No -- it's about choice, and respecting the decisions of those who choose differently.
Some may choose GPL or Creative Commons, and their wish should be respected.
Others may choose to try and sell their work, and similarly their wish should be repsected.
The trouble with FSF and EFF is that they show no respect for those that choose differently, and agitate to force a new system, and pass it odd as an attack on some Evil Oligopoly.
Here, it's simple:
1) Should some be alowed to decide to sell their work, rather than GPL'ing or CC'ing it?
2) If others copy such work without paying, should there be any downside?
"I'm making a good living writing software, and a good part of it is working on free software."
Sure, some do, but *more* don't -- and that's the point, the sum total economic power of coders is diminished. There's no shame in putting together a good peice of work and charging for the effort, but the FSF would have us think otherwise.
"No, I have never worked as a roadie, but I have carried more electric hospital beds up and down narrow stair cases than most folks you'll meet."
'Nuff said, right?;)
The point is that there are people trying to make a living selling their digital work. Some are coders, some are musicians. FSF and EFF are agitating to weaken their lot in life, and pass it off as an attack on some Evil Oligopoly.
So many armchair pundits. Look, I work on a daily basis trying to sell my code, and I work on a daily basis with people trying to sell their music. And on a daily basis I see the EFF encourage people to rip off others' work, and the FSF encourage coders to give their work to big companies for free, and I think it sucks.
"Look, it's like this: If you wish to be paid to write code, but to keep all the value you create for yourself, then *you* must be the company, too. It isn't a big deal, lots of people start their own businesses. If you want finacial control, go for it."
Correct, and likewise in a post-record company world, the musician is the company too. Unless of course you favor a socialized state controlled system.
The same logic that protects coder bits protects musician bytes, and vice-versa.
"The Artists aren't the ones who earn money off of CD sales. The Artists make their money at the concerts. See, for example, The Hell Freezes Over Tour. (It wasn't because The Eagles CDs didn't sell anymore.) File downloading hurts the record companies. Tough luck, you can't legislate around evolution."
Once again, The Big Bad Record Company is proxied in place of all artists, over all time. What of all the independent musicians trying to sell their work on sites like CDBaby? Fuck them?
And the tour argument is similarly weak -- for starters, guess what? It's great when an independent musician can sit back and sell some CDs, good for them. Have you ever lugged a tube amp up a flight of stairs? No, of course you havn't.
Furthermore, your tour "vision" entirely dismisses any non-live work -- what about electronic and other complicated mixwork? Fuck that too?
"Our programming jobs have moved to South-Central Asia, where the work is done as well, or better, and cheaper than it can be done here. Well, this means I need a new job, not another stinking law. It wasn't free software that did that to me either, it was just good ol' capitalism. (The everything costs money, nothing is free movement.)"
Sorry, but are you somehow saying that South-Asian coders are worth less than you? Look, if they work hard and produce equal quality work, good for them.
But that has nothing to do with justifying copying others' work, or any of the other mumbo-jumbo liberally tossed around by EFF/FSF/free everything mafia.
"Still, with respect, no not free everything. And anyway, it is free as in liberty, not free as in beer."
Don't you ever get tired of that mantra? "Free as in liberty, not free as in beer. Free as in liberty, not free as in beer."
You miss the whole economic fact. It is free as in beer. Duh, wake up! It is free as in beer.
Companies are making money of coders' free work, it's just a simple fact. Coders should be making that money and gaining financial control. NOT giving it away because people keep chanting "Free as in liberty, not free as in beer."
"Do I fault EFF over file-sharing? Nope. Unenforcable laws are an abomination. To put a file on a server violates no laws, at least not until the DCMA came along. To donwload it might violate laws. Tell me how to tell. Tell me how to prevent it."
Bingo -- it's all the same. Even when somebody is sued for having downloaded thousands of files, it's still unacceptable.
The conclusion is obvious: tough shit if you want to make a living selling your work, and you have no choice but to buy into our vision of some new government aganecy. Thanks, but I don't buy it.
"FSF [snip] doesn't necessarily want to eliminate proprietary software from the world -- they just want to make sure that there are Free alternatives for everything"
Yup, that's what I'm saying, and that goal is at odds with the economic position of coders. Tons of free code is good for the people that use it, but it comes at the uncompensated expense of those making it.
FSF, EFF, etc, it's all the same -- devaluing the work of those engaged in creative professions.
"Ah, you are confused. This is the FSF, *not* the EFF. I am unaware of FAF's stand, if any, on file-sharing of, for example, music."
No, not confused. They're both flag wavers in the free everything movement. Are you actually saying that you fault the EFF position on copyright when it comes to filesharing and the Grey Album?
"Hold on a second. The EFF and FSF are about making things better for the consumer."
Correct, but sadly not the artist/coder.
"They're also about opposing new restrictions on copyrighted work."
Ah, but they also want to take away the rights of people engaged in some creative art -- music, coding, and whatever that can be expressed digitally.
That's why they agitate in favor of file-sharing (even when it comes to clearly copyrighted work), and that's why they agitate for commercial reuse without compensation in the case of the Grey Album -- or at least taking an artists right to decide when their work can be sampled into something else.
They talk a ton about copyright when it's protecting the GPL, but disregard it when it's protecting an artist that chose *not* to give away her work.
"That doesn't mean they want "everything" to be free."."
But that's what they want, you may not like it, but that's just the way it is. Everything is socialized into some new quasi-government agencey.
"I'm sure a "paid-for by advertisement" website that performed in the role of the old mp3.com would be perfectly viable."
So go build it!;) Seriously, you can't pay for servers, bandwidth, tech time, and artists with a bunch of banners. Don't you remember the dot-com boom? And bust?
"So the first time they compiled and ran it, it didn't work. That doesn't mean it won't work when someone looks at the business model, applies patches, and tries to run it again."
Hey, I wish MP3.com did work -- there's nothing I like more than the idea of independent musicians replacing making it on their own. But MP3.com went very broke giving away music, and it's not a simple a recompile.
The question is how will musician have a best change to claim power, and the EFF/FSF of free everything isn't going to help musician, coders, etc. to claim more economic power.
It might benefit all the people who can consume all that work for free, but it doesn't benefit the people making it.
"For now, the lesson to the artist is don't depend on getting all of your income from a single source. Especially if that source is still experimental.'
And especially is the other sources are "give your work away, some magic will come by and compensate you."
"Like all the different ways that have been mentioned to compensate artists for work downloaed from peer to peer networks. Or like the premise behind MP3.com (free downloads, and the artists get paid.)"
MP3.com went broke. Dreamy talk about "free this and free that and get the artists paid" doesn't get the artists paid.
"I think the OP is objecting to people who want to put prices on all intellectual property"
C'mon, can't you see the goal is to socialize art? That's what they're doing with their "white paper" -- creating some quasi-governmental agency to regulate prices and control over art.
That's the sort of shit these guys used to fight against.
Respectfully, no, it is not patronizing. You are allowed to sell your work. Encouraged to sell your work. Respected for selling your work. But do not claim that an idea you have had is "property".
Wrong. It's no different with the EFF's tacit support of file-sharing, or more recently their tacit support of the Grey Album, in which a DJ appropriated for commercial use parts of others' work.
They have a long and clear record of utter disrespect for the rights of authors. You want to give away your work? Fine with me. But if I choose otherwise, tough.
The map-building task seems to be "computer vision" but wouldn't you classify safely navigating within that map as "AI"?
Obviously, they'll not be sending Deep Blue to the Red Planet for a game of chess -- but I'd say that this semi-autonomous navigation on another world is dependent on AI...
I'll not quibble over what formally counts as AI, but it seems pretty intelligent to me -- the rover dynamically builds a 3D map, identifies danger spots, and avoids them in order to get to a goal.
The robotics is cool, but I'd say even cooler is the artificial intelligence.
The rover's stereo vision dynamically builds a 3D representation of its environment, and then figures out safe paths within that map.
That's all necessary because it just takes too long to specifically instruct each step (it's a 10 minute round trip at the speed of light to send instructions -- and so you want the rover to have some autonomy).
Slashdot Mirror
Some may choose GPL or Creative Commons, and their wish should be respected.
Others may choose to try and sell their work, and similarly their wish should be repsected.
The trouble with FSF and EFF is that they show no respect for those that choose differently, and agitate to force a new system, and pass it odd as an attack on some Evil Oligopoly.
Here, it's simple:
1) Should some be alowed to decide to sell their work, rather than GPL'ing or CC'ing it?
2) If others copy such work without paying, should there be any downside?
Sure, some do, but *more* don't -- and that's the point, the sum total economic power of coders is diminished. There's no shame in putting together a good peice of work and charging for the effort, but the FSF would have us think otherwise.
'Nuff said, right? ;)
The point is that there are people trying to make a living selling their digital work. Some are coders, some are musicians. FSF and EFF are agitating to weaken their lot in life, and pass it off as an attack on some Evil Oligopoly.
So many armchair pundits. Look, I work on a daily basis trying to sell my code, and I work on a daily basis with people trying to sell their music. And on a daily basis I see the EFF encourage people to rip off others' work, and the FSF encourage coders to give their work to big companies for free, and I think it sucks.
Correct, and likewise in a post-record company world, the musician is the company too. Unless of course you favor a socialized state controlled system.
The same logic that protects coder bits protects musician bytes, and vice-versa.
"The Artists aren't the ones who earn money off of CD sales. The Artists make their money at the concerts. See, for example, The Hell Freezes Over Tour. (It wasn't because The Eagles CDs didn't sell anymore.) File downloading hurts the record companies. Tough luck, you can't legislate around evolution."
Once again, The Big Bad Record Company is proxied in place of all artists, over all time. What of all the independent musicians trying to sell their work on sites like CDBaby? Fuck them?
And the tour argument is similarly weak -- for starters, guess what? It's great when an independent musician can sit back and sell some CDs, good for them. Have you ever lugged a tube amp up a flight of stairs? No, of course you havn't.
Furthermore, your tour "vision" entirely dismisses any non-live work -- what about electronic and other complicated mixwork? Fuck that too?
"Our programming jobs have moved to South-Central Asia, where the work is done as well, or better, and cheaper than it can be done here. Well, this means I need a new job, not another stinking law. It wasn't free software that did that to me either, it was just good ol' capitalism. (The everything costs money, nothing is free movement.)"
Sorry, but are you somehow saying that South-Asian coders are worth less than you? Look, if they work hard and produce equal quality work, good for them.
But that has nothing to do with justifying copying others' work, or any of the other mumbo-jumbo liberally tossed around by EFF/FSF/free everything mafia.
Don't you ever get tired of that mantra? "Free as in liberty, not free as in beer. Free as in liberty, not free as in beer."
You miss the whole economic fact. It is free as in beer. Duh, wake up! It is free as in beer.
Companies are making money of coders' free work, it's just a simple fact. Coders should be making that money and gaining financial control. NOT giving it away because people keep chanting "Free as in liberty, not free as in beer."
"Do I fault EFF over file-sharing? Nope. Unenforcable laws are an abomination. To put a file on a server violates no laws, at least not until the DCMA came along. To donwload it might violate laws. Tell me how to tell. Tell me how to prevent it."
Bingo -- it's all the same. Even when somebody is sued for having downloaded thousands of files, it's still unacceptable.
The conclusion is obvious: tough shit if you want to make a living selling your work, and you have no choice but to buy into our vision of some new government aganecy. Thanks, but I don't buy it.
Yup, that's what I'm saying, and that goal is at odds with the economic position of coders. Tons of free code is good for the people that use it, but it comes at the uncompensated expense of those making it.
FSF, EFF, etc, it's all the same -- devaluing the work of those engaged in creative professions.
No, not confused. They're both flag wavers in the free everything movement. Are you actually saying that you fault the EFF position on copyright when it comes to filesharing and the Grey Album?
"Hold on a second. The EFF and FSF are about making things better for the consumer."
Correct, but sadly not the artist/coder.
"They're also about opposing new restrictions on copyrighted work."
Ah, but they also want to take away the rights of people engaged in some creative art -- music, coding, and whatever that can be expressed digitally.
That's why they agitate in favor of file-sharing (even when it comes to clearly copyrighted work), and that's why they agitate for commercial reuse without compensation in the case of the Grey Album -- or at least taking an artists right to decide when their work can be sampled into something else.
They talk a ton about copyright when it's protecting the GPL, but disregard it when it's protecting an artist that chose *not* to give away her work.
"That doesn't mean they want "everything" to be free."."
But that's what they want, you may not like it, but that's just the way it is. Everything is socialized into some new quasi-government agencey.
"I'm sure a "paid-for by advertisement" website that performed in the role of the old mp3.com would be perfectly viable."
So go build it! ;) Seriously, you can't pay for servers, bandwidth, tech time, and artists with a bunch of banners. Don't you remember the dot-com boom? And bust?
Hey, I wish MP3.com did work -- there's nothing I like more than the idea of independent musicians replacing making it on their own. But MP3.com went very broke giving away music, and it's not a simple a recompile.
The question is how will musician have a best change to claim power, and the EFF/FSF of free everything isn't going to help musician, coders, etc. to claim more economic power.
It might benefit all the people who can consume all that work for free, but it doesn't benefit the people making it.
"For now, the lesson to the artist is don't depend on getting all of your income from a single source. Especially if that source is still experimental.'
And especially is the other sources are "give your work away, some magic will come by and compensate you."
MP3.com went broke. Dreamy talk about "free this and free that and get the artists paid" doesn't get the artists paid.
C'mon, can't you see the goal is to socialize art? That's what they're doing with their "white paper" -- creating some quasi-governmental agency to regulate prices and control over art.
That's the sort of shit these guys used to fight against.
Ok, then, isn't that what the Grey Album was? A DJ took other peoples work and created a new commercial work.
The logic always flips this way and that way to suit the politics.
Wrong. It's no different with the EFF's tacit support of file-sharing, or more recently their tacit support of the Grey Album, in which a DJ appropriated for commercial use parts of others' work.
They have a long and clear record of utter disrespect for the rights of authors. You want to give away your work? Fine with me. But if I choose otherwise, tough.
That's just the way it is, can't you tell?
What a patronizing way to refer to people (like me) who are trying to make a living selling their own work.
That's how these guys think about anybody who doesn't drink their free-everything Kool-Aid.
Exactly right.
And that's also why this system *ignores* works by less-popular artists, that's how statistical sampling works.
Of note, under the title "What about file sharers who won't pay?" they say:
Copyright holders (and perhaps the collecting society itself) would continue to be entitled to enforce their rights against "free-loaders."
What does that sound like to you?
What does that spell? some petition.
Actually, NASA would likely send up a robotic mission to safely take it down over an ocean.
Also, Hubble isn't written off yet -- there's still a chance that a shuttle might service it.
...there's shrimp!
The real question is whether Lucas will CG his wine into the Mos Eiesly scene for the Star Wars DVD release...;)
And I just noticed that $300 million is missing from my PayPal acctount! The bastards.
Obviously, they'll not be sending Deep Blue to the Red Planet for a game of chess -- but I'd say that this semi-autonomous navigation on another world is dependent on AI...
Also check out the QT animation on the NASA site titled "Rover Navigation 101: Autonomous Rover Navigation"
AI or not, it's pretty darn cool.
The rover's stereo vision dynamically builds a 3D representation of its environment, and then figures out safe paths within that map.
That's all necessary because it just takes too long to specifically instruct each step (it's a 10 minute round trip at the speed of light to send instructions -- and so you want the rover to have some autonomy).
No, you are wrong.
A very simple example is an HREF that seems to be pointing to a trustworthy site, but really points elsewhere.
In fact, Slashdot specifically includes defenses against such simple tricks.
For example, http://www.TrustworthySite.com.
In a plain text reader, it would be obvious that really links to http://www.NastyEvilDoer.com