Now with commercial use of this material, with absolutly no pay back to the BBC (and hence the taxpayer) as the OP wanted, would mean that when the commercial user sells me the content, then I end up paying again for something I have already paid for and yet the commercial user hasn't paid anything.
Ah, but we do get something: the programming that we paid to be made is now available through other channels, so we don't need to be at the set at a particular time. Also, if the BBC are doing their job, the quality of the original will be high, thus pushing up the quality of derivative works, and indeed of competing works. This strikes me as excellent value for money.
In addition, the subsidy will be competed away, meaning that those other channels will be that bit more accessable to us all.
But if the use is commercial would that not imply that the taxpayer is going to have to find extra funds for the utility? Is that not what "commercial use" means?
This is true, but the utility will be cheaper, by virtue of the subsidy. The advantage to the taxpayer would be that others would be building upon higher quality product, so that they get indirect benefit.
Ah, but if they were promoting the licence-payers' interests rather than their own as an institution, they would probably do better by removing some restrictions.
True, they would the get less in the way of funds for other projects, but then the entity that would have otherwise have bought the material then has more in the way of funds to do the same themselves. A greater plurality of creators makes for greater creativity: just look at channel four!
Because the majority, if not all, the content has been payed for by the British taxpayer. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for somebody's commercial use of the material?
Because the taxpayer gets extra utility for no extra funds, which means, of course, that they don't foot the bill, for the bill's already been paid!
Rome verses Christianity is probably a better analogy. The sharing philosophy of OS mirrors that of original Christianity. Buddism is more like the *BSDs, where others can take freely without having to give anthing back. Christians transitively attempts to save the next generation from hell, which neatly mirrors the GPL.
Microsoft is like Rome: first they attempt to suppress the upstart religion, and then, in time, they co-opt weak forms of it, such as their "shared source".
This statement, I'm afraid to say, is dogma, or at least the result of insufficiently careful analysis.
Much wealth is created by the sun; in much of the world, it's possible to live off the wilderness without cultivation.
Ideas often come for free. The selection of ideas is influenced by capital, but it's easy to mistake incentives for impetuous.
Wealth exists upon the act of creation; it can be increased through trade, and some of the value of that increase is transferred back to the creator; typically a sum in between the value to the creator and the value to the purchaser.
It is worth remembering the the value of the good is still higher than the price paid for it, which means that economic statistics are inevitably flawed. Consider a good, cheap resturant: they'd be creating no more wealth if they charged more, and probably less, if less of their good food was consumed. That they make less money than the neighbouring Mac-D's doesn't necessarily mean that they create less wealth.
Then of course, people can rationally act in interests other than their ownself-interests.
You are right about wealth moving into new hands, and in this case it appears to move away from larger bands and music companies and to smaller bands. There is also a windfall gain for the person copying the music.
I think that most people would say that the first is good as here wealth, and creativity (hence future wealth), are both promoted by having more bands on the scene.
But the windfall gain would be seen as bad: something that others pay for is attained for nearly free; this offends their sense of justice, and this prevents them from performing a complete economic analysis.
It is this sense of inequity that motivates the population at large to condemn 'piracy', and although economic arguments mitigate against this, they leave people feeling uneasy.
Similarly, a drive for equality, attempting to reduce the wealth of the very rich for its own sake can itself reduce overall wealth, and world-wide, we have seen this. Of course now, with high-rate taxes greatly reduced, the issue is considerably muddied, especially since the rich appreciate each dollar less than a correspondingly poor individual, so that within reason, redistribution does increase wealth, but certainly "cutting off your nose to spite your face" is a pretty common behavioural pattern. There is often a faith that a reduction in one place necessarily means that everyone else gains.
We are not driven by utilitarian concerns. Even if punishment isn't effective for a given crime, most people still favour punishment, as it makes thinking easier: what goes around comes around. Anything more complex, and life becomes far less comprehensible. Similarly with 'piracy'. Some people gain from others' efforts without giving anything back; here punishment might do nothing for the artists' interests, but the lack of symmetry, for many, is galling.
Legally, you're right, but to block distribution would go against the intent of the GPL which is to ensure that derivative works are themselves free software. As CherryOS have capitulated, it clearly serves that intent better to give them permission. This is, after all, a success for the GPL.
Having the upper hand in an argument is far weaker than getting advantage in law. Copyleft, far from being a compromise between coercion and non-coercion, is in fact an act that allows free software to compete fairly by having protections that precisely mirror that offerred to copyrighted works.
Whilst you might find arguing for weaker IPR harder, in should also be accounted for that you weaken the resolve of supporters of stronger IPR, so that the political effect is probably neutral.
Economically, though, copyleft is a necessity. Without the GNU GPL or similar, efforts put towards creating free software advance free and proprietry software equally, but efforts towards creating proprietry software advance only proprietry software. This means that the more efficient model does not necessarily win through; the GNU GPL is a necessary market correction.
The economic value of the GPL is to give protection to free software that is a mirror of that afforded to proprietry software, but if that respect is less, the corresponding protection afforded to free software can afford to be less in terms of preserving the more efficient mode of production.
Free software rights holders might feel differently, of course, but then the same is true for proprietry software rights holders.
I agree with your last paragraph, but I think that a fair counterpoint to the rest is that the educational value of having access to source code is not experienced by the purchasers themselves, so that the demand immediately derived from efficiency in performing the task at hand isn't the only relevant factor.
Only if you then don't go out and buy the stuff that you actually like. RIAA's case is that artists' income is being robbed by such activity. See also copyfight.
They are not limiting your freedoms, just your usage of their property.
This sentence only makes sense is you consider property to be primal. It very clearly does limit students' freedom, the justification for which is that the property which they might otherwise use is legally in the authority's name. This might be sufficient reason, but it is certainly a restraint of freedom.
To make this obvious, consider a world were you personally were denied the right to property. Others restricting the use of the property that was considered to be theirs would thereby be restricting your freedom in an obvious and clear manner. Students have a little more choice, but to claim that diminishing their field of action is not a restraint of their freedom seems to me a strange use of the word "freedom".
It gets even more extreme than that. If someone uses code released under a completely different license, say BSD, and doesn't "give anything back" to the posters personal satisfaction, they are considered to be stealing.
Here's why. I favour the term "copyright infringement" in both cases, myself.
Naturally they have to pay for the lunch in turn, so the problem of scarcity hasn't gone away, but even there we need to realise what nature has provided for free. All kinds of intellectual property are non-rival, or even anti-rival. TINSTAAFL is easy to quote, but there is little that could be more misleading. Consider children: you may be investing in your genes, but you are not investing in yourself, to be sure! TINSTAAFL is the mantra of mindless meanness IMO.
Hmm: programmer-centred freedom instead of code-centred freedom. I'd guess that they're trying to reach out to all programmers, possibly with an eye to future recruitment. As they're not directly supplying software, and they've a lot of other technology giving them an edge, the BSD license makes sense for them.
Shame, really, for they're making heavy use of GPLed code, and to publish under the GPL would be in better reciprocal spirit (incidently promoting free software over non-free), but really, who can blame them? BSD licensed code is likely to penetrate further, and reach more programmers, even if it results in the creation of less free software.
The effect of a black hole is entirely because of its mass, not its density per se. There's as much danger from a black hole which has a mass of a fraction of a kilogram with anything else of the same mass. The black holes that we see in the heavens are so very dangerous because they have the mass of several stars, and attract other objects accordingly.
A tiny black hole would attract almost nothing, and barely grow at all, quite apart from the evaporation effect from Hawking radiation.
Slashdot Mirror
In addition, the subsidy will be competed away, meaning that those other channels will be that bit more accessable to us all.
True, they would the get less in the way of funds for other projects, but then the entity that would have otherwise have bought the material then has more in the way of funds to do the same themselves. A greater plurality of creators makes for greater creativity: just look at channel four!
Microsoft is like Rome: first they attempt to suppress the upstart religion, and then, in time, they co-opt weak forms of it, such as their "shared source".
Much wealth is created by the sun; in much of the world, it's possible to live off the wilderness without cultivation.
Ideas often come for free. The selection of ideas is influenced by capital, but it's easy to mistake incentives for impetuous.
Wealth exists upon the act of creation; it can be increased through trade, and some of the value of that increase is transferred back to the creator; typically a sum in between the value to the creator and the value to the purchaser.
It is worth remembering the the value of the good is still higher than the price paid for it, which means that economic statistics are inevitably flawed. Consider a good, cheap resturant: they'd be creating no more wealth if they charged more, and probably less, if less of their good food was consumed. That they make less money than the neighbouring Mac-D's doesn't necessarily mean that they create less wealth.
Then of course, people can rationally act in interests other than their own self-interests.
I think that most people would say that the first is good as here wealth, and creativity (hence future wealth), are both promoted by having more bands on the scene.
But the windfall gain would be seen as bad: something that others pay for is attained for nearly free; this offends their sense of justice, and this prevents them from performing a complete economic analysis.
It is this sense of inequity that motivates the population at large to condemn 'piracy', and although economic arguments mitigate against this, they leave people feeling uneasy.
Similarly, a drive for equality, attempting to reduce the wealth of the very rich for its own sake can itself reduce overall wealth, and world-wide, we have seen this. Of course now, with high-rate taxes greatly reduced, the issue is considerably muddied, especially since the rich appreciate each dollar less than a correspondingly poor individual, so that within reason, redistribution does increase wealth, but certainly "cutting off your nose to spite your face" is a pretty common behavioural pattern. There is often a faith that a reduction in one place necessarily means that everyone else gains.
We are not driven by utilitarian concerns. Even if punishment isn't effective for a given crime, most people still favour punishment, as it makes thinking easier: what goes around comes around. Anything more complex, and life becomes far less comprehensible. Similarly with 'piracy'. Some people gain from others' efforts without giving anything back; here punishment might do nothing for the artists' interests, but the lack of symmetry, for many, is galling.
-- No Text --
There is clearly selection instead for unsightful commentary and commenters. Never mind.
It is the Creationists that believe in infallibility, if anything.
Legally, you're right, but to block distribution would go against the intent of the GPL which is to ensure that derivative works are themselves free software. As CherryOS have capitulated, it clearly serves that intent better to give them permission. This is, after all, a success for the GPL.
I doubt that Doctors' Assistant is a role that limits what you can do next. The Doctor probably is.
I tried to be an anarchist for a while, but couldn't do it, any more than I could be a libertarian.
Whilst you might find arguing for weaker IPR harder, in should also be accounted for that you weaken the resolve of supporters of stronger IPR, so that the political effect is probably neutral.
Economically, though, copyleft is a necessity. Without the GNU GPL or similar, efforts put towards creating free software advance free and proprietry software equally, but efforts towards creating proprietry software advance only proprietry software. This means that the more efficient model does not necessarily win through; the GNU GPL is a necessary market correction.
I'm surprised that someone with such a low userID would think that the anarchist cookbook had anything to do with anarchism.
The economic value of the GPL is to give protection to free software that is a mirror of that afforded to proprietry software, but if that respect is less, the corresponding protection afforded to free software can afford to be less in terms of preserving the more efficient mode of production.
Free software rights holders might feel differently, of course, but then the same is true for proprietry software rights holders.
I agree with your last paragraph, but I think that a fair counterpoint to the rest is that the educational value of having access to source code is not experienced by the purchasers themselves, so that the demand immediately derived from efficiency in performing the task at hand isn't the only relevant factor.
Just MMing. This is bloody funny!
To make this obvious, consider a world were you personally were denied the right to property. Others restricting the use of the property that was considered to be theirs would thereby be restricting your freedom in an obvious and clear manner. Students have a little more choice, but to claim that diminishing their field of action is not a restraint of their freedom seems to me a strange use of the word "freedom".
Naturally they have to pay for the lunch in turn, so the problem of scarcity hasn't gone away, but even there we need to realise what nature has provided for free. All kinds of intellectual property are non-rival, or even anti-rival. TINSTAAFL is easy to quote, but there is little that could be more misleading. Consider children: you may be investing in your genes, but you are not investing in yourself, to be sure! TINSTAAFL is the mantra of mindless meanness IMO.
Shame, really, for they're making heavy use of GPLed code, and to publish under the GPL would be in better reciprocal spirit (incidently promoting free software over non-free), but really, who can blame them? BSD licensed code is likely to penetrate further, and reach more programmers, even if it results in the creation of less free software.
I think that this only proves that pure capitalism only wins over mixed models with the help of a little reinvention of history.
A broadly free market is vital, but really, the grandparent post reveals patriotism sufficient to defeat reality, which is then quoted as evidence!
A tiny black hole would attract almost nothing, and barely grow at all, quite apart from the evaporation effect from Hawking radiation.