It doesn't matter if it helps spread games (I'm sure lots of things would spread if they were completely free!) or bring it to more people.
One doesn't have the right to violate the rights of the copyright holders and spread their intellectual material everywhere. It just doesn't matter what justifications are given because it's still illegal and no permission was given by the copyright holder.
I remember Nintendo busting ROM sites, and people were saying, "B-but Nintendo doesn't even sell these games anymore!" It didn't matter--it was Nintendo's property and they had the right. And of course fast-forward to now, and Nintendo is planning several old NES releases for the GBA, as well as compilations coming out for the Gamecube.
Copyright holders' rights are being completely ignored. Well, except when it's a GPL violation article, that is! Suddenly copyright enforcement becomes a really big deal then...
You have to understand that the reason for that is Gimp's interface is not intuitive. People don't have time to waste relearning entire new UIs each time they encounter a new program. Photoshop at at the least follows a few basic rules of the GUI system it's running under, and has an easier interface to use. Like I said, people aren't going to be impressed because it's free, they're going to be impressed if they use it and like it. A lot of the OSS community thinks it can compete with everything simply on price, ignoring the fact that people will quite willingly pay for something better if it's worth it.
That is true--I use the Windows version with two monitors and only toolbars can be moved. I'm told, however, that Photoshop 7 and later can be configured for true multiple-monitor support--whether that is true or not, I don't know.
Price is a valid point, but I think we're beyond the late-1999 era of OSS being the golden child for free things. It's 2004 now and the mentality is, "Okay it's cool that it's free, but I need results. What can I actually DO with this software?"
In the OS community, everyone gets so excited about having a "free" (as in beer) app which potentially replaces an expensive commercial app, that we get a bit carried away in our enthusiasm.
This excellent commentary is reflective of all of Linux and its software base. Things that Linux does that exist in other operating systems are somehow twice as good on Linux, even if implemented slightly less well (I'm thinking taskbars, start menus, device drivers, the works).
A lot of people fire back about GIMP's interface with, "But think of how friendly to multiple monitors it is!"
Never mind that Photoshop works just fine with multiple monitors! It has as far back as I can remember. I've seen five-monitor Mac setups arranged in order of the artist's graphics processes, moving from one monitor to another, going from area to dialog to area and so forth.
I get WHY people justify GIMP's interface. I just don't agree whatsoever.
What the hell do you think my point was? I'll spell it out for you because you seem to have misunderstood.
The GPL exists because of copyright law, just as you stated. Therefore, it is hypocritical to go around justify breaking other people's copyright because you're anti-something-or-other. You are essentially saying copyright law only holds up when you decide it does. It's hypocritical.
but it's easier to go with a cheap soundbite about hypocrisy than it is to think a little deeper about things. If copyright went away tomorrow, there would be no one to complain about GPL violations (but that undermines your argument, so you never bother to point that out, do you?).
Uh, it doesn't undermine anything I said. Next time, read things more clearly before you spout off...you're arguing part of what I was saying. GPL only exists because of copyright law, but piracy undermines copyright law. Got it? It's a double standard.
People who build their businesses on faulty models are freeloaders who get bitter when the free ride is taken away.
Apparently "faulty model" means selling something you worked on. Your statement doesn't even make sense.
I assume a "working model" to you would be magically giving it all away for free. We already have online music services...what's the next excuse for rampant piracy?
You have a beef with the RIAA, so you think everybody should rip off copyright holders. John Carmack will certainly appreciate your viewpoint when Doom 3 flies all over eMule.
Remind me of that next time Slashdot posts a whiny GPL copyright violation article. Oh, I forgot, copyrights should only be enforced when it serves our community's agenda. But ripping off artists is just fine because somehow the record labels are doing something wrong by selling CDs.
By the way : Are you aware that you just labelled over 50% of the population criminals? Should we all be thrown in jail? We'll keep the spillover at your place.
So that makes it okay?
Over 50% of the population RAPES the rights of copyright holders, and it's a-okay simply because a bunch of programmers have written P2P apps that make it easy and unenforcable?
When you get a job and spend years writing software, only to have it leaked online and pirated by thousands upon thousands of people weeks before retail, get back to me.
By the way, your argument that P2P apps are different from their users is the same argument Slashdotters gave when declaring that they should be suing individual downloaders and not Napster.
Fast-forward four years, and suddenly the RIAA is a bad guy for enforcing its own copyrights and doing just what the Slashdotters said they should do.
What really happened is that in the first case, people wanted Napster around so they could pirate freely, so suddenly they are evil for trying to bring down Napster. In the second case, they themselves want to be around so they can pirate freely.:) So suddenly they're evil for going after the individual infringers. It's all about rooting for whichever position lets people freeload some more.
No matter how you want to dress it up with rhetoric, the wide-spread broadcast of other peoples' material without permission is -- under current statute -- unlawful, and leaves one liable to civil and possible criminal prosecution.
An entire mindset has risen up to justify the piracy going on, but all I have to do is point out the hypocrisy of crying foul over GPL copyright violations while at the same time championing piracy of record labels' intellectual property. Copyright law apparently only holds up when it serves one's own interests...
Why does "use of a P2P application" equate with "copyright piracy?"
First off, because 99% of P2P usage is for piracy. To deny this is to be putting your head in the sand for your own agendas.
That's like saying "use of an automobile" equates with "running down pedestrians."
No, it's not. If you run down pedestrians, there is clear enforcement, and you will be arrested, prosecuted, and sent to jail.
It's much, much more difficult to enforce piracy. Hell, the RIAA tries to sue individual downloaders and people have a damn hissy-fit for some reason.
Just because the app *could* be used for nefarious purposes doesn't mean there aren't a whole lot of really cool *legal* things that can be done with it as well.
Oh, absolutely. But there is no mechanism to enforce whether or not the copyright holder has permission for their materials to be distributed. It's disrespectful and immoral to people if you just pirate their works all over the place without even dreaming of what they might think about it.
We have to face the fact that the absolute, major draw of P2P is getting stuff for free without having to pay for it. That is its main usage, and 99% of users on Kazaa and eMule aren't there out of the goodness of their hearts...
Filesharing is just bad. Of course I do it anyway. But if you look at your campus' bandwidth usage, some ludicrous number like 95% will be p2p traffic:-/
B-but they're just "sampling!" I'm sure they're all legally buying the stuff afterward...and none of it has any effect on sales! The hivemind said so...
It would just demonstrate the greed of people who will stop at nothing to pirate absolutely everything. Seriously, congesting freaking Internet2? That would have to be a new low...
I'm sure it will all be justified, of course. Some sort of anti-something movement that nobody really believes in.
During my last year of University the network was so bogged down with p2p traffic (or so they told me) that it was a nightmare trying to download any kind of large file.
Yeah...a bunch of college students who were surely "sampling" all the "free advertising" on P2P. I'm sure none of it has any effect on music sales...yet there's suddenly a connection when sales go up one time in Australia (remember that article?).
Whose arguing that people don't have the right to put political messages in a game?
I hate when someone criticizes something, and someone else responds with, "Well, don't you think they have the right to...?" Uh, yes I do. I never argued they didn't have the right. I just criticized what they did with that right. It's my right to do that.
I would expect that in GTA, because it's one big satire on the modern world. They lampoon everything. It's not a subtle political message--it's a joke.
Ah, so when MS breaks the law, you don't care, but when individuals do, it's a big deal.
Huh? It's not against the law to be a monopoly.
My point was that people outside of Slashdot don't give a shit. Most never even knew an antitrust trial took place. It's an issue that's only relevant to people in the computer industry. Nobody else really cares all that much (probably why it died).
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter if it helps spread games (I'm sure lots of things would spread if they were completely free!) or bring it to more people.
One doesn't have the right to violate the rights of the copyright holders and spread their intellectual material everywhere. It just doesn't matter what justifications are given because it's still illegal and no permission was given by the copyright holder.
I remember Nintendo busting ROM sites, and people were saying, "B-but Nintendo doesn't even sell these games anymore!" It didn't matter--it was Nintendo's property and they had the right. And of course fast-forward to now, and Nintendo is planning several old NES releases for the GBA, as well as compilations coming out for the Gamecube.
Copyright holders' rights are being completely ignored. Well, except when it's a GPL violation article, that is! Suddenly copyright enforcement becomes a really big deal then...
You have to understand that the reason for that is Gimp's interface is not intuitive. People don't have time to waste relearning entire new UIs each time they encounter a new program. Photoshop at at the least follows a few basic rules of the GUI system it's running under, and has an easier interface to use. Like I said, people aren't going to be impressed because it's free, they're going to be impressed if they use it and like it. A lot of the OSS community thinks it can compete with everything simply on price, ignoring the fact that people will quite willingly pay for something better if it's worth it.
That is true--I use the Windows version with two monitors and only toolbars can be moved. I'm told, however, that Photoshop 7 and later can be configured for true multiple-monitor support--whether that is true or not, I don't know.
Price is a valid point, but I think we're beyond the late-1999 era of OSS being the golden child for free things. It's 2004 now and the mentality is, "Okay it's cool that it's free, but I need results. What can I actually DO with this software?"
In the OS community, everyone gets so excited about having a "free" (as in beer) app which potentially replaces an expensive commercial app, that we get a bit carried away in our enthusiasm.
This excellent commentary is reflective of all of Linux and its software base. Things that Linux does that exist in other operating systems are somehow twice as good on Linux, even if implemented slightly less well (I'm thinking taskbars, start menus, device drivers, the works).
A lot of people fire back about GIMP's interface with, "But think of how friendly to multiple monitors it is!"
Never mind that Photoshop works just fine with multiple monitors! It has as far back as I can remember. I've seen five-monitor Mac setups arranged in order of the artist's graphics processes, moving from one monitor to another, going from area to dialog to area and so forth.
I get WHY people justify GIMP's interface. I just don't agree whatsoever.
The GPL only exists because copyright law exists,
What the hell do you think my point was? I'll spell it out for you because you seem to have misunderstood.
The GPL exists because of copyright law, just as you stated. Therefore, it is hypocritical to go around justify breaking other people's copyright because you're anti-something-or-other. You are essentially saying copyright law only holds up when you decide it does. It's hypocritical.
but it's easier to go with a cheap soundbite about hypocrisy than it is to think a little deeper about things. If copyright went away tomorrow, there would be no one to complain about GPL violations (but that undermines your argument, so you never bother to point that out, do you?).
Uh, it doesn't undermine anything I said. Next time, read things more clearly before you spout off...you're arguing part of what I was saying. GPL only exists because of copyright law, but piracy undermines copyright law. Got it? It's a double standard.
People who build their businesses on faulty models are freeloaders who get bitter when the free ride is taken away.
Apparently "faulty model" means selling something you worked on. Your statement doesn't even make sense.
I assume a "working model" to you would be magically giving it all away for free. We already have online music services...what's the next excuse for rampant piracy?
You have a beef with the RIAA, so you think everybody should rip off copyright holders. John Carmack will certainly appreciate your viewpoint when Doom 3 flies all over eMule.
Remind me of that next time Slashdot posts a whiny GPL copyright violation article. Oh, I forgot, copyrights should only be enforced when it serves our community's agenda. But ripping off artists is just fine because somehow the record labels are doing something wrong by selling CDs.
By the way : Are you aware that you just labelled over 50% of the population criminals? Should we all be thrown in jail? We'll keep the spillover at your place.
So that makes it okay?
Over 50% of the population RAPES the rights of copyright holders, and it's a-okay simply because a bunch of programmers have written P2P apps that make it easy and unenforcable?
When you get a job and spend years writing software, only to have it leaked online and pirated by thousands upon thousands of people weeks before retail, get back to me.
By the way, your argument that P2P apps are different from their users is the same argument Slashdotters gave when declaring that they should be suing individual downloaders and not Napster.
:) So suddenly they're evil for going after the individual infringers. It's all about rooting for whichever position lets people freeload some more.
Fast-forward four years, and suddenly the RIAA is a bad guy for enforcing its own copyrights and doing just what the Slashdotters said they should do.
What really happened is that in the first case, people wanted Napster around so they could pirate freely, so suddenly they are evil for trying to bring down Napster. In the second case, they themselves want to be around so they can pirate freely.
No matter how you want to dress it up with rhetoric, the wide-spread broadcast of other peoples' material without permission is -- under current statute -- unlawful, and leaves one liable to civil and possible criminal prosecution.
An entire mindset has risen up to justify the piracy going on, but all I have to do is point out the hypocrisy of crying foul over GPL copyright violations while at the same time championing piracy of record labels' intellectual property. Copyright law apparently only holds up when it serves one's own interests...
Why does "use of a P2P application" equate with "copyright piracy?"
First off, because 99% of P2P usage is for piracy. To deny this is to be putting your head in the sand for your own agendas.
That's like saying "use of an automobile" equates with "running down pedestrians."
No, it's not. If you run down pedestrians, there is clear enforcement, and you will be arrested, prosecuted, and sent to jail.
It's much, much more difficult to enforce piracy. Hell, the RIAA tries to sue individual downloaders and people have a damn hissy-fit for some reason.
Just because the app *could* be used for nefarious purposes doesn't mean there aren't a whole lot of really cool *legal* things that can be done with it as well.
Oh, absolutely. But there is no mechanism to enforce whether or not the copyright holder has permission for their materials to be distributed. It's disrespectful and immoral to people if you just pirate their works all over the place without even dreaming of what they might think about it.
We have to face the fact that the absolute, major draw of P2P is getting stuff for free without having to pay for it. That is its main usage, and 99% of users on Kazaa and eMule aren't there out of the goodness of their hearts...
My question is, is IBM good or bad today?
Filesharing is just bad. Of course I do it anyway. But if you look at your campus' bandwidth usage, some ludicrous number like 95% will be p2p traffic :-/
B-but they're just "sampling!" I'm sure they're all legally buying the stuff afterward...and none of it has any effect on sales! The hivemind said so...
It would just demonstrate the greed of people who will stop at nothing to pirate absolutely everything. Seriously, congesting freaking Internet2? That would have to be a new low...
I'm sure it will all be justified, of course. Some sort of anti-something movement that nobody really believes in.
During my last year of University the network was so bogged down with p2p traffic (or so they told me) that it was a nightmare trying to download any kind of large file.
Yeah...a bunch of college students who were surely "sampling" all the "free advertising" on P2P. I'm sure none of it has any effect on music sales...yet there's suddenly a connection when sales go up one time in Australia (remember that article?).
"Overrated" mods don't get meta-modded in the system. Convenient, that...
Most political game ever is Civilization III! I always play as the Communists...
Whose arguing that people don't have the right to put political messages in a game?
I hate when someone criticizes something, and someone else responds with, "Well, don't you think they have the right to...?" Uh, yes I do. I never argued they didn't have the right. I just criticized what they did with that right. It's my right to do that.
I would expect that in GTA, because it's one big satire on the modern world. They lampoon everything. It's not a subtle political message--it's a joke.
You know, you'd think a storyline like Deus Ex 1's would have political underpinnings, but I sure didn't notice any.
:D
In that game, everyone was a crook.
Ah, so when MS breaks the law, you don't care, but when individuals do, it's a big deal.
Huh? It's not against the law to be a monopoly.
My point was that people outside of Slashdot don't give a shit. Most never even knew an antitrust trial took place. It's an issue that's only relevant to people in the computer industry. Nobody else really cares all that much (probably why it died).
Wow, so you mean I can upgrade Slackware 8 from Slackware 9 with no problems? How about Red Hat 7 to Red Hat 8?
Yeah...
Why don't you just install from Stage 3 binaries, then recompile what you need optimized?