But maybe replicating space organisms that live in the Oort cloud will come and put a protective membrane around the Earth before then slowing down the passage of time on Earth in relation to the rest of the galaxy so we can be united with other sentient beings in worlds connected to our own by giant arches poking out of the sea.
Ahh, Robert Charles Wilson, you Spin me right round.
Plus it may sound biased, but there probably needs to be some sort of "equivalent to public domain" status for open source licenses. No need, the FSF will happily pay the taxes for you with donations, etc.
Umm, you are aware that this is nothing unethical about selling things in the public domain right? That's the point of the public domain.. it's public, anyone can do anything they want with it.
That is true, however it makes it a lot more convincing for the RIAA to say that you have downloaded a copyrighted song then a partly public domain song, and therefore to have full IP rights to it I am assuming most companies will buy/fake the rights to it. I have no idea what you are saying here. I think what you might be saying is: Suppose some music company sues you for copyright infringement on a work that you thought was in the public domain, how do you prove it is in the public domain? The answer is typically that you show how the work entered the public domain. Either you find where the creator of the work disclaimed all rights or you show that the copyright period has expired by stating when the work was created and under what system of copyright (different countries, different eras, etc).
Because the larger companies can now buy the rights to your public domain IP and sell it? Yes that will probably be illegal but if its public domain its not like you have the rights to complain. 1. If it is in the public domain, you can't "buy rights to it". 2. You don't need to "buy rights to it" to sell it.
When they're on them they are normal and healthy. They feel so normal and healthy that they often decide they don't need them anymore - so they go off them. Then they are not normal and healthy.. they are depressed. After one too many 2am phone calls one of their friends will recommend that they go back on the anti-depressants. Soon after they will be normal and healthy again.. until the cycle repeats itself.
Must all be the placebo effect though.
There's something wrong with conservation
on
Building a Green PC
·
· Score: 1
Imagine one day you noticed the brakes on your car were squeaking. You need your breaks, they allow you to stop, but if you continue using your breaks you figure they might fail, and then you won't be able to stop. So you ignore the problem for a while, but pretty soon it becomes apparent that this whole squeaking breaks thing is probably serious. Not really wanting to confront the problem head on, you decide to hire someone to "take a look at them" but not actually fix them. After careful study, he informs you that yes, your breaks are shot and won't last much longer.. he can't give you exact idea of how much longer you can keep driving on them, but he assures you that eventually they will fail. So what do you do?
One option is to get them fixed. Of course, if no-one knows how to fix your kind of breaks then it might not be. You could always hire someone to try to figure out how to fix them.. or you could throw them out and get brand new ones. What isn't an option is just using the breaks less. Sure, if you have to keep driving the car it might make sense to lay off the breaks until you come up with a way to fix them, but unless you're actively looking for a way to fix them, you're just delaying the inevitable.
Of course, you could just get a new car.
Yes, this is the worst car analogy ever made, did you like it?
The only people I can think of working in a computer industry not strongly supported by open-source software are at Microsoft and the various game companies. If they're making games for the Playstation (1, 2 or 3) then they're using gcc.
- give X for free and sell supplies for X very similar:
- give X for free and sell support for X - give X for free and sell customizations for X
Or even:
- give some X for free so they buy more X later - give X for free so they buy Y later
be it just that people now trust the brand or that they have been "locked-in" and now need the other components of the system - for example, Adobe Acrobat Reader is free, the creation tool is not.
Microsoft (which is no longer a Silicon Valley firm, I know) would make no money today if XP and Vista were free. They never were, but ok. Would they make money if Windows 3.11 was free?
Intel would make no money if anybody could just copy Intel chips. Which Intel chips? The ones they just finished designing or the 8086?
If they were free, nobody would bother with Linux. Where are the linux billionaires? Now you're just trolling.
Nor would biotech companies make any money if anybody could just copy their inventions. Yes, ok, as you're unable to make the point, I'll make it for you. Companies need time to recoup their investment.
But after the investment of initial development is paid off, it is pretty hard to argue that they need IP protection to stay in the market.. they can compete like the rest of the players.
Read the judgment, linked in the summary. He demanded triple damages, then he demanded 10x damages, then he threatened to sue, then he tried to "shame" the other party into paying, and that's when they sued him. He wanted his cake (licensing fees) and to eat it too (not have to sue anyone) but they called his bluff. Unfortunately, they didn't do it all that well.
Who gives a shit. Chris runs a stock photos website. His business model is entirely money for jam and if ya can't get it, sue. Did you read the part of the judgment where it outlines the monetary demands and legal threats Chris made? This is classic stand-over copyright tactics and all these slashtards are applauding it because Chris has presented himself as being the little guy who took on the big corporation and won.
Now, I ran a WHOIS search on your linked domain (biodome.org), and am operating under the assumption that you're Canadian You're a retard. See how the url has a ~ in it? That means I'm a user on that machine.. which kinda indicates that is isn't my machine. But thanks for a being a big stalker.
No, the fact that there are millions of them is what makes it worthless. Here is an acceptable business model:
1. Here are some free images so you can get an idea of what I have available. 2. If you want better prints, etc, you have to buy em from me. 3. If you buy em from me you agree not to let anyone else use them, etc.
Here is an unacceptable business model:
1. Here are some images, I have watermarked them and I retain copyright on them, so you can look at them AND NOTHING ELSE, I AM THE KING!!! HAHAHAHA, COPYRIGHT GIVES ME SUCH POWER!!!! 2. If you want better prints, etc, you have to buy em from me. 3. If you buy em from me I will not sue you, I PROMISE.;) 4. I will now search the web and magazines and newspapers and telephone books and anything else I can think of, daily, so I can find people who have used my images without my permission (I AM KING!!) and then I will threaten them with lawsuits and demand three times the sale price unless they reply to me within two weeks, then it is TEN times the sale price, oh, I'm gunna be so rich!!!
See the difference? The first one is a simple contract which people willfully enter into because the photographer has something the buyer wants. The second one is what copyright enables.. infinite power handed to a guy who stood in the street with a camera and took pictures of buildings at night.
No, I'm saying copyright is a load of shit.. Are you honestly saying that you replied to me without reading the rest of the thread? Can I quote you some Usenet FAQs too?
What are they being punished for? Using a photo that Chris Gregerson willfully posted on the web? His entire business model is only possible because guys with guns are standing behind him saying you have to pay him if you want to use his stuff. He's the same kind of vermin that the RIAA and MPAA represent. In fact, he's worse.. taking a photo of a cityscape is hardly a skill.
Dude, there's a lot of people in this story who have posted support for this sue-happy douche, go ahead and look at their posting history to see if they have recently been defending file sharing. If not, STFU about the double standard. Slashdot != one person.
Some of us in fact DO agree with IP. Some of you is a fuckin' moron. Seriously, if you actually believe there should be laws against "copying other people's ideas" then there is no hope for you. I wish you to be instantly transported to such a society so that you can see the result first hand, but unfortunately, people like you are going to drag the rest of us along into this dystopia.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the title said Bedroom for like 2 minutes.
But maybe replicating space organisms that live in the Oort cloud will come and put a protective membrane around the Earth before then slowing down the passage of time on Earth in relation to the rest of the galaxy so we can be united with other sentient beings in worlds connected to our own by giant arches poking out of the sea.
Ahh, Robert Charles Wilson, you Spin me right round.
2. You don't need to "buy rights to it" to sell it.
You obviously don't know anyone with depression.
When they're on them they are normal and healthy. They feel so normal and healthy that they often decide they don't need them anymore - so they go off them. Then they are not normal and healthy.. they are depressed. After one too many 2am phone calls one of their friends will recommend that they go back on the anti-depressants. Soon after they will be normal and healthy again.. until the cycle repeats itself.
Must all be the placebo effect though.
Imagine one day you noticed the brakes on your car were squeaking. You need your breaks, they allow you to stop, but if you continue using your breaks you figure they might fail, and then you won't be able to stop. So you ignore the problem for a while, but pretty soon it becomes apparent that this whole squeaking breaks thing is probably serious. Not really wanting to confront the problem head on, you decide to hire someone to "take a look at them" but not actually fix them. After careful study, he informs you that yes, your breaks are shot and won't last much longer.. he can't give you exact idea of how much longer you can keep driving on them, but he assures you that eventually they will fail. So what do you do?
One option is to get them fixed. Of course, if no-one knows how to fix your kind of breaks then it might not be. You could always hire someone to try to figure out how to fix them.. or you could throw them out and get brand new ones. What isn't an option is just using the breaks less. Sure, if you have to keep driving the car it might make sense to lay off the breaks until you come up with a way to fix them, but unless you're actively looking for a way to fix them, you're just delaying the inevitable.
Of course, you could just get a new car.
Yes, this is the worst car analogy ever made, did you like it?
- give X for free and sell support for X
- give X for free and sell customizations for X
Or even: - give some X for free so they buy more X later - give X for free so they buy Y later
be it just that people now trust the brand or that they have been "locked-in" and now need the other components of the system - for example, Adobe Acrobat Reader is free, the creation tool is not.
But after the investment of initial development is paid off, it is pretty hard to argue that they need IP protection to stay in the market.. they can compete like the rest of the players.
see these things -> ""
They mean that he said that, not me.
Read the judgment, linked in the summary. He demanded triple damages, then he demanded 10x damages, then he threatened to sue, then he tried to "shame" the other party into paying, and that's when they sued him. He wanted his cake (licensing fees) and to eat it too (not have to sue anyone) but they called his bluff. Unfortunately, they didn't do it all that well.
If you didn't want people attacking you legally then maybe you shouldn't have made big legal threats of your own.
Who gives a shit. Chris runs a stock photos website. His business model is entirely money for jam and if ya can't get it, sue. Did you read the part of the judgment where it outlines the monetary demands and legal threats Chris made? This is classic stand-over copyright tactics and all these slashtards are applauding it because Chris has presented himself as being the little guy who took on the big corporation and won.
If you actually think creating the work is the hard part and selling it is the easy part then I really don't have anything to fear from you.
No, the fact that there are millions of them is what makes it worthless. Here is an acceptable business model:
;)
1. Here are some free images so you can get an idea of what I have available.
2. If you want better prints, etc, you have to buy em from me.
3. If you buy em from me you agree not to let anyone else use them, etc.
Here is an unacceptable business model:
1. Here are some images, I have watermarked them and I retain copyright on them, so you can look at them AND NOTHING ELSE, I AM THE KING!!! HAHAHAHA, COPYRIGHT GIVES ME SUCH POWER!!!!
2. If you want better prints, etc, you have to buy em from me.
3. If you buy em from me I will not sue you, I PROMISE.
4. I will now search the web and magazines and newspapers and telephone books and anything else I can think of, daily, so I can find people who have used my images without my permission (I AM KING!!) and then I will threaten them with lawsuits and demand three times the sale price unless they reply to me within two weeks, then it is TEN times the sale price, oh, I'm gunna be so rich!!!
See the difference? The first one is a simple contract which people willfully enter into because the photographer has something the buyer wants. The second one is what copyright enables.. infinite power handed to a guy who stood in the street with a camera and took pictures of buildings at night.
No, I'm saying copyright is a load of shit.. Are you honestly saying that you replied to me without reading the rest of the thread? Can I quote you some Usenet FAQs too?
Sounds likely, seeing as Chris' business obviously depends heavily on the copyright protection racket.
The "evil corporation" was a one man outfit.. Chris didn't mention that of course.
I know the law, I just think it is non-sense.
I thought I made that pretty clear.
What are they being punished for? Using a photo that Chris Gregerson willfully posted on the web? His entire business model is only possible because guys with guns are standing behind him saying you have to pay him if you want to use his stuff. He's the same kind of vermin that the RIAA and MPAA represent. In fact, he's worse.. taking a photo of a cityscape is hardly a skill.
Dude, there's a lot of people in this story who have posted support for this sue-happy douche, go ahead and look at their posting history to see if they have recently been defending file sharing. If not, STFU about the double standard. Slashdot != one person.