Great start, but you should have stopped after the first paragraph.
Your post includes too many fallacies to fully address in a short reply, but I'll mention a few of them.
putting the onus on the individual citizens/employees who cannot easily move to tax-free states?
Individuals can move. "Easily" is a red-herring. Economics and their individual situation determines how easy the move will be and whether a move will be worth it to them (kind of like with big companies). But believe me, moving a family across the country is a whole lot easier than moving a large company.
Obviously they can't move to tax-free states, because, (due to arrogant people like you who think the world owes you something just because you were born), there are no tax-free states.
By the way, giving up rights will never gain you order and safety. The word 'safety' only has relevance in relation the thing which is to be kept safe. In has no meaning whatsoever considered apart from rights.
Copyright was not the main point of GGP, which I would guess is the reason GP did not spend more than a brief pair of sentences on it (into which you somehow read a degree of ignorance not shown by GP). I'm reasonably confident based on GP's comments that he is in fact aware of the facts you refer to. But how is this relevant? Are we supposed to support copyright out of selfishness, simply because we ourselves can partake of it, too? Nonsense. Some people, yourself apparently excluded, believe in absolute morals and contend that individual integrity is of the utmost importance in our relations with the world. If copyright is immoral (and it is), then it does not matter how much I benefit from it. Even if it made me a hundred billion dollars, I would still be a rotten, wicked, selfish bastard of a thief for violating the rights of individuals to use their real property as they would choose.
How about we ban them from doing business with all governments?
After all,
From the WSJ article referenced by GP:
Countries with repressive governments aren't the only ones interested in such technology. Britain has a list of blocked sites, and the German government is considering similar measures. In the U.S., the National Security Agency has such capability, which was employed as part of the Bush administration's "Terrorist Surveillance Program." A White House official wouldn't comment on if or how this is being used under the Obama administration.
The Australian government is experimenting with Web-site filtering to protect its youth from online pornography, an undertaking that has triggered criticism that it amounts to government-backed censorship.
Of course, by definition, any government interested in using such tactics is oppressive. As for Obama, anyone with even half a brain and working eyes, ears, or sense of touch knows that NSA surveillance didn't stop with Bush.
Nokia Siemens Networks provided equipment to Iran last year under the internationally recognized concept of "lawful intercept," said Mr. Roome. That relates to intercepting data for the purposes of combating terrorism, child pornography, drug trafficking and other criminal activities carried out online, a capability that most if not all telecom companies have, he said.
I don't see what's the big deal? They're only blocking criminal activities; which is to say, dissenting from the government.
Eh. Not having separate bank accounts is important. And you mention "the cost and work" of having a joint bank account? Are you serious? Two people, one account to maintain. Obviously higher costs and more work than maintaining a single account. Why should each spouse bear the whole costs of maintaining a bank account (or any resource) when the costs and burdens can be shared? Isn't that a major part of marriage, anyway?
Ignore parent's advice. In fact, if you think you need separate finances and a prenuptial agreement, cancel the wedding. Either you're not ready for marriage or she's (or he's, in other cases) not the right one and you don't trust her.
I am soon to marry my true love... Unfortunately, all of the references seem to be based around an alpha-male jock and a submissive cheerleader-style wife.
Cheerleading has nothing to do with submission in a wife. In fact, the stereotypical cheerleader would not be a submissive wife at all. Maybe it's worth considering that the idea of a submissive wife also has nothing to do with the wife's individual personality traits, but rather more generally with what makes a woman a good wife. Nevertheless, it is good that you are careful what you read; what is this "alpha-male jock" nonsense? A good husband loves his wife -- and treats her that way -- and you should consider the implications of that before marrying.
A lot of the references to incompatibility in the books don't apply to us (neglect due to interest in sports, etc.). What are some of the pitfalls and successes learned in the course of a more geek-oriented marriage?
Eh, what about neglect due to gaming or other computer work? Or reading? Obviously you've got to generalize from examples like that. The issue isn't really the sports, it's the relationship.
Domain name theft is an impossibility. People should stop using terms that confuse and twist language and call things what they are. Even if respecting others claims to domain name usage were a moral imperative (that's a separate issue which I'm choosing not to address), the notion that it is 'theft' should be patently absurd to anyone who hasn't abdicated his brain. Defending of domain-name "rights" should at least be able to argue their case without resorting to abusing the concept of property.
Think of it this way. You were not obligated to port the game. You had no moral obligation to spend months of your time working on that project. Once you did spend your time, you still had no moral obligation to give the product of your work to anyone else -- it was your time, not theirs. Second, if you hadn't ported the game, noone would have it on the iPhone (assuming noone else ported it). Still no moral wrong on your part. If you sell the game for $2.99, now the people willing to pay the $2.99 have it. Key word was willing. People will only buy the game from you if they value the game more highly than $2.99 of their own cash. In no way have you violated any principle of ethics by granting them the opportunity to choose between Their $2.99 and your game. Even if you charged $3000 per copy, you have still only granted people an opportunity, albeit a useless opportunity for most people. The point is that you take nothing from anyone in making this offer. There is nothing wrong with it.
It's not your apartment. It's your apartment plus a wide area around your apartment. Sound waves are a physical phenomenon which extend far beyond their original source.
For example, you do not have the right to emit sound waves that would penetrate through your wall and deafen your neighbor in his apartment next door.
No, it's quite irrelevant. A sperm cell must combine with another separate entity to form a baby. An embryo *is* an entity. It was formed from the combination of two entities. It does not need to combine with another entity to form something. It is fed, not merged.
What's that have to do with this discussion? Noone force uses you to use copyrighted, non-copylefted code either, but that doesn't mean there are no restrictions on the use of such code.
You live in a world of conflicting freedoms, as another poster has already clearly pointed out.
As I have pointed out, that is incorrect. If you think there are conflicting freedoms, you do not understand freedom. Freedom is not just 'the ability to do something'. Freedom as a meaningful social concept does not allow one to violate the rights of others. Restricting another person's use of his own property is not your "freedom". It is oppression or vengeance or justice, as the case may be. When your target is someone who has not aggressed against you, it is oppression.
My freedom to play my stereo as loud as I want within the confines of my apartment has the potential to conflict with the freedom of my neighbors to an atmosphere of peace and quiet within the confines of their apartments.
No, you just don't have the freedom to play your stereo as loud as you want.
If we allow (as some pro-life types do) that embryos are not people, we might still claim that they are "potential human beings", in that they will develop into people if left to their own devices. Timmarhy's point is actually relevant to that, since a sperm cell can be considered a "potential life", that you just haven't bothered to put into contact with an egg.
Sperm cells will not develop into people if left to their own devices. The whole argument is absurd.
We don't need to "get to the point". The answer's obvious. A cloned organ donor is human when it's cloned from a human. If it's cloned from a pig, it's not human. If it's cloned from a cow, it's not human. Et cetera.
Many people modify binaries. There is a whole community of people who modify binaries to remove restrictions placed on the binaries and allow those binaries to be more widely used. There are also communities of people who modify binary console games to create their own games from them, or to change various features of the game. That "virtually nobody" modifies binaries is false. Maybe you do not have the knowledge to do so yourself, but there are many people with both the knowledge and the inclination. To these people, modifying binaries can fun, enlightening, and fulfilling.
Second, you think "freedoms conflict"? You're going to have to give at least one example of conflicting freedoms if you want to be believed. And no, copyleft does not provide such an example. Copyleft is the use of force to prevent someone from modifying code or using code in certain ways and then distributing only a binary derived from that code without the modified source.
There are circumstances in which copyleft, or something like it, can be seen as valid. Take Microsoft for example. Microsoft uses GPL code in certain of their software products. Microsoft also releases a lot of software with restrictive copyrights. Because of this fact, an author of free software is justified in enforcing restrictions against Microsoft, in forbidding Microsoft certain uses of his free software code, etc. Copyleft is in this sense self-defense and defense of other; in this case the use of copyleft against Microsoft is justice. This is much the same as when one catches a thief stealing from one's house, one has the right to take what the thief stole, and even more than what the thief stole (whether it be in the form of making the thief pay 2x or 3x or making the thief serve jail time or some other form of punishment).
The point is that it is consistent with freedom to impose restrictions on aggressors, but it is not consistent with freedom to use force to control the behavior of those who have not aggressed against you. Copyleft, at least in its most common forms (e.g. GPL) imposes restrictions on everyone, and in this way it is not just and is actually anti-freedom.
You might say that it only really imposes a restriction on those who would modify the code and distribute a binary derivation under a restrictive license. But it is possible for one to distribute binaries without copyrighting them and without trying to enforce any restrictions with regard to how people use those binaries. The degree of practical difficulty of doing so is irrelevant to the question of freedom. Everyone has the right not to publish the products of his own mind; but when they are published, he has no right to control how others use his ideas.
Without copyright, you can modify proprietary software binaries. There's nothing stopping you from doing it. Sure it's not as easy as modifying source, but it can be done. Or you can use the binary to reverse engineer an algorithm or data format and write an open source version of the software.
RMS' focus on EULA's is confusing the issues at hand. Any consistent anti-copyright, pro-free-software position does not recognize "EULAs" (which, despite the name, are not agreements but one-sided proclamations) as valid. No free court system in a society without copyrights would respect one-sided "EULAs".
Stallman's proposal is not "freedom". He uses the term "free", but as he admits he relies on using un-free restrictions to promote a certain degree of freedom. This is very clever and copyleft is very important in a society in which copyright exists. The value in copyleft is that it is a protection from copyright. Thus without copyright there is no need for copyleft. Supporting copyright because without it copyleft cannot exist is hypocritical and reveals that one really has no interest in freedom at all.
I disagree with the "almost certainly" there, but for sake of argument let's assume you're right.
Having to sign a contract to get software would really piss a lot of people off and push them toward seeking free alternatives without the contract.
Slashdot Mirror
Great start, but you should have stopped after the first paragraph.
Your post includes too many fallacies to fully address in a short reply, but I'll mention a few of them.
putting the onus on the individual citizens/employees who cannot easily move to tax-free states?
Individuals can move. "Easily" is a red-herring. Economics and their individual situation determines how easy the move will be and whether a move will be worth it to them (kind of like with big companies). But believe me, moving a family across the country is a whole lot easier than moving a large company. Obviously they can't move to tax-free states, because, (due to arrogant people like you who think the world owes you something just because you were born), there are no tax-free states.
By the way, giving up rights will never gain you order and safety. The word 'safety' only has relevance in relation the thing which is to be kept safe. In has no meaning whatsoever considered apart from rights.
Copyright was not the main point of GGP, which I would guess is the reason GP did not spend more than a brief pair of sentences on it (into which you somehow read a degree of ignorance not shown by GP). I'm reasonably confident based on GP's comments that he is in fact aware of the facts you refer to. But how is this relevant? Are we supposed to support copyright out of selfishness, simply because we ourselves can partake of it, too? Nonsense. Some people, yourself apparently excluded, believe in absolute morals and contend that individual integrity is of the utmost importance in our relations with the world. If copyright is immoral (and it is), then it does not matter how much I benefit from it. Even if it made me a hundred billion dollars, I would still be a rotten, wicked, selfish bastard of a thief for violating the rights of individuals to use their real property as they would choose.
Someone who is confident that the aircraft will work.
Maybe they just got really efficient at blocking SPAM?
Yeah, unsolicited advertisements for anti-government positions transferred over the Internet.
Of course, by definition, any government interested in using such tactics is oppressive. As for Obama, anyone with even half a brain and working eyes, ears, or sense of touch knows that NSA surveillance didn't stop with Bush.
I don't see what's the big deal? They're only blocking criminal activities; which is to say, dissenting from the government.
Eh. Not having separate bank accounts is important. And you mention "the cost and work" of having a joint bank account? Are you serious? Two people, one account to maintain. Obviously higher costs and more work than maintaining a single account. Why should each spouse bear the whole costs of maintaining a bank account (or any resource) when the costs and burdens can be shared? Isn't that a major part of marriage, anyway?
Ignore parent's advice. In fact, if you think you need separate finances and a prenuptial agreement, cancel the wedding. Either you're not ready for marriage or she's (or he's, in other cases) not the right one and you don't trust her.
I am soon to marry my true love ... Unfortunately, all of the references seem to be based around an alpha-male jock and a submissive cheerleader-style wife.
Cheerleading has nothing to do with submission in a wife. In fact, the stereotypical cheerleader would not be a submissive wife at all. Maybe it's worth considering that the idea of a submissive wife also has nothing to do with the wife's individual personality traits, but rather more generally with what makes a woman a good wife. Nevertheless, it is good that you are careful what you read; what is this "alpha-male jock" nonsense? A good husband loves his wife -- and treats her that way -- and you should consider the implications of that before marrying.
A lot of the references to incompatibility in the books don't apply to us (neglect due to interest in sports, etc.). What are some of the pitfalls and successes learned in the course of a more geek-oriented marriage?
Eh, what about neglect due to gaming or other computer work? Or reading? Obviously you've got to generalize from examples like that. The issue isn't really the sports, it's the relationship.
I was born in the US and I deserve free medical care.
You have a spleen for that, don't you?
I thought he was praising his favorite email client.
Domain name theft is an impossibility. People should stop using terms that confuse and twist language and call things what they are. Even if respecting others claims to domain name usage were a moral imperative (that's a separate issue which I'm choosing not to address), the notion that it is 'theft' should be patently absurd to anyone who hasn't abdicated his brain. Defending of domain-name "rights" should at least be able to argue their case without resorting to abusing the concept of property.
Oh, well if you twitted it then it must be true!
Think of it this way. You were not obligated to port the game. You had no moral obligation to spend months of your time working on that project. Once you did spend your time, you still had no moral obligation to give the product of your work to anyone else -- it was your time, not theirs. Second, if you hadn't ported the game, noone would have it on the iPhone (assuming noone else ported it). Still no moral wrong on your part. If you sell the game for $2.99, now the people willing to pay the $2.99 have it. Key word was willing. People will only buy the game from you if they value the game more highly than $2.99 of their own cash. In no way have you violated any principle of ethics by granting them the opportunity to choose between Their $2.99 and your game. Even if you charged $3000 per copy, you have still only granted people an opportunity, albeit a useless opportunity for most people. The point is that you take nothing from anyone in making this offer. There is nothing wrong with it.
It's not your apartment. It's your apartment plus a wide area around your apartment. Sound waves are a physical phenomenon which extend far beyond their original source.
For example, you do not have the right to emit sound waves that would penetrate through your wall and deafen your neighbor in his apartment next door.
No, it's quite irrelevant. A sperm cell must combine with another separate entity to form a baby. An embryo *is* an entity. It was formed from the combination of two entities. It does not need to combine with another entity to form something. It is fed, not merged.
Nobody forces you to use copylefted code.
What's that have to do with this discussion? Noone force uses you to use copyrighted, non-copylefted code either, but that doesn't mean there are no restrictions on the use of such code.
You live in a world of conflicting freedoms, as another poster has already clearly pointed out.
As I have pointed out, that is incorrect. If you think there are conflicting freedoms, you do not understand freedom. Freedom is not just 'the ability to do something'. Freedom as a meaningful social concept does not allow one to violate the rights of others. Restricting another person's use of his own property is not your "freedom". It is oppression or vengeance or justice, as the case may be. When your target is someone who has not aggressed against you, it is oppression.
My freedom to play my stereo as loud as I want within the confines of my apartment has the potential to conflict with the freedom of my neighbors to an atmosphere of peace and quiet within the confines of their apartments.
No, you just don't have the freedom to play your stereo as loud as you want.
Don't worry, you'll learn about all that stuff when you get to 9th grade Biology class.
If we allow (as some pro-life types do) that embryos are not people, we might still claim that they are "potential human beings", in that they will develop into people if left to their own devices. Timmarhy's point is actually relevant to that, since a sperm cell can be considered a "potential life", that you just haven't bothered to put into contact with an egg.
Sperm cells will not develop into people if left to their own devices. The whole argument is absurd.
It takes a unique type of idiot to lack the ability to distinguish conceptually between an embryo and a gamete. Hint: count the chromosomes.
We don't need to "get to the point". The answer's obvious. A cloned organ donor is human when it's cloned from a human. If it's cloned from a pig, it's not human. If it's cloned from a cow, it's not human. Et cetera.
Many people modify binaries. There is a whole community of people who modify binaries to remove restrictions placed on the binaries and allow those binaries to be more widely used. There are also communities of people who modify binary console games to create their own games from them, or to change various features of the game. That "virtually nobody" modifies binaries is false. Maybe you do not have the knowledge to do so yourself, but there are many people with both the knowledge and the inclination. To these people, modifying binaries can fun, enlightening, and fulfilling.
Second, you think "freedoms conflict"? You're going to have to give at least one example of conflicting freedoms if you want to be believed. And no, copyleft does not provide such an example. Copyleft is the use of force to prevent someone from modifying code or using code in certain ways and then distributing only a binary derived from that code without the modified source.
There are circumstances in which copyleft, or something like it, can be seen as valid. Take Microsoft for example. Microsoft uses GPL code in certain of their software products. Microsoft also releases a lot of software with restrictive copyrights. Because of this fact, an author of free software is justified in enforcing restrictions against Microsoft, in forbidding Microsoft certain uses of his free software code, etc. Copyleft is in this sense self-defense and defense of other; in this case the use of copyleft against Microsoft is justice. This is much the same as when one catches a thief stealing from one's house, one has the right to take what the thief stole, and even more than what the thief stole (whether it be in the form of making the thief pay 2x or 3x or making the thief serve jail time or some other form of punishment).
The point is that it is consistent with freedom to impose restrictions on aggressors, but it is not consistent with freedom to use force to control the behavior of those who have not aggressed against you. Copyleft, at least in its most common forms (e.g. GPL) imposes restrictions on everyone, and in this way it is not just and is actually anti-freedom.
You might say that it only really imposes a restriction on those who would modify the code and distribute a binary derivation under a restrictive license. But it is possible for one to distribute binaries without copyrighting them and without trying to enforce any restrictions with regard to how people use those binaries. The degree of practical difficulty of doing so is irrelevant to the question of freedom. Everyone has the right not to publish the products of his own mind; but when they are published, he has no right to control how others use his ideas.
Freedoms do not conflict.
...but real life is far worse than V for Vendetta.
Without copyright, you can modify proprietary software binaries. There's nothing stopping you from doing it. Sure it's not as easy as modifying source, but it can be done. Or you can use the binary to reverse engineer an algorithm or data format and write an open source version of the software. RMS' focus on EULA's is confusing the issues at hand. Any consistent anti-copyright, pro-free-software position does not recognize "EULAs" (which, despite the name, are not agreements but one-sided proclamations) as valid. No free court system in a society without copyrights would respect one-sided "EULAs". Stallman's proposal is not "freedom". He uses the term "free", but as he admits he relies on using un-free restrictions to promote a certain degree of freedom. This is very clever and copyleft is very important in a society in which copyright exists. The value in copyleft is that it is a protection from copyright. Thus without copyright there is no need for copyleft. Supporting copyright because without it copyleft cannot exist is hypocritical and reveals that one really has no interest in freedom at all.
I disagree with the "almost certainly" there, but for sake of argument let's assume you're right. Having to sign a contract to get software would really piss a lot of people off and push them toward seeking free alternatives without the contract.
After all, how can you start programming in another language before you've even got your editor configured?!