You can certainly steal music under, at the very least, definitions 1 through 4.
Dictionary and legal definitions can, and frequently are, different. There are even multiple definitions as well as differences in dictionary definitions.
there is a strong incentive (i.e., not losing their jobs) to not do certain things
Like being fired or not getting that promotion or bonus for finishing a task late? Didn't AIG executives get multi-million dollar bonuses even though they torpedoed the economy?
Well , that's the point of licensing ( GPL or otherwise ) : so you can prove that you were the first to write the code.
No, that's a point of copyrights though they don't really prove the person owning the copyright in fact wrote it. Licenses themselves rely on copyrights. Part of the preamble of the GNU General Public License says "Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it." My bold highlight.
Uh, they kind of have to *prove* that Microsoft actually copied their code first.
Actually no, all that's needed is to prove is that code in the newer product is the same as the code in the older one. Now I don't how much of the code has to be the same to show infringement but I imagine it has to be a significant percentage. It doesn't even matter whether the code is copied consciously or not. That's why though reverse engineering is legal whoever works of the equivalent product is not supposed to be the same as those who exam the original. Whether it is conscious or unconscious, intentional or unintentional copying the code is infringement.
No, the reason for that was to "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", not to make someone feel better.
Yes and no. No to make someone feel better but yes, to give someone a financial reason to release their creations to the public. By having a limited monopoly inventors are able to make and sell an item for a limited period before they have to compeat with others. This period gives an incentive to create things. What is so hard to understand about that?
improving on others' ideas (remixing) is next to impossible.
Not if copyright terms are not too long. Yes life + 50 or whatever is too long but 5 or 7 years at least gives an artist the possibility of recovering their costs of creating someone.
So if the price of making the second pizza suddenly falls to near zero, then we need better pizzaright laws, which prohibit duplication of pizza without a license, and which give authorized producers a monopoly? By your logic, otherwise no one would make pizza for sale, which is bad.
Now I conclude you are trolling and will end here.
I stand by my statement that the "company" is a victim of a very small few individuals actions.
And I stand by my statement that you single out MS in excusing their actions. It's alright if MS uses code without following the code's license but MS can accuse others of using it's own code.
either. No free redistribution, derived works, or anything. Just because the source code is available doesn't make something open source.
And only OSI can define what open source is?
S: (adj) open-source (of or relating to or being computer software for which the source code is freely available)
"Open source is simply programming code that can be read, viewed, modified, and distributed, by anyone who desires. WordPress is distributed under an open source GNU General Public License (GPL)."
Open Source: "Software whose source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the source code without paying royalties or fees. Open source code evolves through community cooperation. These communities are composed of individual programmers as well as very large companies. Some examples of open source initiatives are Linux, Eclipse, Apache, Tomcat web server, Mozilla, and various projects hosted on SourceForge and elsewhere."
While the term "open source" was coined by the Open Source Initiative source code was open, visible to see, study, and modify as early as the 1960s. The hackers of the Tech Model Railroad Club at MIT in the '60s was posting their source code on boards for anyone to improve and optimize.
But then again that was before "hackers" was used as a negative word.
Patents on the other hand dont protect the implementation, they protect the idea/process that is being implemented.
"Congress intended that a patent would protect a unique implementation of an idea or a formula that uniquely described a natural transformation."
"Patents protect the implementation of ideas; copyrights protect the expression of ideas; trade secrets protect confidential information; and trademarks protect the identification of the source of goods or services."
"Without the ability to protect the expression and implementation of its ideas, a business has little chance of success."
Patent do protect specific implementations of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
please re-read what I said in my OP and try and understand it, obviously you didn't understand it the first time because I never said MS has the right to use the code.
Also one blockbuster drug can pay for the research, development, and testing for a bunch of other drugs.
Absolutely. But, only if you can sell the blockbuster drug for what the market will bear. If you are forced to sell at near-marginal-cost (the whole point of this thread) then there are no blockbuster drugs.
I never said otherwise. A company should be able to sell something for whatever price they want as long as they spent their own money developing and testing it. If BMS had spent it's own money to develop Taxol instead of the taxpayers then while I may grumble about their prices I'd also let them set the price. I'm angry about it because the taxpayers paid for it not BMS.
the whole point of this discussion was whether you can make initial-cost-heavy-marginal-cost-light items without IP protection.
And I argue that if duplications costs are low, which they are with copyrighted goods, they should have limited monopolies. Without copyrights it's difficult to make a profit which I've been arguing all this tyme. Previously I said I am disabled and currently don't work but I want to start a photography business. Without copyrights I seriously doubt I'd want to do it. Why would I spend the thousands of dollars to start the business when someone else who didn't spend the money could come along and take my work without paying me?
Likewise, if you have a world where there are no drug patents then it isn't all that easy to make money off of drugs either.
Actually there is a proposal to fund drug research without patents, see An alternative to pharmaceutical patents. There are others but that's the only link I have.
I'm not trying to suggest that drug companies didn't make money in the 90s. I am suggesting that it is hard for drug and movie makers to make money in the 2010s.
According to the article Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains, dated 25 August 2009 "Pharmaceutical companies have a profit margin of 16.4 percent--seventh highest of the 215 industries that Morningstar tracks." Seventh highest out of 215? I wouldn't say the pharmaceutical industry is finding it hard to make a profit.
So it's Okay for MS to use open source code but any open source project that uses MS code can be hounded and threatened? Let's see, is it 238 patents MS complains open source uses of MS's?
If a new drug like Taxol were allowed to be sold completely royalty-free it would be difficult to even recoup the costs that were paid just to license it from the government in the first place.
You say it like Taxol was sold with the NCI getting royalties, when in fact Taxol was sold royalty free, and to to only one company. The NCI could have licensed it for say a hundred dollars a dose to any company that wanted to manufacture it. Said companies could then compeat with each other for market share and profits. Once the costs of development and testing was recouped, plus a little extra for more research, it could be put into the public domain for anyone to use royalty free.
it isn't uncommon for drug programs to get canceled even after hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on them
And those costs are tax deductible. Also one blockbuster drug can pay for the research, development, and testing for a bunch of other drugs. Recall how I said BMS was estimated to be making almost a billion dollars in Taxol sales a year by 2000? Well Taxol isn't even on that list of blockbuster drugs.
The comparison breaks down since no rational investor would ever buy lottery tickets
Actually a company tried to do that. One company wanted to buy every combination of numbers for the Florida lottery, it was in a lot of newspapers. Buy a ticket with every possible number and one of them will be a winner. By itself the prize wouldn't be enough to pay for all the tickets but because so many tickets were sold with the prize being determined on how many tickets were sold everyone and their family was buying tickets as well driving up the prize.
Unfortunately the logic fails, if I recall right the grand prize got 50% of the pot and as more tickets are sold the number of winning tickets potentially grows as well, thus proving your point.
but drugs and movies are areas where profits can currently be made (but not if the product is priced at marginal cost plus a few percent).
Ah but companies enjoy patent monopolies and can set their own prices for a number of years before they have to compeat with others for the market share of a drug. Combined with blockbuster drugs there should be enough to cover the cost of drug research. But if that isn't enough then the companies can cut their marketing costs, which are more than research.
Are assuming that monopoly on ideas is in itself fair?
Do you mean "Are you assuming that monopoly on ideas is in itself fair?" If so the answer is no but I prefer ideas to be expressed not hidden. Copyrights give a creator a limited monopoly in return for expressing and disclosing their creation to the public. As I have repeatedly said not everyone is willing to express their idea if they are unable to enjoy a limited monopoly on that idea so they can try to sale it thereby enriching their life. For this very reason copyrights were authorized by the USA Constitution.
I don't understand your difficulty.
With your statement The cost of duplication is not zero. You pay for your Internet connection, right? The cost is very small, but it is not zero, which I included in my post you replied to, you make an argument for copyrights. Digital duplication is cheap, the hard or expensive part is coming up with an idea people are willing to pay for. But here you argue against copyrights. Why should the hard or expensive part be given away when the cost of duplication in cheap? If anything because the cost of duplication is so low now compared to, forget 200 years ago, just 25 years ago copyrights are needed more now than back them. The cost of generating ideas has gone up but duplicating them has dropped dramatically.
Why cannot artists make a living by selling just the first copies, when it comes to digital?
Who's going to be the first buyer when they can wait until they can get a copy for free, well at a low cost? Do you really think many of the movies made today would ever had been made if there was no copyright? The same with any other thing that can be copyrighted? Sure some will be but like other work, yes it is work, little will get done if those who do it don't get paid. If after paying for 4 to 8 years of college to become an engineer when I'm hired I can reasonably expect to be paid. If I spend the same amount of money and or tyme to make a movie I have no such reasonable expectation. I have even less expectation of making enough money to cover the cost if I can't have a limited monopoly on the movie.
Why cannot they make even more money by selling even more copies at a price which reflects the cost of running an ftp server?
Not everything is digital. Nor should it have to be. That's without even considering the cost of creation.
Quite simply just because people don't like spending $10 to watch a movie in the theatre or buy the DVD for $20 that does not give them the right to copy someone else's DVD. Nor does it give someone else the right to copy and mass produce the movie then hawk it on the street corner for a few dollars.
Oh, Damn. I posted before finishing your post, as you mention the Statute of Ann. However there were copyrights when Mickey Mouse was created.
Correction copyright originates from the British Statuate of Ann 1710. So 300 years for copyright, except it was repealed in 1842. So when do we start counting?
People told stories, wrote books, created music and designed things for thousands of years before copyright's and patents were invented. If you look at the time scale then it is only copyright protection that is new.
First, copyright is older than 100 years, copyright is almost 300 years old. The first copyright law in the UK was the Statute of Anne which went into effect on 10 April 1710. Next, how many stories, books, and songs were created before copyrights versus afterwards? We don't really know, all we can do is see how many existed before copyright that we still have. Thousands of books and songs are published each year, do you really think that many were created before copyrights that were widely available? Composers before copyrights depended on wealthy benefactors to pay them.
The only reason cable companies could historically charge the ridiculous fees for TV service is because the only real alternative has been an expensive satellite dish.
Around here, Minneapolis/St Paul, satellite is cheaper than cable. I am paying more than $60 to ComCast for cable TV, for the basic package. DirecTV's basic family package is $30 a month with no equipment to buy or startup costs. Though more expensive than DirecTV Dishnetwork is cheaper than ComCast as well. For this reason I am thinking of switching from cable to satellite.
Art that can be digitally replicated retains some sort of value, which means you can wait for it to become ripped or whatever and still get something out of it.
I support copyrights because it is so easy to rip someone off, especially digitally. Without copyright protection people have little reason, other than ego, to produce works of art. Some of your volunteers are those who need their ego stroked. Because of an accident more than 10 years ago I survived an injury that caused a disability. Since then I have have been collecting disability insurance, though they've been screwing with it since the beginning of the year, and I haven't worked. For a few difference reasons I hope to start a photography business and I don't want someone else to be able to take my photos and make money off of them without me being paid as well. Quite simply I don't want to spend thousands of dollars for equipment and supplies only for someone else to take my photos and sell them as their own denying me the income of selling them myself. If you don't feel they are worth it fine, but don't rip me off. On the other hand, if I'm asked and it's explained why a photo can't be paid, or why it would be hard to pay, for I may come to an agreement on the exchange of products and or services. I am more than willing to barter. For instance I may take a photo assignment at no cost if the person it is for can arrange a gallery showing for my photos.
in a model where artists and consumers interact directly, the most democratic, egalitarian and efficient model for determining quality is in effect.
But what you advocate is allowing anyone to copy and sell others' hard work. Do you work for free? Because that exactly what allowing people to copy other's work is. Let me take your work and sell it and keep all the money myself. People complain about having to pay for things but they want to get paid for working too. If you want to fine, the system allows it, but by saying there is no copyright you're basically saying everyone has to live by your rules. To me that is both communism and freeloading.
your criticism of my words stems from ignorance of the concepts. you don't even know what capitalism fucking is. you just know how to hurl epithets, without even knowing what the ideas in play mean
I most certainly do know what capitalism, and a free market is. I have repeatedly argued for a free market, at least one freer than the markets are today. And I hurl epithets? I wasn't the one who said now fuck off and die already. Those are your words.
only thing I've ever bought from iTunes was actually deleted by one of their software updates with no chance of refund or re-download so I will never use their services again...
How did you pay for it? And how long ago? If you used a credit card in the last 6 months to pay for the download you can contest the charge with your credit card issuer.
Falcon
Ooh, though I'm typing this on a Mac I have never used iTunes.
In order for me to get everything I want you're going to have to make some changes.
Problem is is Techdirt got the details wrong. In his statement Steve Burke actually says the cable industry and content providers need to change their models.
Slashdot Mirror
You can certainly steal music under, at the very least, definitions 1 through 4.
Dictionary and legal definitions can, and frequently are, different. There are even multiple definitions as well as differences in dictionary definitions.
Falcon
there is a strong incentive (i.e., not losing their jobs) to not do certain things
Like being fired or not getting that promotion or bonus for finishing a task late? Didn't AIG executives get multi-million dollar bonuses even though they torpedoed the economy?
Falcon
You're calling me an idiot and I'm the one displaying irrational hating behaviors?
Calling names is irrational.
Falcon
Well , that's the point of licensing ( GPL or otherwise ) : so you can prove that you were the first to write the code.
No, that's a point of copyrights though they don't really prove the person owning the copyright in fact wrote it. Licenses themselves rely on copyrights. Part of the preamble of the GNU General Public License says "Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it." My bold highlight.
Falcon
Uh, they kind of have to *prove* that Microsoft actually copied their code first.
Actually no, all that's needed is to prove is that code in the newer product is the same as the code in the older one. Now I don't how much of the code has to be the same to show infringement but I imagine it has to be a significant percentage. It doesn't even matter whether the code is copied consciously or not. That's why though reverse engineering is legal whoever works of the equivalent product is not supposed to be the same as those who exam the original. Whether it is conscious or unconscious, intentional or unintentional copying the code is infringement.
Falcon
No, the reason for that was to "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", not to make someone feel better.
Yes and no. No to make someone feel better but yes, to give someone a financial reason to release their creations to the public. By having a limited monopoly inventors are able to make and sell an item for a limited period before they have to compeat with others. This period gives an incentive to create things. What is so hard to understand about that?
improving on others' ideas (remixing) is next to impossible.
Not if copyright terms are not too long. Yes life + 50 or whatever is too long but 5 or 7 years at least gives an artist the possibility of recovering their costs of creating someone.
So if the price of making the second pizza suddenly falls to near zero, then we need better pizzaright laws, which prohibit duplication of pizza without a license, and which give authorized producers a monopoly? By your logic, otherwise no one would make pizza for sale, which is bad.
Now I conclude you are trolling and will end here.
Falcon
I stand by my statement that the "company" is a victim of a very small few individuals actions.
And I stand by my statement that you single out MS in excusing their actions. It's alright if MS uses code without following the code's license but MS can accuse others of using it's own code.
Falcon
either. No free redistribution, derived works, or anything. Just because the source code is available doesn't make something open source.
And only OSI can define what open source is?
While the term "open source" was coined by the Open Source Initiative source code was open, visible to see, study, and modify as early as the 1960s. The hackers of the Tech Model Railroad Club at MIT in the '60s was posting their source code on boards for anyone to improve and optimize.
But then again that was before "hackers" was used as a negative word.
Falcon
Copyright protects a particular expression of an idea, not the idea itself. You're thinking of patents, which are completely different.
And you misunderstand patents. Look at my reply to the post above yours. Especially see what Findlaw says about patents.
Falcon
Patents on the other hand dont protect the implementation, they protect the idea/process that is being implemented.
Patent do protect specific implementations of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
Falcon
please re-read what I said in my OP and try and understand it, obviously you didn't understand it the first time because I never said MS has the right to use the code.
I did read it, especially where you say Microsoft as a corporation is the victim here TBH. You excuse MS without excusing others.
Falcon
Also one blockbuster drug can pay for the research, development, and testing for a bunch of other drugs.
Absolutely. But, only if you can sell the blockbuster drug for what the market will bear. If you are forced to sell at near-marginal-cost (the whole point of this thread) then there are no blockbuster drugs.
I never said otherwise. A company should be able to sell something for whatever price they want as long as they spent their own money developing and testing it. If BMS had spent it's own money to develop Taxol instead of the taxpayers then while I may grumble about their prices I'd also let them set the price. I'm angry about it because the taxpayers paid for it not BMS.
the whole point of this discussion was whether you can make initial-cost-heavy-marginal-cost-light items without IP protection.
And I argue that if duplications costs are low, which they are with copyrighted goods, they should have limited monopolies. Without copyrights it's difficult to make a profit which I've been arguing all this tyme. Previously I said I am disabled and currently don't work but I want to start a photography business. Without copyrights I seriously doubt I'd want to do it. Why would I spend the thousands of dollars to start the business when someone else who didn't spend the money could come along and take my work without paying me?
Likewise, if you have a world where there are no drug patents then it isn't all that easy to make money off of drugs either.
Actually there is a proposal to fund drug research without patents, see An alternative to pharmaceutical patents. There are others but that's the only link I have.
I'm not trying to suggest that drug companies didn't make money in the 90s. I am suggesting that it is hard for drug and movie makers to make money in the 2010s.
According to the article Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains, dated 25 August 2009 "Pharmaceutical companies have a profit margin of 16.4 percent--seventh highest of the 215 industries that Morningstar tracks." Seventh highest out of 215? I wouldn't say the pharmaceutical industry is finding it hard to make a profit.
Falcon
So it's Okay for MS to use open source code but any open source project that uses MS code can be hounded and threatened? Let's see, is it 238 patents MS complains open source uses of MS's?
Falcon
If a new drug like Taxol were allowed to be sold completely royalty-free it would be difficult to even recoup the costs that were paid just to license it from the government in the first place.
You say it like Taxol was sold with the NCI getting royalties, when in fact Taxol was sold royalty free, and to to only one company. The NCI could have licensed it for say a hundred dollars a dose to any company that wanted to manufacture it. Said companies could then compeat with each other for market share and profits. Once the costs of development and testing was recouped, plus a little extra for more research, it could be put into the public domain for anyone to use royalty free.
it isn't uncommon for drug programs to get canceled even after hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on them
And those costs are tax deductible. Also one blockbuster drug can pay for the research, development, and testing for a bunch of other drugs. Recall how I said BMS was estimated to be making almost a billion dollars in Taxol sales a year by 2000? Well Taxol isn't even on that list of blockbuster drugs.
The comparison breaks down since no rational investor would ever buy lottery tickets
Actually a company tried to do that. One company wanted to buy every combination of numbers for the Florida lottery, it was in a lot of newspapers. Buy a ticket with every possible number and one of them will be a winner. By itself the prize wouldn't be enough to pay for all the tickets but because so many tickets were sold with the prize being determined on how many tickets were sold everyone and their family was buying tickets as well driving up the prize.
Unfortunately the logic fails, if I recall right the grand prize got 50% of the pot and as more tickets are sold the number of winning tickets potentially grows as well, thus proving your point.
but drugs and movies are areas where profits can currently be made (but not if the product is priced at marginal cost plus a few percent).
Ah but companies enjoy patent monopolies and can set their own prices for a number of years before they have to compeat with others for the market share of a drug. Combined with blockbuster drugs there should be enough to cover the cost of drug research. But if that isn't enough then the companies can cut their marketing costs, which are more than research.
Falcon
So you didn't say now fuck off and die already? That link is from your post.
Falcon
Are assuming that monopoly on ideas is in itself fair?
Do you mean "Are you assuming that monopoly on ideas is in itself fair?" If so the answer is no but I prefer ideas to be expressed not hidden. Copyrights give a creator a limited monopoly in return for expressing and disclosing their creation to the public. As I have repeatedly said not everyone is willing to express their idea if they are unable to enjoy a limited monopoly on that idea so they can try to sale it thereby enriching their life. For this very reason copyrights were authorized by the USA Constitution.
I don't understand your difficulty.
With your statement The cost of duplication is not zero. You pay for your Internet connection, right? The cost is very small, but it is not zero, which I included in my post you replied to, you make an argument for copyrights. Digital duplication is cheap, the hard or expensive part is coming up with an idea people are willing to pay for. But here you argue against copyrights. Why should the hard or expensive part be given away when the cost of duplication in cheap? If anything because the cost of duplication is so low now compared to, forget 200 years ago, just 25 years ago copyrights are needed more now than back them. The cost of generating ideas has gone up but duplicating them has dropped dramatically.
Why cannot artists make a living by selling just the first copies, when it comes to digital?
Who's going to be the first buyer when they can wait until they can get a copy for free, well at a low cost? Do you really think many of the movies made today would ever had been made if there was no copyright? The same with any other thing that can be copyrighted? Sure some will be but like other work, yes it is work, little will get done if those who do it don't get paid. If after paying for 4 to 8 years of college to become an engineer when I'm hired I can reasonably expect to be paid. If I spend the same amount of money and or tyme to make a movie I have no such reasonable expectation. I have even less expectation of making enough money to cover the cost if I can't have a limited monopoly on the movie.
Why cannot they make even more money by selling even more copies at a price which reflects the cost of running an ftp server?
Not everything is digital. Nor should it have to be. That's without even considering the cost of creation.
Quite simply just because people don't like spending $10 to watch a movie in the theatre or buy the DVD for $20 that does not give them the right to copy someone else's DVD. Nor does it give someone else the right to copy and mass produce the movie then hawk it on the street corner for a few dollars.
Falcon
Oh, Damn. I posted before finishing your post, as you mention the Statute of Ann. However there were copyrights when Mickey Mouse was created.
Correction copyright originates from the British Statuate of Ann 1710. So 300 years for copyright, except it was repealed in 1842. So when do we start counting?
And in the US the first copyright law was the Copyright Act of 1790. Also though not the same, the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 required printing presses to be licensed.
Falcon
People told stories, wrote books, created music and designed things for thousands of years before copyright's and patents were invented. If you look at the time scale then it is only copyright protection that is new.
First, copyright is older than 100 years, copyright is almost 300 years old. The first copyright law in the UK was the Statute of Anne which went into effect on 10 April 1710. Next, how many stories, books, and songs were created before copyrights versus afterwards? We don't really know, all we can do is see how many existed before copyright that we still have. Thousands of books and songs are published each year, do you really think that many were created before copyrights that were widely available? Composers before copyrights depended on wealthy benefactors to pay them.
Falcon
The only reason cable companies could historically charge the ridiculous fees for TV service is because the only real alternative has been an expensive satellite dish.
Around here, Minneapolis/St Paul, satellite is cheaper than cable. I am paying more than $60 to ComCast for cable TV, for the basic package. DirecTV's basic family package is $30 a month with no equipment to buy or startup costs. Though more expensive than DirecTV Dishnetwork is cheaper than ComCast as well. For this reason I am thinking of switching from cable to satellite.
Falcon
Art that can be digitally replicated retains some sort of value, which means you can wait for it to become ripped or whatever and still get something out of it.
I support copyrights because it is so easy to rip someone off, especially digitally. Without copyright protection people have little reason, other than ego, to produce works of art. Some of your volunteers are those who need their ego stroked. Because of an accident more than 10 years ago I survived an injury that caused a disability. Since then I have have been collecting disability insurance, though they've been screwing with it since the beginning of the year, and I haven't worked. For a few difference reasons I hope to start a photography business and I don't want someone else to be able to take my photos and make money off of them without me being paid as well. Quite simply I don't want to spend thousands of dollars for equipment and supplies only for someone else to take my photos and sell them as their own denying me the income of selling them myself. If you don't feel they are worth it fine, but don't rip me off. On the other hand, if I'm asked and it's explained why a photo can't be paid, or why it would be hard to pay, for I may come to an agreement on the exchange of products and or services. I am more than willing to barter. For instance I may take a photo assignment at no cost if the person it is for can arrange a gallery showing for my photos.
Falcon
in a model where artists and consumers interact directly, the most democratic, egalitarian and efficient model for determining quality is in effect.
But what you advocate is allowing anyone to copy and sell others' hard work. Do you work for free? Because that exactly what allowing people to copy other's work is. Let me take your work and sell it and keep all the money myself. People complain about having to pay for things but they want to get paid for working too. If you want to fine, the system allows it, but by saying there is no copyright you're basically saying everyone has to live by your rules. To me that is both communism and freeloading.
your criticism of my words stems from ignorance of the concepts. you don't even know what capitalism fucking is. you just know how to hurl epithets, without even knowing what the ideas in play mean
I most certainly do know what capitalism, and a free market is. I have repeatedly argued for a free market, at least one freer than the markets are today. And I hurl epithets? I wasn't the one who said now fuck off and die already. Those are your words.
try education next time. then post
I suggest you do the same.
Falcon
only thing I've ever bought from iTunes was actually deleted by one of their software updates with no chance of refund or re-download so I will never use their services again...
How did you pay for it? And how long ago? If you used a credit card in the last 6 months to pay for the download you can contest the charge with your credit card issuer.
Falcon
Ooh, though I'm typing this on a Mac I have never used iTunes.
You used Apple and DRM in the same post and didn't connect them together?
Apple has been dropping DRM. That 99 cent song with DRM can be bought without DRM, and with a better bitrate, for $1.29.
Falcon
In order for me to get everything I want you're going to have to make some changes.
Problem is is Techdirt got the details wrong. In his statement Steve Burke actually says the cable industry and content providers need to change their models.
Falcon
Charter's latest assault 'committed' upon our fellow citizens is to require zipcodes appended to email IDs!
No wonder why Paul Allen sold stocks in Charter.
Falcon