I'd like you to give the Slashdot community rational arguments for why copyright is a good thing. Can't do that? Well, fucking stop posting here.
What the bloody heck are you talking about? I never said it was a good thing. I'm simply pointing out the nonchalant attitude around here regarding things like mp3/movie distribution over p2p (oh come on, lots of you do it). Spam sucks, sure, but there are ways to deal with it that don't require massive government intervention. A better security mentality (particularly among windows users) alone will decrease spam.
Why, because he points out the general Slashdot concensus that copyright violation isn't really a crime (unless it's a GPL violation which of course worse than mass murder), yet spam is treated like the personal demon spawn of Satan? Troll or not, he makes a point.
Of course, you start electing politicians that want intervention at various levels on both sides, you get the worst of both worlds: Intervention everywhere.
It may be paranoid but it's not "left wing". Lefties would WANT the gubmint keeping track of everything. Gee, I thought Righties were against gubmint intervention in everyone's daily life. It's funny how the modern times have completely reversed the Left/Right concept.
IIRC, RMS is on record as saying that had Linux existed when he was writing the GPL and the first GNU progs, he would have made it a term of the license that GPL software only be run on GPL OSs.
I dare RMS to release Hurd under that level of restriction. You'll see that virtually nobody will even touch it simply due to it's ultra-restrictive nature. I have nothing against the GPL, in fact I think it's a great license for the Linux kernel. GPL'ed apps are fine too, but when you start dictating that different software packages must adhere to the exact same philosophy to even interact is pushing it too far.
Pretty much ever day of every year is an anniversary of something big that has happened in the past. Perhaps you missed both the supposed purpose of this website and also Michael's obvious retarded editorializing. There are plenty of places on the internet where this is appropriate material, I'm just saying that Slashdot shouldn't be one of them. This has little to do with "technology" (how this story was categorized) and mostly to do with corporate and government politics and liability.
Great, more beaurocrats thinking that they can solve the (non-)problems of the world. The State sinks its teeth in a little bit deeper, then a little bit deeper,.... it never ends.
I agree with everything you said. I was being critical of Michael, not the disaster. The anniversary is important but is offtopic for Slashdot's front page.
So why isn't in the Science section? Note who posted this: Michael. This is just another case where Michael is using the Slashdot front page to rant. He's a big fan of corporation bashing.
Just curious (as I've never installed or maintained any *BSD system): Suppose you have a FreeBSD and lets say a Mandrake workstation setup, complete with XOrg, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice, etc. Are we talking a substantial bloat increase with the Mandrake setup just because it's "Linux"? Is it more libraries, bigger binaries, more software package dependancies...? Or are you talking a default install of *BSD versus a typical default install of a modern Linux distro?
You may not be bound to the EULA when you buy it. You are bound to it when you install it. Until the laws change then that's the fact. Guess what, I'm more anti-EULA then you might think, but I also live in reality, and that reality makes it clear that the current law makes certain things so, and just becuase I don't agree with them doesn't make my possible desires to do what I want legal.
I'm more than happy to face reality: Reality is copyright law. Guess what: I'm not a big fan of how it is implemented either, but that doesn't make it any less real.
"Wake up tomorrow and there are no copyright laws."
What are you smoking? Copyright will live for a long time, despite what a bunch of geeks on a nerd blog wish.
No, the aparent problem is the availability of the EULA. The software code isn't "yours" any more than the code to MS Windows is "yours" when you install XP or whatever.
Again, if you haven't had the opportunity to read the EULA, then there's no way to know whether you would agree to it or not.
Exactly! Don't buy the product. If Valve is breaking a law then go contact your state's Attorney General or someone, but people shouldn't act like they have some right to violate a ELUA simply because they couldn't read it when they bought some software product.
If there is no available EULA to read for some software you are thinking of buying, then you don't buy the software if you don't want to risk disagreeing with the EULA. Simple as that. Now, if they are violating existing laws or you think there should be a law for this, then go contact law enforcement or your local corrupt politician. I actually don't like the return policies for software products at most stores, so I'm not about to buy software that I'm thinking I would have a problem with the licensing for.
You buy a book, you can read it, loan it to a friend, tear it up, or shread it and eat it for fiber intake. It's your book. Duh. However, you can't take the text in the book and re-print another book with your name on it. That's copyright violation. The game CD is yours. You can do with the physical media what you will. You can't however redistribute it particuarly a cracked version. I don't get what the big fuss is: Valve wants to boot pirates and michael tosses some mindless editorializing in the article writeup.
Perhaps, but the general point to part of this thread is to simply say that michael's editorializing was unnecessary and stupid. Apart from some idiots that may not realize what the difference is between owning and licensing is, if Valve is violating the law then get the law after them, else they have every right to kick pirates off of their network.
As offered here, IF the box mentions any sort of "By using this software..." kind of message on the outside of the box then the buyer is at fault. I simply don't have my HL2 box in front of me at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure it's a theft of resources. Who is denying this?
I'd like you to give the Slashdot community rational arguments for why copyright is a good thing. Can't do that? Well, fucking stop posting here.
What the bloody heck are you talking about? I never said it was a good thing. I'm simply pointing out the nonchalant attitude around here regarding things like mp3/movie distribution over p2p (oh come on, lots of you do it). Spam sucks, sure, but there are ways to deal with it that don't require massive government intervention. A better security mentality (particularly among windows users) alone will decrease spam.
Why, because he points out the general Slashdot concensus that copyright violation isn't really a crime (unless it's a GPL violation which of course worse than mass murder), yet spam is treated like the personal demon spawn of Satan? Troll or not, he makes a point.
Of course, you start electing politicians that want intervention at various levels on both sides, you get the worst of both worlds: Intervention everywhere.
It may be paranoid but it's not "left wing". Lefties would WANT the gubmint keeping track of everything. Gee, I thought Righties were against gubmint intervention in everyone's daily life. It's funny how the modern times have completely reversed the Left/Right concept.
IIRC, RMS is on record as saying that had Linux existed when he was writing the GPL and the first GNU progs, he would have made it a term of the license that GPL software only be run on GPL OSs.
I dare RMS to release Hurd under that level of restriction. You'll see that virtually nobody will even touch it simply due to it's ultra-restrictive nature. I have nothing against the GPL, in fact I think it's a great license for the Linux kernel. GPL'ed apps are fine too, but when you start dictating that different software packages must adhere to the exact same philosophy to even interact is pushing it too far.
The person that wrote this "Ask Slashdot" may just be in the camp of those who get paid for services they're not qualified to perform.
For example, the Slashdot "editing" staff.
Pretty much ever day of every year is an anniversary of something big that has happened in the past. Perhaps you missed both the supposed purpose of this website and also Michael's obvious retarded editorializing. There are plenty of places on the internet where this is appropriate material, I'm just saying that Slashdot shouldn't be one of them. This has little to do with "technology" (how this story was categorized) and mostly to do with corporate and government politics and liability.
Great, more beaurocrats thinking that they can solve the (non-)problems of the world. The State sinks its teeth in a little bit deeper, then a little bit deeper, .... it never ends.
I agree with everything you said. I was being critical of Michael, not the disaster. The anniversary is important but is offtopic for Slashdot's front page.
So why isn't in the Science section? Note who posted this: Michael. This is just another case where Michael is using the Slashdot front page to rant. He's a big fan of corporation bashing.
Bah... Trying to be funny while having a headache doesn't work well.
Insert "MySQL isn't a real database so this book makes no sense" comment here.
INSERT INTO mysql_sucks (comment) VALUES ('MySQL isn't a real database so this book makes no sense');
Actually most of your posts are conforming and redundant, but thanks to meta-moderation you have high karma.
Conformity and the reiteration of said conformity by the SlashBot masses is what slashdot is all about.
Just curious (as I've never installed or maintained any *BSD system): Suppose you have a FreeBSD and lets say a Mandrake workstation setup, complete with XOrg, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice, etc. Are we talking a substantial bloat increase with the Mandrake setup just because it's "Linux"? Is it more libraries, bigger binaries, more software package dependancies...? Or are you talking a default install of *BSD versus a typical default install of a modern Linux distro?
This should help with either GNOME or KDE adoption in office environments since the user interface looks more streamlined.
You may not be bound to the EULA when you buy it. You are bound to it when you install it. Until the laws change then that's the fact. Guess what, I'm more anti-EULA then you might think, but I also live in reality, and that reality makes it clear that the current law makes certain things so, and just becuase I don't agree with them doesn't make my possible desires to do what I want legal.
I'm more than happy to face reality: Reality is copyright law. Guess what: I'm not a big fan of how it is implemented either, but that doesn't make it any less real.
"Wake up tomorrow and there are no copyright laws."
What are you smoking? Copyright will live for a long time, despite what a bunch of geeks on a nerd blog wish.
No, the aparent problem is the availability of the EULA. The software code isn't "yours" any more than the code to MS Windows is "yours" when you install XP or whatever.
on my box under both the "Minimum System Requirements" AND the "Recommended System Requirements" lists.
Again, if you haven't had the opportunity to read the EULA, then there's no way to know whether you would agree to it or not.
Exactly! Don't buy the product. If Valve is breaking a law then go contact your state's Attorney General or someone, but people shouldn't act like they have some right to violate a ELUA simply because they couldn't read it when they bought some software product.
If there is no available EULA to read for some software you are thinking of buying, then you don't buy the software if you don't want to risk disagreeing with the EULA. Simple as that. Now, if they are violating existing laws or you think there should be a law for this, then go contact law enforcement or your local corrupt politician. I actually don't like the return policies for software products at most stores, so I'm not about to buy software that I'm thinking I would have a problem with the licensing for.
You buy a book, you can read it, loan it to a friend, tear it up, or shread it and eat it for fiber intake. It's your book. Duh. However, you can't take the text in the book and re-print another book with your name on it. That's copyright violation. The game CD is yours. You can do with the physical media what you will. You can't however redistribute it particuarly a cracked version. I don't get what the big fuss is: Valve wants to boot pirates and michael tosses some mindless editorializing in the article writeup.
Perhaps, but the general point to part of this thread is to simply say that michael's editorializing was unnecessary and stupid. Apart from some idiots that may not realize what the difference is between owning and licensing is, if Valve is violating the law then get the law after them, else they have every right to kick pirates off of their network.
As offered here, IF the box mentions any sort of "By using this software..." kind of message on the outside of the box then the buyer is at fault. I simply don't have my HL2 box in front of me at the moment.