There is already a law in place: The copyright law.
The copyright law only covers a narow subset of things poeple would like to get paid doing for.
but the original copyright laws should stay.
Which exactly would those be, the non-existant copyright laws before a few centuries ago? The crown granted monopolies? The 14+14 year one? The life+50 of the Berne convention? The life+70 that seems to be popular right now? Should retroactive extensions be null and void?
Almost every artist that has money, has busted their ass for pretty much their entire career.
And you know this how? Can you give a percentage with data backing it. Are artists the only people wo make money on copyright?
Anyway, that wan't even my point, that is what is told to many artists so that they support can be claimed for all sorts of copyright extenting laws (both in time and in power).
You may not like people making money on art and or copyrighted materials, but many of the advances we see today are a result of business interest.
I have nothing against it as a matter of principle (see sig). I have something against copyright caretels. I have something about broken distribution--those of you in the US know this mostly as untranslated Japanese videogames, but at least many of you can aford to import, the rest of the world is often in a far worse state. I have something against profit inconsistent with the talent, investment and risk. And so on.
Without it, advances would be slow and sometimes non-existant.
That's a risk I will gladly take to see a copyrighted work released within my lifetime to naturaly fall into the public domain.
What exactly does it HURT to let Apple use this code? The code is for reading/writing NTFS, a specification which isn't officially available anyway and Apple has no control over. There is no risk of "embrace and extend" here. So what's the motivation for denying them?
They sure ass hell can use it, all that is required of them is to release the code they combine it with under the same license. When free software resources are used to make proprietary software stonger it certainly hurts.
Well, if you're going to be like that the question could be simply "save?"
That would cut information like the reason the dialog poped up in the first place, the current Gnome dialogs provide both the information and a way to skip it.
But how do you know what the choice will be?
Affirmative action to the right, cancel right next to it on the left side. If in doubt read what the buttons say, if still in doubt read the text.
It's easy to do a bad Yes/No dialog, but even if it's well done you have to read the question--you don't have to with many Gnome dialogs as they want an action not an answer.
Does Gnome actually even have action buttons labeled, literally, "Yes" and "No"?
From the Gnome HIG:
Button Phrasing. Write button labels as imperative verbs, for example Save, Print. This allows users to select an action with less hesitation. An active phrase also fits best with the button's role in initiating actions, as contrasted with a more passive phrase. For example Find and Log In are better buttons than than Yes and OK.
One of the problems with a large number of useless patents is that people have to go trought them to get the good ones. Think manufacturers using expired patents to solve problems (that's what they are for) and seeing what they might be violating, also patent examiners search prior patents for prior art...
I think both extremes are wrong. I don't want a world with no copyright, yet I don't want a harsh copyright law created. I think there is a happy medium...somewhere.
See sig.
I feel that if someone puts their time and effort into something and want to get paid for it, they deserve the chance.
Well, I do not. People want to get paid for all sorts of stuff, should we make a law so each of them can?
Many people create art for pleasure, which is fine. But some want to make a living at it. If they have the ability, and someone is willing to pay the price that they set, it should be okay.
I don't have a problem with somone selling his creative output, I have a problem with insane copyright laws. Even if we had no copyright at all people would still live from the creation of their art, but it would be more difficult and not the "get insanely rich by doing little work" sheme that is sold to artists so that they nod their heads to another copyright extension or DMCA-style law. The question is: do we need to abolish copyright first to get away from that silly idea so we can get sane copyright?
This is English you are speaking of, not lojban, the words have the meaning that the speaker/writer puts into them. Often that meaning is the same you would use, but sometimes it is not.
I've heard, "I've never been able to spell well" as an excuse for poor spelling for years, but what that really says is, "I don't consider the details of proper spelling important, since people will understand what I mean anyway.
It's not an excuse, at least not for everyone, I speak 4 languages and can only spell 3 of them reasonably well (not perfect, so lay off spelling nazis!). It took me years to get there--understanding, grammar and pronunciation are just much easier for me.
But I don't understand the people who truly don't see what's immoral about, for example, running Mac OS X in a way that Apple expressly asks you not to.
I'm shy and have problems expressing myself, some may call that a personality issue.
it's called being an asshole
I however don't have that particular issue.
see: GNU
I don't see GNU making any laws, also the link is to GNU is gnu.org not stallman.org.
I am talking about copyrights in general being a good thing.
And I don't but it, there is no "in general" with things like copyright, you have to look at the implementation at hand and the Berne convention is a particulary nasty one with it's life+50 copyright lenght and the fact that it allows and encourages more strict copyright laws then what it requires.
if I did the work, I get the royalties
This is not how it works for the large majority of the people, they have to work get paid.
It may take no effort to copy something such as art,books, software, movies, or music, but it can take months and even years to create it.
I'm well aware of the effort it takes, however if you wouldn't do it without copyright laws that promise royalities to your grandchildren I would rather live without it.
It is not enough that something gets created, if it's not available it may as well not exist and copyright as it stands fosters inefficient distribution models (and worse, often no distribution at all).
Wow, you didn't get that I was pointing out exactly that about your post.
and why not? The free market determines whether you deserve to milk it or not...
The free market doesn't do copyright extensions. Also please not that copyright is a goverment granted monopoly.
and copyright protects the original owner.
The original owner of what exatly. Copyright? You sell your copyrights and nothing "protects" you anymore, you buy copies like everyone else. Ideas? Thank sanity those aren't universaly "protected" yet. So original owner of what?
I happen to enjoy knowing that someone cannot take my work, copy it, and re-release it as their own (and possibly make money off of it).
There are many things people happen to enjoy or to hate, this is no reason to make laws about it, particulary not draconical overreaching laws.
Is it greedy? maybe a little, but it allows me to live off of my work, without having to get a 9-5.
Having a 9-17 living off of your work (as are many other methods), receiving royalties is not, but there is no doubt that people enjoy receiving money while others do the actual work.
if the art you created (a song, piece of software,etc) is popular still, then you deserve to milk it for as long as people are willing to pay you for it.
Slashdot Mirror
So Apple do not lose anything by not gaining access to the code in the way they would like, right?
Somone asks people to give him free reign on their code under the BSD license and says that others have a "gimme gimme gimme" mentality?
Do you volunteer to keep the "Advanced" section up to date, debug the extra options and check for cross-option bugs?
It's easy to do a bad Yes/No dialog, but even if it's well done you have to read the question--you don't have to with many Gnome dialogs as they want an action not an answer.
Quickbar?!
More configuration options = more possible bugs.
Save or Discard? [Yes/No]
Are there actualy local laws regarding the information about goverment made blood-baths?
One of the problems with a large number of useless patents is that people have to go trought them to get the good ones. Think manufacturers using expired patents to solve problems (that's what they are for) and seeing what they might be violating, also patent examiners search prior patents for prior art...
See sig.
Well, I do not. People want to get paid for all sorts of stuff, should we make a law so each of them can?
I don't have a problem with somone selling his creative output, I have a problem with insane copyright laws. Even if we had no copyright at all people would still live from the creation of their art, but it would be more difficult and not the "get insanely rich by doing little work" sheme that is sold to artists so that they nod their heads to another copyright extension or DMCA-style law. The question is: do we need to abolish copyright first to get away from that silly idea so we can get sane copyright?
This is English you are speaking of, not lojban, the words have the meaning that the speaker/writer puts into them. Often that meaning is the same you would use, but sometimes it is not.
Do you really think it is about the cartoons?
A: Don't steal my chair asshole!
It is not enough that something gets created, if it's not available it may as well not exist and copyright as it stands fosters inefficient distribution models (and worse, often no distribution at all).
We can't have none of this efficiency in our corporatism. If everyone was doing that we'd need 30 hour workdays to keep everyone employed!