Not that I'm a fan of microsoft but what kind of society is the do some of the open source companies suggest really? That a few companies makes loads of cash of free labour while the rest of the population works for free?
Monopolies are bad, but are Miguels alternative much better?
Right now there is a horrible abuse of patents but overall they are a good thing. Patent is what makes the little man like you and me able to protect ourself against big-corp who otherwise can use their strong trademarks to sell our stuff and dominate the world entierly.
"the cost of windows is a big chunk of system price. "
No, it isn't. Microsoft software is very cheap for schools, we are talking about $20-30 per seat (os+office), compare that to the hardware they run it on.
"There is very little similarity between our community and the Soviet system. Our emphasis is on freedom, decentralization, and voluntary cooperation, which are not things that the Soviet Bloc was known for. It is actually the proprietary software world that resembles the Soviet system. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html for more explanation of this. "
Hmmm... I think you have misunderstod something, mr Stallman.
Communism is all about freedom. Communism is about getting rid of ownership, so is Free software.
But to maintain this freedom the freedom must be enforced! This is what the sovjet union did, they insisted that people didn't own, otherwise people would be enslaved by the owners again. This is also what the Free software movement is all about.
It really depends on what you define as freedom, the western would saw it as freedom to be able to own and sell your proprietary (IP or otherwise), the sovjet block beleived that freedom is to be free from the enslavement owners impose on you.
"Producing a product doesn't mean you're entitled to make money from it, "
Noone is suggesting that either, but you ARE protected by law from people stealing from you.
"If a company goes out and produces a bad product and doesn't make money because no one is willing to buy crap, this is the free market working."
A free market is where people can choose between several products, not where people can hack some products. Not the same thing.
"Adobe has been producing a crappy product . People/corporations have been paying for this product."
Thats a deal between Adobe and those companies/people, noone else. If it's a crappy product you are always free to go somewhere else, but it doesn't make it right to sell cracker software.
"When someone comes along and shows that the product is a piece of crap, "
He wasn't arrested for pointing out a flaw, he was arrested for selling software that breaks their product.
"it's expected that there will be a major reduction in the amount profit for Adobe. There's nothing wrong with Adobe losing money over something that was (ultimately) their fault."
There is nothing wrong with Adobe losing money on the fact that people chose other alternatives. But it is wrong that they are losing money because people ARE USING their product but don't pay.
"If it is really good, most people are going to go out and buy it anyways because they want the "good" version, not just some cheap copy recorded off of HBO"
I don't beleive that. I beleive there are huge revenue lost because of copying. Money that has to be compansated on the casettes they do sell=higher prices.
* You can have whatever servers you want, share what you want AS LONG IT ISN'T ILLEGAL. There is nothing right about taking other people hard work without paying them (except in those cases where the author doesn't want to get paid).
If I'm not remembering it wrong the anger on/. over the Napster shutdown was that people couldn't trade music that the author wanted to be free. Atleast that was that people said.
Those companies and bounty hunters only tracks down people who DO break the law, whats wrong with that?
Sue the shit out of them so that we who do have some morality on our body don't have to buy music/software with added pricetags to compensate for piracy.
It's kind of funny that the people stealing music is often the same people who praises open source software for ethical reasons. Makes one wonders if it really has anything to do with ethics and not the fact that it doesn't cost anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I'm a fan of microsoft but what kind of society is the do some of the open source companies suggest really? That a few companies makes loads of cash of free labour while the rest of the population works for free?
Monopolies are bad, but are Miguels alternative much better?
"These projects stimulated new inventions and applications "
Really? Like what? I think the whole thing has become a giant flop, no content, no meaningful stuff.
...is that ip rights many times is a good thing.
Right now there is a horrible abuse of patents but overall they are a good thing. Patent is what makes the little man like you and me able to protect ourself against big-corp who otherwise can use their strong trademarks to sell our stuff and dominate the world entierly.
"the cost of windows is a big chunk of system price. "
No, it isn't. Microsoft software is very cheap for schools, we are talking about $20-30 per seat (os+office), compare that to the hardware they run it on.
It's just amazing what people will say to try to justify that they are stealing other peoples hard work.
We all have the right to free speech. These people are bastardize that right to commit crimes, I really can't feel sorry for them.
...If there is no demand for e-book there will not be any, back to paper books. Simple as that.
What do you mean with this?
What do law enforcement, in this case making sure people are getting paid for their honest work, has to do with "End of innovation"??
Please explain.
"There is very little similarity between our community and the Soviet system. Our emphasis is on freedom, decentralization, and voluntary cooperation, which are not things that the Soviet Bloc was known for. It is actually the proprietary software world that resembles the Soviet system. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html for more explanation of this. "
Hmmm... I think you have misunderstod something, mr Stallman.
Communism is all about freedom. Communism is about getting rid of ownership, so is Free software.
But to maintain this freedom the freedom must be enforced! This is what the sovjet union did, they insisted that people didn't own, otherwise people would be enslaved by the owners again. This is also what the Free software movement is all about.
It really depends on what you define as freedom, the western would saw it as freedom to be able to own and sell your proprietary (IP or otherwise), the sovjet block beleived that freedom is to be free from the enslavement owners impose on you.
"If you count all the hidden taxes, it's more like 60 or 70%. "
In sweden, the country in the world with the highest taxes a person with a medium income pays about 68% in tax.
"That is a perverse view of morality. "
I wonder who really have a perverse view on morality...
"Microsoft is king of marketing, "
I really don't understand what this comes from, I have seen many post on slashdot suggesting this.
Can it be more untrue? Show me another company as big as microsoft with so little advertising (and quite cheap ones to).
Compare this to a company like coca cola, huge advertising campaigns, really expensive ones to.
It seems like the deal was about two things:
1: The right to distribute mysql. Since it's GPL'd the value of this is zero so this point is void.
2: The right to use the MySQL trademark. This should give them the right to register a homepage, how could it not?
Agreed, the big majority of all users of free software uses it for the free beer aspect of it.
It's quite pathetic to see it as free speech and in the real world, not many does.
I still wants to know what exactly NuSphere did buy from MySQL AB?
MySQL seems to think that NuSphere didn't get any, MySQL just got loads of cash for nothing.
"Producing a product doesn't mean you're entitled to make money from it, "
Noone is suggesting that either, but you ARE protected by law from people stealing from you.
"If a company goes out and produces a bad product and doesn't make money because no one is willing to buy crap, this is the free market working."
A free market is where people can choose between several products, not where people can hack some products. Not the same thing.
"Adobe has been producing a crappy product . People/corporations have been paying for this product."
Thats a deal between Adobe and those companies/people, noone else. If it's a crappy product you are always free to go somewhere else, but it doesn't make it right to sell cracker software.
"When someone comes along and shows that the product is a piece of crap, "
He wasn't arrested for pointing out a flaw, he was arrested for selling software that breaks their product.
"it's expected that there will be a major reduction in the amount profit for Adobe. There's nothing wrong with Adobe losing money over something that was (ultimately) their fault."
There is nothing wrong with Adobe losing money on the fact that people chose other alternatives. But it is wrong that they are losing money because people ARE USING their product but don't pay.
"If it is really good, most people are going to go out and buy it anyways because they want the "good" version, not just some cheap copy recorded off of HBO"
I don't beleive that. I beleive there are huge revenue lost because of copying. Money that has to be compansated on the casettes they do sell=higher prices.
"I didn't own the record then either. How is this different to downloading an MP3 I don't own the CD for? "
It isn't and it's equally illegal.
No, it isn't. Thats my point.
Why should you have the freedom to steal other peoples work?
Your freedom stop where another persons / organisations freedom starts (freedom to protect and sell your own work for example).
It's not always the case that what one wants to buy is available for sale.
That is simply wrong. The production costs are huge. It's not the medium you pay for but the production of the content.
All Radio station pays money to the music industry each time a song is played, they get royalty.
Why didn't you include the best option?
* You can have whatever servers you want, share what you want AS LONG IT ISN'T ILLEGAL. There is nothing right about taking other people hard work without paying them (except in those cases where the author doesn't want to get paid).
Couldn't agree more.
/. readers would try to escape from restaurants without paying if they get the chance.
Personally I think it's all just bullshit.
People don't want to pay for anything plain and simple. Or at least get away without paying where they have the possibility.
It comes down to low morality.
I bet most
If I'm not remembering it wrong the anger on /. over the Napster shutdown was that people couldn't trade music that the author wanted to be free. Atleast that was that people said.
Those companies and bounty hunters only tracks down people who DO break the law, whats wrong with that?
Sue the shit out of them so that we who do have some morality on our body don't have to buy music/software with added pricetags to compensate for piracy.
It's kind of funny that the people stealing music is often the same people who praises open source software for ethical reasons. Makes one wonders if it really has anything to do with ethics and not the fact that it doesn't cost anything.
I don't think there is any harm if good methods for getting paid for content on the internet is developed.
Those who doesn't want to pay can just go to other free sites.
This would I think make it possible to produce high-class content instead of all the crap that the internet is today.