I think some form of IP is necessary in a capitalist system, not for media, but for research and development. For example, there's a company called ARM that designs CPUs (you may have heard of them, they're really popular in the embedded space). They don't manufacture anything -- they license their designs to other companies, who then incorporate them into microcontrollers. This works because designing high-end CPUs is a very difficult and expensive thing to do, and many companies would rather not bother with it (at least not all the time). It's nice to be able to have a company like ARM, but without IP it's completely impossible -- nobody would pay them.
It would be great if we applied IP to only people that are greedy. It would be fine to force people that dont know how to share/compensate to force them to share/compensate. Most Corporations have no comprehension of social responsibility so they fall under this category more than people do I think. People need to learn how to be human beings regardless if you are working for yourself or you are a apart of a large entity that makes products. Thats what this all this is about IMHO. If we had more people in this country that looked at all of the human beings in this world and all the things that human beings create as sacred, or valuable to all we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Being able to appreciate life for what it is, and not what kind of gain you can obtain from it is what unities people to help each other and we really need more of that in this world now, more than ever.
I just wanted to add, that if you dont like the way the internet works, where people are free to use information that is distrubited on the net as they see fit. You are free to not use the internet to sell your works, if you feel that people are not going to purchase what you have to offer. Nobody is forcing you to use a system that doesn't give you control over your product.
Yes that's what i am saying upfront, if socialism works better than what we have now, that being capitalism then that's the way we should go. People are more important than capital. I don't feel like this is a justification. Just the facts. in the situation of digital distribution, the power is in the hands of everyone. So people that want to sell something are at the mercy of the people that use the system to fit their needs, not the other way around. There is no bargain. You say, "here is what I have to offer", and then the person on the other end can decide on if they feel what you are asking is worth it. If not, they have the power to not go along with what you are asking. nobody controls the how information is distributed on the net, you can try and make a claim that you do, but the results are the proving that its opposite.
and as far as IP goes, that's another illusion. Intellect and property don't go together. intellect should be shared by all, not claimed as some stupid idea that you think you own your own thoughts. You communicate with people, they are entitled to build on it or use ideas and thoughts as they see fit..
Its selfish to have any expectation of return when you create something that the world finds valuable. your fans, or people who value your work get to decide how its going to be valuable to them, and they do that with their actions. If you are someone that cares about the interests of others, and that shows though your work and how you present that work then people will likely feel a desire to compensate you. But when you expect something in return, without trusting people to make that determination themselves, you end up pissing people off and forcing them to act against you. all Im saying that content holders need to take some responsibility for people copying their works. I dont think thats much to ask. And when you go around blaming other people because you are loosing money, its that just makes people more likely to fuck with you even more. There is a reason why people do what they do. When you look at the reasons behind it you will find that it takes two to tango.
OMG, the first post I have seen so far that has some sanity in it. Its it just me? or are more and more people so becoming stupid that can see outside of their own ideologies.. I think the issues is that there are too many people that are looking to blame others instead of take part in the responsibility of where we are today in regards to copyrighted file sharing.
Golly, I guess that wouldn't be happening if the content industry hadn't stuck their head in the sand and said "This is not happening, digital distribution is an illusion". IF the content industry got off their asses when this started happening and created a digital content distribution system that made it inexpensive and easy for people to purchase content copyrighted file sharing would have never gotten as big as it is now. The content industry needs to take responsibility for their own inaction and the fact that their unwillingness to act IS part of the problem, instead of blaming everyone else for their own stupidity.
Your talking about corporations, not people. A company or a corporation is not a person. Making a copy of something and sharing freely hurts nobody accept possible's someones pocket book. If I had to choose between someone sharing a file and someone not sharing a file, as a person, im going to choose the former. Copyright infringement is not more fundamental that freedom of choice to do with what you have in your possession as you will. If you put something out expect that its not going to be used as intended. If you want someone not to use what you have made, dont share it with the world, lock yourself in a room and create all the works you want and keep it to yourself. See how much good that does you.
*We can argue about this (whether it's really better for them in the end), but I think it would be, just like it was to us (until just recently) in the history of our country-- good people seeking good jobs, a family, a life; and benefits reaped from free economic competition, free voting, free society in general. You have generally good people, and your democracy is set. This is what gets me about the people who think we shouldn't push our "ideals" on people of other countries-- my question to them is "who are you to get in the way of the civilized countries ushering in a government that would be run by that people and for the majority of that people, which the people could overthrow peacefully and easily with the strike of a ballot, instead of a strike to the head?!" The change to freedom always has to happen from within, and our job would be spent less on forcing them to change at gunpoint, and more on encouraging and baiting them into that change. Then, if still necessary, we go in anyways like Iraq and meet with much less resistance, because people would think "well a democracy probably _would_ be better than what we have now, I just don't want to bother getting to that point, too much work, etc...", and it all goes much better.
I liked the first part of your comment. And then we reach a point where you talk about capitalism and free markets. To be honest I think what proponents of free market economies miss is the fact that the United States it is very good at creating an illusion that we are free. Once you get down to the core of what this country is about (Money) you start to realize that its not really free. Money creates an illusion that you are free. Money doesnt make you free, peace of mind makes you free, money is a by product of that peace and what you do to help other people maintain peace of mind. As soon as you forget that you have made yourself a slave of a process that befits the people on the top, especially when 5% of the population are the ones with the power and wealth. The 5% of the people of the United states are the ones that make all of the decisions. The have multinational corporations that hire Lobbyists to push for more consolidation of wealth and power, so that they can retain what they have at the expense of the majority. You see this with the passing of retroactive immunity to telephone companies that are spying on Americans. And the people in power use these laws and wiretapping to make people not free by secretly waging war against people with differences of opinion. When you see it for what it is you realize that its not freedom, you are buying into an illusion that hurts alot of people. Nothing is worth that. Not all the riches in the world can give you what you want if its a cause that undermines other peoples freedom. Thats what this country does, it undermines peoples freedom so that certain individuals can become wealthy.
If thats your idea of a solid system for everyone in the world to live by, Id say that you are seriously missing the depth of the problem, and you better wake up fast before you find yourself wishing you would have paid more attention to whats going on around you.
The fact that Pirating software is rampant today does not mean that if the act of pirating wasn't happening, software company's monetary problems would be solved. If you really look at what copying is, you would find that this argument is a bunch of red herring. (If you don't know what red herring is my suggestion is to look it up before you respond).
To date there is no data that can prove without a shadow of a doubt there is a link between pirated software and lost money. People assume that piracy is a direct result of lost revenue as it is easy to draw a parallel between the two without having to really look at the dynamics of the situation (Software company's choices as to how they relate to their customers and the potential customers who pirate that software).
For the most part, the real problem lies in a couple of different areas. 1) The misperception between your software companies product asking price and your potential customers needs.
2) Not having a direct and productive relationship with your customers.
3) Not displaying a responsibility towards the betterment of society.
4) Releasing something digital into the open and then expecting net citizens to play by your rules.
Secondly making copies of something does not deprive the rights holder of anything. This is software we are talking about. It's like telling someone about an idea you have and then expecting people to pay for it. People might feel obligated to pay you because it makes their life easier and they feel a certain sense of loyalty toward you, but that only happens when you create a space for it. Expecting more than what people can give is the wrong way to look at this issue, and that's why there is so much pirating today. Software publishers think they can get away with it but there wrong. Intellectual property is hot air, it sounds like a good idea but the truth is we all build off of each others ideas and ultimately, there is no such thing as property. Only in your mind does that have any reality. When that idea becomes more important then the relationship between publisher and customers, its time to put it aside for a moment and look at the big picture.
Thirdly if you are a publisher and want customer loyalty (I.E people paying for your software) YOU have to create a person connection with each of your customers. Nobody is going to feel wrong for copying your stuff if you don't create a positive relationship with them. Working with people, not attacking them though legal means cause people to think twice about getting something for nothing. Everything else just makes people resent you, your company, and your position. Large corporations are big entities that have no person to person value because for the most part there is nobody to have direct responsibility or contact with so who cares if their stuff gets copied?
The ultimate result is that there are too many companies, to many large entities, and not enough direct contact that obscures the relationship between the customer and the publisher. The spirit of providing a service to people in need is lost, replaced by an oversized need to obtain wealth and any cost and forgetting what matters most. People and Relationships. Money is just a one of many possible byproducts of what you do to enrich a life, you lock yourself into your own destruction when you have an expectation that people are not able to deliver, remember that.
Laws that are made in the spirit of corporate interests definitely dont apply to me. Why would they? They were not written to increase public trust. They were written to hold back the freedoms of the digital age. Who would support a law that is designed to hold back progress? Blindly following laws that dont serve public interests is not the way I plan on living my life, but you are free to restrict yourself as you see fit.
Im with you on that, im just saying that their is a difference between reality (which we know what that is) and the perceived reality. And the perception is that its possible the transit authority probably has some people that manage or have a stake in creating that system and are trying to do damage control. Its not based in reality, but its better to know what you are dealing with, because the people involved in the insecure transit system are not going to think like rational people if heads are going to roll.
I was going to say something else but I forgot what it was.. basicley im not arguing either way, im just trying to put all the cards on the table.
From what I read the software that runs under Android uses the Apache Software License which will, unfortunatley, allow companies to create their own derivites of that software and close source it. What will happen is people will still be restricted from modifing applications. I noticed after using a few phones that use proprietary models that cellphone companies build in restrictive operations like disallowing bluetooth coping from device to device and the like. I dont think building in restrictions that prevent people from use their device the way they want to is a very good practice. But maybe this is just a first step to eliminating that path. Also maybe someone else has a better idea as to how this could work, as I am only guessing.
Maybe im not understand the situation, but if you attempt to release information that can cause harm to a business or person or society. that speech can definitely be limited. Its like calling fire in a building with no fire and someone getting hurt. It seems like in this case, if this information got mass attention there might be some way to construe harm. I mean I can think of allot of ways to fabricate the perception of harm, even though it is unlikely.
Im trying to put myself in their shoes, someone or someones do not want to have to deal with this if people start mass circumventing the system... money loss, reputations, and the like are surely involved. it doesn't matter if it has been done before, this particular event makes stuff like this a hot topic, because people that build or manage insecure systems look really, really stupid to the professional community.
I don't necessarily disagree with you--distributing free samples via the Internet is a good business strategy, much like giving free copies of songs to radio stations was a good strategy in the past. However, shouldn't the content holder have some say in this?
The problem is that you released the information onto a place that gives people power over how they are going to use your work. So I have to say, no you dont have a choice. You can ask people to pay for your work. But you can force them do use it in a way you want them to. That defeats the whole purpose. If you want to sell your works, offer samples and then ask people to buy the music. Unfortunately that isnt going to stop people from uploading your music onto the net on their own.
The deal is content holders need to be ok with not having control over how a work is used. its like telling someone about an idea you have and then expecting them not to make use of it. I think its selfish to think that your ideas and your creations are just your own, they also belong to the people that use them or listen to them as well. There is a co-existence between you and and the people that use their work for their own purposes. Trust that people are going to use it how you would like them to by building relationship a with them, but dont try to force your ideology on the people that use your work, it just makes you look selfish. Anyway thats the way i look at it, you dont have to agree, I just think you should work with and not against the people that use your work.
DRM just sucks, it puts the control of your computer in someone elses hands. Who wants to do that? it doesnt even make good business sense to do it. People are going to continue to use "Free" over "Restricted" especially when they get bitten by this.
Making a copy of something does not deprive the content holder of anything unless you intend to sell it to undercut their profits. Distributing something on the internet for free gives the content holders free publicity and they still own the copy. Its a win-win situation. So its insanity to think that this is about stealing works, this is about distribution control on the content holders part, nothing more. They want to be the gate keepers to all content on the planet. Sorry to break it to you, but that game is over now. get used to the fact that you dont have primary control over how your work is going to be used or distributed anymore. Laws can be made to try and prevent this, but it will do very little except make things worse for everyone. The whole legal system that revolves around this issue is out of sync with the times. Wake up to that fact and get over your selfs. The rules have changed, time to find away to work with the way things are now.
I stoped using ebay to sell stuff years go, when It became apparent that the company abuses its dominate position.
1. Paypal has control over your account or credit card. (This means they cant take money at any time they see fit) If there is a dispute about money, you allways want to be in control of your own. Dont let someone else have control over your bank account, or credit card, thats just stupid.
2. Ebay rate increases make it very hard to retain profits on sold items.
3. Dispute policies are very draconian as the article mentions.
4. They dont have any interest in be fair, they dont care about their users and they have no integrity. Just look at the craigslist debacle as proof of that.
There need be a return to a state of polar equilibrium in quantities of evil, or there need be the end to the Republican Party, as a clear and present danger to the people's liberty. There is no third way.
I would just put forth one final notion to your argument. And that is the idea that things need to get worse, before they get better. The state of this country as it stands now, is one where the balance is forever being tipped in both directions. I would say that the sooner this country dips into darkness, the quicker and safer will will come out of it. Americans are extremely resilient to change and it takes an event of 9/11 proportions to get people off their ass to start demanding something better. Stand fast in your beliefs and dont let the nearsightedness of those around you persuade you otherwise. We are getting close to the point where things are starting to change, I say let another round of bullshit happen until it really starts to effect lay people and then a point will be reached where the American people have had enough.
With my limited Knowledge of the GLP, I kind of look at this as a checks and balances thing. Making sure companies become a good Samaritan in certain cases is a good idea, because they sure dont have any intention of being good on their own. if they use someone else's code that was distributed openly. Then they need to be held accountable to extend that relationship so everyone can benefit from it, not just the power players. Its about leveling the playing field a bit, IMHO.
Id have to agree with you, any game the requires you to remain online for extraordinary amounts of time to get anywhere in the game is flawed by design.
We all know the complaints about young employees. They depend too much on their parents' money,they need constant hand-holding,
they have no job loyalty,
The only job loyalty there is is the loyalty the company creates with its employees by not treating empolyees like machines, being open to new ideas, not pressuring empolyees to think a certain way, setting an example by the people in power taking responsibility for their own actions, sharing in the responsibility for company mistakes, treating employees with honesty and integrity, being generous with company time, not overworking employees, being generous and flexible (not treating people like machines) being compassionate to people that are having a hard time fitting in, working on goals that everyone can equally participate in, and not playing favorites.
they demand more than they're worth
Dont hire people you cant afford. Quit whining about candidates asking for money that they think their worth and start treating them like their worth it or don't hire them.
they disrespect older employees
Respect is a two way street. You get respect by giving it. being older doesn't give you a god given right to have respect, especially when you treat younger people as if their not as smart as you, or haven't figured a thing out or two, no matter how long you have lived or work a x company.
and they're naive about corporate culture.
Corporate culture isn't in our reality. Its a social construct to attempt to herd people around like sheep and make them do what people on the top think is best for the company using social pressure based on egoic ideologies. The new generation is about, compassion, understanding, love and acceptance of who people are as they are and what they are capable of by leaving them alone to approach solutions using their own way of thinking, not the group mind set that breeds weakness and suffering. The sooner corporations come to terms with this, the better.
When your actions show that you are unable to understand and accept an unexpected shift in the ideas and values of your society/organization/company/home, its time to either alter your perception of the situation or pass the decision making on to the next generation.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be great if we applied IP to only people that are greedy. It would be fine to force people that dont know how to share/compensate to force them to share/compensate. Most Corporations have no comprehension of social responsibility so they fall under this category more than people do I think. People need to learn how to be human beings regardless if you are working for yourself or you are a apart of a large entity that makes products. Thats what this all this is about IMHO. If we had more people in this country that looked at all of the human beings in this world and all the things that human beings create as sacred, or valuable to all we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Being able to appreciate life for what it is, and not what kind of gain you can obtain from it is what unities people to help each other and we really need more of that in this world now, more than ever.
I just wanted to add, that if you dont like the way the internet works, where people are free to use information that is distrubited on the net as they see fit. You are free to not use the internet to sell your works, if you feel that people are not going to purchase what you have to offer. Nobody is forcing you to use a system that doesn't give you control over your product.
Yes that's what i am saying upfront, if socialism works better than what we have now, that being capitalism then that's the way we should go. People are more important than capital. I don't feel like this is a justification. Just the facts. in the situation of digital distribution, the power is in the hands of everyone. So people that want to sell something are at the mercy of the people that use the system to fit their needs, not the other way around. There is no bargain. You say, "here is what I have to offer", and then the person on the other end can decide on if they feel what you are asking is worth it. If not, they have the power to not go along with what you are asking. nobody controls the how information is distributed on the net, you can try and make a claim that you do, but the results are the proving that its opposite.
and as far as IP goes, that's another illusion. Intellect and property don't go together. intellect should be shared by all, not claimed as some stupid idea that you think you own your own thoughts. You communicate with people, they are entitled to build on it or use ideas and thoughts as they see fit..
Its selfish to have any expectation of return when you create something that the world finds valuable. your fans, or people who value your work get to decide how its going to be valuable to them, and they do that with their actions. If you are someone that cares about the interests of others, and that shows though your work and how you present that work then people will likely feel a desire to compensate you. But when you expect something in return, without trusting people to make that determination themselves, you end up pissing people off and forcing them to act against you. all Im saying that content holders need to take some responsibility for people copying their works. I dont think thats much to ask. And when you go around blaming other people because you are loosing money, its that just makes people more likely to fuck with you even more. There is a reason why people do what they do. When you look at the reasons behind it you will find that it takes two to tango.
I'm playing "Cry me a river" on my violin right now.
OMG, the first post I have seen so far that has some sanity in it. Its it just me? or are more and more people so becoming stupid that can see outside of their own ideologies.. I think the issues is that there are too many people that are looking to blame others instead of take part in the responsibility of where we are today in regards to copyrighted file sharing.
Golly, I guess that wouldn't be happening if the content industry hadn't stuck their head in the sand and said "This is not happening, digital distribution is an illusion". IF the content industry got off their asses when this started happening and created a digital content distribution system that made it inexpensive and easy for people to purchase content copyrighted file sharing would have never gotten as big as it is now. The content industry needs to take responsibility for their own inaction and the fact that their unwillingness to act IS part of the problem, instead of blaming everyone else for their own stupidity.
Your talking about corporations, not people. A company or a corporation is not a person. Making a copy of something and sharing freely hurts nobody accept possible's someones pocket book. If I had to choose between someone sharing a file and someone not sharing a file, as a person, im going to choose the former. Copyright infringement is not more fundamental that freedom of choice to do with what you have in your possession as you will. If you put something out expect that its not going to be used as intended. If you want someone not to use what you have made, dont share it with the world, lock yourself in a room and create all the works you want and keep it to yourself. See how much good that does you.
I liked the first part of your comment. And then we reach a point where you talk about capitalism and free markets. To be honest I think what proponents of free market economies miss is the fact that the United States it is very good at creating an illusion that we are free. Once you get down to the core of what this country is about (Money) you start to realize that its not really free. Money creates an illusion that you are free. Money doesnt make you free, peace of mind makes you free, money is a by product of that peace and what you do to help other people maintain peace of mind. As soon as you forget that you have made yourself a slave of a process that befits the people on the top, especially when 5% of the population are the ones with the power and wealth. The 5% of the people of the United states are the ones that make all of the decisions. The have multinational corporations that hire Lobbyists to push for more consolidation of wealth and power, so that they can retain what they have at the expense of the majority. You see this with the passing of retroactive immunity to telephone companies that are spying on Americans. And the people in power use these laws and wiretapping to make people not free by secretly waging war against people with differences of opinion. When you see it for what it is you realize that its not freedom, you are buying into an illusion that hurts alot of people. Nothing is worth that. Not all the riches in the world can give you what you want if its a cause that undermines other peoples freedom. Thats what this country does, it undermines peoples freedom so that certain individuals can become wealthy.
If thats your idea of a solid system for everyone in the world to live by, Id say that you are seriously missing the depth of the problem, and you better wake up fast before you find yourself wishing you would have paid more attention to whats going on around you.
The fact that Pirating software is rampant today does not mean that if the act of pirating wasn't happening, software company's monetary problems would be solved. If you really look at what copying is, you would find that this argument is a bunch of red herring. (If you don't know what red herring is my suggestion is to look it up before you respond).
To date there is no data that can prove without a shadow of a doubt there is a link between pirated software and lost money. People assume that piracy is a direct result of lost revenue as it is easy to draw a parallel between the two without having to really look at the dynamics of the situation (Software company's choices as to how they relate to their customers and the potential customers who pirate that software).
For the most part, the real problem lies in a couple of different areas.
1) The misperception between your software companies product asking price and your potential customers needs.
2) Not having a direct and productive relationship with your customers.
3) Not displaying a responsibility towards the betterment of society.
4) Releasing something digital into the open and then expecting net citizens to play by your rules.
Secondly making copies of something does not deprive the rights holder of anything. This is software we are talking about. It's like telling someone about an idea you have and then expecting people to pay for it. People might feel obligated to pay you because it makes their life easier and they feel a certain sense of loyalty toward you, but that only happens when you create a space for it. Expecting more than what people can give is the wrong way to look at this issue, and that's why there is so much pirating today. Software publishers think they can get away with it but there wrong. Intellectual property is hot air, it sounds like a good idea but the truth is we all build off of each others ideas and ultimately, there is no such thing as property. Only in your mind does that have any reality. When that idea becomes more important then the relationship between publisher and customers, its time to put it aside for a moment and look at the big picture.
Thirdly if you are a publisher and want customer loyalty (I.E people paying for your software) YOU have to create a person connection with each of your customers. Nobody is going to feel wrong for copying your stuff if you don't create a positive relationship with them. Working with people, not attacking them though legal means cause people to think twice about getting something for nothing. Everything else just makes people resent you, your company, and your position. Large corporations are big entities that have no person to person value because for the most part there is nobody to have direct responsibility or contact with so who cares if their stuff gets copied?
The ultimate result is that there are too many companies, to many large entities, and not enough direct contact that obscures the relationship between the customer and the publisher. The spirit of providing a service to people in need is lost, replaced by an oversized need to obtain wealth and any cost and forgetting what matters most. People and Relationships. Money is just a one of many possible byproducts of what you do to enrich a life, you lock yourself into your own destruction when you have an expectation that people are not able to deliver, remember that.
Laws that are made in the spirit of corporate interests definitely dont apply to me. Why would they? They were not written to increase public trust. They were written to hold back the freedoms of the digital age. Who would support a law that is designed to hold back progress? Blindly following laws that dont serve public interests is not the way I plan on living my life, but you are free to restrict yourself as you see fit.
Im with you on that, im just saying that their is a difference between reality (which we know what that is) and the perceived reality. And the perception is that its possible the transit authority probably has some people that manage or have a stake in creating that system and are trying to do damage control. Its not based in reality, but its better to know what you are dealing with, because the people involved in the insecure transit system are not going to think like rational people if heads are going to roll.
I was going to say something else but I forgot what it was.. basicley im not arguing either way, im just trying to put all the cards on the table.
From what I read the software that runs under Android uses the Apache Software License which will, unfortunatley, allow companies to create their own derivites of that software and close source it. What will happen is people will still be restricted from modifing applications. I noticed after using a few phones that use proprietary models that cellphone companies build in restrictive operations like disallowing bluetooth coping from device to device and the like. I dont think building in restrictions that prevent people from use their device the way they want to is a very good practice. But maybe this is just a first step to eliminating that path. Also maybe someone else has a better idea as to how this could work, as I am only guessing.
Maybe im not understand the situation, but if you attempt to release information that can cause harm to a business or person or society. that speech can definitely be limited. Its like calling fire in a building with no fire and someone getting hurt. It seems like in this case, if this information got mass attention there might be some way to construe harm. I mean I can think of allot of ways to fabricate the perception of harm, even though it is unlikely.
Im trying to put myself in their shoes, someone or someones do not want to have to deal with this if people start mass circumventing the system... money loss, reputations, and the like are surely involved. it doesn't matter if it has been done before, this particular event makes stuff like this a hot topic, because people that build or manage insecure systems look really, really stupid to the professional community.
The problem is that you released the information onto a place that gives people power over how they are going to use your work. So I have to say, no you dont have a choice. You can ask people to pay for your work. But you can force them do use it in a way you want them to. That defeats the whole purpose. If you want to sell your works, offer samples and then ask people to buy the music. Unfortunately that isnt going to stop people from uploading your music onto the net on their own.
The deal is content holders need to be ok with not having control over how a work is used. its like telling someone about an idea you have and then expecting them not to make use of it. I think its selfish to think that your ideas and your creations are just your own, they also belong to the people that use them or listen to them as well. There is a co-existence between you and and the people that use their work for their own purposes. Trust that people are going to use it how you would like them to by building relationship a with them, but dont try to force your ideology on the people that use your work, it just makes you look selfish. Anyway thats the way i look at it, you dont have to agree, I just think you should work with and not against the people that use your work.
DRM just sucks, it puts the control of your computer in someone elses hands. Who wants to do that? it doesnt even make good business sense to do it. People are going to continue to use "Free" over "Restricted" especially when they get bitten by this.
Making a copy of something does not deprive the content holder of anything unless you intend to sell it to undercut their profits. Distributing something on the internet for free gives the content holders free publicity and they still own the copy. Its a win-win situation. So its insanity to think that this is about stealing works, this is about distribution control on the content holders part, nothing more. They want to be the gate keepers to all content on the planet. Sorry to break it to you, but that game is over now. get used to the fact that you dont have primary control over how your work is going to be used or distributed anymore. Laws can be made to try and prevent this, but it will do very little except make things worse for everyone. The whole legal system that revolves around this issue is out of sync with the times. Wake up to that fact and get over your selfs. The rules have changed, time to find away to work with the way things are now.
I thought the government cannot be sued? what happens when it comes out that they broke the law, how will they be held accountable?
We don't live in a democracy anymore. Come to think of it we never have.
I stoped using ebay to sell stuff years go, when It became apparent that the company abuses its dominate position.
1. Paypal has control over your account or credit card. (This means they cant take money at any time they see fit) If there is a dispute about money, you allways want to be in control of your own. Dont let someone else have control over your bank account, or credit card, thats just stupid.
2. Ebay rate increases make it very hard to retain profits on sold items.
3. Dispute policies are very draconian as the article mentions.
4. They dont have any interest in be fair, they dont care about their users and they have no integrity. Just look at the craigslist debacle as proof of that.
I would just put forth one final notion to your argument. And that is the idea that things need to get worse, before they get better. The state of this country as it stands now, is one where the balance is forever being tipped in both directions. I would say that the sooner this country dips into darkness, the quicker and safer will will come out of it. Americans are extremely resilient to change and it takes an event of 9/11 proportions to get people off their ass to start demanding something better. Stand fast in your beliefs and dont let the nearsightedness of those around you persuade you otherwise. We are getting close to the point where things are starting to change, I say let another round of bullshit happen until it really starts to effect lay people and then a point will be reached where the American people have had enough.
With my limited Knowledge of the GLP, I kind of look at this as a checks and balances thing. Making sure companies become a good Samaritan in certain cases is a good idea, because they sure dont have any intention of being good on their own. if they use someone else's code that was distributed openly. Then they need to be held accountable to extend that relationship so everyone can benefit from it, not just the power players. Its about leveling the playing field a bit, IMHO.
Who ever wrote this story needs to stop putting people into boxes of color. It does nothing but make people feel seperate from eachother.
Id have to agree with you, any game the requires you to remain online for extraordinary amounts of time to get anywhere in the game is flawed by design.
Thats the reason why I don't play MMORPG's.
The only job loyalty there is is the loyalty the company creates with its employees by not treating empolyees like machines, being open to new ideas, not pressuring empolyees to think a certain way, setting an example by the people in power taking responsibility for their own actions, sharing in the responsibility for company mistakes, treating employees with honesty and integrity, being generous with company time, not overworking employees, being generous and flexible (not treating people like machines) being compassionate to people that are having a hard time fitting in, working on goals that everyone can equally participate in, and not playing favorites.
Dont hire people you cant afford. Quit whining about candidates asking for money that they think their worth and start treating them like their worth it or don't hire them.
Respect is a two way street. You get respect by giving it. being older doesn't give you a god given right to have respect, especially when you treat younger people as if their not as smart as you, or haven't figured a thing out or two, no matter how long you have lived or work a x company.
Corporate culture isn't in our reality. Its a social construct to attempt to herd people around like sheep and make them do what people on the top think is best for the company using social pressure based on egoic ideologies. The new generation is about, compassion, understanding, love and acceptance of who people are as they are and what they are capable of by leaving them alone to approach solutions using their own way of thinking, not the group mind set that breeds weakness and suffering. The sooner corporations come to terms with this, the better.
When your actions show that you are unable to understand and accept an unexpected shift in the ideas and values of your society/organization/company/home, its time to either alter your perception of the situation or pass the decision making on to the next generation.
-trinsic