Talk about role reversal...Used to be just the opposite. I remember just copying almost any program to my hard drive and just run it and then just delete it if I didn't like it. Luckily, some people writing (mostly free) software for windows (mozilla is a good example) do it the same way. All program related files going into that program's directory. Copy, run, delete if necessary, no registry mods, nothing. Sad to see Apple going the wrong way on this.
I think he's more worried about the value of his project. If someone is coding a similar project, it could make it more dificult for him to charge the price he thinks he should get. I'll always believe that people who write programs for free can make better code, because they like to, not because they're looking for a fast buck.
It's kind of funny which part of the statement you respond to, but...wadda you gonna do...
I was talking about now also, and now's the time to go to sleep. You can continue to exploit a broken system for your income or you open your eyes to the alternatives, the number of which are limited only by you. The entertainment value of watching people beat each other over the head with licenses and other silly crap is priceless, and will keep my attention for some time to come.
I'm sure we're all eager for Evolution to hurry up so that rest of us may catch up to your advanced state.
No, to be consistant, it's just as "bad" for a company to take GPL as it is the other way around, under the current system of course. Take away the system and there would be to no advantage to take GPL code, because the other person can just take it "back". Of there would be no GPL to worry about, which is good, because people would be writing programs instead of licenses. Computers need code to run, not law.
Sorry guy... I couldn't care less either way. GPL only exists to combat the current copyright situation. Closed...open means nothing to me. It's a shame that people feel a need to protect a broken system because they think they can't live without it. What's worse is that these laws are crippling the technology that I use to make my living. War is bad. The drug laws are bad. But so many people depend them to make a living, so I guess we should maintain the status quo so they don't go hungry, matter who suffers.
I guess if you depend on a system, no matter how bad, you're going to defend it no matter what. You cling to it so tightly that you can't see how easy it is live without it, but you can live without it. You talk about tweaking the law to make it better, but it invariably makes it worse. You're just piling new crap on top of old crap, and it's still crap. Like an old building, it has to torn down and started from scratch. I'll repeat to you what I said to him, A lot of people depend on the war in Iraq for their living. Should we perpetuate it just so they don't starve? A lot of people make money from copyright law. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't get rid of it. People who made horse drawn carriages tried to keep cars off the "roads" when it was new. Imagine what it would be like if they succeeded. Some pretty ridiculous laws were passed to make them happy, and some are still on the books. The time has come to let go, and find an alternative. You'll all be just fine.
Then, like the carpenter, when you sell your work, it's no longer yours. It belongs to the person who bought it. To do whatever, including copying, he or she wants with it. These laws were created by governments and corporations to control ideas. It is crippling our technology.(making my job more difficult when I want to, say, make digital copies of my recordings with a DAT machine or minidisk, for instance) We don't need copyrights to "protect" your income anymore than we need slaves to pick our cotton.
The artists I know create art for arts sake and don't find anything difficult or arduous about it. If they get paid, they are happy, but they don't believe in the god given "right" to profit from it, especially 75 years afterword. That's a man made concept. In my work there is no shortage of people taking credit for "my" ideas. And they probably moved "up the ladder" faster tham me because of it. I used to get pissed about it, but I grew up and decided I don't give a damn anymore. I simply move on to the "next big thing". I still find work when I want. I find that demanding attribution for my work to be simple karma whoring(to put it into slashdot terms). Be more concerned about your work than your reputation. You can bring all sorts of new and interesting things into the world without copyright. Get paid for your work. After that, leave it alone. Forget about it. It's not yours anymore. I will never respect people who gladly profit from bad laws that ultamtely serve nobody but the lawyers.
Sorry, but your viewpoint that you should be allowed to copy and sell independents' works without permission isn't going to hold water with most people.
Abolition of slavery or allowing women to vote didn't "hold water" with most people a while ago either. Maybe you need a gun pointed at you(in the form of copyright) to force you to respect others, but I don't. I'll repeat what I said before. If the artist doesn't want me to sell dupes of his music, I won't. Just don't tell me I can't. I'll decide what's ok or not.
Spoken like a creep who knows nothing about how hard it already is to make even a meager living as an independent.
Maybe you're just not that good and should look for something else to do.:-) It seems that like too many other supporters of bad laws, etc., you simply insult people instead of actually defending the laws(I can understand why, since the law is indefensible). It's like hearing Halliburtan defend the war in Iraq.
I didn't anything about it being cool to rip anybody off. I said the law is a bad law. Artists made money before there was copyright. Copyright just makes it easy to re sell old work over and over again. It's a gravy train for the lazy who don't want to really create, but who want to control.
Copyright law does not protect the indie artist from being ripped off by the big companies at all. On the contrary, it's used to protect big companies(music, software, etc.) from the independants. So, if the artist doesn't want me to sell dupes of his music, I won't, but he's getting very little "protection" from the law.
Well, since I believe that the copyright/patent laws are bad laws(like the "controlled substances act"), people who break these laws shouldn't be punished. On the subject of the culpability of "user vs. technology", which is what this case is about(I think), you always have to go with the user, whether it's P2P or guns, whatever.
...you've lost EUR 23 to some idiot dressed in blue.
Which reminds me of little story: A man was driving pretty fast over a bridge when he was stopped by a cop. What's the hurry? I'm late for work. What kind of work do you do? I'm a doctor. I stretch assholes. Say what?? Yes, I stretch assholes out to about 6 feet. What do you do with a 6 foot asshole? Give him a radar gun and put him on the end of a bridge.
Quite a few scopes by both Tektronix and Agilent run Windows these days.
Yeah, and they take just about as long to boot up. It's ridiculous. Anything longer than 2 seconds is unacceptable. I can imagine that a bic lighter will soon be computerized and will require a 30 second boot up just to light a joint...err...cigarette...yeah, that's it.
Slashdot Mirror
...and requires annoying software setup to work.
Talk about role reversal...Used to be just the opposite. I remember just copying almost any program to my hard drive and just run it and then just delete it if I didn't like it. Luckily, some people writing (mostly free) software for windows (mozilla is a good example) do it the same way. All program related files going into that program's directory. Copy, run, delete if necessary, no registry mods, nothing. Sad to see Apple going the wrong way on this.
I think he's more worried about the value of his project. If someone is coding a similar project, it could make it more dificult for him to charge the price he thinks he should get. I'll always believe that people who write programs for free can make better code, because they like to, not because they're looking for a fast buck.
It's kind of funny which part of the statement you respond to, but...wadda you gonna do...
:-)
I was talking about now also, and now's the time to go to sleep. You can continue to exploit a broken system for your income or you open your eyes to the alternatives, the number of which are limited only by you. The entertainment value of watching people beat each other over the head with licenses and other silly crap is priceless, and will keep my attention for some time to come.
I'm sure we're all eager for Evolution to hurry up so that rest of us may catch up to your advanced state.
I'll be watching my rear view mirror
(repeat)
Without the silly law there is no such thing as "closed" commercial projects.
(/repeat)
Many people don't share my opinion, but they'll come around in a hundred thousand years or so. Evolution takes time.
No, to be consistant, it's just as "bad" for a company to take GPL as it is the other way around, under the current system of course. Take away the system and there would be to no advantage to take GPL code, because the other person can just take it "back". Of there would be no GPL to worry about, which is good, because people would be writing programs instead of licenses. Computers need code to run, not law.
Sorry guy... I couldn't care less either way. GPL only exists to combat the current copyright situation. Closed...open means nothing to me. It's a shame that people feel a need to protect a broken system because they think they can't live without it. What's worse is that these laws are crippling the technology that I use to make my living. War is bad. The drug laws are bad. But so many people depend them to make a living, so I guess we should maintain the status quo so they don't go hungry, matter who suffers.
I guess if you depend on a system, no matter how bad, you're going to defend it no matter what. You cling to it so tightly that you can't see how easy it is live without it, but you can live without it. You talk about tweaking the law to make it better, but it invariably makes it worse. You're just piling new crap on top of old crap, and it's still crap. Like an old building, it has to torn down and started from scratch. I'll repeat to you what I said to him, A lot of people depend on the war in Iraq for their living. Should we perpetuate it just so they don't starve? A lot of people make money from copyright law. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't get rid of it. People who made horse drawn carriages tried to keep cars off the "roads" when it was new. Imagine what it would be like if they succeeded. Some pretty ridiculous laws were passed to make them happy, and some are still on the books. The time has come to let go, and find an alternative. You'll all be just fine.
Then, like the carpenter, when you sell your work, it's no longer yours. It belongs to the person who bought it. To do whatever, including copying, he or she wants with it. These laws were created by governments and corporations to control ideas. It is crippling our technology.(making my job more difficult when I want to, say, make digital copies of my recordings with a DAT machine or minidisk, for instance) We don't need copyrights to "protect" your income anymore than we need slaves to pick our cotton.
The artists I know create art for arts sake and don't find anything difficult or arduous about it. If they get paid, they are happy, but they don't believe in the god given "right" to profit from it, especially 75 years afterword. That's a man made concept. In my work there is no shortage of people taking credit for "my" ideas. And they probably moved "up the ladder" faster tham me because of it. I used to get pissed about it, but I grew up and decided I don't give a damn anymore. I simply move on to the "next big thing". I still find work when I want. I find that demanding attribution for my work to be simple karma whoring(to put it into slashdot terms). Be more concerned about your work than your reputation. You can bring all sorts of new and interesting things into the world without copyright. Get paid for your work. After that, leave it alone. Forget about it. It's not yours anymore. I will never respect people who gladly profit from bad laws that ultamtely serve nobody but the lawyers.
It's sweeping Oklahoma also. It's called "oke-dokey"
You're just repeating the FUD that comes from the industry. This is not the kind of protection people need from each other.
...nd I'm sure everybody will be greatful for your benevolent leadership!
:-)
Why...yes...they would
See the latest article posted to see what copyright gets ya...
Sorry, but your viewpoint that you should be allowed to copy and sell independents' works without permission isn't going to hold water with most people.
Abolition of slavery or allowing women to vote didn't "hold water" with most people a while ago either. Maybe you need a gun pointed at you(in the form of copyright) to force you to respect others, but I don't. I'll repeat what I said before. If the artist doesn't want me to sell dupes of his music, I won't. Just don't tell me I can't. I'll decide what's ok or not.
Spoken like a creep who knows nothing about how hard it already is to make even a meager living as an independent.
:-) It seems that like too many other supporters of bad laws, etc., you simply insult people instead of actually defending the laws(I can understand why, since the law is indefensible). It's like hearing Halliburtan defend the war in Iraq.
Maybe you're just not that good and should look for something else to do.
I didn't anything about it being cool to rip anybody off. I said the law is a bad law. Artists made money before there was copyright. Copyright just makes it easy to re sell old work over and over again. It's a gravy train for the lazy who don't want to really create, but who want to control.
Copyright law does not protect the indie artist from being ripped off by the big companies at all. On the contrary, it's used to protect big companies(music, software, etc.) from the independants. So, if the artist doesn't want me to sell dupes of his music, I won't, but he's getting very little "protection" from the law.
If Kazaa is like the phone company here, and is therefor unaccountable, where is the accountablity?
It lies with the people that allow unjust laws to be passed.
Well, since I believe that the copyright/patent laws are bad laws(like the "controlled substances act"), people who break these laws shouldn't be punished. On the subject of the culpability of "user vs. technology", which is what this case is about(I think), you always have to go with the user, whether it's P2P or guns, whatever.
...do you think that you should be held liable if you did make prank calls all day long?
Maybe the "prankster" should be, but not the telephone company for providing the technology.
...specific combination of: doughnuts, coffee, and bacon.
The policeman's triathalon...tri altholan...triatholan...oh, whatever.
...you've lost EUR 23 to some idiot dressed in blue.
Which reminds me of little story:
A man was driving pretty fast over a bridge when he was stopped by a cop.
What's the hurry?
I'm late for work.
What kind of work do you do?
I'm a doctor. I stretch assholes.
Say what??
Yes, I stretch assholes out to about 6 feet.
What do you do with a 6 foot asshole?
Give him a radar gun and put him on the end of a bridge.
Only if the dumbass sitting on your tail also has radar braking...
My car had a bumper sticker: "Go ahead. Hit me. I need the money."
Let me re-word that...At least it doesn't need this to run.
Heh...really...At least it didn't this to run.
Quite a few scopes by both Tektronix and Agilent run Windows these days.
Yeah, and they take just about as long to boot up. It's ridiculous. Anything longer than 2 seconds is unacceptable. I can imagine that a bic lighter will soon be computerized and will require a 30 second boot up just to light a joint...err...cigarette...yeah, that's it.