Finally, the parent poster is trying to invalidate the value of right to copy based on the innocuous fact that the copyright is not property. However, according to the law value is explicitly protected (see chapters 8 and 10 regarding royalties and royalty dispersement).
That's not how I read the parent post at all. He simply argued that what you call "value of right to copy" is NOT the same thing as property. That doesn't make "value of right to copy" less important. It is just different.
One way in which it is different is that "value of right to copy" disappears after a "limited Time[]" (Art. I, Sect. 8, US Constitution).
Violating copyright is not "theft". It may be just as illegal as theft (if not moreso). But it is not the same thing. When people refer to it as theft or even "piracy" it implies the taking of something that is property, something that forever has value to the person it is taken from.
That kind of thinking is what let's Congress get away with giving corporate copyright holders a 95 year duration. 95 years! So they can get away with sticking to the absolute minimum that the Constitution requires, because we the people don't even understand the benefit of public domain works anymore.
The Founding Fathers never conceived of "intellectual property". The phrase did not even come into existence until the 1970s.
US Copyright law makes a distinct delineation between information and style/artistic presentation. Music is art.
So what? Just because it is art doesn't make it property. The parent poster was pointing out that copyright does not create a property right... and this must be obvious, for if it did create a property right... copyrights would never expire.
The 5th Amendment's Just Compensation clause would require that the government pay just compensation to the copyright holder at expiration... since that would be a taking by the Federal government.
I think we can be certain that was not the intention of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution.
Barring non-commerical, personal use, making copies is wrong. P2P networking is not personal, thus is not exempted.
OK, here's what you linked to:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
Where does it say "personal" in there? P2P is used by consumers isn't it?
I won't argue that P2P is legal. But if you are going to cite something, at least cite something that supports your argument.
Because software companies MAKE money off of piracy by individuals. They DO enforce their copyrights with an iron fist against businesses. But when individuals copy the software, it gives the software company a greater toehold on the market. Those same individuals are employees of companies, who will feel pressured to provide the software that the individuals are used to.
The price per item is not an appropriate measure of the loss. You also have to consider whether the people copying would have bought the item if they had been unable to copy it. That reduces the loss significantly.
Another reason: software companies actually care about public relations. RIAA and MPAA do not. They can have a monopoly on "Madonna" but you can't have a complete monopoly on "word processing." Even though Microsoft effectively does have a monopoly, there are equivalent alternatives. OpenOffice and Word Perfect are alternatives to MSWord. Cyndi Lauper is not an alternative to Madonna... she is a completely different singer.
He says, "I don't really trust the Pentagon to abide by the GPL."
Under the GPL you only have to release your modifications if you distribute it right?
How likely is it that the military will at some point modify the code and distribute it to soldiers without providing the source?
Highly likely.
How likely is it that anyone will be able to stop them???
Highly UNlikely.
Use of GPL code in military applications creates an inevitability of copyright violation.
I suppose you could sue the Army for copyright violation. But that would just make Linus rich... we would never get the source code for all that cool military stuff.
First you complain that the judiciary has no check or balance (not true, the constitutional amendment process provides a check).
Next you bitch about the approval of New Deal legislation... which was a handover of power to the Executive branch.
The New Deal legislation was approved in the midst of FDR's threats to pack the court, possibly intimidating several of the justices. We'll never know how much that influenced them.
But the point is that the Judiciary is the weakest of all 3 branches. If a President threatens to pack the Court, there isn't a damn thing they can do about it besides trying to lock their new colleagues out of the courthouse.
Congress has the purse strings. The President has the armed forces. The Judiciary has nothing to enforce its will other than the respect that people afford the Constitution.
Oh, and Jefferson hated John Marshall's guts. That's probably why he complained about the judiciary so much.
This is about the most flawed reasoning I've ever seen on slashdot.
How is it supposed to be a good thing that a Floridian's vote is worth more than mine? It's a pretty tortured argument to say that this reaffirms our faith in American democracy (or republicanism as some people insist).
The current system was set up by very wise people two centuries ago. I think that they knew what they were doing, even if there is grumbling from the masses occasionally.
It was set up as a compromise between the less populous and the more populous states. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned that a close race in one state would make the electoral college look like a good thing. To the contrary, it has the opposite effect.
Um, actually, only five of those wise people agreed in that decision.
Five people who historically were very very protective of state's rights.
Yet in this one particular decision, they created a brand new federal right enforcible against the states... the right to have an election's result determined quickly.
And decided that this right was more important than the right to have your ballot counted accurately.
Bush v. Gore was the most result-based decision the court has ever handed down, and it came from the same justices who always decry "judicial activism".
I dare say that the sound card would have worked out of the box had he done that.
Most Windows hardware will work with Linux, but that doesn't change the fact that the hardware is built for Windows. Complete interoperability--expecially with the newest devices, for which noone has had time to write drivers--is just not something to expect.
So true... this is probably why they don't try harder to combat piracy in Southeast Asia.
Whenever they do, governments and corporations start examining Linux more closely.
As long as people copy Windows and Office, they think they are getting something good for free, and they will want to use the same software at work.
The best thing that could happen to Linux would be Microsoft cracking down hard on piracy and provoking governments and companies to switch to FOSS software to avoid legal hassles. But those same companies would still have to overcome the inertia of their employees who have grown up using pirated copies of Microsoft applications... of course, the same applies to the West.
Of course, the notion that just because something is connected with litigation it should be immune to anti-racketeering laws is rediculous, the threat of being bankrupted by an legal battle can be at least as coercive as the threat of having your legs broken with a baseball bat, so why should one be legal, and the other not?
Because litigation is the government approved method of coercion. Threatening someone with physical violence (at least, when not applied by the government as when the death penalty is meted out) is NOT government approved.
If someone is going to sue me, I would rather they send me a threatening letter first and try to settle the matter. Being served at your doorstep while you step out to get the morning paper is not anybody's idea of fun.
I highly doubt that any "innocent techie" has actually paid DirecTV. If you are innocent, you are going to think before you roll over and pay them. You also aren't going to confess to something you didn't do (unless they use cattle prods or make false promises).
Gnucash is similar to Quickbooks and handles multiple currencies. SQL-Ledger runs on a webserver, so you can run it either on the same computer, or from a webbrowser on a different computer.
Both are open source. There are other projects too, but you ought to do the research yourself.
Rather than focusing on Linux itself, I think the best approach to get people using free software is to give them software that works with the operating system they already have.
Most people will switch to free software gradually, not suddenly with a complete operating system replacement.
They may eventually switch to Linux, but that will be much easier for them if they are already using software that can be used under both Linux and Windows.
Therefore, I think the best thing for most people would be a cd filled with easy-to-install Windows versions of programs such as the following:
* OpenOffice 1.1.1
* Mozilla Firefox (web browser)
* Mozilla Thunderbird (email and usenet discussions)
* Mozilla Sunbird (calendar)
* Nvu (based on the old Mozilla Composer web-design app)
* Mozilla Suite 1.6 (for those who prefer it all in one program)
* Pan (usenet binaries)
* gaim (chat client)
* The Gimp (to replace Photoshop
There are Windows binary downloads available for each of these programs...
You might also make a version of this disk for Mac OSX users. But by this, I mean apps that run natively, not through an X server. Fink is great, and you might want to have a disk that lets you install it and some of its packages... but running an X server is a little complex for the average user.
Apps that run natively under OSX that I know of:
* Mozilla Suite 1.6
* Mozilla Camino (a more lightweight browser)
* NeoOffice/J (a version of OpenOffice)
I am sure there are other native OSX FOSS apps... but those are the ones I know of.
Of course there's no reason you can't provide 20 different Linux distributions and the entire contents of Sourceforge... but I would focus on Windows and Mac apps, and Live-CDs so people can get their feet wet with FOSS apps without committing an entire system all at once.
Phase 4. ??? [The obligatory gnome-esc gap in the logic]
If you want to profit, phase 4 should be "buy long term puts".
Other potential strategies would be to sell non-covered calls or to short-sell the stock, but those are more risky. At least with the puts your loss is limited by the amount you paid for them.
Nat Friedman: Part of that question is about our expectations around the next 12 months. Linux on the desktop is in an early, very early stage. I've lived in this world for six or seven years . . .
Whatever you do, don't run 'X -configure' in it! It hard locks the system.
What are you talking about?
1. Of course you shouldn't be running the xserver in it. The documentation clearly states this, and explains that the way to get a gui is to either:
a) Run an X server under Windows and use XDMCP to connect... or
b) Use VNC to connect to it.
PS: There is a bug in the libpam-runtime, so have fun doing any sort of apt-get upgrade action.
First of all... if this were true, it would be a bug in one of the harddisk images, not in coLinux... coLinux is just the kernel and the mechanism for running it in windows... It is not a Linux "distribution".
Second, it works for me. I used the provided debian disk image and dist-upgraded to testing with no trouble whatsoever.
I also had very little trouble using VNC to get Fluxbox running either in full screen or in a window(TM).
Even at version 0.60 it is very impressive. I suppose it will be even more impressive when it is included on a Knoppix cd with a simple installation method for those who are too lazy to RTFM.
Eventually, even the guy who makes the fries at McDonald's will be automated.
Anything that requires actual skills and doesn't require physical presence will be outsourced.
So when the corporations are overflowing with wealth, and normal people (read: not our corporate overlords) have no way of attaining wealth anymore, what will we do?
Maybe the lucky ones will work security for the corporations.
Does the same thing happen when you go from ACC to WAV to MP3?
It seems to me that their real fear is that people will be able to easily share iTunes music files after downloading them, without any quality loss, and without the inconvenience of burning to CD first. That makes it even more convenient than buying a physical CD and ripping the songs to MP3, because you wouldn't even have to leave your house or open your the door on your cd-rom drive.
Even people who normally wouldn't bother to share music they'd bought could do so with ease.
I don't know if they are right to worry so much about this... or whether they can legally stop this project... but that is their or (by proxy) the RIAA's concern.
It pretty much makes lawsuits their only tool to stop the sharing of their music. And with projects like Freenet improving all the time, the lawsuit tool isn't going to remain viable.
I neither rejoice over, nor cry about the demise of our over-marketed pop culture... but I do believe that's what we are witnessing: its demise as a victim of its own success.
That title could just as well be placed on a video of a white suicide in the projects. There *ARE* whites in the projects. Using that title to reffer to all "trash" in the projects may still be offensive and/or damn twisted humor, but it wouldn't be racist. It's really only racist when you read it that way - when you presume that "the projects" = black.
The vast majority of people who live in housing projects in big cities are black. I'm not presuming anything. I've been to housing projects. I drive past one every day.
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge the obvious?
Human language isn't like computer language. You don't have to exhaust all possibile meanings to reach a conclusion. To say that a black man committing suicide is an example of a "self-cleansing housing project" is racist, plain and simple.
"What if it had been a white person?" is a meaningless question. It wasn't a white person. It was a black person. And his race is relevant. Let's try not to pretend otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not how I read the parent post at all. He simply argued that what you call "value of right to copy" is NOT the same thing as property. That doesn't make "value of right to copy" less important. It is just different.
One way in which it is different is that "value of right to copy" disappears after a "limited Time[]" (Art. I, Sect. 8, US Constitution).
Violating copyright is not "theft". It may be just as illegal as theft (if not moreso). But it is not the same thing. When people refer to it as theft or even "piracy" it implies the taking of something that is property, something that forever has value to the person it is taken from.
That kind of thinking is what let's Congress get away with giving corporate copyright holders a 95 year duration. 95 years! So they can get away with sticking to the absolute minimum that the Constitution requires, because we the people don't even understand the benefit of public domain works anymore.
The Founding Fathers never conceived of "intellectual property". The phrase did not even come into existence until the 1970s.
US Copyright law makes a distinct delineation between information and style/artistic presentation. Music is art.
So what? Just because it is art doesn't make it property. The parent poster was pointing out that copyright does not create a property right... and this must be obvious, for if it did create a property right... copyrights would never expire.
The 5th Amendment's Just Compensation clause would require that the government pay just compensation to the copyright holder at expiration... since that would be a taking by the Federal government.
I think we can be certain that was not the intention of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution.
Barring non-commerical, personal use, making copies is wrong. P2P networking is not personal, thus is not exempted.
OK, here's what you linked to:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
Where does it say "personal" in there? P2P is used by consumers isn't it?
I won't argue that P2P is legal. But if you are going to cite something, at least cite something that supports your argument.
The price per item is not an appropriate measure of the loss. You also have to consider whether the people copying would have bought the item if they had been unable to copy it. That reduces the loss significantly.
Another reason: software companies actually care about public relations. RIAA and MPAA do not. They can have a monopoly on "Madonna" but you can't have a complete monopoly on "word processing." Even though Microsoft effectively does have a monopoly, there are equivalent alternatives. OpenOffice and Word Perfect are alternatives to MSWord. Cyndi Lauper is not an alternative to Madonna... she is a completely different singer.
Why haven't I heard anything about that 3d format in the past 5 years.
Is it not scalable or something?
I was always under the impression that it was as open as html.
I for one welcome our new non-overtime-paying overlords.
He says, "I don't really trust the Pentagon to abide by the GPL."
Under the GPL you only have to release your modifications if you distribute it right?
How likely is it that the military will at some point modify the code and distribute it to soldiers without providing the source?
Highly likely.
How likely is it that anyone will be able to stop them???
Highly UNlikely.
Use of GPL code in military applications creates an inevitability of copyright violation.
I suppose you could sue the Army for copyright violation. But that would just make Linus rich... we would never get the source code for all that cool military stuff.
First you complain that the judiciary has no check or balance (not true, the constitutional amendment process provides a check).
Next you bitch about the approval of New Deal legislation... which was a handover of power to the Executive branch.
The New Deal legislation was approved in the midst of FDR's threats to pack the court, possibly intimidating several of the justices. We'll never know how much that influenced them.
But the point is that the Judiciary is the weakest of all 3 branches. If a President threatens to pack the Court, there isn't a damn thing they can do about it besides trying to lock their new colleagues out of the courthouse.
Congress has the purse strings. The President has the armed forces. The Judiciary has nothing to enforce its will other than the respect that people afford the Constitution.
Oh, and Jefferson hated John Marshall's guts. That's probably why he complained about the judiciary so much.
How is it supposed to be a good thing that a Floridian's vote is worth more than mine? It's a pretty tortured argument to say that this reaffirms our faith in American democracy (or republicanism as some people insist).
The current system was set up by very wise people two centuries ago. I think that they knew what they were doing, even if there is grumbling from the masses occasionally.
It was set up as a compromise between the less populous and the more populous states. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned that a close race in one state would make the electoral college look like a good thing. To the contrary, it has the opposite effect.
Um, actually, only five of those wise people agreed in that decision.
Five people who historically were very very protective of state's rights.
Yet in this one particular decision, they created a brand new federal right enforcible against the states... the right to have an election's result determined quickly.
And decided that this right was more important than the right to have your ballot counted accurately.
Bush v. Gore was the most result-based decision the court has ever handed down, and it came from the same justices who always decry "judicial activism".
Sales is about selling... it has precious little to do with making the world a better place.
Really though, a fair comparison would have been between his Windows computer and a system with Linux preinstalled.
I dare say that the sound card would have worked out of the box had he done that.
Most Windows hardware will work with Linux, but that doesn't change the fact that the hardware is built for Windows. Complete interoperability--expecially with the newest devices, for which noone has had time to write drivers--is just not something to expect.
Whenever they do, governments and corporations start examining Linux more closely.
As long as people copy Windows and Office, they think they are getting something good for free, and they will want to use the same software at work.
The best thing that could happen to Linux would be Microsoft cracking down hard on piracy and provoking governments and companies to switch to FOSS software to avoid legal hassles. But those same companies would still have to overcome the inertia of their employees who have grown up using pirated copies of Microsoft applications... of course, the same applies to the West.
Because litigation is the government approved method of coercion. Threatening someone with physical violence (at least, when not applied by the government as when the death penalty is meted out) is NOT government approved.
If someone is going to sue me, I would rather they send me a threatening letter first and try to settle the matter. Being served at your doorstep while you step out to get the morning paper is not anybody's idea of fun.
I highly doubt that any "innocent techie" has actually paid DirecTV. If you are innocent, you are going to think before you roll over and pay them. You also aren't going to confess to something you didn't do (unless they use cattle prods or make false promises).
If you want accounting software for Linux, try: GnuCash
or
SQL-Ledger
Gnucash is similar to Quickbooks and handles multiple currencies. SQL-Ledger runs on a webserver, so you can run it either on the same computer, or from a webbrowser on a different computer.
Both are open source. There are other projects too, but you ought to do the research yourself.
If you are slightly adventurous, and don't need ImageReady you can also try running Photoshop in regular Wine.
Most people will switch to free software gradually, not suddenly with a complete operating system replacement.
They may eventually switch to Linux, but that will be much easier for them if they are already using software that can be used under both Linux and Windows.
Therefore, I think the best thing for most people would be a cd filled with easy-to-install Windows versions of programs such as the following:
* OpenOffice 1.1.1
* Mozilla Firefox (web browser)
* Mozilla Thunderbird (email and usenet discussions)
* Mozilla Sunbird (calendar)
* Nvu (based on the old Mozilla Composer web-design app)
* Mozilla Suite 1.6 (for those who prefer it all in one program)
* Pan (usenet binaries)
* gaim (chat client)
* The Gimp (to replace Photoshop
There are Windows binary downloads available for each of these programs...
You might also make a version of this disk for Mac OSX users. But by this, I mean apps that run natively, not through an X server. Fink is great, and you might want to have a disk that lets you install it and some of its packages... but running an X server is a little complex for the average user.
Apps that run natively under OSX that I know of:
* Mozilla Suite 1.6
* Mozilla Camino (a more lightweight browser)
* NeoOffice/J (a version of OpenOffice)
I am sure there are other native OSX FOSS apps... but those are the ones I know of.
Of course there's no reason you can't provide 20 different Linux distributions and the entire contents of Sourceforge... but I would focus on Windows and Mac apps, and Live-CDs so people can get their feet wet with FOSS apps without committing an entire system all at once.
If you want to profit, phase 4 should be "buy long term puts".
Other potential strategies would be to sell non-covered calls or to short-sell the stock, but those are more risky. At least with the puts your loss is limited by the amount you paid for them.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
No Windows version.
Can't compile in Cygwin.
Enter coLinux... finally a way to run GnuCash on my Windows laptop.
I am sure there are other programs like this.
It is even possible to run Linux programs in rootless windows so that they appear to be native Windows applications.
What are you talking about?
1. Of course you shouldn't be running the xserver in it. The documentation clearly states this, and explains that the way to get a gui is to either:
a) Run an X server under Windows and use XDMCP to connect... or
b) Use VNC to connect to it.
PS: There is a bug in the libpam-runtime, so have fun doing any sort of apt-get upgrade action.
First of all... if this were true, it would be a bug in one of the harddisk images, not in coLinux... coLinux is just the kernel and the mechanism for running it in windows... It is not a Linux "distribution".
Second, it works for me. I used the provided debian disk image and dist-upgraded to testing with no trouble whatsoever.
I also had very little trouble using VNC to get Fluxbox running either in full screen or in a window(TM).
Even at version 0.60 it is very impressive. I suppose it will be even more impressive when it is included on a Knoppix cd with a simple installation method for those who are too lazy to RTFM.
whene there are no jobs left?
Eventually, even the guy who makes the fries at McDonald's will be automated.
Anything that requires actual skills and doesn't require physical presence will be outsourced.
So when the corporations are overflowing with wealth, and normal people (read: not our corporate overlords) have no way of attaining wealth anymore, what will we do?
Maybe the lucky ones will work security for the corporations.
But is that going to have the same quality as simply stripping out the DRM on the original ACC file?
If you take an MP3 and reencode it as an OGG, there will be quality loss.
Does the same thing happen when you go from ACC to WAV to MP3?
It seems to me that their real fear is that people will be able to easily share iTunes music files after downloading them, without any quality loss, and without the inconvenience of burning to CD first. That makes it even more convenient than buying a physical CD and ripping the songs to MP3, because you wouldn't even have to leave your house or open your the door on your cd-rom drive.
Even people who normally wouldn't bother to share music they'd bought could do so with ease.
I don't know if they are right to worry so much about this... or whether they can legally stop this project... but that is their or (by proxy) the RIAA's concern.
It pretty much makes lawsuits their only tool to stop the sharing of their music. And with projects like Freenet improving all the time, the lawsuit tool isn't going to remain viable.
I neither rejoice over, nor cry about the demise of our over-marketed pop culture... but I do believe that's what we are witnessing: its demise as a victim of its own success.
The vast majority of people who live in housing projects in big cities are black. I'm not presuming anything. I've been to housing projects. I drive past one every day.
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge the obvious?
Human language isn't like computer language. You don't have to exhaust all possibile meanings to reach a conclusion. To say that a black man committing suicide is an example of a "self-cleansing housing project" is racist, plain and simple.
"What if it had been a white person?" is a meaningless question. It wasn't a white person. It was a black person. And his race is relevant. Let's try not to pretend otherwise.
Apparently? I guess the troll who responded that "n***ers are trash" is also "apparently" racist.
It's sad when we have to act sensitive to the feelings of those who don't give a damn about anyone's feelings.
It's reverse political correctness.
And if it does, will it get what you see or just a bunch of static?
Will Jody Foster wear it?
Have you figured out which movie I'm talking about yet?