the VisualPython-0.1
The addtional paragraph stating that, except as provided, "the name of the copyright holder shall not be used in advertising" is interesting. The purpose of this paragraph appears to be to address, or at least attempt to address, the same trademark concerns the Abisource people have regarding trademarks..