Exactly! If the Pakistani Secret Internet Police see someone sending "random" data, then they probably have a pretty good candidate for a door knockdown.
The truth is, many people have many reasons for open sourcing their code. That's why you have so many licenses out there. Some just throw it out in the public domain, and others want to enforce sharing. Some want to use the open source version as trialware. Some just don't care. It is impossible to generalize.
making actual contributions takes time and isn't really high in the list of companies priorities
It saves money if you are using LGPL - maintaining a public fork isn't free, either. If you can get all of your changes accepted upstream, you don't have to bother distributing your changes - you can just point people to the upstream.
Hmmm, well let's just say that there seems to be diversity in this opinion. I was told by a minister that I couldn't enter heaven unless I was baptized, but your mileage may vary.
I've always wondered about that quote, too. The only people who believe in the Christian version of the devil also believe in the Christian version of God. I find it very hard to believe that there are a lot of Christian-God believers who simultaneously don't believe in the Christian devil. Thus, the devil is not very successful at making Christians believe he doesn't exist, and non-Christians don't get into heaven anyway.
Of course, in this case the quote comes from a stupid movie, so that should be my answer - but something like it has been said for a much longer time. And all the while, the number of Christians has grown, so it's complete BS.
The law however is not good with things which are not well known and cannot be controls. By its very nature, creating new content is not well known, as when you create new content, you're creating exactly that: something that is not well known before. You certainly cannot control it either, as innovation does not have a fixed schedule and can happen anywhere, anytime.
I'm willing to accept an imperfect solution. In any case, I don't think getting rid of copyright altogether is politically viable. I'd rather see an improvement than to tilt at windmills.
That is actually quite unreasonable, as "profit monetarily" is too vague to define.
LOL, well I'm not a lawyer. There are people employed full time who are more capable of me in writing legalese. I want normal, non-business people to not worry about copyright law. You like a CD and copy it for a friend? Fine. Photocopy/email a cool news article to your mother? Fine. Sing Happy Birthday at your kid's party? Fine.
Sell the CD copy? Uh-oh. Trade it for some other goods or services? Uh-oh. Make that news article part of your own newspaper? Uh-oh.
Napster would not be okay, because they were profiting and involved in commerce. Pepsi would not be able to use songs in commercials or photographs in ads without payment. Neither would the Red Cross, even though they are non-profit, because they would be using commercial airwaves or newspapers.
Derivative works would be fine, so long as you didn't try to sell them. Kind of like that one creative commons license. I think it is this one..
I'm sure there would be loopholes and problems - I mean, it is property only in a legal sense, and all laws have flaws. But I think it would more accurately reflect reality, be easier to enforce, and not place such a burden on the average person. And because we are in the commercial realm, we really should be talking about shorter terms. I think 5 years is probably sufficient, 15 more compassionate, and 30 just absurd.
that's how prints of several artists are worth more than prints of others, and prints from certain batches are worth more than from others.
Sometimes it's a quality difference, but more often it is just sentimentality. The first printing is almost often more valuable than any later series, and the lower-numbered prints fetch more - even though they all came off the machine at the same time and the order is just how the artist happened to hand-number them. This is exactly the same as comic book collecting:)
He may be using 2007. 2010 improved customization quite a bit, though it is not quite as flexible as you make it sound. Custom buttons cannot co-mingle with regular buttons, and the icon selection is pathetic - with no way to edit like the old UI had since 1996 or so.
It isn't a popular sentiment but are the vast majority of books of any constructive use beyond keeping the publishing industry afloat?
None of the arts have a "constructive use":) But we are wired to be entertained by art. I have no problem keeping separate systems in place for industrial improvements (patents) and purely artistic works (copyright).
Stop talking as if copyright is the only way to compensate authors.
I'm not! But I don't think it is unreasonable to say, "For a limited period of time, you cannot profit monetarily from the artistic work of others without their permission." Heck, even you mention ad revenue and merchandising... that's exactly what I'm talking about. Copyright sucks as currently implemented, but I don't think it is worth abandoning completely.
In other art domains, artists produce pieces of art (paintings, sculptures, etc.), and sell them to make money.
I don't think this is true. I bet Walmart sells more "art" than the whole individual art community put together, even in dollar terms. That crap is all produced in Chinese assembly lines - I don't think the "artist" is getting the bulk of the compensation.
In other art domains, artists produce pieces of art (paintings, sculptures, etc.), and sell them to make money.
This is not true! Decent artists sell hundreds of prints of their paintings, even if someone bought the original. Even sculptors typically make multiple copies of their sculptures, in all different sizes. As a buyer, I don't even technically have the right to photograph the art that I bought (IIRC) unless I also obtained the copyrights.
Slashdot Mirror
"." is more concise.
LOL, we need a metrification plugin for Firefox so that we don't have to hear the rest of the world complain about how we measure our milk :)
Sure, why not? Do it for scientists too.
Read any Marx lately? :)
Exactly! If the Pakistani Secret Internet Police see someone sending "random" data, then they probably have a pretty good candidate for a door knockdown.
I could come up with another rationale :)
Well, you wouldn't be sending random data over the interwebs, now would you? :)
And don't forget ye olde Tunnel Over DNS!
...if he existed!
You could save them with the blessings of Christ or just build millions of prisons and incarcerate the satanic bastards :)
And all the prisons could be staffed by good Christians.
So you'd reduce unemployment by locking up a substantial number of unemployed and employing a bunch of Good Christians.
That might work for music, but are you really going to set up such a system for everything that is copyrightable? Compensate every kind of artist?
None of what you said is free.
The GPL was created
He only said "open source", not specifically GPL.
The truth is, many people have many reasons for open sourcing their code. That's why you have so many licenses out there. Some just throw it out in the public domain, and others want to enforce sharing. Some want to use the open source version as trialware. Some just don't care. It is impossible to generalize.
making actual contributions takes time and isn't really high in the list of companies priorities
It saves money if you are using LGPL - maintaining a public fork isn't free, either. If you can get all of your changes accepted upstream, you don't have to bother distributing your changes - you can just point people to the upstream.
Quite a lot of the more liberal denominations don't take it that serious
Ah, so those are the ones that the devil defeated :)
Perhaps your faith in the Christian concept of the "Church Universal" is being tested.
Ahhh, touche!
Hmmm, well let's just say that there seems to be diversity in this opinion. I was told by a minister that I couldn't enter heaven unless I was baptized, but your mileage may vary.
Shhhhhhhh! People will be on to where Nescafe comes from.
I've always wondered about that quote, too. The only people who believe in the Christian version of the devil also believe in the Christian version of God. I find it very hard to believe that there are a lot of Christian-God believers who simultaneously don't believe in the Christian devil. Thus, the devil is not very successful at making Christians believe he doesn't exist, and non-Christians don't get into heaven anyway.
Of course, in this case the quote comes from a stupid movie, so that should be my answer - but something like it has been said for a much longer time. And all the while, the number of Christians has grown, so it's complete BS.
The law however is not good with things which are not well known and cannot be controls. By its very nature, creating new content is not well known, as when you create new content, you're creating exactly that: something that is not well known before. You certainly cannot control it either, as innovation does not have a fixed schedule and can happen anywhere, anytime.
I'm willing to accept an imperfect solution. In any case, I don't think getting rid of copyright altogether is politically viable. I'd rather see an improvement than to tilt at windmills.
That is actually quite unreasonable, as "profit monetarily" is too vague to define.
LOL, well I'm not a lawyer. There are people employed full time who are more capable of me in writing legalese. I want normal, non-business people to not worry about copyright law. You like a CD and copy it for a friend? Fine. Photocopy/email a cool news article to your mother? Fine. Sing Happy Birthday at your kid's party? Fine.
Sell the CD copy? Uh-oh. Trade it for some other goods or services? Uh-oh. Make that news article part of your own newspaper? Uh-oh.
Napster would not be okay, because they were profiting and involved in commerce. Pepsi would not be able to use songs in commercials or photographs in ads without payment. Neither would the Red Cross, even though they are non-profit, because they would be using commercial airwaves or newspapers.
Derivative works would be fine, so long as you didn't try to sell them. Kind of like that one creative commons license. I think it is this one..
I'm sure there would be loopholes and problems - I mean, it is property only in a legal sense, and all laws have flaws. But I think it would more accurately reflect reality, be easier to enforce, and not place such a burden on the average person. And because we are in the commercial realm, we really should be talking about shorter terms. I think 5 years is probably sufficient, 15 more compassionate, and 30 just absurd.
that's how prints of several artists are worth more than prints of others, and prints from certain batches are worth more than from others.
Sometimes it's a quality difference, but more often it is just sentimentality. The first printing is almost often more valuable than any later series, and the lower-numbered prints fetch more - even though they all came off the machine at the same time and the order is just how the artist happened to hand-number them. This is exactly the same as comic book collecting :)
He may be using 2007. 2010 improved customization quite a bit, though it is not quite as flexible as you make it sound. Custom buttons cannot co-mingle with regular buttons, and the icon selection is pathetic - with no way to edit like the old UI had since 1996 or so.
It isn't a popular sentiment but are the vast majority of books of any constructive use beyond keeping the publishing industry afloat?
None of the arts have a "constructive use" :) But we are wired to be entertained by art. I have no problem keeping separate systems in place for industrial improvements (patents) and purely artistic works (copyright).
Stop talking as if copyright is the only way to compensate authors.
I'm not! But I don't think it is unreasonable to say, "For a limited period of time, you cannot profit monetarily from the artistic work of others without their permission." Heck, even you mention ad revenue and merchandising... that's exactly what I'm talking about. Copyright sucks as currently implemented, but I don't think it is worth abandoning completely.
In other art domains, artists produce pieces of art (paintings, sculptures, etc.), and sell them to make money.
I don't think this is true. I bet Walmart sells more "art" than the whole individual art community put together, even in dollar terms. That crap is all produced in Chinese assembly lines - I don't think the "artist" is getting the bulk of the compensation.
In other art domains, artists produce pieces of art (paintings, sculptures, etc.), and sell them to make money.
This is not true! Decent artists sell hundreds of prints of their paintings, even if someone bought the original. Even sculptors typically make multiple copies of their sculptures, in all different sizes. As a buyer, I don't even technically have the right to photograph the art that I bought (IIRC) unless I also obtained the copyrights.