Stallman, at least, would most likely be perfectly happy if copyright was abolished entirely now! Sure, it would effectively turn all GPL software into BSD software, but it would also turn all proprietary software into BSD software! Once the source code for any proprietary system (such as Windows or Half-Life 2) escapes into the wild, it would be fair game for anyone to use.
On a final note, how much would you like to bet that copyright extensions BS would vanish if the copyright reverted to the author after its initial run instead of the RIAA?
Here's a better idea: stop allowing copyright to be assignable or inheritable. If you write something then you and only you can ever hold the copyright on it, and after a certain amount of time has passed, or when you die (whichever comes first), it automatically and immediately becomes Public Domain.
No, you don't understand. In the case of the factory workers, they deserve their pensions because it was part of the agreed-upon compensation at the time of hire. It's just a matter of enforcing a preexisting agreement.
In contrast, these musicians want to retroactively change the agreement, even though they were aware of the terms and willingly agreed to them (by publishing the music) before.
In other words, the first group wants what is owed to them while the second group wants what is not owed to them. It is entirely a matter of petty greed!
I think it would be reasonable to require every able-bodied citizen to have served two years in the Reserve, the National Guard (without the possibility of being deployed overseas) or state militia* before they turn 25.
So government can not stop you from owning nuclear weapon?
Now you're catching on!
Of course if we combine your view of an absolute right with originalist interpretation of the Constitution you only have a right to a musket but not a modern rifle.
Where in the Second Amendment does it make any mention whatsoever of limitations about the type of arms? Answer: it doesn't. Therefore, any form of armament was allowed then, and any form of armament is allowed now.
I don't want one of my thousands of coworkers - possibly your relative - to go bezerk and mow me down with a gun he somehow smuggled through the back entrance.
And that's exactly why you should own a gun -- so you can shoot him before he gets the chance! After all, don't you realize that if he really is bent on killing you he'll be able to find himself a gun regardless of its legality?
[M]any advocates for the Second Amendment don't try to claim that anyone has a right to arms so powerful.
Then they're drunken, deer-hunting idiots. The Second Amendment specifically guarantees the right of the people to rebel against an unjust government, and as such we should have the right to any weapons we want, up to and including artillery and aircraft.
Personal firearm ownership is implicit in the second amendment.
In other words, the community is guaranteed the right to bear arms and the community is composed of individuals, so therefore individuals implicitly have the right to bear arms.
Did the store actually specifically state you'd have the right to use the software on the disc?
What are you, stupid? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to wear clothes you buy? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to eat the food you buy? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to read the books you buy?
When I buy a box with a disc in it, that mans I can do anything I want to with it -- look at it, eat it, throw it like a frisbee, and read the bits off it! And any kangaroo court that thinks otherwise can kiss my ass!
Besides, I dare you to cite one single instance (that wasn't subsequently overturned) of a court enforcing an EULA that wasn't printed on the outside of the box or otherwise presented to the buyer before sale. Because I believe you're a fucking liar.
On the contrary, there is negative security! Since you can't see the source code, there's no way to be certain that Microsoft itself (or a rogue programmer working there) hasn't put in any kind of backdoors or spyware or such. In a sane world, everyone including government agencies would realize that closed-source software like Windows can only be a liability.
The first company to lose a day of work because of deactivation will be the nail in WGAs coffin. Either MS will release an anti-WGA patch, or everyone will go back to Win2k.
What'cha mean "go back," boy? Some of us saw XP's "activation" for what it was in the beginning, and never left Win2k at all!*
(*In terms of Windows, that is -- I did mostly supplant it with Linux and Mac OS, except for Windows-only games.)
That's what they claim, but it's still, in reality, bullshit. You bought and paid for it -- with the store presenting it as a "sale" -- without reading or signing any kind of contract or license. Therefore, it is a sale and you own it.
The idea of "licensing" it only becomes true because you believe it.
Look, think about this for a minute: assuming you got a computer as a kid, did you need training to figure out how it worked? I know I sure didn't! And these kids won't either, even if they've never seen a computer before, and even if they don't speak English. This experiment proves it.
No, it's because the Wii controller also looks like a remote -- what this company is actually upset about is how similarly shaped the two things are. The patent is on the trigger, though, so that's listed as the reason for the lawsuit.
Personally, I think that if the patent had been on the shape of the device instead, this company would have a better case (not that such a patent wouldn't be asinine too, of couse...).
Slashdot Mirror
Stallman, at least, would most likely be perfectly happy if copyright was abolished entirely now! Sure, it would effectively turn all GPL software into BSD software, but it would also turn all proprietary software into BSD software! Once the source code for any proprietary system (such as Windows or Half-Life 2) escapes into the wild, it would be fair game for anyone to use.
Here's a better idea: stop allowing copyright to be assignable or inheritable. If you write something then you and only you can ever hold the copyright on it, and after a certain amount of time has passed, or when you die (whichever comes first), it automatically and immediately becomes Public Domain.
No, you don't understand. In the case of the factory workers, they deserve their pensions because it was part of the agreed-upon compensation at the time of hire. It's just a matter of enforcing a preexisting agreement.
In contrast, these musicians want to retroactively change the agreement, even though they were aware of the terms and willingly agreed to them (by publishing the music) before.
In other words, the first group wants what is owed to them while the second group wants what is not owed to them. It is entirely a matter of petty greed!
I think it would be reasonable to require every able-bodied citizen to have served two years in the Reserve, the National Guard (without the possibility of being deployed overseas) or state militia* before they turn 25.
By the way, I'm 22. This would apply to me!
*do official ones even exist anymore?
Now you're catching on!
Where in the Second Amendment does it make any mention whatsoever of limitations about the type of arms? Answer: it doesn't. Therefore, any form of armament was allowed then, and any form of armament is allowed now.
Ask an Iraqi [terrorist|patriot] (take your pick).
And that's exactly why you should own a gun -- so you can shoot him before he gets the chance! After all, don't you realize that if he really is bent on killing you he'll be able to find himself a gun regardless of its legality?
No, some Second Amendment advocates do that -- namely, the stupid ones.
Then they're drunken, deer-hunting idiots. The Second Amendment specifically guarantees the right of the people to rebel against an unjust government, and as such we should have the right to any weapons we want, up to and including artillery and aircraft.
All that means is that automatic weapons and artillery should be LEGALIZED, not that the rest of our guns should be taken away!
In other words, the community is guaranteed the right to bear arms and the community is composed of individuals, so therefore individuals implicitly have the right to bear arms.
Depends on who wins. If it happened today, would the British call the people who carried out the Boston Tea Party "terrorists?"
"The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson (quoted from memory)
Of course, you were thinking of a different one -- Jefferson said quite a lot of things to that effect.
What are you, stupid? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to wear clothes you buy? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to eat the food you buy? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to read the books you buy?
When I buy a box with a disc in it, that mans I can do anything I want to with it -- look at it, eat it, throw it like a frisbee, and read the bits off it! And any kangaroo court that thinks otherwise can kiss my ass!
Besides, I dare you to cite one single instance (that wasn't subsequently overturned) of a court enforcing an EULA that wasn't printed on the outside of the box or otherwise presented to the buyer before sale. Because I believe you're a fucking liar.
Phoning in the activation isn't "simply allowing it." From what I've heard, it's a much more involved process than activating online.
I didn't write that; it was an AC. If I had, I wouldn't have put the smiley there.
It wouldn't work -- they could just ignore you. You'd have to get them on the hook for something else first.
Oh, by the way: by reading this post, you hereby agree to pay me (pinky to mouth) one billion dollars.
You've read it; you can't un-read it!
Someone in payroll?! Jeez, tell us where you work so we know to avoid that place!
On the contrary, there is negative security! Since you can't see the source code, there's no way to be certain that Microsoft itself (or a rogue programmer working there) hasn't put in any kind of backdoors or spyware or such. In a sane world, everyone including government agencies would realize that closed-source software like Windows can only be a liability.
What'cha mean "go back," boy? Some of us saw XP's "activation" for what it was in the beginning, and never left Win2k at all!*
(*In terms of Windows, that is -- I did mostly supplant it with Linux and Mac OS, except for Windows-only games.)
That's what they claim, but it's still, in reality, bullshit. You bought and paid for it -- with the store presenting it as a "sale" -- without reading or signing any kind of contract or license. Therefore, it is a sale and you own it.
The idea of "licensing" it only becomes true because you believe it.
Read the grandparent post. You can't "simply allow activation" if your systems aren't connected to the Internet!
Look, think about this for a minute: assuming you got a computer as a kid, did you need training to figure out how it worked? I know I sure didn't! And these kids won't either, even if they've never seen a computer before, and even if they don't speak English. This experiment proves it.
You know, I'm going to have to start linking this article in every OLPC thread, just to shut people making arguments like yours up.
No, it's because the Wii controller also looks like a remote -- what this company is actually upset about is how similarly shaped the two things are. The patent is on the trigger, though, so that's listed as the reason for the lawsuit.
Personally, I think that if the patent had been on the shape of the device instead, this company would have a better case (not that such a patent wouldn't be asinine too, of couse...).
Hint: look through yesterday's Slashdot game section stories (or at another of my posts in this thread).