The idea was that the creator would have a monopoly on the creation long enough that they would be motivated to do the work.
After that the creation was turned over to society so anyone could build on it.
The original meaning changed somehow so now instead of being a temporary, governmanet-granted monopoly even the general populace thinks that it is possible to OWN an idea.
This is a recent historical event but has somehow become so pervasive that most people I talk to actually believe that the creator of a work has a moral right to control that work for the rest of time. That has never been the case and shouldn't be now.
We should fix the laws so that they enforce the original intent. Copyright and Patents should be enough motivate creators to create- not to hold society for ransom.
I'm glad you posted this. I thought there was something wrong with me for getting choked up about "I'm Your Moon". At least if there is something wrong with me I'm not the only one.
I would add to your list of favorites:
Skullcrusher Mountain- a mad scientist sings to his captive.
The Future Soon- A junior high kid imagines his future as a cyborg
I Crush Everything- A giant squid that hates himself because he destroys the things he loves
Re: Your Brains- Imagine your most annoying coworker coming back as a zombie.
I agree that his mindset is refreshing.
I think there are a lot of musicians that have this mindset and that it is not necessarily unique.
What is unique is that he is actually GOOD. Too much of what you can find released under the Creative Commons is (in my opinion of course) trash. His songs are entertaining and geeky and have brilliant lyrics.
What really impresses me is that JoCo is willing to live as a middle-class citizen and work for his money doing concerts, contracted work, etc. Most talented (or at least well-marketed) artists seem to think that they can produce one album and deserve to live like a king for the rest of time.
It's an attachment- Microsoft didn't leave anything wide open- it is user error.
A more accurate analogy would be that someone put a detour sign in the road that made Chevy owners drive off the road off a cliff. How could you sue GM for that?
Either way the car analogies really aren't working for this and they all (especially mine) are sounding really forced and stupid.
I do not mean to refute anything you have said but I read an interesting bit on eggs recently that it is a misconception that eggs with the little blood spot have been fertilized.
The occasional blood spot on an egg yolk is due to a ruptured blood vessel during the egg formation. They are usually caught during candling but some get through.
http://www.all-foods-natural.com/articles/eggs.htm l
"This almost made me wet myself when I laughed." Your incontinence does not make for a good argument.:)
I agree with you that Linux has weaknesses compared to windows but the things you list as weaknesses I find to be its strengths.
1- "have(sic) to do builds"
I have been installing Linux for years and have not had to build anything for the distros I have installed for the last couple years. Everything is available as binaries. But if I wanted to compile them I could.
2- "worry about packages, worry about dependencies"
This is a very old problem that was solved a long long time ago. Sure RPM hell used to be an impossible headache. I once tried to upgrade gcc without an internet connection- it took me a month. However, all distributions now have package management systems that turn that former problem into a strength. I can't remember the last time I had to find the website of a piece of software I wanted, download it, install and configure it as I have to do with windows. Now I just type 'apt-get the-name-of-the-program' and it is all there and works. If you want to make an arguement for windows this would be a very bad area to pick.
3- "I want to have applications to use to be productive"
There isn't a good rebuttal to this because it is entirely dependent on your personal needs. If you program visual basic full-time I would be forced to agree with you 100%. If you are unwilling to learn how to use an alternative app then that would also make your statement true. I will also agree that there are other very specialized apps that only run in windows and don't work under wine yet. These are rare and I have never needed one. Everything I need to be productive I can find an alternative for in Linux. In fact given the free nature of the software on Linux I have learned how to use a variety of applications that I would never have purchased and learned on windows. Audacity, Blender, or Gimp come to mind. Although they are all available on windows they are often installed by default on some Linux distros. Again what you listed as a weakness I consider a strength.
The tone of your post sounds like you couldn't find an application to do something the way you were used to doing it and gave up. That is fair- there are a lot of specialized apps that don't have adequate replacements yet.
However you said "I want to have applications to use to be productive with. And that is missing and has been missing and will be missing for a LONG time." This statement just isn't true- the apps that most people use have adequate if not superior replacements.
Linux has many weakness of course. For example the weakness that I encounter the most often are inadequate wireless support. I don't recommend Linux to my friends because of the learning curve although I have had many friends switch to Linux after seeing what I can do with it.
If you were trying to say "Linux is difficult for new users because they don't know what applications to use to be productive." you have a good point and I agree with you. However, listing weaknesses that are in reality strengths and making vague inaccurate statements like "And that is missing and has been missing and will be missing for a LONG time." does Linux a disservice and betrays a bias.
This discussion confuses me. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
How can you make a business selling a gpl application? Has anyone really done it?
If you have to give out your source and your customers have the right to modify, redistribute, and charge however they see fit it seems like you would only ever sell one copy.
Redhat makes its money off of support- if you don't want support I thought you could build their OS for free- or use Fedora which is the same thing. Trolltech sells a non-gpl version commercially- I wasn't aware that they sold their GPL version at all.
So how does one make a business on selling GPL software?
A rowboat without oars. A bicycle without pedals. or as has been used many times already- a new car with no gas.
Sure you can get third party replacements but if you bought any of these they would be worthless until the situation was fixed. All of your examples except the hammer are containers for something already owned by the user and their usefulness is as a container.
A computer is a tool- the only thing the customer should have to bring is the data to operate upon. To use your example it would be like a suitcase with no hinges. You would have to know something unnecessary about suitcase construction to know that it needed hinges, where to get them, and how to install them- otherwise the suitcase is just broken.
There are a lot of comments here criticizing HP. I think yours embodies the flaw in reasoning that many people seem to be having.
by allowing the installation of another OS without much hassle
There is no such thing.
I'm a CS graduate. I use windows and Linux at work and Linux exclusively at home. I install new versions of Linux every couple of weeks on various machines at work and home and various versions of windows to test software. Almost never is an OS installation "without much hassle".
I will single out Linux because I installed a Kubuntu machine yesterday so it is fresh in my mind. The steps that were taken that are such:
Know that I need an OS
Evaluate what OS's are available that the machine can handle
Decide on an OS that may meet my needs
Find the OS
Download the OS
Burn a CD
Boot from the CD
Replace the CD drive that was bad (This actually happened and I include it as a representative of all possible installation hazards of which there are too many to count)
Follow installation wizard
A windows install would be similar except for the downloading and burning. I'm sure there are more steps that I could list. I never could get the drivers for my video card working or get compiz working. The steps that I listed were all trivial for me. For my mother- who is perfectly content using computers all of these steps would have been completely impossible. She wouldn't even know where to start. If the OS was preinstalled none of those steps (except perhaps the failed CD drive) would exist at all.
To everyone but us a computer without an OS is worthless.
I agree that HP should provide the option of buying a computer without an OS but forcing them to sell all their computers without an OS is absolutely absurd.
The above poster's home page is in Norway and the assumptions we make from the perspective of US culture are likely incorrect. In my limited experience, in many countries even a single car is often unnecessary because public transportation is better.
I can see that for many lifestyles one car would be inconvenient. We have two vehicles for this reason.
I agree with you that it could be a problem.
I disagree that it is a problem severe enough to prevent having children. I think the example you give of a child not able to go to school is unrealistic. School buses exist for this reason.
It comes down to a matter of priorities. If parents make raising children their highest priority they can alter their lifestyle to accommodate that decision. It concerns me to see parents criticized for having unpopular priorities.
Obviously it was unwise of him to choose to have three kids because now he can't have two cars. His post didn't say he couldn't afford his kids- he said he couldn't afford another car. I'd wager that his family might be a bit higher on his priority list than the vehicles they use.
Find a formula and stick with it eh? Of course if you get a +5 funny again for the same comment I should just shut up and leave you alone about it since obviously I'm the only one bothered by it.
I said: "no one has been sued yet for downloading a song" And you replied:
"Napster -- and others -- have been sued for just that."
Has it really been established that a person requesting a file (ie. the downloader) can be held liable? In the case of Napster I understood that they were at fault for facilitating illegal distribution- that is helping the uploaders.
"Since downloaders are the ones who cause this to happen (the uploader isn't forcing you to download that song), they're the ones liable for it."
Court cases that were used as precedent in the Napster case where people were found guilty of simply making copyrighted material available. Offering a file for download is considered distribution so people hosting the material were liable even though another party initiated the request. Incidentally the linked case judgement talks a lot about distribution and indexing but doesn't seem to concern itself about the users doing the downloading.
On more of a logical level- as opposed to legal which seems rarely logical to me - how can the audience of a distributed work be held liable? Couldn't they just claim to not know it was illegally distributed? Are the customers of illegal street dvd vendors or the audience of an illegal public performance guilty of copyright infringement?
Again none of this discussion is meant to excuse a person infringing copyright. I want a better understanding of the current state of the law in this regard.
You're not being fair to the grandparent. As a research group the organization in question claims not just to provide arguments but also data.
Your sarcastic comment "Dealing with arguments on their merits is too hard." doesn't make sense if the source is claiming to be an expert and providing empirical data. In this case it is not only natural but very appropriate to start by examining the potential biases of the data source to decide if the data is credible.
My first thought as well was to find out where the group's loyalties lie. I don't think the grandparent was simply trying to discredit them as you suggest.
As far as I have read no one has been sued yet for downloading a song. All the defendants have been accused of uploading copyrighted works.
Neglecting network algorithms, caching, etc. the uploader is the one who is making a copy of and distributing the work and so is the one in violation of the law. I've never read anything about it being illegal to buy, accept, or view a performance of a copyrighted work.
So if you are downloading a torrent and in the course of getting an album of 10 songs you upload the album 130% as well how are you liable?
1.3 * 10 songs * $(cost per infringement)?
Or 10 songs * $750?
I don't think it is defined yet. These cases where defendants fight back are interesting because they are defining the laws that we (Americans) will be held to in the future.
Tricking someone out of their bank account info is fraud and using that info to debit money without authorization is theft- both of these are illegal of course.
These people may not have committed a crime in their country but that is what extradition is for.
I agree completely with you that the best solution is educating internet users however this justifies the criminal behavior of these phishers not at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The goal was for the enrichment of society.
The idea was that the creator would have a monopoly on the creation long enough that they would be motivated to do the work.
After that the creation was turned over to society so anyone could build on it.
The original meaning changed somehow so now instead of being a temporary, governmanet-granted monopoly even the general populace thinks that it is possible to OWN an idea.
This is a recent historical event but has somehow become so pervasive that most people I talk to actually believe that the creator of a work has a moral right to control that work for the rest of time. That has never been the case and shouldn't be now.
We should fix the laws so that they enforce the original intent. Copyright and Patents should be enough motivate creators to create- not to hold society for ransom.
I like the mixed metaphor!
hmmmmmm boiling sheep.
I would add to your list of favorites:
Skullcrusher Mountain- a mad scientist sings to his captive.
The Future Soon- A junior high kid imagines his future as a cyborg
I Crush Everything- A giant squid that hates himself because he destroys the things he loves
Re: Your Brains- Imagine your most annoying coworker coming back as a zombie.
And of course the link: Where you can listen to them all.
I agree that his mindset is refreshing. I think there are a lot of musicians that have this mindset and that it is not necessarily unique. What is unique is that he is actually GOOD. Too much of what you can find released under the Creative Commons is (in my opinion of course) trash. His songs are entertaining and geeky and have brilliant lyrics. What really impresses me is that JoCo is willing to live as a middle-class citizen and work for his money doing concerts, contracted work, etc. Most talented (or at least well-marketed) artists seem to think that they can produce one album and deserve to live like a king for the rest of time.
I think you misspelled that. I guess you probably meant buttery security.
Mmmmmm. Butter.
That analogy doesn't fit in this case.
It's an attachment- Microsoft didn't leave anything wide open- it is user error.
A more accurate analogy would be that someone put a detour sign in the road that made Chevy owners drive off the road off a cliff. How could you sue GM for that?
Either way the car analogies really aren't working for this and they all (especially mine) are sounding really forced and stupid.
I do not mean to refute anything you have said but I read an interesting bit on eggs recently that it is a misconception that eggs with the little blood spot have been fertilized. The occasional blood spot on an egg yolk is due to a ruptured blood vessel during the egg formation. They are usually caught during candling but some get through. http://www.all-foods-natural.com/articles/eggs.htm l
"This almost made me wet myself when I laughed." :)
Your incontinence does not make for a good argument.
I agree with you that Linux has weaknesses compared to windows but the things you list as weaknesses I find to be its strengths.
1- "have(sic) to do builds"
I have been installing Linux for years and have not had to build anything for the distros I have installed for the last couple years. Everything is available as binaries. But if I wanted to compile them I could.
2- "worry about packages, worry about dependencies"
This is a very old problem that was solved a long long time ago. Sure RPM hell used to be an impossible headache. I once tried to upgrade gcc without an internet connection- it took me a month. However, all distributions now have package management systems that turn that former problem into a strength. I can't remember the last time I had to find the website of a piece of software I wanted, download it, install and configure it as I have to do with windows. Now I just type 'apt-get the-name-of-the-program' and it is all there and works. If you want to make an arguement for windows this would be a very bad area to pick.
3- "I want to have applications to use to be productive"
There isn't a good rebuttal to this because it is entirely dependent on your personal needs. If you program visual basic full-time I would be forced to agree with you 100%. If you are unwilling to learn how to use an alternative app then that would also make your statement true. I will also agree that there are other very specialized apps that only run in windows and don't work under wine yet. These are rare and I have never needed one. Everything I need to be productive I can find an alternative for in Linux. In fact given the free nature of the software on Linux I have learned how to use a variety of applications that I would never have purchased and learned on windows. Audacity, Blender, or Gimp come to mind. Although they are all available on windows they are often installed by default on some Linux distros. Again what you listed as a weakness I consider a strength.
The tone of your post sounds like you couldn't find an application to do something the way you were used to doing it and gave up. That is fair- there are a lot of specialized apps that don't have adequate replacements yet.
However you said "I want to have applications to use to be productive with. And that is missing and has been missing and will be missing for a LONG time." This statement just isn't true- the apps that most people use have adequate if not superior replacements.
Linux has many weakness of course. For example the weakness that I encounter the most often are inadequate wireless support. I don't recommend Linux to my friends because of the learning curve although I have had many friends switch to Linux after seeing what I can do with it.
If you were trying to say "Linux is difficult for new users because they don't know what applications to use to be productive." you have a good point and I agree with you. However, listing weaknesses that are in reality strengths and making vague inaccurate statements like "And that is missing and has been missing and will be missing for a LONG time." does Linux a disservice and betrays a bias.
Merry Christmas
This discussion confuses me. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
How can you make a business selling a gpl application? Has anyone really done it?
If you have to give out your source and your customers have the right to modify, redistribute, and charge however they see fit it seems like you would only ever sell one copy.
Redhat makes its money off of support- if you don't want support I thought you could build their OS for free- or use Fedora which is the same thing. Trolltech sells a non-gpl version commercially- I wasn't aware that they sold their GPL version at all.
So how does one make a business on selling GPL software?
Thank you- I realize this and in fact your post agrees perfectly with the concluding remarks of mine.
I was disagreeing with the comments above that imply that everyone should be content purchasing a computer with no OS.
Despite your argumentative tone I agree with you completely.
Ok
A rowboat without oars.
A bicycle without pedals.
or as has been used many times already- a new car with no gas.
Sure you can get third party replacements but if you bought any of these they would be worthless until the situation was fixed. All of your examples except the hammer are containers for something already owned by the user and their usefulness is as a container.
A computer is a tool- the only thing the customer should have to bring is the data to operate upon. To use your example it would be like a suitcase with no hinges. You would have to know something unnecessary about suitcase construction to know that it needed hinges, where to get them, and how to install them- otherwise the suitcase is just broken.
by allowing the installation of another OS without much hassle
There is no such thing.
I'm a CS graduate. I use windows and Linux at work and Linux exclusively at home. I install new versions of Linux every couple of weeks on various machines at work and home and various versions of windows to test software. Almost never is an OS installation "without much hassle".
I will single out Linux because I installed a Kubuntu machine yesterday so it is fresh in my mind. The steps that were taken that are such:
A windows install would be similar except for the downloading and burning. I'm sure there are more steps that I could list. I never could get the drivers for my video card working or get compiz working. The steps that I listed were all trivial for me. For my mother- who is perfectly content using computers all of these steps would have been completely impossible. She wouldn't even know where to start. If the OS was preinstalled none of those steps (except perhaps the failed CD drive) would exist at all.
To everyone but us a computer without an OS is worthless.
I agree that HP should provide the option of buying a computer without an OS but forcing them to sell all their computers without an OS is absolutely absurd.
Anyone who says differently is selling something.
The above poster's home page is in Norway and the assumptions we make from the perspective of US culture are likely incorrect. In my limited experience, in many countries even a single car is often unnecessary because public transportation is better.
I agree with you that it could be a problem.
I disagree that it is a problem severe enough to prevent having children. I think the example you give of a child not able to go to school is unrealistic. School buses exist for this reason.
It comes down to a matter of priorities. If parents make raising children their highest priority they can alter their lifestyle to accommodate that decision. It concerns me to see parents criticized for having unpopular priorities.
Obviously it was unwise of him to choose to have three kids because now he can't have two cars. His post didn't say he couldn't afford his kids- he said he couldn't afford another car. I'd wager that his family might be a bit higher on his priority list than the vehicles they use.
I've been wanting to try cheese making lately- can you post a link to the blog you found?
Thanks.
</-1 OffTopic>
Find a formula and stick with it eh? Of course if you get a +5 funny again for the same comment I should just shut up and leave you alone about it since obviously I'm the only one bothered by it.
Second
Third
Fourth
I said: "no one has been sued yet for downloading a song" And you replied: "Napster -- and others -- have been sued for just that."
Has it really been established that a person requesting a file (ie. the downloader) can be held liable? In the case of Napster I understood that they were at fault for facilitating illegal distribution- that is helping the uploaders.
"Since downloaders are the ones who cause this to happen (the uploader isn't forcing you to download that song), they're the ones liable for it."
Court cases that were used as precedent in the Napster case where people were found guilty of simply making copyrighted material available. Offering a file for download is considered distribution so people hosting the material were liable even though another party initiated the request. Incidentally the linked case judgement talks a lot about distribution and indexing but doesn't seem to concern itself about the users doing the downloading.
On more of a logical level- as opposed to legal which seems rarely logical to me - how can the audience of a distributed work be held liable? Couldn't they just claim to not know it was illegally distributed? Are the customers of illegal street dvd vendors or the audience of an illegal public performance guilty of copyright infringement?
Again none of this discussion is meant to excuse a person infringing copyright. I want a better understanding of the current state of the law in this regard.
Your sarcastic comment "Dealing with arguments on their merits is too hard." doesn't make sense if the source is claiming to be an expert and providing empirical data. In this case it is not only natural but very appropriate to start by examining the potential biases of the data source to decide if the data is credible.
My first thought as well was to find out where the group's loyalties lie. I don't think the grandparent was simply trying to discredit them as you suggest.
Neglecting network algorithms, caching, etc. the uploader is the one who is making a copy of and distributing the work and so is the one in violation of the law. I've never read anything about it being illegal to buy, accept, or view a performance of a copyrighted work.
So if you are downloading a torrent and in the course of getting an album of 10 songs you upload the album 130% as well how are you liable?
1.3 * 10 songs * $(cost per infringement)?
Or 10 songs * $750?
I don't think it is defined yet. These cases where defendants fight back are interesting because they are defining the laws that we (Americans) will be held to in the future.
The household or the someone? Grandma may be old and decrepit but up for renewal?
<font size=-1>I know you mean the computer</font>
These people may not have committed a crime in their country but that is what extradition is for.
I agree completely with you that the best solution is educating internet users however this justifies the criminal behavior of these phishers not at all.
That's what I am hoping for too.
Eventually some traumatizing event will make people realize what DRM means.
I just hope this occurs before it is too late to turn back.