"I think the main usage of it would be for relatively underplayed bands to release, say, 1 or 2 songs (maybe their would-be-radio songs) under the OAL and then release the entire album under a conventional restrictive licence. They win because their radio songs get heard, even though the radio won't play them (often); and they win again because people buy their albums (hopefully). "
I suspect FSF/EEF and the rest wants to do the same thing as with software. They want to FORCE people to give away their work. RMS has talked several times about trying to ban commercial software in any form.
"Bands have been "giving away" their songs on the radio (yes, I know it's not CD quality, but the effect is the same) for a long time and it has proved to be quite useful."
No, the band gets royalty each time their song is played on the radio. Same thing with TV of cause.
Redhat and VA Linux sells products and services for quite some figures, they also spend allot so it don't do that good so far. The developers who developed all the software don't get anything.
Practically they have free labour. Don't you think this is unethical?
"They said the same thing about Open Software and just look at giants like Red Hat and VA Linux."
Yes, just look at them. The people who _developed_ the software hasn't made any money, just those capitalists who can get their products for free (free labour). Do you really think this is a good thing?
Open source has really shown that free as in speech also means free as in beer.
There are even people that call this Free economy:-)
The idea that some people should give their work away for free (developers, for example Larry Wall(perl)) so that others can make money on it (support people, for example Redhat) are just ridiculous.
"Anytime you have a closed-source proprietary system with the bullshit 'intellectual property' laws we have, they can change the rules on you any time they want to. "
No, they cant. The license you accept is what you accept, nothing else.
"The license that comes with most software these days ('In exchange for the use of our valuable Intellectual Property, we own your firstborn child and your left testicle/ovary, and if our product doesn't work we still get them') has no anti-asshole protection at all. "
Show me such a license please...
"That is why GPL and the Artistic licenses are so important. In the case of the GPL, it even attempts to pre-emptively prevent assholishness. "
Hehe, yeah, sure! Red hat and other capitalist's sells other peoples work and are getting rich without compensating the workers AT ALL. If that isn't assholishness, nothing is.
And...
If you check out the tech-stocks you will notice that they are dropping. What do you think this means? It means they don't make enough money and has to make more, it certainly doesn't mean they make too much.
"How could they possibly suffer any damage by MTP's efforts"
Eh? No, research a new GUI look for tens of millions of dollars and then having people copying so that it doesn't generate revenue it is of cause great business!;)
I certainly don't think its ethical. The service is after all fully built on this product. Does it really matter one bit that technically it isn't the product itself?
Slashdot Mirror
Is that really any different than working on Linux, that is after all working for Redhat and Mandrake (among others) for free.
"I think the main usage of it would be for relatively underplayed bands to release, say, 1 or 2 songs (maybe their would-be-radio songs) under the OAL and then release the entire album under a conventional restrictive licence. They win because their radio songs get heard, even though the radio won't play them (often); and they win again because people buy their albums (hopefully). "
I suspect FSF/EEF and the rest wants to do the same thing as with software. They want to FORCE people to give away their work. RMS has talked several times about trying to ban commercial software in any form.
"Bands have been "giving away" their songs on the radio (yes, I know it's not CD quality, but the effect is the same) for a long time and it has proved to be quite useful."
No, the band gets royalty each time their song is played on the radio. Same thing with TV of cause.
Troll?
Why do you think that the correct parent-post analysis is a troll? Anything wrong with it?
Please explain.
"abundant economy - which is best served by a gift economy. "
:-)
You CANT be serious?
Where do you suggest those people are going to get money to buy food for? Pay bills?
""Exploit" implies exclusivity. Redhat doesn't have exclusive rights to package and redistribute those components. "
I know what you meant but my point still is:
A few big companies are selling those products for high numbers and the people who are developing it doesn't get compensated at all.
Redhat and VA Linux sells products and services for quite some figures, they also spend allot so it don't do that good so far. The developers who developed all the software don't get anything.
Practically they have free labour. Don't you think this is unethical?
You are joking, right?
If you give away something, you give it away. End of story.
"...ensuring the artist is compensated"
Eh...Yeah, that is really an interesting sentence.
But hey, there are a hell of allot of people who call open source software for an open economy also so I can't really say I'm that surprised.
"Then again, this is similar to the bastardization of the word "free", I suppose...."
Would guess so yes...
I think you have misunderstood something. The license grants other people to sell it and prohibits you from doing anything about it.
Just take a look at Redhat; they have made enormous amounts of money on other peoples work. They have free labour.
"They said the same thing about Open Software and just look at giants like Red Hat and VA Linux."
Yes, just look at them. The people who _developed_ the software hasn't made any money, just those capitalists who can get their products for free (free labour). Do you really think this is a good thing?
Open source has really shown that free as in speech also means free as in beer.
Amen.
:-)
There are even people that call this Free economy
The idea that some people should give their work away for free (developers, for example Larry Wall(perl)) so that others can make money on it (support people, for example Redhat) are just ridiculous.
Your wrong...
Same goes for software, show me the support employee that makes even average. There is money in support but not very much.
After all, it's the trading between people and organisations that has given us this great wealth in the western world.
Its nice to get things for free but in the long run I think it will hurt our economies and in the end, us.
...Anyone?
Isn't any of you people aware that is costs money to live.
Hahaha, yeah, right! :-)
I have read all RMS has wrote and he is simply wrong.
"such as his belief in the Free Market -- are not"
Give away peoples work does NOT make a free market.
So...? They must still protect it.
"Anytime you have a closed-source proprietary system with the bullshit 'intellectual property' laws we have, they can change the rules on you any time they want to. "
No, they cant. The license you accept is what you accept, nothing else.
"The license that comes with most software these days ('In exchange for the use of our valuable Intellectual Property, we own your firstborn child and your left testicle/ovary, and if our product doesn't work we still get them') has no anti-asshole protection at all. "
Show me such a license please...
"That is why GPL and the Artistic licenses are so important. In the case of the GPL, it even attempts to pre-emptively prevent assholishness. "
Hehe, yeah, sure! Red hat and other capitalist's sells other peoples work and are getting rich without compensating the workers AT ALL. If that isn't assholishness, nothing is.
And...
If you check out the tech-stocks you will notice that they are dropping. What do you think this means? It means they don't make enough money and has to make more, it certainly doesn't mean they make too much.
GPL doesn't pay bills.
Damn right!
"How could they possibly suffer any damage by MTP's efforts"
;)
Eh? No, research a new GUI look for tens of millions of dollars and then having people copying so that it doesn't generate revenue it is of cause great business!
I have read the GPL.
I certainly don't think its ethical. The service is after all fully built on this product. Does it really matter one bit that technically it isn't the product itself?
This IS voluntarily. If you don't like it, don't use it.
Its not like MS is forcing you to give them info about yourself.
"Software per se.. they are selling a service, "
So...? The service is fully built around this product.
I still think it is an important question and it would be interesting to hear Young's view on this.
I'm not sure what you are talking about but my question is about the ethics in selling something that someone has released for free.