So, not that I am proposing this, but the last time I read this ESR proposal/item, I wondered if anyone is suggesting a three year mini, tightly restricted exemption to allow ESR's proposal to fly, or is everyone pushing this suggesting that we must give in and grant and unending exemption?
"There are about 20.6 million sole proprietorships and general partnerships in the U.S..."
Well, if the article get things right, these 20.6 million businesses now have one more reason to drop MS completely. I figure if that begins, things will change.
"As for your comment, the room could get in trouble if: A.They knew about the illegal act and failed to take steps to stop it or catch the people who commited it (e.g. cops ask them to hand over details for the customer who rented the room and they do not do so) or B.it could be reasonably expected that the room was being used for illegal activities (e.g. if the hotel specifically advertized that drug dealers could use their rooms to deal drugs in, that would get them in trouble or if the majority of people using the hotel were using it for illegal acts that could also get them in trouble)"
Are you sure about this? Are you sure that things can't be confiscated on drug related issues in essence for "possession"...???
I seem to recall stories of vehicles and houses being confiscated when it is clear that the owners themselves are innocent.
"The part about ISPs being liable is totally wrong. Say I own a hotel. I rent a room to someone (who pays me for it). That person then uses the room to conduct an illegal act. Does that mean that I am liable for the illegal use of the room?"
Perhaps not, but in some places and for some wrongs, the room may be liable and may be fined of confiscated. Right? Or would that only apply to something loaned and not to something rented?
"So to rephrase my statement, in matters of choice, government intervention is not desirable when alternatives exist."
So why has the government intervened and given monopoly powers via patents and copyrights? If you want to talk free market theories, please ask the government to really get out of the market. I mean, can't the market find a better solution?
"Do you honestly think it should be mandated that computers must come OS-free? And I'm not talking about "should be" in terms of how it would reduce the inept-user population, I'm talking about "should be" in terms of freedom and government non-interference."
Well, since we are talking about goods protected by patents and copyrights, the government is already big time messing with the markets in question anyway. I am quite happy in that case to let them mess with it some more for the benefit of the public. (Well, except that they just might muck it all up anyway.) If you want a free market though, tell the governments that you want them to stop awarding monopoly rights to people.
"This is not true if copyright is taken away. You then cannot make money from your creations, because anyone else can make copies of them for free."
Funny how people in industries who can't get copyrights on their creations still make money.
"In what sense?
It seems to me if I create something, it belongs to *me*."
OK, so it belongs to you, keep it to yourself. Only reveal it to people under contract and with non-disclosure agreements. Keep it as a trade secret. Just don't make it public.
"So it seems to me I'm using the power of the State to prevent theft."
Ah, nope, you want the state to give you a monopoly. I just hope your are not one of those "thieves" who tell other people's jokes around the water cooler. I trust that every joke or story you have ever relayed has been your own creation or that you have tracked down the creator and paid for your use.
The world cannot function as you envision. (I know that if you were to try my suggestion that it would be tough too. That is why short term copyrights may be worth while, but unending copyrights can't work.)
I also find it odd that artists can't live with the same length of protection as inventors. I have never seen a person pushing for unending copyrights try to explain that.
"How can I make songs or films or software, when they cost me time and money, when I cannot recapture those costs?"
Well, some of us have figured out some ways to do so and are working on more besides. If you want to enter into negotiations for a contract under which I will reveal this inside information to you, please contact me with an initial offer.
That may be, but it is a Commonwealth country and our court of ultimate appeal is the Privy Council though.
"In order for copyright infringement to be a criminal offence, you must be profitting from it, in the knowledge that that is what you are doing."
One of the problems is that people keep tweaking what "profiting from it" means.
Like, from reading a long while back, trading copies of songs with your buddy even with no money exchanged was changed to be deemed commercial as you gave him a copy of song X expecting to get a copy of song Y from him and the reverse.
It wasn't a snide remark. It was trying to bring up the thought that perhaps the "Open Source' people might be ok with it and it might be the "Free Software" people who wouldn't.
I think that is a reasonable avenue to persue. I hope you see this response AC...
BTW, I am generally a Free Software guy and that is not necessarily my position. (That is that the GPL is the one and only proper license.)
"Why does this have to be the case? Why does it have to be black and white, all or nothing? Why can't open source be the right answer for some of Sun's projects and not the right answer for others? This seems perfectly sensible to me."
You are asking the wrong question. if you sunstitute Free Software for open source (software) you might get better answers.
"So we have a crime that most people don't really consider to be a crime,"
And how exactly does that happen in a democracy? In a government Of the People, By the People, For the People? Interesting thought that.
"that's almost risk-free in terms of getting caught. How do you persuade people to respect the law and not download illegally? You jack up the punishment. You make the consequences of getting caught so high that people dare not transgress just in case."
Like I said, I think I know why they do it. It is still not right in any way though. (But I know, let's make copyright infringement a felony, convict everyone, take away their right to vote and then we can do what we like. Nice idea that. ~;-) )
"Note that I don't necessarily agree with this method, but that's what I understand to be going on (IANAL, etc)"
Oh yes, I wans't asking for thoughts on why they do it, I see things as you do when it comes to the why. it is a terribly wrongheaded thing to do none the less.
I will not argue your points except to say that I think there may be a slightly better chance of getting my plan going than yours and that mine would be an improvement over what we have now.
Oh, and as an explanation since you may have misunderstood what you lump under 3-5. The value would be the price you would sell the copyrights to someone else for. not the value for any particular instance of the work.
I know, let's tax children for the work they do in school! They are doing work and accumulating value so we should tax it. Plus to do even better. We can tax those children making higher grades at a higher rate as the work they are doing is obviously and certifiably more valuable. Right??? ~;-)
"I happen to agree that the world needs far tougher copyright protections, and ones that are more effective (while being less intrusive) than current DRM schemes."
Well, if you mean better protections, I don't think it is needed, but... However, if you mean harsher penalties, they are already way over the top. I think I know why, but that doesn't excuse things.
As far as I can tell, you can get a way harsher sentence in my country for being found in posession of a knock off CD or DVD that you purchased thinking it was legit than for going into a store and really stealing the genuine article. Somehow that seems backward to me.
1. All 'non'marked' works get an automatic copyleft, not an automatic copyright.
2. Copyleft works can be registered for free, copyright works incurr a registration fee.
3. There is a yearly copyright tax imposed on copyright works, copyleft works are exempt.
4. The copyright tax is based on a percentage of the copyright holder declared value of the work.
5. The copyright holder will be encouraged to declare an honest value by having to sell the copyright to to work at the declared value or 5 percent above that value to any and all comers. At the value if the purchaser will put the work under a copyleft, 5 percent above if the purchaser will keep the work copyright.
6. Copyright status lasts for 10 years, then the works convert to copyleft for another ten then they go into the public domain.
7. Orignally copyleft works remain copyleft for the life of the author (and perhaps plys whatever.)
I am not saying that exactly, that is one reason why I said the whole thing was complex.
But, having ten thousand dollars in one country can be a whole different thing rfom having ten thousand in another country, right?
If in one country, most people have to work sixteen hour days at jobs they hate just to put food on the table and have enough shelter to survive, and in another they can work eight hour days at jobs they find rewarding and can put food on the table easily and have a little left over to spend or save, does it matter if in the first country they earn more dollars per week than in the second?
"Depends on how you measure these things, of course, but I built my first 256-byte-RAM, CDP1802 homebrew computer in 1976 (age 13)."
Fine, just checking your frame of reference. I got into things at a later date and age, but we both should be able to remember enought then.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire.
Indeed. "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire.
(I will take your word for it. But it applies to itself. And so we close the circle.)
"Why do you think Windows was able to gain traction in the first place?"
Well, I was a big PC and DOS and then windows fan because the hardware was not as closed as the other platforms out at the time for the small guy, the cost was more affordable, and things were good enough.
With Free Software, I get all that plus Freedom. That's fine by me.
If you are willing to consider something a standard becuase it is polular and widely used, thas ya business as I say, but, seriously, don't try to force that outlook on me. I don't buy it.
"Even lower income families have things that would have been considered utter luxuries 50 years ago (multiple televisions, cell phones, cable, cheap antibiotics, cheap fresh food of every imaginable kind, etc)."
There is a lot of back and forth going on here and I think one reason for this is that there are complex issues invovled.
One thing that I think is key in deciding if we are better off (after are food needs are met?) is how much free time we have left to enjoy with family and friends. And also, what percentage earn their incomes from work they find pleasurable and non-monitarily rewarding.
"If something doesn't work, it's not that Linux sucks at compatibility with the world, it's that the user sucks for not investing all their time into making it work."
I will not stick upfor all of the attitudes I have seen while reading all the way down here, but Linux does not suck at compatibility with the world.
The part of the world that Linux sucks at compatibility with is the part of the world that is actively non-compatible.
In that world, non-compatible is seen as a weapon. A way to lock-in and profits.
Even then it is often more compatible with others than others are with it.
"The main problem I have with what you propose is that felons would be largely tax-free. Of course, laws could be shifted to change that."
Just let them vote. After ten years if you like.
That 'no felons can vote' rule may sound nice but there is a huge potential for abuse there too.
Besides, isn't that rule a state by state thing in the US?
I am not in the US but we tax people who can't vote as well. We may be a little better in that that phrase is not something we point to with pride concerning our country's history. If so, it is only a teensy bit better.
Personally, I think that despite the drawbacks, it would be a good rule to adopt. The people you are putting taxes on should have the right to vote you out if they don't like how you are running the tax situation.
Slashdot Mirror
So, not that I am proposing this, but the last time I read this ESR proposal/item, I wondered if anyone is suggesting a three year mini, tightly restricted exemption to allow ESR's proposal to fly, or is everyone pushing this suggesting that we must give in and grant and unending exemption?
all the best,
drew
"There are about 20.6 million sole proprietorships and general partnerships in the U.S..."
Well, if the article get things right, these 20.6 million businesses now have one more reason to drop MS completely. I figure if that begins, things will change.
all the best,
drew
"As for your comment, the room could get in trouble if:
A.They knew about the illegal act and failed to take steps to stop it or catch the people who commited it (e.g. cops ask them to hand over details for the customer who rented the room and they do not do so)
or B.it could be reasonably expected that the room was being used for illegal activities (e.g. if the hotel specifically advertized that drug dealers could use their rooms to deal drugs in, that would get them in trouble or if the majority of people using the hotel were using it for illegal acts that could also get them in trouble)"
Are you sure about this? Are you sure that things can't be confiscated on drug related issues in essence for "possession"...???
I seem to recall stories of vehicles and houses being confiscated when it is clear that the owners themselves are innocent.
all the best,
drew
"The part about ISPs being liable is totally wrong. Say I own a hotel. I rent a room to someone (who pays me for it). That person then uses the room to conduct an illegal act. Does that mean that I am liable for the illegal use of the room?"
Perhaps not, but in some places and for some wrongs, the room may be liable and may be fined of confiscated. Right? Or would that only apply to something loaned and not to something rented?
all the best,
drew
"So to rephrase my statement, in matters of choice, government intervention is not desirable when alternatives exist."
So why has the government intervened and given monopoly powers via patents and copyrights? If you want to talk free market theories, please ask the government to really get out of the market. I mean, can't the market find a better solution?
all the best,
drew
"Do you honestly think it should be mandated that computers must come OS-free? And I'm not talking about "should be" in terms of how it would reduce the inept-user population, I'm talking about "should be" in terms of freedom and government non-interference."
r o&search=Search
Well, since we are talking about goods protected by patents and copyrights, the government is already big time messing with the markets in question anyway. I am quite happy in that case to let them mess with it some more for the benefit of the public. (Well, except that they just might muck it all up anyway.) If you want a free market though, tell the governments that you want them to stop awarding monopoly rights to people.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zotzb
"But producers of information still need to get paid."
And your point is?
all the best,
drew
"This is not true if copyright is taken away. You then cannot make money from your creations, because anyone else can make copies of them for free."
Funny how people in industries who can't get copyrights on their creations still make money.
"In what sense?
It seems to me if I create something, it belongs to *me*."
OK, so it belongs to you, keep it to yourself. Only reveal it to people under contract and with non-disclosure agreements. Keep it as a trade secret. Just don't make it public.
"So it seems to me I'm using the power of the State to prevent theft."
Ah, nope, you want the state to give you a monopoly. I just hope your are not one of those "thieves" who tell other people's jokes around the water cooler. I trust that every joke or story you have ever relayed has been your own creation or that you have tracked down the creator and paid for your use.
The world cannot function as you envision. (I know that if you were to try my suggestion that it would be tough too. That is why short term copyrights may be worth while, but unending copyrights can't work.)
I also find it odd that artists can't live with the same length of protection as inventors. I have never seen a person pushing for unending copyrights try to explain that.
"How can I make songs or films or software, when they cost me time and money, when I cannot recapture those costs?"
Well, some of us have figured out some ways to do so and are working on more besides. If you want to enter into negotiations for a contract under which I will reveal this inside information to you, please contact me with an initial offer.
all the best,
drew
"Amazing isn't it, I guess they want to keep up the payments on the cooling and heating bills for their coffins."
Above from my post to the cc-community list.
You know it has to be for some valid reason like this don't you?
all the best,
drew
"Then you live in a crazy country."
That may be, but it is a Commonwealth country and our court of ultimate appeal is the Privy Council though.
"In order for copyright infringement to be a criminal offence, you must be profitting from it, in the knowledge that that is what you are doing."
One of the problems is that people keep tweaking what "profiting from it" means.
Like, from reading a long while back, trading copies of songs with your buddy even with no money exchanged was changed to be deemed commercial as you gave him a copy of song X expecting to get a copy of song Y from him and the reverse.
The laws get worse and worse every go round...
all the best,
drew
It wasn't a snide remark. It was trying to bring up the thought that perhaps the "Open Source' people might be ok with it and it might be the "Free Software" people who wouldn't.
I think that is a reasonable avenue to persue. I hope you see this response AC...
BTW, I am generally a Free Software guy and that is not necessarily my position. (That is that the GPL is the one and only proper license.)
all the best,
drew
"Why does this have to be the case? Why does it have to be black and white, all or nothing? Why can't open source be the right answer for some of Sun's projects and not the right answer for others? This seems perfectly sensible to me."
You are asking the wrong question. if you sunstitute Free Software for open source (software) you might get better answers.
all the best,
drew
"So we have a crime that most people don't really consider to be a crime,"
And how exactly does that happen in a democracy? In a government Of the People, By the People, For the People? Interesting thought that.
"that's almost risk-free in terms of getting caught. How do you persuade people to respect the law and not download illegally? You jack up the punishment. You make the consequences of getting caught so high that people dare not transgress just in case."
Like I said, I think I know why they do it. It is still not right in any way though. (But I know, let's make copyright infringement a felony, convict everyone, take away their right to vote and then we can do what we like. Nice idea that. ~;-) )
"Note that I don't necessarily agree with this method, but that's what I understand to be going on (IANAL, etc)"
Oh yes, I wans't asking for thoughts on why they do it, I see things as you do when it comes to the why. it is a terribly wrongheaded thing to do none the less.
all the best,
drew
cpt, good to see you again.
I will not argue your points except to say that I think there may be a slightly better chance of getting my plan going than yours and that mine would be an improvement over what we have now.
Oh, and as an explanation since you may have misunderstood what you lump under 3-5. The value would be the price you would sell the copyrights to someone else for. not the value for any particular instance of the work.
all the best,
drew
I know, let's tax children for the work they do in school! They are doing work and accumulating value so we should tax it. Plus to do even better. We can tax those children making higher grades at a higher rate as the work they are doing is obviously and certifiably more valuable. Right??? ~;-)
all the best,
drew
"I happen to agree that the world needs far tougher copyright protections, and ones that are more effective (while being less intrusive) than current DRM schemes."
Well, if you mean better protections, I don't think it is needed, but... However, if you mean harsher penalties, they are already way over the top. I think I know why, but that doesn't excuse things.
As far as I can tell, you can get a way harsher sentence in my country for being found in posession of a knock off CD or DVD that you purchased thinking it was legit than for going into a store and really stealing the genuine article. Somehow that seems backward to me.
all the best,
drew
"The ideal copyright system..."
Iwould appreciate you comments on what is below at the following link:
http://yro.slashdot.org/~zotz/journal/154538
Here are some thoughts for your consideration:
1. All 'non'marked' works get an automatic copyleft, not an automatic copyright.
2. Copyleft works can be registered for free, copyright works incurr a registration fee.
3. There is a yearly copyright tax imposed on copyright works, copyleft works are exempt.
4. The copyright tax is based on a percentage of the copyright holder declared value of the work.
5. The copyright holder will be encouraged to declare an honest value by having to sell the copyright to to work at the declared value or 5 percent above that value to any and all comers. At the value if the purchaser will put the work under a copyleft, 5 percent above if the purchaser will keep the work copyright.
6. Copyright status lasts for 10 years, then the works convert to copyleft for another ten then they go into the public domain.
7. Orignally copyleft works remain copyleft for the life of the author (and perhaps plys whatever.)
all the best,
drew
"So, wealth is not measured in monetary terms?"
I am not saying that exactly, that is one reason why I said the whole thing was complex.
But, having ten thousand dollars in one country can be a whole different thing rfom having ten thousand in another country, right?
If in one country, most people have to work sixteen hour days at jobs they hate just to put food on the table and have enough shelter to survive, and in another they can work eight hour days at jobs they find rewarding and can put food on the table easily and have a little left over to spend or save, does it matter if in the first country they earn more dollars per week than in the second?
all the best,
drew
"Real freedom is the ability to spend your time as you see fit and to trade your time for other things."
Hence my: 'And also, what percentage earn their incomes from work they find pleasurable and non-monitarily rewarding.'
If you have to work at something you hate to put food on the table.... If you put food on the table and can do so in a reasonable amount of time...
all the best,
drew
"Depends on how you measure these things, of course, but I built my first 256-byte-RAM, CDP1802 homebrew computer in 1976 (age 13)."
Fine, just checking your frame of reference. I got into things at a later date and age, but we both should be able to remember enought then.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire.
Indeed. "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire.
(I will take your word for it. But it applies to itself. And so we close the circle.)
"Why do you think Windows was able to gain traction in the first place?"
Well, I was a big PC and DOS and then windows fan because the hardware was not as closed as the other platforms out at the time for the small guy, the cost was more affordable, and things were good enough.
With Free Software, I get all that plus Freedom. That's fine by me.
If you are willing to consider something a standard becuase it is polular and widely used, thas ya business as I say, but, seriously, don't try to force that outlook on me. I don't buy it.
all the best,
drew
"Even lower income families have things that would have been considered utter luxuries 50 years ago (multiple televisions, cell phones, cable, cheap antibiotics, cheap fresh food of every imaginable kind, etc)."
There is a lot of back and forth going on here and I think one reason for this is that there are complex issues invovled.
One thing that I think is key in deciding if we are better off (after are food needs are met?) is how much free time we have left to enjoy with family and friends. And also, what percentage earn their incomes from work they find pleasurable and non-monitarily rewarding.
all the best,
drew
"Windows is the world standard desktop application API, period."
I guess if you want to consider that a standard, that's your business. It is no standard as far as I am concerned.
How long have you been at this? I have been fairly deep in it since sometime around 79 to 80 iirc. Latest 81.
I will leave it to others to point out some of the famous sayings in relation to MS and compatibility.
Anyway, if you are happy with MS, knock yourself out and enjoy your computing experience.
all the best,
drew
"If something doesn't work, it's not that Linux sucks at compatibility with the world, it's that the user sucks for not investing all their time into making it work."
I will not stick upfor all of the attitudes I have seen while reading all the way down here, but Linux does not suck at compatibility with the world.
The part of the world that Linux sucks at compatibility with is the part of the world that is actively non-compatible.
In that world, non-compatible is seen as a weapon. A way to lock-in and profits.
Even then it is often more compatible with others than others are with it.
Linux used in place of Free Software here....
all the best,
drew
"I agree with the principle -- I don't think I'm going to take the time to come up with a viable implementation though."
Oh, I doubt it's gonna get done. Those who impose taxes prefer to put them on people who can't vote.
Look at all the tourism related taxes...
You never know though. If enough people see that it is right...
all the best,
drew
"The main problem I have with what you propose is that felons would be largely tax-free. Of course, laws could be shifted to change that."
Just let them vote. After ten years if you like.
That 'no felons can vote' rule may sound nice but there is a huge potential for abuse there too.
Besides, isn't that rule a state by state thing in the US?
I am not in the US but we tax people who can't vote as well. We may be a little better in that that phrase is not something we point to with pride concerning our country's history. If so, it is only a teensy bit better.
Personally, I think that despite the drawbacks, it would be a good rule to adopt. The people you are putting taxes on should have the right to vote you out if they don't like how you are running the tax situation.
Agree? Disagree?
all the best,
drew