Paying more money to get what you should get in the first place?
'Should'? What you should get in any deal involving money is exactly what you asked for. In this case, 99c/79p gets you a 128 kb/s DRM'd track. If you don't think it's worth it then by all means don't buy, but don't think for a second that you have any entitlement to anything more. Charging as much as your customers are willing to pay is a mainstay of market economics, and to be honest paying an extra 20p for a higher-quality, DRM-less track looks pretty enticing to me.
I've also got to say that it's pretty typical of the Slashdot crowd to be bitching and moaning even after we get exactly what we want. It's a step in the right fucking direction, be glad that it's happening at all.
I wouldn't pay a dollar for a downloaded copy of a song. I'm sure as hell not going to pay a dollar thirty. For that price - or less - I could buy a physical CD and rip it.
For a single song? One of the advantages of the iTunes Store for me is being able to cherry-pick the songs that I want from an album, without paying for the songs I don't like. I've been willing to put up with the DRM up until now for that very reason. Sure as hell beats buying a physical single for £2.99.
Basically, they've created a group of consumers who are locked into continuing to use Apple's Store.
Nah, it doesn't lock them into the store. There's nothing to stop iTS customers buying from elsewhere. It locks customers into buying Apple hardware (iPods), which is far more lucrative.
Wip3out (or WipEout 3) for the PSone had a bug where if you scraped along one of the side walls, your speed would actually increase instead of decrease. That's how it seemed to me anyway. I'm guessing somebody stuck a plus sign where there should've been a minus sign.
I was referring to the software aspect of this, actually. The comment I was replying to implied that the maintainer of a GPLv3 piece of software would be required to ensure the availability of dependencies, and I was looking for clarification on this.
I find the closed hardware issue easy to understand, but I'm still unclear about the new patent provisions. To be honest I don't understand why the patent deal between MS and Novell is even controversial.
So this would prevent me from porting a GPLv3 app to a closed-source operating system? I really hope I'm misinterpreting that (IANAL and I don't understand the legalese).
I'm starting to feel that the GPLv3 will never take off because it's just too hard to understand.
"One of the things that we love about Stargate is that is us -- it's our military, it's our scientists, it's our people -- and we're going out into the galaxy and the universe to discover all the wonders that are out there, and dealing with our own limitations versus things that are far more advanced than us." - Robert C. Cooper
I take it Cooper's talking in relative terms, given that he's Canadian (along with most of the cast and crew) and the US Air Force, well, isn't.
I think you're confusing freedom with not having rules. Being free doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want, that's called anarchy.
Assuming you're American (and my most humble apologies if you aren't), you've been brought up to believe that you have freedom, which is why I think you're making this statement. Anarchy is freedom, what you have is certain freedoms tempered by rules. I'm not saying this is a bad thing - one man's freedom is another man's oppression, so rules are necessary for the functioning of normal society. I suspect these are the kinds of rules you're talking about that are encapsulated in the GPL, and your use of the word 'freedom' is only the political definition of the word that you've grown up with.
Just to underline my point, you talk about fewer restrictions making the BSD [licence] less free. One of the definitions of the word 'freedom' in whatever dictionary Apple uses for its Dictionary.app is:
freedom
noun
...
unrestricted use of something : the dog is happy having the freedom of the house when we are out.
The US is just defending their interests abroad. They are the largest exporter of copyrighted material in the world, and large-scale copyright infringement abroad can have an effect on American jobs.
All copyrightists are scum.
By that logic, people who use the GPL are scum, since it is copyright law that prevents non-GPL derivatives.
Dump Ubuntu. I'm coming to the conclusion that it is crap. Switch to Mandriva or Novell where you have a real control panel of one sort or another that lets you tweak stuff, instead of a dumbed down philosophy borrowed from Windows...
Done. I only actually downloaded and installed it to see what all the fuss was about, and I quickly went back to Gentoo. I've already downloaded the Novell SLED demo, to try out the new application pane and XGL without having to worry about manually installing it all.
Oh, it is? I just go to the "screen resolution" menu and chose one of literally 40 options, and it changes the resolution for me. I haven't done anything special to allow this, and I didn't specially chose my hardware for linux.
I'm not going to contradict this, but I think you were lucky. When I first installed Ubuntu (6.06 at the time I think), I had to tinker with xorg.conf before this menu would show anything other than '640x480'. Same for a classmate of mine who was trying his hardest to switch to Linux but still needed hand-holding along the way because of this kind of problem.
But anyway, my original point was that people expect to start up linux for the first time and for it to be as easy to use as windows. Of COURSE it wont be as easy to use as windows because you have 7+ years experience using windows, and 1 hour experience using linux.
Being able to navigate the main menu and find the 'Screen resolution' setting is one of those fundamental transferable skills that any reasonably competent Windows user would manage without much bother. Knowing what to do when the menu gives you none of the options you would reasonably expect is not.
The fact that they have been rejected on a European level doesn't mean that individual countries can't implement them, it just means that if you patent a piece of software in one EU country there's no guarantee that it will be respected in another.
The existence of a right is separate from the ability to express it.
Originally I took this to mean that just because I can express a right, doesn't mean that it is a right, which makes a certain amount of sense dependant on context. However, in this comment you seem to be arguing the diametrically opposite (but not inconsistent) - that just because I can't express a right doesn't mean that it's not a right. First of all, I have trouble understanding what an unexpressible right might be, but furthermore, it leads me to ask an uncomfortable question - do you believe that these 'natural rights' have been handed down by a god? I ask this because you've already mentioned 'God' in a previous post, but also because the statement:
Again, just because the ability to express a right does not exist (e.g. freedom of the press, which is really just a superset of freedom of speech), does not mean it does not exist.
...sounds a lot like, "Just because you can't prove that god does not exist does not mean that he does not exist."
In any case, I have trouble accepting your arguments as anything other than philosophical claptrap because you have still failed to define what exactly a 'natural right' is, and ultimately your whole argument is predicated on this definition. Also, you have failed to expand on just how rights could possibly exist before the formation of societies (i.e., what effect did/do these rights have on nature? How do you go about 'discovering' a right rather than simply creating one?).
Summary contains a Daily Mail link, so I call FUD on general principal (actually, on second thought it scares me that the Daily Mail might not be considered 'right-wing' on the American political spectrum).
Also, what connection does the "records of their car movements for the last year" link have to all of this? As far as I can see the two things are separate, apart from the requirement for a large database.
The problem with this is that no one (other than God, if you so believe) knows the full extent of our natural rights.
How can you even propose the idea of natural rights if you can't properly define it?
We can argue until we're blue that any given right is "natural", a convincing argument won't make it so.
I would argue (until I give up due to colour change, probably) that there are no natural rights, only what one can do and what one is prevented from doing. The issue of rights is one that is sociological in nature, and did not exist prior to the formation of society, making it decidedly artificial.
Thus, the question really isn't "does the constitution grant us these rights?", but "is this a right that already existed, but has not yet been enumerated?"
Rather, it denies me the right to deny you these rights. Before annoying things like laws, I would be within my rights if I sewed your mouth shut for saying something I didn't like.
I think I understand their concern. Technically you still have copyright over your works, as copyright is automatic, but it's what you do with that copyright subsequently that makes it de-facto public domain work.
Also, it's not strictly true that you're passing it on without licence - you are entering into a verbal contract with your clients (which I believe is binding in most legal systems, but don't quote me on that) which gives them certain rights over your copyrighted work. A good lawyer would probably prefer a written contract, so that they have some form of proof in the event of a dispute.
What difference should it make whether one person or a billion play a part in making the law?
I believe that any person who will be subject to a law should be able to play a reasonable role in the writing of that law (whether directly or through an elected representative) if they choose. Of course, this is subject to criteria such as soundness of mind (which is a whole other kettle of fish) and criminal record, which incidentally is a subject which, because of European human rights legislation, has threatened to call off Scottish elections in May.
On the other hand, if the law does not correspond to moral behavior -- whether it prescribes outright immoral behavior or merely prohibits non-immoral behavior -- then the law has no legitimacy and there is no moral reason to follow it (and there may be moral reasons against doing so).
The definition of 'moral' varies from person to person, but it is democracy's role to set down rules that reflect the moral values of the majority of the population. In the context of this discussion, some people believe that copyright itself is immoral, and some believe that copyright infringement is immoral (for the record, I'm with the latter). If the latter is the majority, then I think it's right that everybody abides by that moral code.
I believe that no democratic process in any country is fit for the purposes of liberty or justice or freedom.
This is true. I believe that the truest form of democracy would be referenda on every decision to be made (my ancient Greek history isn't that strong), but education and voter apathy become problems in this scenario, notwithstanding the cost (although I think this is something that, with electronic voting, could diminish over time). Switzerland comes closest to this ideal, with national referenda on many issues. But freedom is never absolute, and Switzerland is notable in that citizens are members of the armed forces for life.
If you live in a democratic country, then yes. The whole point of democracy is to give the lawmakers legitimacy. Of course, you are free to believe that the democratic process in your country is not fit for purpose (I do of my country)...
Does that mean that any computer program that isn't cross platform is illegal in Belgium? For example, a Windows program would be illegal if it required Windows to run, or a PS2 game would be illegal because it requires a PS2 to run? Or is there an exception that allows for the difficulty of porting between such devices?
Slashdot Mirror
'Should'? What you should get in any deal involving money is exactly what you asked for. In this case, 99c/79p gets you a 128 kb/s DRM'd track. If you don't think it's worth it then by all means don't buy, but don't think for a second that you have any entitlement to anything more. Charging as much as your customers are willing to pay is a mainstay of market economics, and to be honest paying an extra 20p for a higher-quality, DRM-less track looks pretty enticing to me.
I've also got to say that it's pretty typical of the Slashdot crowd to be bitching and moaning even after we get exactly what we want. It's a step in the right fucking direction, be glad that it's happening at all.
For a single song? One of the advantages of the iTunes Store for me is being able to cherry-pick the songs that I want from an album, without paying for the songs I don't like. I've been willing to put up with the DRM up until now for that very reason. Sure as hell beats buying a physical single for £2.99.
Nah, it doesn't lock them into the store. There's nothing to stop iTS customers buying from elsewhere. It locks customers into buying Apple hardware (iPods), which is far more lucrative.
Wip3out (or WipEout 3) for the PSone had a bug where if you scraped along one of the side walls, your speed would actually increase instead of decrease. That's how it seemed to me anyway. I'm guessing somebody stuck a plus sign where there should've been a minus sign.
I was referring to the software aspect of this, actually. The comment I was replying to implied that the maintainer of a GPLv3 piece of software would be required to ensure the availability of dependencies, and I was looking for clarification on this.
I find the closed hardware issue easy to understand, but I'm still unclear about the new patent provisions. To be honest I don't understand why the patent deal between MS and Novell is even controversial.
So this would prevent me from porting a GPLv3 app to a closed-source operating system? I really hope I'm misinterpreting that (IANAL and I don't understand the legalese).
I'm starting to feel that the GPLv3 will never take off because it's just too hard to understand.
You mean slashdot.org.uk? Or slashdot.de? Funnily enough, it's not slashdot.us either...
I keep a separate user account for this sort of thing. Not exactly convenient though.
I take it Cooper's talking in relative terms, given that he's Canadian (along with most of the cast and crew) and the US Air Force, well, isn't.
Assuming you're American (and my most humble apologies if you aren't), you've been brought up to believe that you have freedom, which is why I think you're making this statement. Anarchy is freedom, what you have is certain freedoms tempered by rules. I'm not saying this is a bad thing - one man's freedom is another man's oppression, so rules are necessary for the functioning of normal society. I suspect these are the kinds of rules you're talking about that are encapsulated in the GPL, and your use of the word 'freedom' is only the political definition of the word that you've grown up with.
Just to underline my point, you talk about fewer restrictions making the BSD [licence] less free. One of the definitions of the word 'freedom' in whatever dictionary Apple uses for its Dictionary.app is:
The US is just defending their interests abroad. They are the largest exporter of copyrighted material in the world, and large-scale copyright infringement abroad can have an effect on American jobs.
By that logic, people who use the GPL are scum, since it is copyright law that prevents non-GPL derivatives.
There are roughly 6000 cameras on UK roads. Compare to 33 million cars. Stop spreading FUD.
If you're going to implement road pricing, then yes. The alternative is installing cameras on every road in the country.
The concept of a driving licence without a photo on it was such an idiotic idea that I can't believe it went on for so long.
Done. I only actually downloaded and installed it to see what all the fuss was about, and I quickly went back to Gentoo. I've already downloaded the Novell SLED demo, to try out the new application pane and XGL without having to worry about manually installing it all.
I'm not going to contradict this, but I think you were lucky. When I first installed Ubuntu (6.06 at the time I think), I had to tinker with xorg.conf before this menu would show anything other than '640x480'. Same for a classmate of mine who was trying his hardest to switch to Linux but still needed hand-holding along the way because of this kind of problem.
Being able to navigate the main menu and find the 'Screen resolution' setting is one of those fundamental transferable skills that any reasonably competent Windows user would manage without much bother. Knowing what to do when the menu gives you none of the options you would reasonably expect is not.
The fact that they have been rejected on a European level doesn't mean that individual countries can't implement them, it just means that if you patent a piece of software in one EU country there's no guarantee that it will be respected in another.
Okay, in a previous post, you said:
Originally I took this to mean that just because I can express a right, doesn't mean that it is a right, which makes a certain amount of sense dependant on context. However, in this comment you seem to be arguing the diametrically opposite (but not inconsistent) - that just because I can't express a right doesn't mean that it's not a right. First of all, I have trouble understanding what an unexpressible right might be, but furthermore, it leads me to ask an uncomfortable question - do you believe that these 'natural rights' have been handed down by a god? I ask this because you've already mentioned 'God' in a previous post, but also because the statement:
...sounds a lot like, "Just because you can't prove that god does not exist does not mean that he does not exist."
In any case, I have trouble accepting your arguments as anything other than philosophical claptrap because you have still failed to define what exactly a 'natural right' is, and ultimately your whole argument is predicated on this definition. Also, you have failed to expand on just how rights could possibly exist before the formation of societies (i.e., what effect did/do these rights have on nature? How do you go about 'discovering' a right rather than simply creating one?).
Summary contains a Daily Mail link, so I call FUD on general principal (actually, on second thought it scares me that the Daily Mail might not be considered 'right-wing' on the American political spectrum).
Also, what connection does the "records of their car movements for the last year" link have to all of this? As far as I can see the two things are separate, apart from the requirement for a large database.
How can you even propose the idea of natural rights if you can't properly define it?
I would argue (until I give up due to colour change, probably) that there are no natural rights, only what one can do and what one is prevented from doing. The issue of rights is one that is sociological in nature, and did not exist prior to the formation of society, making it decidedly artificial.
Doesn't this fly in the face of your original argument?
I could argue that my right to sew your mouth shut is a natural right endowed from wherever it is that I came from.
Rather, it denies me the right to deny you these rights. Before annoying things like laws, I would be within my rights if I sewed your mouth shut for saying something I didn't like.
I think I understand their concern. Technically you still have copyright over your works, as copyright is automatic, but it's what you do with that copyright subsequently that makes it de-facto public domain work.
Also, it's not strictly true that you're passing it on without licence - you are entering into a verbal contract with your clients (which I believe is binding in most legal systems, but don't quote me on that) which gives them certain rights over your copyrighted work. A good lawyer would probably prefer a written contract, so that they have some form of proof in the event of a dispute.
It would have an obvious chilling effect on anonymous coward speech. It's not that hard to disable comments on most blogging engines.
I believe that any person who will be subject to a law should be able to play a reasonable role in the writing of that law (whether directly or through an elected representative) if they choose. Of course, this is subject to criteria such as soundness of mind (which is a whole other kettle of fish) and criminal record, which incidentally is a subject which, because of European human rights legislation, has threatened to call off Scottish elections in May.
The definition of 'moral' varies from person to person, but it is democracy's role to set down rules that reflect the moral values of the majority of the population. In the context of this discussion, some people believe that copyright itself is immoral, and some believe that copyright infringement is immoral (for the record, I'm with the latter). If the latter is the majority, then I think it's right that everybody abides by that moral code.
This is true. I believe that the truest form of democracy would be referenda on every decision to be made (my ancient Greek history isn't that strong), but education and voter apathy become problems in this scenario, notwithstanding the cost (although I think this is something that, with electronic voting, could diminish over time). Switzerland comes closest to this ideal, with national referenda on many issues. But freedom is never absolute, and Switzerland is notable in that citizens are members of the armed forces for life.
If you live in a democratic country, then yes. The whole point of democracy is to give the lawmakers legitimacy. Of course, you are free to believe that the democratic process in your country is not fit for purpose (I do of my country)...
Does that mean that any computer program that isn't cross platform is illegal in Belgium? For example, a Windows program would be illegal if it required Windows to run, or a PS2 game would be illegal because it requires a PS2 to run? Or is there an exception that allows for the difficulty of porting between such devices?