The thing is that when you read somebody elses work, it's almost impossible to determine if it had an effect on your own thoughts(I'm sure it always does, whether you realize it or not.) Copyright holders know this and use the law to control what the gov't can't directly. It's censorship by proxy, and I have to admit, it's working pretty well.
I think the project which'll worry about this the most is WINE -- it's making great strides on its own but how can the maintainers ensure that code submitted doesn't breach copyright if they can't read the copyrighted material to check?
This is one of my points. They might be spending way too much time worrying about legalities instead of writing code. It's a needless distraction and can diminish the quality of their work.
are you all going to let this continue before you realize that this is madness in the extreme? Soon you wil have to pay for the air you breath. Every word you say will be copyrighted. Thought crime will become a reality because all ideas will be patented. I'm begging you...PLEASE take the "red pill" and save yourselves. At the very least we need to follow China's thoughts on IP. It's nice to see people with big guns telling the IP industries to go to hell. And don't give me that crap about property. The gov't owns ALL property. (redundant) If you don't believe me, skip a few tax payments on "your" house and see who really owns it.(/redundant) It doesn't matter where you are. The words are different, but the idea is the same EVERYWHERE.
the PDA market is swamped and Apple can't make that much of a splash.
Don't count them out. All they have to do is make it LOOK really cool(but Malibu Stacy has a new hat...). They also might be developing some cool voice controlled PDA that would work while standing next to a shuttle launch. Or how 'bout a heads up display?:-)
And that's exactly why I won't even consider downloading this.
And here lies one of the most basic problems of copyright. Nobody can see the other's code...to build on and possibly improve. Everybody has to learn what is already known by themselves. That slows down the whole developement process to a virtual standstill. I think this whole copyright mess has probably set us back anywhere between 50 and 200 years. This applies to all human work, not just computers.
I very much hope that no MS-copyrighted code ever finds its way into an open source project, both for practical reasons like the above and for moral ones.
There is no moral reason for copyright. It's especially bad now that it's being conveniently used as a tool for censorship(most likely its real intent). The 1st amendment is helpless against this.
The same copyright that keeps Windows secret keeps Microsoft (and others) from just stealing GPL'ed projects.
How do we know? If it's buried in closed source, we can't know. Unless of course it's leaked on the 'net. Without copyright, windows wouldn't be secret. We cuold just "steal" it back, and probably make it better. They would have no more protection than we would. It would actually level the playing field.
...China and folks there just don't really give a damn about western notions of copyrights.
Well, GOOD for them. It looks like China is more advanced than us in some things. China may have lots of problems, but this isn't one of them. It's a concept that's long overdue.
Hey...my six year old pentium 133 will boot up just as fast as your...what are they up to now?...3.0ghz?. And gorilla.bas probably plays the same also.
...not where one company has access to underlying OS features and can freeze out competitors using predatory behavior...
Brought to you by...patents and copyrights(applause). If you want to see real human progress, it's time to head to the nearest Betty Ford Clinic and get that monkey off our backs. It's a real shame to see so many people taken in by this "promoting innovation" FUD. It is and always has been about control. We cling to this like life itself, and we don't have the slightest clue of how well we can do without it. It looks like we won't even try.
What we have in the U.S. is inching closer to plutocratic capitalism, in which the golden rule is, "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Can you show me any period in history when it wasn't like that? Inching isn't the word. It's more like marching double-time, and it isn't plutocratic capitalism either...more like outright fascism or corporate rule.
Creating a barrier to entry is what the industry is trying to accomplish with mandatory DRM. If you have to pay a $50 license for DRM, and it's illegal to distribute something (software, os, hardware, or all three) without it, then the Free Software world - and, perhaps, open source - is essentially relegated to irrelevance here in the US.
Which brings us right back to the real purpose of copyrights and patents. It's for the gov't to control access to mass comminication, and to use these corporations as their "enforcers". The internet almost took away that control. Now they will use these tools to bring everything back in line.
Not if we don't buy it...I for one live pretty well without my daily fix from the hollywood propaganda machine. This is entertainment. It's not necessary for human survival. Find an alternative. Don't support these people.
The masses want a symbol of deterrance, a hangman, and are often willing to settle for "close enough" rather than proven guilty with hard evidence.
This is precisely how we are dealing with the 9/11 disaster.
Our legal system may be built to attempt to minimize mistakes, but it begs the question of whether the sacrafice of one innocent may be utilitarian in acting as a detterant for 100s of would be offenders.
More often than not it breeds contempt for the system. And rightly so. It seems that more and more often we are reading about wrongly accused people being released from from prison after anywhere between 10 and 40 years of incarceration. We should never ever tolerate this.
The copyright laws were never intended as a means of establishing a media empire on one idea. The copyright laws were intended to allow someone to profit from their idea, but not to own your memories (think Disney).
The gov't already owns all physical property. If you don't believe me, just skip a couple of tax payments on your house. Copyrights provide the gov't ownership of ideas through its corporations. Yes, you can collect equity like you can on your house, but you don't own it unless the gov't says so. Now that idividual access to mass communication is somewhat more trivial now, it is more dificult for the gov't to control information(the real reason the Soviet Union fell) and copyright is being used in an attempt to keep this control in the hands of the media empire, so they can meter out gov't authorized information. The FCC tells what we can and cannot see on our TV. Someday we will wake up and realize that we don't need coprights/patents anymore than we need slavery(talk about abolition could get you arrested a couple hundred years ago or at the very least people would think that you are NUTS to think about such a thing) to survive or thrive for that matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot itself is full of these extreme types of worry.
:-)
I think the saying goes something like, "Extremities in the defense of freedom is not a vice(officer)"
If corporations have rights, why not albums? or rocks and dirt for that matter? Everything except humans.
Do human beings count as water filled objects?
Well, to some, we are just "ugly bags of water".
Nothing will separate me from my tinfoil hat from now on!
Or my portable inflatable swimming pool.
That tinfoil helmet has been tagged.
Watch out! - OJ
Hooray, I get to be a whore today! :P
You mean you actually got paid??
for people who don't know which end of the screwdriver to hit.
- Drive away in your own Plywood Fury, with two barrel carbonmaker and brand new gladiator...
I picture a big cave with millions of moths flying around and of course lots of cobwebs. Maybe hearing the "addams family" theme song?
The thing is that when you read somebody elses work, it's almost impossible to determine if it had an effect on your own thoughts(I'm sure it always does, whether you realize it or not.) Copyright holders know this and use the law to control what the gov't can't directly. It's censorship by proxy, and I have to admit, it's working pretty well.
I think the project which'll worry about this the most is WINE -- it's making great strides on its own but how can the maintainers ensure that code submitted doesn't breach copyright if they can't read the copyrighted material to check?
This is one of my points. They might be spending way too much time worrying about legalities instead of writing code. It's a needless distraction and can diminish the quality of their work.
are you all going to let this continue before you realize that this is madness in the extreme? Soon you wil have to pay for the air you breath. Every word you say will be copyrighted. Thought crime will become a reality because all ideas will be patented. I'm begging you...PLEASE take the "red pill" and save yourselves. At the very least we need to follow China's thoughts on IP. It's nice to see people with big guns telling the IP industries to go to hell. And don't give me that crap about property. The gov't owns ALL property. (redundant) If you don't believe me, skip a few tax payments on "your" house and see who really owns it.(/redundant) It doesn't matter where you are. The words are different, but the idea is the same EVERYWHERE.
the PDA market is swamped and Apple can't make that much of a splash.
:-)
Don't count them out. All they have to do is make it LOOK really cool(but Malibu Stacy has a new hat...). They also might be developing some cool voice controlled PDA that would work while standing next to a shuttle launch. Or how 'bout a heads up display?
And that's exactly why I won't even consider downloading this.
And here lies one of the most basic problems of copyright. Nobody can see the other's code...to build on and possibly improve. Everybody has to learn what is already known by themselves. That slows down the whole developement process to a virtual standstill. I think this whole copyright mess has probably set us back anywhere between 50 and 200 years. This applies to all human work, not just computers.
I very much hope that no MS-copyrighted code ever finds its way into an open source project, both for practical reasons like the above and for moral ones.
There is no moral reason for copyright. It's especially bad now that it's being conveniently used as a tool for censorship(most likely its real intent). The 1st amendment is helpless against this.
The same copyright that keeps Windows secret keeps Microsoft (and others) from just stealing GPL'ed projects.
How do we know? If it's buried in closed source, we can't know. Unless of course it's leaked on the 'net. Without copyright, windows wouldn't be secret. We cuold just "steal" it back, and probably make it better. They would have no more protection than we would. It would actually level the playing field.
...China and folks there just don't really give a damn about western notions of copyrights.
Well, GOOD for them. It looks like China is more advanced than us in some things. China may have lots of problems, but this isn't one of them. It's a concept that's long overdue.
...when it comes to evading the copyright holder.
Move to Hollywood...like all those east coast movie makers did to evade Edison's patents(or copyrights or whatever the hell he had)
Hey...my six year old pentium 133 will boot up just as fast as your...what are they up to now?...3.0ghz?. And gorilla.bas probably plays the same also.
...not where one company has access to underlying OS features and can freeze out competitors using predatory behavior...
Brought to you by...patents and copyrights(applause). If you want to see real human progress, it's time to head to the nearest Betty Ford Clinic and get that monkey off our backs. It's a real shame to see so many people taken in by this "promoting innovation" FUD. It is and always has been about control. We cling to this like life itself, and we don't have the slightest clue of how well we can do without it. It looks like we won't even try.
What we have in the U.S. is inching closer to plutocratic capitalism, in which the golden rule is, "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Can you show me any period in history when it wasn't like that? Inching isn't the word. It's more like marching double-time, and it isn't plutocratic capitalism either...more like outright fascism or corporate rule.
And his first name would be...uummm...err...
Creating a barrier to entry is what the industry is trying to accomplish with mandatory DRM. If you have to pay a $50 license for DRM, and it's illegal to distribute something (software, os, hardware, or all three) without it, then the Free Software world - and, perhaps, open source - is essentially relegated to irrelevance here in the US.
Which brings us right back to the real purpose of copyrights and patents. It's for the gov't to control access to mass comminication, and to use these corporations as their "enforcers". The internet almost took away that control. Now they will use these tools to bring everything back in line.
And to both Britain is saying, "Who's yer daddy??"
Well, what I see is a DRM infested future.
Not if we don't buy it...I for one live pretty well without my daily fix from the hollywood propaganda machine. This is entertainment. It's not necessary for human survival. Find an alternative. Don't support these people.
The masses want a symbol of deterrance, a hangman, and are often willing to settle for "close enough" rather than proven guilty with hard evidence.
This is precisely how we are dealing with the 9/11 disaster.
Our legal system may be built to attempt to minimize mistakes, but it begs the question of whether the sacrafice of one innocent may be utilitarian in acting as a detterant for 100s of would be offenders.
More often than not it breeds contempt for the system. And rightly so. It seems that more and more often we are reading about wrongly accused people being released from from prison after anywhere between 10 and 40 years of incarceration. We should never ever tolerate this.
the kids who chew this stuff off the window sill is going to get nitrogen oxide poisoning?
The copyright laws were never intended as a means of establishing a media empire on one idea. The copyright laws were intended to allow someone to profit from their idea, but not to own your memories (think Disney).
The gov't already owns all physical property. If you don't believe me, just skip a couple of tax payments on your house. Copyrights provide the gov't ownership of ideas through its corporations. Yes, you can collect equity like you can on your house, but you don't own it unless the gov't says so. Now that idividual access to mass communication is somewhat more trivial now, it is more dificult for the gov't to control information(the real reason the Soviet Union fell) and copyright is being used in an attempt to keep this control in the hands of the media empire, so they can meter out gov't authorized information. The FCC tells what we can and cannot see on our TV. Someday we will wake up and realize that we don't need coprights/patents anymore than we need slavery(talk about abolition could get you arrested a couple hundred years ago or at the very least people would think that you are NUTS to think about such a thing) to survive or thrive for that matter.