If no one asked him to bring in the snacks, then no one owes him anything. If he does not charge for the snacks and they are available to everyone, no one owes him anything. If some people follow his example and bring in snacks, the rest of the people do not owe him or the others anything.
Your analogy assumes that the person doing the giving is expecting something in return. Just like all the FLOSS fanboys are giving away applications and code and now expect something in return.
In essence, that is false gift giving because the giver expects to get "paid". Might as well volunteer your service, then send the recipients of said service a bill because they didn't turn around and volunteer their services.
The license says the corporations don't have to contribute the code that has been developed internally, so why should they, especially if the changes were specific to the internal application of the corporation?
Your entire post is your opinion, which boils down to "They made it and are following the rules, but I want it so they should give it to me even though they are not required to do so."
The simple answer is, "Yes," people should give back to the open source community. That said, ethics often take a back seat to the free market economy. Personal responsibility is oft preached but rarely, if ever, practiced.
but what happened to all the low cost power we were supposed to have...but, it has been held back mainly from the wealthy energy companies mass marketing/political investing to keep mass acceptance from ever happening.
Um, no. Environmentalists happened to it, ignorant, FUD spreading environmentalists. The energy companies wanted nuclear power but the FUD spread by the tree-huggers, helped along by movies like "The China Syndrome" had so many people screaming "Not in MY back yard" and Congress passing so many rules and regulations that nuclear power plants could not be built with a reasonable amount of money, nor could a site for construction be found. I grew up during that period. I remember the panels, the inquiries, the protests. I remember companies shutting down construction of nuclear plants because concerned groups of people, like your parents, were suing them for fear their kids would grow a third eye.
Look at the fall of the rail shipping system. If the railroads where not allowed to be bought out by the larger trucking companies, you would have only regional trucking from the nearest railhead to customer, versus cross country truck shipping.
Um, no again. The reason there is long haul trucking is that it was cheaper and more efficient to move freight by road directly to the distribution centers rather than paying for rail spurs and service.
I suggest you read a book on history instead of just making shit up.
Not quite, safes exists because a portion of the public doesn't respect other people's money and propert. The majority does.
Safes violates the rights of the whole of the public. In raw numbers, safes do the most harm.
Given how eager both consumers and producers are to violate each others rights, I'd say that the whole of theft law needs to be evaluated and replaced with a more workable system.
That is not what he said. Effectively, he said that "cultural content" give him the right to violate copyright. That is false. It is false even using the wording in your post.
Philosophically, DRM is a horrible horrible thing. The public has a responsibility to fight against it.
The public also has a responsibility to respect copyright, which they do not do. That is why there is DRM. DRM exists soley because the public does not respect copyright.
There were only two newspapers that served out [sic] region, and everyone knew which they wanted. There was no true competition.
Apparently, you don't know the meaning of the word "competition". There was competition. It was between the large city newspaper and the small local papers. There was not a lot of competition, but there was not enough of a market to support more competition.
The reason there are generally one large are newspaper and a few local papers is because of declining readership because of competition from television and now the internet as well as declining reading time and declining interest in reading.
Oh, and I live in an area with 2 major papers: The Tampa Tribune and the St. Petersburg Times. Soon there may only be one because of declining revenue and readership. There just aren't enough people reading the paper to support two newspapers.
the claim that the ads paid for the hardcopy papers and the cover price was just a token fee
Please show where that is claimed.
Print ads pay better than on line ads. However reduced circulation results in lower ad revenue for the print editions. On-line ads don't make enough to cover the cost of the on-line editions. So, the on-line edition is a money sink for the revenue of the print edition; a revenue source which is shrinking.
...if newspapers decide to all lock away their content that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter.
Yes, because great journalism talent will put their work on the web for free./sarcasm Remember, journalists have bills to pay and need to eat just like you. You wouldn't work for free, and neither will they. If they can't make money as journalists, they will get jobs doing something else. Seeing as great journalism is a full time job, there will be a major reduction in the quantity of quality journalism. But, crappy journalism with continue unabated.
So, anytime someone creates anything, it immediately becomes "cultural content" and they automatically lose their rights? Or, is it that you believe that once something becomes "cultural content", whoever has the copyright immediately loses those rights?
Face it, you are just a greedy, selfish bastard who thinks anything he likes should be free for the taking and fuck the copyright holders because all they did was PAY for it.
Reading her bio is enlightening. Seems to me she is anti-DRM and anti-IP. So, an anti-DRM, anti-IP law professor does a study and concludes that DRM is bad. Big surprise.
By the way, "interviewing dozens of lecturers, end users, government officials, rightsholders, and DRM developers to find how DRM and anticircumvention laws affected actual use" is not necessarily empirical. I would bet that the methodology used was guaranteed to get the result she wanted.
If this had been a study by the.*AA, there would have been dozens of posts calling it bullshit, but because it goes with the beliefs of so many unethical slashdotters, it's ok. I am never surprised by the depths of slashdot hypocrisy.
Is it your contention that millions of people are addicted to WoW and other MMORPGs? Do you suggest that everyone who plays a MMORPG is a addicted to said game?
Maybe you should stop putting words in my mouth and try to learn reading comprehension, asshole.
Yes, of course the Eee PC is a success because of the attention it got for using Linux and because it was the "first" netbook. However, the number of netbooks sold with Windows vastly outstrips the number of netbooks sold with Linux.
They are just losers who have no satisfaction in real life. The easy successes and minor penalty for failure make the game world more attractive than real life.
In other words, it works when there is a very small population of idealists, but when you bring in a normal population, it fails miserably. It fails because there will always be "defectors";there will always be selfish people who want more than everyone else and who have no morals or ethics and see nothing wrong with subverting the system for their own gain.
Like every idealistic ideology that requires everyone to cooperate and play nice, it fails because in the real world there are assholes.
Christianity doesn't tear people away from their families.
Unless that person or family is wicked and/or practices something other than Christianity. Then, Christians think it is OK to tear people away from their families, torture them, and then burn the at the stake, for their own good.
It doesn't steal its followers money or follow and intimidate anyone trying to investigate it.
Yes, because that 10% tithe Christians are supposed to pay is not stealing. Christians have a long and glorious history of oppressing, imprisoning, torturing, and murdering anyone who does not believe in or dares to show any proof that Christianity may be wrong. They still do it today. They try to subvert secular institutions to gain new recruits. Christians openly lie to suit their ends, discriminate against non-Christians, and seek to have their beliefs taught to children, not just as the truth but as the complete truth.
Christianity is an open religion, not a mysterious and closed cult.
In other words, Christianity is an open cult.
Christians believe that Jesus died so that we don't have to get punished for all the shit we've done, and if you ask to be forgiven you can go to heaven when you die.
Let's take a closer look, shall we:
Christians believe that a girl, who was born without original sin even though everyone is born with orginial sin, became pregnant by God's will, gave birth to the son of God, who was also God who wanted to know the human experience. This child, Jesus, who was supposedly a perfect being, grew up to one day know he was the son of God and also at the same time God; and a carpenter. Jesus then gathered a bunch of guys to himself by and while performing miracles. In complete defiance of social norms and natural human desires, never dated, married, had kids, or even sex. After incurring the wrath of powerful Jewish leaders, Jesus gathered his friends to him for a good-bye dinner. At this dinner, he offered his friends bread as his body and wine as his blood, enacting canibalism by proxy going against his own commands. This rite is enacted today and depending on one's belief the wine and bread actual become blood and flesh, making all participants canibals. Jesus was then arrested, and he went willingly knowing he would be tortured and killed. He was then tortured and killed by being crucified. After he died, he then rose from the dead and instead of appearing to his closest friends, he appeared to a woman who was allegedly a reformed prostitute who was just a hanger-on.
Let's see what else they believe:
Christians also believe that Jesus was an only child and that his mother remained a virgin even though the bible refers to Jesus's brothers and sisters.
Christians believe that Jesus was silent, mornful, finally crying out "Father why have you forsaken me?!?" then dying while crucified AND that Jesus had a conversation with one of the two men crucified with him.
Christians believe that the whole bible is the word of God, but only the second half is actually important unless it is something they against like homosexuality or abortion even though there is nothing about abortion in the bible.
Christians believe it is wrong to kill unless it is for God, or God's glory, or because someone committed a grievous sin, or the pope tells you to, or the bishop, or the king, or the president.
Apparently, really devout Christians think it is OK to have sex with children and protect those that do. And, to have sex with prostitutes, commit adultery, and break one's vows.
Christians think that the world is less than 6,000 years old, that the world and all the creatures in it were made by God exactly as they are today and nothing changes. Or not, depending on your church.
Christians think abortion is wrong, but killing doctors who perform abortions is OK. T
It's only a matter of time before someone releases a game where the best version is the one you were never intended to play.
If the best version is one in which one must unlock something, find as an "easter egg", or some how activate a cheat, and it is intended to be that way, then the game is intended to play in that mode and finding how to activate the mode becomes just another part of the game.
Slashdot Mirror
If no one asked him to bring in the snacks, then no one owes him anything. If he does not charge for the snacks and they are available to everyone, no one owes him anything. If some people follow his example and bring in snacks, the rest of the people do not owe him or the others anything.
Your analogy assumes that the person doing the giving is expecting something in return. Just like all the FLOSS fanboys are giving away applications and code and now expect something in return.
In essence, that is false gift giving because the giver expects to get "paid". Might as well volunteer your service, then send the recipients of said service a bill because they didn't turn around and volunteer their services.
The license says the corporations don't have to contribute the code that has been developed internally, so why should they, especially if the changes were specific to the internal application of the corporation?
Your entire post is your opinion, which boils down to "They made it and are following the rules, but I want it so they should give it to me even though they are not required to do so."
A free software project needs developers? Well, maybe they should take their profits and hire some.... Oh wait...
In other words, you want supposedly free software to be even less free than it is now.
Really, if you are going to demand a share of the wealth made by users of FLOSS, you may as well release it under a closed license.
Um, no. Environmentalists happened to it, ignorant, FUD spreading environmentalists. The energy companies wanted nuclear power but the FUD spread by the tree-huggers, helped along by movies like "The China Syndrome" had so many people screaming "Not in MY back yard" and Congress passing so many rules and regulations that nuclear power plants could not be built with a reasonable amount of money, nor could a site for construction be found. I grew up during that period. I remember the panels, the inquiries, the protests. I remember companies shutting down construction of nuclear plants because concerned groups of people, like your parents, were suing them for fear their kids would grow a third eye.
Um, no again. The reason there is long haul trucking is that it was cheaper and more efficient to move freight by road directly to the distribution centers rather than paying for rail spurs and service.
I suggest you read a book on history instead of just making shit up.
See how stupid your argument is?
Here is the deal: Stop making unauthorized, illegal copies and work to change the law, or shut the fuck up.
Oh, and Huck Finn is no longer under copyright. Maybe you should learn about the thing you are talking about before making an ass out of your self.
That is not what he said. Effectively, he said that "cultural content" give him the right to violate copyright. That is false. It is false even using the wording in your post.
The public also has a responsibility to respect copyright, which they do not do. That is why there is DRM. DRM exists soley because the public does not respect copyright.
Apparently, you don't know the meaning of the word "competition". There was competition. It was between the large city newspaper and the small local papers. There was not a lot of competition, but there was not enough of a market to support more competition.
The reason there are generally one large are newspaper and a few local papers is because of declining readership because of competition from television and now the internet as well as declining reading time and declining interest in reading.
Oh, and I live in an area with 2 major papers: The Tampa Tribune and the St. Petersburg Times. Soon there may only be one because of declining revenue and readership. There just aren't enough people reading the paper to support two newspapers.
Please show where that is claimed.
Print ads pay better than on line ads. However reduced circulation results in lower ad revenue for the print editions.
On-line ads don't make enough to cover the cost of the on-line editions. So, the on-line edition is a money sink for the revenue of the print edition; a revenue source which is shrinking.
Yes, because great journalism talent will put their work on the web for free. /sarcasm
Remember, journalists have bills to pay and need to eat just like you. You wouldn't work for free, and neither will they. If they can't make money as journalists, they will get jobs doing something else. Seeing as great journalism is a full time job, there will be a major reduction in the quantity of quality journalism. But, crappy journalism with continue unabated.
So, anytime someone creates anything, it immediately becomes "cultural content" and they automatically lose their rights? Or, is it that you believe that once something becomes "cultural content", whoever has the copyright immediately loses those rights?
Face it, you are just a greedy, selfish bastard who thinks anything he likes should be free for the taking and fuck the copyright holders because all they did was PAY for it.
Reading her bio is enlightening. Seems to me she is anti-DRM and anti-IP. So, an anti-DRM, anti-IP law professor does a study and concludes that DRM is bad. Big surprise.
By the way, "interviewing dozens of lecturers, end users, government officials, rightsholders, and DRM developers to find how DRM and anticircumvention laws affected actual use" is not necessarily empirical. I would bet that the methodology used was guaranteed to get the result she wanted.
If this had been a study by the .*AA, there would have been dozens of posts calling it bullshit, but because it goes with the beliefs of so many unethical slashdotters, it's ok. I am never surprised by the depths of slashdot hypocrisy.
Is it your contention that millions of people are addicted to WoW and other MMORPGs? Do you suggest that everyone who plays a MMORPG is a addicted to said game?
Maybe you should stop putting words in my mouth and try to learn reading comprehension, asshole.
Yes, of course the Eee PC is a success because of the attention it got for using Linux and because it was the "first" netbook. However, the number of netbooks sold with Windows vastly outstrips the number of netbooks sold with Linux.
Um.... no. He is trying to hail a cab, not doing a nazi salute.
They are just losers who have no satisfaction in real life. The easy successes and minor penalty for failure make the game world more attractive than real life.
In other words, it works when there is a very small population of idealists, but when you bring in a normal population, it fails miserably. It fails because there will always be "defectors";there will always be selfish people who want more than everyone else and who have no morals or ethics and see nothing wrong with subverting the system for their own gain.
Like every idealistic ideology that requires everyone to cooperate and play nice, it fails because in the real world there are assholes.
What is the matter, you fucking death cultists? Can't stand to have your history and present thrown in your face?
Maybe, but I think that this:
which is the part I was referring to, rules out that interpretation.
Unless that person or family is wicked and/or practices something other than Christianity. Then, Christians think it is OK to tear people away from their families, torture them, and then burn the at the stake, for their own good.
Yes, because that 10% tithe Christians are supposed to pay is not stealing. Christians have a long and glorious history of oppressing, imprisoning, torturing, and murdering anyone who does not believe in or dares to show any proof that Christianity may be wrong. They still do it today. They try to subvert secular institutions to gain new recruits. Christians openly lie to suit their ends, discriminate against non-Christians, and seek to have their beliefs taught to children, not just as the truth but as the complete truth.
In other words, Christianity is an open cult.
Let's take a closer look, shall we:
Let's see what else they believe:
Christians also believe that Jesus was an only child and that his mother remained a virgin even though the bible refers to Jesus's brothers and sisters.
Christians believe that Jesus was silent, mornful, finally crying out "Father why have you forsaken me?!?" then dying while crucified AND that Jesus had a conversation with one of the two men crucified with him.
Christians believe that the whole bible is the word of God, but only the second half is actually important unless it is something they against like homosexuality or abortion even though there is nothing about abortion in the bible.
Christians believe it is wrong to kill unless it is for God, or God's glory, or because someone committed a grievous sin, or the pope tells you to, or the bishop, or the king, or the president.
Apparently, really devout Christians think it is OK to have sex with children and protect those that do. And, to have sex with prostitutes, commit adultery, and break one's vows.
Christians think that the world is less than 6,000 years old, that the world and all the creatures in it were made by God exactly as they are today and nothing changes. Or not, depending on your church.
Christians think abortion is wrong, but killing doctors who perform abortions is OK. T
And exactly how long ago was that?
If the best version is one in which one must unlock something, find as an "easter egg", or some how activate a cheat, and it is intended to be that way, then the game is intended to play in that mode and finding how to activate the mode becomes just another part of the game.
Yes, because coddling criminals and running from one's past and one's personal responsibility is a sign of maturity.