"Well, I'm sorry but I find it fair. When you install your WinXp system, how do you process images? The only tool you got is MS Paint, unless you want to pay some £500+ for photoshop."
There's always Paint.Net:-) There are also plenty of image processing apps on download.com. There is also the Windows version of Gimp, itself.
The funny thing is that you'd be among the first to scream bloody murder if Microsoft did bundle more powerful apps with Windows, as that would be "anti-competitive" (and you probably did scream as much with regard to browsers). The hypocrisy is palpable. LOL
I love how you defenders of piracy always cite the mutli-millionaire artist. LOL Of course, it's perfectly OK to "steal" from the rich, right?
You claim that "it's rather difficult to see how a multi-millionare artist whose music is played half a dozen times a day on the radio is being 'harmed' by downloading those same songs."
First, much of the file sharing does NOT involve songs played on the radio half a dozen times, if at all (particularly songs that were never released as "singles").
Second, your example does nothing to excuse piracy of movies, software, games, books, or other IP that is not "displayed" "half a dozen times" on some public free medium.
Third, do you also excuse sneaking into movie theaters to watch movies for free? After all, the producer, director, actors, writers, etc of the movie feel no "harm". Nor does the movie theater suffer "harm" (it costs the theater the same to play the movie whether you sneak in or not (provided you don't deprive a seat from a paying customer during a sell-out showing, of course:-)). Do you also excuse sneaking into ballparks to watch ball games for free?
The reason that "stealing" ip is more prevelant than stealing other things is because of the low risk of getting caught.
"the founding fathers didn't intend that authors would profit indefinitely from their works, but just for a limited time. the way it is now, i could write a one hit wonder, and then rest on my laurels for the rest of my life because it's sure to be played on the radio and, as you mention, it's sure to get used in commercials, etc. how does that promote continued creation?"
It promotes continued creation because it provides a large profit motive (for one). You imply that continued creation has not been promoted by the current system. Well, we haven't seen a lack of commercials using old songs for their jingles have we? In the 70's the commercials uses jingles based on songs from the 50's and 60's. In the 80's the jingles were based on songs from the 60's and 70's. And so on. Today, jingles are based on songs from the 80's and 90's (sometimes older). So, songs are continuing to be produced; creation has continued.
And again, why should not the creator of a song get some royalties based on his song being used in a company's jingle? You dodged that question.
"You are correct. WTF is "intellectual property" anyway? It certainly isn't tangible property like land or the CD sitting here on my desk. "Intellectual property" is nothing more than jots on a paper, a series of bits, or a thought. There is no objective reason for regulating it, other than people who would like more power than they actually have as human beings."
We are human beings; animals whose intellectual abilities have advanced to the point that we do place value on the intangible, the intellectual, not just the concrete. Objects that consist of bits hold value among humans just as much as objects that consist of atoms (even more than objects that consist of atoms, provided that the necessities of life are met).
BTW, the LOTR movies, Carmen, Purple Rain, 24, Halo, Moby Dick, etc are not "nothing more than jots on a paper, a series of bits, or a thought". You're quite shallow to think like that. It's not the bits, but what the bits represent that holds the value.
"Intellectual Property is particularly nebulous since we're defining something without physical being (a series of ideas) as being property -- that is, we're assigning a notional value to a notion."
I don't think that "intellectual property" = "idea" or "notion", but the implementation or manifestation of an "idea" or "notion".
For example, Excel is an implementation of a spreadsheet, not just merely the idea or notion of a spreadsheet. Carmen is a manifestation of an opera based on a particular story, not merely an idea or notion of an opera based on that particular story. The LOTR movies are implementations of films based on the LOTR books, not merely the idea or notion of movies based on those books.
Do you see the difference?
You can share the ideas and notions all you want (e.g. the idea or notion of a movie based on the life of Constantine The Great), but the actual implementations/manifestations of those ideas and notions (e.g. Speilberg's 2012 three hundred million dollar epic, "Constantine") should be protected.
To paraphrase Eben Moglen: when it costs the same to give everyone on Earth a copy of a given piece of information as it does to make a single copy, it is immoral to withhold that information from anyone.
I like how you state this as an axiom, needing no proof.
Information is the lifeblood of democracy. Art is the lifeblood of culture. They are as essential to functional human society as food is to bodily survival; just as we would find it immoral to withhold food from anyone if food were freely replicable and distributable (the farmers' business plans notwithstanding), we should find it equally immoral to withhold information from anyone now that our technological environment makes information freely replicable and distributable.
Would you rather have the LOTR movies (for example) available to watch for a fee, or not at all? When you come up with a way that the LOTR movies (for example) could be produced for free, let me know.
I'm surprised by how infrequently I see this argument articulated, even among free-culture types.
>"In fact, I really don't even care about artists."
That much is quite clear.:|
>"I care about art."
If you care about art, you have to care about the creators.
>"It's kind of like how people don't really like bees, but only put up with keeping them to get at the honey."
That you're equating people with bees goes to illustrate your utter shallowness and selfishness.
"The works created by artists are indeed good for society. However, it is not good enough to just have them. We must also have the works for free, and be free to do what we like with them. It's unlikely that we'll have lots of artistic output without any protection, but in the end we only provide protection so as to get as close to this ideal as possible."
Pure idealistic idiocy. Explain how we would've gotten the LOTR movies for free, considering that each one cost over 100 million dollars to make?
Please cite some study that shows that the majority of illegal file sharing involves works more thatn 20 years old. Also, please cite some study that shows that file sharers would happily limit their sharing to works that are more than twenty years old and thus public domain (under your proposal). This argument is tired.
Lastly, as you know, many "old" songs are used in commercial jingles. What's wrong with the original song writer getting some royalties if a company decides to use his song as part of a jingle that promotes said company's product, even if the song is more than twenty years old?
"I think it's an even simpler premise. People don't like "unfair" laws. If the average person can't figure out who's been hurt, then a crime has not been committed.
Intellectual property laws don't make common sense in these cases. Even if you can get your head around the idea that something has been "stolen" (even though the original owner still has it), it's hard to buy the idea that the damages are huge. If I download one track of a song off a P2P network, aren't the damages 99 cents if that's the price I'd pay at iTunes?"
First, the average person does understand what's been "stolen", even if the psuedo-intellectuals of slashdot pretend that this is an opaque concept. It's as simple as understanding why sneaking into a movie theater to watch a movie for free is "wrong". Second, what's if matter whether the "damages are huge"? Sneaking into a movie theater to watch movies for free don't result in "huge damages" (per offense, anyway), but do you excuse such behavior? And if everyone started sneaking into movies for free, the small damages would begin to add up.
MSFT is no longer a growth stock; the company is too mature. MSFT is a dividend stock now. This means that the stock value itself is largely irrelevant as the returns come from dividends, which are based on profit; as opposed to the returns coming from stack value increases, whcih are based on speculation.
Those looking for large returns go for growth stocks, but those are more risky. Dividend stocks are more attractive to conservative investors (older people, normally).
Too bad the bugs were reported ten days ago (according to Mozilla). The so-called "fast response" is only relative to the time that the bugs reached the mainstream news, not to the time that the bugs were first reported to Bugzilla. Besides that, security bugs are not disclosed to the public, so we really don't know how long ago the bugs were first reported.
Second, the percentage of Firefox users that will actually update will be fairly low. A recent survey showed that most Firefox users are still runing 0.9 and 1.0 versions.
Third, exploits for holes in Microsoft's code are almost always released after the patches for those holes are released. Indeed, the exploits are created by black-hats examining the patches themselves. Those that don't apply the patches are still vulnerable, nonetheless. Same applies to Firefox; even moreso with Firefox's shoddy update mechanism (if you can call it such).
Of course it's cheaper. But it screws over the programmer. Why you guys insist on devaluing your own profession is quite beyond my capacity.:-)
Re:Too many fronts for Microsoft
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 1
Sony is losing money hand over fist. Had to lay off 20,000 employees last year. Had to dump the Japanese leadership and hire a Brit as CEO. Every single division is losing money except the PlayStation and the movie division (only because of SpiderMan 2; normally that division takes a bath as well). Samsung is eating Sony's lunch in the CES biz.
"Sony Reports $533M 4Q Group Net Loss
E-mail or Print this story
27 April 2005, 5:39pm ET
By YURI KAGEYAMA AP Business Writer TOKYO (AP) -- Sony Corp. on Wednesday reported a higher fourth-quarter loss than a year ago, with slumping sales and restructuring costs continuing to hurt its bottom line.
The electronics and entertainment company had a net loss of $533 million for the fourth quarter, compared with a loss one year earlier of $352 million.
Tokyo-based Sony said sales shrank 4.2 percent to $16 billion from $16.7 billion for the same quarter last year.
Famous worldwide for the Walkman music player and PlayStation 2 video-game console, Sony has been fighting competition in consumer electronics from Asian manufacturers who producer cheaper goods. The company has also fallen behind Apple Computer Inc., whose iPod is an international hit.
Sony's turnaround attempts include the ouster of longtime chief executive Nobuyuki Idei, who was replaced by Sony Pictures boss Howard Stringer last month. Stringer, a former television executive who holds dual British and U.S. citizenship, is expected to announce his strategy for reviving the company soon.
Mark Lanyon, an industry analyst with Morningstar, predicted that Stringer's plan would include layoffs, a strategy Japanese executives have avoided.
"The comeback attempts are limping along," Lanyon said. "Sony has a lot of structural deficiencies because of such things as its insistence on domestic labor and manufacturing facilities, which make it hard for them to compete."
Sales declined during the quarter in mobile phones, portable music players and old-style TV sets, although they were up in flat-panel and rear-projection televisions. The launch of the PlayStation Portable, the handheld video-game machine, helped boost sales in Sony's game operations, the company said.
Shipments of the PlayStation Portable, which went on sale late last year in Japan and earlier this year in the United States, totaled 2.97 million worldwide. Sony said it hopes to reach global PlayStation Portable shipments of 12 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006.
In the music segment, sales decreased due to the creation of Sony BMG, a joint venture formed by Sony and Bertelsmann AG. Its performance has been reflected under equity in net income since August 2004.
Sales also decreased in Sony's movies business.
Still, profits at Sony improved for the full fiscal year ended March 31. Group net profit totaled $1.5 billion, nearly double the profit for the previous year. Sales dipped 4.5 percent to $67.6 billion from $69 billion.
For the year through March 2006, Sony expects group net profit to fall 51 percent to $755 million, while sales are forecast to edge up 4 percent to $70 billion.
Sony, which booked $849 million in restructuring-related charges last fiscal year, plans to book another $680 million in such costs for the current fiscal year.
Sony shares, which have fluctuated over the last year to be little changed from a year ago, closed up 2 percent at $38 on the Tokyo Stock Exchange shortly before earnings were announced. "
" But by publishing the ISOs to games, the people behind this reverse-engineering effort are almost immediately discrediting the value of their good work."
Their "good work"? LOL The whole point of their "good work" was to publish ISOs. They wouldn't have done this "good work" otherwise.
We have one key data point which is that its' web server technology gets hacked more than say, Apache. It's important since Apache is as big as MS in that, neutralizing partly the size issue (al beit Apache is less homgenous than MS server so it's not perfect)
I don't agree at all. You can't make money by releasing the software itself, but there are plenty of ways (outside of support and services) that programmers can get paid to develop software.
"Scenario 1: I write a cool database tool called foobaz. I'm on sourceforge, people are downloading me. IBM notices a lot of customers want to migrate to Postgres from Oracle, IBM wants to help them accomplish this. IBM hires me to develop foobaz full time."
Yep, that's a business model that'll support millions of programmers./sarcasm
"Scenario 2: I write a cool library called foobaz. I release it under the terms of the GNU GPL. Some company wants to write a proprietary piece of software linked against my library. They buy their own license that allows this."
This is doable but is against RMSism (assuming that your proprietary-use license allows the licensee to release his binary without disclosing his source code and under a license that doesn't allow redistribution), and therefore disproves RMS's (and your) point.
"Scenario 3: I write a really cool desktop app called foobaz. You want foobaz do be able to perform some task called 'shiznitting.' You pay me to add it."
But if I want to write software for the masses (rather than tedious in-house database manipulation crap), I'm "evil" if I have the gall to sell it under a license that doens't allow for redistribution, right? Absurd.
"Actually, I think he'd disagree. I think he'd say companies like Microsoft are the perpetrators of a massive con game... to convince people that buying software is buying something tangible. It's not a spoon, or a lawnmower... its information. The idea that only one company is allowed to think up a piece of information and keep it from the world via price tag, doesn't really make any sense on a most basic level."
How is a spreadsheet program (for example) "information"? A spreadsheet program is a tool that creates and manupulates spreadsheets. Spreadsheets are information, the program that creates and manupulates them is not, (unless the creator releases it as such).
There used to be dedicated word processor appliances. Those appliances weren't information, they were tools that created documents (which themselves may be information). How is a word processing program any different? Because it's represented in bits while the appliance is represented in atoms? That's your whole argument as to why it's ethical to sell one but evil to sell the other (under a license that doesn't allow for free redistribution)?
"Ah, sorry - slightly misunderstood the point. However, the choice is entirely yours - you're not going to release it under the GPL then, unless you can figure out a different way of generating income, apart from selling software."
Yes, I can choose not to release it under GPL, but RMS and his followers will proclaim me as unethical. This is the problem with RMS and his followers - the "Holier than thou" attitude.
If I want to sell software under a license that does not allow free redistribution in either binary or source code form (which is orthogonal to whether I provide the source code to those whom I sell the software to), allow me to do so without claiming that I'm unethical, immoral, or evil.
Slashdot Mirror
gives a damn?
"Well, I'm sorry but I find it fair. When you install your WinXp system, how do you process images? The only tool you got is MS Paint, unless you want to pay some £500+ for photoshop."
:-)
There's always Paint.Net
There are also plenty of image processing apps on download.com.
There is also the Windows version of Gimp, itself.
The funny thing is that you'd be among the first to scream bloody murder if Microsoft did bundle more powerful apps with Windows, as that would be "anti-competitive" (and you probably did scream as much with regard to browsers). The hypocrisy is palpable. LOL
I love how you defenders of piracy always cite the mutli-millionaire artist. LOL Of course, it's perfectly OK to "steal" from the rich, right?
:-)). Do you also excuse sneaking into ballparks to watch ball games for free?
You claim that "it's rather difficult to see how a multi-millionare artist whose music is played half a dozen times a day on the radio is being 'harmed' by downloading those same songs."
First, much of the file sharing does NOT involve songs played on the radio half a dozen times, if at all (particularly songs that were never released as "singles").
Second, your example does nothing to excuse piracy of movies, software, games, books, or other IP that is not "displayed" "half a dozen times" on some public free medium.
Third, do you also excuse sneaking into movie theaters to watch movies for free? After all, the producer, director, actors, writers, etc of the movie feel no "harm". Nor does the movie theater suffer "harm" (it costs the theater the same to play the movie whether you sneak in or not (provided you don't deprive a seat from a paying customer during a sell-out showing, of course
The reason that "stealing" ip is more prevelant than stealing other things is because of the low risk of getting caught.
It promotes continued creation because it provides a large profit motive (for one). You imply that continued creation has not been promoted by the current system. Well, we haven't seen a lack of commercials using old songs for their jingles have we? In the 70's the commercials uses jingles based on songs from the 50's and 60's. In the 80's the jingles were based on songs from the 60's and 70's. And so on. Today, jingles are based on songs from the 80's and 90's (sometimes older). So, songs are continuing to be produced; creation has continued.
And again, why should not the creator of a song get some royalties based on his song being used in a company's jingle? You dodged that question.
Doesn't France also use the "guilty until proven innocent" model of justice?
We are human beings; animals whose intellectual abilities have advanced to the point that we do place value on the intangible, the intellectual, not just the concrete. Objects that consist of bits hold value among humans just as much as objects that consist of atoms (even more than objects that consist of atoms, provided that the necessities of life are met).
BTW, the LOTR movies, Carmen, Purple Rain, 24, Halo, Moby Dick, etc are not "nothing more than jots on a paper, a series of bits, or a thought". You're quite shallow to think like that. It's not the bits, but what the bits represent that holds the value.
For example, Excel is an implementation of a spreadsheet, not just merely the idea or notion of a spreadsheet.
Carmen is a manifestation of an opera based on a particular story, not merely an idea or notion of an opera based on that particular story.
The LOTR movies are implementations of films based on the LOTR books, not merely the idea or notion of movies based on those books.
Do you see the difference?
You can share the ideas and notions all you want (e.g. the idea or notion of a movie based on the life of Constantine The Great), but the actual implementations/manifestations of those ideas and notions (e.g. Speilberg's 2012 three hundred million dollar epic, "Constantine") should be protected.
Would you rather have the LOTR movies (for example) available to watch for a fee, or not at all? When you come up with a way that the LOTR movies (for example) could be produced for free, let me know.
Um, because it's nothing but drivel?
That much is quite clear.
>"I care about art."
If you care about art, you have to care about the creators.
>"It's kind of like how people don't really like bees, but only put up with keeping them to get at the honey."
That you're equating people with bees goes to illustrate your utter shallowness and selfishness.
Pure idealistic idiocy. Explain how we would've gotten the LOTR movies for free, considering that each one cost over 100 million dollars to make?
Please cite some study that shows that the majority of illegal file sharing involves works more thatn 20 years old. Also, please cite some study that shows that file sharers would happily limit their sharing to works that are more than twenty years old and thus public domain (under your proposal). This argument is tired.
Lastly, as you know, many "old" songs are used in commercial jingles. What's wrong with the original song writer getting some royalties if a company decides to use his song as part of a jingle that promotes said company's product, even if the song is more than twenty years old?
First, the average person does understand what's been "stolen", even if the psuedo-intellectuals of slashdot pretend that this is an opaque concept. It's as simple as understanding why sneaking into a movie theater to watch a movie for free is "wrong". Second, what's if matter whether the "damages are huge"? Sneaking into a movie theater to watch movies for free don't result in "huge damages" (per offense, anyway), but do you excuse such behavior? And if everyone started sneaking into movies for free, the small damages would begin to add up.
I can't remember the last time I heard of an IIS hack.
Here are the latest security reports regarding IIS 6 and Apache 2, since Jan 2003 (which is when IIS 6 was released):
Since Jan 2003: 1 of 3 advisories unpatched for IIS6:
http://secunia.com/product/1438/
Since Jan 2003: 2.5 of 24 unpatched for Apache 2 (2 unpatched and 1 partially patched):
http://secunia.com/product/73/
MSFT is no longer a growth stock; the company is too mature. MSFT is a dividend stock now. This means that the stock value itself is largely irrelevant as the returns come from dividends, which are based on profit; as opposed to the returns coming from stack value increases, whcih are based on speculation.
Those looking for large returns go for growth stocks, but those are more risky. Dividend stocks are more attractive to conservative investors (older people, normally).
Too bad the bugs were reported ten days ago (according to Mozilla). The so-called "fast response" is only relative to the time that the bugs reached the mainstream news, not to the time that the bugs were first reported to Bugzilla. Besides that, security bugs are not disclosed to the public, so we really don't know how long ago the bugs were first reported.
Second, the percentage of Firefox users that will actually update will be fairly low. A recent survey showed that most Firefox users are still runing 0.9 and 1.0 versions.
Third, exploits for holes in Microsoft's code are almost always released after the patches for those holes are released. Indeed, the exploits are created by black-hats examining the patches themselves. Those that don't apply the patches are still vulnerable, nonetheless. Same applies to Firefox; even moreso with Firefox's shoddy update mechanism (if you can call it such).
Of course it's cheaper. But it screws over the programmer. Why you guys insist on devaluing your own profession is quite beyond my capacity. :-)
Here's their latest quarterly report:
http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story
" But by publishing the ISOs to games, the people behind this reverse-engineering effort are almost immediately discrediting the value of their good work."
Their "good work"? LOL The whole point of their "good work" was to publish ISOs. They wouldn't have done this "good work" otherwise.
IIS6 adviseries http://secunia.com/product/1438/
Apache 2.0 adviseries: http://secunia.com/product/73/
So, what "data point" are you talking about?
I don't agree at all. You can't make money by releasing the software itself, but there are plenty of ways (outside of support and services) that programmers can get paid to develop software.
/sarcasm
"Scenario 1: I write a cool database tool called foobaz. I'm on sourceforge, people are downloading me. IBM notices a lot of customers want to migrate to Postgres from Oracle, IBM wants to help them accomplish this. IBM hires me to develop foobaz full time."
Yep, that's a business model that'll support millions of programmers.
"Scenario 2: I write a cool library called foobaz. I release it under the terms of the GNU GPL. Some company wants to write a proprietary piece of software linked against my library. They buy their own license that allows this."
This is doable but is against RMSism (assuming that your proprietary-use license allows the licensee to release his binary without disclosing his source code and under a license that doesn't allow redistribution), and therefore disproves RMS's (and your) point.
"Scenario 3: I write a really cool desktop app called foobaz. You want foobaz do be able to perform some task called 'shiznitting.' You pay me to add it."
Why pay you do add it over somebody else?
But if I want to write software for the masses (rather than tedious in-house database manipulation crap), I'm "evil" if I have the gall to sell it under a license that doens't allow for redistribution, right? Absurd.
"Actually, I think he'd disagree. I think he'd say companies like Microsoft are the perpetrators of a massive con game... to convince people that buying software is buying something tangible. It's not a spoon, or a lawnmower... its information. The idea that only one company is allowed to think up a piece of information and keep it from the world via price tag, doesn't really make any sense on a most basic level."
How is a spreadsheet program (for example) "information"? A spreadsheet program is a tool that creates and manupulates spreadsheets. Spreadsheets are information, the program that creates and manupulates them is not, (unless the creator releases it as such).
There used to be dedicated word processor appliances. Those appliances weren't information, they were tools that created documents (which themselves may be information). How is a word processing program any different? Because it's represented in bits while the appliance is represented in atoms? That's your whole argument as to why it's ethical to sell one but evil to sell the other (under a license that doesn't allow for free redistribution)?
"Ah, sorry - slightly misunderstood the point. However, the choice is entirely yours - you're not going to release it under the GPL then, unless you can figure out a different way of generating income, apart from selling software."
Yes, I can choose not to release it under GPL, but RMS and his followers will proclaim me as unethical. This is the problem with RMS and his followers - the "Holier than thou" attitude.
If I want to sell software under a license that does not allow free redistribution in either binary or source code form (which is orthogonal to whether I provide the source code to those whom I sell the software to), allow me to do so without claiming that I'm unethical, immoral, or evil.
What does this have to do with my "rights online"?
Steal - [i]To take or appropriate without right or leave, with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully.[/i]
You were saying?