Perhaps not a solution for the original post, but some reading this thread may be interested in RipDigital. You mail them your collection of CDs and they mail back your CDs along with ripped MP3s on a data DVD they burn for you...
Sure, getting out of the office was nice, but having to go to a trade show packed with people fighting for mousepads and hired plastic models "selling software, nudge nudge" wasn't where I liked to be when I got out of the office.
Someone mentioned bringing the g/f along -- it was nice when I could bring her, but some (most?) bosses like to put more than one employee to a room.
I do a lot of transactions on PayPal, and I can't think of any serious issues that I've had. Sure, a few chargebacks, but compared to regular credit cards the $10 fee is cheap.
You're absolutely right -- majority does not rule, though I'd now apply that same logic to file-sharing -- just because a lot of people do it doesn't make it right.
Seems you missed my question, and I think it's relevent -- how old are you and what do you do for a living? You don't have to give anything personal, or that may identify you, but I think it should help.
As for me, I'm 35, self-employed, and I sell my own software for a living.
Look, the vast majority -- even the vast majority of Slashdot folks -- don't agree with your "techno anarchist" viewpoint -- that in the world we live in now, that it's ok to sell an artist's work without her concent, and without paying her for doing so. Likewise going ahead and using GPL in closed projects, as you see fit.
You believe it, and I'm not going to bother trying to convince you otherwise.
Let me ask you: how old are you, and what do you do for a living?
I'm a him, and my skin is thick. Being called a moron on Slashdot ain't a biggie.
In all honesty, I don't really see the point in arguing with you (iminplaya).
You fall into the "techno anarchist" camp, and in our last discussion you maintained that if somebody wants to sell copies of some musician's work without her consent, that should be their decision to make -- that there should be no protection whatsoever.
And likewise, that there should be no protection when GPL code is copied into a closed commercial application.
You're entitled to your viewpoint, but you're off the map and there doesn't seem to be much point in arguing with you.
"But at the end of the day, for fuck's sake, ars gratia artis. All this talk of "incentives" makes musicians sound like salesmen. I don't wanna buy no warez, I want art."
Nope -- that's easy enough to say, and it may appeal to some here, but working musicians, just like other folks (and certianly other artists) want to be paid for their work.
And trying to pass off musicians as salesmen just for being concerned abount making a living, that simply tells me that you're not one of them.
"It just shows how extending copyright, for one, really has no benefits for the general public."
Well, not really. Look at it this way: if there was no copyright protection at all, can you see why that would make it harder for artists etc. to make a living selling their work?
If you agree that no copyright at all would make it harder for artists to make a living being artists, would you also say that some may reasonably consider that to be a loss for the general public?
So, now give a copyright term of one week. Some -- perhaps newspapers and so on -- might find that to be a workable threshold, but others may not.
Essentially, the longer the term, the more incentive (here, meaning financial potential) there is for artist to keep selling her work, and again, some argue that can encourage such work and help artists to make a living.
This is all not to say that unlimited term is OK -- it's just to point out one argument for the value of having a term, and then the question is how long is reasonable.
"I'll always believe that people who write programs for free can make better code, because they like to, not because they're looking for a fast buck."
The problem with your thinking is the presumption that just because somebody wants to make a living from their work, that they're just doing it "for fast buck."
I like what I do, my users like my work, and -- GASPS! -- I pay my bills.
"Simple answer: it's not a problem if no one is complaining. If they were worried about getting paid, they would not do it for free."
Hey, I'm all for people making their own choices.
But I can also tell you that I've been in touch with a number of coders behind fairly popular OSS projects who told me that their next project wasn't going to be OSS.
And also note that folks like me regularly get asked (and not always kindly): "hey, why don't you GPL your code?" and I think it's just as fair for me to ask: "hey, why don't you think about charging for your work?"
"I'm pretty sure the overwhelming bulk of OSS is taking what has already been created in the proprietary world, emulating or outright copying it and then releasing it to everyone else as "free" software."
From my own experience, I've been working on my MP3 juke/server software Andromeda since about 1999. A few years later some guy came up with a GPL'd app Zina (Zina is not Andromeda, which he describes: "It is similar to Andromeda, but released under the GNU General Public License"). And, in turn, I've seen others with forked versions of Zina.
So, I've certainly seen OS projects following a proprietary work, BUT I've also seen proprietary projects that follow other proprietary projects too.
Most ideas are part of a flow, and I don't think that I would characterize OS as any more or less derivative than proprietary work -- except when it comes to the endless GPL forking.
IMHO, the main problem with OS is that the coders aren't getting paid.
"Sorry guy... I couldn't care less either way. GPL only exists to combat the current copyright situation."
Oops, my apologies. So then, within our current copyright situation, it's OK with you when a company takes GPL code and uses it a commercial closed source project?
It's amazing how often file-sharing is justified in the name of independent artists. But as soon as you actually talk to any of them (and I'm refering to the ones making a serious effort to make a living) they know perfectly well that unlimited copying of their work, without their consent, isn't going to help them.
And I'm sure that you have no problem with any artists that do choose to share their work.
It's funny (but still sad) when -- because I respect an artist's right to protect her work -- I'm called an RIAA-pasty-slaveholding-fascist.
As soon as he hears about some company using GPL code in a closed commercial product, he'll be among the first to complain about that shameful act of copyright infringement.;)
fwiw, in this case the RIAA is not suing Kazaa, the Australian record industry is.
"Even if the majority is using it to illegally swap files, that just means the RIAA should go after the file-sharers, not KAZAA."
"So you agree with me (and the parent poster) and yet still feel like arguing about it?"
If you're agreeing that holding Kazaa unaccountable means that infringing end-users will have to be sued instead, then we have nothing to argue about.
But the typical thread goes: "don't blame the technology for how some may misuse it" and then when infringers of thousands of files get sued, it's "how dare you sue music lovers!"
Yes, the EFF cheers on file sharing, at least you got that part right. But *not* all file sharing is illegal. The EFF is _not_ saying please infringe on copyrights; it _is_ saying let's work together to make peer-to-peer 100% legal."
No logic-fixin' necessary over here.
How about if the EFF said "don't share copyrighted works" -- that would certainly help make p2p legal.
Nope, the EFF is fundamentally indifferent to the copyright status of file-shared files, and have repeatedly taken an unambiguous file-sharing-is-cool postion (and *not* a file-sharing-is-cool-with-authorized-works position).
Have you not seen their MP3 Caper animation? Their message is clear: copying is cool, regardless of the copyright status, and their intention is to force an alternative compensation regime which makes no practical sense.
Again, you may not like it, but the EFF actively agitates to destabilize copyright, and frankly I'm surpried that you even disagree.
"Lastly, I, for one, agree that you should not be allowed to sell other people's works without their permission."
Pretty amazing that some argue otherwise, eh?
"That's not to say that the Copyright laws don't need to be tweaked to put more power back into the hands of the creators..."
Certainly -- but it gets pretty frustrating to see these guys who also want to take away rights from independent creators, and justify it all with lame anti-RIAA rhetoric. OK, the RIAA sucks, but does that mean that all independent artists should be screwed? NO.
"umm, excuse me?!?.. as an EFF member I take offense to that comment. The EFF hasn't justified the infringer in any way. It's been trying to protect the anonymity of the people online mainly because sometimes the evidence is not correct and the wrong person gets sued (ie. your grandma).
Please do some research before making conclusions!"
Maybe you need a gun pointed at you(in the form of copyright) to force you to respect others, but I don't. I'll repeat what I said before. If the artist doesn't want me to sell dupes of his music, I won't. Just don't tell me I can't. I'll decide what's ok or not."
Cool, now I get it -- basically the idea is, whatever you say goes. Yes, I think that will work, and I'm sure everybody will be greatful for your benevolent leadership!
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps not a solution for the original post, but some reading this thread may be interested in RipDigital. You mail them your collection of CDs and they mail back your CDs along with ripped MP3s on a data DVD they burn for you...
Just a head's up...
Someone mentioned bringing the g/f along -- it was nice when I could bring her, but some (most?) bosses like to put more than one employee to a room.
And I eventually had to say "please don't send me!" I hate those shows.
I do a lot of transactions on PayPal, and I can't think of any serious issues that I've had. Sure, a few chargebacks, but compared to regular credit cards the $10 fee is cheap.
I would add financial concerns to the list of topics to be discussed.
Seems you missed my question, and I think it's relevent -- how old are you and what do you do for a living? You don't have to give anything personal, or that may identify you, but I think it should help.
As for me, I'm 35, self-employed, and I sell my own software for a living.
You believe it, and I'm not going to bother trying to convince you otherwise.
Let me ask you: how old are you, and what do you do for a living?
In all honesty, I don't really see the point in arguing with you (iminplaya).
You fall into the "techno anarchist" camp, and in our last discussion you maintained that if somebody wants to sell copies of some musician's work without her consent, that should be their decision to make -- that there should be no protection whatsoever.
And likewise, that there should be no protection when GPL code is copied into a closed commercial application.
You're entitled to your viewpoint, but you're off the map and there doesn't seem to be much point in arguing with you.
Nope -- that's easy enough to say, and it may appeal to some here, but working musicians, just like other folks (and certianly other artists) want to be paid for their work.
And trying to pass off musicians as salesmen just for being concerned abount making a living, that simply tells me that you're not one of them.
Well, not really. Look at it this way: if there was no copyright protection at all, can you see why that would make it harder for artists etc. to make a living selling their work?
If you agree that no copyright at all would make it harder for artists to make a living being artists, would you also say that some may reasonably consider that to be a loss for the general public?
So, now give a copyright term of one week. Some -- perhaps newspapers and so on -- might find that to be a workable threshold, but others may not.
Essentially, the longer the term, the more incentive (here, meaning financial potential) there is for artist to keep selling her work, and again, some argue that can encourage such work and help artists to make a living.
This is all not to say that unlimited term is OK -- it's just to point out one argument for the value of having a term, and then the question is how long is reasonable.
The problem with your thinking is the presumption that just because somebody wants to make a living from their work, that they're just doing it "for fast buck."
I like what I do, my users like my work, and -- GASPS! -- I pay my bills.
Hey, I'm all for people making their own choices.
But I can also tell you that I've been in touch with a number of coders behind fairly popular OSS projects who told me that their next project wasn't going to be OSS.
And also note that folks like me regularly get asked (and not always kindly): "hey, why don't you GPL your code?" and I think it's just as fair for me to ask: "hey, why don't you think about charging for your work?"
From my own experience, I've been working on my MP3 juke/server software Andromeda since about 1999. A few years later some guy came up with a GPL'd app Zina (Zina is not Andromeda, which he describes: "It is similar to Andromeda, but released under the GNU General Public License"). And, in turn, I've seen others with forked versions of Zina.
So, I've certainly seen OS projects following a proprietary work, BUT I've also seen proprietary projects that follow other proprietary projects too.
Most ideas are part of a flow, and I don't think that I would characterize OS as any more or less derivative than proprietary work -- except when it comes to the endless GPL forking.
IMHO, the main problem with OS is that the coders aren't getting paid.
It's "sharing"
Without the silly law there is no such thing as "closed" commercial projects.
(/repeat)
Many people don't share my opinion, but they'll come around in a hundred thousand years or so. Evolution takes time."
Sorry, my mistake, I was talking about now -- not a hundred thousand years from now.
I'm sure we're all eager for Evolution to hurry up so that rest of us may catch up to your advanced state.
I suspect that most GPL coders don't share your indifference to the idea of others taking their code and using it in closed commercial projects.
Oops, my apologies. So then, within our current copyright situation, it's OK with you when a company takes GPL code and uses it a commercial closed source project?
At least you're consistent. ;)
And I'm sure that you have no problem with any artists that do choose to share their work.
It's funny (but still sad) when -- because I respect an artist's right to protect her work -- I'm called an RIAA-pasty-slaveholding-fascist.
As soon as he hears about some company using GPL code in a closed commercial product, he'll be among the first to complain about that shameful act of copyright infringement. ;)
fwiw, in this case the RIAA is not suing Kazaa, the Australian record industry is.
"Even if the majority is using it to illegally swap files, that just means the RIAA should go after the file-sharers, not KAZAA."
"So you agree with me (and the parent poster) and yet still feel like arguing about it?"
If you're agreeing that holding Kazaa unaccountable means that infringing end-users will have to be sued instead, then we have nothing to argue about.
But the typical thread goes: "don't blame the technology for how some may misuse it" and then when infringers of thousands of files get sued, it's "how dare you sue music lovers!"
Yes, the EFF cheers on file sharing, at least you got that part right. But *not* all file sharing is illegal. The EFF is _not_ saying please infringe on copyrights; it _is_ saying let's work together to make peer-to-peer 100% legal."
No logic-fixin' necessary over here.
How about if the EFF said "don't share copyrighted works" -- that would certainly help make p2p legal.
Nope, the EFF is fundamentally indifferent to the copyright status of file-shared files, and have repeatedly taken an unambiguous file-sharing-is-cool postion (and *not* a file-sharing-is-cool-with-authorized-works position).
Have you not seen their MP3 Caper animation? Their message is clear: copying is cool, regardless of the copyright status, and their intention is to force an alternative compensation regime which makes no practical sense.
Again, you may not like it, but the EFF actively agitates to destabilize copyright, and frankly I'm surpried that you even disagree.
Pretty amazing that some argue otherwise, eh?
"That's not to say that the Copyright laws don't need to be tweaked to put more power back into the hands of the creators..."
Certainly -- but it gets pretty frustrating to see these guys who also want to take away rights from independent creators, and justify it all with lame anti-RIAA rhetoric. OK, the RIAA sucks, but does that mean that all independent artists should be screwed? NO.
Please do some research before making conclusions!"
Are you kidding me? The EFF doesn't cheer on filesharing? What do you think their "File Sharing: It's Music to our Ears" campaign is all about?
I've done my research, how about you?
If you take offense at the notion that the EFF supports infringement, you should spend your membership money elsewhere.
Cool, now I get it -- basically the idea is, whatever you say goes. Yes, I think that will work, and I'm sure everybody will be greatful for your benevolent leadership!