How far ahead do you see Microsoft going to a BSD variant?
I only ask because I'm not sure I see this happening anytime soon. They would seriously betray all of their developers. I remember a general amount of discomfort when people thought their Win 95 programs would no longer work on future Microsoft OSs (such as NT). A large change in architecture of the OS would be a really large change to swallow at once...
Of course, if they did it over time and made sure they didn't break any of their old software it could be interesting.
Let's just put it this way, it is my position that music does NOT,in fact, cost money, and simply becuase somone charges for it, doesn't mean that they have a right to
Well the fact is music does cost money. They have to have a recording studio and hardware to create those CD's that someone ripped. Without that money those music tracks would never have existed
To illustrate: I am going to charge for this comment. I created it, These words are mine, so by the logic of the entire music industry, I have every right to charge for it. You may NOT read this comment, no reply to it, unless you are willing to pay me $20 bucks... Or are you one of those "comment thieves"?
You obviously have very little legal understanding. You post your message publicly in an area where you understand it can be read and responded to. The closest argument you can make against this is the radio, but you arn't recording tracks off the radio are you?
Again, I just used extreeme examples to illustrate *clearly* that you are not bound to follow all laws, jsut becuase somone wrote it down.There are countless such laws, and if you don't like the first two examples becuase they are too emotionally charged, then consider this one: Despite the law in Kentucky, you may carry an ice cram cone in your pocket and be morally in the right, even though, legally, you will be wrong.
Yes, some laws are stupid. The only reason they haven't been removed is that it is too embarassing to the politicians to bring them up and have them voted out. BTW those laws are also unenforced. One could argue they don't enforce laws about copying music, but the fact is they don't have the ability or resources. If they could, then most likely they would be enforced.
Since its not hurting anyone I'll steal your car. Your insurance will of course pay for a new one and its not hurting anyone else. Those grubbing insurance companies can afford to lose a few dollars anyway. Nothing morally wrong there. *Smile*
However, none of this matters, and I don't really know why I bother posting. You are not going to change your mind because your getting something for nothing, and you can believe whatever you want to concerning this. At least you have cleared up the vast injustice of comparing someone who downloads MP3s to someone who freed slaves.
Please give me a break. Taking music for free does not compare to being a Jew in Germany during WWII, or to freeing slaves. This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard in my life.
First of all I guess everyone has their own set of morals, so arguing morality is not that easy. You are still taking something that does not belong to you, something that you did not pay for. In my book if you take something that costs (ie non-free) and take it without paying then its stealing. The real issue is to identify who you are hurting. We don't care about the act of stealing as much as the fact that it hurts others. You take a candy bar at a convience store, and you cost that store money. You take a song off Kazaa and you don't directly see who you are hurting. I don't have a really good answer to this issue. I am not educated enough to know who is really hurt from you doing this, but I do know it is a horrible injustice to compare stealing music to freeing slaves or being a jew in germany during WWII. We are talking about two very different levels of freedom here. Personal freedom, and freedom to have anything you want without paying for as long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
First of all it is an impossible thing to enforce. How can you prove that you really wouldn't have bought that CD if it wasn't available online for free?? There is no doubt that there are some people who are out there taking music for free when they would have payed, and therefore hurting the record companies. I don't have any lost love for those guys, but I do feel if you are going to try to fight them then do so legally.
I really don't have a good answer to this issue, but I'm certainly open to anyone elses ideas.
I remember this same issue happening with dial up when the first started offering flat rate unlimited service. Many people that the ISPs were losing money and that they were going to have to go back to charging per hour again. I have a feeling that competition will force this issue with Cable Companies, and maybe even DSL (in areas that have access to both).
Joe
Slashdot Mirror
How far ahead do you see Microsoft going to a BSD variant? I only ask because I'm not sure I see this happening anytime soon. They would seriously betray all of their developers. I remember a general amount of discomfort when people thought their Win 95 programs would no longer work on future Microsoft OSs (such as NT). A large change in architecture of the OS would be a really large change to swallow at once... Of course, if they did it over time and made sure they didn't break any of their old software it could be interesting.
Flywheels seem like a great way to store energy, unless you want to use them to store energy in a moving vehicle. Just do NOT turn.
Joe
Let's just put it this way, it is my position that music does NOT,in fact, cost money, and simply becuase somone charges for it, doesn't mean that they have a right to
Well the fact is music does cost money. They have to have a recording studio and hardware to create those CD's that someone ripped. Without that money those music tracks would never have existed
To illustrate: I am going to charge for this comment. I created it, These words are mine, so by the logic of the entire music industry, I have every right to charge for it. You may NOT read this comment, no reply to it, unless you are willing to pay me $20 bucks... Or are you one of those "comment thieves"?
You obviously have very little legal understanding. You post your message publicly in an area where you understand it can be read and responded to. The closest argument you can make against this is the radio, but you arn't recording tracks off the radio are you?
Again, I just used extreeme examples to illustrate *clearly* that you are not bound to follow all laws, jsut becuase somone wrote it down.There are countless such laws, and if you don't like the first two examples becuase they are too emotionally charged, then consider this one: Despite the law in Kentucky, you may carry an ice cram cone in your pocket and be morally in the right, even though, legally, you will be wrong.
Yes, some laws are stupid. The only reason they haven't been removed is that it is too embarassing to the politicians to bring them up and have them voted out. BTW those laws are also unenforced. One could argue they don't enforce laws about copying music, but the fact is they don't have the ability or resources. If they could, then most likely they would be enforced.
Since its not hurting anyone I'll steal your car. Your insurance will of course pay for a new one and its not hurting anyone else. Those grubbing insurance companies can afford to lose a few dollars anyway. Nothing morally wrong there. *Smile*
However, none of this matters, and I don't really know why I bother posting. You are not going to change your mind because your getting something for nothing, and you can believe whatever you want to concerning this. At least you have cleared up the vast injustice of comparing someone who downloads MP3s to someone who freed slaves.
Please give me a break. Taking music for free does not compare to being a Jew in Germany during WWII, or to freeing slaves. This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard in my life.
First of all I guess everyone has their own set of morals, so arguing morality is not that easy.
You are still taking something that does not belong to you, something that you did not pay for. In my book if you take something that costs (ie non-free) and take it without paying then its stealing. The real issue is to identify who you are hurting. We don't care about the act of stealing as much as the fact that it hurts others. You take a candy bar at a convience store, and you cost that store money. You take a song off Kazaa and you don't directly see who you are hurting. I don't have a really good answer to this issue. I am not educated enough to know who is really hurt from you doing this, but I do know it is a horrible injustice to compare stealing music to freeing slaves or being a jew in germany during WWII. We are talking about two very different levels of freedom here. Personal freedom, and freedom to have anything you want without paying for as long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
First of all it is an impossible thing to enforce. How can you prove that you really wouldn't have bought that CD if it wasn't available online for free?? There is no doubt that there are some people who are out there taking music for free when they would have payed, and therefore hurting the record companies. I don't have any lost love for those guys, but I do feel if you are going to try to fight them then do so legally.
I really don't have a good answer to this issue, but I'm certainly open to anyone elses ideas.
I remember this same issue happening with dial up when the first started offering flat rate unlimited service. Many people that the ISPs were losing money and that they were going to have to go back to charging per hour again. I have a feeling that competition will force this issue with Cable Companies, and maybe even DSL (in areas that have access to both). Joe