No, no they don't. The IIHS does not perform crash tests or anything like that. If you clicked the link "About the IIHS" you'd see that they do policy... not crash testing.
They are also funded wholey by the insurance industry. You know, that policy you're required by law to have if you drive. Wow... that should would be nice, if I could get a law forcing people to buy services I offer. Perhaps I can convience others in my field to lobby for such a law...
Point is that as a seller, you don't get to put any terms you like on the transaction. You're relying on government force to make those terms meaningful, and the government should only enforce terms that are of benefit to society.
Huh. Might want to tell that to various HOAs. There's nothing wrong with copyright, there's nothing wrong with contracts. Oh, the benefit to society is that someone will build software that appeals to a mass audience, instead of relying on companies with deep pockets that may or may not release the software they commissioned to build.
And the author of a piece of software gets to decide whether it's written in C++ or Java. So? And if I restring the guitar, take strings off or string it with piano wire or fishing line, the luthier can't prosecute me for violating some "Guitar User License Agreement".
If you agreed to it when you purchased it, I don't see why not. It's called a contract.
Irrelevant. The argument offered was that the fact that something is "the product of [your] effort" means that you have unlimited power to determine how it is marketed and sold. You don't.
I do; copyright is on my side. Contract law is on my side. If you don't like it, don't buy my software. But don't tell me I can't sell it my way. I'm not forcing you to use my software, you're chosing to use it. If you don't like my terms, don't use my software... but again, don't tell me how I can sell it.
If the luthier tells me "I don't want you playing no blues or jazz, any of that there negro music on that thing, now, ya hear?", no court will smack me down for playing some Leadbelly.
If the guitar came with a contract, the court would smack you down. Like it or not, to run a program you must make a copy of it; the EULA gives you a license to copy the program from a hard disk to memory to run.. sorry, that's the precident.
If sharing software will put a programmer out of business, that programmer is operating under a bad business model. Too bad.
Have fun funding that video encoding software yourself then.
Yes, and that "libre license" limits my chances to sell to more than one person. No thanks. Also, I suggest you read what Stallman actually said.. as he is not the FSF.
I'd take you seriously, except for the fact that the brand I work for currently has Top Safety Pick awards for every vehicle in its product lineup. There's atleast one other major manufacturer in the same situation. Sorry, but as safety standards advance so must manufacturers.
And this has exactly what to do with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety?
BTW; the IIHS is only a small contributing factor to your insurance premiums. Have you ever noticed how far the range is when you get a car quoted out at several companies? Insurance companies use aggregate statistical data of accident damage, personal injury, property damage claims, offence numbers and several other factors to determine their individual ratings for each individual car. If a car's desirability hence its theft numbers suddenly spike, well, you're going to see an increase in ratings. If a car becomes popular with street racers its collision and comprehensive ratings will rise dramatically.
No, they have a rather large impact. They "help" goverment set artifically low (and unsafe) speed limits, so that getting a ticket can raise your premium. You never responded to my point about red light cameras vs. increasing yellow light time. Engineering studies show the best way.. yet the IIHS comes to the conclusion that cameras work best (by ignoring accidents caused because of the presense of the cameras). Which again leads to more profits for the insurance companies. You get a red light ticket, and your premiums go up. It seems to me insurance companies only look at your record for violations, and ignore the part where you may have no accidents.
Of course I'm not saying insurance companies want anyone to get hurt; that would have a negative impact on the bottom line. Medical expenses are much, much greater than property damage. But if you actually cut the number of accidents in an area (which, BTW, plays a large row in your premiums) then that would force them to lower premiums.
Of course, you can continue to disbelieve anything I've said. I've actually done the research though, and rarely do public policies actually make driving safer.
I believe what you're looking for oligopoly... except that government is also involved.. they make money off of citations as well.
Let's leave the hospital example out of this. Because I, personally, find your example to be abhorrent. Letting people die for the miscreant desire to prevent your competitors from earning profits? That's pretty damn sick right there.
Huh? Who said anything about people dying? Doctors save people, not software. Software enables them to be more efficent... say processing billing. No one will die at the other hospital... it just won't make as much money, and won't be able to invest as much in better doctors and equipment.
There seems to be some confusion in your example, a company who commissions you to write software for them would have the right to decide whether to release the software in the first place. In effect there is no net difference between the two situations on a work-for-hire basis. In either case, the company owns the rights to the software, it's their decision whether to release it or not.
And that's my point; why would the hosiptal that made the software investment give it to any other hosiptal? What Stallman is doing is saying the hospital can't license the software to others, to help recoup some of the cost. They'd have to give it away. Which they won't, because they get nothing in return. But if they're allowed to own it and sell it as they please, they get their investment back quicker, enabling them to get better doctors and equipment.
Let's keep things simple; McDs doesn't just sell me a burger, they sell me their effort in making it. I can make my own at home... but if I'm crunched for time or it's not convient for me to do so, I pay more for them to do it for me. Same concept.
It's more of an issue in the case where someone writes the software and then seeks to lease (or license) it to their customers, so that the developers have an exclusive monopoly on support and development for it. Then it becomes an issue of why would any company want to enter a system where they will pay more for their software then they have to? Usually it's because the company doesn't know that it has alternative options, or, in some cases, because it doesn't trust the alternatives.
But they aren't; they pass LESS because MS can lease the SAME software to many companies. And there's no exclusive support either; MS doesn't care if you hire someone else to support their software.
You talk about freedom, but want to dictate how I, as a user, can use, share, and modify software.
And you, as a user, have the freedom to use someone else's software if you don't like my terms. If you chose to buy my software, you chose to accept my terms.. what is wrong with that?
The fact that something is the product of your effort doesn't grant you sovereignty over that thing's use. The luthier doesn't get to determine what songs I play on the guitar he made.
He gets to decide though how many cords said guitar has, and whether or not it's a bass guitar or not. There's also no threat of you making unlimited exact clones of the guitar you bought and putting the original manufactor out of business.
Sorry, no. See, you as a user have a choice to buy my software or not. But what Stallman wants is to remove my choice of how I sell my software. It's not the same thing.
I really don't understand where you or he is coming from; do you think you should be able to copy books and music you buy, and do anything you want (including reselling copies)?
I don't know why they care if we got lucky or not. Life starting randomly is improbably, not impossible. At any rate, there may be "life" we don't know about, because it's made up of completely different structures.. that is, it may not be based on carbon & protiens, it could be totally different, yet still be life.
Sure there is. Why would one hospital pay lots and lots of money to build software, than ultimately saves them a lot of money, want to give it to a competing hospital? Why would my company want to open up software it's paying me to develop to help it's competitors? It would be pretty stupid.. helping your competitors become more efficent.
Ya, that's pretty much why I can't stand him. He talks about freedom, but wants to dictate how I, as a developer, can market or sell the product of my effort. He thinks only those that match his mindset are worthy of creating software. He can go fuck himself.
Ouch... I was with you until you mentioned the IIHS. They don't research to make things safer; they research to skew things so that they can justify raising your premiums, and keep things "just dangerous enough." After all, if everyone truely became safe on the road, their premiums would necessarly have to plummit. That's they they endorse red light cameras, which decrease on kind of accident while increasing another kind of accident, instead of increasing yellow light time, which also decreases that kind of accident without increasing the risk of the other accident.
My Japanese car was not "built" in America. It was assemblied here. There's quite a bit of difference. Also, my car was not assemblied near Detriot, it was assembled in Alabama... because there's no UAW there...
Think about it... it was cheaper to build a brand new plant in AL than buy an existing but abandoned (by one of the American big three) one in IL.
It's a shame more people don't understand this. I believe the Senate was supposed to help keep the Feds smaller, because they represented the state governments, which naturally would want to keep the power for themselves (that is, the State government). I think most of this downward spiral started shortly after the direct election of Senators became law...
That's the whole problem; the definition seems to be wrong. One person believes as no one else done, so he is mentally ill... but if "enough" other people start believing the same, suddenly they're fine?
Are you telling me that if enough people believe cutting their left arm off would bring them wealth, that's not a mental illness? Even if we can see from an outside viewpoint there's no basis in relatity to have that belief?
The distinction is that delusional beliefs are fixed, false beliefs that are causing mental ill-health; in other words they are having a deleterious effect on the person's life. Simply discovering that someone believes something that is false does not imply delusion.
I still believe religon fits the definition of delusion. And there are LOTS of people out there who's delusions on religon are having a "deleterious effect on the [their lives]."
I did; also, I'm not going to anymore. You should look up what a strawman arguement is, and why I won't be addressing it anymore.
A key, yes. A key is a minor inconvenience, and doesn't restrict me from anything, so long as I don't lose it.
The same can be said of the CD key.
Moreover, a key provides added value, in that it prevents someone from stealing my car -- note that this would, in fact, deprive me of my car, and not the manufacturer of some imaginary amount of money.
No, not really. Cars are stolen all the time without keys. It's become so trivial in fact that some keys now also have chips in them that work with the ignition system. You're also confusing things here; the CD key on the game is meant to keep people from stealing the game from the manufacturer, not to keep someone else from stealing the game from you.
And no one calls me a thief for not paying for them. I simply don't take them.
I suspect that no one would call me a thief, either, for taking a photograph of one, going out and buying the wood, and assembling my own.
However, pirating is NOT the same as "assemblying your own." You've made a copy, when the publisher expects to be paid for each copy, and you haven't paid. I know I know, you're going to go back in circles again, so spare me that nonsense. If you want things like games to be made for sale (without investing all of the money yourself), then we need to setup a system that allows their work to be rewarded. Otherwise we'd be left with games built by a few individuals at most.. and honestly, I don't think they'd be as good. If you don't accept this, well, you're just being delusional.
Unlikely that it will stop a significant number. It might be interesting to compare it to the number of people who have stopped buying PC games altogether because of DRM.
Irrelevent. Having a key to start a car doesn't really have any significant impact on the number of cars stolen today... otherwise cars wouldn't be coming with security systems, both passive and active, and computer chips in the keys.
If you don't like DRM as part of the product fine, then go without said product. That's a pefectly valid choice. What's not valid is to get a copy of the game without paying and then cracking it. All that does is re-enforce to the manufactorer that they need to do something.
It's a case study where no one is right. Considering how little effect DRM actually has on piracy (possibly a net negative effect, as I am an example of)... What is the excuse for a publisher to do this?
Because it's the publisher's product to build as they see fit. Just as it's your choice to buy the game or go without it completely. If people actually went without, and enough of them said DRM was the main reason, you'd see attitudes change. However given that DRM is still being used, I think you would be in the minority. Most (like me) simply don't care.
It's a bit like trying to counter shoplifting with severe penalties for wearing trenchcoats or carrying any unauthorized bags. The shoplifters will find another way, and in the meantime, you've managed to inconvenience a large portion of the population.
Many places DO put restrictions on bags up. You have to either leave it at the counter or in your car... or you can leave the store. Again, you're free to not shop at such stores... but you wouldn't have any right to steal because you feel you're being inconvienced.
How many actual studies have been done on this issue? How many hard statistics do we have? At this point, it's all speculation, which means I have to lean in favor of not treating your paying customers like criminals.
If that's your belief fine... BUT GO WITHOUT THE GAME. It's not an excuse to steal it, not matter how much you'd want it to be.
Except that SecuROM doesn't just cause problems for itself. It causes problems for the rest of t
Well, you downing a shot of rum doesn't cause direct adverse health affects in those around you. Smoke all you want in private homes or in you car (with the windows up).. but otherwise, you're around others that don't want to inhale extra toxins.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no they don't. The IIHS does not perform crash tests or anything like that. If you clicked the link "About the IIHS" you'd see that they do policy... not crash testing.
They are also funded wholey by the insurance industry. You know, that policy you're required by law to have if you drive. Wow... that should would be nice, if I could get a law forcing people to buy services I offer. Perhaps I can convience others in my field to lobby for such a law...
Point is that as a seller, you don't get to put any terms you like on the transaction. You're relying on government force to make those terms meaningful, and the government should only enforce terms that are of benefit to society.
Huh. Might want to tell that to various HOAs. There's nothing wrong with copyright, there's nothing wrong with contracts. Oh, the benefit to society is that someone will build software that appeals to a mass audience, instead of relying on companies with deep pockets that may or may not release the software they commissioned to build.
And the author of a piece of software gets to decide whether it's written in C++ or Java. So? And if I restring the guitar, take strings off or string it with piano wire or fishing line, the luthier can't prosecute me for violating some "Guitar User License Agreement".
If you agreed to it when you purchased it, I don't see why not. It's called a contract.
Irrelevant. The argument offered was that the fact that something is "the product of [your] effort" means that you have unlimited power to determine how it is marketed and sold. You don't.
I do; copyright is on my side. Contract law is on my side. If you don't like it, don't buy my software. But don't tell me I can't sell it my way. I'm not forcing you to use my software, you're chosing to use it. If you don't like my terms, don't use my software... but again, don't tell me how I can sell it.
If the luthier tells me "I don't want you playing no blues or jazz, any of that there negro music on that thing, now, ya hear?", no court will smack me down for playing some Leadbelly.
If the guitar came with a contract, the court would smack you down. Like it or not, to run a program you must make a copy of it; the EULA gives you a license to copy the program from a hard disk to memory to run.. sorry, that's the precident.
If sharing software will put a programmer out of business, that programmer is operating under a bad business model. Too bad.
Have fun funding that video encoding software yourself then.
Yes, and that "libre license" limits my chances to sell to more than one person. No thanks. Also, I suggest you read what Stallman actually said.. as he is not the FSF.
Or an opening to the brain, I suppose.
Well.. the eye socket is already a hole in the brain. Any idea how much radiation your eyes actually block?
I'd take you seriously, except for the fact that the brand I work for currently has Top Safety Pick awards for every vehicle in its product lineup. There's atleast one other major manufacturer in the same situation. Sorry, but as safety standards advance so must manufacturers.
And this has exactly what to do with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety?
BTW; the IIHS is only a small contributing factor to your insurance premiums. Have you ever noticed how far the range is when you get a car quoted out at several companies? Insurance companies use aggregate statistical data of accident damage, personal injury, property damage claims, offence numbers and several other factors to determine their individual ratings for each individual car. If a car's desirability hence its theft numbers suddenly spike, well, you're going to see an increase in ratings. If a car becomes popular with street racers its collision and comprehensive ratings will rise dramatically.
No, they have a rather large impact. They "help" goverment set artifically low (and unsafe) speed limits, so that getting a ticket can raise your premium. You never responded to my point about red light cameras vs. increasing yellow light time. Engineering studies show the best way.. yet the IIHS comes to the conclusion that cameras work best (by ignoring accidents caused because of the presense of the cameras). Which again leads to more profits for the insurance companies. You get a red light ticket, and your premiums go up. It seems to me insurance companies only look at your record for violations, and ignore the part where you may have no accidents.
Of course I'm not saying insurance companies want anyone to get hurt; that would have a negative impact on the bottom line. Medical expenses are much, much greater than property damage. But if you actually cut the number of accidents in an area (which, BTW, plays a large row in your premiums) then that would force them to lower premiums.
Of course, you can continue to disbelieve anything I've said. I've actually done the research though, and rarely do public policies actually make driving safer.
I believe what you're looking for oligopoly... except that government is also involved.. they make money off of citations as well.
Let's leave the hospital example out of this. Because I, personally, find your example to be abhorrent. Letting people die for the miscreant desire to prevent your competitors from earning profits? That's pretty damn sick right there.
Huh? Who said anything about people dying? Doctors save people, not software. Software enables them to be more efficent... say processing billing. No one will die at the other hospital... it just won't make as much money, and won't be able to invest as much in better doctors and equipment.
There seems to be some confusion in your example, a company who commissions you to write software for them would have the right to decide whether to release the software in the first place. In effect there is no net difference between the two situations on a work-for-hire basis. In either case, the company owns the rights to the software, it's their decision whether to release it or not.
And that's my point; why would the hosiptal that made the software investment give it to any other hosiptal? What Stallman is doing is saying the hospital can't license the software to others, to help recoup some of the cost. They'd have to give it away. Which they won't, because they get nothing in return. But if they're allowed to own it and sell it as they please, they get their investment back quicker, enabling them to get better doctors and equipment.
Let's keep things simple; McDs doesn't just sell me a burger, they sell me their effort in making it. I can make my own at home... but if I'm crunched for time or it's not convient for me to do so, I pay more for them to do it for me. Same concept.
It's more of an issue in the case where someone writes the software and then seeks to lease (or license) it to their customers, so that the developers have an exclusive monopoly on support and development for it. Then it becomes an issue of why would any company want to enter a system where they will pay more for their software then they have to? Usually it's because the company doesn't know that it has alternative options, or, in some cases, because it doesn't trust the alternatives.
But they aren't; they pass LESS because MS can lease the SAME software to many companies. And there's no exclusive support either; MS doesn't care if you hire someone else to support their software.
You talk about freedom, but want to dictate how I, as a user, can use, share, and modify software.
And you, as a user, have the freedom to use someone else's software if you don't like my terms. If you chose to buy my software, you chose to accept my terms.. what is wrong with that?
The fact that something is the product of your effort doesn't grant you sovereignty over that thing's use. The luthier doesn't get to determine what songs I play on the guitar he made.
He gets to decide though how many cords said guitar has, and whether or not it's a bass guitar or not. There's also no threat of you making unlimited exact clones of the guitar you bought and putting the original manufactor out of business.
Sorry, no. See, you as a user have a choice to buy my software or not. But what Stallman wants is to remove my choice of how I sell my software. It's not the same thing.
I really don't understand where you or he is coming from; do you think you should be able to copy books and music you buy, and do anything you want (including reselling copies)?
I don't know why they care if we got lucky or not. Life starting randomly is improbably, not impossible. At any rate, there may be "life" we don't know about, because it's made up of completely different structures.. that is, it may not be based on carbon & protiens, it could be totally different, yet still be life.
Sure there is. Why would one hospital pay lots and lots of money to build software, than ultimately saves them a lot of money, want to give it to a competing hospital? Why would my company want to open up software it's paying me to develop to help it's competitors? It would be pretty stupid.. helping your competitors become more efficent.
Ya, that's pretty much why I can't stand him. He talks about freedom, but wants to dictate how I, as a developer, can market or sell the product of my effort. He thinks only those that match his mindset are worthy of creating software. He can go fuck himself.
You mean like the fat woman that sued a man who gave her the Heimlich, but broke a rib in the process?
Ouch... I was with you until you mentioned the IIHS. They don't research to make things safer; they research to skew things so that they can justify raising your premiums, and keep things "just dangerous enough." After all, if everyone truely became safe on the road, their premiums would necessarly have to plummit. That's they they endorse red light cameras, which decrease on kind of accident while increasing another kind of accident, instead of increasing yellow light time, which also decreases that kind of accident without increasing the risk of the other accident.
My Japanese car was not "built" in America. It was assemblied here. There's quite a bit of difference. Also, my car was not assemblied near Detriot, it was assembled in Alabama... because there's no UAW there...
Think about it... it was cheaper to build a brand new plant in AL than buy an existing but abandoned (by one of the American big three) one in IL.
It's a shame more people don't understand this. I believe the Senate was supposed to help keep the Feds smaller, because they represented the state governments, which naturally would want to keep the power for themselves (that is, the State government). I think most of this downward spiral started shortly after the direct election of Senators became law...
I would guess that the work can be turned around and sent before the check comes back as fraudlent.
No, it's not sad. Act gready and stupid, you get what you deserve.
Twitter, is that you?
That's the whole problem; the definition seems to be wrong. One person believes as no one else done, so he is mentally ill... but if "enough" other people start believing the same, suddenly they're fine?
Are you telling me that if enough people believe cutting their left arm off would bring them wealth, that's not a mental illness? Even if we can see from an outside viewpoint there's no basis in relatity to have that belief?
The distinction is that delusional beliefs are fixed, false beliefs that are causing mental ill-health; in other words they are having a deleterious effect on the person's life. Simply discovering that someone believes something that is false does not imply delusion.
I still believe religon fits the definition of delusion. And there are LOTS of people out there who's delusions on religon are having a "deleterious effect on the [their lives]."
And you didn't address the actual argument there.
I did; also, I'm not going to anymore. You should look up what a strawman arguement is, and why I won't be addressing it anymore.
A key, yes. A key is a minor inconvenience, and doesn't restrict me from anything, so long as I don't lose it.
The same can be said of the CD key.
Moreover, a key provides added value, in that it prevents someone from stealing my car -- note that this would, in fact, deprive me of my car, and not the manufacturer of some imaginary amount of money.
No, not really. Cars are stolen all the time without keys. It's become so trivial in fact that some keys now also have chips in them that work with the ignition system. You're also confusing things here; the CD key on the game is meant to keep people from stealing the game from the manufacturer, not to keep someone else from stealing the game from you.
And no one calls me a thief for not paying for them. I simply don't take them.
I suspect that no one would call me a thief, either, for taking a photograph of one, going out and buying the wood, and assembling my own.
However, pirating is NOT the same as "assemblying your own." You've made a copy, when the publisher expects to be paid for each copy, and you haven't paid. I know I know, you're going to go back in circles again, so spare me that nonsense. If you want things like games to be made for sale (without investing all of the money yourself), then we need to setup a system that allows their work to be rewarded. Otherwise we'd be left with games built by a few individuals at most.. and honestly, I don't think they'd be as good. If you don't accept this, well, you're just being delusional.
Unlikely that it will stop a significant number. It might be interesting to compare it to the number of people who have stopped buying PC games altogether because of DRM.
Irrelevent. Having a key to start a car doesn't really have any significant impact on the number of cars stolen today... otherwise cars wouldn't be coming with security systems, both passive and active, and computer chips in the keys.
If you don't like DRM as part of the product fine, then go without said product. That's a pefectly valid choice. What's not valid is to get a copy of the game without paying and then cracking it. All that does is re-enforce to the manufactorer that they need to do something.
It's a case study where no one is right. Considering how little effect DRM actually has on piracy (possibly a net negative effect, as I am an example of)... What is the excuse for a publisher to do this?
Because it's the publisher's product to build as they see fit. Just as it's your choice to buy the game or go without it completely. If people actually went without, and enough of them said DRM was the main reason, you'd see attitudes change. However given that DRM is still being used, I think you would be in the minority. Most (like me) simply don't care.
It's a bit like trying to counter shoplifting with severe penalties for wearing trenchcoats or carrying any unauthorized bags. The shoplifters will find another way, and in the meantime, you've managed to inconvenience a large portion of the population.
Many places DO put restrictions on bags up. You have to either leave it at the counter or in your car... or you can leave the store. Again, you're free to not shop at such stores... but you wouldn't have any right to steal because you feel you're being inconvienced.
How many actual studies have been done on this issue? How many hard statistics do we have? At this point, it's all speculation, which means I have to lean in favor of not treating your paying customers like criminals.
If that's your belief fine... BUT GO WITHOUT THE GAME. It's not an excuse to steal it, not matter how much you'd want it to be.
Except that SecuROM doesn't just cause problems for itself. It causes problems for the rest of t
Well, you downing a shot of rum doesn't cause direct adverse health affects in those around you. Smoke all you want in private homes or in you car (with the windows up).. but otherwise, you're around others that don't want to inhale extra toxins.
If the solar panels get enoug sunlight, does anyone know if it's possible the rovers will "reboot?"
I don't think the proper solution though is to limit the freedom of all those that would be just fine in a home lab.