There are quite a few who think that it's quite unethical and unfair that other people and especially big companies can sell software that someone have written without contributing to the development financially.
My suggestion is that _if_ a company sell an open source product they have to pay a certain percent to the developers. How much are up to the developers, they can of cause charge nothing in royalty if they want to. If a distributor thinks someone wants too much for it to be financially viable they always have the option to not include the software or choose a competitor. With this you get a totally open market for buyers and sellers. Notice that you can still distribute it for nothing and therefore no royalty to the developer(s).
For instance, if the gnome people want 1% of the price for any CD that includes gnome they get 1% for each CD bought. When people download an iso or source they get nothing.
Doesn't this sound fair for all parties?
This whole thing about open source software should also mean gratis for the developer(s) seems to be a holy cow.
I have never seen statements from any government organisation suggesting crypto software is used only (or mostly) by criminals.
Have you?
But I have seen allot of statements about worries about criminals using crypto software from government organisations.
In the end the problem is that the police has had the possibility to tap phone wires etc to hunt down criminals like pedofiles and drug lords and those possibilities fades away with the arrival of better technology. In the end this means more drugs and child abusers in the world.
Of cause there is always the issue of personal integrity but I doubt anyone would suggest that those crimes aren't important to fight or don't you care about your children's future?
Article 17:
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
-----
You can check it out yourself at www.un.org->Welcome->Human rights(at top)->The universal declaration of human rights.
Free speech is free speech and nothing else. Sure, if I live in China I may say whatever I want as long as no policeman hears it. BUT, this is not free speech. If what people say is forbidden OR hindered in any way you DONT have free speech.
The slashdot way is NOT free speech because the content is modded in a distinct direction and therefore makes people read certain things more than others regardless of how often an certain expression is posted. It is a corruption of free speech.
For example, I wrote the above post because a post by some other guy earlier about basically the same thing (but with some unessesary bad personal attacks). The question itself about the pseudo free speech often found on the net is quite valid.
You know just as well as me that posts that is against the typical slashdot view are modded down to -1 right away even if it IS an important question and not just trolling.
And why on earth is this parent post just rated 0. After all, it is one of the most fundamental and interresting questions in these days of open source and free software.
What do you think about corrupted versions of free speech as the one we see here at slashdot? Free speech that only apply to people with the "correct" views. Other views are quickly modded down.
The right to own (including IP) is included in the united nations declaration of human rights (article 17). What do you think about their views on human rights compared to the typical slashdot one?
Re:What are the broader economic implications?
on
Linux in 3D
·
· Score: 1
"Control over _your_ own data and systems. You aren't locked into some other company's vision of how you should be using their software. "
So if you buy a Volvo and don't get the blueprints your rights are at stake?
"No, they are also targeting people who have backup copies. "
Fair use is applied to ALL copyright related laws, including this one. You may always play backup copies (you must of cause have the original); this always falls under fair use.
"Umm, that's what this whole story is about. From Monday (I thought it was the 1st, oops) it is illegal to modchip regardless of intent. My solution: I'm not going to be buying a PS2 or DVD player, ever. Currently I'm collecting secondhand Gameboy games to use with my GBC, SuperGB and Liberty emulator..."
The general law says it's illegal but the exception of fair use always apply (it applies to all copyright laws so it's not specified) so it is not illegal to mod it for import or backups. As long as you have the originals for the backups you can sleep well.
They aren't downright illegal to use. I don't know what you know about copyright law but all copyright related laws have exceptions called fair use. Fair use is a very wide concept and it basically means that the copyright law only applies to cases where something is going on that is against what the law is there for, in other words stealing. If no stealing is going on, the law doesn't apply.
If you mod you PS to play backups, imported games or you mod it alot and make an robot out of it it isn't illegal.
In all developed countries like USA, Europe and Australia the consumers case is very strong when it comes to copyright law and there is no chance in hell that you will ever stand trial if you haven't stolen big time.
In my case because I don't want my originals to get scratches (and I DO have the originals). My point is that the usual slashdot-users bitching about that their rights are at stake is just bull, they aren't. It's only illegal when you steal something just as it should be.
I don't like freeloaders who don't pay for other peoples honest work and the laws has the same goal, it is only targeting criminals no others.
No problem, backups and imports falls under fair use. You don't steal anyone's property so it isn't illegal. Only if you steal something it becomes illegal just as it should be.
You seems to be unfamiliar with the laws in Australia and the rest of the developed countries. It is never illegal to modchip or copy if you use it for backups or other things that falls under 'fair use'.
In a matter of fact, copying or modding is only illegal if it is done for the purpose of stealing.
You can copy all you like as long as you don't steal anyones product.
If you modchip it for some other purpose than to steal it falls under fair use. For example if you modchip it and play you backups no judge would convict you for that. Most slashdot readers don't seem to be very educated when it comes to laws.
All copyright laws only applies when there is a purpose of stealing. The laws are there to make sure people get paid for their honest work and nothing else.
Slashdot Mirror
"Musicians will be making money some other way. "
What the hell are you talking about? If the musicians don't get paid they don't get paid, end of story.
I have one suggestion.
There are quite a few who think that it's quite unethical and unfair that other people and especially big companies can sell software that someone have written without contributing to the development financially.
My suggestion is that _if_ a company sell an open source product they have to pay a certain percent to the developers. How much are up to the developers, they can of cause charge nothing in royalty if they want to. If a distributor thinks someone wants too much for it to be financially viable they always have the option to not include the software or choose a competitor. With this you get a totally open market for buyers and sellers. Notice that you can still distribute it for nothing and therefore no royalty to the developer(s).
For instance, if the gnome people want 1% of the price for any CD that includes gnome they get 1% for each CD bought. When people download an iso or source they get nothing.
Doesn't this sound fair for all parties?
This whole thing about open source software should also mean gratis for the developer(s) seems to be a holy cow.
Feel free to leave some feedback.
I have never seen statements from any government organisation suggesting crypto software is used only (or mostly) by criminals.
Have you?
But I have seen allot of statements about worries about criminals using crypto software from government organisations.
In the end the problem is that the police has had the possibility to tap phone wires etc to hunt down criminals like pedofiles and drug lords and those possibilities fades away with the arrival of better technology. In the end this means more drugs and child abusers in the world.
Of cause there is always the issue of personal integrity but I doubt anyone would suggest that those crimes aren't important to fight or don't you care about your children's future?
There are two sides of this coin.
If the newspaper is selective about what direction published material should have, no you don't have free speech.
This is the reason why all democratic countries make sure the newspapers and TV that exists in the country cover all kind of views.
Have you been in school?
Sure, here is a cut-and-paste.
-----
Article 17:
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
-----
You can check it out yourself at www.un.org->Welcome->Human rights(at top)->The universal declaration of human rights.
Hahaha... You are just too much!
Free speech is free speech and nothing else. Sure, if I live in China I may say whatever I want as long as no policeman hears it. BUT, this is not free speech. If what people say is forbidden OR hindered in any way you DONT have free speech.
The slashdot way is NOT free speech because the content is modded in a distinct direction and therefore makes people read certain things more than others regardless of how often an certain expression is posted. It is a corruption of free speech.
For example, I wrote the above post because a post by some other guy earlier about basically the same thing (but with some unessesary bad personal attacks). The question itself about the pseudo free speech often found on the net is quite valid.
You know just as well as me that posts that is against the typical slashdot view are modded down to -1 right away even if it IS an important question and not just trolling.
And why on earth is this parent post just rated 0. After all, it is one of the most fundamental and interresting questions in these days of open source and free software.
Corrupted version on the net i general that is. (slashdot was just an example).
What do you think about corrupted versions of free speech as the one we see here at slashdot? Free speech that only apply to people with the "correct" views. Other views are quickly modded down.
Wait a minute now!
What kind of censorship is this??? Why is the above anonymous question about free speech and the (sometimes) corruption of it modded down?
The right to own (including IP) is included in the united nations declaration of human rights (article 17). What do you think about their views on human rights compared to the typical slashdot one?
"Control over _your_ own data and systems. You aren't locked into some other company's vision of how you should be using their software. "
So if you buy a Volvo and don't get the blueprints your rights are at stake?
That's right.
It's quite un-ethical.
"No, they are also targeting people who have backup copies. "
Fair use is applied to ALL copyright related laws, including this one. You may always play backup copies (you must of cause have the original); this always falls under fair use.
"Umm, that's what this whole story is about. From Monday (I thought it was the 1st, oops) it is illegal to modchip regardless of intent. My solution: I'm not going to be buying a PS2 or DVD player, ever. Currently I'm collecting secondhand Gameboy games to use with my GBC, SuperGB and Liberty emulator..."
The general law says it's illegal but the exception of fair use always apply (it applies to all copyright laws so it's not specified) so it is not illegal to mod it for import or backups. As long as you have the originals for the backups you can sleep well.
They aren't downright illegal to use. I don't know what you know about copyright law but all copyright related laws have exceptions called fair use. Fair use is a very wide concept and it basically means that the copyright law only applies to cases where something is going on that is against what the law is there for, in other words stealing. If no stealing is going on, the law doesn't apply.
If you mod you PS to play backups, imported games or you mod it alot and make an robot out of it it isn't illegal.
In all developed countries like USA, Europe and Australia the consumers case is very strong when it comes to copyright law and there is no chance in hell that you will ever stand trial if you haven't stolen big time.
Of cause people choose the platform where it's easy to copy, does that make it more right?
What's your point?
Yes it is, isn't it :)
In my case because I don't want my originals to get scratches (and I DO have the originals). My point is that the usual slashdot-users bitching about that their rights are at stake is just bull, they aren't. It's only illegal when you steal something just as it should be.
I don't like freeloaders who don't pay for other peoples honest work and the laws has the same goal, it is only targeting criminals no others.
No problem, backups and imports falls under fair use. You don't steal anyone's property so it isn't illegal. Only if you steal something it becomes illegal just as it should be.
It's never illegal if it falls under fair use, and that is all scenarios where you don't steal someone's property.
In other words you can mod all you want as long as its done for playing imported games, backups and so on.
The laws are there to make sure people are paid for their honest work, not to make your life harder.
You seems to be unfamiliar with the laws in Australia and the rest of the developed countries. It is never illegal to modchip or copy if you use it for backups or other things that falls under 'fair use'.
In a matter of fact, copying or modding is only illegal if it is done for the purpose of stealing.
You can copy all you like as long as you don't steal anyones product.
If you modchip it for some other purpose than to steal it falls under fair use. For example if you modchip it and play you backups no judge would convict you for that. Most slashdot readers don't seem to be very educated when it comes to laws.
All copyright laws only applies when there is a purpose of stealing. The laws are there to make sure people get paid for their honest work and nothing else.