There is some similarity to what Tacitus said, in Tao Te King by Lao Tse:
The more laws and restrictions there are, The poorer people become. The sharper men's weapons, The more trouble in the land. The more ingenious and clever men are, The more strange things happen. The more rules and regulations, The more thieves and robbers.
Oh for heavens sake SHUT UP! You are free to believe what you will but in this case you are dead WRONG!
All Stallman is trying to do is to make the world a better place and people like you with your own petty insights on the reality at large are getting in the way of our future.
Providing free software doesn't in any way degrade your freedom, talking about free software doesn't degrade your freedom, rhetorics do not degrade your freedom. You are perfectly free to use your freedom to shoot yourself in the foot if you like.
The only one being a hypocrite here is you, and your likes spouting meaningles fud post after post after post. If you think FOSS has horrible UI's and horrible documentation, be free to contribute. Get a job coding those UI's or sell documentation but spreading FUD helps you not. If you think you are so goddamned good coder you are perfectly free to sell your proprietary shit if you can, crying about it gets you nowhere.
No go and sell your proprietary crap and make your fortune before it's too late.
He's twisting words here, he wrongly quoting Lessig saying DRM will only be a ``speed bump". He doesn't even seem to grasp it the technology (the computer protecting its bits) doesn't see the difference between illegal use and fair use. After DRM there will be NO fair use.
What kind of speed bump is the one that stops the car like a concrete wall?
The more to hear an artist the more to buy, the less to hear an artist the less will buy. The promotional effect is included in the sound, not in the advertising. Good artists get rewarded.
Yes Linux is developed because people are willing to develop it, but that doesn't take away the fact you can sell a distribution and make money although there are free distributed versions around too. There are people who prefer to buy stuff. Happy consumers.
Movies or music on the other hand requires expensive equipment to be put in recording.
Computers can cost a lot of money too, thus many programmers use expensive equipment.
Can you see the contradiction in your own words?:
Then movies and music need a lot of finance to be publicized. This is something new and people won't go watch/buy it unless they know about it. So you buy advertisement slots in different outlets. This also costs money.
...and...
As a recording musician, I'd rather that 10 people buy my CD and pay me, instead of 1 buying and uploading it and having 100 people listening to it.
First of all, most of the advertising made for music artists is done for those that have already been noted by the audience. New and unknown artists hardly ever get get advertising from the big record companies. Now let's imagine you're that unknown artist, would you rather have those 10 people buy your record and be the only people on planet earth to ever hear your music, or would you consider the option of one buying it and making an illegal copy, having 100 more listeners who'd then recommend it to their friends, possibly making 1000 more listeners over night, who again recommend it to their friends.. There are bound to be more than 10 of those who'd buy your record. Don't go telling me that those thousand people who heard your music stole an income worth of 1000 sold CD's. They didn't, since you didn't have that income in the first place.
Not all people downloading will buy but some would have.
Not all people downloading would have bought, but many have.
someone manages to make a copy of the source and starts distributing it for free, thus removing commercial market for the product. There is no `removal of markets when someone copies a source and distributes it for free. Linux is a working example of a freely distributed package. Guess what, the people who profit from it, profit from it regardless the free distributions.
Similarly, when a closed source product or a CD or a Movie is pirated, there are those who wouldn't buy the product anyway, those who'd pirate the product and not buy it, those who pirate it and buy it and those who don't pirate. These people always exist no matter how strict the copyright holders or the law. The same people who bought CD's, Movies, Computer programmes and other intellectual property will nevertheless buy them whether there are pirates or not. And the sales rise, not the other way around. If these IP-manufacturers really lost money because of piracy it should show as a drop in sales, but those numbers clearly show they are not making a loss.
The thing probably is, all the piracy and `free circulation' of songs this year has probably promoted more new music than the commercial advertisement has done in last 5.
If the music industry for example is losing money it's because of investing in bad technology and bad business tactics (e.g. non-working copy protection schemes, legal subpoenas and raiding teenagers' homes), Not because someone is downloading the latest Madonna.
I'm putting my faith in new licensing options (EFF Open Music License, Creative Commons & others) and free distribution over the Internet. When buying something I need to know that something is worth it. After all, the artist should be rewarded for talent, not for glitter.
I'm betting on getting back to radios:) I don't own a television.
Television had its time in the limelight, it's now time for the radiostar to strike back. And no, I'm not talking about radio on-demand services (a.k.a. jukebox).
I'm in the process of slowly trying to turn this thing around and take radio back to its roots. The Internet gives me the power to do so.
Bit of off topic advertizing: I'm looking for relay hosts and people interested in making a world-wide uncommercial free music radio station. Ideas, radio voices, news and programs are welcome, since I've already gathered quite a lot of free music to play we are almost set up, only the programming is unfinished (unstarted I'd say).
Anyone interested in collaborating is free to send me a message. The stream is open for testing but please do not overload my server too much before we have enough relays and mirrors. I'm sorry but there is no home page yet. Just the stream.
Richard Stallman is the man responsible for GNU/Linux? Linux uses a lot of GNU programs in userland, but to call him "the man" responsible for GNU/Linux?
``Richard Stallman, the man responsible for GNU/Linux, tries to clear up the ethos of free software, explains where the GPL is heading and talks about the evils of software patents"
What kind of a excuse is that? He should've bought the damn software and give the bill to his boss. MS has more than enough money to buy yet another license if they are releasing something whether there's corporate bureaucracy or not. I think the guy has more problems now than he could of ever had if he had just bought a license. (Or if he had used free alternatives;)
But that's not what the article is about. It's about going after "major filesharers", which IMHO is a perfectly reasonable thing for the industry to do.
But who exactly are these so-called ``major filesharers"? Anyone using p2p-networks? Those downloading? Those uploading? Those who have more than two songs shared? Two gigabytes? In some p2p networks, in order to the client be remotely usable, the user has to have few gigabytes of shared data on his/her computer. And that's before he can even start downloading. In other networks, the quality of the stuff available doesn't thrill anyone. It shouldn't even bother the copyright holders too much.
About sharing stuff. BitTorrent for example wouldn't work at all if there wasn't sharing involved. That's just the basic way the protocol works. With bt, downloading is distributed among the peers, making it easier for the originating server/client to serve files.
Until now the RIAA's of the world have only gone after the small fish. If they were really that concerned about piracy, why not crack down those who sell pirated material? I've on many occations have heard the p2p networks of the world have been used by the terrorists around the globe to gather money by distributing illegal copies of music, computer programs and movies. The only thing I question is, where the hell is the supposed money coming from? I've not paid anything for using any p2p networks. And if there were something good enough buying, I have bought it, but unfortunately I haven't always been that lucky to find stuff that really interests me. Most of the music, games, software, and movies today suck without question.
Yes I have their permission to download and to listen and to distribute their music. And if I like it and have the money, I will pay for it. Simple as that. These musicians do get paid for the stuff they make and they are probably doing fine, atleast I haven't seen many of them quitting because people are listening to their music. If it gets heard, it gets advertized, if it's good enough, it sells. Whether or not you pay millions to MTV to air a video and dozens of dumb band ads it doesn't make you a good artist. It might be many so-called artists are suffering only because they have no talent. Noone wants to buy shit. Unless you were a gardener...
I just can't see your point here. Why exactly do you think an agreement is any less legally binding whether it is BSD, LGPL, GPL2 or even GPL? In the end, it is just a license, an agreement over the fair use of the code distributed.
If I were to distribute a program I write and decided I didn't want it to be exploited in a commercial closed source product, I'd probably go for GPL. I would already have the copyright of the code, so while I cannot (by finnish law) give up all the rights for the code by unconditionally public domaining it (whether it was the case anyway), I can however give all the usage, distribution and modification rights to it, with one stipulation; that if the licensee were to distribute my program as binaries, they'd also make the source available and if any derived code were to be made, it should be contributed back to the original source. In other words, the licensee would have full rights to use, learn, modify and distribute the code and binaries providing that they contribute back to the project.
The GPL is there to restrict one thing, and one thing only, that is copyright infringement. If you were to profit off my program, would it be so wrong if I demand a return value in certain cases?
What's wrong with GPL? Why wouldn't it be working for us?
You see there is no stopping GPL or even a chance to get all the thousands of developers to suddenly migrate their code to a new license anyway.
I can certainly agree to the terms of GPL, why couldn't everyone?
- Voice of Ambience -
No. (was: Re:Linux embedded integrators are lazy)
on
NSLU2 Now More Useful
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You are totally missing the point. There is a difference in hacking and cracking.
The thing is highly likely be secure enough although it is modifiable (read: hackable). `Secure' doesn't have to mean `unhackable' you know.
You happened to remind me of Travolta and the last film I saw him act in. Swordfish, Yuck... I mean that's really the worst I've seen. I would have been very very sad if I had seen it in a theater.
Can you imagine what the holyweed `finnish' sounds to a finn?;)
Of course you can install Knoppix: knxhdinstall script will put the contents of the CD to a partition of your choice. Since Knoppix is fundamentally Debian, you have a working Debian install on your computer after the script has finished.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because there are some restrictions that prevent this from happening.
Something like Star Wreck?
There is some similarity to what Tacitus said, in Tao Te King by Lao Tse:
Oh for heavens sake SHUT UP! You are free to believe what you will but in this case you are dead WRONG!
All Stallman is trying to do is to make the world a better place and people like you with your own petty insights on the reality at large are getting in the way of our future.
Providing free software doesn't in any way degrade your freedom, talking about free software doesn't degrade your freedom, rhetorics do not degrade your freedom. You are perfectly free to use your freedom to shoot yourself in the foot if you like.
The only one being a hypocrite here is you, and your likes spouting meaningles fud post after post after post. If you think FOSS has horrible UI's and horrible documentation, be free to contribute. Get a job coding those UI's or sell documentation but spreading FUD helps you not. If you think you are so goddamned good coder you are perfectly free to sell your proprietary shit if you can, crying about it gets you nowhere.
No go and sell your proprietary crap and make your fortune before it's too late.
He's twisting words here, he wrongly quoting Lessig saying DRM will only be a ``speed bump". He doesn't even seem to grasp it the technology (the computer protecting its bits) doesn't see the difference between illegal use and fair use. After DRM there will be NO fair use.
What kind of speed bump is the one that stops the car like a concrete wall?
No, that was the one after the tsunami hit.
Oh, That's what it was! I knew it.. damn that privoxy is good.. :)
What, an empty page??
- Voice of Ambience -
Spammers have a point, actually...
The more to hear an artist the more to buy, the less to hear an artist the less will buy. The promotional effect is included in the sound, not in the advertising. Good artists get rewarded.
- Voice of Ambience -
Yes, and some people release theirs freely licensed, what's your point?
http://hebb.mit.edu/FreeMusic/
Computers can cost a lot of money too, thus many programmers use expensive equipment.
Can you see the contradiction in your own words?:
First of all, most of the advertising made for music artists is done for those that have already been noted by the audience. New and unknown artists hardly ever get get advertising from the big record companies. Now let's imagine you're that unknown artist, would you rather have those 10 people buy your record and be the only people on planet earth to ever hear your music, or would you consider the option of one buying it and making an illegal copy, having 100 more listeners who'd then recommend it to their friends, possibly making 1000 more listeners over night, who again recommend it to their friends.. There are bound to be more than 10 of those who'd buy your record. Don't go telling me that those thousand people who heard your music stole an income worth of 1000 sold CD's. They didn't, since you didn't have that income in the first place.
Not all people downloading would have bought, but many have.
Spammers have a point.
RIAA & MPAA: You're going down my friend, along with the rest of them stinky pirate skum.
someone manages to make a copy of the source and starts distributing it for free, thus removing commercial market for the product.
There is no `removal of markets when someone copies a source and distributes it for free. Linux is a working example of a freely distributed package. Guess what, the people who profit from it, profit from it regardless the free distributions.
Similarly, when a closed source product or a CD or a Movie is pirated, there are those who wouldn't buy the product anyway, those who'd pirate the product and not buy it, those who pirate it and buy it and those who don't pirate. These people always exist no matter how strict the copyright holders or the law. The same people who bought CD's, Movies, Computer programmes and other intellectual property will nevertheless buy them whether there are pirates or not. And the sales rise, not the other way around. If these IP-manufacturers really lost money because of piracy it should show as a drop in sales, but those numbers clearly show they are not making a loss.
The thing probably is, all the piracy and `free circulation' of songs this year has probably promoted more new music than the commercial advertisement has done in last 5.
If the music industry for example is losing money it's because of investing in bad technology and bad business tactics (e.g. non-working copy protection schemes, legal subpoenas and raiding teenagers' homes), Not because someone is downloading the latest Madonna.
I'm putting my faith in new licensing options (EFF Open Music License, Creative Commons & others) and free distribution over the Internet. When buying something I need to know that something is worth it. After all, the artist should be rewarded for talent, not for glitter.
- Voice of Ambience -
I'm betting on getting back to radios :) I don't own a television.
Television had its time in the limelight, it's now time for the radiostar to strike back. And no, I'm not talking about radio on-demand services (a.k.a. jukebox).
I'm in the process of slowly trying to turn this thing around and take radio back to its roots. The Internet gives me the power to do so.
Bit of off topic advertizing: I'm looking for relay hosts and people interested in making a world-wide uncommercial free music radio station. Ideas, radio voices, news and programs are welcome, since I've already gathered quite a lot of free music to play we are almost set up, only the programming is unfinished (unstarted I'd say).
Anyone interested in collaborating is free to send me a message. The stream is open for testing but please do not overload my server too much before we have enough relays and mirrors. I'm sorry but there is no home page yet. Just the stream.
I hope I don't get modded too badly.
Although I strongly disagree with him being `the man behind GNU/Linux', according to zdnet he is:
http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,39020463,39
``Richard Stallman, the man responsible for GNU/Linux, tries to clear up the ethos of free software, explains where the GPL is heading and talks about the evils of software patents"
Well that's kinda scary.
What kind of a excuse is that? He should've bought the damn software and give the bill to his boss. MS has more than enough money to buy yet another license if they are releasing something whether there's corporate bureaucracy or not. I think the guy has more problems now than he could of ever had if he had just bought a license. (Or if he had used free alternatives ;)
But who exactly are these so-called ``major filesharers"? Anyone using p2p-networks? Those downloading? Those uploading? Those who have more than two songs shared? Two gigabytes? In some p2p networks, in order to the client be remotely usable, the user has to have few gigabytes of shared data on his/her computer. And that's before he can even start downloading. In other networks, the quality of the stuff available doesn't thrill anyone. It shouldn't even bother the copyright holders too much.
About sharing stuff. BitTorrent for example wouldn't work at all if there wasn't sharing involved. That's just the basic way the protocol works. With bt, downloading is distributed among the peers, making it easier for the originating server/client to serve files.
Until now the RIAA's of the world have only gone after the small fish. If they were really that concerned about piracy, why not crack down those who sell pirated material? I've on many occations have heard the p2p networks of the world have been used by the terrorists around the globe to gather money by distributing illegal copies of music, computer programs and movies. The only thing I question is, where the hell is the supposed money coming from? I've not paid anything for using any p2p networks. And if there were something good enough buying, I have bought it, but unfortunately I haven't always been that lucky to find stuff that really interests me. Most of the music, games, software, and movies today suck without question.
Yes I have their permission to download and to listen and to distribute their music. And if I like it and have the money, I will pay for it. Simple as that. These musicians do get paid for the stuff they make and they are probably doing fine, atleast I haven't seen many of them quitting because people are listening to their music. If it gets heard, it gets advertized, if it's good enough, it sells. Whether or not you pay millions to MTV to air a video and dozens of dumb band ads it doesn't make you a good artist. It might be many so-called artists are suffering only because they have no talent. Noone wants to buy shit. Unless you were a gardener...
I just can't see your point here. Why exactly do you think an agreement is any less legally binding whether it is BSD, LGPL, GPL2 or even GPL? In the end, it is just a license, an agreement over the fair use of the code distributed.
If I were to distribute a program I write and decided I didn't want it to be exploited in a commercial closed source product, I'd probably go for GPL. I would already have the copyright of the code, so while I cannot (by finnish law) give up all the rights for the code by unconditionally public domaining it (whether it was the case anyway), I can however give all the usage, distribution and modification rights to it, with one stipulation; that if the licensee were to distribute my program as binaries, they'd also make the source available and if any derived code were to be made, it should be contributed back to the original source. In other words, the licensee would have full rights to use, learn, modify and distribute the code and binaries providing that they contribute back to the project.
The GPL is there to restrict one thing, and one thing only, that is copyright infringement. If you were to profit off my program, would it be so wrong if I demand a return value in certain cases?
What's wrong with GPL? Why wouldn't it be working for us?
You see there is no stopping GPL or even a chance to get all the thousands of developers to suddenly migrate their code to a new license anyway.
I can certainly agree to the terms of GPL, why couldn't everyone?
- Voice of Ambience -
You are totally missing the point. There is a difference in hacking and cracking.
The thing is highly likely be secure enough although it is modifiable (read: hackable). `Secure' doesn't have to mean `unhackable' you know.
Was it? Damn... Gotta be changing the sig soon anyway..
You mean like Plan 9 From Outerspace was redeemed by burning paper plates?
You happened to remind me of Travolta and the last film I saw him act in. Swordfish, Yuck... I mean that's really the worst I've seen. I would have been very very sad if I had seen it in a theater.
;)
Can you imagine what the holyweed `finnish' sounds to a finn?
Of course you can install Knoppix:
knxhdinstall script will put the contents of the CD to a partition of your choice. Since Knoppix is fundamentally Debian, you have a working Debian install on your computer after the script has finished.
I was at first horrified that Jon Lech Johansen was charged with a murder. Phew, what a relief it was not him, and not because of DeCSS. :)