To continue with the HP example, would Rowling have spent years writing and polishing the HP books if the first publisher she approached with the manuscript could rip it off and make all the profit? Maybe she would have written the first one or two, but seeing others getting fat on her work while she got nothing would have been a strong disincentive against finishing the series.
Rowling received a grant from the Scottish Arts Council in 1997, and wrote part of the Harry Potter series while on the dole. Perhaps we should consider OSS subsidies as an alternative to draconian penalties for unauthorized copying.
Some argue that there will always be a market for vertical market software (customized, very specific to a particular business), and this is true, but why can't I write a wonderful new *general* tool and make money from it? Yeah, I know, some will say "Go ahead and try, it's a free world". But you know as well as I do that if I am successful then inevitably some kid in his parents' basement will write his own Open Source version of the thing, for free. We seem determined as a culture to ensure that the only "worthy" software is that developed for free. This may be an understandable reaction to the overarching monopolistic behavior of companies like Microsoft, but perhaps we are overreacting?
As a developer, you want to make the most money using the least amount of effort, so competition scares you. As a consumer, I want the best software for the cheapest price. The fact that you are whinging about competition from open source makes me happy.
If the culture doesn't support the idea of paying for software (and music, and movies, etc) in some way, then we are basically just denying artists and programmers the right to make money from what they do.
No one has a right to make money from their creative effort. A product is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. If people won't pay for your software, than it has a price of $0.00 no matter how valuable the programmer thinks it is.
I don't mean to sound like an ass but as a musician why the hell should I give-up my creative secrets so that someone else can use them?
Believe it or not, some people enjoy contributing to the community. Look at sites suchasthese for example. For the vast majority of musicians, playing and recording music is not a spectacularly lucrative endeavor.
Is there really any logical reason as to why music should be open source and why I shouldn't make money off my hard work.
What the hell is the point anyway, the whole idea behind open source software is so that if a coder missed a bug or a feature wasn't included (and that the community wants) it can be fixed or included
You seem to have a very limited conception of the merits of open source. One of the things that motivates me to use open source software is the fear of planned obsolescence. I don't like to have my data at the mercy of a single software company. I'd prefer to at least have the option of employing my fair use rights to customize commercial software. As a consumer of music, wouldn't you like to have multi-track versions of your favorite songs?
THIS COULD NOT WORK WITH MUSIC by it's very definition music is done when it's done.
It does happen, I've already shown you the evidence. The links that I've posted will take you to sites where patch and sequencing data are legally shared among communities of musicians. Some programs, such as Reason, are particularly suited for this kind of sharing. Both the musicians and their audience benefit from this open exchange of information.
We all have taken something from the commons. Would you have been a musician if you had to invent your own instruments, scales, and time signatures?
Yes, sheet music could be considered a musician's source code. Although I'd extend the metaphor to include the samples used, midi information, patch files, and mix programming data.
In order to produce this crap children (who are by definition not able to consent) are abused and based on societal consensus this is not acceptable, period.
That depends on what criteria are used to determine what is and isn't child porn. In many parts of the world, possession of synthetic child porn is illegal.
Toronto Artist Eli Langer was charged with possession of child pornography for owning paintings of people who appeared to be under the age of 18 engaged in sex. John Robin Sharpe was arrested for possession of a text entitled Sam Paloc's Flogging, Fun and Fortitude, A Collection of Kiddie Kink Classics. The only crime that is evidenced in these cases, is possession of unpopular fantasy material.
But even if we ignore the laws against synthetic porn, I still don't get why the sexual abuse of children is the only crime for which possession of photographic evidence is classified as contraband? Why don't we outlaw video footage and photographic documentation of other crimes?
Yes, and checking to see if the block is valid could cause one to come into possession of illegal photos, thereby making one susceptible to prosecution.
By making law-breaking technically impossible, blocking forces people to follow the law, eliminates a lot of crime, and lessens the anguish the individual victims images suffer from knowing their images circulate forever the Internet.
Technically impossible? Haven't you heard of FTP, IRC, USENET, email, or any of the peer to peer networks?
Imagine a sci-fi society in which, right before someone committed a murder, BT blocked the bullet.
When the next moral panic comes, and people blame ISPs for not blocking certain bits, BT might regret taking responsibility for censoring the net.
No more murders could be committed, and there are no side effects in terms of speech.
The problem I have with anti-pornography laws is that declaring that certain binary digits are contraband sets a precedent for sending people to jail for having illegal information. It also gives governmental agencies a excuse to filter "good" data from "bad" data.
1 - a biological agent is by definition alive and able to reproduce. If someone creates something bad, you can't just wait for its half-life for it to degrade. Its out there making new copies of itself.
Humanity isn't the only danger that threatens us. Pathogens arise from random mutations as well. Banning genetic engineering will senselessly limit our ability to create vaccines that could protect us from pathogens and biological weapons.
2 - it took billions of years and all the fine tuning that follows with that to get where we are today. What makes anyone think, we'll be able to do a better job churning this stuff out of a lab? We've made a hash of the world just by sitting around and consuming. God help us when we start tinkering with it
We tinker with our DNA every time we reproduce. Sexual selection is just a primitive and haphazardous form of genetic engineering. Every day, babies with a novel genetic sequence are born. Gene splicing involves intentionally selecting the desired genes rather than randomly slapping them together the traditional way.
I've always wondered... what happens to people who have never heard of JC? I mean, it's pretty hard to worship someone you've never heard of.
Although I don't think it's part of any Christian canon, Dante's The Divine Comedy describes Limbo as a non-torturous (but nonetheless dreary) section of hell where virtuous pagans like Socrates and Virgil reside.
There is also the also the idea that Jesus reveals himself to everyone in some way or other. I suppose that would ostensibly make missionary work unnecessary. Oddly enough, this was an argument that I heard from a person who was trying to convince me to join his bible study group.
I was thinking about digitizing everything, do a little noise reduction, and burning this on CD's, for my childrens and great grand-childrens enjoyment, but it seems that old analog tech from the '70 is more reliable than digital.
Record it to your HDD in an non-lossy format and store copies of it on various friends' and family members' computers. Back up frequently and your recordings won't suffer from the kind of decay and generation loss that analog tape does.
Watch "The Passion Of The Chirst" to see what he endured for us.
I don't understand why crucifixion was needed for salvation, do you?
You only need to accept this gift to be saved.
I'll accept that gift after judgment day.
You can choose to take the present, or you can leave it. It's your choice.
That's the problem I have with Christian theology. A lot of atheists that I respect are going to end up hell because of the cruel way in which Jesus discriminates. You understand this, I understand this, and if Jesus were a better person, he wouldn't have made faith a prerequisite for salvation.
If it were possible, wouldn't you have helped the Jews, Romani, and homosexuals escape from the concentration camps? Jesus should help them escape from hell. He shouldn't have created hell in the first place. Even christian charities help non-christians. Shouldn't Jesus do the same?
Do you think that killing and/or torturing all the unfaithful is the right thing for a god to do?
What killing and/or torturing are you talking about?
I am talking about creating the lake of fire, and sending the unfaithful there. Please read this it's not very long, and it will help you understand how some people view the teachings of Christ's disciples.
God is all-powerful. But he gave us free will. He loves us very much and he wants us to choose him. But He doesn't want us to be forced to love Him. Would you want your wife to be forced to love you, or would you rather she "choose" to love you. God has paid for our sins.... we just have to choose to accept his forgiveness through Jesus
How much can you love someone that you've never even met? Why should a kind and just god only save those who are Christian? Do you think that killing and/or torturing all the unfaithful is the right thing for a god to do? Why doesn't Jesus just let people join the his fanclub after death? If all the heathens of the world had an illness and you had the power to cure that illness, wouldn't you help them?
You have a point. The Directors guild of America has a problem with third parties cashing in on edited versions of their films. They're still engaged in legal action against ClearPlay over this matter.
Editing a film is a way of creating a derivative work. It's an essential part of the art of movie making. Often, directors would rather not be pressured to make multiple versions of their film that cater to peoples varying conception of objectionable material.
I can't convince you as I can only plant the seed in your mind.
Do you think you are the first person whose told me about Jesus?
Like I said in another post, you know you have a brain but you've never seen it. You have thoughts, although they only exist in your mind. You know they are there. Same thing with God.
Yes, but I have seen brains before. It doesn't take much faith to believe that I have a brain. I need only to write or speak to demonstrate its existence. Gods, on the other hand, are animals that I have never encountered. I put them is the same category as werewolves, unicorns and leprechauns.
Have faith!...with God all things are possible. (Matthew 19:26)
I could just as easily have faith in something other than your Bible. You quote an old book that says some invisible creature has super powers. Do you realize how unconvincing your argument is?
Rose from their graves? How does one move once the muscles have rotted?
Do you want to know what you see when your eyes rot? You can do a simple experiment. Just excise your eyes (you can use a scalpel or sharp melon baller). What does one hear once both cochlea have decomposed? They hear the same thing that deaf people do. Once the cerebral cortex has been destroyed, the subject can no longer speak or read. I doubt that any thought occurs either.
Jesus was crucified by the Romans and by the demanding of some Jews for claiming he was the King of the Jews. (I am not knocking the Jews - just stating fact. I still believe the Jews are God's people and 144,000 of them will be sealed during the tribulation after they come to Christ.)
You claim to "not knock..." the Jews, yet you subscribe to a faith that has the non-Jesus-loving Jews who died in the holocaust bearing the tortures of Hell that are so great that they are probably begging to go back to the concentration camps.
Slashdot Mirror
Rowling received a grant from the Scottish Arts Council in 1997, and wrote part of the Harry Potter series while on the dole. Perhaps we should consider OSS subsidies as an alternative to draconian penalties for unauthorized copying.
As a developer, you want to make the most money using the least amount of effort, so competition scares you. As a consumer, I want the best software for the cheapest price. The fact that you are whinging about competition from open source makes me happy.
No one has a right to make money from their creative effort. A product is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. If people won't pay for your software, than it has a price of $0.00 no matter how valuable the programmer thinks it is.
I don't mean to sound like an ass but as a musician why the hell should I give-up my creative secrets so that someone else can use them?
Believe it or not, some people enjoy contributing to the community. Look at sites such as these for example. For the vast majority of musicians, playing and recording music is not a spectacularly lucrative endeavor.
Is there really any logical reason as to why music should be open source and why I shouldn't make money off my hard work.
Some artists release their work under less restrictive licenses to gain exposure and accolade.
What the hell is the point anyway, the whole idea behind open source software is so that if a coder missed a bug or a feature wasn't included (and that the community wants) it can be fixed or included
You seem to have a very limited conception of the merits of open source. One of the things that motivates me to use open source software is the fear of planned obsolescence. I don't like to have my data at the mercy of a single software company. I'd prefer to at least have the option of employing my fair use rights to customize commercial software. As a consumer of music, wouldn't you like to have multi-track versions of your favorite songs?
THIS COULD NOT WORK WITH MUSIC by it's very definition music is done when it's done.
It does happen, I've already shown you the evidence. The links that I've posted will take you to sites where patch and sequencing data are legally shared among communities of musicians. Some programs, such as Reason, are particularly suited for this kind of sharing. Both the musicians and their audience benefit from this open exchange of information.
We all have taken something from the commons. Would you have been a musician if you had to invent your own instruments, scales, and time signatures?
Isnt that called 'sheet music'?
Yes, sheet music could be considered a musician's source code. Although I'd extend the metaphor to include the samples used, midi information, patch files, and mix programming data.
Every good sysadmin should have a few cow magnets to spare.
This looks like a good time to support open source music.
In order to produce this crap children (who are by definition not able to consent) are abused and based on societal consensus this is not acceptable, period.
That depends on what criteria are used to determine what is and isn't child porn. In many parts of the world, possession of synthetic child porn is illegal.
Toronto Artist Eli Langer was charged with possession of child pornography for owning paintings of people who appeared to be under the age of 18 engaged in sex. John Robin Sharpe was arrested for possession of a text entitled Sam Paloc's Flogging, Fun and Fortitude, A Collection of Kiddie Kink Classics. The only crime that is evidenced in these cases, is possession of unpopular fantasy material.
But even if we ignore the laws against synthetic porn, I still don't get why the sexual abuse of children is the only crime for which possession of photographic evidence is classified as contraband? Why don't we outlaw video footage and photographic documentation of other crimes?
Yes, and checking to see if the block is valid could cause one to come into possession of illegal photos, thereby making one susceptible to prosecution.
By making law-breaking technically impossible, blocking forces people to follow the law, eliminates a lot of crime, and lessens the anguish the individual victims images suffer from knowing their images circulate forever the Internet.
Technically impossible? Haven't you heard of FTP, IRC, USENET, email, or any of the peer to peer networks?
Imagine a sci-fi society in which, right before someone committed a murder, BT blocked the bullet.
When the next moral panic comes, and people blame ISPs for not blocking certain bits, BT might regret taking responsibility for censoring the net.
No more murders could be committed, and there are no side effects in terms of speech.
The problem I have with anti-pornography laws is that declaring that certain binary digits are contraband sets a precedent for sending people to jail for having illegal information. It also gives governmental agencies a excuse to filter "good" data from "bad" data.
Someone else had a similar idea.
Humanity isn't the only danger that threatens us. Pathogens arise from random mutations as well. Banning genetic engineering will senselessly limit our ability to create vaccines that could protect us from pathogens and biological weapons.
We tinker with our DNA every time we reproduce. Sexual selection is just a primitive and haphazardous form of genetic engineering. Every day, babies with a novel genetic sequence are born. Gene splicing involves intentionally selecting the desired genes rather than randomly slapping them together the traditional way.
It turns out that Wikipedia has had more daily traffic than Slashdot since late 2003.
I don't know, why can't you?
Are you asking why you can't do it without being punished?
You used the phrase "should be banned" which is a suggestion and not a statement of fact. It is therefore incapable of being true or false.
Do you care to cite the source from which you obtained your evidence of "tendency to degeneration of the immunological system found in children..."?
I've always wondered... what happens to people who have never heard of JC? I mean, it's pretty hard to worship someone you've never heard of.
Although I don't think it's part of any Christian canon, Dante's The Divine Comedy describes Limbo as a non-torturous (but nonetheless dreary) section of hell where virtuous pagans like Socrates and Virgil reside.
There is also the also the idea that Jesus reveals himself to everyone in some way or other. I suppose that would ostensibly make missionary work unnecessary. Oddly enough, this was an argument that I heard from a person who was trying to convince me to join his bible study group.
I was thinking about digitizing everything, do a little noise reduction, and burning this on CD's, for my childrens and great grand-childrens enjoyment, but it seems that old analog tech from the '70 is more reliable than digital.
Record it to your HDD in an non-lossy format and store copies of it on various friends' and family members' computers. Back up frequently and your recordings won't suffer from the kind of decay and generation loss that analog tape does.
Watch "The Passion Of The Chirst" to see what he endured for us.
I don't understand why crucifixion was needed for salvation, do you?
You only need to accept this gift to be saved.
I'll accept that gift after judgment day.
You can choose to take the present, or you can leave it. It's your choice.
That's the problem I have with Christian theology. A lot of atheists that I respect are going to end up hell because of the cruel way in which Jesus discriminates. You understand this, I understand this, and if Jesus were a better person, he wouldn't have made faith a prerequisite for salvation.
If it were possible, wouldn't you have helped the Jews, Romani, and homosexuals escape from the concentration camps? Jesus should help them escape from hell. He shouldn't have created hell in the first place. Even christian charities help non-christians. Shouldn't Jesus do the same?
Do you think that killing and/or torturing all the unfaithful is the right thing for a god to do?
What killing and/or torturing are you talking about?
I am talking about creating the lake of fire, and sending the unfaithful there. Please read this it's not very long, and it will help you understand how some people view the teachings of Christ's disciples.
God is all-powerful. But he gave us free will. He loves us very much and he wants us to choose him. But He doesn't want us to be forced to love Him. Would you want your wife to be forced to love you, or would you rather she "choose" to love you. God has paid for our sins.... we just have to choose to accept his forgiveness through Jesus
How much can you love someone that you've never even met? Why should a kind and just god only save those who are Christian? Do you think that killing and/or torturing all the unfaithful is the right thing for a god to do? Why doesn't Jesus just let people join the his fanclub after death? If all the heathens of the world had an illness and you had the power to cure that illness, wouldn't you help them?
You have a point. The Directors guild of America has a problem with third parties cashing in on edited versions of their films. They're still engaged in legal action against ClearPlay over this matter.
Editing a film is a way of creating a derivative work. It's an essential part of the art of movie making. Often, directors would rather not be pressured to make multiple versions of their film that cater to peoples varying conception of objectionable material.
Does my speculation about the RIAA's involvement in the creation of an MP3 trojan put me in the tin foil hat crowd?
The new price is nearly half what the consoles originally sold for. Xbox live users could be purchasing a second machine to mod/tinker with.
I can't convince you as I can only plant the seed in your mind.
Do you think you are the first person whose told me about Jesus?
Like I said in another post, you know you have a brain but you've never seen it. You have thoughts, although they only exist in your mind. You know they are there. Same thing with God.
Yes, but I have seen brains before. It doesn't take much faith to believe that I have a brain. I need only to write or speak to demonstrate its existence. Gods, on the other hand, are animals that I have never encountered. I put them is the same category as werewolves, unicorns and leprechauns.
Have faith! ...with God all things are possible. (Matthew 19:26)
I could just as easily have faith in something other than your Bible. You quote an old book that says some invisible creature has super powers. Do you realize how unconvincing your argument is?
Rose from their graves? How does one move once the muscles have rotted?
Do you want to know what you see when your eyes rot? You can do a simple experiment. Just excise your eyes (you can use a scalpel or sharp melon baller). What does one hear once both cochlea have decomposed? They hear the same thing that deaf people do. Once the cerebral cortex has been destroyed, the subject can no longer speak or read. I doubt that any thought occurs either.
Jesus was crucified by the Romans and by the demanding of some Jews for claiming he was the King of the Jews. (I am not knocking the Jews - just stating fact. I still believe the Jews are God's people and 144,000 of them will be sealed during the tribulation after they come to Christ.)
You claim to "not knock..." the Jews, yet you subscribe to a faith that has the non-Jesus-loving Jews who died in the holocaust bearing the tortures of Hell that are so great that they are probably begging to go back to the concentration camps.