The harm is the opportunity cost of keeping Mickey Mouse locked up. All the great Mickey Mouse literature for children that was never made because of the fear of prosecution. Santa Claus demonstrates that children's icons released into the commons encourage innovation.
"Who cares? I would like someone to explain to me what harm is being done to the world by Mickey Mouse's copyright being extended twenty years. How does that harm anyone's ability to be creative or incentive to be creative."
Here's the answer to this question: imagine Disney held the copyright to Santa Claus. Imagine all the children's literature that would not have been written if someone owned Santa Claus! They are comparable children's icons in almost every way, except that one is associated weakly with religion and strongly with giving, and the other is associated weakly with childhood and strongly with the greed of the Disney Corporation.
They should change the name to "Bill Gates is a big fat idiot presents: Lindows" so that people won't get confused. You know, just to be sure.
No really, maybe not that, but I think that this lawsuit is the best kind of publicity they could possibly get. They should capitalize on it by changing the name to something subtle that jabs at microsoft but still makes clear what it does. If only Sun was behind it- they could call it "Sunroof".
Howzabout "windshield"? "Glass Joe" (Include MAME with punchout standard:))
Wait, I've got it. "MirrorGlass" Have a picture of a mirror on the box, with the reflection of a window tinted with microsoft colors in the background, and a penguin waving in. How cute is that?
Mr. Robertson, this idea is mine but you may take it and run with it. Hell, I'll sign papers and even let you take it proprietary. I'd love to see that image on a shelf and have some clerk at Compusa have to explain what it means to a customer. "Well, that's tux the penguin, and he's looking through some windows at you, but they're not *microsoft* windows, because microsoft sued the company, so they're just regular old windows. Well, not really since Windows(TM) is a registered trademark of Microsoft. But anyway, it runs programs built for windows, even though it's not Windows(TM)"
To some extent I agree with you, but it's kind of like the way that mp3 isn't the best audio format out there- the installed user base makes it attractive. That, of course, plus the fact that it serves no corporate master, unlike at least the first two you mentioned.
If I'm missing a truly free (i.e., not dependent on a central server) network that has an installed user base as large as the gnutella network, please do let me know.
heh, I even used the preview button but I still missed this. Here's the broken sentence, restored:
You probably can't offer a discount for this or anything since people are largely prohibited from using their internet connections for commercial purposes, and when bandwidth kicks up the ISP's are going to look for an excuse to differentiate between music sharing (without which no one would pay for broadband, so it's tolerated even if technically against terms-of-service) and software sharing (which, if done for profit, violates terms-of-service in a different way). But then, the point of this is to distribute the cost of paying for software distribution bandwidth anyway, so if it works it takes away Ximian's purported claim that they are really just charging for the bandwidth.
Not that I care much: I'm tickled using Konqueror in blackbox all day long. I'm just sayin'.
The Gnutella network exists and would be an excellent haven for free content. So long as it is clear that you are expected to share whatever you download, this is basically free bandwidth for ximian, although it is still slow.
This also solves the legitimacy problem that peer-to-peer systems often have. If the files are legal to redistribute as all GPL'd code is, then pow! - we have a clear non-infringing use for a network like this. Sorry Jack Valenti, networks are for kids.
It's a win-win. What's really needed is a list of projects that need to be shared from people's idle gnutella collections, so that the sharing can happen with a modicum of intelligence- or perhaps even just an announcement on the download page asking users to pledge to share the files they download (or some portion of them) on peer to peer networks like the gnutella network in order to guarantee their widespread distribution, and a place to enter their email address so they can be notified when a newer version has been released so they can start sharing the newer one. You probably can't offer a discount for this or anything since
If bandwidth is their only problem, I think this is a solvable problem so long as the content they are distributing truly is free.
Please, someone with more time and experience, steal (or hire me to implement:) my idea and develop a free software distribution vehicle (apt-get? redcarpet? something new?) which is agnostic as to its transport mode but explicitly encourages the use of peer-to-peer networking for file transfers and only uses centralized servers for version listing updates. The legality of transferring files between users rather than from central distribution points is a huge advantage of free software- currently we're only capitalizing on it by downloading iso images or copying cdroms. We can do much much better.
Michael, please refrain from pushing your political views on others through your position as a slashdot editor.
Yes, please, if you wish to editorialize, become an edito... oh wait.
I mean, you can't be so opinonated when you are working for a respectable news service as opposed to a narrow interest-group related news-gathering site... er, wait...
I mean, you have a priveleged voice as editor, it's not like I can just post a comment and disagr... er, um...
I would prefer to live in a world where I was not in violation, technical or otherwise, of any rules. This is a major reason why I use free software to the maximum extent possible.
I don't intend to stop using IRC, even if it requires me to run identd. In fact, my feeling is that these companies deliberately advertise that you can use their connection for filesharing. When they crack down on people running kazaa and gnutella, they'll at least have a consistent stance, and they'll lose a lot of customers including me. The term server is not clearly defined, and your example of identd helps to make that clear.
Regarding the normal two-way conversation- what about uploading jpg files for a geocities home page? Does that count as serving data?
What if the "server" machine broadcasts connection attempts rather than waiting for incoming connections- is it a server then?
But my point is just that the rule is poorly thought out and a liability cover, which in the end will probably cause a few people to be unfairly targeted. It's much like the old sodomy laws- sure they're not enforced, until they are, which usually ends up being when there's a political issue being pressed. These are bad rules and should be done away with.
The Constitution doesn't guarantee you Fair, it guarantees you (and AT&T) Free. Fair is a socialist concept.
Actually, the constitution doesn't guarantee AT&T free, Dartmouth v. Woodward did that when it granted natural personhood to corporations. But you never hear conservative originalists braying about that one, do you?
Plus, the constitution grants the government the right to regulate interstate commerce and the right to provide for the general welfare. That includes fairness in commerce, Mr. "everyone I disagree with must be a commie".
I know. Just give me a god damned pipe and stay the hell out of my business.
AT&T cable cut out on me again last night. I see that their FAQ page has changed and now explicitly forbids servers- but how can you even be connected to the internet (inter meaning "between") unless you serve some traffic? Certainly you can't run the file sharing services that are driving their business without running a server.
I'm sure someone will respond and say something like "yeah, but it's in their best interest financially to do this". Well, yeah, but I don't give a shit about their bottom line. I am a pissed off customer. My gas company doesn't care which rooms I heat. My water company doesn't care what flavor kool-aid I make. I pay for 128k upstream bandwidth and goddamit I expect it.
"peculiar institution" is what it makes me think of.
I don't want anyone controlling the information I have access to. But it's going to take a cataclysmic shift in public opinion before that will happen, on the scale of 10 times what napster was. Maybe there's hope in freenet, if only they would use a free language.
Someone who I saw speak once said that in some third world companies, it's difficult at first to convince people to use free software instead of illegal copies of windows- until, that is, signs go up saying things like "Use illegal Windows = go to jail for 10 years". Apparently outside of the US the anti-piracy folks are less subtle, and there's no better advertisement for free software in the whole world.
That's what the pony express said to the railroad. "You may be faster and more efficient, but our livelihoods depend on our outmoded means of profit, so piss off you techno-pirates!"
I'd bet you'd oppose the legalization of prostitution on the grounds that vice cops would be laid off.
Well, then we agree after all. You seem to have abandoned your earlier implicit premise that scarcity was a constant, and changing levels of resources simply squish scarcity elsewhere. Now you seem to agree that scarcity, although not eliminable, can be reduced.
Look, I"m not a marxist, you are arguing against a straw man.
I'm not saying that scarcity doesn't exist, or that capitalism is bad. I'm more in line with Rawls- given that scarcity exists, we have an obligation not just to maximize whatever our economy values, but to maximize the minimum share of wealth in that economy. When we craft social policy, we are making conscious choices about the way our economy will work *given* the constraints of scarcity which won't go away.
The point is, eliminating information monopolies reduces scarcity and makes the economy *more* efficient at providing for everyone. If technology is forever locked up in a copyright/patent safe deposit box, robots that do our labor for us will be ever farther away.
Many of these people have been observed to turn up to various rallies and demonstrations and initiate violence, which leads me to believe they attend for the violence, not for the ideals.
Man, I'm just itching for some violence. I wonder where I could go to start some. Hmmm... Banks? Nah, I'm not in it for the money. I could start a fight at a bar- nah, too easy, and not enough cops there. Afghanistan? Too expensive. Eureka! I'll go to a protest where there's lots of cops with tear gas and rubber bullets! What a great place to start some violence! Thanks for the tip, buddy! Boy I can't wait to piss off the cops and make them shoot at me!
First, you cannot expect a 'self-unfolding' project to provide food for you, or heat for your house, or schooling for your kids. You can only dedicate time to these projects when your basic needs have been met...
That's where the robots come in. Quoth Stallman:
"The waste inherent in owning information will become more and more important and will ultimately make the difference between the utopia in which nobody really has to work for a living because it's all done by robots and a world just like ours where everyone spends much time replicating what the next fellow is doing."
The only way I can have a better chance is if I can offer some incentive to the teacher Perhaps you should live in Lake Woebegone where the children are all above average. What is it that makes you think you couldn't find a good teacher in a society not based on money? What about all the people who would like to teach but end up working for corporations because teacher's pay is so shitty? What about the reduced overhead for the creation and distribution of textbooks in a copyright-free economy?
Third, there will always bee a huge horde of people who ONLY take Exclusive ownership of information benefits these people. The GPL society as described can handle freeloaders, what it has a hard time with is exlusivity.
If all needs are provided for, luxuries become paramount and exploitation is EASIER Hence the flood of immigrants away from the relatively wealthy US to the relatively poor Mexico to avoid the exploitation, right?. I thought you were a capitalist?!
I don't think it's quite as correct to say that greed breaks the GPL as that the GPL accomadates greed and demands an end to information-envy. It is the conrol, rather than the hoarding, of information that makes the GPL society difficult to realize.
I don't think that will happen. That would require every country in the world to bow to every other country's wishes.
Well, for now that seems to be true. But if the US keeps writing its laws by way of treaty rather than through a democratic legislative process, there will only be one Corpor^H^H^H^Huntry anyway.
Finally, books can be printed on a medium that respects the rights of authors! Once your reading license has expired, the pages will simply erase themselves. And a retinal scan can even be sure that no unauthorized readers get access to your prose!
A new day is dawning for innovation, and the promise of the copyright system to encourage the creation of new works and the protection of the exclusive right of the rich to actually read anything that's ever been written is finally being fulfilled.
I know I'm not alone when I say "It's about time! Thanks, Phillips!"
When they really want something to work and they can't figure out how to make it happen, they read the documentation.
It's usually not much more helpful on the windows side of things, but then it's less necessary there as well.
I'll bet almost everyone who has a cable modem or DSL has looked at their manual. And I'm sure that Office users who want to do a mail merge look it up in the online help, or maybe just ask a knowledgeable co-worker ("guru").
But none of that is really the point- if someone is willing to try linux, then you're not doing them any favors telling them to rtfm if the fm is impossible to decipher/out of date/etc. A user who has made the commitment to *try* linux at all is probably willing to read a few manuals, and whether this becomes a habit is probably directly proportional to the degree of success she has on her first few tries getting help this way.
Unfortuanately I don't think China's standing on principle. I think they just haven't seen a satisfactory economic reason to impose the changes yet. Eventually western pressure will probably get to them.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but even though you might be able to get away with calling the Chinese government "leftist", they are certainly not progressive.
Slashdot Mirror
The harm is the opportunity cost of keeping Mickey Mouse locked up. All the great Mickey Mouse literature for children that was never made because of the fear of prosecution. Santa Claus demonstrates that children's icons released into the commons encourage innovation.
Simple economics.
Bryguy
"Who cares? I would like someone to explain to me what harm is being done to the world by Mickey Mouse's copyright being extended twenty years. How does that harm anyone's ability to be creative or incentive to be creative."
Here's the answer to this question: imagine Disney held the copyright to Santa Claus. Imagine all the children's literature that would not have been written if someone owned Santa Claus! They are comparable children's icons in almost every way, except that one is associated weakly with religion and strongly with giving, and the other is associated weakly with childhood and strongly with the greed of the Disney Corporation.
Maybe the Kompany can sue all the "C"ompany's out there for violating their trademark.
They should change the name to "Bill Gates is a big fat idiot presents: Lindows" so that people won't get confused. You know, just to be sure.
:))
No really, maybe not that, but I think that this lawsuit is the best kind of publicity they could possibly get. They should capitalize on it by changing the name to something subtle that jabs at microsoft but still makes clear what it does. If only Sun was behind it- they could call it "Sunroof".
Howzabout "windshield"? "Glass Joe" (Include MAME with punchout standard
Wait, I've got it. "MirrorGlass" Have a picture of a mirror on the box, with the reflection of a window tinted with microsoft colors in the background, and a penguin waving in. How cute is that?
Mr. Robertson, this idea is mine but you may take it and run with it. Hell, I'll sign papers and even let you take it proprietary. I'd love to see that image on a shelf and have some clerk at Compusa have to explain what it means to a customer. "Well, that's tux the penguin, and he's looking through some windows at you, but they're not *microsoft* windows, because microsoft sued the company, so they're just regular old windows. Well, not really since Windows(TM) is a registered trademark of Microsoft. But anyway, it runs programs built for windows, even though it's not Windows(TM)"
I've been waiting 20 years for this movie, and I'm fully satisfied.
The best part though? Cate Blanchett - she's dreamy.
Liv Tyler is cute and all but damn.
To some extent I agree with you, but it's kind of like the way that mp3 isn't the best audio format out there- the installed user base makes it attractive. That, of course, plus the fact that it serves no corporate master, unlike at least the first two you mentioned.
If I'm missing a truly free (i.e., not dependent on a central server) network that has an installed user base as large as the gnutella network, please do let me know.
Bryguy
heh, I even used the preview button but I still missed this. Here's the broken sentence, restored:
You probably can't offer a discount for this or anything since people are largely prohibited from using their internet connections for commercial purposes, and when bandwidth kicks up the ISP's are going to look for an excuse to differentiate between music sharing (without which no one would pay for broadband, so it's tolerated even if technically against terms-of-service) and software sharing (which, if done for profit, violates terms-of-service in a different way). But then, the point of this is to distribute the cost of paying for software distribution bandwidth anyway, so if it works it takes away Ximian's purported claim that they are really just charging for the bandwidth.
Not that I care much: I'm tickled using Konqueror in blackbox all day long. I'm just sayin'.
The Gnutella network exists and would be an excellent haven for free content. So long as it is clear that you are expected to share whatever you download, this is basically free bandwidth for ximian, although it is still slow.
:) my idea and develop a free software distribution vehicle (apt-get? redcarpet? something new?) which is agnostic as to its transport mode but explicitly encourages the use of peer-to-peer networking for file transfers and only uses centralized servers for version listing updates. The legality of transferring files between users rather than from central distribution points is a huge advantage of free software- currently we're only capitalizing on it by downloading iso images or copying cdroms. We can do much much better.
This also solves the legitimacy problem that peer-to-peer systems often have. If the files are legal to redistribute as all GPL'd code is, then pow! - we have a clear non-infringing use for a network like this. Sorry Jack Valenti, networks are for kids.
It's a win-win. What's really needed is a list of projects that need to be shared from people's idle gnutella collections, so that the sharing can happen with a modicum of intelligence- or perhaps even just an announcement on the download page asking users to pledge to share the files they download (or some portion of them) on peer to peer networks like the gnutella network in order to guarantee their widespread distribution, and a place to enter their email address so they can be notified when a newer version has been released so they can start sharing the newer one. You probably can't offer a discount for this or anything since
If bandwidth is their only problem, I think this is a solvable problem so long as the content they are distributing truly is free.
Please, someone with more time and experience, steal (or hire me to implement
Bryguy
Michael, please refrain from pushing your political views on others through your position as a slashdot editor.
Yes, please, if you wish to editorialize, become an edito... oh wait.
I mean, you can't be so opinonated when you are working for a respectable news service as opposed to a narrow interest-group related news-gathering site... er, wait...
I mean, you have a priveleged voice as editor, it's not like I can just post a comment and disagr... er, um...
I would prefer to live in a world where I was not in violation, technical or otherwise, of any rules. This is a major reason why I use free software to the maximum extent possible.
I don't intend to stop using IRC, even if it requires me to run identd. In fact, my feeling is that these companies deliberately advertise that you can use their connection for filesharing. When they crack down on people running kazaa and gnutella, they'll at least have a consistent stance, and they'll lose a lot of customers including me. The term server is not clearly defined, and your example of identd helps to make that clear.
Regarding the normal two-way conversation- what about uploading jpg files for a geocities home page? Does that count as serving data?
What if the "server" machine broadcasts connection attempts rather than waiting for incoming connections- is it a server then?
But my point is just that the rule is poorly thought out and a liability cover, which in the end will probably cause a few people to be unfairly targeted. It's much like the old sodomy laws- sure they're not enforced, until they are, which usually ends up being when there's a political issue being pressed. These are bad rules and should be done away with.
Bryon
The Constitution doesn't guarantee you Fair, it guarantees you (and AT&T) Free. Fair is a socialist concept.
Actually, the constitution doesn't guarantee AT&T free, Dartmouth v. Woodward did that when it granted natural personhood to corporations. But you never hear conservative originalists braying about that one, do you?
Plus, the constitution grants the government the right to regulate interstate commerce and the right to provide for the general welfare. That includes fairness in commerce, Mr. "everyone I disagree with must be a commie".
I know. Just give me a god damned pipe and stay the hell out of my business.
AT&T cable cut out on me again last night. I see that their FAQ page has changed and now explicitly forbids servers- but how can you even be connected to the internet (inter meaning "between") unless you serve some traffic? Certainly you can't run the file sharing services that are driving their business without running a server.
I'm sure someone will respond and say something like "yeah, but it's in their best interest financially to do this". Well, yeah, but I don't give a shit about their bottom line. I am a pissed off customer. My gas company doesn't care which rooms I heat. My water company doesn't care what flavor kool-aid I make. I pay for 128k upstream bandwidth and goddamit I expect it.
"peculiar institution" is what it makes me think of.
I don't want anyone controlling the information I have access to. But it's going to take a cataclysmic shift in public opinion before that will happen, on the scale of 10 times what napster was. Maybe there's hope in freenet, if only they would use a free language.
Someone who I saw speak once said that in some third world companies, it's difficult at first to convince people to use free software instead of illegal copies of windows- until, that is, signs go up saying things like "Use illegal Windows = go to jail for 10 years". Apparently outside of the US the anti-piracy folks are less subtle, and there's no better advertisement for free software in the whole world.
That's what the pony express said to the railroad. "You may be faster and more efficient, but our livelihoods depend on our outmoded means of profit, so piss off you techno-pirates!"
I'd bet you'd oppose the legalization of prostitution on the grounds that vice cops would be laid off.
Well, then we agree after all. You seem to have abandoned your earlier implicit premise that scarcity was a constant, and changing levels of resources simply squish scarcity elsewhere. Now you seem to agree that scarcity, although not eliminable, can be reduced.
Free tech reduces scarcity. Lets shake on it.
Look, I"m not a marxist, you are arguing against a straw man.
I'm not saying that scarcity doesn't exist, or that capitalism is bad. I'm more in line with Rawls- given that scarcity exists, we have an obligation not just to maximize whatever our economy values, but to maximize the minimum share of wealth in that economy. When we craft social policy, we are making conscious choices about the way our economy will work *given* the constraints of scarcity which won't go away.
The point is, eliminating information monopolies reduces scarcity and makes the economy *more* efficient at providing for everyone. If technology is forever locked up in a copyright/patent safe deposit box, robots that do our labor for us will be ever farther away.
Many of these people have been observed to turn up to various rallies and demonstrations and initiate violence, which leads me to believe they attend for the violence, not for the ideals.
Man, I'm just itching for some violence. I wonder where I could go to start some. Hmmm... Banks? Nah, I'm not in it for the money. I could start a fight at a bar- nah, too easy, and not enough cops there. Afghanistan? Too expensive. Eureka! I'll go to a protest where there's lots of cops with tear gas and rubber bullets! What a great place to start some violence! Thanks for the tip, buddy! Boy I can't wait to piss off the cops and make them shoot at me!
Yours truly,
an undercover police antagonizer
First, you cannot expect a 'self-unfolding' project to provide food for you, or heat for your house, or schooling for your kids. You can only dedicate time to these projects when your basic needs have been met...
That's where the robots come in. Quoth Stallman:
"The waste inherent in owning information will become more and more important and will ultimately make the difference between the utopia in which nobody really has to work for a living because it's all done by robots and a world just like ours where everyone spends much time replicating what the next fellow is doing."
The only way I can have a better chance is if I can offer some incentive to the teacher
Perhaps you should live in Lake Woebegone where the children are all above average. What is it that makes you think you couldn't find a good teacher in a society not based on money? What about all the people who would like to teach but end up working for corporations because teacher's pay is so shitty? What about the reduced overhead for the creation and distribution of textbooks in a copyright-free economy?
Third, there will always bee a huge horde of people who ONLY take
Exclusive ownership of information benefits these people. The GPL society as described can handle freeloaders, what it has a hard time with is exlusivity.
If all needs are provided for, luxuries become paramount and exploitation is EASIER
Hence the flood of immigrants away from the relatively wealthy US to the relatively poor Mexico to avoid the exploitation, right?. I thought you were a capitalist?!
I don't think it's quite as correct to say that greed breaks the GPL as that the GPL accomadates greed and demands an end to information-envy. It is the conrol, rather than the hoarding, of information that makes the GPL society difficult to realize.
Marcelo actually answered a few more questions that didn't appear in the main article, and were cut to save space. Here they are:
What do you think is an appropriate length for interview answers?
MT:17
Can you elaborate?
MT:no, sorry
Do you think that people who write long interview answers are compensating for other shortcomings?
MT: Yes, definitely
I don't think that will happen. That would require every country in the world to bow to every other country's wishes.
Well, for now that seems to be true. But if the US keeps writing its laws by way of treaty rather than through a democratic legislative process, there will only be one Corpor^H^H^H^Huntry anyway.
Finally, books can be printed on a medium that respects the rights of authors! Once your reading license has expired, the pages will simply erase themselves. And a retinal scan can even be sure that no unauthorized readers get access to your prose!
A new day is dawning for innovation, and the promise of the copyright system to encourage the creation of new works and the protection of the exclusive right of the rich to actually read anything that's ever been written is finally being fulfilled.
I know I'm not alone when I say "It's about time! Thanks, Phillips!"
When they really want something to work and they can't figure out how to make it happen, they read the documentation.
It's usually not much more helpful on the windows side of things, but then it's less necessary there as well.
I'll bet almost everyone who has a cable modem or DSL has looked at their manual. And I'm sure that Office users who want to do a mail merge look it up in the online help, or maybe just ask a knowledgeable co-worker ("guru").
But none of that is really the point- if someone is willing to try linux, then you're not doing them any favors telling them to rtfm if the fm is impossible to decipher/out of date/etc. A user who has made the commitment to *try* linux at all is probably willing to read a few manuals, and whether this becomes a habit is probably directly proportional to the degree of success she has on her first few tries getting help this way.
Unfortuanately I don't think China's standing on principle. I think they just haven't seen a satisfactory economic reason to impose the changes yet. Eventually western pressure will probably get to them.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but even though you might be able to get away with calling the Chinese government "leftist", they are certainly not progressive.
Yeah, but you have to admit - both have had upgrades, but the linux upgrades have been somewhat less expensive.