Trust me, I've used the same argument as you before. While it makes for interesting trolling, it simply doesn't fly.
The modern definition of Open Source, the one that everybody thinks of today is essentially free software. It has to abide by the rules of the FSF and the Open Source Initiative in that redistribution is permittable with no restrictions.
Again, I would prefer the definition that you are using, but that is simply not the reality of the situation.
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Last night while flipping stations I saw Reece Witherspoon accepting an award on MTV News. She told some story about her daughter liking the donkey from Shrek better.
So this wasn't some secret.
Although I don't understand why they didn't just broadcast the show live.
You haven't really offered a very compelling argument.
Endusers by and large prefer the a GUI. This was one of the secrets of the Macintosh.
So we essentially have to accept that as fact and move on from there. Otherwise you are simply arguing buggy whips are preferable to steering wheels despite the dominance of the automobile. Seems rather pointless and you certainly have no facts to back this position up.
Your other two counter arguments... "user choice" and "blind users" are limited examples. You are now arguing that Microsoft should make an OS which works well for 5% of the user population, but creates challenges for the remaining 95%.
And you do so by claiming an OS which works well for 95% of the population but challenges 5% is a dumb idea.
Is a Civic Sedan better than a Civic Wagon? Is a Dodge Intrepid better than a Dodge RAM? Is a BMW 330i better than a 325i?
Different products provide different definitions of better depending on the needs/wants/desires of the particular consumer. The parent poster thinks OSS is better than commercial because he probably only cares if it's free and comes with source. He likely could care less about features, functionality, ease of use and so forth.
You think Apache is better than IIS, maybe because you only care about serving static content and don't care about the efficiency advantages of using Microsoft's development tools for creating dynamic web sites. You also don't think OpenOffice is better than MSOffice... But maybe for someone who had little money to spend and limited needs, they would disagree.
The key really is to identify the advantages and disadvantages of any given product. If that set matches closely the requirements of the consumer, the product is probably better for their particular use.
The original poster was being totally ridiculous when he used the word always because that really could never be true for all consumers. But I think it's important whenever you use the word better that you take the time to define the constraints.
If MS can fund groups such as these to spill forth what is obviously [then again, not much is obvious it seems to the 90% of the population] utter trash, surely we [ non-MS ] can do the same.
In fact there are a great many other sources and books published making questionable unverified claims with regards to Open Source that one could easily classify as utter trash.
NCSA created software as part of research. But that software was later turned over to others to maintain and build from.
Then again I probably shouldn't be worried. Every piece of software I've ever had to use that was created by a government agency has generally not been worthwhile when compared to the commercial alternatives. What I'm mainly worried about is we get into a situation like we were during the cold war where hi-tech was directed towards military applications and techniques, tools, and technologies that would benefit the consumer products were abandoned. This resulted in Japanese and other foreign companies overtaking US companies in those markets.
Perhaps that's because most "professional" programmers have moved away from solving the problem of hash tables or linked lists.
These types of data structures are available in any number of libraries for most modern languages.
BTW, I know a lot of people who are in CS because of natural aptitude... that is it was an easy degree to get, and the jobs are pretty easy to keep. But that doesn't mean it is their lifelong goal. I would rather be a race car driver, but I don't have the ambitition to pursue that career. Others I know would rather own a hunting lodge, but there is no money in that venture.
Some good points are raised here. Documentation on file formats should be a required aspect of any product, simply because one of the challenges faced with computers is evolving your old data to new systems over time.
I don't agree that the government should be in the role of creating software. Government is not a good entity to choose technologies the free market should adopt. As far as software purchasing costs, you could make a strong argument for companies to provide reduced rates to government entities. But one should also appreciate that the tax dollars outlayed on software is more than made up by the tax revenues coming in as a result of the employment opportunties the software companies generate.
The same arguments were made when the printing press became popular, then later the Xerox photocopier and so forth. When you compare the cost of copying a book by hand to photocopying it you get the same differential as you would with digital media reproduction versus the original distribution.
I also see an issue in your logic because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of half the equation.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
And please don't tell me what I meant to say. I can speak for myself.
I wish that were true, but you have this unfortunate tendency to try to construct arguments that while removed from the truth, can be easily argued against. This is commonly called 'straw man argumentation.'
This discussion is about Napster specifically, not an overall one of downloading music off the internet. As such we are talking strictly about making music available without permission as there are obviously services which make music available with permission who have not been involved in lawsuits.
but I am hard-pressed to find anything that suggests copyright grants any sort of ability to control the use of a work or idea, apart from public performance.
This might help: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#w ci
The first bullet point is most applicable and refers to the right of the copyright holder to do or authorize the reproduction of the work.
Furhermore in the case of Napster, the second bullet point is also appropriate because they were obviously creating a business model which result in the sale of the reproduced music.
It is furthermore my understanding that Napster has not received any punishment or penalty of any sort.
This is true.
It was handed an injunction and ordered to block access to works for which the plaintiffs held copyright because the judge believed that the plaintiffs would probably win their case
Not to mention the injunction was appealed and upheld which gives it further strength.
the case has not yet been fully argued, nor has a judgement been rendered, and likely never will, as Napster has agreed to settle out of court with most of the plaintiffs.
Which is pretty much an admission of guilt on Napster's part.
Presumably, the stakeholders in Napster were not so blindingly stupid that they established a business which they believed was illegal and would ultimately drive them to bankruptcy.
I would have to argue that they did establish the business with that intent. Their hope was worst case they could make some money off the publicity, and best case they would be bought out by one of the companies suing them. In the end it appears they received a bit of both, they sold out but probably for not as much as they had hoped.
Over the past year we've seen an a great many examples of people who used questionable tactics to get rich quick. Enron, Merrill Lynch and so forth. Napster was just one more example of those who thought to twist the law in their own favor at the expense of others.
That you personally disagree isn't really important; that the issue is debated publically and a broad-based consensus is reached is.
Ahh, another straw man.
As I said the broad-based consensus on Napster's actions were reached long ago through creation of copyright law.
What needs to be discussed today are more important issues resulting from the DMCA and other recent acts extending copyright terms.
Downloading music is only stealing if society collectively decides that it is.
Ok, let's be a bit more accurate in your statement, shall we?
What you meant to say is:
Downloading music without permission of the copyright holder is only stealing if society collectively decides that it is.
The key being that phrase, "without permission of the copyright holder", because that is really what we are talking about here in the case of Napster. Nobody who was voluntarily giving their music away on Napster bothered to sue them, and nobody is questioning the downloading of music as a legitimate form of distribution.
And that decision has yet to be made.
Now once we corrected your other statement we find that this last statement of yours is wrong. Society collectively(at least in the US most other countries) decided that using intellectual property without permission is theft. This determination is what drove the creation of copyright laws several centuries ago. This determination maintains a special passage within the US Constitution.
Now as a side effect of Napster some other questions have come up relating to our existing copyright laws. But even though those questions did come up, they really don't relate to Napster. Specifically I'm talking about fair-use(as it relates to the DMCA) and term length.
There are many of us who would like to have a public discussion about fair-use and the overbroad term lengths presently existing in copyright law, unfortunately that discussion is being overshadowed by the out and out theft of the Napster model. As long as that theft continues to exist, we are going to lose any argument that suggests existing controls are too broad.
I think it's a mistake to try to defend Napster, the company clearly deserved whatever punishment they received and like others have pointed out, I'm disappointed they were purchased by BMG. Rather I would like to have seen their founders thrown in prison.
Agreed. Napster clearly intended to make money off the work of others. That was the basis of their entire business model.
I don't understand how people can possibly defend the company's actions. It's like claiming the protection racket of the Mob is an innovative form of insurance.
Nobody is claiming that you don't have a right to distribute your own music however you see fit.
The problem is that you don't own the rights to Metallica's music, and as such don't have the right to decide how they should distribute their music. Now as a consumer you can choose whether or not to give Metallica any money. That is, you can buy the stuff in the manner they choose to distribute it, or you can walk away. That's it, those are your choices.
Jeep never made the Wrangler with the purpose of being a good getaway car, nor has it ever advertised it's use in this capacity. Your argument in this instance is irrational when compared to the Napster situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Trust me, I've used the same argument as you before. While it makes for interesting trolling, it simply doesn't fly.
The modern definition of Open Source, the one that everybody thinks of today is essentially free software. It has to abide by the rules of the FSF and the Open Source Initiative in that redistribution is permittable with no restrictions.
Again, I would prefer the definition that you are using, but that is simply not the reality of the situation.
Fine... From the Open Source Definition
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Fine... From the Open Source Definition
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Fine... From the Open Source Definition
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
I'm afraid you have confused the definition of "Open Source"...
With real "Open Source" you don't license your software... you give it away for free, and also allow others to freely redistribute it.
Personally I like your definition better, but it's not strictly accurate. Read the GNU Manifesto for more information.
Most companies I have worked at or know people at go with a third party backup solution such as the ones from Tivoli or Veritas.
Makes your backup/recovery fairly consistent across different products, plus everything can then be managed from a central console.
I was going to say...
Last night while flipping stations I saw Reece Witherspoon accepting an award on MTV News. She told some story about her daughter liking the donkey from Shrek better.
So this wasn't some secret.
Although I don't understand why they didn't just broadcast the show live.
You haven't really offered a very compelling argument.
Endusers by and large prefer the a GUI. This was one of the secrets of the Macintosh.
So we essentially have to accept that as fact and move on from there. Otherwise you are simply arguing buggy whips are preferable to steering wheels despite the dominance of the automobile. Seems rather pointless and you certainly have no facts to back this position up.
Your other two counter arguments... "user choice" and "blind users" are limited examples. You are now arguing that Microsoft should make an OS which works well for 5% of the user population, but creates challenges for the remaining 95%.
And you do so by claiming an OS which works well for 95% of the population but challenges 5% is a dumb idea.
Again, you do not present a compelling argument.
though a common one thanks to the current status quo in software quality (for which Microsoft is mostly to blame).
Before you blame Microsoft, shouldn't you offer a better way?
I mean the Mac is a little bit better, but not much. Linux is a giant step backwards.
Where should computers be today? I'll guarantee you if you have a really good idea and can actually implement it, you'll be famous.
But then yeah, it's just easier to sit back and arm chair quarterback.
Such discussions are really quite silly.
Is a Civic Sedan better than a Civic Wagon?
Is a Dodge Intrepid better than a Dodge RAM?
Is a BMW 330i better than a 325i?
Different products provide different definitions of better depending on the needs/wants/desires of the particular consumer. The parent poster thinks OSS is better than commercial because he probably only cares if it's free and comes with source. He likely could care less about features, functionality, ease of use and so forth.
You think Apache is better than IIS, maybe because you only care about serving static content and don't care about the efficiency advantages of using Microsoft's development tools for creating dynamic web sites. You also don't think OpenOffice is better than MSOffice... But maybe for someone who had little money to spend and limited needs, they would disagree.
The key really is to identify the advantages and disadvantages of any given product. If that set matches closely the requirements of the consumer, the product is probably better for their particular use.
The original poster was being totally ridiculous when he used the word always because that really could never be true for all consumers. But I think it's important whenever you use the word better that you take the time to define the constraints.
I think he was expecting the wonderful utopia portrayed in ESR's book.
Maybe the point is that people ought to tone down some of the utopian rhetoric, because in the real world things are different.
Weird. This is the very same reason Microsoft doesn't release it's code as well.
That is... it's not because of security through obscurity, but they just don't want others using their code.
It was flamebait...
You're not supposed to question Linux, it's unpatriotic!
If MS can fund groups such as these to spill forth what is obviously [then again, not much is obvious it seems to the 90% of the population] utter trash, surely we [ non-MS ] can do the same.
Already done.
In fact there are a great many other sources and books published making questionable unverified claims with regards to Open Source that one could easily classify as utter trash.
Ahh, I should have clarified.
NCSA created software as part of research. But that software was later turned over to others to maintain and build from.
Then again I probably shouldn't be worried. Every piece of software I've ever had to use that was created by a government agency has generally not been worthwhile when compared to the commercial alternatives. What I'm mainly worried about is we get into a situation like we were during the cold war where hi-tech was directed towards military applications and techniques, tools, and technologies that would benefit the consumer products were abandoned. This resulted in Japanese and other foreign companies overtaking US companies in those markets.
This is the location of the NSA recommendations for securing Windows 2000:
http://nsa2.www.conxion.com/win2k/
Your post seems to be an example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, as the NSA has already done what you suggested.
Perhaps that's because most "professional" programmers have moved away from solving the problem of hash tables or linked lists.
These types of data structures are available in any number of libraries for most modern languages.
BTW, I know a lot of people who are in CS because of natural aptitude... that is it was an easy degree to get, and the jobs are pretty easy to keep. But that doesn't mean it is their lifelong goal. I would rather be a race car driver, but I don't have the ambitition to pursue that career. Others I know would rather own a hunting lodge, but there is no money in that venture.
Some good points are raised here. Documentation on file formats should be a required aspect of any product, simply because one of the challenges faced with computers is evolving your old data to new systems over time.
I don't agree that the government should be in the role of creating software. Government is not a good entity to choose technologies the free market should adopt. As far as software purchasing costs, you could make a strong argument for companies to provide reduced rates to government entities. But one should also appreciate that the tax dollars outlayed on software is more than made up by the tax revenues coming in as a result of the employment opportunties the software companies generate.
The same arguments were made when the printing press became popular, then later the Xerox photocopier and so forth. When you compare the cost of copying a book by hand to photocopying it you get the same differential as you would with digital media reproduction versus the original distribution.
I also see an issue in your logic because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of half the equation.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
And please don't tell me what I meant to say. I can speak for myself.
w ci
I wish that were true, but you have this unfortunate tendency to try to construct arguments that while removed from the truth, can be easily argued against. This is commonly called 'straw man argumentation.'
This discussion is about Napster specifically, not an overall one of downloading music off the internet. As such we are talking strictly about making music available without permission as there are obviously services which make music available with permission who have not been involved in lawsuits.
but I am hard-pressed to find anything that suggests copyright grants any sort of ability to control the use of a work or idea, apart from public performance.
This might help:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#
The first bullet point is most applicable and refers to the right of the copyright holder to do or authorize the reproduction of the work.
Furhermore in the case of Napster, the second bullet point is also appropriate because they were obviously creating a business model which result in the sale of the reproduced music.
It is furthermore my understanding that Napster has not received any punishment or penalty of any sort.
This is true.
It was handed an injunction and ordered to block access to works for which the plaintiffs held copyright because the judge believed that the plaintiffs would probably win their case
Not to mention the injunction was appealed and upheld which gives it further strength.
the case has not yet been fully argued, nor has a judgement been rendered, and likely never will, as Napster has agreed to settle out of court with most of the plaintiffs.
Which is pretty much an admission of guilt on Napster's part.
Presumably, the stakeholders in Napster were not so blindingly stupid that they established a business which they believed was illegal and would ultimately drive them to bankruptcy.
I would have to argue that they did establish the business with that intent. Their hope was worst case they could make some money off the publicity, and best case they would be bought out by one of the companies suing them. In the end it appears they received a bit of both, they sold out but probably for not as much as they had hoped.
Over the past year we've seen an a great many examples of people who used questionable tactics to get rich quick. Enron, Merrill Lynch and so forth. Napster was just one more example of those who thought to twist the law in their own favor at the expense of others.
That you personally disagree isn't really important; that the issue is debated publically and a broad-based consensus is reached is.
Ahh, another straw man.
As I said the broad-based consensus on Napster's actions were reached long ago through creation of copyright law.
What needs to be discussed today are more important issues resulting from the DMCA and other recent acts extending copyright terms.
Is the point of this to prove that trolling comp.os.linux.advocacy will cause you to have very little contact with people who use Microsoft products?
I guess that doesn't surprise me.
Downloading music is only stealing if society collectively decides that it is.
Ok, let's be a bit more accurate in your statement, shall we?
What you meant to say is:
Downloading music without permission of the copyright holder is only stealing if society collectively decides that it is.
The key being that phrase, "without permission of the copyright holder", because that is really what we are talking about here in the case of Napster. Nobody who was voluntarily giving their music away on Napster bothered to sue them, and nobody is questioning the downloading of music as a legitimate form of distribution.
And that decision has yet to be made.
Now once we corrected your other statement we find that this last statement of yours is wrong. Society collectively(at least in the US most other countries) decided that using intellectual property without permission is theft. This determination is what drove the creation of copyright laws several centuries ago. This determination maintains a special passage within the US Constitution.
Now as a side effect of Napster some other questions have come up relating to our existing copyright laws. But even though those questions did come up, they really don't relate to Napster. Specifically I'm talking about fair-use(as it relates to the DMCA) and term length.
There are many of us who would like to have a public discussion about fair-use and the overbroad term lengths presently existing in copyright law, unfortunately that discussion is being overshadowed by the out and out theft of the Napster model. As long as that theft continues to exist, we are going to lose any argument that suggests existing controls are too broad.
I think it's a mistake to try to defend Napster, the company clearly deserved whatever punishment they received and like others have pointed out, I'm disappointed they were purchased by BMG. Rather I would like to have seen their founders thrown in prison.
When you try to compare the theft of intellectual property with freeing of slaves you discredit yourself and your argument.
Information does not want to be free, because information is not sentient and cannot want for anything.
You need to find a better argument, the one you are using would get you laughed out of Congress if you tried to testify for a change in the law.
Agreed. Napster clearly intended to make money off the work of others. That was the basis of their entire business model.
I don't understand how people can possibly defend the company's actions. It's like claiming the protection racket of the Mob is an innovative form of insurance.
Nobody is claiming that you don't have a right to distribute your own music however you see fit.
The problem is that you don't own the rights to Metallica's music, and as such don't have the right to decide how they should distribute their music. Now as a consumer you can choose whether or not to give Metallica any money. That is, you can buy the stuff in the manner they choose to distribute it, or you can walk away. That's it, those are your choices.
Jeep never made the Wrangler with the purpose of being a good getaway car, nor has it ever advertised it's use in this capacity. Your argument in this instance is irrational when compared to the Napster situation.