You are ignorant about history. How about the Spanish American war? How about the panama canal? How about the fact that the entry of the US into WWI was the only thing that saved France from certain surrender?
As far as Marxism goes, the history of attempts to implment Marxism are filled with vivid demonstrations of mass murder and starvation.
It seems to me that all of us already have all of the power we need to deal with this business practice if we do not like it. If you don't like it then don't use EBay. This will be a more effective cause of change at EBay than using the coercive force of governmental authority.
Google has positive karma to spend on this and Microsoft did not when it tried it before. Google is being given a pass on this because there is not a widespread feeling out there that Google makes it's business by exploiting monopoly and screwing people. Microsoft does suffer from that perception.
The moral standards by which a company conducts itself do matter. Microsoft is trying to catch up with activities like charitable donations. You see lots of giving by the Bill Gates foundation. However, they have a large debt of ill will to pay down.
To answer your main question: I believe that any nation state where the founding principle of government is the implementation of literal religious fundamentalism (Islam or Christianity) is dangerous if they possess nuclear weapons.
To response to your other trolls: Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Also, this has nothing to do with ethnicity or skin color. It has to do with character and morality.
There is a blurring line between 'terrorists' and the countries run by lunatics who actively enable terrorists. The most likely short term scenario is that Iran will provide the infrastructure and financing necessary to build an atomic weapon and use it in the next 20 years. Iran may not hand it over to terrorists to use, but they will use it to accomplish goals they share with today's terrorists. Those goals are the establishment or protection of nation states built on criminal implementations of fundamental Islam and the destruction of the jewish state of Israel.
It is interesting to me that every time there is an article on Slashdot that is critical of China, there are always folks who fall all over themselves to excuse the Chinese government for brutality by illuminating problems with the US government.
Didn't your mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? It is perfectly OK to be against both the transgressions of the USA government and the Chinese government.
I just happen to think that living in China is far worse than the USA in terms of personal freedom. In the USA, we don't crush our children with tanks when they have a party in a public (Tiannenmen) square.
I have no problem with the world according to Richard Stallman as long as compliance is voluntary.
As a software creator I am free to choose to release the software for free and I am free to demand payment for my software. On the other side of the coin, consumers are free to accept my terms or not.
Oh wait, we already live in that world. So what is his beef with people making decisions for themselves?
I still remember the days of rotary phones. They were standard issue in the dorms when I was a college freshman in 1983. Some of the things I remember:
Phoning long distance sucked. You'd roto-dial 11 digits and often get just a busy signal. Forget redial or speed dialing.
They were damn near indestructable and when you did break them they could be repaired rather easily. It was not like the total component replacement of today. It was actually kind of fun to tinker with them.
You are already living in a world where you can choose to produce or consume movies that are not protected by copyright. Why not practice what you preach? From this point forward, only consume movies that are not protected by copyright. Likewise, please produce some high budget blockbuster hits that are not protected by copyright.
Are you saying that stealing copyrighted material ensures that good movie producers will recover their costs and bad movie producers will not? That's a bit tortured. I'll stick with the current system.
What do you say to someone who sinks $1 million dollars into the production of a feature film that you just copied without permission? That is the person you are stealing from, not your next door neighbor who bought a legitimate copy.
In the world you describe, a film that cost $1 million dollars to make could be bought once for $20 by one person. That one person then owns the film and allows infinite copies to be made. What do you say to film producer who produced a world wide smash hit but is only able to recover $20 of a $1,000,000 production cost?
The farmers were free to agree to the terms of the contract or not. Their choice to enter the agreement was freely made. How is this 'unjust and wrong'?
I'm curious. Do you RMS fans out there envision a world where the weight of law is used to implement your vision? Or are you content to battle it out in the voluntary marketplace of free expression?
Rational tools are snake oil. Their adoption is an attempt by desperate managers to compensate for bad hiring decisions. I'd take 5 great developers that don't use these tools over 20 good developers that do.
I have no problem with the world according to Richard Stallman (and you, Henrik) as long as compliance is voluntary. As a software creator I am free to choose to release the software for free and I am free to demand payment for my software. On the other side of the coin, consumers are free to accept my terms or not.
Don't we already live in that world. So what is your beef with people making decisions for themselves?
I have no problem with the world according to Richard Stallman as long as compliance is voluntary. As a software creator I am free to choose to release the software for free and I am free to demand payment for my software. On the other side of the coin, consumers are free to accept my terms or not.
Oh wait, we already live in that world. So what is his beef with people making decisions for themselves?
In your world, your click of friends does not have to pay for movies. Then, there are some people who do pay for movies. Let's call them 'The Others'. I can only assume that you feel a sense of entitlement to free movies while The Others still pay. Where does this sense of entitlement come from?
What do you say to the investors that took enormous financial risk in funding the production of the movie you are copying? How are they supposed to recover their cost of production in a world where you are making free copies without their persmission?
Here is some homework for you: Produce a popular new multi million dollar feature film. Allow free copying from day 1. Report back to Slashdot on how you are recovering your production cost.
I don't see much difference between totalitarian dictatorship and communism. Both can only be implemented through coercion and force. Why do you draw a distinction?
Let me paint 2 scenarios. Both involve a first date with a beautiful woman. In the first, you roll up in a rinky dink little shared car. In the second, you roll up in something slick that you own. Which scenario offers a better chance of getting lucky?
Slashdot Mirror
You are ignorant about history. How about the Spanish American war? How about the panama canal? How about the fact that the entry of the US into WWI was the only thing that saved France from certain surrender?
As far as Marxism goes, the history of attempts to implment Marxism are filled with vivid demonstrations of mass murder and starvation.
It seems to me that all of us already have all of the power we need to deal with this business practice if we do not like it. If you don't like it then don't use EBay. This will be a more effective cause of change at EBay than using the coercive force of governmental authority.
Google has positive karma to spend on this and Microsoft did not when it tried it before. Google is being given a pass on this because there is not a widespread feeling out there that Google makes it's business by exploiting monopoly and screwing people. Microsoft does suffer from that perception.
The moral standards by which a company conducts itself do matter. Microsoft is trying to catch up with activities like charitable donations. You see lots of giving by the Bill Gates foundation. However, they have a large debt of ill will to pay down.
To answer your main question: I believe that any nation state where the founding principle of government is the implementation of literal religious fundamentalism (Islam or Christianity) is dangerous if they possess nuclear weapons.
To response to your other trolls: Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Also, this has nothing to do with ethnicity or skin color. It has to do with character and morality.
There is a blurring line between 'terrorists' and the countries run by lunatics who actively enable terrorists. The most likely short term scenario is that Iran will provide the infrastructure and financing necessary to build an atomic weapon and use it in the next 20 years. Iran may not hand it over to terrorists to use, but they will use it to accomplish goals they share with today's terrorists. Those goals are the establishment or protection of nation states built on criminal implementations of fundamental Islam and the destruction of the jewish state of Israel.
It is interesting to me that every time there is an article on Slashdot that is critical of China, there are always folks who fall all over themselves to excuse the Chinese government for brutality by illuminating problems with the US government.
Didn't your mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? It is perfectly OK to be against both the transgressions of the USA government and the Chinese government.
I just happen to think that living in China is far worse than the USA in terms of personal freedom. In the USA, we don't crush our children with tanks when they have a party in a public (Tiannenmen) square.
Yes, I am that obtuse. Visions of utopia can easily slide into restrictions on freedom and mass murder.
I have no problem with the world according to Richard Stallman as long as compliance is voluntary.
As a software creator I am free to choose to release the software for free and I am free to demand payment for my software. On the other side of the coin, consumers are free to accept my terms or not.
Oh wait, we already live in that world. So what is his beef with people making decisions for themselves?
I still remember the days of rotary phones. They were standard issue in the dorms when I was a college freshman in 1983. Some of the things I remember:
Phoning long distance sucked. You'd roto-dial 11 digits and often get just a busy signal. Forget redial or speed dialing.
They were damn near indestructable and when you did break them they could be repaired rather easily. It was not like the total component replacement of today. It was actually kind of fun to tinker with them.
You are already living in a world where you can choose to produce or consume movies that are not protected by copyright. Why not practice what you preach? From this point forward, only consume movies that are not protected by copyright. Likewise, please produce some high budget blockbuster hits that are not protected by copyright.
Are you saying that stealing copyrighted material ensures that good movie producers will recover their costs and bad movie producers will not? That's a bit tortured. I'll stick with the current system.
Catbeller,
What do you say to someone who sinks $1 million dollars into the production of a feature film that you just copied without permission? That is the person you are stealing from, not your next door neighbor who bought a legitimate copy.
In the world you describe, a film that cost $1 million dollars to make could be bought once for $20 by one person. That one person then owns the film and allows infinite copies to be made. What do you say to film producer who produced a world wide smash hit but is only able to recover $20 of a $1,000,000 production cost?
The picture you paint is rather grim and distressing. What do you propose that mankind do to rectify this situation?
The farmers were free to agree to the terms of the contract or not. Their choice to enter the agreement was freely made. How is this 'unjust and wrong'?
I'm curious. Do you RMS fans out there envision a world where the weight of law is used to implement your vision? Or are you content to battle it out in the voluntary marketplace of free expression?
Rational tools are snake oil. Their adoption is an attempt by desperate managers to compensate for bad hiring decisions. I'd take 5 great developers that don't use these tools over 20 good developers that do.
I have no problem with the world according to Richard Stallman (and you, Henrik) as long as compliance is voluntary. As a software creator I am free to choose to release the software for free and I am free to demand payment for my software. On the other side of the coin, consumers are free to accept my terms or not.
Don't we already live in that world. So what is your beef with people making decisions for themselves?
What if all of the elves get better offers from the land grabbers?
I have no problem with the world according to Richard Stallman as long as compliance is voluntary. As a software creator I am free to choose to release the software for free and I am free to demand payment for my software. On the other side of the coin, consumers are free to accept my terms or not.
Oh wait, we already live in that world. So what is his beef with people making decisions for themselves?
I think that film as art is important for society. Do you agree?
How do we nurture this art form in a world where the costs of production cannot, as you assert, be recovered?
In your world, your click of friends does not have to pay for movies. Then, there are some people who do pay for movies. Let's call them 'The Others'. I can only assume that you feel a sense of entitlement to free movies while The Others still pay. Where does this sense of entitlement come from?
What do you say to the investors that took enormous financial risk in funding the production of the movie you are copying? How are they supposed to recover their cost of production in a world where you are making free copies without their persmission?
Here is some homework for you: Produce a popular new multi million dollar feature film. Allow free copying from day 1. Report back to Slashdot on how you are recovering your production cost.
I don't see much difference between totalitarian dictatorship and communism. Both can only be implemented through coercion and force. Why do you draw a distinction?
Can you define a 'post capitalist economy'? This sounds like a new name for Leninism.
Let me paint 2 scenarios. Both involve a first date with a beautiful woman. In the first, you roll up in a rinky dink little shared car. In the second, you roll up in something slick that you own. Which scenario offers a better chance of getting lucky?