Agreed that it is illegal to copy without the right to copy. I'm not promoting illegal copying so much as awareness that our laws are entrenching a system that isn't fair. I would rather see our laws change than see the definition of "average citizen" be expanded to include "criminal".
The attempt to move from existence to "use" is at the heart of the revamping of "property" to include all sorts of things. The taking of the gasoline is theft. If I could scan the chemical structure of your fuel, and then duplicate the fuel using my Chemical-RW device, then I haven't stolen your fuel. I've copied your fuel. You wouldn't even know I had copied it. I've not effected the utility of your fuel, but rather I have impacted your ability to sell *me* your fuel. In terms of the utility of sales, that is dependent on market forces. That you want to set up a legal fiction where I have to buy fuel from you without using my (now) illegal copy will have an artificial impact on those same market forces. You want to create an infinite loop here, whereby your artificial legal fiction creates the loss that you state you need said legal fiction to protect. I call bullshit.
It is all about control of distribution. That is why internet radio was squashed. It allowed users to publish, and disrupted control of the broadcast channel. In order to sell, you have to be known. Most people first hear you on the radio. If you can't afford to pay, you don't get played. There are artifical barriers to entry that have little to do with the actual cost of production or the actual cost of distribution. Those artifical barriers reap immense profits. Those profits seem to buy laws to further the continuence of said artifical barriers. Oh well, such is life.
If they actually steal it, of course it is stollen. But in order to be "stollen", they would need to delete it (and the backups). Once they have deprived you of use it no longer matters if they made a copy. This is "theft". If someone makes a copy, that too is criminal, but it doesn't meet the legal requirements of theft. Hence, a whole body of code to deal with illegal copying.
Hmmm..., I usualy end up arguing the other side, but for the purpose of clarifying use of language. So here goes one for the bad guys: It is profit, because an increase in one's assests does show up in a balance sheet, and would effect one's net worth positively. The only way to argue against it would be to concede that the copy is illegal, and thus has no real fair market value. The utility gained should still be listed, though (I mean, "goodwill" is listed!)
The legitimacy of those profits is contested. IP is not really property, it is a psuedo property created as a legal fiction in the stated belief that the laudable purpose of advancing the Arts and Sciences would be achieved. As far as IP detracts from that purpose, it is not legitimate. "How far" is, however, exactly what is hotly debated. The assumption that it is a natural right (like property rights) is erroneous.
In so far as IP is legitimate, it is true that it is bad to do wrong. I take issue with the juxtaposition of "profits" and "entitled", though.
I know people who work hard to download copies of Futurama. They search for avenues. They tie up resources, both bandwidth and CPU/CD-RW time. The result is barely watchable. I use a VCR. It is simple, cheap, and independent of my computer. I'm not "cool", lol, but I'm not stupid. If basic functionality was available, as you prescribe, at low enough prices to make it not worthwhile to download pirated versions, then only the stupid would download. Likewise for music. Price piracy out of the picture.
Unauthorized use of software somebody has created with the idea of supporting himself through selling it most certainly is theft. It is not theft of the work, it is theft of the revenue that the author could expect.
This is, in a nutshell, one the more insidious claims. What is stollen is either immaterial (IP in the earlier discussion), or nonexistant ("expectations", in your spin). By your arguement, then, anyone who obviously can't afford to purchase a piece of software isn't stealing? There would be no denied expectations.
To make the electricity analogy work, you would have to modify it. Lets say that government grants a monopoly to produce energy. Lets call these "utilities". Then I develop a method of cold fusion that is cheap and safe and simple. I wish to provide energy for my community, but I am stopped, because to do so would violate the government granted monopoly. I offer my design to all for free, but am stopped from broadcasting the simple design, because it would interfere with the business plan of the government imposed artifical monopolists.
I couldn't "return" something that never left. The act is one of copying, not "taking something". The point is that nothing material leaves the owner's possession. Thus, illegal copying, while wrong, is not "theft", but is rather illegal copying. The harm implied is a second order or third order effect, not a direct effect. To use the same term to express both is to dilute the language for the purpose of smearing the former with the type of action of the latter, or mere laziness.
No, the story was to suggest that while everyone continues to buy candles, only one person buys a match (and perhaps only one match ever sells). People are then getting their legally paid for candles lit from the flame of someone else's already lit candle.
This is like starting more than one cigerette with a match (which was considered unlucky, a superstition most probably started by match manufacturers.)
To go from this story to candle theft is to not get the "piracy is illegal, but it isn't *theft*" arguement, because a stollen candle deprives someone of an actual candle, whereas using an already lit candle is *more* effiecent regardless of it's impact on match makers' business models.
Sometimes you talk to them awhile until they can understand what it is that they came to talk about
If you have to talk to them in that manner, you are taking the wrong approach. I agree that you may have to spend some time to find a common ground, but it should only take a while if it's something that takes a while regardless.
Finding common ground is the easy part. The thing is Math and Physics are cumulative in nature. Sometimes, when someone comes in with questions about how to do the chapter 13 homework, you see that they can't do it because they can't do the chapter 12 stuff. So reviewing chapter 12 stuff, it becomes apparent that they lost it around chapter 9. This isn't so much about finding a common language to communicate ideas, as it is bringing the skill set up to a level where the current work is happening. This also happens across prerequisites, where Intro Dif Eq uses alot of calculus II & III tools. In Quantum Mechanics, it is possible to simplify expressions that would otherwise be hairy integrals with the use of Linear Algebra. Terms cancel out, and what is left is approachable. Trying to tutor someone who says, "I need to be able to do this on the test tomorrow, but don't give me any math shit, I want to learn physics, not linear algebra", makes it hard. Watching me solve a few, they see "magic" happening, and to understand the magic, they pick up what they missed in the math classes they slept through (because they didn't need it to do the undergrad physics homework). So we fill in the missing pieces, and they suddenly can do the problems. Some subjects are just like that. There are no shortcuts around the shortcuts:-)
I admit I was ranting, in regards to the dumbing down of UIs. I would like to say that not all powerusers are snobs, though. And my rant was actually against the forces that appear to me to want to mold all the various UIs (Learjets, motercycles, mopeds, and trikes) into one "buick", for consistency.
In terms of flying a jet with 'buick' controls, that would be difficult because car controls are insufficent to deal with the extra dimension. Unless you meant to drive the jet on the ground. In which case the advantage of a jet (that it can fly, *really* fast) is lost, and in fact a buick is more manuverable on the ground than a jet would be. That is why I recommend the use of an appropriate interface for what is being done at that time.
He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers.
"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.
"You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said.
Oh-hey-wait. You have an idea. Maybe if the Web where built on a P2P protocol. We can call the system Archie, and call the meta-search tool Veronica. Like the comic book.
Somebody do please mod the parent up. "Usenet has no hosting costs." *Exactly*
It is hard to feel sorry for companies bemoaning the fact that the victims don't appreciate how hard they work to rape us. Maybe those commercial interests will go somewhere else.
So then maybe those business men who are just after money should go somewhere and make money. The internet is a method of expression that serves a public function. Currently ads are like those billboards that sprang up and ruined all the scenic routes along US highways. It was a lot nicer before all the billboards blocked the view. Now they are regulated. Like many others, I don't block google ads. I don't even block slashdot ads. I do block every obnoxious ad I come across, and then I block the whole domain. Does this mean that if everybody blocked ads, the pimples on the face of the net would be cured? Is it really that simple? Hell yes, then, lets all block ads and burn those ugly billboards to the ground, in the name of beautification!
Well but I'll occasionally run Windowmaker, too. It does have a specific look and feel, so using it is a change of pace. Maybe "eyecandy-attention-deficit" wasn't totally accurate, but rather I like to switch models and views.
Well I've a lot of experience tutoring Math and Physics, and some of the math has been for people making up not taking math in highschool. You talk to people so that they understand. Sometimes you talk to them awhile until they can understand what it is that they came to talk about.
The thing is, it isn't power users who want to limit the number of browsers or window managers or office suites. That is backasswards. If I'm in a shell, and want to read an html file, I'll use lynx. If I'm in konq, I'll just click on it. If I'm not in anything, I'll Alt-F2 and prob use firefox. What I use depends on where I currently am, and what I'm doing, and what I want to do with what I'm going to open. Therefor, diversity is a good thing.
Rather, it isn't for powerusers that it is suggested that we do away with all but one window manager. The idea is that too many options is too confusing. Simplify but throwing out options. Simplify by doing away with menu items. Simplify by presenting a GUI that is simple and intuitive to do the small subset of functionality that it presents, and do away with regular expressions. Hey, do away with the URL in a file browser, too. They shouldn't be thinking that hard, it'll confuse them. Make it spatial. If it is easier for a newbie to open a file by dragging it on top of an icon, why let it be opened any other way? Too many options is confusing. If they have to look at a manual to use it, it is broke. Hence latex is broke. The fact is that not everyone should be using the same tools. Don't put grandma in a Learjet, and don't ask someone comfortable with a motercycle to switch to a buick. And please don't say that "the solution" is to do away with Learjets, motercycles, and anything that isn't a buick, for consistency. Sometimes motercycles are the right tool for the job, too.
Ah, but these are the few thousand who count to those who are tracking the evolution of Free Software, because these are the few thousand active developers thinking about switching where they put their effort. That is enough of a delta to matter.
Hmmm...just tested The Use of Lisp in Semantic Web Applications in KPDF, KGhostview, xpdf, and envince. Hyperlinks to the references list worked in xpdf and envince, and didn't work in KPDF and KGhostview. I wasn't aware of this issue before.
For each and every "usability" rant there is a corresponding "poweruser" rant. We needs must ballance the easy learning curve with the ability to do things directly. "Too many options! Too many options! Head explodes!" has to be ballanced against "do it the way God intended, and don't even consider straying from Her ideal conception of your workflow". Maybe gnome is listening to their users. All I know is I switched to KDE. Konquorer *rocks*.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, your point is correct and well taken that "It's not just price but availability that drives piracy." Nice correction.
Agreed that it is illegal to copy without the right to copy. I'm not promoting illegal copying so much as awareness that our laws are entrenching a system that isn't fair. I would rather see our laws change than see the definition of "average citizen" be expanded to include "criminal".
The attempt to move from existence to "use" is at the heart of the revamping of "property" to include all sorts of things. The taking of the gasoline is theft. If I could scan the chemical structure of your fuel, and then duplicate the fuel using my Chemical-RW device, then I haven't stolen your fuel. I've copied your fuel. You wouldn't even know I had copied it. I've not effected the utility of your fuel, but rather I have impacted your ability to sell *me* your fuel. In terms of the utility of sales, that is dependent on market forces. That you want to set up a legal fiction where I have to buy fuel from you without using my (now) illegal copy will have an artificial impact on those same market forces. You want to create an infinite loop here, whereby your artificial legal fiction creates the loss that you state you need said legal fiction to protect. I call bullshit.
violating a contract would be a civil matter, yes? what is being described is a felony...
"computer trespass"
It is all about control of distribution. That is why internet radio was squashed. It allowed users to publish, and disrupted control of the broadcast channel. In order to sell, you have to be known. Most people first hear you on the radio. If you can't afford to pay, you don't get played. There are artifical barriers to entry that have little to do with the actual cost of production or the actual cost of distribution. Those artifical barriers reap immense profits. Those profits seem to buy laws to further the continuence of said artifical barriers. Oh well, such is life.
If they actually steal it, of course it is stollen. But in order to be "stollen", they would need to delete it (and the backups). Once they have deprived you of use it no longer matters if they made a copy. This is "theft". If someone makes a copy, that too is criminal, but it doesn't meet the legal requirements of theft. Hence, a whole body of code to deal with illegal copying.
Hmmm..., I usualy end up arguing the other side, but for the purpose of clarifying use of language. So here goes one for the bad guys: It is profit, because an increase in one's assests does show up in a balance sheet, and would effect one's net worth positively. The only way to argue against it would be to concede that the copy is illegal, and thus has no real fair market value. The utility gained should still be listed, though (I mean, "goodwill" is listed!)
It isn't theft in the USA, either. It is, however, a criminal act.
The legitimacy of those profits is contested. IP is not really property, it is a psuedo property created as a legal fiction in the stated belief that the laudable purpose of advancing the Arts and Sciences would be achieved. As far as IP detracts from that purpose, it is not legitimate. "How far" is, however, exactly what is hotly debated. The assumption that it is a natural right (like property rights) is erroneous.
In so far as IP is legitimate, it is true that it is bad to do wrong. I take issue with the juxtaposition of "profits" and "entitled", though.
I know people who work hard to download copies of Futurama. They search for avenues. They tie up resources, both bandwidth and CPU/CD-RW time. The result is barely watchable. I use a VCR. It is simple, cheap, and independent of my computer. I'm not "cool", lol, but I'm not stupid. If basic functionality was available, as you prescribe, at low enough prices to make it not worthwhile to download pirated versions, then only the stupid would download. Likewise for music. Price piracy out of the picture.
Unauthorized use of software somebody has created with the idea of supporting himself through selling it most certainly is theft. It is not theft of the work, it is theft of the revenue that the author could expect.
This is, in a nutshell, one the more insidious claims. What is stollen is either immaterial (IP in the earlier discussion), or nonexistant ("expectations", in your spin). By your arguement, then, anyone who obviously can't afford to purchase a piece of software isn't stealing? There would be no denied expectations.
To make the electricity analogy work, you would have to modify it. Lets say that government grants a monopoly to produce energy. Lets call these "utilities". Then I develop a method of cold fusion that is cheap and safe and simple. I wish to provide energy for my community, but I am stopped, because to do so would violate the government granted monopoly. I offer my design to all for free, but am stopped from broadcasting the simple design, because it would interfere with the business plan of the government imposed artifical monopolists.
I couldn't "return" something that never left. The act is one of copying, not "taking something". The point is that nothing material leaves the owner's possession. Thus, illegal copying, while wrong, is not "theft", but is rather illegal copying. The harm implied is a second order or third order effect, not a direct effect. To use the same term to express both is to dilute the language for the purpose of smearing the former with the type of action of the latter, or mere laziness.
No, the story was to suggest that while everyone continues to buy candles, only one person buys a match (and perhaps only one match ever sells). People are then getting their legally paid for candles lit from the flame of someone else's already lit candle.
This is like starting more than one cigerette with a match (which was considered unlucky, a superstition most probably started by match manufacturers.)
To go from this story to candle theft is to not get the "piracy is illegal, but it isn't *theft*" arguement, because a stollen candle deprives someone of an actual candle, whereas using an already lit candle is *more* effiecent regardless of it's impact on match makers' business models.
Sometimes you talk to them awhile until they can understand what it is that they came to talk about
:-)
If you have to talk to them in that manner, you are taking the wrong approach. I agree that you may have to spend some time to find a common ground, but it should only take a while if it's something that takes a while regardless.
Finding common ground is the easy part. The thing is Math and Physics are cumulative in nature. Sometimes, when someone comes in with questions about how to do the chapter 13 homework, you see that they can't do it because they can't do the chapter 12 stuff. So reviewing chapter 12 stuff, it becomes apparent that they lost it around chapter 9. This isn't so much about finding a common language to communicate ideas, as it is bringing the skill set up to a level where the current work is happening. This also happens across prerequisites, where Intro Dif Eq uses alot of calculus II & III tools. In Quantum Mechanics, it is possible to simplify expressions that would otherwise be hairy integrals with the use of Linear Algebra. Terms cancel out, and what is left is approachable. Trying to tutor someone who says, "I need to be able to do this on the test tomorrow, but don't give me any math shit, I want to learn physics, not linear algebra", makes it hard. Watching me solve a few, they see "magic" happening, and to understand the magic, they pick up what they missed in the math classes they slept through (because they didn't need it to do the undergrad physics homework). So we fill in the missing pieces, and they suddenly can do the problems. Some subjects are just like that. There are no shortcuts around the shortcuts
I admit I was ranting, in regards to the dumbing down of UIs. I would like to say that not all powerusers are snobs, though. And my rant was actually against the forces that appear to me to want to mold all the various UIs (Learjets, motercycles, mopeds, and trikes) into one "buick", for consistency.
In terms of flying a jet with 'buick' controls, that would be difficult because car controls are insufficent to deal with the extra dimension. Unless you meant to drive the jet on the ground. In which case the advantage of a jet (that it can fly, *really* fast) is lost, and in fact a buick is more manuverable on the ground than a jet would be. That is why I recommend the use of an appropriate interface for what is being done at that time.
This gets clipped and added to my quotes file:
He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers.
"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.
"You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said.
Oh-hey-wait. You have an idea. Maybe if the Web where built on a P2P protocol. We can call the system Archie, and call the meta-search tool Veronica. Like the comic book.
Somebody do please mod the parent up. "Usenet has no hosting costs." *Exactly*
It is hard to feel sorry for companies bemoaning the fact that the victims don't appreciate how hard they work to rape us. Maybe those commercial interests will go somewhere else.
So then maybe those business men who are just after money should go somewhere and make money. The internet is a method of expression that serves a public function. Currently ads are like those billboards that sprang up and ruined all the scenic routes along US highways. It was a lot nicer before all the billboards blocked the view. Now they are regulated. Like many others, I don't block google ads. I don't even block slashdot ads. I do block every obnoxious ad I come across, and then I block the whole domain. Does this mean that if everybody blocked ads, the pimples on the face of the net would be cured? Is it really that simple? Hell yes, then, lets all block ads and burn those ugly billboards to the ground, in the name of beautification!
Well but I'll occasionally run Windowmaker, too. It does have a specific look and feel, so using it is a change of pace. Maybe "eyecandy-attention-deficit" wasn't totally accurate, but rather I like to switch models and views.
Well I've a lot of experience tutoring Math and Physics, and some of the math has been for people making up not taking math in highschool. You talk to people so that they understand. Sometimes you talk to them awhile until they can understand what it is that they came to talk about.
The thing is, it isn't power users who want to limit the number of browsers or window managers or office suites. That is backasswards. If I'm in a shell, and want to read an html file, I'll use lynx. If I'm in konq, I'll just click on it. If I'm not in anything, I'll Alt-F2 and prob use firefox. What I use depends on where I currently am, and what I'm doing, and what I want to do with what I'm going to open. Therefor, diversity is a good thing.
Rather, it isn't for powerusers that it is suggested that we do away with all but one window manager. The idea is that too many options is too confusing. Simplify but throwing out options. Simplify by doing away with menu items. Simplify by presenting a GUI that is simple and intuitive to do the small subset of functionality that it presents, and do away with regular expressions. Hey, do away with the URL in a file browser, too. They shouldn't be thinking that hard, it'll confuse them. Make it spatial. If it is easier for a newbie to open a file by dragging it on top of an icon, why let it be opened any other way? Too many options is confusing. If they have to look at a manual to use it, it is broke. Hence latex is broke. The fact is that not everyone should be using the same tools. Don't put grandma in a Learjet, and don't ask someone comfortable with a motercycle to switch to a buick. And please don't say that "the solution" is to do away with Learjets, motercycles, and anything that isn't a buick, for consistency. Sometimes motercycles are the right tool for the job, too.
~$ kpdf --version Qt: 3.3.4 KDE: 3.3.2 KPDF: 0.3.3
Ah, but these are the few thousand who count to those who are tracking the evolution of Free Software, because these are the few thousand active developers thinking about switching where they put their effort. That is enough of a delta to matter.
Hmmm...just tested The Use of Lisp in Semantic Web Applications in KPDF, KGhostview, xpdf, and envince. Hyperlinks to the references list worked in xpdf and envince, and didn't work in KPDF and KGhostview. I wasn't aware of this issue before.
For each and every "usability" rant there is a corresponding "poweruser" rant. We needs must ballance the easy learning curve with the ability to do things directly. "Too many options! Too many options! Head explodes!" has to be ballanced against "do it the way God intended, and don't even consider straying from Her ideal conception of your workflow". Maybe gnome is listening to their users. All I know is I switched to KDE. Konquorer *rocks*.