A note on the CBC:
Large Canadian media promoters, like CanWest (I believe part of the Global Empire, at least the names appear in the same tripe much of the time) have been lobbying to have public funding from CBC scrapped, or CBC scrapped altogether. Their rationale is that the government shouldn't be involved in broadcasting, but in reality CanWest is merely a chief importer of the exact type of American crap of which you speak.
All of the Canadians reading this should be aware that a prized possession of ours, one of our last bastions of defence against American mediocrity, is being threatened. As for what you can do about it, see this link [friendscb.org].
I assume everyone remembers the television "screens" in 1984 which allowed the state to view exactly what its denizens were doing? It came *this* close to realization before this thankfully clued-in judge overturned it.
I think the main point of misunderstanding is that given the current structure, programmers *aren't* professionals in the sense that doctors, lawyers or engineers in more mature fields are. Generally speaking, they work for someone else, or are simply business people. More to the point, the same level of training isn't required; perhaps it is for some areas of computer programming, but this is not set into a well-defined status structure the way it is, say, for mechanical engineers (an extremely regulated bunch).
The thing is, I'm not sure we're really recognizing the importance of your kind of statement - whether in jest or not.
Seriously, it is crucial that anyone who conscientiously objects to the kind of strongarm tactics being bandied about by the entertainment industry at the expense of consumers, stops being a consumer!
It occurs to me that the main reason all of the ignorant nonsense presented to us by industry conglomerates, whether off the air in the form of outrageous legislation/policy, or on the air in the form of the insipid, intellectually insulting shows we accept without a turn of the cheek, is allowed to persist because we're all too busy watching TV.
The problem with what you are saying is that the BSA is just an organization for the promotion of certain individuals interests - i.e. software manufacturers. They shouldn't be enforcing anything!
Imagine if I write a piece of software, release it under a proprietary license and then decide I can march into anyone's house to make sure they're only using as many licenses as they've bought? Imagine I did that to you... you'd probably sock me in the face, and if you didn't I'd honestly wonder why.
While I'm in total agreement with you - the answer to this kind of corporate thugism is to create alternatives vis-a-vis free software - I think this community is totally in the right for crying foul over what is essentially vigilante action by a software cartel. This should be police activity, acted upon only under warrant, and not organized by private citizens.
What's worse even than *that* is that even the Slashdot crowd works to some extent in companies (such as my own) where they are pigeon-holed into acquiescing to these sorts of laughable licensing schemes.
I just recently clicked "accept" on this very product. My company (more specifically my project manager) just bought three licenses to this thing.
Honestly, I don't think these sorts of clauses would change our "corporate mind", but I *definitely* would not have bought the software with this in mind.
While I agree with the ideology underscoring RMS's message, I thinking his method of preaching is too much of exactly that - preaching - to come across to the size of target audience he intends to reach.
Perhaps a little less use of mantras, perhaps a bit more sparing use of words with powerful stigma attached to them, and a slightly more pragmatic approach will woo those who are less high-minded.
This is what still baffles me. Surely someone in the content industry is just about the intelligence threshold to realize that "if I can watch it, I can copy it."
If I can display the thing on my screen, I can hook up some simple AV cables and re-record the thing to another digital format minus any copy protection. Forgive me for being obvious, but this comes up in these conversations FAR to seldom. Remember, what we're talking about here is content - even at slightly less-than-digital quality it is still the same content, and just as transmissible. Or perhaps I'm mistaken as to where the average watcher's priorities are.
I suppose the situation could be rather different in the U.S., but in Canada this trend is also quite apparent for the very alarming reason that Universities can't get smack by way of funding anymore. I'm not sure what we expect of public institutions but to go private, if they start getting choked of public funds.
Slashdot Mirror
A note on the CBC: Large Canadian media promoters, like CanWest (I believe part of the Global Empire, at least the names appear in the same tripe much of the time) have been lobbying to have public funding from CBC scrapped, or CBC scrapped altogether. Their rationale is that the government shouldn't be involved in broadcasting, but in reality CanWest is merely a chief importer of the exact type of American crap of which you speak.
All of the Canadians reading this should be aware that a prized possession of ours, one of our last bastions of defence against American mediocrity, is being threatened. As for what you can do about it, see this link [friendscb.org].
I assume everyone remembers the television "screens" in 1984 which allowed the state to view exactly what its denizens were doing? It came *this* close to realization before this thankfully clued-in judge overturned it.
We're not there yet.
I think the main point of misunderstanding is that given the current structure, programmers *aren't* professionals in the sense that doctors, lawyers or engineers in more mature fields are. Generally speaking, they work for someone else, or are simply business people. More to the point, the same level of training isn't required; perhaps it is for some areas of computer programming, but this is not set into a well-defined status structure the way it is, say, for mechanical engineers (an extremely regulated bunch).
Seriously, it is crucial that anyone who conscientiously objects to the kind of strongarm tactics being bandied about by the entertainment industry at the expense of consumers, stops being a consumer!
It occurs to me that the main reason all of the ignorant nonsense presented to us by industry conglomerates, whether off the air in the form of outrageous legislation/policy, or on the air in the form of the insipid, intellectually insulting shows we accept without a turn of the cheek, is allowed to persist because we're all too busy watching TV.
The problem with what you are saying is that the BSA is just an organization for the promotion of certain individuals interests - i.e. software manufacturers. They shouldn't be enforcing anything!
Imagine if I write a piece of software, release it under a proprietary license and then decide I can march into anyone's house to make sure they're only using as many licenses as they've bought? Imagine I did that to you... you'd probably sock me in the face, and if you didn't I'd honestly wonder why.
While I'm in total agreement with you - the answer to this kind of corporate thugism is to create alternatives vis-a-vis free software - I think this community is totally in the right for crying foul over what is essentially vigilante action by a software cartel. This should be police activity, acted upon only under warrant, and not organized by private citizens.
What's worse even than *that* is that even the Slashdot crowd works to some extent in companies (such as my own) where they are pigeon-holed into acquiescing to these sorts of laughable licensing schemes.
I just recently clicked "accept" on this very product. My company (more specifically my project manager) just bought three licenses to this thing.
Honestly, I don't think these sorts of clauses would change our "corporate mind", but I *definitely* would not have bought the software with this in mind.
While I agree with the ideology underscoring RMS's message, I thinking his method of preaching is too much of exactly that - preaching - to come across to the size of target audience he intends to reach.
Perhaps a little less use of mantras, perhaps a bit more sparing use of words with powerful stigma attached to them, and a slightly more pragmatic approach will woo those who are less high-minded.
This is what still baffles me. Surely someone in the content industry is just about the intelligence threshold to realize that "if I can watch it, I can copy it."
If I can display the thing on my screen, I can hook up some simple AV cables and re-record the thing to another digital format minus any copy protection. Forgive me for being obvious, but this comes up in these conversations FAR to seldom. Remember, what we're talking about here is content - even at slightly less-than-digital quality it is still the same content, and just as transmissible. Or perhaps I'm mistaken as to where the average watcher's priorities are.
I suppose the situation could be rather different in the U.S., but in Canada this trend is also quite apparent for the very alarming reason that Universities can't get smack by way of funding anymore. I'm not sure what we expect of public institutions but to go private, if they start getting choked of public funds.