What you buy is a license, and the contract you sign is the EULA you click through when you install the software.
Contracts are not licenses. However since you bought the software at Target/WalMart/Best Buy/Amazon, then any contract would be between you and the retailer, not you and the publisher. Any "contract" terms from the publisher would be completely unenforceable against the purchaser.
Just add a note to the back of your dollar bills indicating that the money is just licensed and may not be passed on to another user in exchange for goods or services.
See how they like them apples...
(I do wonder though why a software publisher who sells their product through a retailer figures that they have any business relationship with me at all.)
Let us say, for sake of argument that there are 100,000 bankers in the US. Let us also look at the number of people who applied for a loan that they had no hope of repaying, say 1,000,000 people. I'd say that qualifies as "vast majority."
The vast majority of greedy fuckers that brought our country to its knees don't work for banks. They are the dipshits who thought that they could borrow 110% of the value of an overpriced asset, hold the asset for a month or two, then sell for a 200% profit.
People like you make me sick. I cannot understand why you think, just because you work hard, plan ahead, make good choices, learn from your mistakes, are self reliant, don't throw away your future for a few minutes pleasure in the now, why you think that entitles you to a better quality of life than people who don't work hard, don't think about the future, repeatedly make stupid choices and will easily trade away a weeks worth of earnings for some shiny new shoes. It's unbelievable how selfish you are, I mean look at all those poor people who spent their money on beer, smokes, dope... how they dropped out of school and can't seem to get to work on time... they have needs and it's selfish bastards like you that make this country such a shithole to live in.
Wait, hold on, let me see if I understand this correctly. Your defense to of the fact that you're completely clueless as to the sequence of public events in this case is that I'm not a Swedish lawyer? Really? Wow, it's like you're a second grader. Are you next going to tell me that you're rubber and I'm glue and what bounces off you sticks to me?
Look, you claimed that the charges were dropped and completely fail to recognize the actual public fact that the charges have been brought again. So when you suggest that it's over and done with, and the only reason the story persists is because of some shadowy conspiracy among random slashdot posters, the media and politicians -- well all it shows is that you're kind of dumb because you haven't even made the effort to confirm that what you believe to be true actually is true.
The sports metaphor was to highlight the fact that you obviously aren't paying attention.
However if you really want to compare the length of our respective dicks when it comes to legal knowledge, I'll offer you this challenge:
The LSAT is being administered on October 9, you take it, I'll take it and we'll see who scores better. Shit, I'll even put some money on it. How would you like to wager $1000 USD?
I have no idea about Sweden, but in the US they can bring charges and drop them pretty much at whim. It's not gone forever until a judge dismisses them.
I'm curious as to what exactly you think my opinion is and in what ways it's wrong. Because I don't think your post actually disagrees with mine. They're almost entirely at right angles to each other.
However, if I was going to analogize your situation to the situation at hand in this discussion, you're giving away free content is like the movie studio giving away 120 second previews of the film for the purpose of generating interest. And to further the analogy, a certain percentage of your paid work would end up being free because the people who agreed to pay you for it, after getting a hold of the photographs/videos would decide not to pay. And what's more a certain portion of those would, after having gotten whatever benefit from the work they were expecting to get, then turn around and say that your work was shitty and not worth a dime anyway.
First, I draw the line one what is "content" a little higher than conversation.
Second, you're doing exactly as I suggest: create content, give it away for free. If your model is better than the current model, then you'll thrive while the current model withers. We all will benefit. But after a couple of decades of the internet being a mechanism for inexpensive distribution, the old model still beats out every competition that comes along.
I do have my personal beliefs and make my own choices on how I mainly consume and occasionally produce content. I don't get out and proselytize my position. But I'm not a moron and I can see that it's far better to have some tangible instantiation of a new model than to merely rant and cry and complain that the existing model is a failure. When most of our movies, books, paintings, photographs, sculptures and other pieces of art are available for free and we still have a broad range content available, then someone can say "see, free is better." But until then, it's just entitlement driven non-producers demanding free stuff.
I suppose I could summarize that as "put your money where your mouth is."
Which is why the argument about them losing money is kind of dumb. It's true that they lose money, it's just very hard to quantify how much. The better argument is that people are getting some benefit without adhering to the agreed upon terms -- terms that society established to encourage the creation of artistic works. It's kind of like going to work for two weeks and expecting to receive a paycheck after two months. Or putting your money into a savings account and actually expecting to receive the agreed interest.
I disagree. The price is an unlimited distribution license of the movie, not a copy of the movie or a trip to the movie. The damages should be about $5,000,000 for that license. Oh wait, an Oscar-winning, critically acclaimed film? $25,000,000. So $2,900 doesn't seem too bad really.
You know what you should do if you don't like copyright? You should create content and give it away for free and if you're right and copyright is a blight on society and only holds back the advancement of the arts and science, then you'll become very successful in your model. Then you might have a case for advocating for the elimination or major reform of existing copyright law. But as long as the people bitching about copyright are 99.99% non-creators, all anybody hears is "gimme gimme gimme... i want free shit..."
What wikileaks puts on their website is not necessarily verifiable. For instance with the afghan documents all we have are non-specific statements from the white house and dod that they are upset with the release of the documents. However it's not like anyone is able to take them and go to the dod and compare what wikileaks put out with what the dod has in their records. Additionally, even in cases when a fact can be verified it doesn't mean that you have the whole story, all it means is you have a fact. If someone consistently only gives you a subset of the facts you don't really know what the truth is. By selectively releasing facts you can paint the picture you choose to paint. Knowing someone's biases allows people to properly contextualize what they are saying.
Who said anything about who the sources are? This is about how the organization is run. About where their money comes from. About what material they don't make public. Hell, if I was a donor to wikileaks I'd want to know how they are spending the money.
Wikileaks secrecy is bad. Sunlight is good for all parties in political discourse, not just some of them. If wikileaks was entirely unbiased and published everything that came across the wire then there might be an argument to be made. But they aren't unbiased, so being subject to scrutiny is appropriate so that we can understand where they are coming from to be informed adequately so that we can properly assess what they are telling us.
Whatever. I'm not going to rehash what's been all over the internet for the last year. Anyone with even a modicum of intellectual honesty recognizes that Mann, Jones, et. al. have been extremely closed in their workings. The unbiased panels convened to review the climategate emails have been anything but unbiased. There's not a scientist in the world who will tell you that it's not important to show the work. It's not sufficient to state a conclusion and then end your paper.
The results of the work should be public. The ownership of the copyright/patent of the results should be public. That's the work product. And that's not what they are after. They have the work product. And they don't like it, so they want the notes and such leading up to the work product so they can invalidate it. And not because it's actually invalid, but because you can take incomplete anything and spin it to be invalid.
Do you think the same thing about civil engineers? Do we just let them build bridges and if they seem to be suspect for some reason we can't look at the plans?
Regardless, that's not how it works. We do get access to all their intermediate work, emails, notes, etc. And that is totally appropriate. If the money that pays for your jobs is public, then so is pretty much every aspect of your job.
Eh? It seems to me that it comes down to needing a subpoena in order to get access to a public employee's work product.
If you want to talk scary, that's scary. Mann worked/works for public universities paid for with tax dollars. Explain why getting access to anything that he does while on tax payer time isn't as simple as saying "hey dude, can we see your work?"
When I plug my iPad into my Vista box, the auto-run dialog comes up and asks me if I want to either download pictures or open it like a file storage. There is no "do nothing" option, which I find kind of amusing, since I've usually turned off auto-run for everything.
There's a more options link/button thing you can click on which brings up another dialog where you can specify the default behavior and one of the options is do nothing.
One would hope that developers have a greater level of professionalism than that. However if it turns out that they aren't mature and professional then they shouldn't be surprised when they end up losing their jobs and facing criminal charges.
No. It just encourages sloppy development practices.
Would you want to drive over a bridge that wasn't actually designed and engineered, but rather they just piled some stuff up and will fix it if it collapses? Or have a surgeon chopping you open with the idea that they'll figure it out as they go? So why would we want developers to work with the expectation that they get to intervene at the last instant to resolve their failures?
Slashdot Mirror
Contracts are not licenses. However since you bought the software at Target/WalMart/Best Buy/Amazon, then any contract would be between you and the retailer, not you and the publisher. Any "contract" terms from the publisher would be completely unenforceable against the purchaser.
Just add a note to the back of your dollar bills indicating that the money is just licensed and may not be passed on to another user in exchange for goods or services.
See how they like them apples...
(I do wonder though why a software publisher who sells their product through a retailer figures that they have any business relationship with me at all.)
Do you actually give a crap about your karma? I mean my entire oeuvre was to game the system and I don't even give a crap about it.
Let us say, for sake of argument that there are 100,000 bankers in the US. Let us also look at the number of people who applied for a loan that they had no hope of repaying, say 1,000,000 people. I'd say that qualifies as "vast majority."
The vast majority of greedy fuckers that brought our country to its knees don't work for banks. They are the dipshits who thought that they could borrow 110% of the value of an overpriced asset, hold the asset for a month or two, then sell for a 200% profit.
People like you make me sick. I cannot understand why you think, just because you work hard, plan ahead, make good choices, learn from your mistakes, are self reliant, don't throw away your future for a few minutes pleasure in the now, why you think that entitles you to a better quality of life than people who don't work hard, don't think about the future, repeatedly make stupid choices and will easily trade away a weeks worth of earnings for some shiny new shoes. It's unbelievable how selfish you are, I mean look at all those poor people who spent their money on beer, smokes, dope... how they dropped out of school and can't seem to get to work on time... they have needs and it's selfish bastards like you that make this country such a shithole to live in.
First you must love yourself...
When that gets boring, take some of that $75,000 and hire a hooker or two.
Coward.
Wait, hold on, let me see if I understand this correctly. Your defense to of the fact that you're completely clueless as to the sequence of public events in this case is that I'm not a Swedish lawyer? Really? Wow, it's like you're a second grader. Are you next going to tell me that you're rubber and I'm glue and what bounces off you sticks to me?
Look, you claimed that the charges were dropped and completely fail to recognize the actual public fact that the charges have been brought again. So when you suggest that it's over and done with, and the only reason the story persists is because of some shadowy conspiracy among random slashdot posters, the media and politicians -- well all it shows is that you're kind of dumb because you haven't even made the effort to confirm that what you believe to be true actually is true.
The sports metaphor was to highlight the fact that you obviously aren't paying attention.
However if you really want to compare the length of our respective dicks when it comes to legal knowledge, I'll offer you this challenge:
The LSAT is being administered on October 9, you take it, I'll take it and we'll see who scores better. Shit, I'll even put some money on it. How would you like to wager $1000 USD?
I have no idea about Sweden, but in the US they can bring charges and drop them pretty much at whim. It's not gone forever until a judge dismisses them.
I'm curious, do you also stop watching baseball games after the first inning? Because your knowledge of the circumstances here is incomplete.
I'm curious as to what exactly you think my opinion is and in what ways it's wrong. Because I don't think your post actually disagrees with mine. They're almost entirely at right angles to each other.
However, if I was going to analogize your situation to the situation at hand in this discussion, you're giving away free content is like the movie studio giving away 120 second previews of the film for the purpose of generating interest. And to further the analogy, a certain percentage of your paid work would end up being free because the people who agreed to pay you for it, after getting a hold of the photographs/videos would decide not to pay. And what's more a certain portion of those would, after having gotten whatever benefit from the work they were expecting to get, then turn around and say that your work was shitty and not worth a dime anyway.
First, I draw the line one what is "content" a little higher than conversation.
Second, you're doing exactly as I suggest: create content, give it away for free. If your model is better than the current model, then you'll thrive while the current model withers. We all will benefit. But after a couple of decades of the internet being a mechanism for inexpensive distribution, the old model still beats out every competition that comes along.
I do have my personal beliefs and make my own choices on how I mainly consume and occasionally produce content. I don't get out and proselytize my position. But I'm not a moron and I can see that it's far better to have some tangible instantiation of a new model than to merely rant and cry and complain that the existing model is a failure. When most of our movies, books, paintings, photographs, sculptures and other pieces of art are available for free and we still have a broad range content available, then someone can say "see, free is better." But until then, it's just entitlement driven non-producers demanding free stuff.
I suppose I could summarize that as "put your money where your mouth is."
Which is why the argument about them losing money is kind of dumb. It's true that they lose money, it's just very hard to quantify how much. The better argument is that people are getting some benefit without adhering to the agreed upon terms -- terms that society established to encourage the creation of artistic works. It's kind of like going to work for two weeks and expecting to receive a paycheck after two months. Or putting your money into a savings account and actually expecting to receive the agreed interest.
I disagree. The price is an unlimited distribution license of the movie, not a copy of the movie or a trip to the movie. The damages should be about $5,000,000 for that license. Oh wait, an Oscar-winning, critically acclaimed film? $25,000,000. So $2,900 doesn't seem too bad really.
You know what you should do if you don't like copyright? You should create content and give it away for free and if you're right and copyright is a blight on society and only holds back the advancement of the arts and science, then you'll become very successful in your model. Then you might have a case for advocating for the elimination or major reform of existing copyright law. But as long as the people bitching about copyright are 99.99% non-creators, all anybody hears is "gimme gimme gimme... i want free shit..."
What wikileaks puts on their website is not necessarily verifiable. For instance with the afghan documents all we have are non-specific statements from the white house and dod that they are upset with the release of the documents. However it's not like anyone is able to take them and go to the dod and compare what wikileaks put out with what the dod has in their records. Additionally, even in cases when a fact can be verified it doesn't mean that you have the whole story, all it means is you have a fact. If someone consistently only gives you a subset of the facts you don't really know what the truth is. By selectively releasing facts you can paint the picture you choose to paint. Knowing someone's biases allows people to properly contextualize what they are saying.
Who said anything about who the sources are? This is about how the organization is run. About where their money comes from. About what material they don't make public. Hell, if I was a donor to wikileaks I'd want to know how they are spending the money.
The white pages are full of facts, does that make the telephone book journalism?
Wikileaks secrecy is bad. Sunlight is good for all parties in political discourse, not just some of them. If wikileaks was entirely unbiased and published everything that came across the wire then there might be an argument to be made. But they aren't unbiased, so being subject to scrutiny is appropriate so that we can understand where they are coming from to be informed adequately so that we can properly assess what they are telling us.
Whatever. I'm not going to rehash what's been all over the internet for the last year. Anyone with even a modicum of intellectual honesty recognizes that Mann, Jones, et. al. have been extremely closed in their workings. The unbiased panels convened to review the climategate emails have been anything but unbiased. There's not a scientist in the world who will tell you that it's not important to show the work. It's not sufficient to state a conclusion and then end your paper.
Do you think the same thing about civil engineers? Do we just let them build bridges and if they seem to be suspect for some reason we can't look at the plans?
Regardless, that's not how it works. We do get access to all their intermediate work, emails, notes, etc. And that is totally appropriate. If the money that pays for your jobs is public, then so is pretty much every aspect of your job.
Eh? It seems to me that it comes down to needing a subpoena in order to get access to a public employee's work product.
If you want to talk scary, that's scary. Mann worked/works for public universities paid for with tax dollars. Explain why getting access to anything that he does while on tax payer time isn't as simple as saying "hey dude, can we see your work?"
I bet the groupies are really really disappointed.
There's a more options link/button thing you can click on which brings up another dialog where you can specify the default behavior and one of the options is do nothing.
One would hope that developers have a greater level of professionalism than that. However if it turns out that they aren't mature and professional then they shouldn't be surprised when they end up losing their jobs and facing criminal charges.
No. It just encourages sloppy development practices.
Would you want to drive over a bridge that wasn't actually designed and engineered, but rather they just piled some stuff up and will fix it if it collapses? Or have a surgeon chopping you open with the idea that they'll figure it out as they go? So why would we want developers to work with the expectation that they get to intervene at the last instant to resolve their failures?