Just because Microsoft releases a proprietary version of a free OS doesn't mean anyone is obligated to use it
Market position and monopoly play a more important role here. Microsoft would happily take Linux and then patent all competing distros out of existence.
In the main, I'd say both Apple and BSD benefited from the arrangement
It's clear that Apple kept their head above water but I'm not so sure that BSD was affected one way or another. BSD won its free pass when AT&T was sent packing.
If linux did switch to the BSD license, and Microsoft did indeed fork and make their own proprietary version, that does not nullify Linus' own repository
Please remove your head from the clouds.
This is not a battle which is at the capitulation point of a killing stroke. Microsoft would love to have a chance to sink their programmers into Linux. They would devote 250% manpower to it. Within a year Microsoft would patent every single functional feature which they add to Linux. They would patent a "window manager integrated with a kernel" by stuffing KDE into the kernel. Within two years Linus and the FSF would receive a cease and desist order for violation of patents.
So what bad came out of the for the BSD folks?
The BSD folks are poster children and special cases. They were granted their immunity when they beat the AT&T suit. BSD won the AT&T suit only because of its social and political connections. No modern programmer could even pray for such a blessed immunity.
In a democracy, the government elected by the people can tax Bob and use his money for the cause as the authority lies in the people. In an anarchy, Bob can choose not to support it as the authority lies in Bob.
The premise of a democracy is that the government is not doing anything that Bob, or the majority of his community, would disagree with. The government which has produced the RIAA spends billions each year without the approval of the people. In an anarchy Bob can override the majority if he leaves. I am not leaving and the majority of my fellows agree that prosecuting 14-year olds as felons is unnecessary. There is nothing anarchistic about my views.
In a democracy, the people are free to elect Tom as they have the authority. In anarchy, Joe can refuse to have Tom as his ruler as he has authority.
We are charged as responsible citizens of a democracy to rise up in insurrection against an unfair government. Sadly, the government has twice the strength and a hundred times the funding. There is nothing anarchistic about disapproving, as an individual, with the government.
Get the picture?
It's not about a picture. It's about a definition. I pulled my definition from www.m-w.com and double-checked it with www.dictionary.com. Both sites used the term "individual".
Before you go reasserting your claims of anarchy, please provide a definition of "democracy" which does not bestow final authority to the individual. There can be no productive debate until we come to agreement on definitions. I agree with you that there is a difference between "the people" and an "individual". Now please provide a definition of democracy which does not include individuals.
Example 3: Jack thinks women are nothing more than objects
You obviously wanted to touch off a flame war, or appeal to a demographic, when you used rape as a topic. Even in an anarchist society rape is not acceptable. The community as a whole would see to that. I personally would slash your tires and send you packing if I caught you involved in such a thing. I would leave it to my underlings to dispose of your carcass.
Until the BSD developers die of starvation because big industry took everything and didn't even donate a bread crumb.
But BSD is also a special case. BSD itself has enough social and political connections to stay alive for a long time. No real world programmer could ever subsist on the BSD license.
They do not want these changes to be released into the open for other competitors. The idea is that we spent valuable time and money changing it, so why should competitors benefit from our work? It's not utopian, but it's logically sound
It's not even logically sound. The GPL does not require you to distribute derivative works. Your company is free to keep all of their kernel changes for themselves.
Now... if they want to redistribute their changed kernel, in binary form, for profit... now the entire scope changes.
Absolutely! And the corollary is "Don't steal it, either."
Nobody stole it. It was bought and paid for.
Life's a bitch, isn't it?
It doesn't need to be. There is no social responsibility in using underhanded methods to turn customers into criminals. CDs, DVDs, VHS tapes, and other media are SOLD in a "all sales are final" environment. There is no pretense that the customer is only renting the material. What is licensing but an embellished rental?
The only thing I agree with in anything you've said is the government shouldn't be involved
Then we agree on all points. If the government weren't involved then 1) both of us would be satisfied and 2) this wouldn't be an issue. The fact is that the media companies rely on the government involvement to make their case for them. If the government is involved then it's obvious that the accused are guilty. Without government involvement the victims would have lawyers dying to take up the case of sale and ownership.
That's a pretty whack definition of "responsible." That's pretty much the opposite definition of anyone else's.
You're far off base.
FACT: You have a product. FACT: People want to buy that product. FACT: It is easy for people to copy and share that product. FACT: It is cheap for people to copy and share that product. FACT: People are inclined to copy and share that product.
There are no secrets in any of these. What is most socially responsible? You can lobby government to make everyone pay to hunt down whoever you feel like targeting today or...You can give intelligent thoughts to the facts before selling your product. You can't begin to tell me that media conglomerates, with multi-million dollar marketing departments, aren't fully aware that their product is easily reproduced and redistributed. Attempting to fight this fact through politics and legal finger-crossing is the most socially unresponsible and repressive idea in history.
I hadn't even thought of that. Why is the government subsidizing prosecution of civil cases? Sadly, licensing infringement is a criminal felony. Why is it that the violation of a glorified rental agreement is a felony while the violation of a real rental agreement is a civil case? I'll never know...
I still don't agree that we rent music. I _BOUGHT_ the CDs. The music (and movies) are advertised as "own it today". The prevailing concept is sale and transfer of ownership. This quibbling by the media industry over "It's not really a sale! We only RENTED/LICENSED it to you!" is childish.
But you can't really eliminate it:
True, true. That's why they call this "life" and not "heaven".
We regret to acknowledge that you are correct in your assertion that your source code was included in a recent Microsoft product. Our compiler stipped out the comment line which acknowledged you as the original author. The acknowledgement will be reinserted upon the next formal release of the software which is scheduled for 2007.
In the meantime we've taken the liberty of patenting all of the functions which the software may be used for. While we will happily reinsert the acknowledgement into the binaries we will have to ask that you cease and desist all further distribution of your own work in this area as it violates three patents which are pending approval.
Funny you talk of a communal fantasy, because it is only in a communal fantasy that people own what they invent or create.
Corporations own what people invent or create, for the greatest part. It's all right there in the employee agreement and all the legal papers are in order where all patents are transferred to the company for the asking price of $1.
It's too bad there isn't an IBM/Novell/Redhat there to protect those poor souls being trampled by the RIAA.
Since reading down this thread I've attempted to resolve my view of media vs. my view of software.
My view of media is this: they sold it, I bought it, it's now mine. I have ownership. I can rip it, zip it, and redistribute it at will. Any arguments about "copyright" or "licensing" after the point of sale are children crying because they wanted to get rich quicker.
But what of software? Isn't the free view of media analogous to the BSD view of software?
I draw my distinction in this fashion. The GPL does not hinder unmodified redistribution (a la mp3). GPL recognizes that redistribution is not controllable so the GPL simply requires that the work be redistributed in accordance with the GPL. If you make no changes and charge no money then there is no problem. It seems that mp3 sharing is acceptable in the spirit of the GPL.
There is another important distinction. Software is a tool (or method) while media is a product. One cannot (yet) take the guitar or drums out of a media file and put in more functional guitars or more secure drums. A product is subject to one-time sale of ownership and then the producer is free to go make more product. It is recognized, in use and by the GPL, that a tool or method may be subject to refinements and improvements and that the original author retains the base from which this is sprung.
There is yet another distinction with the GPL. The FSF does not pretent to sell software in the manner that the media indsutry pretends to sell CDs and DVDs. If the media industry really wanted to take its concept of licensing seriously then it should quit hawking its product in environments that have traditionally been of the "all sales final" type. If a sale is final then I own the product when I buy it. I'll have no whining about what they thought I would do with it. There's no secret that I can copy and share this stuff. Live with it.
The RIAA still sucks. There is no such thing as copyright. The RIAA is a group of children whining in frustrated disappointment because they don't get everything they want. This is reality.
Does that really mean anything? What are you trying to say? Are you saying that jury nullification is a right only in an anarchy? Are you saying that an anarchy is the only system where the final authority rests in the people?
democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people, the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority, he absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.
So other than just trying to post something with 70s British punk buzzword in it, what do you mean when you invoke "anarchy"?
My earlier point is that certain infringements are not, customarily, prosecuted... But that doesn't mean it's legal
Doesn't that sort of system lend itself most readily to selective enforcement and abuse by any authority with the funds available to mount a prosecution?
What of all men created equal and all that? Is there a real justification for why client A and client B are doing the exact same thing but only client A is targeted for prosecution?
However, it is still costing the RIAA more than they get back to follow up each case. The RIAA's model seems more focused on deterrence than actually profiting from extortion, so it would be interesting to start from the assumption that deterrence is their intent
The goal of Churches that preach the evils of sex is not to prevent babies. The goal is to make the congregation feel guilty such that they can be easily manipulated and singled out at any time in the event the Church needs a scapegoat. It's also an information gathering technique. People who eternally feel guilty are more likely to squeal on their neighbor.
The RIAA is not interested in deterrence any more than the Church ever was. The RIAA is interested in spreading the feeling of guilt throughout the population such that everyone is guilty at all times. This demoralizes a society so that there is little will left to question the overwhelming authority of the ruling class.
Falsified? Like explosives found on a rail line in France? Like a train station in Spain being blown up?
Spare us the drama. In the order of world events these happen on a yearly basis. We're not doing any better, nor any worse, for having spent $80 billion to launch a war against this sort of thing. The only thing that $80 billion has done was increase the debt to the Federal Reserve, ensuring that we taxpayers are eternally screwed, and lined the pockets of those who are closest to the federal trough.
Like capturing a Filipino national, and threatening to behead him if their government does not accede to their demands?
Again, spare us the drama. The US declared war. It's war! Must we whine about how the enemy isn't being very polite in a war? Do they expect the enemy combatants to surrender immediately? If the US didn't want to see this sort of thing happen they shouldn't have started a war.
Like explosives found in London?
Oh the horror.
Like two bars in Bali being blown up?
There was a bar blown up in New Jersey too. Turns out that was just some fancy pyrotechnics. The point is that this sort of thing happens with a rather predictable yearly occurence.
The sun rises every day. It's not a sign. The leaves fall off the trees every year. It's not a sign. People die, some less happily than others. It's not a sign.
The war on terror is a money-moving front. Nothing more, nothing less. There has been no significant increase or decrease in the regularity with which world travesties occur because of it. We won't talk about the sudden increase in the severity of US initiated world travesties. Even assume that bin Laden was the perpetrator. What's the score? Bin Laden has 2 buildings and 2500 lives. The US has leveled two entire nations and cost {classified} number of lives. I think they report the number as less than a dozen if you want to believe it.
Politicians are unlike any job in the nation: they never have to set goals. All they do is allocate your money to someone else. There is no accountability, at all, anywhere.
Everyone's favorite (other than listed previously) excuse is, "A CD is too expensive."
And the common response is,"Tough, don't buy it." Since the executives are running off with all the real profit anyway let their kids spend their money on it and let the kids share. This will lead to greater strengthening of cliques and social circles but, well, that's a fact of life.
Imagine if they calculated how many copies the average person gives away and priced it accordingly...not a pretty picture, is it?
It is no pretty picture for universities to need to police their networks. It is no pretty picture when attorneys subpoena an ISP. It is no pretty picture when I can't leave my webserver up so that I can listen to my music collection at work because some RIAA official might sue me into oblivion. It is no pretty picture when an already struggling family is handed a $5k judgement because their son decided to participate in the heinous crime of letting his friends listen to his music collection. It is no pretty picture for government officials to be actively scanning networks searching for people to label criminals.
This is not about pretty. This is about socially responsible. It is more socially responsible to face reality: the product is easily copied and easily distributed. Raise the price or make a better product. It is completely inexcusable for the government or the industry to target individuals. There is no secret about which entity has the greater resources.
and don't bore me with your equivocation about how copyright infringement isn't theft
A product is sold. Ownership is transferred. Mumbling and complaining about abstractions such as copyright amount to little more than crossing fingers at the point of sale. The court should hang the vendors from a clothesline and beat them with wooden breadboards for being so childish and naive.
The seller knows that the medium was easily copyable. The seller knows that the copies are easily distributable. There is no secret here. What kind of mindset must the seller have to think that it's an added value to harass the customers in court with a document which nobody reads? The legal implication of being held liable for the contents of a document which nobody reads is frightening and criminal. Use a level-headed market approach to this rather than trying to come up with conniving underhanded "gotcha" schemes. If the vendor is unhappy with their profit margin they are free to raise the price of the product or produce a better product. There is no public benefit to criminalizing the customer. There is no excuse for claiming ignorance of the ease with which the medium can be copied and redistributed.
Once the proper allowances are made for acceptable losses sloppy security is much more profitable.
shouldn't the governed?
This leads only to frustration. In a true democracy the ultimate authority rests in the hands of the people. In today's mock-up the people have no real voice at all when it comes to budget and contract decisions.
I personally want more liberty and privacy
I agree and the only reason I can think of for things to run as they do is: That's why this isn't heaven.
Prove first that these new technologies will in fact increase security and then I'll argue the privacy case.
A very good distinction. The way this is done, however, is they make a case that these things might increase security and then they spend taxpayer dollars implementing it. If there is no increase in security in five years the claim is made that the system hasn't been adequately refined. If there is no increase in security in ten years the results are used to justify spending more taxpayer money on a newer scheme.
It sounds like profit all around except for the taxpayer.
When Congress declares war and we are legally in such a state, then and only then might the rules change
I'd always heard that we're still in a state of war from 1990 or '91 when we invaded Iraq the first time. If we never quit being at war with Iraq then all sorts of things are legal.
Indeed. Microsoft will patent an online method for accomplishing popular task XYZ. When people use Linux to accomplish XYZ they will be guilty of obvious patent violations and Microsoft will once again stand alone, unchallenged, as the supreme ruler of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see how Microsoft using Linux code in Windows would deny me the choice of running "pure" Linux instead, if that's what I wanted to do
Does TCPA, as well as patent position, give a hint?
Just because Microsoft releases a proprietary version of a free OS doesn't mean anyone is obligated to use it
Market position and monopoly play a more important role here. Microsoft would happily take Linux and then patent all competing distros out of existence.
In the main, I'd say both Apple and BSD benefited from the arrangement
It's clear that Apple kept their head above water but I'm not so sure that BSD was affected one way or another. BSD won its free pass when AT&T was sent packing.
If linux did switch to the BSD license, and Microsoft did indeed fork and make their own proprietary version, that does not nullify Linus' own repository
Please remove your head from the clouds.
This is not a battle which is at the capitulation point of a killing stroke. Microsoft would love to have a chance to sink their programmers into Linux. They would devote 250% manpower to it. Within a year Microsoft would patent every single functional feature which they add to Linux. They would patent a "window manager integrated with a kernel" by stuffing KDE into the kernel. Within two years Linus and the FSF would receive a cease and desist order for violation of patents.
So what bad came out of the for the BSD folks?
The BSD folks are poster children and special cases. They were granted their immunity when they beat the AT&T suit. BSD won the AT&T suit only because of its social and political connections. No modern programmer could even pray for such a blessed immunity.
In a democracy, the government elected by the people can tax Bob and use his money for the cause as the authority lies in the people. In an anarchy, Bob can choose not to support it as the authority lies in Bob.
The premise of a democracy is that the government is not doing anything that Bob, or the majority of his community, would disagree with. The government which has produced the RIAA spends billions each year without the approval of the people. In an anarchy Bob can override the majority if he leaves. I am not leaving and the majority of my fellows agree that prosecuting 14-year olds as felons is unnecessary. There is nothing anarchistic about my views.
In a democracy, the people are free to elect Tom as they have the authority. In anarchy, Joe can refuse to have Tom as his ruler as he has authority.
We are charged as responsible citizens of a democracy to rise up in insurrection against an unfair government. Sadly, the government has twice the strength and a hundred times the funding. There is nothing anarchistic about disapproving, as an individual, with the government.
Get the picture?
It's not about a picture. It's about a definition. I pulled my definition from www.m-w.com and double-checked it with www.dictionary.com. Both sites used the term "individual".
Before you go reasserting your claims of anarchy, please provide a definition of "democracy" which does not bestow final authority to the individual. There can be no productive debate until we come to agreement on definitions. I agree with you that there is a difference between "the people" and an "individual". Now please provide a definition of democracy which does not include individuals.
Example 3: Jack thinks women are nothing more than objects
You obviously wanted to touch off a flame war, or appeal to a demographic, when you used rape as a topic. Even in an anarchist society rape is not acceptable. The community as a whole would see to that. I personally would slash your tires and send you packing if I caught you involved in such a thing. I would leave it to my underlings to dispose of your carcass.
BSD is the perfect fit
Until the BSD developers die of starvation because big industry took everything and didn't even donate a bread crumb.
But BSD is also a special case. BSD itself has enough social and political connections to stay alive for a long time. No real world programmer could ever subsist on the BSD license.
They do not want these changes to be released into the open for other competitors. The idea is that we spent valuable time and money changing it, so why should competitors benefit from our work? It's not utopian, but it's logically sound
It's not even logically sound. The GPL does not require you to distribute derivative works. Your company is free to keep all of their kernel changes for themselves.
Now... if they want to redistribute their changed kernel, in binary form, for profit... now the entire scope changes.
Absolutely! And the corollary is "Don't steal it, either."
Nobody stole it. It was bought and paid for.
Life's a bitch, isn't it?
It doesn't need to be. There is no social responsibility in using underhanded methods to turn customers into criminals. CDs, DVDs, VHS tapes, and other media are SOLD in a "all sales are final" environment. There is no pretense that the customer is only renting the material. What is licensing but an embellished rental?
The only thing I agree with in anything you've said is the government shouldn't be involved
Then we agree on all points. If the government weren't involved then 1) both of us would be satisfied and 2) this wouldn't be an issue. The fact is that the media companies rely on the government involvement to make their case for them. If the government is involved then it's obvious that the accused are guilty. Without government involvement the victims would have lawyers dying to take up the case of sale and ownership.
That's a pretty whack definition of "responsible." That's pretty much the opposite definition of anyone else's.
You're far off base.
FACT: You have a product.
FACT: People want to buy that product.
FACT: It is easy for people to copy and share that product.
FACT: It is cheap for people to copy and share that product.
FACT: People are inclined to copy and share that product.
There are no secrets in any of these.
What is most socially responsible? You can lobby government to make everyone pay to hunt down whoever you feel like targeting today or...You can give intelligent thoughts to the facts before selling your product. You can't begin to tell me that media conglomerates, with multi-million dollar marketing departments, aren't fully aware that their product is easily reproduced and redistributed. Attempting to fight this fact through politics and legal finger-crossing is the most socially unresponsible and repressive idea in history.
That is a pillar of anarchy, not democracy.
Are you trolling for fun? I gave you a textbook definition of democracy and you're calling it anarchy?
Please provide a definition of democracy in which the final authority does not rest with the people.
In civil cases
I hadn't even thought of that. Why is the government subsidizing prosecution of civil cases? Sadly, licensing infringement is a criminal felony. Why is it that the violation of a glorified rental agreement is a felony while the violation of a real rental agreement is a civil case? I'll never know...
I still don't agree that we rent music. I _BOUGHT_ the CDs. The music (and movies) are advertised as "own it today". The prevailing concept is sale and transfer of ownership. This quibbling by the media industry over "It's not really a sale! We only RENTED/LICENSED it to you!" is childish.
But you can't really eliminate it:
True, true. That's why they call this "life" and not "heaven".
except claim that it's theirs
To: John M. Programmer
From: Microsoft
Dear Mr. Programmer,
We regret to acknowledge that you are correct in your assertion that your source code was included in a recent Microsoft product. Our compiler stipped out the comment line which acknowledged you as the original author. The acknowledgement will be reinserted upon the next formal release of the software which is scheduled for 2007.
In the meantime we've taken the liberty of patenting all of the functions which the software may be used for. While we will happily reinsert the acknowledgement into the binaries we will have to ask that you cease and desist all further distribution of your own work in this area as it violates three patents which are pending approval.
Sincerely,
Redmond, et al.
not a web service, but a service like electricity or plumbing
While I would hate to see software as a government crutch just as the utilities are...
This article stems from a flawed assumption, namely, that the Linux development team really cares whether businesses switch to Linux or not
Bravo!!!
People own what they invent or create.
Funny you talk of a communal fantasy, because it is only in a communal fantasy that people own what they invent or create.
Corporations own what people invent or create, for the greatest part. It's all right there in the employee agreement and all the legal papers are in order where all patents are transferred to the company for the asking price of $1.
It's too bad there isn't an IBM/Novell/Redhat there to protect those poor souls being trampled by the RIAA.
Since reading down this thread I've attempted to resolve my view of media vs. my view of software.
My view of media is this: they sold it, I bought it, it's now mine. I have ownership. I can rip it, zip it, and redistribute it at will. Any arguments about "copyright" or "licensing" after the point of sale are children crying because they wanted to get rich quicker.
But what of software? Isn't the free view of media analogous to the BSD view of software?
I draw my distinction in this fashion. The GPL does not hinder unmodified redistribution (a la mp3). GPL recognizes that redistribution is not controllable so the GPL simply requires that the work be redistributed in accordance with the GPL. If you make no changes and charge no money then there is no problem. It seems that mp3 sharing is acceptable in the spirit of the GPL.
There is another important distinction. Software is a tool (or method) while media is a product. One cannot (yet) take the guitar or drums out of a media file and put in more functional guitars or more secure drums. A product is subject to one-time sale of ownership and then the producer is free to go make more product. It is recognized, in use and by the GPL, that a tool or method may be subject to refinements and improvements and that the original author retains the base from which this is sprung.
There is yet another distinction with the GPL. The FSF does not pretent to sell software in the manner that the media indsutry pretends to sell CDs and DVDs. If the media industry really wanted to take its concept of licensing seriously then it should quit hawking its product in environments that have traditionally been of the "all sales final" type. If a sale is final then I own the product when I buy it. I'll have no whining about what they thought I would do with it. There's no secret that I can copy and share this stuff. Live with it.
The RIAA still sucks. There is no such thing as copyright. The RIAA is a group of children whining in frustrated disappointment because they don't get everything they want. This is reality.
Therefore if you expect the gov't to help you out, you shouldn't be spending money on that type of thing
Ugh. Socialism. Are we not close enough already to that horrid system of operation without mucking up a perfectly legitimate post with such a concept?
Ask the FSF to release glibc under the new license. Wear body armor.
:) They don't make body armor strong enough.
I lost it when I read that.
Don't confuse democracy with anarchy.
Does that really mean anything? What are you trying to say? Are you saying that jury nullification is a right only in an anarchy? Are you saying that an anarchy is the only system where the final authority rests in the people?
democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people, the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority, he absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.
So other than just trying to post something with 70s British punk buzzword in it, what do you mean when you invoke "anarchy"?
My earlier point is that certain infringements are not, customarily, prosecuted ... But that doesn't mean it's legal
Doesn't that sort of system lend itself most readily to selective enforcement and abuse by any authority with the funds available to mount a prosecution?
What of all men created equal and all that? Is there a real justification for why client A and client B are doing the exact same thing but only client A is targeted for prosecution?
However, it is still costing the RIAA more than they get back to follow up each case. The RIAA's model seems more focused on deterrence than actually profiting from extortion, so it would be interesting to start from the assumption that deterrence is their intent
The goal of Churches that preach the evils of sex is not to prevent babies. The goal is to make the congregation feel guilty such that they can be easily manipulated and singled out at any time in the event the Church needs a scapegoat. It's also an information gathering technique. People who eternally feel guilty are more likely to squeal on their neighbor.
The RIAA is not interested in deterrence any more than the Church ever was. The RIAA is interested in spreading the feeling of guilt throughout the population such that everyone is guilty at all times. This demoralizes a society so that there is little will left to question the overwhelming authority of the ruling class.
Falsified? Like explosives found on a rail line in France? Like a train station in Spain being blown up?
Spare us the drama. In the order of world events these happen on a yearly basis. We're not doing any better, nor any worse, for having spent $80 billion to launch a war against this sort of thing. The only thing that $80 billion has done was increase the debt to the Federal Reserve, ensuring that we taxpayers are eternally screwed, and lined the pockets of those who are closest to the federal trough.
Like capturing a Filipino national, and threatening to behead him if their government does not accede to their demands?
Again, spare us the drama. The US declared war. It's war! Must we whine about how the enemy isn't being very polite in a war? Do they expect the enemy combatants to surrender immediately? If the US didn't want to see this sort of thing happen they shouldn't have started a war.
Like explosives found in London?
Oh the horror.
Like two bars in Bali being blown up?
There was a bar blown up in New Jersey too. Turns out that was just some fancy pyrotechnics. The point is that this sort of thing happens with a rather predictable yearly occurence.
The sun rises every day. It's not a sign.
The leaves fall off the trees every year. It's not a sign.
People die, some less happily than others. It's not a sign.
The war on terror is a money-moving front. Nothing more, nothing less. There has been no significant increase or decrease in the regularity with which world travesties occur because of it. We won't talk about the sudden increase in the severity of US initiated world travesties. Even assume that bin Laden was the perpetrator. What's the score? Bin Laden has 2 buildings and 2500 lives. The US has leveled two entire nations and cost {classified} number of lives. I think they report the number as less than a dozen if you want to believe it.
Politicians are unlike any job in the nation: they never have to set goals. All they do is allocate your money to someone else. There is no accountability, at all, anywhere.
Everyone's favorite (other than listed previously) excuse is, "A CD is too expensive."
And the common response is,"Tough, don't buy it." Since the executives are running off with all the real profit anyway let their kids spend their money on it and let the kids share. This will lead to greater strengthening of cliques and social circles but, well, that's a fact of life.
Imagine if they calculated how many copies the average person gives away and priced it accordingly...not a pretty picture, is it?
It is no pretty picture for universities to need to police their networks. It is no pretty picture when attorneys subpoena an ISP. It is no pretty picture when I can't leave my webserver up so that I can listen to my music collection at work because some RIAA official might sue me into oblivion. It is no pretty picture when an already struggling family is handed a $5k judgement because their son decided to participate in the heinous crime of letting his friends listen to his music collection. It is no pretty picture for government officials to be actively scanning networks searching for people to label criminals.
This is not about pretty. This is about socially responsible. It is more socially responsible to face reality: the product is easily copied and easily distributed. Raise the price or make a better product. It is completely inexcusable for the government or the industry to target individuals. There is no secret about which entity has the greater resources.
and don't bore me with your equivocation about how copyright infringement isn't theft
A product is sold. Ownership is transferred. Mumbling and complaining about abstractions such as copyright amount to little more than crossing fingers at the point of sale. The court should hang the vendors from a clothesline and beat them with wooden breadboards for being so childish and naive.
The seller knows that the medium was easily copyable. The seller knows that the copies are easily distributable. There is no secret here. What kind of mindset must the seller have to think that it's an added value to harass the customers in court with a document which nobody reads? The legal implication of being held liable for the contents of a document which nobody reads is frightening and criminal. Use a level-headed market approach to this rather than trying to come up with conniving underhanded "gotcha" schemes. If the vendor is unhappy with their profit margin they are free to raise the price of the product or produce a better product. There is no public benefit to criminalizing the customer. There is no excuse for claiming ignorance of the ease with which the medium can be copied and redistributed.
why have sloppy security at all?
Once the proper allowances are made for acceptable losses sloppy security is much more profitable.
shouldn't the governed?
This leads only to frustration. In a true democracy the ultimate authority rests in the hands of the people. In today's mock-up the people have no real voice at all when it comes to budget and contract decisions.
I personally want more liberty and privacy
I agree and the only reason I can think of for things to run as they do is: That's why this isn't heaven.
Prove first that these new technologies will in fact increase security and then I'll argue the privacy case.
A very good distinction. The way this is done, however, is they make a case that these things might increase security and then they spend taxpayer dollars implementing it. If there is no increase in security in five years the claim is made that the system hasn't been adequately refined. If there is no increase in security in ten years the results are used to justify spending more taxpayer money on a newer scheme.
It sounds like profit all around except for the taxpayer.
When Congress declares war and we are legally in such a state, then and only then might the rules change
I'd always heard that we're still in a state of war from 1990 or '91 when we invaded Iraq the first time. If we never quit being at war with Iraq then all sorts of things are legal.
Mixed with alot of potential bad
Indeed. Microsoft will patent an online method for accomplishing popular task XYZ. When people use Linux to accomplish XYZ they will be guilty of obvious patent violations and Microsoft will once again stand alone, unchallenged, as the supreme ruler of the world.