Perhaps someone can enlighten me. There are two sides here - the people who are supporting the artist and the people who are saying his work should be just as free as the operating system that his art portrays.
My question is - isn't his artwork... um... art? And not an operating system? Why should someone's completely original work - that they did not necessary contribute for the purpose of free and unbridled public usage - be held up to the other people's standards?
If you create something with your own two hands, whether compiling code or brandishing the photoshop brush, you have every right to control how that work is used - even if that means not sharing it at all. No matter how important you think you are, you do not have some divine RIGHT to access someone else's ORIGINAL information. That is only there place to decide.
Give the artist a break - it's his original work, Linspire shoplifted it, now they should have to pay the piper. Don't try to warp this into some sort of rally for free information access to absolutely everything. Anarchy doesn't work - sorry. If we couldn't retain the rights to our toils as we wished, nobody'd ever create anything good.
Life is tough enough dealing face to face with folks - do we really want our fixtures to be talking smack, too?
There is a market for this, though - despite the protests of you naysayers. My only question is - how the hell did monkeys get ahold of enough money to buy one of these?
First:
I am not posting this link to encourage people to pursue obscene material - or to increase traffic for the website that hosted the suicide video.
Second:
The original video has already been taken down. As is usually the case with a news story like this, the story had already been around for a short while before it reached the major news services.
So here's the link to the site that originally posted the now infamous suicide video:
http://www.consumptionjunction.com/
Consumption Junction is not a normal porn site. They host videos like the suicide one all the time. Car wrecks, riots, people getting hurt/killed are common fare for their photos and videos sections.
Basically, this is just one of those websites that anything goes. They're primarily considered pornographic because of all the porn ads that bring them revenue. They've received a lot of attention for obscene material in the past, much the way that other sites like rotten.com have.
Think of them as rotten.com with lots of pr0n and less of a conscience. Here's what one of the consumptionjunction.com staffers had to say about the whole incident:
http://www.consumptionjunction.com/content/home_de tail.asp?id=617&page=1
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps someone can enlighten me. There are two sides here - the people who are supporting the artist and the people who are saying his work should be just as free as the operating system that his art portrays.
My question is - isn't his artwork... um... art? And not an operating system? Why should someone's completely original work - that they did not necessary contribute for the purpose of free and unbridled public usage - be held up to the other people's standards?
If you create something with your own two hands, whether compiling code or brandishing the photoshop brush, you have every right to control how that work is used - even if that means not sharing it at all. No matter how important you think you are, you do not have some divine RIGHT to access someone else's ORIGINAL information. That is only there place to decide.
Give the artist a break - it's his original work, Linspire shoplifted it, now they should have to pay the piper. Don't try to warp this into some sort of rally for free information access to absolutely everything. Anarchy doesn't work - sorry. If we couldn't retain the rights to our toils as we wished, nobody'd ever create anything good.
Life is tough enough dealing face to face with folks - do we really want our fixtures to be talking smack, too?
There is a market for this, though - despite the protests of you naysayers. My only question is - how the hell did monkeys get ahold of enough money to buy one of these?
First: I am not posting this link to encourage people to pursue obscene material - or to increase traffic for the website that hosted the suicide video.
e tail.asp?id=617&page=1
Second: The original video has already been taken down. As is usually the case with a news story like this, the story had already been around for a short while before it reached the major news services.
So here's the link to the site that originally posted the now infamous suicide video:
http://www.consumptionjunction.com/
Consumption Junction is not a normal porn site. They host videos like the suicide one all the time. Car wrecks, riots, people getting hurt/killed are common fare for their photos and videos sections.
Basically, this is just one of those websites that anything goes. They're primarily considered pornographic because of all the porn ads that bring them revenue. They've received a lot of attention for obscene material in the past, much the way that other sites like rotten.com have.
Think of them as rotten.com with lots of pr0n and less of a conscience. Here's what one of the consumptionjunction.com staffers had to say about the whole incident:
http://www.consumptionjunction.com/content/home_d