The problem comes when the upstream provider violated their contract with the customers
The upstream provider's customer was McColo, dumbshit. It was McColo is the one that had contracts with customers and it was McColo that broke the contracts by getting itself disconnected from it's ISPs. The people at fault are McColo's management and the spammers, malware hosters, and other evil, criminal fucks.
Look, the solution here is laws not vigilantism
The solution is to report bad behavior that violates Terms of Service, which is part of the contract between the parties in question. You know, that legal document that governs their relationship. It is part of those laws you are talking about.
Did it ever occur to your stupid ass that people fell back upon their recourse of reporting the offending provider to there provider? Oh wait, I forgot, you only care about recourse for the spammers and other assholes.
WTF? Are you one of those spammers and botnet herders? You are a whiny little ass, you know that? And, you are probably a drug abuser, judging from your moronic WOD comments.
This POS ISP could have taken care of the situation but didn't. So, people went to the ISPs upstream provider and reported the lack of action and violation of TOS. You know, they followed the fucking process.
Tell me, are you one of these assholes who thinks they should be able to run roughshod over everyone else then cries like a little bitch and says it is so unfair when the tables are turned? You sure sound like it.
Maybe you should go back down into your mommy's basement, light up, and waste the rest of your life in a haze. It is not like you can actually deal with the real world and personal responsibility.
It has [sic] after it because the fragment is unclear. Who's credibility did Microsoft destroy; it's own, it's partner's, or someone else's? The fragment should have an object such as "Now we have an upset partner, Microsoft destroyed their credibility." or "Now we have an upset partner, Microsoft has destroyed it's credibility, as well as my own credibility is shot."
Basically, that sentence has a number of grammar issues.
While content creation will not cease at that very moment, most of it would cease well within a year. Fortunately, Obama does not have that authority.
You think those companies are competing with MicroSoft? I don't see those companies paying for the total research and development of their projects. I do see them getting said R&D for free. Imagine if RedHat had to actually pay for all the research and development of Linux instead of leeching off the work of hundreds or even thousands of people. Imagine if MicroSoft could it's R&D done for free by a group of hobbyists.
It sounds like you wishing for the good old days of communism and waiting in line for 4 hours for a stale loaf of bread before going back to your small, decrepit apartment which, if you are lucky, has heat that day.
You cannot enforce laws that are passed against the collective interest of a society or against its moral standards.
For reference, see copyright.
Copyright is for the collective interest of society and it's moral standards. It is in the moral standard to profit from one's labor and the idea of copyright is to allow people to profit from their labor. Your failure to see that shows you are an ignorant sheeple.
Really? You are going to take away people's ability to profit from the creations? So, why should anyone create anything new? Why should someone spend weeks, months, even years creating something if, in the end, they lose all that opportunity cost?
For the good of humanity? You can't eat "the good of humanity", you can't pay your bills with it, you can't do anything at all with it.
Tell you what, why don't we try it out with you? You come work for me and I will set you on tasks for the good of humanity, but I am not going to pay you because you are doing things for the good of humanity. Let's see how long you think that is a good deal.
You think that because you are a dumb ass. The "original RedHat approved expensive version" is only being "sold" because it comes with support. People are buying the free software, they are buying the support. And, they are probably paying too much for the support.
There are a handful of programmers being paid to work on GPL'd code, but companies that bundle that code with their products.
As for undercutting those programs you listed, all are freely available and are funded by proprietary products and/or support.
Maybe you should try working in the real world before you open your mouth and prove your stupidity to the world.
Maybe you should learn to read, dumbass. From the post you replied to:
No, it is a pretty simple discussion and it is black and white. One either has the legally granted right to control the copying of one's work or one doesn't. The law provides for fair use copying, so one is either making a legal copy or one is not. One either is violating someone else's legally granted rights or one is not.
There are these things called laws which spell out everything you asked about. Maybe you should try reading them before showing exactly how ignorant you are.
No, it is not a different situation. Stallman wants to abolish people's right to have a copyright on their software. His statements and the GPL are ample proof of that.
The OC made a statement about freedom, the promptly contradicted said statement. The OC, and apparently you as well, fails to see that freedom is not about what what one individual wants and is not an absolute. Rights exists to ensure the freedom of all. One can not have absolute freedom for one's self by limiting the rights and freedom of others. Your rights and freedoms end where others begin.
The OC said that restricting freedom was tyranny. But, one's freedom and rights end where the rights and freedom of others begin. He would trade the rights and freedoms of others, for his own selfish gain.
And, it is an absurd argument that your "freedom to make and distribute copies of a copyrighted work" is more important than the legally granted right of the copyright holder to control the copying of his work.
Your argument, and RMS's, is based on the false premise that one has unlimited freedom to do something when, in fact, said something is legally limited to someone else.
Your argument is fallacious because you have started with a false premise.
There in lies a complex discussion, and not one with a clear answer as much as you'd like to make it a black and white issue.
No, it is a pretty simple discussion and it is black and white. One either has the legally granted right to control the copying of one's work or one doesn't. The law provides for fair use copying, so one is either making a legal copy or one is not. One either is violating someone else's legally granted rights or one is not.
That isn't even rational enough to call an argument.
It is quite rational. You and Stallman want all the information needed to modify and/or create a copy of the software program. I listed all the information one would need to modify and/or create a copy of a radio. You call it irrational because what is cheap and easy with software is and expensive difficult with physical objects. Which goes back to whether the legality of copying something should be defined by the expense and ease of copying said thing. I say it should be defined by the law and not by convenience.
They do come with the ingredients.
a) They have not always come with ingredients b) ingredient lists were enacted for consumer safety c) more importantly, it is a list of ingredients but not instructions for the creation of the product. It does not contain the amounts of the ingredients, the order of combination, or cooking times. An ingredient list on a currently available food product would be analogous to listing the functions and key words of a program, most used first order, without any other structure.
Except that with a radio, the soruce(sic) or schematics are usually glued to the inside of the chassis. Same with televisions, washing machines, etc.
I see you haven't opened up a new radio or TV recently. Or a cell phone, iPod, a laptop computer, or many other currently available technological devices. That practice is either completely gone or is so rare as to be meaningless. It has been replaced by expensive manuals with restricted availability.
If the programmer's request is too large, he doesn't get his money and no one gets the software(so a free-market back-and-forth will set suitable prices).
And, he has lost the original investment spent to develop v1.
My point isn't really to invent a perfect system; merely to point out that alternatives exist.
I am still waiting for you to show a reasonably thought out and effective alternative.
A programmer has an idea. He creates a demo/beta/first-version, and releases it for free (with source). This generates enthusiasm. People say they would like to see a full version (or second version, etc.).
And, a proprietary company can then copy the design and/or idea and develop and sell a better version before the original developer can.
The programmer starts work on said version, and says that he thinks X would be a fair price (where X will fully cover his development time; obviously X will be a large number like $100,000 or a million, or whatever). He then solicits payments. Depending on the kind of software, this may mean a few big companies paying big sums of money (because they want the software). If it's a more consumer-focused software, then it may be more like thousands of individuals all putting in $20 or so. When the target sum is reached, the programmer releases the software (with source) to everyone who participated.
How does the developer pay for his living expenses until the second release is made available?
What if people say "The first version was free, why should I have to pay now?" and don't contribute to the cause?
What is the market for the software? How many users and how much will each user have to pay? Or, will it be a "Pay what you think it is worth" scenario? Are they willing to pay and then wait weeks, months, even years for the goal to be reached before the software is released?
What happens if he starts work on V2 and doesn't reach the goal amount? Does he still release the software? Does he refund the money he has been given?
And, then a proprietary software company makes a better version and sells it for a profit.
with convenient intermediaries helping with "getting the word out" and accumulating the money (and refunding if the product isn't delivered) and all that.
Again, how does the developer pay for his living expenses until the second release is made available?
What if development takes to long and some people start asking for refunds? What happens if the accumulated money falls below the original goal because people are tired of waiting?
how much of a cut will these "convenient intermediaries" want? Or, will they charge a flat fee, and, if so, how much will it be?
Will the fee be charged up front? Will they put the money in interest accounts, CDs, etc. and, if so, who gets the interest?
What if the intermediaries abscond with the money?
If the programmer's request is too large, he doesn't get his money and no one gets the software(so a free-market back-and-forth will set suitable prices).
he has a problem relinquishing his ownership rights and control over his property (his computer) to some other entity (proprietary software).
His ownership rights do not include the right to make and distribute copies. That is why there is copy right laws on the books.
The fact is that Stallman, and yourself, want the right to make copies of works and distribute those copies.
One does not have a right to make copies of something, just because copying that something is easy. Or do you believe that anyone who buys a book or newpaper should have the right to make copies of it and sell or give away those copies?
I understand the desire to sell your product and keep the source code a secret, but no other aspect of human technology works that way. Every electronic component is documented. Every part in a car is documented. Every building is built with approved materials and is inspected. Every switch, nail, screw, and device is documented and open to public inspection.
First, you are comparing software to physical devices. Software is not a physical device. Under your argument, when one buys a radio, one should be given a complete set of plans for not the radio, but also the factory that created the radio, the machines in the factory, the software that runs the machines, and the software used to design the radio. But, that is not what happens. You buy a black box radio. The same with a new car which probably has a computer in it. The software that runs your car is not documented and open to inspection. Neither is the software that runs a new 42" LCD HDTV. From the founding of the nation to present, numerous food products have been sold that do not come with the recipe used to create the food. Those are just a minuscule example of how wrong you are.
He's not a communist, but he values his freedom above profit. If anything, that is historically a very "American" position.
He values his "freedom" above the profit of others. He also values his "freedom" above the rights and freedom of others. His definition of "freedom" is questionable as it restricts the freedom of others to benefit himself. The history of America, and the world, is replete with people being able to make money off of things by restricting the knowledge of to make said things and by controlling who can make copies of things. It is even enshrined in the Constitution.
With a radio, one is free to take apart the radio and figure out how it works. With software, the same is possible. If one is not willing to make the effort, why should the original maker be forced to give you information on how it was made? And, why do you need to be able to copy and redistribute a work? Are you free to make a copy of your new car and then sell the copy as an original? Are you allowed to buy a book, make copies of it and then sell the copies? No, you are not.
He merely emphasizes that anyone who obtains software must have access to code.
That is a lie by omission. A simple examination of Stallman's baby, the GNU Public License, shows the above quote to be false. If he believed as you say, the GPL would not contain provision for copying and redistribution.
In addition to programmers being paid by the hour to code, it's not hard to imagine situations where well-organized "payment requests" are created.
Who is paying programmers to create code that is covered by the GPL, which is the only code Stallman considers "free"? Where do the payers get their money? This payment request system will do what exactly? Will the software be nagware? If so and it comes with the source, what is to prevent someone from obtaining a copy and then removing the nag function? And, how many would actually pay? 20% or less if other programs are an indicator.
Once the requested money has been sent in (by interested buyers), the full version (with source code) is delivered. (The buyer could be other companies or many individual consumers.)
Only one "buyer" needs to send in any money. Once the full version is delivered, the "buyer" could then undercut the developers price and redistribute the software, thanks to the GPL. The developer is left with two choices:
try to find a single buyer with deep pockets that wants to pay for the code
sell it for the cost of duplication, request extra payment to cover the cost of R&D, and then hope some users will fulfill the request
hope someone will pay for support
Here is an example of what I mean:
You make a program, use a Stallman approved license, and sell it for $20.00 a copy. I buy a copy, and start selling the program for $7.50 to cover my cost and time, media, and shipping. How many people are going to pay you $20.00 a copy versus paying me $7.50? One of my customers can then sell the program for $5.00 a copy thus undercutting me. And, in the end, someone can post it on the internet, free to anyone willing to download it.
See what I mean?
I'm not trying to specifically advocate that this would be better; merely pointing out that Stallman's "software should be free" is not in conflict with people making money.
When Stallman's "software should be free" includes the freedom to copy and redistribute, then it is in direct conflict with people making money. With high speed internet and cheap, high capacity media, it is trivial to take a work that took months and even years to develop, make copies and redistribute them for a fraction of the cost of development.
Stallman would turn one man's work into community property which is free to all, negating one's ability to make money on said software by any means except support. And, well written software needs little, if any, support.
They have it backwards. The universe is not perfectly tailored for life. Life is perfectly tailored for this universe because life evolved in this universe.
This whole article comes from the false belief that life is somehow special and that the universe exists to support life. Well, that is false. Life is a side-effect of the universe. If all life ceased, the universe would carry on and not care.
Slashdot Mirror
The upstream provider's customer was McColo, dumbshit. It was McColo is the one that had contracts with customers and it was McColo that broke the contracts by getting itself disconnected from it's ISPs. The people at fault are McColo's management and the spammers, malware hosters, and other evil, criminal fucks.
The solution is to report bad behavior that violates Terms of Service, which is part of the contract between the parties in question. You know, that legal document that governs their relationship. It is part of those laws you are talking about.
Did it ever occur to your stupid ass that people fell back upon their recourse of reporting the offending provider to there provider? Oh wait, I forgot, you only care about recourse for the spammers and other assholes.
You are a serious dumb ass.
WTF? Are you one of those spammers and botnet herders? You are a whiny little ass, you know that? And, you are probably a drug abuser, judging from your moronic WOD comments.
This POS ISP could have taken care of the situation but didn't. So, people went to the ISPs upstream provider and reported the lack of action and violation of TOS. You know, they followed the fucking process.
Tell me, are you one of these assholes who thinks they should be able to run roughshod over everyone else then cries like a little bitch and says it is so unfair when the tables are turned? You sure sound like it.
Maybe you should go back down into your mommy's basement, light up, and waste the rest of your life in a haze. It is not like you can actually deal with the real world and personal responsibility.
nag nag nag.
It is not like I am a grammar nazi. I just answered a question
Yes, for various values of happy.
It has [sic] after it because the fragment is unclear. Who's credibility did Microsoft destroy; it's own, it's partner's, or someone else's? The fragment should have an object such as "Now we have an upset partner, Microsoft destroyed their credibility." or "Now we have an upset partner, Microsoft has destroyed it's credibility, as well as my own credibility is shot."
Basically, that sentence has a number of grammar issues.
Women are smart but most don't love IT enough to put up with the shit that comes with being in IT, even with the pay.
As a fieled, IT offers:
Is it really surprising women aren't going into a major that will lead into an IT career?
I love working on computers but even I am thinking about leaving IT because there is too much bullshit involved in it now.
While content creation will not cease at that very moment, most of it would cease well within a year. Fortunately, Obama does not have that authority.
You think those companies are competing with MicroSoft? I don't see those companies paying for the total research and development of their projects. I do see them getting said R&D for free. Imagine if RedHat had to actually pay for all the research and development of Linux instead of leeching off the work of hundreds or even thousands of people. Imagine if MicroSoft could it's R&D done for free by a group of hobbyists.
It sounds like you wishing for the good old days of communism and waiting in line for 4 hours for a stale loaf of bread before going back to your small, decrepit apartment which, if you are lucky, has heat that day.
You blew your argument here:
Copyright is for the collective interest of society and it's moral standards. It is in the moral standard to profit from one's labor and the idea of copyright is to allow people to profit from their labor. Your failure to see that shows you are an ignorant sheeple.
Really? You are going to take away people's ability to profit from the creations? So, why should anyone create anything new? Why should someone spend weeks, months, even years creating something if, in the end, they lose all that opportunity cost?
For the good of humanity? You can't eat "the good of humanity", you can't pay your bills with it, you can't do anything at all with it.
Tell you what, why don't we try it out with you? You come work for me and I will set you on tasks for the good of humanity, but I am not going to pay you because you are doing things for the good of humanity. Let's see how long you think that is a good deal.
You think that because you are a dumb ass. The "original RedHat approved expensive version" is only being "sold" because it comes with support. People are buying the free software, they are buying the support. And, they are probably paying too much for the support.
There are a handful of programmers being paid to work on GPL'd code, but companies that bundle that code with their products.
As for undercutting those programs you listed, all are freely available and are funded by proprietary products and/or support.
Maybe you should try working in the real world before you open your mouth and prove your stupidity to the world.
The ability does not hurt humanity, but being forced to do so hurts humanity. Oh, wait, you wanted to use an argument that doesn't apply.
If one is unable to fund the research, why should one do the research?
Now, please, shut the fuck up.
His actions.
Maybe you should learn to read, dumbass. From the post you replied to:
There are these things called laws which spell out everything you asked about. Maybe you should try reading them before showing exactly how ignorant you are.
No, it is not a different situation. Stallman wants to abolish people's right to have a copyright on their software. His statements and the GPL are ample proof of that.
No, he has just defended removing the rights of others, specifically copy rights, to benefit himself.
You miss the point of the post.
The OC made a statement about freedom, the promptly contradicted said statement. The OC, and apparently you as well, fails to see that freedom is not about what what one individual wants and is not an absolute. Rights exists to ensure the freedom of all. One can not have absolute freedom for one's self by limiting the rights and freedom of others. Your rights and freedoms end where others begin.
The OC said that restricting freedom was tyranny. But, one's freedom and rights end where the rights and freedom of others begin. He would trade the rights and freedoms of others, for his own selfish gain.
And, it is an absurd argument that your "freedom to make and distribute copies of a copyrighted work" is more important than the legally granted right of the copyright holder to control the copying of his work.
Your argument, and RMS's, is based on the false premise that one has unlimited freedom to do something when, in fact, said something is legally limited to someone else.
Your argument is fallacious because you have started with a false premise.
No, it is a pretty simple discussion and it is black and white. One either has the legally granted right to control the copying of one's work or one doesn't. The law provides for fair use copying, so one is either making a legal copy or one is not. One either is violating someone else's legally granted rights or one is not.
It is quite rational. You and Stallman want all the information needed to modify and/or create a copy of the software program. I listed all the information one would need to modify and/or create a copy of a radio. You call it irrational because what is cheap and easy with software is and expensive difficult with physical objects. Which goes back to whether the legality of copying something should be defined by the expense and ease of copying said thing. I say it should be defined by the law and not by convenience.
a) They have not always come with ingredients
b) ingredient lists were enacted for consumer safety
c) more importantly, it is a list of ingredients but not instructions for the creation of the product. It does not contain the amounts of the ingredients, the order of combination, or cooking times. An ingredient list on a currently available food product would be analogous to listing the functions and key words of a program, most used first order, without any other structure.
I see you haven't opened up a new radio or TV recently. Or a cell phone, iPod, a laptop computer, or many other currently available technological devices. That practice is either completely gone or is so rare as to be meaningless. It has been replaced by expensive manuals with restricted availability.
You are the one who said it. Does that make you absurd? What about people who want to be "slaves"?
And, he has lost the original investment spent to develop v1.
I am still waiting for you to show a reasonably thought out and effective alternative.
And, a proprietary company can then copy the design and/or idea and develop and sell a better version before the original developer can.
Your words:
Your words:
You seem to be in favor of tyranny.
Your argument is fallacious.
His ownership rights do not include the right to make and distribute copies. That is why there is copy right laws on the books.
The fact is that Stallman, and yourself, want the right to make copies of works and distribute those copies.
One does not have a right to make copies of something, just because copying that something is easy. Or do you believe that anyone who buys a book or newpaper should have the right to make copies of it and sell or give away those copies?
First, you are comparing software to physical devices. Software is not a physical device. Under your argument, when one buys a radio, one should be given a complete set of plans for not the radio, but also the factory that created the radio, the machines in the factory, the software that runs the machines, and the software used to design the radio. But, that is not what happens. You buy a black box radio. The same with a new car which probably has a computer in it. The software that runs your car is not documented and open to inspection. Neither is the software that runs a new 42" LCD HDTV. From the founding of the nation to present, numerous food products have been sold that do not come with the recipe used to create the food. Those are just a minuscule example of how wrong you are.
He values his "freedom" above the profit of others. He also values his "freedom" above the rights and freedom of others. His definition of "freedom" is questionable as it restricts the freedom of others to benefit himself. The history of America, and the world, is replete with people being able to make money off of things by restricting the knowledge of to make said things and by controlling who can make copies of things. It is even enshrined in the Constitution.
With a radio, one is free to take apart the radio and figure out how it works. With software, the same is possible. If one is not willing to make the effort, why should the original maker be forced to give you information on how it was made? And, why do you need to be able to copy and redistribute a work? Are you free to make a copy of your new car and then sell the copy as an original? Are you allowed to buy a book, make copies of it and then sell the copies? No, you are not.
That is a lie by omission. A simple examination of Stallman's baby, the GNU Public License, shows the above quote to be false. If he believed as you say, the GPL would not contain provision for copying and redistribution.
Who is paying programmers to create code that is covered by the GPL, which is the only code Stallman considers "free"? Where do the payers get their money? This payment request system will do what exactly? Will the software be nagware? If so and it comes with the source, what is to prevent someone from obtaining a copy and then removing the nag function? And, how many would actually pay? 20% or less if other programs are an indicator.
Only one "buyer" needs to send in any money. Once the full version is delivered, the "buyer" could then undercut the developers price and redistribute the software, thanks to the GPL. The developer is left with two choices:
Here is an example of what I mean:
See what I mean?
When Stallman's "software should be free" includes the freedom to copy and redistribute, then it is in direct conflict with people making money. With high speed internet and cheap, high capacity media, it is trivial to take a work that took months and even years to develop, make copies and redistribute them for a fraction of the cost of development.
Stallman would turn one man's work into community property which is free to all, negating one's ability to make money on said software by any means except support. And, well written software needs little, if any, support.
They have it backwards. The universe is not perfectly tailored for life. Life is perfectly tailored for this universe because life evolved in this universe.
This whole article comes from the false belief that life is somehow special and that the universe exists to support life. Well, that is false. Life is a side-effect of the universe. If all life ceased, the universe would carry on and not care.