I see your point. But you make a needless association between addiction and simply having an enjoyable hobby. Someone could value their real life more than his or her hobby, but if you mess with the hobby (steal their Magic cards, stamp collection, whatever), you can certainly, and not unreasonably, expect a complaint to be voiced. Nothing wrong with that. Addiction is a separate issue - we do not know if any of these players spent more time on the game than is healthy.
Keep in mind that if it actually becomes profitable to sell laptops to poor people at prices they can afford, this is a good thing. For purposes of enterprise continuity, it is always better to rely on people's profit motives than their sense of charity.
The primaries are very different from the actual Presidential election. I do not even think that a political party even needs to honor the vote - they can probably still put up whatever candidate they want to.
Here is the bottom line - I am not trying to take away your method of distribution. What you want already exists and I am fine with it. If you want to write a book and put it out on the Internet for free - fine. You want to get a patron, or a government grant or whatever - fine. Just don't take away my method of livelihood. If you don't want to pay for my copyrighted work, then don't buy it. No one is forcing you.
To put it mildly, your position is not very well thought out. You are citing evidence from 2000 years ago? There was not even a printing press back then. If you wanted to experience a play, you did not read it, you had to go out and see it. I am sure if there were DVDs and CDs and mass printing in those days, talk would have come around to how to protect intellectual property.
And are you really suggesting we let the government take control of allocating resources to creative work? Because that works so well with the DMV and the post office and FEMA and, hell, just about anything else the government decides to take on.
Look, the bottom line is that NO ONE is saying that without copyright, nothing will get written. That is not the point. The point is that a lot less stuff will get written. All of your examples require a lot more coordination from a lot more parties to get anything done. Let me give you a practical example. Right now there are many talented writers just giving it a go trying to write a screenplay or a first novel with the intent of producing something dynamite and being able to sell it. There are no other parties involved - just them and their word processors. They just do it, knowing that something may come of it. Under your scenario, they probably would not even bother, unless they secured some kind of grant or government contract or university position or some other bullshit that you made up that may get them a "sou or two". You see how much simpler it works under the current system? People just do stuff. It's like capitalism versus communism.
One final bit about copyright. It's a good way to allocate payment according to how much value the creative work actually has. Under most of your made-up scenarios, the writer may get the same amount of money whether his book sells 100 copies or 100,000 copies. Not so under copyright. And shouldn't someone be paid more if his work is worth more?
Sounds to me like you are suggesting they cater to the market of one - you. Maybe you did not mean it that way, but have you read what you wrote? It is all "me me me."
Why you are modded informative really eludes me. You do realize, of course, that many (I know, I know - not all) of the things that exist that you really want to copy only exist because there was financial motive, backed by copyright law, to create them. You must be young and idealistic, but just let me draw you a scenario of what happens right now.
You have an artist, a musician, say, who spends 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, creating music - music that you enjoy. Under the current cost/benefit analysis, this musician has calculated that his labor is worth the royalties he receives on his work. Now you want to change that equation. Sure, I suppose the artist can still charge for live performances and autographs and maybe things like that, but the benefits of producing music have certainly decreased, and very substantially so. Many musicians would decide under that scenario not to devote nearly as much time to creating music. Many will stop entirely. Others may create in spare time and do something else full time. End result - quantity of music produced goes down.
The irony of what you ask for is that once copyright laws are removed, in time, there will probably be a whole lot less copying going on than there is now, simply because there will be much less quality media to copy.
You really should read up more on economics and laws of unintended consequence. The market is a complicated thing, and the implementation of what you are suggesting, without basic forethought, is a recipe for disaster. Also, I hate to put it this way, but your argument really sounds alot like, "I like what they are selling, I want it, other people want it too, therefore I should have it for free." Sorry, life does not work that way.
You sir, are wrong. With no copyright laws, companies could steal code to create their own proprietary software. True, if the source code to this leaked out, it could be copied, but assuming none leaks out, firms would be free to use someone else's code but refuse to publish their own code, which includes the copied code. With the GPL, such is not the case, at least not legally.
That is not entirely true. In the present scenario the potential extortionist has a choice - spam or extort. Spamming is currently more profitable, or so the argument goes, and therefore, there are fewer extortions. In the world outside of botnets, extortionists may not have such easily available alternatives, so they stick to extortion.
Interesting suggestion about patents. Are you convinced five years is enough time to reap the benefits from an invention? You know, sometimes it takes tens of millions of dollars to come up with something.
All that aside, isn't this a copyright case, though? SCO is claiming code was lifted straight off.
I think you overstate things with the "warm fuzzy feeling" bit. I am a Texan. Most people do not know or do not care about this provision. It is a hassle to change to Constitution, so there it stays. It does strike me as ridiculous and I wish it was not there, but not enough to campaign for it.
You, sir, have no idea what you are talking about. Putin is a hardliner and his measures to stifle the free press rightly deserve criticism, but this is nothing like it was during Stalin's regime. Stalin killed 20 million Russians and was a paranoid maniac. Putin is not even running for re-election.
Thanks to OSX, Apple has come back from the dead in a way that is extremely rare in technology. Their victory is so complete that I'm now surprised when I come across a computer running Windows.
Come on, 4% market share and you are surprised when a computer does not run OSX?
You want to build a successful enterprise that keeps players subscribed for a decade? Use a tested ruleset that allows for individuality, and put your labor into the content. Your players are maturing, therefore so must your games.
Blizzard has built a very successful enterprise with WoW, much more successful than the games you mention. Maybe the wheel needed to be reinvented in order to appeal to the masses.
they won't be allowed to keep that info to themselves long
What do you mean by "allowed"? What legal means are available to this global community you speak of that would allow it to take by force something that is a trade secret?
Slashdot Mirror
Many of these pages have ads that have nothing to do with the Adsense program.
I see your point. But you make a needless association between addiction and simply having an enjoyable hobby. Someone could value their real life more than his or her hobby, but if you mess with the hobby (steal their Magic cards, stamp collection, whatever), you can certainly, and not unreasonably, expect a complaint to be voiced. Nothing wrong with that. Addiction is a separate issue - we do not know if any of these players spent more time on the game than is healthy.
A conservative, on my Slashdot? I guess it is more common than you would think.
Keep in mind that if it actually becomes profitable to sell laptops to poor people at prices they can afford, this is a good thing. For purposes of enterprise continuity, it is always better to rely on people's profit motives than their sense of charity.
Which pop-up blocker did you find most effective?
The primaries are very different from the actual Presidential election. I do not even think that a political party even needs to honor the vote - they can probably still put up whatever candidate they want to.
Here is the bottom line - I am not trying to take away your method of distribution. What you want already exists and I am fine with it. If you want to write a book and put it out on the Internet for free - fine. You want to get a patron, or a government grant or whatever - fine. Just don't take away my method of livelihood. If you don't want to pay for my copyrighted work, then don't buy it. No one is forcing you.
And are you really suggesting we let the government take control of allocating resources to creative work? Because that works so well with the DMV and the post office and FEMA and, hell, just about anything else the government decides to take on.
Look, the bottom line is that NO ONE is saying that without copyright, nothing will get written. That is not the point. The point is that a lot less stuff will get written. All of your examples require a lot more coordination from a lot more parties to get anything done. Let me give you a practical example. Right now there are many talented writers just giving it a go trying to write a screenplay or a first novel with the intent of producing something dynamite and being able to sell it. There are no other parties involved - just them and their word processors. They just do it, knowing that something may come of it. Under your scenario, they probably would not even bother, unless they secured some kind of grant or government contract or university position or some other bullshit that you made up that may get them a "sou or two". You see how much simpler it works under the current system? People just do stuff. It's like capitalism versus communism.
One final bit about copyright. It's a good way to allocate payment according to how much value the creative work actually has. Under most of your made-up scenarios, the writer may get the same amount of money whether his book sells 100 copies or 100,000 copies. Not so under copyright. And shouldn't someone be paid more if his work is worth more?
I hear it is vaporware. What do you know? Any launch dates?
Sounds to me like you are suggesting they cater to the market of one - you. Maybe you did not mean it that way, but have you read what you wrote? It is all "me me me."
You have an artist, a musician, say, who spends 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, creating music - music that you enjoy. Under the current cost/benefit analysis, this musician has calculated that his labor is worth the royalties he receives on his work. Now you want to change that equation. Sure, I suppose the artist can still charge for live performances and autographs and maybe things like that, but the benefits of producing music have certainly decreased, and very substantially so. Many musicians would decide under that scenario not to devote nearly as much time to creating music. Many will stop entirely. Others may create in spare time and do something else full time. End result - quantity of music produced goes down.
The irony of what you ask for is that once copyright laws are removed, in time, there will probably be a whole lot less copying going on than there is now, simply because there will be much less quality media to copy.
You really should read up more on economics and laws of unintended consequence. The market is a complicated thing, and the implementation of what you are suggesting, without basic forethought, is a recipe for disaster. Also, I hate to put it this way, but your argument really sounds alot like, "I like what they are selling, I want it, other people want it too, therefore I should have it for free." Sorry, life does not work that way.
You sir, are wrong. With no copyright laws, companies could steal code to create their own proprietary software. True, if the source code to this leaked out, it could be copied, but assuming none leaks out, firms would be free to use someone else's code but refuse to publish their own code, which includes the copied code. With the GPL, such is not the case, at least not legally.
I remember you! You were the one crying like a woman after I killed you for the seventh time. Nice helm, by the way.
That is not entirely true. In the present scenario the potential extortionist has a choice - spam or extort. Spamming is currently more profitable, or so the argument goes, and therefore, there are fewer extortions. In the world outside of botnets, extortionists may not have such easily available alternatives, so they stick to extortion.
Interesting suggestion about patents. Are you convinced five years is enough time to reap the benefits from an invention? You know, sometimes it takes tens of millions of dollars to come up with something. All that aside, isn't this a copyright case, though? SCO is claiming code was lifted straight off.
I think you overstate things with the "warm fuzzy feeling" bit. I am a Texan. Most people do not know or do not care about this provision. It is a hassle to change to Constitution, so there it stays. It does strike me as ridiculous and I wish it was not there, but not enough to campaign for it.
How about you just return it politely, comrade?
You, sir, have no idea what you are talking about. Putin is a hardliner and his measures to stifle the free press rightly deserve criticism, but this is nothing like it was during Stalin's regime. Stalin killed 20 million Russians and was a paranoid maniac. Putin is not even running for re-election.
Who would you like to have controlling it?
Whatever is going to be reverse engineered will still be reverse engineered, with or without Microsoft's presence in China.
Genius!
I missed the computer programmer. When did he talk? There was a bit about Diebold in the beginning, but nothing about the programming of the machine.
What do you mean by "allowed"? What legal means are available to this global community you speak of that would allow it to take by force something that is a trade secret?