Personally, the last clause is a mixed blessing. Yes, you can change it to your hearts content, but you then run the very real risk of becoming dependent upon an obsolete forked version of some piece of software.
It's one of those rare times the disadvantage comes close to negating the advantage.
Take the same scenario, but have the programmer work on an OSS project. With the OSS codebase, the programmer's time is now placed into a repository that can - *potentially* - be shared.
I think the key word, already highlighted, is potentially. Browse through SourceForge and count the number of abandoned and redundant projects. Going by numbers alone, the odds of your contribution to any random project there being of future value is quite low.
False in more then one way. First of all, it's not because something is 'taken', that it has value. Secondly, it's not taken, it's copied, which means duplicated. Thirdly, the end result is not stolen... yada.
No, the value was added when the people spent their time, effort, and dollars creating the work.
And which was then "aquired" by those who wish to benefit from that value, without payment or consent. Again, the point is that if the work had no value, it would not be stolen, or taken, or copied, or whatever word you use to rationalize the process. Such people want something for nothing, and are subsidized by those who do pay and believe that "fair" is an exchange of value for value.
Nevertheless, many [sic] people are downloading music which they would never have bought otherwise.
Debated back and forth ad nauseum. Since you said "many" that means that some would. Personally, I think that "many" would if they had no other choice.
Let's start with a few assumptions:
1) That the U.S. Government and business are not going to repeal copyright and patent law. To think otherwise at this stage of the game is wishful thinking. There may or may not, however, be some level of reform (e.g. software patents).
2) People are going to continue to want books, music, movies, games, and software.
3) There are always going to be some people out there who believe they're automatically entitled to whatever they can lay their hands on simply because they're breathing.
Given those inputs, what's the outcome?
It may be, as I said earlier, that pay-per-play, the ultimate service, becomes the law of the land.
I'm positive, however, that technology is going to be used to squelch what we now consider to be fair use, and we'll have the thieves (copiers) to thank for it.
One of the definitions of theft is: "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent". (We can engage in pointing dictionaries, but it only illustrates the fact that older definitions simply reflect the time in which they were forged.)
That which people would steal has value, no matter what the medium or mode of delivery. The value of music or a program is in the music and the program, not in a twenty-cent piece of plastic.
And I'm sure you'll at least acknowledge that such works take time, effort, and money to produce.
When copied that value, that end result, was then stolen, without consent or payment. If it didn't have value, it wouldn't have been taken.
So question 1: Why should the thief benefit from the artist's or writer's or developer's work, and the artist or writer or developer not?
From my standpoint, eliminating copyright means that it's "okay" for everyone to copy whatever they want, and that given today's technology, they'd do so.
So question 2: What incentive is there to create copiable work if it's immediately stolen by any and all who think they're entitled to whatever they want?
Why should a professional writer, or developer, or musician, or author not be able to make a living, just because today the results of their work is suddenly easy to steal? Because from my perspective, you're saying that once they become good enough to create work worth stealing, it will be. And if not paid for, how many can afford to create it?
Yes, invention occurred during the centuries, but do we really want to go back to the patronage system? You may also remember that much of such invention and research was not shared, but hidden and protected and kept secret so that the creators could profit from it. Do we really want to go back to guilds and secret processes and trade secrets?
People point to OSS, but OSS is already reaching the point where there aren't enough people available who can afford to work on it for free. Hence "bounties" and patronage (e.g. IBM) by those with vested interests in doing so. Of course, the problem with patrons is that they can be so... fickle.
You make one of the standing arguments that people who download music would not buy it otherwise. Perhaps, but I seem to recall that in the vinyl age, when such could not be copied, that kids almost always managed to find the money to buy the singles and LPs they valued. Are you honestly telling me that if copying were magically stopped tomorrow the people to which you would refer would NEVER buy another piece of music or a DVD again? Ever? Or would they buy that which they valued?
BTW, at the moment I'm also personally against software and business process patents, but primarily only because of the way "obvious" works seem to slip past the system. It may be abused, but better, I think, to correct those abuses than simply throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Pehaps in some future Star Trekian utopia everything, including food, clothing, housing, and so on, will be free. Until that time, however, all creative people have to offer are their creations, for which they would like fair compensation so they can eat and send their kids to school.
Good, then charge by the hour for to provide that service...
Actually, due to the widespread theft of IP I fear that in the very near future this is in fact what will happen. You'll no longer have the right to own books, music, movies, and software, and they will no longer be produced in formats that can be copied.
Companies will send encrypted streams directly to your sealed reader, player, viewer, computer, or television in the pay-per-view model. Want to watch it or use it again? Pay for it again. And again. And again.
I said no such thing. I PAID for my education. I PAID for my training. I PAID for the books and magazines and periodicals I read to keep up.
I paid to gain that knowledge, and there was little FREE about it.
And I PAID, in dollars, effort, and time, when I added that additional value to that which I had learned.
why do you deserve the distribution monopoly
Since you're free to buy books, software, music, and movies other than mine, it's not a monopoly.
And since you're free to download books, software, music, and movies other than mine from those who choose to make them available for free, it's not a monopoly.
Not even a good try.
Again, why are you entitled to steal the results and harvest the value of other people's work?
If I ADD to that knowledge, to use your own words, I'm adding value. And if I and others spend a year of our time and our dollars writing and working on it then we're adding a lot of value.
And if you steal it, you're admitting it has value.
So, again, since you never answered the prior question: Why are you so special? Why should YOU get that additional work for free?
Why are you automatically entitled to benefit from that work, and its creators are not?
information has completely different characteristics then physical property or services
No, it doesn't. The only real difference is that the method of delivery of is different.
Information, goods, and services ALL require an investment of time, effort, and money to create and produce.
Information, goods, and services ALL have value to those that would use them.
You sole argument is that because information is easier to steal (for the moment) you and everyone else is entitled to do so. In fact, you're in favor of demolishing copyright and patent law because you think you and everyone else is somehow automatically entitled to the work of others.
All I hear is a rant, and no solutions. Who in their right mind is going to spend 8 years of their life and hundreds of millions of dollars creating a LOTR if everyone is simply "entitled" to steal it the second it's produced?
Who it going to spend a billion dollars developing a cure for cancer or aids if every other drug company in the world can rip them off for free the second it's placed on the market?
How many people are going to be able to create that which you and others would instantly steal when they can no longer make a living doing so? Who are the parasites going to feed on when the host dies?
Though in a way you're right about one thing: information is different. Because very few people in the world can in fact create it.
Finally, you're not part of the solution. You're part of the problem. Do you think for one second that companies WANT to spend millions upon millions of dollars on encryption and MacroVision and DRM technology and lawsuits and legislation?
But as long as thieves like yourself (admittedly) steal their work, they're going to continue to do so, AND promote stiffer legislation, AND impose ever more draconian restrictions and limits on fair use.
So you're not only screwing them, you're screwing us all. Thanks a lot.
I don't want users dictating what I must do with my project.
This is, IMHO, the fatal flaw lurking behind every OSS project. In too many projects the developer(s) simply want to play and implement the next cool feature that they and about ten other people would use... and no one wants to do the grunt work and fix the bugs they're not getting on their machines anyway.
Do some research on why the vast majority of communes founded in the '60s failed. Too many people wanted to sit and contemplate nature, and no one wanted to ploy the fields and take out the trash.
Nobody is dictating what you must do. The nice thing about free software is that *anyone* can implement the feature.
I would have to say that since often a highly specific skill set and knowledge base is required, saying *anyone* can implement the feature is completely and totally false-to-fact.
...poorly thought out laws that just people should defy
"Just" people??? You are a piece of work, aren't you. A noble champion and defender of the right to steal and copy that which you're incapable of creating yourself.
Copyrights are simply people coercing limits on things that have no natural limit for the sake of greed and monopoly.
Intellectual property rights exist to encourage investment and innovation. Such creations take time, effort, skill, knowledge, and often vast sums of money to produce, and those who are capable of such deserve fair and equitable compensation in return.
They are people who need to put food on the table and keep their kids in school and a roof over their heads. All of those other things are not free, and I don't consider their need to provide for their families "greed".
As such, copyright allows them to profit from their creation and investment of resources for a limited time; something that in all likelyhood would not have occurred had not those protections been in place.
We are a free market, and you can vote with your dollars. Should you decide a song, a movie, or a piece of software not to be worth those dollars then don't buy it. If enough people don't pay the asking price, then they will, in all likelyhood, adjust it.
But don't steal the results of their work just because you don't like the price. You are not magically entitled to it, and such theft is tacit admission that it DOES HAVE VALUE and that you do BENEFIT from its possession.
Otherwise you wouldn't spend YOUR time and effort aquiring it...
Not even a good straw man. And you "think" you're entitled to free speech? Might want to check up on that.
property rights exist because
Intellectual property rights exist to encourage investment and innovation, and patent rights are stated and granted in the constitution. The founding fathers recognized that such creation takes effort, time, and money, and that those who are capable of such deserve fair and equitable compensation.
And stealing their work product is definitely not fair in my book. Nor in the eyes of the law.
Since you're so fond of examples, check out the U.S.S.R. The economic end result is a great example of what happens when workers have no investment in the system and no incentive to create.
Customers can switch service providers at any time at very little cost.
I'd have to debate that. Keep thousands of customer and transaction records at a company like SalesForce.com, and see just how easy it is to migrate to another system "at any time at very little cost".
Years back it took months before I get fed up with the performance issues and decided to move my browser Home page from Excite to Yahoo. The reason? Hundreds of stock quotes, article choices, weather tracking, maps, and user preferences had to be painstakingly recreated and reentered.
Actually, if you the following article on complements (article), you'll see why ensuring "free" software exists is a good thing for his hardware business.
It's appropriate, then, that you do nothing but criticize him without offering 1) criticism of his points or 2) constructive suggestions about how to improve.
Okay, how about a smart-card enabled technology with the information inside encrypted, and with different levels of challenge/response.
Example: One thing ID is often used for is age verification. So have one class of machine/query that simply asks the card, "Is this person over 21?" Card says, "yes", and tells them NOTHING else.
The biggest issue with the having all of the information available electronically on a strip/rfid is that not everyone NEEDS your name, address, phone, age, SSN, DLN, sex, height, weight, etc..
Make it all available and unencrypted, however, and it's going to be too much to ask to stop anyone and eveyone who scans your card from saving EVERYTHING to their database.
And match that information up to the CC used for the transaction, and your buying history, and so on.
I am not surprised that she takes an alternate stance now that she is not within the grasp of the RIAA board or whatever group tells her what to say.
Don't get too excited. I suspect what that they really want is to kill Apple's Fairplay so that the only alternative becomes the "official" RIAA approved DRM that controls... er, works across all players.
Of course, if the user base situation were reversed then OSX would be the primary target. And in fact, if everyone else went away and Linux had the vast majority of the user base bored script kiddies would target rhose systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, the last clause is a mixed blessing. Yes, you can change it to your hearts content, but you then run the very real risk of becoming dependent upon an obsolete forked version of some piece of software.
It's one of those rare times the disadvantage comes close to negating the advantage.
I think the key word, already highlighted, is potentially. Browse through SourceForge and count the number of abandoned and redundant projects. Going by numbers alone, the odds of your contribution to any random project there being of future value is quite low.
And you sound like a parasite to me. Happy?
No, the value was added when the people spent their time, effort, and dollars creating the work.
And which was then "aquired" by those who wish to benefit from that value, without payment or consent. Again, the point is that if the work had no value, it would not be stolen, or taken, or copied, or whatever word you use to rationalize the process. Such people want something for nothing, and are subsidized by those who do pay and believe that "fair" is an exchange of value for value.
Nevertheless, many [sic] people are downloading music which they would never have bought otherwise.
Debated back and forth ad nauseum. Since you said "many" that means that some would. Personally, I think that "many" would if they had no other choice.
Let's start with a few assumptions:
1) That the U.S. Government and business are not going to repeal copyright and patent law. To think otherwise at this stage of the game is wishful thinking. There may or may not, however, be some level of reform (e.g. software patents).
2) People are going to continue to want books, music, movies, games, and software.
3) There are always going to be some people out there who believe they're automatically entitled to whatever they can lay their hands on simply because they're breathing.
Given those inputs, what's the outcome?
It may be, as I said earlier, that pay-per-play, the ultimate service, becomes the law of the land.
I'm positive, however, that technology is going to be used to squelch what we now consider to be fair use, and we'll have the thieves (copiers) to thank for it.
Got a different scenario?
That which people would steal has value, no matter what the medium or mode of delivery. The value of music or a program is in the music and the program, not in a twenty-cent piece of plastic.
And I'm sure you'll at least acknowledge that such works take time, effort, and money to produce.
When copied that value, that end result, was then stolen, without consent or payment. If it didn't have value, it wouldn't have been taken.
So question 1: Why should the thief benefit from the artist's or writer's or developer's work, and the artist or writer or developer not?
From my standpoint, eliminating copyright means that it's "okay" for everyone to copy whatever they want, and that given today's technology, they'd do so.
So question 2: What incentive is there to create copiable work if it's immediately stolen by any and all who think they're entitled to whatever they want?
Why should a professional writer, or developer, or musician, or author not be able to make a living, just because today the results of their work is suddenly easy to steal? Because from my perspective, you're saying that once they become good enough to create work worth stealing, it will be. And if not paid for, how many can afford to create it?
Yes, invention occurred during the centuries, but do we really want to go back to the patronage system? You may also remember that much of such invention and research was not shared, but hidden and protected and kept secret so that the creators could profit from it. Do we really want to go back to guilds and secret processes and trade secrets?
People point to OSS, but OSS is already reaching the point where there aren't enough people available who can afford to work on it for free. Hence "bounties" and patronage (e.g. IBM) by those with vested interests in doing so. Of course, the problem with patrons is that they can be so... fickle.
You make one of the standing arguments that people who download music would not buy it otherwise. Perhaps, but I seem to recall that in the vinyl age, when such could not be copied, that kids almost always managed to find the money to buy the singles and LPs they valued. Are you honestly telling me that if copying were magically stopped tomorrow the people to which you would refer would NEVER buy another piece of music or a DVD again? Ever? Or would they buy that which they valued?
BTW, at the moment I'm also personally against software and business process patents, but primarily only because of the way "obvious" works seem to slip past the system. It may be abused, but better, I think, to correct those abuses than simply throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Pehaps in some future Star Trekian utopia everything, including food, clothing, housing, and so on, will be free. Until that time, however, all creative people have to offer are their creations, for which they would like fair compensation so they can eat and send their kids to school.
Problem with that?
Here, here! Build the pieces needed to do each part of the job right, and stop trying for a one-size-fits-none solution.
I'll explain that one to you if you can explain that whole slave/plantation thing to me... ;)
That was nothing more than a clever plow to get some extra points.
Because they're selling something else and want to drive up demand by reducing the cost of their product's complements.
Actually, due to the widespread theft of IP I fear that in the very near future this is in fact what will happen. You'll no longer have the right to own books, music, movies, and software, and they will no longer be produced in formats that can be copied.
Companies will send encrypted streams directly to your sealed reader, player, viewer, computer, or television in the pay-per-view model. Want to watch it or use it again? Pay for it again. And again. And again.
It is, after all, what you're advocating.
I said no such thing. I PAID for my education. I PAID for my training. I PAID for the books and magazines and periodicals I read to keep up.
I paid to gain that knowledge, and there was little FREE about it.
And I PAID, in dollars, effort, and time, when I added that additional value to that which I had learned.
why do you deserve the distribution monopoly
Since you're free to buy books, software, music, and movies other than mine, it's not a monopoly.
And since you're free to download books, software, music, and movies other than mine from those who choose to make them available for free, it's not a monopoly.
Not even a good try.
Again, why are you entitled to steal the results and harvest the value of other people's work?
Answer.
If I ADD to that knowledge, to use your own words, I'm adding value. And if I and others spend a year of our time and our dollars writing and working on it then we're adding a lot of value.
And if you steal it, you're admitting it has value.
So, again, since you never answered the prior question: Why are you so special? Why should YOU get that additional work for free?
Why are you automatically entitled to benefit from that work, and its creators are not?
Put up or shut up.
... no one wanted to PLOW the fields and take out the trash.
No, it doesn't. The only real difference is that the method of delivery of is different.
Information, goods, and services ALL require an investment of time, effort, and money to create and produce.
Information, goods, and services ALL have value to those that would use them.
You sole argument is that because information is easier to steal (for the moment) you and everyone else is entitled to do so. In fact, you're in favor of demolishing copyright and patent law because you think you and everyone else is somehow automatically entitled to the work of others.
All I hear is a rant, and no solutions. Who in their right mind is going to spend 8 years of their life and hundreds of millions of dollars creating a LOTR if everyone is simply "entitled" to steal it the second it's produced?
Who it going to spend a billion dollars developing a cure for cancer or aids if every other drug company in the world can rip them off for free the second it's placed on the market?
How many people are going to be able to create that which you and others would instantly steal when they can no longer make a living doing so? Who are the parasites going to feed on when the host dies?
Though in a way you're right about one thing: information is different. Because very few people in the world can in fact create it.
Finally, you're not part of the solution. You're part of the problem. Do you think for one second that companies WANT to spend millions upon millions of dollars on encryption and MacroVision and DRM technology and lawsuits and legislation?
But as long as thieves like yourself (admittedly) steal their work, they're going to continue to do so, AND promote stiffer legislation, AND impose ever more draconian restrictions and limits on fair use.
So you're not only screwing them, you're screwing us all. Thanks a lot.
This is, IMHO, the fatal flaw lurking behind every OSS project. In too many projects the developer(s) simply want to play and implement the next cool feature that they and about ten other people would use... and no one wants to do the grunt work and fix the bugs they're not getting on their machines anyway.
Do some research on why the vast majority of communes founded in the '60s failed. Too many people wanted to sit and contemplate nature, and no one wanted to ploy the fields and take out the trash.
I would have to say that since often a highly specific skill set and knowledge base is required, saying *anyone* can implement the feature is completely and totally false-to-fact.
"Just" people??? You are a piece of work, aren't you. A noble champion and defender of the right to steal and copy that which you're incapable of creating yourself.
Funny how that works.
Intellectual property rights exist to encourage investment and innovation. Such creations take time, effort, skill, knowledge, and often vast sums of money to produce, and those who are capable of such deserve fair and equitable compensation in return.
They are people who need to put food on the table and keep their kids in school and a roof over their heads. All of those other things are not free, and I don't consider their need to provide for their families "greed".
As such, copyright allows them to profit from their creation and investment of resources for a limited time; something that in all likelyhood would not have occurred had not those protections been in place.
We are a free market, and you can vote with your dollars. Should you decide a song, a movie, or a piece of software not to be worth those dollars then don't buy it. If enough people don't pay the asking price, then they will, in all likelyhood, adjust it.
But don't steal the results of their work just because you don't like the price. You are not magically entitled to it, and such theft is tacit admission that it DOES HAVE VALUE and that you do BENEFIT from its possession.
Otherwise you wouldn't spend YOUR time and effort aquiring it...
Not even a good straw man. And you "think" you're entitled to free speech? Might want to check up on that.
property rights exist because
Intellectual property rights exist to encourage investment and innovation, and patent rights are stated and granted in the constitution. The founding fathers recognized that such creation takes effort, time, and money, and that those who are capable of such deserve fair and equitable compensation.
And stealing their work product is definitely not fair in my book. Nor in the eyes of the law.
Since you're so fond of examples, check out the U.S.S.R. The economic end result is a great example of what happens when workers have no investment in the system and no incentive to create.
And it's NOT a game, and it's NOT over.
I'd have to debate that. Keep thousands of customer and transaction records at a company like SalesForce.com, and see just how easy it is to migrate to another system "at any time at very little cost".
Years back it took months before I get fed up with the performance issues and decided to move my browser Home page from Excite to Yahoo. The reason? Hundreds of stock quotes, article choices, weather tracking, maps, and user preferences had to be painstakingly recreated and reentered.
Actually, if you the following article on complements (article), you'll see why ensuring "free" software exists is a good thing for his hardware business.
Okay, how about a smart-card enabled technology with the information inside encrypted, and with different levels of challenge/response.
Example: One thing ID is often used for is age verification. So have one class of machine/query that simply asks the card, "Is this person over 21?" Card says, "yes", and tells them NOTHING else.
The biggest issue with the having all of the information available electronically on a strip/rfid is that not everyone NEEDS your name, address, phone, age, SSN, DLN, sex, height, weight, etc..
Make it all available and unencrypted, however, and it's going to be too much to ask to stop anyone and eveyone who scans your card from saving EVERYTHING to their database.
And match that information up to the CC used for the transaction, and your buying history, and so on.
Probably because lots of /. posters now need to fix machines of their own running Firefox...
Don't get too excited. I suspect what that they really want is to kill Apple's Fairplay so that the only alternative becomes the "official" RIAA approved DRM that controls... er, works across all players.
Of course, if the user base situation were reversed then OSX would be the primary target. And in fact, if everyone else went away and Linux had the vast majority of the user base bored script kiddies would target rhose systems.