Once Matthew Oppenheim, the ghoul who runs this operation, asked one of the defendant's lawyers, in a mocking tone, 'I don't get it, I don't see what your business plan is'. An unprincipled person like him doesn't get it. That for some people it's not about money.
I'm willing to concede that perhaps you do in fact get it. I've encountered that attitude myself, when I've interceded in very minor situations in defense of somebody, and the aggressor often seems surprised, even shocked, by that. One time the aggressor even asked me point blank, "Why do you care? I'm not doing it to YOU." I don't recall what I ultimately said to him, but I do recall being mystified and speechless myself for a long moment, mystified that anyone could have such a deficient theory of mind. That theory of mind is supposed to be what makes humans special, but so often it seems to be absent.
From what you wrote and how you wrote it, I think you do get it. I regret the big stink it caused when I expressed my concern out loud, because the result (groupthink kneejerking) was not constructive at all for anyone. Thank you for taking that extra bit of unpaid time to explain.
In economics I was taught that transactions are supposed to ideally be an equal exchange of value. What do you suppose is the result, over time, when a large number of transactions are consistently not equal in favor of the same party, or limited number of parties?
It's called concentration of wealth. Socialists define that as harm, as well as the more obvious "force and fraud". In place of force and fraud, the tools of this trade are now various forms of manipulation: indoctrination, hype, addiction, miseducation, misdirection, misframing, distraction. The result may not be as extreme or as obvious as it was in prior periods and places in history, but it's most definitely still a problem here and now. We have to keep it in check, if we are to actually live the values we (most of us) espouse as a society and species.
What is unique now, as opposed to eras prior to the industrial age, is that more humans are "working for" a minority of other humans than was previously the case. You might say that self-employment has been steadily taking a nose-dive ever since the invention of mass production (fueled of course by petroleum). An even larger majority is now directly dependent upon a minority for their daily well-being than was the case at any prior time in history. That makes us and our entire economy much more vulnerable to the effects of this concentration. It has led to revolutions in other parts of the world, and I don't rule out the possibility of it happening here. All it would take is an educated and aware populace, which is still a minority but perhaps also growing.
The comment- and trackback-spam blocking techniques in Pivot blogging software are, from my limited personal experience, 100% effective. There's even an extension that uses the enormous Project Honeypot database (http:BL) to weed out IP addresses of identified harvesters and comment spammers. That's just for entertainment, though, since the basic techniques are completely effective.
How do you define "harm"? For socialistic people the definition is a bit more stringent than for libertarian types. You know, the evils of subjective valuation and concentration of wealth and all.
If ultra-capacitors become something more tangible than vaporware, I can see this approach becoming much more viable. As it is, with the hidden costs to the environment and economy of chemical batteries, the actual cost-benefit ratio here is a bit more murky, I think.
My "question" has been clearly stated (and maliciously modded-down by your acolytes) repeatedly: why do you do it? Do you take the RIAA cases because you thought it through and perceive this as a means to enhance your position and practice in the future (should you succeed), or do you do it because it's the right thing to do and damn the torpedoes? I can truly admire a person who does the latter, but not so much the former.
The answer will require some honest introspection, and your willingness to share it. You could probably lie to me, of course, since I can't crawl inside your head and hook packet sniffers to your neurons. I hope your answer will be compelling enough to persuade me that you're not. I'd really like to be convinced that there's an ethical foil for the RIAA and its clients and not merely a legal one, and that you are that foil.
Most of my time has been frankly wasted trying to defend my right to publicly express such an unpopular suspicion in the first place, rather than actually defending the suspicion itself. I don't really WANT to defend it, in any case... I'd like nothing more than to be proven unnecessarily paranoid in this instance. Ethics and motives are a big deal to me; I recognize that I set the bar too high for the taste of many. Many people can't make it over that bar, and I get deeply depressed and cynical as a result; I'd be pleasantly surprised if Beckerman can. The people who run the RIAA and the bastards who employ them really need an ethical foil as well as a legal one. It would make me happy - or less depressed - if Beckerman is actually that foil.
My unscientific analysis caused me to conclude that the intent of economic stimulus plans is to help the wealthiest people get back on their feet, so that then they would once again feel generous enough to not fire people or reduce their wages and the like (a sort of reverse trickle-down, if you will). Us poor folks are supposed to be thankful for their crumbs and hand-me-downs, so we should rush to send them gifts when they're not feeling the love? Doesn't that sound a bit like the baronies our ancestors were trying to escape in the first place?
I refused my $300 stimulus check from the IRS early this year, for exactly this reason on principle: it wasn't really intended to help me in the first place. I despise disingenuousness [disingenuity?], especially if it's perpetrated by my own government.
I frankly don't see what such an economic stimulus plan has to do with furthering broadband availability. It sounds like someone promoting their own brand of pork.
Again (and again), I clearly stated it as a suspicion, not a conviction. Suspicions can be dis-proven, as opposed to dogma which is immutable, but it can't be done with ad hominem or accusations of transference. Even Beckerman didn't respond directly, instead choosing to back-handedly imply that I must be an RIAA shill:
Which makes me a little suspicious of my few cyber-detractors. In any event, since the trolling this time around centers on my supposed profiteering, although I do not think it is actually sincere....
... as some others did. His comments really did nothing to dispel my suspicion.
I'm still suspicious that he's doing the right thing for the wrong primary reason. I have been following the progress of these cases just as eagerly as everyone else, but my suspicion of his motives began to fester with every new Slashdot post.
Mr. Beckerman, you can make me an unqualified fan if you dispense with the victim routine and address my suspicion directly. You can even find my e-mail address (I'm not anonymous) and do it privately. I already agree with WHAT you're doing; if my suspicion is wrong, you could easily convince me to agree with WHY you're doing it as well. Resorting to ad hominem (good grief, didn't your education include proper debate tactics?) and accusing me of being a shill or troll will not help your case, however.
I did NOT write this, even though whoever did has a similar use of language. Since he posted as an anonymous coward, I don't know whether to be suspicious of him, too, or if he just posted that way to avoid the same consequences to his karma that mine has received.
Yes, my analysis COULD be flawed... which is why I've been clearly describing it as a SUSPICION rather than substantiated fact. You didn't really disprove the suspicion though, did you? Accusing me of transference does not disprove the theory.
What you hint at is "software as a service" or "Web apps", which Microsoft and others are eagerly trying to get people to accept. Why do you think that is? Is it because they're concerned about the greater good and not doing evil?
Even if the Web apps you happen to be using are actually free (for now), if the paradigm becomes widely accepted by consumers there will be subscriptions to follow. We'll all wind up paying for our software by the month or the hour, and a handful of people will become a whole lot richer. Selling consumers on the concept of software as a service is the Holy Grail of software publishers, has been for at least a decade. So-called Web apps are the latest foray, and it might actually be succeeding, if your comment is any indication.
If that's true as you describe, then I'd happily set my suspicions aside and applaud both his results and his motives. It is as I clearly described, a suspicion, not a rigorously researched conviction. I am by default suspicious of all lawyers (and lots of other people too numerous to list). There is ample room for someone to produce evidence that my suspicion is unfounded, but so far yours is the only reply that even tries. Everyone else was more interested in burning me at the stake for perceived heresy or interrupting their train of thought. God forbid I should refuse to drink the groupthink Koolaid; every comment I've made in this thread has been hunted down and modded down. I'll probably be condemned to some special hell now for even suggesting that Slashdot has groupthink.
I do have an answer: Mother Nature abhors an economic vacuum, and will seek to equalize it. The economy has high and low pressure zones just as the climate system does. "Outsourcing" has been occurring within the United States for a long time; outsourcing and off-shoring are no different than the process that occurs within a particular country's own borders, except that it happens to cross that arbitrary imaginary barrier. Why call one a tomato and the other a tomatoe? It's all the same process, whether it crosses cities, counties, states, or even nations; it's merely a matter of scale.
Look at what is happening in India: since outsourcing has been taking place, the standard of living in India has improved slightly and local costs of living have increased accordingly, leading to those workers demanding better wages and conditions... which in turn is causing the firms that originally outsourced there in the first place to now look for greener outsourcing pastures again, places like Moldova and the like. The sucking sound merely shifts to where the new lowest economic pressure system happens to be. (Seriously, we should fire all our so-called economists and hire meteorologists to do their jobs; weathermen understand economics better than the economists.)
Do you see the process yet? The global economy wants to equalize and establish a consistent standard of living everywhere. The sad truth is that the standard of living in the United States is artificially high and not sustainable, and has been for quite a long time. Now that the very technology and industry and mobility that we invented have made outsourcing across oceans possible, the global economy wants its fair share back again. The global economy WILL get its fair share back, unless we declare martial law and close our borders, place a big virtual glass Bell jar over the United States again. That's what tariffs and trade restrictions and other artificial practices used to accomplish. Hammer on the Bell jar long enough, though, and it's bound to crack... and it did.
I agree with your choice. I did the same thing once in the past. I also made a decision long ago never to submit to a lie detector test or drug testing as conditions of employment. Why should I trust an employer to honor their obligations to me if they trust me so little from the outset?
It's not weird; haven't you ever heard the phrase, "doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons"? It involves socialism and ethics here. If his real predominant motive is his own enrichment, then I disagree with his motive, even though the result might be one I like. I would be disagreeing with WHY he's doing it, not what is accomplished. Should I throw the baby out with the bathwater and criticize the result, too?
It kinda like companies that "go green" but do it for no other reason than the publicity and goodwill it might generate; are they really still doing such a good thing if their motives are so contrary?
I think I should mirror your own directive back at you. Oh, wait... I already did!
I might be modded down, because people react badly to any argument and often get careless where they place the blame for it. I didn't start this argument: that would be the AC who called me names, and then you when I responded to the name-calling. You've continued the argument rather than heeding your own advice.
Interestingly, NONE of what has been said by others in this sub-thread even tried to refute my allegation about Beckerman, so the argument wasn't really even about the point I made at all: rather, the argument has been about my right to make the point in the first place. I've been defending that right, and you and the name-calling AC have been claiming the right to take it away and shove me out the back door. I'd say your Slashdot alias fits you pretty well.
If Beckerman is as disingenuous as I currently suspect he is, that is very much a "real issue" and relevant, even if it's not one you choose to acknowledge or prioritize. The "hijacking" accusation is trotted out by people intent on controlling the flow of the conversation. If you really wanted to have some other conversation, shouldn't you be off talking to other people who want to discuss the same thing instead of engaging and belittling me, as you and others have actually done? That behavior belies an intention to exclude and control.
You don't even speak for yourself, much less anyone else: you're anonymous. Further, I've never spoken for Libertarians, because I think Libertarians are delusional idiots. Finally, I didn't actually claim or even imply that I spoke on behalf of anyone but myself. It's amusing that you thought that such a non sequitur would be a good supporting argument for demanding my silence.
I won't be considering your criticism because it was almost entirely ad hominem and lacking any rational argument why I should feel obligated to "go away".
By the way, you're not much of a "real libertarian" yourself, if you would dare to suggest that I be denied my right to publicly voice my opinions just because YOU don't happen to like them. What you are is an anonymous hypocrite.
That's a truly odd accusation to make; my employer(s) had no influence nor relevance to my comment. This is true because I simply don't even have an employer. I haven't had one in nine years. I assume you were accusing me of being employed by the RIAA? Your insinuation is baseless. I'd like to see the RIAA staff burned at the stake and copyright law reformed or abolished as much or more than you, but unlike you I don't have a Machiavellian bone in my body. I'll call a spade a spade even if it's serving my values.
If Beckerman is doing a "good thing", I'm suggesting that the goodness is incidental to his real goal, which is enriching himself... not the other way around. I see no reason to admire or idolize a person who would behave in such a fashion. Displaying the appearance of ethics to mask ambition and greed is not something I can admire, nor should anyone else who values ethics.
You might find my reply comment to an earlier comment worth reading. I proposed the theory that Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer's motives for his frequent Slashdot submissions are not at all what they appear. I think it's simple profiteering, not "news". Your observations seem to further confirm my own suspicions.
Perhaps all lawyers are ethically dubious, regardless which side of the courtroom they occupy? Given that their stock in trade is manipulation, can there ever be a truly honest lawyer?
I've frankly heard enough from Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, who appears to use Slashdot as his personal advertising space for his business (legal services) and his cause (defending people being sued by the RIAA). I might not suspect that if he were doing all of it pro bono, but he's personally profiting from it, and possibly very handsomely (knowing lawyers, he's hardly going hungry or driving an old Chevy). He's hardly an impartial news source or observer in this process; rather, he's right smack dab in the middle of it. It seems quite possible to me that his motive in his very frequent Slashdot submissions is not to inform, but rather specifically to drum up more business. He's not the only entrepreneur who appears to do this, but I find this instance to be particularly distasteful. I smell an ethical conflict of interest.
This has become the Holy Grail of software developers and publishers: to substitute a revolving hourly/daily/monthly/annual "revenue stream" from subscriptions for the one-time purchases of licenses and upgrades.
Remember Borland Software? Remember their insane not-free upgrade schedules? That was a precursor to the subscription-model campaigns of today. It didn't make Philip Khan as wealthy as he'd hoped, because their customer base in that instance was highly intelligent educated programmers, who actually looked at what was being offered in by the upgrades in exchange for the price and realized they were being manipulated; all too often they simply said "No thanks" and waited for a major version change that provided changes or features they needed.
These subscription-model campaigns now are different: they're largely attempting to target a consumer base that doesn't know any better, and which has been economically indoctrinated to assume subscriptions are acceptable; they're already accustomed to paying monthly subscriptions for "content", so if Big Software can just get people to view software as content, they've got them by the balls. That is what's behind the big push for "Web apps", because if it's in a browser and not on the user's computer it's much easier to manipulate his perceptions and get him to perceive that remote software as content... and for which he should be happy to pay an hourly or monthly fee to use.
Please... don't just say no to this yourself: educate all your less knowledgeable friends and family to just say no as well. If THEY are taken in by this, those of us that do know better will unwillingly be dragged along for the ride.
Slashdot Mirror
why do you do it?
...
Once Matthew Oppenheim, the ghoul who runs this operation, asked one of the defendant's lawyers, in a mocking tone, 'I don't get it, I don't see what your business plan is'. An unprincipled person like him doesn't get it. That for some people it's not about money.
I'm willing to concede that perhaps you do in fact get it. I've encountered that attitude myself, when I've interceded in very minor situations in defense of somebody, and the aggressor often seems surprised, even shocked, by that. One time the aggressor even asked me point blank, "Why do you care? I'm not doing it to YOU." I don't recall what I ultimately said to him, but I do recall being mystified and speechless myself for a long moment, mystified that anyone could have such a deficient theory of mind. That theory of mind is supposed to be what makes humans special, but so often it seems to be absent.
From what you wrote and how you wrote it, I think you do get it. I regret the big stink it caused when I expressed my concern out loud, because the result (groupthink kneejerking) was not constructive at all for anyone. Thank you for taking that extra bit of unpaid time to explain.
In economics I was taught that transactions are supposed to ideally be an equal exchange of value. What do you suppose is the result, over time, when a large number of transactions are consistently not equal in favor of the same party, or limited number of parties?
It's called concentration of wealth. Socialists define that as harm, as well as the more obvious "force and fraud". In place of force and fraud, the tools of this trade are now various forms of manipulation: indoctrination, hype, addiction, miseducation, misdirection, misframing, distraction. The result may not be as extreme or as obvious as it was in prior periods and places in history, but it's most definitely still a problem here and now. We have to keep it in check, if we are to actually live the values we (most of us) espouse as a society and species.
What is unique now, as opposed to eras prior to the industrial age, is that more humans are "working for" a minority of other humans than was previously the case. You might say that self-employment has been steadily taking a nose-dive ever since the invention of mass production (fueled of course by petroleum). An even larger majority is now directly dependent upon a minority for their daily well-being than was the case at any prior time in history. That makes us and our entire economy much more vulnerable to the effects of this concentration. It has led to revolutions in other parts of the world, and I don't rule out the possibility of it happening here. All it would take is an educated and aware populace, which is still a minority but perhaps also growing.
The comment- and trackback-spam blocking techniques in Pivot blogging software are, from my limited personal experience, 100% effective. There's even an extension that uses the enormous Project Honeypot database (http:BL) to weed out IP addresses of identified harvesters and comment spammers. That's just for entertainment, though, since the basic techniques are completely effective.
How do you define "harm"? For socialistic people the definition is a bit more stringent than for libertarian types. You know, the evils of subjective valuation and concentration of wealth and all.
If ultra-capacitors become something more tangible than vaporware, I can see this approach becoming much more viable. As it is, with the hidden costs to the environment and economy of chemical batteries, the actual cost-benefit ratio here is a bit more murky, I think.
My "question" has been clearly stated (and maliciously modded-down by your acolytes) repeatedly: why do you do it? Do you take the RIAA cases because you thought it through and perceive this as a means to enhance your position and practice in the future (should you succeed), or do you do it because it's the right thing to do and damn the torpedoes? I can truly admire a person who does the latter, but not so much the former.
The answer will require some honest introspection, and your willingness to share it. You could probably lie to me, of course, since I can't crawl inside your head and hook packet sniffers to your neurons. I hope your answer will be compelling enough to persuade me that you're not. I'd really like to be convinced that there's an ethical foil for the RIAA and its clients and not merely a legal one, and that you are that foil.
Most of my time has been frankly wasted trying to defend my right to publicly express such an unpopular suspicion in the first place, rather than actually defending the suspicion itself. I don't really WANT to defend it, in any case... I'd like nothing more than to be proven unnecessarily paranoid in this instance. Ethics and motives are a big deal to me; I recognize that I set the bar too high for the taste of many. Many people can't make it over that bar, and I get deeply depressed and cynical as a result; I'd be pleasantly surprised if Beckerman can. The people who run the RIAA and the bastards who employ them really need an ethical foil as well as a legal one. It would make me happy - or less depressed - if Beckerman is actually that foil.
My unscientific analysis caused me to conclude that the intent of economic stimulus plans is to help the wealthiest people get back on their feet, so that then they would once again feel generous enough to not fire people or reduce their wages and the like (a sort of reverse trickle-down, if you will). Us poor folks are supposed to be thankful for their crumbs and hand-me-downs, so we should rush to send them gifts when they're not feeling the love? Doesn't that sound a bit like the baronies our ancestors were trying to escape in the first place?
I refused my $300 stimulus check from the IRS early this year, for exactly this reason on principle: it wasn't really intended to help me in the first place. I despise disingenuousness [disingenuity?], especially if it's perpetrated by my own government.
I frankly don't see what such an economic stimulus plan has to do with furthering broadband availability. It sounds like someone promoting their own brand of pork.
Again (and again), I clearly stated it as a suspicion, not a conviction. Suspicions can be dis-proven, as opposed to dogma which is immutable, but it can't be done with ad hominem or accusations of transference. Even Beckerman didn't respond directly, instead choosing to back-handedly imply that I must be an RIAA shill:
... as some others did. His comments really did nothing to dispel my suspicion.
I'm still suspicious that he's doing the right thing for the wrong primary reason. I have been following the progress of these cases just as eagerly as everyone else, but my suspicion of his motives began to fester with every new Slashdot post.
Mr. Beckerman, you can make me an unqualified fan if you dispense with the victim routine and address my suspicion directly. You can even find my e-mail address (I'm not anonymous) and do it privately. I already agree with WHAT you're doing; if my suspicion is wrong, you could easily convince me to agree with WHY you're doing it as well. Resorting to ad hominem (good grief, didn't your education include proper debate tactics?) and accusing me of being a shill or troll will not help your case, however.
I did NOT write this, even though whoever did has a similar use of language. Since he posted as an anonymous coward, I don't know whether to be suspicious of him, too, or if he just posted that way to avoid the same consequences to his karma that mine has received.
Yes, my analysis COULD be flawed... which is why I've been clearly describing it as a SUSPICION rather than substantiated fact. You didn't really disprove the suspicion though, did you? Accusing me of transference does not disprove the theory.
What you hint at is "software as a service" or "Web apps", which Microsoft and others are eagerly trying to get people to accept. Why do you think that is? Is it because they're concerned about the greater good and not doing evil?
Even if the Web apps you happen to be using are actually free (for now), if the paradigm becomes widely accepted by consumers there will be subscriptions to follow. We'll all wind up paying for our software by the month or the hour, and a handful of people will become a whole lot richer. Selling consumers on the concept of software as a service is the Holy Grail of software publishers, has been for at least a decade. So-called Web apps are the latest foray, and it might actually be succeeding, if your comment is any indication.
If that's true as you describe, then I'd happily set my suspicions aside and applaud both his results and his motives. It is as I clearly described, a suspicion, not a rigorously researched conviction. I am by default suspicious of all lawyers (and lots of other people too numerous to list). There is ample room for someone to produce evidence that my suspicion is unfounded, but so far yours is the only reply that even tries. Everyone else was more interested in burning me at the stake for perceived heresy or interrupting their train of thought. God forbid I should refuse to drink the groupthink Koolaid; every comment I've made in this thread has been hunted down and modded down. I'll probably be condemned to some special hell now for even suggesting that Slashdot has groupthink.
I do have an answer: Mother Nature abhors an economic vacuum, and will seek to equalize it. The economy has high and low pressure zones just as the climate system does. "Outsourcing" has been occurring within the United States for a long time; outsourcing and off-shoring are no different than the process that occurs within a particular country's own borders, except that it happens to cross that arbitrary imaginary barrier. Why call one a tomato and the other a tomatoe? It's all the same process, whether it crosses cities, counties, states, or even nations; it's merely a matter of scale.
Look at what is happening in India: since outsourcing has been taking place, the standard of living in India has improved slightly and local costs of living have increased accordingly, leading to those workers demanding better wages and conditions... which in turn is causing the firms that originally outsourced there in the first place to now look for greener outsourcing pastures again, places like Moldova and the like. The sucking sound merely shifts to where the new lowest economic pressure system happens to be. (Seriously, we should fire all our so-called economists and hire meteorologists to do their jobs; weathermen understand economics better than the economists.)
Do you see the process yet? The global economy wants to equalize and establish a consistent standard of living everywhere. The sad truth is that the standard of living in the United States is artificially high and not sustainable, and has been for quite a long time. Now that the very technology and industry and mobility that we invented have made outsourcing across oceans possible, the global economy wants its fair share back again. The global economy WILL get its fair share back, unless we declare martial law and close our borders, place a big virtual glass Bell jar over the United States again. That's what tariffs and trade restrictions and other artificial practices used to accomplish. Hammer on the Bell jar long enough, though, and it's bound to crack... and it did.
I agree with your choice. I did the same thing once in the past. I also made a decision long ago never to submit to a lie detector test or drug testing as conditions of employment. Why should I trust an employer to honor their obligations to me if they trust me so little from the outset?
It's not weird; haven't you ever heard the phrase, "doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons"? It involves socialism and ethics here. If his real predominant motive is his own enrichment, then I disagree with his motive, even though the result might be one I like. I would be disagreeing with WHY he's doing it, not what is accomplished. Should I throw the baby out with the bathwater and criticize the result, too?
It kinda like companies that "go green" but do it for no other reason than the publicity and goodwill it might generate; are they really still doing such a good thing if their motives are so contrary?
I think I should mirror your own directive back at you. Oh, wait... I already did!
I might be modded down, because people react badly to any argument and often get careless where they place the blame for it. I didn't start this argument: that would be the AC who called me names, and then you when I responded to the name-calling. You've continued the argument rather than heeding your own advice.
Interestingly, NONE of what has been said by others in this sub-thread even tried to refute my allegation about Beckerman, so the argument wasn't really even about the point I made at all: rather, the argument has been about my right to make the point in the first place. I've been defending that right, and you and the name-calling AC have been claiming the right to take it away and shove me out the back door. I'd say your Slashdot alias fits you pretty well.
If Beckerman is as disingenuous as I currently suspect he is, that is very much a "real issue" and relevant, even if it's not one you choose to acknowledge or prioritize. The "hijacking" accusation is trotted out by people intent on controlling the flow of the conversation. If you really wanted to have some other conversation, shouldn't you be off talking to other people who want to discuss the same thing instead of engaging and belittling me, as you and others have actually done? That behavior belies an intention to exclude and control.
You don't even speak for yourself, much less anyone else: you're anonymous. Further, I've never spoken for Libertarians, because I think Libertarians are delusional idiots. Finally, I didn't actually claim or even imply that I spoke on behalf of anyone but myself. It's amusing that you thought that such a non sequitur would be a good supporting argument for demanding my silence.
I won't be considering your criticism because it was almost entirely ad hominem and lacking any rational argument why I should feel obligated to "go away".
By the way, you're not much of a "real libertarian" yourself, if you would dare to suggest that I be denied my right to publicly voice my opinions just because YOU don't happen to like them. What you are is an anonymous hypocrite.
That's a truly odd accusation to make; my employer(s) had no influence nor relevance to my comment. This is true because I simply don't even have an employer. I haven't had one in nine years. I assume you were accusing me of being employed by the RIAA? Your insinuation is baseless. I'd like to see the RIAA staff burned at the stake and copyright law reformed or abolished as much or more than you, but unlike you I don't have a Machiavellian bone in my body. I'll call a spade a spade even if it's serving my values.
If Beckerman is doing a "good thing", I'm suggesting that the goodness is incidental to his real goal, which is enriching himself... not the other way around. I see no reason to admire or idolize a person who would behave in such a fashion. Displaying the appearance of ethics to mask ambition and greed is not something I can admire, nor should anyone else who values ethics.
You might find my reply comment to an earlier comment worth reading. I proposed the theory that Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer's motives for his frequent Slashdot submissions are not at all what they appear. I think it's simple profiteering, not "news". Your observations seem to further confirm my own suspicions.
Perhaps all lawyers are ethically dubious, regardless which side of the courtroom they occupy? Given that their stock in trade is manipulation, can there ever be a truly honest lawyer?
I've frankly heard enough from Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, who appears to use Slashdot as his personal advertising space for his business (legal services) and his cause (defending people being sued by the RIAA). I might not suspect that if he were doing all of it pro bono, but he's personally profiting from it, and possibly very handsomely (knowing lawyers, he's hardly going hungry or driving an old Chevy). He's hardly an impartial news source or observer in this process; rather, he's right smack dab in the middle of it. It seems quite possible to me that his motive in his very frequent Slashdot submissions is not to inform, but rather specifically to drum up more business. He's not the only entrepreneur who appears to do this, but I find this instance to be particularly distasteful. I smell an ethical conflict of interest.
This has become the Holy Grail of software developers and publishers: to substitute a revolving hourly/daily/monthly/annual "revenue stream" from subscriptions for the one-time purchases of licenses and upgrades.
Remember Borland Software? Remember their insane not-free upgrade schedules? That was a precursor to the subscription-model campaigns of today. It didn't make Philip Khan as wealthy as he'd hoped, because their customer base in that instance was highly intelligent educated programmers, who actually looked at what was being offered in by the upgrades in exchange for the price and realized they were being manipulated; all too often they simply said "No thanks" and waited for a major version change that provided changes or features they needed.
These subscription-model campaigns now are different: they're largely attempting to target a consumer base that doesn't know any better, and which has been economically indoctrinated to assume subscriptions are acceptable; they're already accustomed to paying monthly subscriptions for "content", so if Big Software can just get people to view software as content, they've got them by the balls. That is what's behind the big push for "Web apps", because if it's in a browser and not on the user's computer it's much easier to manipulate his perceptions and get him to perceive that remote software as content... and for which he should be happy to pay an hourly or monthly fee to use.
Please... don't just say no to this yourself: educate all your less knowledgeable friends and family to just say no as well. If THEY are taken in by this, those of us that do know better will unwillingly be dragged along for the ride.
... that eats rust, "breathes" the oxygen in it and poops iron guano? Who needs miners when ya got canaries like that?
What, you think someone is hoarding a horde of vampires? Who? Bruce Campbell?