Thats not exactly true. Bandwidth is a commodity that does not scale up linearly. And the cost of running itms on a day that has the links saturated is the same as the cost on a day where the links are all idle.
Well I'm not talking about my personal use or anything-- I'm talking about businesses who have a budget to buy new servers. If you don't have an Exchange server and don't have a budget to buy an Exchange server, then you're simply in a different market.
Even if I had the money and needed to setup a server I still would not get an Exchange server unless I absolutely had to, I don't want to get locked into one vender and become a hostage to them, whether Apple or Microsoft. Mind you I didn't read this but a quick Google returned this as the second result: "Drop-In Replacement For Exchange Now Open Source".
Sure, Stephen King can churn out bestseller after bestseller, but I think that the "one hit wonder" is really more realistic for most authors.
Most people have to work for a living and one hit wonders should too. They shouldn't get a free lunch the rest of their life just because they created one hit. If they can't write or perform more than one then they should get into another field of work.
I'd rather see their work protected, not just the right to charge for it, but the right to control it's use at least until their death and as I've said before, for a bit longer.
I don't think anyone should get a free pass the rest of their life just because they created one hit. And that is not what copyrights are about, they are there to encourage creation.
Also, have you considered the reverse? If Stephen King books were free, wouldn't that encourage publishers to simply churn out massive new editions of his work, and encourage bookstores to stock those new editions rather than taking any risk on a new author?
I did not say abolish copyrights, perhaps you missed where I said I don't have problem with them, that my problem was the length of the term of copyright. Or perhaps you're trolling. A 7 year copyright term should be enough for many to make a living, if what they create people are willing to pay for.
If a massive number of titles that are still popular with the public were suddenly free for the publishers to market and sell, they'd almost certainly continue their pattern of staying with only the safest investments.
This overlooks a couple of facts, one that once the copyright expires anyone can print and sell a work. Secondly people can self publish, heck right now people are using the web to publish. I could write a book and post it on my own website. To make money I could offer a downloadable pdf file of the book. I could also allow readers to order printed copies. This could actually be the beginning of the end for large publishing businesses. I plan on doing something like this for my photography. What photographers are doing now, some at least, is post low resolution photos on websites then have a link where purchasers can buy higher resolution images for download. Some take it a step further and allow people to order prints, with and without frames. I've talked to wedding photographers who create a website for a wedding and offer a way for people who attend the wedding to order prints. At least one of them creates and prints books about it. Though it was years ago while in college taking Computer Science and internet classes for electives I also took photography classes and a number of photo students wanted to do something like this.
Do you also think Farnsworth's descendents should be getting royalties for his invention? Or Marconi? Or Edison? Tesla?
Apples and oranges. I'm not going to change to an argument on the merits of patents vs copyright at this point because honestly, this thread is too damn long already and I'm just wearing down.
Ok then, I'll stick to copyrights. Should Homer's "Iliad", Helen Keller's plays, and Édouard Manet's and Claude Monet's paintings still be under copyright?
The only reason for copyrights is to encourage the creation of arts, and copyright terms that last too long do not to this. You encourage creation by making artists continue to create, by having short copyright terms this will happen.
Why don't you admit it, you want artists, and their descents, to have a free pass forever.
If one of your photos were used in a particularly heinous "Aryan Nations" campaign somehow, your soapbox wouldn't get you very far.
That or maybe "Aryan Nations" wouldn't get very far. There's also libel and slander, neither of which requires copyrights.
Copyright gives you the chance to demand that the Aryans stop using your work, to sue for damages and very publicly and clearly state that you did not condone the message your work was co-opted to send.
A libel or slander lawsuit can do the same thing.
Do you also think Farnsworth's descendents should be getting royalties for his invention? Or Marconi? Or Edison? Tesla?
'd rather see the business model driven into the ground, to the point where mp3s are virtually worthless from a market standpoint, and then perhaps the media companies die off and the artists go back to playing live shows to make their money.
Actually from what I heard most artists do make most of their money from performing and not from record sales. The media companies keep most of the money from cd or mp3 sales. Artist only get a few percent, if they're lucky.
if they want to ask $15 for a CD, and people want to pay it, who am I to simply walk in and say "Okay, you've made enough, now I'm giving away your work for free".
As I said before I don't have a problem with that, my problem is with the length of copyrights. Copyrights are granted to encourage creation but an artist can't create art if they're dead. If you want to encourage creation then you want copyrights short so they have to keep creating to make money.
Guess they don't want to keep said jobs very long!
I don't recall which one it was in but I recently read an article in a business magazine that said college students were demanding Macs from prospective employers and employers were providing them.
Yes, I'm aware of the Xserv, but that's all they really have on the server end. I was saying it would help them to have a greater variety of configurations.
Well, XServes are configurable, you can get one from one 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core) to two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (8-core) processors. Ram can be 2GB (2x1GB) to 32GB (8 x 4GB). RAID can be added, and hard disks can be 1 80GB Serial ATA ADM @ 7200-rpm to 3 300GB SAS ADM @ 15,000-rpm. Now there's only two graphics options, one has no graphics and the other has an ATI Radeon X1300 64MB SDRAM with VGA Adapter. I'd like to see more options, a second graphics card even. I'd like to see more expansion options too, they only have two slots with SCSI, Ethernet, and Finer channel being the only options there.
XServes have some options, but like you say not as many.
As far as Linux on the server, yes, that's what I use now for many purposes.
Well as I said earlier a big reason I'd setup a Linux server instead of getting a Mac for one is because I have a Linux PC. Although relatively old, more than 2 years old, it would cost a lot less to upgrade it than to buy a new computer server, OSX or Windows. I'll probably have to upgrade it anyway, the distro installed is Linspire but I'd like to install Ubuntu and it doesn't have Firewire or a higher capacity DVD.
if Apple creates an effective Exchange competitor
It may be just a rumor but I've read Snow Leopard will have out-of-the-box support for Microsoft Exchange Server. Not knowing about an Apple competitor to Exchange I did a quick Google and found this, "Apple's Mobile Me Takes On Exchange, Mobile Mesh".
What really turned around Apple were two deals. One was the deal with Microsoft that kept Office on the Mac
The problem with this conclusion is that Microsoft was writing software for the Mac since the beginning. MS Office was even available on the Mac before a version came out for Windows. Yet it back then that Apple was going downhill.
The same thing will happen: Apple will devolve again and be directionless, perhaps again bringing in a big soda company executive for CEO.
I don't recall where other than a business magazine but I recently read that Apple has a few people who can step in for Steve, maybe minus his charisma. While Steve is the face of Apple there are a number of others there who have skills whether of dreams or of designs.
in order for Apple to really make a big splash in the enterprise, they'd have to provide a wider variety of configurations (including things like blade servers, for example)
There's the XServe. With it you get Mac OS X Server v10.5 Leopard Unlimited-Client Edition.
They need to get Snow Leopard out there
Snow Leopard is due this summer. I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro running Tiger, 10.4. I've had Leopard for more than a year but it wasn't until today I tried to install it. Tried but stopped it because I thought it hung up. Then after I made an appointment at a genius bar for tomorrow I came across an Apple trouble shooter that said the install routine may take a few minutes to scan the hdd, I had only given it a couple of minutes.
Oh I see you mention XServer later.
As for myself, while I love my MacBook Pro, I think for a server I'll setup a Linux PC. Then again I already have a Linux PC.
The way to advertise a good battery life is to turn the screen brightness right down to almost-unreadable, no WiFi (usually), hard disk spun down, sometimes even boot off a RAM disk, then open TextEdit and type some characters to simulate 'use'. If you're lucky the vendor's test might be to open Safari and load a webpage every 5 minutes from a local web server.
I have the screen brightness on my MacBook Pro set to about 80%. Prior to moving my desk around about 2 months ago I used WiFi. As usual, like right now, I either have several tabs open in Firefox, a few Finder windows open and I'll open TextEdit occassionally. Or I'll have a few Finder windows open Eclipse, Terminal, and maybe Firefox running. Even though Eclipse may be running I may also have TextEdit running. With these running I get maybe 4 hours on the battery.
"with at least the potential for 8 hours of battery life"
Every laptop I ever owned clamied similar, and usually turned itself off after around the 2 hours 45 minutes mark.
I've only had laptops from 2 companies, Gateway and now Apple. My Gateway's batter lasted 2 maybe 3 hours. However my 17" MacBook Pro's battery last maybe 4 hours. However that's without running the optical, DVD/CD, drive.
But what amazes me, is that the battery is non-removable, so if it shorts or has some other problem, back to the approved iMac store for Joe Fanboi, and another whopping bill for service.
That's something I was disappointed about, however the batteries are supposed to last a few years, longer than most people have their laptop before replacing it. And other companies are stepping in to offer extended power supplies. The iPhone also has a non-removal batteries yet companies are offering battery extenders like Kensington, Mophie, and Richard Solo.
It's called MacWorld, not PCWorld or January-a-thon. If you don't want Christmas sales to suffer and you have hardware to not only show off but to ship/sell, move the damn date.
I found Macs less stable than PCs, especially with regard to external drives. I switched back to XP for the stability.
My experience has been the opposite. The first computer I bought was a Mac SE30 in 1992 and it was at least 2 years old. My first (one of two I got at the same tyme really) new computer was a Gateway running Win95 in 1997. The only problem I had with the SE30 was when it would not bootup in 2000. The Gateway's hdd had to be replaced about 6 months after I got it then 2 weeks shy of 1 year the mobo failed. In 2000 I bought another used Mac, a Quadra 7200/200. It lasted until January 2006 when it too refused to bootup. A few months after I got the Quadra I also bought a new HP PC. It's hdd and mobo had to be replaced within a year, as did the Linux PC I bought in 2007. Three new PCs had to have their hdds and mobos replaced within a year but 2 used Macs lasted years with no problems until they died.
When the Mac zealots I mentioned above don't have a Jobs, who is one of their central foci in Appledom, the cool factor is going to diminish to some extent, and some of them might start choosing a PC and more money for rent over a new Mac.
Before I got my laptop I compared prices of a few laptops. For similar specs the MacBook Pros were generally in line with Windows laptops. An HP with similar specs was about $100 less whereas the Dell was $200 more. Out of curiosity I compared prices for workstation and the Dell was more than $500 more than the Mac Pro. That suggests to me that if a person got the Mac they'd have more money for rent.
If you don't like the terms imposed on a purchase, don't make the purchase. You won't die without a copy of NiN's Downward Spiral. If enough people did this, then you'd see the terms change as the market adjusted to try to make sales. If you just buy a product though, while agreeing to whatever terms the seller wants, then you don't get much sympathy from me when you say you didn't like the terms but made the purchase anyway.
I don't illegally download and the last music I bought I got a few years ago. I do however buy movies. That does not negate my right to speak out and say I think things are wrong however.
As I've said before about politics and who gets elected, if you don't vote don't complain when a politician does something you don't like. I don't get to vote for people who's positions I agree with most of the tyme but I still vote, I just vote for the person who comes closest to me on the issues that matter most to me. For instance this past November I checked off Obama even though I didn't want to vote for him, to me he was better than McCain. If you look at some of my posts before the election you'll see I supported Bob Barr for president.
are the creators of the works supposed to just suck it up and smile when their work is used to promote an agenda that's opposite to what they believe?
Those creators when they see or hear about what they created as being used inappropriately can get on their own soapbox and denounce them. Soapboxes are still free to use, no permit needed.
Personally I'm more concerned with an artist losing control of how their work is used,
If an artist wants control of their work then they can keep it private. They do not have to share it with anyone. But to encourage the creation of art, and science, creators are grant a monopoly of limited duration to their work. They should only have control for a limited period of tyme, after which their work enters the public domain. And yes I was, but after an accident I stopped, a creator. In college my major was Computer Engineering and I was a writer. Actually a magazine editor, for "Southern Living" was waiting for an article I was writing for the magazine when I had my accident. At the tyme I was working on 2 or 3 articles and a book. Now, I'm hoping to get started as a photographer and web developer. So copyrights will help me, however I'd still shorten copyright terms to not more than 10 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats not exactly true. Bandwidth is a commodity that does not scale up linearly. And the cost of running itms on a day that has the links saturated is the same as the cost on a day where the links are all idle.
Are you saying websites pay the same amount whether they use little bandwidth or a lot? Check out The real cost of bandwidth - network management challenges". A better one is this one, "Wholesale Internet Bandwidth Prices Keep Falling", in it it says of bandwidth "it is sold at a rate of 'per megabit per second per month'". That means the more used the more it costs.
you still failed to refute the the inifnite supply argument
What infinite supply argument?
Falcon
Well I'm not talking about my personal use or anything-- I'm talking about businesses who have a budget to buy new servers. If you don't have an Exchange server and don't have a budget to buy an Exchange server, then you're simply in a different market.
Even if I had the money and needed to setup a server I still would not get an Exchange server unless I absolutely had to, I don't want to get locked into one vender and become a hostage to them, whether Apple or Microsoft. Mind you I didn't read this but a quick Google returned this as the second result: "Drop-In Replacement For Exchange Now Open Source".
Falcon
Sure, Stephen King can churn out bestseller after bestseller, but I think that the "one hit wonder" is really more realistic for most authors.
Most people have to work for a living and one hit wonders should too. They shouldn't get a free lunch the rest of their life just because they created one hit. If they can't write or perform more than one then they should get into another field of work.
I'd rather see their work protected, not just the right to charge for it, but the right to control it's use at least until their death and as I've said before, for a bit longer.
I don't think anyone should get a free pass the rest of their life just because they created one hit. And that is not what copyrights are about, they are there to encourage creation.
Also, have you considered the reverse? If Stephen King books were free, wouldn't that encourage publishers to simply churn out massive new editions of his work, and encourage bookstores to stock those new editions rather than taking any risk on a new author?
I did not say abolish copyrights, perhaps you missed where I said I don't have problem with them, that my problem was the length of the term of copyright. Or perhaps you're trolling. A 7 year copyright term should be enough for many to make a living, if what they create people are willing to pay for.
If a massive number of titles that are still popular with the public were suddenly free for the publishers to market and sell, they'd almost certainly continue their pattern of staying with only the safest investments.
This overlooks a couple of facts, one that once the copyright expires anyone can print and sell a work. Secondly people can self publish, heck right now people are using the web to publish. I could write a book and post it on my own website. To make money I could offer a downloadable pdf file of the book. I could also allow readers to order printed copies. This could actually be the beginning of the end for large publishing businesses. I plan on doing something like this for my photography. What photographers are doing now, some at least, is post low resolution photos on websites then have a link where purchasers can buy higher resolution images for download. Some take it a step further and allow people to order prints, with and without frames. I've talked to wedding photographers who create a website for a wedding and offer a way for people who attend the wedding to order prints. At least one of them creates and prints books about it. Though it was years ago while in college taking Computer Science and internet classes for electives I also took photography classes and a number of photo students wanted to do something like this.
Falcon
Do you also think Farnsworth's descendents should be getting royalties for his invention? Or Marconi? Or Edison? Tesla?
Apples and oranges. I'm not going to change to an argument on the merits of patents vs copyright at this point because honestly, this thread is too damn long already and I'm just wearing down.
Ok then, I'll stick to copyrights. Should Homer's "Iliad", Helen Keller's plays, and Édouard Manet's and Claude Monet's paintings still be under copyright?
The only reason for copyrights is to encourage the creation of arts, and copyright terms that last too long do not to this. You encourage creation by making artists continue to create, by having short copyright terms this will happen.
Why don't you admit it, you want artists, and their descents, to have a free pass forever.
Falcon
If one of your photos were used in a particularly heinous "Aryan Nations" campaign somehow, your soapbox wouldn't get you very far.
That or maybe "Aryan Nations" wouldn't get very far. There's also libel and slander, neither of which requires copyrights.
Copyright gives you the chance to demand that the Aryans stop using your work, to sue for damages and very publicly and clearly state that you did not condone the message your work was co-opted to send.
A libel or slander lawsuit can do the same thing.
Do you also think Farnsworth's descendents should be getting royalties for his invention? Or Marconi? Or Edison? Tesla?
Falcon
'd rather see the business model driven into the ground, to the point where mp3s are virtually worthless from a market standpoint, and then perhaps the media companies die off and the artists go back to playing live shows to make their money.
Actually from what I heard most artists do make most of their money from performing and not from record sales. The media companies keep most of the money from cd or mp3 sales. Artist only get a few percent, if they're lucky.
if they want to ask $15 for a CD, and people want to pay it, who am I to simply walk in and say "Okay, you've made enough, now I'm giving away your work for free".
As I said before I don't have a problem with that, my problem is with the length of copyrights. Copyrights are granted to encourage creation but an artist can't create art if they're dead. If you want to encourage creation then you want copyrights short so they have to keep creating to make money.
Falcon
Guess they don't want to keep said jobs very long!
I don't recall which one it was in but I recently read an article in a business magazine that said college students were demanding Macs from prospective employers and employers were providing them.
Falcon
Yes, I'm aware of the Xserv, but that's all they really have on the server end. I was saying it would help them to have a greater variety of configurations.
Well, XServes are configurable, you can get one from one 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core) to two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (8-core) processors. Ram can be 2GB (2x1GB) to 32GB (8 x 4GB). RAID can be added, and hard disks can be 1 80GB Serial ATA ADM @ 7200-rpm to 3 300GB SAS ADM @ 15,000-rpm. Now there's only two graphics options, one has no graphics and the other has an ATI Radeon X1300 64MB SDRAM with VGA Adapter. I'd like to see more options, a second graphics card even. I'd like to see more expansion options too, they only have two slots with SCSI, Ethernet, and Finer channel being the only options there.
XServes have some options, but like you say not as many.
As far as Linux on the server, yes, that's what I use now for many purposes.
Well as I said earlier a big reason I'd setup a Linux server instead of getting a Mac for one is because I have a Linux PC. Although relatively old, more than 2 years old, it would cost a lot less to upgrade it than to buy a new computer server, OSX or Windows. I'll probably have to upgrade it anyway, the distro installed is Linspire but I'd like to install Ubuntu and it doesn't have Firewire or a higher capacity DVD.
if Apple creates an effective Exchange competitor
It may be just a rumor but I've read Snow Leopard will have out-of-the-box support for Microsoft Exchange Server. Not knowing about an Apple competitor to Exchange I did a quick Google and found this, "Apple's Mobile Me Takes On Exchange, Mobile Mesh".
Falcon
Good to know, I did not know that.
I didn't know either until I read an article in a magazine some weeks ago.
Falcon
I think when Steve Jobs was fired when the original Macintosh was unprofitable. He started up Next and then Pixar.
I too thought Steve Jobs started Pixar but he didn't. Pixar was started in 1979 as part of the Computer Division of Lucasfilm.
Falcon
What really turned around Apple were two deals. One was the deal with Microsoft that kept Office on the Mac
The problem with this conclusion is that Microsoft was writing software for the Mac since the beginning. MS Office was even available on the Mac before a version came out for Windows. Yet it back then that Apple was going downhill.
Falcon
Sorry you can't author bluray, those five people with bluray players must be really bummed.
According to "PC World" in September Blu-ray's market share was 8% while "traditional" DVDs had the other 92%.
Falcon
The same thing will happen: Apple will devolve again and be directionless, perhaps again bringing in a big soda company executive for CEO.
I don't recall where other than a business magazine but I recently read that Apple has a few people who can step in for Steve, maybe minus his charisma. While Steve is the face of Apple there are a number of others there who have skills whether of dreams or of designs.
Falcon
in order for Apple to really make a big splash in the enterprise, they'd have to provide a wider variety of configurations (including things like blade servers, for example)
There's the XServe. With it you get Mac OS X Server v10.5 Leopard Unlimited-Client Edition.
They need to get Snow Leopard out there
Snow Leopard is due this summer. I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro running Tiger, 10.4. I've had Leopard for more than a year but it wasn't until today I tried to install it. Tried but stopped it because I thought it hung up. Then after I made an appointment at a genius bar for tomorrow I came across an Apple trouble shooter that said the install routine may take a few minutes to scan the hdd, I had only given it a couple of minutes.
Oh I see you mention XServer later.
As for myself, while I love my MacBook Pro, I think for a server I'll setup a Linux PC. Then again I already have a Linux PC.
Falcon
Apple isn't playing in Microsoft's sandbox. Particularly the Enterprise one.
Macs are moving into the enterprise: "Analyst checks show Apple Mac enterprise growth; usage could increase 2x-3x over next 2 years". "Macs in the Enterprise: Top Ten Assumptions, Myths, and Misconceptions".
Falcon
The way to advertise a good battery life is to turn the screen brightness right down to almost-unreadable, no WiFi (usually), hard disk spun down, sometimes even boot off a RAM disk, then open TextEdit and type some characters to simulate 'use'. If you're lucky the vendor's test might be to open Safari and load a webpage every 5 minutes from a local web server.
I have the screen brightness on my MacBook Pro set to about 80%. Prior to moving my desk around about 2 months ago I used WiFi. As usual, like right now, I either have several tabs open in Firefox, a few Finder windows open and I'll open TextEdit occassionally. Or I'll have a few Finder windows open Eclipse, Terminal, and maybe Firefox running. Even though Eclipse may be running I may also have TextEdit running. With these running I get maybe 4 hours on the battery.
Falcon
"with at least the potential for 8 hours of battery life"
Every laptop I ever owned clamied similar, and usually turned itself off after around the 2 hours 45 minutes mark.
I've only had laptops from 2 companies, Gateway and now Apple. My Gateway's batter lasted 2 maybe 3 hours. However my 17" MacBook Pro's battery last maybe 4 hours. However that's without running the optical, DVD/CD, drive.
But what amazes me, is that the battery is non-removable, so if it shorts or has some other problem, back to the approved iMac store for Joe Fanboi, and another whopping bill for service.
That's something I was disappointed about, however the batteries are supposed to last a few years, longer than most people have their laptop before replacing it. And other companies are stepping in to offer extended power supplies. The iPhone also has a non-removal batteries yet companies are offering battery extenders like Kensington, Mophie, and Richard Solo.
Falcon
It's called MacWorld, not PCWorld or January-a-thon. If you don't want Christmas sales to suffer and you have hardware to not only show off but to ship/sell, move the damn date.
Apple doesn't control MacWorld, IDG does.
Falcon
Do you think all those college students with Macbooks are going to stop buying them when they're older?
When they get out of college and get jobs in big cubicle farms where they are forced to use windows?
Yeah, I do, actually...
Actually when those college grads get jobs they're going to demand their employers provide a Mac.
Falcon
I think that at the end of the day Apple needs to broaden their market some or face extinction.
Apple's market share is growing yet their going extinct?
Falcon
But I disagree that Finder is better. Having used both, the Finder clearly sucks more.
I prefer Windows Explorer over Mac's Finder myself. Other than that I prefer Macs.
Falcon
I found Macs less stable than PCs, especially with regard to external drives. I switched back to XP for the stability.
My experience has been the opposite. The first computer I bought was a Mac SE30 in 1992 and it was at least 2 years old. My first (one of two I got at the same tyme really) new computer was a Gateway running Win95 in 1997. The only problem I had with the SE30 was when it would not bootup in 2000. The Gateway's hdd had to be replaced about 6 months after I got it then 2 weeks shy of 1 year the mobo failed. In 2000 I bought another used Mac, a Quadra 7200/200. It lasted until January 2006 when it too refused to bootup. A few months after I got the Quadra I also bought a new HP PC. It's hdd and mobo had to be replaced within a year, as did the Linux PC I bought in 2007. Three new PCs had to have their hdds and mobos replaced within a year but 2 used Macs lasted years with no problems until they died.
Falcon
When the Mac zealots I mentioned above don't have a Jobs, who is one of their central foci in Appledom, the cool factor is going to diminish to some extent, and some of them might start choosing a PC and more money for rent over a new Mac.
Before I got my laptop I compared prices of a few laptops. For similar specs the MacBook Pros were generally in line with Windows laptops. An HP with similar specs was about $100 less whereas the Dell was $200 more. Out of curiosity I compared prices for workstation and the Dell was more than $500 more than the Mac Pro. That suggests to me that if a person got the Mac they'd have more money for rent.
Falcon
If you don't like the terms imposed on a purchase, don't make the purchase. You won't die without a copy of NiN's Downward Spiral. If enough people did this, then you'd see the terms change as the market adjusted to try to make sales. If you just buy a product though, while agreeing to whatever terms the seller wants, then you don't get much sympathy from me when you say you didn't like the terms but made the purchase anyway.
I don't illegally download and the last music I bought I got a few years ago. I do however buy movies. That does not negate my right to speak out and say I think things are wrong however.
As I've said before about politics and who gets elected, if you don't vote don't complain when a politician does something you don't like. I don't get to vote for people who's positions I agree with most of the tyme but I still vote, I just vote for the person who comes closest to me on the issues that matter most to me. For instance this past November I checked off Obama even though I didn't want to vote for him, to me he was better than McCain. If you look at some of my posts before the election you'll see I supported Bob Barr for president.
Falcon
are the creators of the works supposed to just suck it up and smile when their work is used to promote an agenda that's opposite to what they believe?
Those creators when they see or hear about what they created as being used inappropriately can get on their own soapbox and denounce them. Soapboxes are still free to use, no permit needed.
Personally I'm more concerned with an artist losing control of how their work is used,
If an artist wants control of their work then they can keep it private. They do not have to share it with anyone. But to encourage the creation of art, and science, creators are grant a monopoly of limited duration to their work. They should only have control for a limited period of tyme, after which their work enters the public domain. And yes I was, but after an accident I stopped, a creator. In college my major was Computer Engineering and I was a writer. Actually a magazine editor, for "Southern Living" was waiting for an article I was writing for the magazine when I had my accident. At the tyme I was working on 2 or 3 articles and a book. Now, I'm hoping to get started as a photographer and web developer. So copyrights will help me, however I'd still shorten copyright terms to not more than 10 years.
Falcon