No one bitches about Tivo, etc. having proprietary services. Instead, the hackers go out of their way not to let you use a free alternative, even though the information you need is freely available on the internet. Why pick on MS?
It brings up an interesting issue. Now, instead of buying a $20 dvd, I can subscribe to directTV, order pay-per-view, and get a perfect digital copy that I then burn to DVD, all for about $5. Is this copyright infringement? Certainly, it's more than simply time shifting if I watch the DVD repeatedly.
"Companies like Siemens, IBM, Alcatel and Nokia lead the list of those whose researchers and developpers want to protect programming freedom and copyright property against what they see as a 'patent landgrab.'"
I'm not impressed by this list of harware companies companies that don;t support software patents. Of course they don't want software patents. Then they'll need to pay for the software to run on their hardware. They'd rather have no sw patents so they can copy the ideas of software designers and screw them out of any profit.
"Maybe we should ask Microsoft why they felt that IBM, who was working with Linux, should be required to ship Windows, a competing product, with their systems?"
MS didn't use the govt. to do this. They merely negotiated a contract. Sun on the other hand, thinks it right to get the govt. to point a gun at a competitor to get what they want. There's a big difference.
Wrong. A pure capitalist system guarantees an individual the freedom to trade freely with others. A corporation is NOT incompetent like a govt in running a business, since there is negative feedback that will put a company out of business if it does poorly. Communism is a system where the individual has no freedom to trade. A wealth is owned in common, and no amount of work guarantees anything more than the average amount of wealth. Corporations cannot be dictatorships under capitalism because the buyer always has the choice of taking his business elsewhere or boycotting an industry altogether.
SCO claims their IP and even their source code was stolen and placed in Linux. Now this guy claims SCO is a bunch of looters. Give me a break. Also, in his analogy, he criticizes the US for not anticipating the looting of Iraq's museum, but doesn't bother to criticize the looters themselves, many of whom worked for the museum. Given that he can't even identify the real villians in his Iraq example, it's no surprise he can't idenitfy the real viliians in the SCO vs. IBM case. You can now commence modding me down.
Why won't this strategy work? Either people stop sharing music and they get what they want, or people continue sharing, and they make money suing them. This is what they should have done in the 1st place. Rather than going after the p2p software makers, who are writing sw that has legitimate uses, they should be going after theose who use the software illegally.
A lirbary buys a copy of something, and then let's one person at a time borrow the copy. You're proposing setting up an internet radio, which involves paying a fee to broadcast the songs.
You're actually guilty of contributing to copyright infringement by sharing song you own legally. The person downloading the song is guilty of copyright infringement. Both have done wrong, and either or both can be sued.
Flaws in your arguement.:
"1) Apple's followers are nothing less than fanatical; you will pry their Macs from their cold dead fingers."
even if Apple loses no customers, that doesn't mean linux can pass Apple in user base purely by taking customers away from Windows.
"2) Apple has seen the light. The costs of embracing Unix underpinnings and âoeMostlyOpenSource,â are going to seriously pay off. Soon, there will be nothing cool that comes out for the Linux Desktop that doesn't soon run on the Mac."
Even if Linux and MacOS run the exact same software base, the lower cost of hardware and software makes Linux on PC much cheaper than MacOS on a Mac.
Apple will always have a niche market, but I expect Linux use to grow proportionally to the available commercial titles that support linux and proportional to the ease of use of linux.
Communism and Nazism aren't that different. Communism says the individual must sacrifice himself for the collective, while Nazism says an individual must sacrifice himself for the state. Neither system recognises the individual as important.
"Cuba is a communist country, and although they are far from perfect, they were much better then when they were a banana republic, run by capitalist USA. "
Tell that to the protester who have been arrested and sentenced to 25 years for speaking out against the govt. Communism is evil because it places the needs of society oabove the freedom of an individual Capitalism is a system where individuals intereact freely using trade. In communism and nazism, the individual is second to the state. The idea of communism is evil and that is why no state can enforce it without turning into a dictatorial regime.
Read We the Living by Ayn Rand. It will help you understand that govt. enforced communism is evil in that it restricts basic freedoms. Yes, communists say the same thing about capitalists, but the difference is, if you value individual freedom, communists are wrong. Using moral relativsm isn't a good way to put capitalism and communism on the same footing. You must use reason to determine which is right and which is wrong based on objective principles. This can be dome without FUD.
Yes. the Kazaa users are the good guys and the RIAA are the bad guys. You can say it all you want, but it's pretty clear who's stealing what from whom.
Using DeCSS is illegal simply because you are supposed to license the technology. Bypassing this licensing shows a blatant disregard for IP, and discourages innovation. It's amzing how people on slashdot ignore IP when convenient, but then are outraged when the GPL is violated. At least be consisent in your beliefs people.
Re:Why I'm Not Really Worried...
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
This is the same company that had an executive say at LinuxWorld something like We're going to use Linux to destroy Unix. Apparently the lawyers weren't careful with him.
Re:Why I'm Not Really Worried...
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
"it's just that IBM's self-interest coincides with the Right Thing (tm) here."
I don't consider breech of comtract or theft of IP the Right Thing. If SCOs allegations are true, they deserve to win. People need to admit when they're wrong and make restitution. No one on slashdot seems to get it.
A record label can't just sign anyone. Why? Because there are 4 other major labels, as well as thousands of other labels that will provide better talent and put you out of business. The RIAA is NOT one company. They are in competition with one another. The only associate to promote common interests.
This is NOT insightful. REM, for instance, started out on a smaller label (IRS, I believe) and then moved to Warner brothers after they got a couple of hit songs. This is standard practice. Why do you think indie labels are giving artists better deals? An unknown artist is a huge risk. An artist with a hit under his belt looking for more exposure from a major label is a lower risk, so the major label gives this artist a better deal. Knowing this, it is clear that major labels do NOT sqash independent music, they thrive off it, looking for the next big star.
"If the band were actually a free agent, where they got a loan from a record company who thought they had promise, and then they got to go make the music, it might be a lot more equitable."
What's stoopping a band from walking into a bank and getting a loan? Nothing. They are free agents. Bands are a dime a dozen. Record comapnies sort through all the crap and take risks on stuff they think has potential. They're the risk takers in the music industry. Nothings stopping a band from starting its own label, if they don't like the terms the record companies are offering.
Slashdot Mirror
The book was written in 1948. He reversed the last 2 digits.
No one bitches about Tivo, etc. having proprietary services. Instead, the hackers go out of their way not to let you use a free alternative, even though the information you need is freely available on the internet. Why pick on MS?
It brings up an interesting issue. Now, instead of buying a $20 dvd, I can subscribe to directTV, order pay-per-view, and get a perfect digital copy that I then burn to DVD, all for about $5. Is this copyright infringement? Certainly, it's more than simply time shifting if I watch the DVD repeatedly.
"Companies like Siemens, IBM, Alcatel and Nokia lead the list of those whose researchers and developpers want to protect programming freedom and copyright property against what they see as a 'patent landgrab.'"
I'm not impressed by this list of harware companies companies that don;t support software patents. Of course they don't want software patents. Then they'll need to pay for the software to run on their hardware. They'd rather have no sw patents so they can copy the ideas of software designers and screw them out of any profit.
"Maybe we should ask Microsoft why they felt that IBM, who was working with Linux, should be required to ship Windows, a competing product, with their systems?"
MS didn't use the govt. to do this. They merely negotiated a contract. Sun on the other hand, thinks it right to get the govt. to point a gun at a competitor to get what they want. There's a big difference.
Wrong. A pure capitalist system guarantees an individual the freedom to trade freely with others. A corporation is NOT incompetent like a govt in running a business, since there is negative feedback that will put a company out of business if it does poorly. Communism is a system where the individual has no freedom to trade. A wealth is owned in common, and no amount of work guarantees anything more than the average amount of wealth. Corporations cannot be dictatorships under capitalism because the buyer always has the choice of taking his business elsewhere or boycotting an industry altogether.
SCO claims their IP and even their source code was stolen and placed in Linux. Now this guy claims SCO is a bunch of looters. Give me a break. Also, in his analogy, he criticizes the US for not anticipating the looting of Iraq's museum, but doesn't bother to criticize the looters themselves, many of whom worked for the museum. Given that he can't even identify the real villians in his Iraq example, it's no surprise he can't idenitfy the real viliians in the SCO vs. IBM case. You can now commence modding me down.
Why won't this strategy work? Either people stop sharing music and they get what they want, or people continue sharing, and they make money suing them. This is what they should have done in the 1st place. Rather than going after the p2p software makers, who are writing sw that has legitimate uses, they should be going after theose who use the software illegally.
A lirbary buys a copy of something, and then let's one person at a time borrow the copy. You're proposing setting up an internet radio, which involves paying a fee to broadcast the songs.
You're actually guilty of contributing to copyright infringement by sharing song you own legally. The person downloading the song is guilty of copyright infringement. Both have done wrong, and either or both can be sued.
Why are you comparing a server OS to a desktop OS? The server version of MacOS costs $499 for a 10-client edition. I paid $99 for WinXP home edition.
Flaws in your arguement.: "1) Apple's followers are nothing less than fanatical; you will pry their Macs from their cold dead fingers."
even if Apple loses no customers, that doesn't mean linux can pass Apple in user base purely by taking customers away from Windows.
"2) Apple has seen the light. The costs of embracing Unix underpinnings and âoeMostlyOpenSource,â are going to seriously pay off. Soon, there will be nothing cool that comes out for the Linux Desktop that doesn't soon run on the Mac."
Even if Linux and MacOS run the exact same software base, the lower cost of hardware and software makes Linux on PC much cheaper than MacOS on a Mac.
Apple will always have a niche market, but I expect Linux use to grow proportionally to the available commercial titles that support linux and proportional to the ease of use of linux.
Define terrorists. When has the US actively engaged in killing civilians?
"Most strategic alliances are based on self-interest rather than ideology."
self interest is an ideology.
Face it, your biased. If SCO were suing MS, over the exact same issues, you, as well as those protesters, would be siding with SCO.
"If their people did as much coding as drawing they would not be in this position right now."
Hmmm. That doesn't make sense. You mean is Linux did more coding, and less copying, they would not be in this position now.
Communism and Nazism aren't that different. Communism says the individual must sacrifice himself for the collective, while Nazism says an individual must sacrifice himself for the state. Neither system recognises the individual as important.
"Cuba is a communist country, and although they are far from perfect, they were much better then when they were a banana republic, run by capitalist USA. "
Tell that to the protester who have been arrested and sentenced to 25 years for speaking out against the govt. Communism is evil because it places the needs of society oabove the freedom of an individual Capitalism is a system where individuals intereact freely using trade. In communism and nazism, the individual is second to the state. The idea of communism is evil and that is why no state can enforce it without turning into a dictatorial regime.
Read We the Living by Ayn Rand. It will help you understand that govt. enforced communism is evil in that it restricts basic freedoms. Yes, communists say the same thing about capitalists, but the difference is, if you value individual freedom, communists are wrong. Using moral relativsm isn't a good way to put capitalism and communism on the same footing. You must use reason to determine which is right and which is wrong based on objective principles. This can be dome without FUD.
Yes. the Kazaa users are the good guys and the RIAA are the bad guys. You can say it all you want, but it's pretty clear who's stealing what from whom.
Using DeCSS is illegal simply because you are supposed to license the technology. Bypassing this licensing shows a blatant disregard for IP, and discourages innovation. It's amzing how people on slashdot ignore IP when convenient, but then are outraged when the GPL is violated. At least be consisent in your beliefs people.
This is the same company that had an executive say at LinuxWorld something like We're going to use Linux to destroy Unix. Apparently the lawyers weren't careful with him.
"it's just that IBM's self-interest coincides with the Right Thing (tm) here."
I don't consider breech of comtract or theft of IP the Right Thing. If SCOs allegations are true, they deserve to win. People need to admit when they're wrong and make restitution. No one on slashdot seems to get it.
A record label can't just sign anyone. Why? Because there are 4 other major labels, as well as thousands of other labels that will provide better talent and put you out of business. The RIAA is NOT one company. They are in competition with one another. The only associate to promote common interests.
This is NOT insightful. REM, for instance, started out on a smaller label (IRS, I believe) and then moved to Warner brothers after they got a couple of hit songs. This is standard practice. Why do you think indie labels are giving artists better deals? An unknown artist is a huge risk. An artist with a hit under his belt looking for more exposure from a major label is a lower risk, so the major label gives this artist a better deal. Knowing this, it is clear that major labels do NOT sqash independent music, they thrive off it, looking for the next big star.
"If the band were actually a free agent, where they got a loan from a record company who thought they had promise, and then they got to go make the music, it might be a lot more equitable."
What's stoopping a band from walking into a bank and getting a loan? Nothing. They are free agents. Bands are a dime a dozen. Record comapnies sort through all the crap and take risks on stuff they think has potential. They're the risk takers in the music industry. Nothings stopping a band from starting its own label, if they don't like the terms the record companies are offering.