Boy do I wish I had some moderation points for this.
I think that this is the only way to overcome the current problems with our "distribution system". Sure, there will be people that will never voluntarily support artists (or software designers, or authors, or scientists, etc.), but will simple mooch off the system. I think that the majority of people will recognize that it is in their best interest to "contribute".
It will take some education and it needs to be made easy and convenient for people to do it, but I beleive they will.
P.S. xeno, I'd love to get in contact with you about what you have said.
They've just asked Napster to carry through on the promise it's been hiding behind. "We'll block any user who you can show us is trading illegal MP3s," they say to Metallica & Dr. Dre. So Metallica's ponying up a list of names, and what Napster does in response could have a lot of power to help or hurt them--if they meekly remove those users, they could take a lot of the wind out of Metallica's legal sails.
The problem here is determining when an MP3 is illegal. How can it be said which of these are trading illegally. Is it a legal requirement that for me to have a legal copy of something I already own, I have to have made the copy personally? If there is, I would like to see the precedent. I realize that many of those who are trading MP3s this way do not have legal copies of the recordings, but how do we now which one?
I am not going to argue about the issue of illegal trading. The only MP3s that I have personally downloaded using Napster - or any site for that matter - are those for which I already have the CD. As I think about it, the issue of me sharing my MP3s with the world (I just happen to use Napster) is very similar to the lawsuit against MP3.com. If I own a legal copy, can I make it available to others who can have a legal copy? And if so, how can that be verified?
There are a couple of key points that you make - one is pointing out that it is about a policy to restrict access by minors. There is nothing in the law as I read it that requires any kind of software program to do this. I suppose that a judge may find differently and software is necessary, but the law requires a policy for how the library will restrict access.
That brings me to the second point - access of this material by minors in the state of Utah is against the law. If that is the law that you are complaining about - complain about that. I think that this particular law is similar to the one about tampering with smoke detectors in airplane lavatories. It is a law to help enforce another law.
If I remember correctly about the fight in Michigan, there were many who still wanted to figure out a way to restrict access by minors to obscene material, but voted against the referendum. Some who voted against that could very well support some other measure that was not as problematic.
My main complaint with the move to the digital world in recording (and I guess it can correlate to photography), was the lack of understanding of sound and proper recording techniques. It wasn't a matter of whether or not something should be done, but simply that it can be done. (I was in a school setting and so was dealing with the student mindframe - many of who I am sure have not gone on to be professional recording engineers.)
Digital recording has allowed more home studio users to produce recordings. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, just like allowing home users to take their own photographs. The true professionals will use the available tools to their advantage.
The same goes for photograpy. Just as there are still those who play analog instruments (some of which are 300 years old or more) and paint with oil and brush, or mold with clay, there will always those who choose to use film.
I happen to have a digital camera because it is easier for me to use than a point and click camera that takes film. I find I take alot more "snapshots" now than I did when I had a non-digital camera. However, I would still love to have a SLR camera to really learn about photography. There is place for both in the world.
It is in the customers best interest for the software industry to change. Yes, the days of billionaire software company executives would be over, but ultimately this is why Free Software is bound to become the standard.
There is noone in the world today who will pay an architect to design a building and would accept not receiving the plans to the building. This is exactly what software is.
There will still be a need for programmers and those that understand the software, just as there is a need for facilities people who understand the buildings systems. There will even still be large software companies. They just won't be Microsoft or Oracle large.
Perhaps the software industry will become more like the law or accounting. Like it or not, software is more akin to these industries than to automobiles or steel. Money will be made by selling service and support, but not in the way that we currently think of it in the software industry, but more like in the law and accounting.
Creative works must be allowed to be copyrighted, or anyone could copy War and Peace and sell it as his own. I think you're confusing copyrights (creative works) and patents (ideas) - I will agree with you that software patents are bad, bad, bad - but were talking about forcing a business to give up it's actual product, not some design technique. Were talking about stealing, plain and simple.
We'll just have to disagree as far as copyrights is concerned. I am fully aware of the differences between copyright and patents. I am not talking about the validity of either copyrights or patents, I believe that they have their place. However, I don't believe that they should be treated as "property". You believe that they should be.
That's a loaded question - using the word "public" in regards to the ownership of MS is a misnomer, even though it's done all the time - it is in fact a privately owned company. Just because a company has more than one owner, does make it "public". Microsoft is owned by all of those people who were inclined to purchase a piece of it's stock, not the public-at-large.
There are only two types of companies that I would consider truly private, as an extension of the individuals. All others are statutory, (creations of the government, which in turn is a creation of the "public"), and therefore are public. The two exceptions: Sole Proprietorships that are not incorporated, and general partnerships that don't enjoy the benefits of limited liabilty. I suppose that certian types of co-ops would also fit under this category. Again, we can simply disagree on these definitions if we want to.
I am not ignoring definitions, rather I am asking a question with regards to how we define these words. I understand the definition of "Publically Held Company" and "Private Property" and I know that legally a public company can hold private property. I am challanging the notion that any company, especially those that are in the public trust, can claim the same rights to privacy and property ownership as an individual.
Any company is a creation of the government and exsists because the government allows it to. In contrast, individuals are not dependent on the government for their existence rather it is the other way around.
Perhaps my question would be better worded "How can a statutory creation (public company) claim inalienable rights (to hold private property)?"
Not everyone agrees or beleives that ideas and creative works are equivilent to and can be treated the same as physical property. Besides that, how can a "public" company ever hold "private" property?
It isn't so much that I would like to see MS lose, rather, I'm not sure that we could trust anything that Microsoft is WILLING to do. As far as the forced lisencing of the source code - I think that this would only be effective if it were made publically available and not able to be made proprietary by Microsoft again, ala GPL. Otherwise you end up with incompatabilities in standards once the next version of Windows is released. As for the arguement that MS makes that they shouldn't be allowed to innovate, Microsoft's very exsistence is a creation of statute. Likewise, the ability to "innovate", ie. Intelectual Property, is a creation of statute. The government has every right and responsibility to monitor the behavior of corporations. Forcing Microsoft to give up it's intelectual property is a very valid way of keeping them in check.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem here is that they record companies are using the government to enforce an artificial monopoly. This would simply take some of that away.
I think that this is the only way to overcome the current problems with our "distribution system". Sure, there will be people that will never voluntarily support artists (or software designers, or authors, or scientists, etc.), but will simple mooch off the system. I think that the majority of people will recognize that it is in their best interest to "contribute".
It will take some education and it needs to be made easy and convenient for people to do it, but I beleive they will.
P.S. xeno, I'd love to get in contact with you about what you have said.
They've just asked Napster to carry through on the promise it's been hiding behind. "We'll block any user who you can show us is trading illegal MP3s," they say to Metallica & Dr. Dre. So Metallica's ponying up a list of names, and what Napster does in response could have a lot of power to help or hurt them--if they meekly remove those users, they could take a lot of the wind out of Metallica's legal sails.
The problem here is determining when an MP3 is illegal. How can it be said which of these are trading illegally. Is it a legal requirement that for me to have a legal copy of something I already own, I have to have made the copy personally? If there is, I would like to see the precedent. I realize that many of those who are trading MP3s this way do not have legal copies of the recordings, but how do we now which one?
I am not going to argue about the issue of illegal trading. The only MP3s that I have personally downloaded using Napster - or any site for that matter - are those for which I already have the CD. As I think about it, the issue of me sharing my MP3s with the world (I just happen to use Napster) is very similar to the lawsuit against MP3.com. If I own a legal copy, can I make it available to others who can have a legal copy? And if so, how can that be verified?
There are a couple of key points that you make - one is pointing out that it is about a policy to restrict access by minors. There is nothing in the law as I read it that requires any kind of software program to do this. I suppose that a judge may find differently and software is necessary, but the law requires a policy for how the library will restrict access.
That brings me to the second point - access of this material by minors in the state of Utah is against the law. If that is the law that you are complaining about - complain about that. I think that this particular law is similar to the one about tampering with smoke detectors in airplane lavatories. It is a law to help enforce another law.
If I remember correctly about the fight in Michigan, there were many who still wanted to figure out a way to restrict access by minors to obscene material, but voted against the referendum. Some who voted against that could very well support some other measure that was not as problematic.
The issues, although similar, are not the same.
My main complaint with the move to the digital world in recording (and I guess it can correlate to photography), was the lack of understanding of sound and proper recording techniques. It wasn't a matter of whether or not something should be done, but simply that it can be done. (I was in a school setting and so was dealing with the student mindframe - many of who I am sure have not gone on to be professional recording engineers.)
Digital recording has allowed more home studio users to produce recordings. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, just like allowing home users to take their own photographs. The true professionals will use the available tools to their advantage.
The same goes for photograpy. Just as there are still those who play analog instruments (some of which are 300 years old or more) and paint with oil and brush, or mold with clay, there will always those who choose to use film.
I happen to have a digital camera because it is easier for me to use than a point and click camera that takes film. I find I take alot more "snapshots" now than I did when I had a non-digital camera. However, I would still love to have a SLR camera to really learn about photography. There is place for both in the world.
It is in the customers best interest for the software industry to change. Yes, the days of billionaire software company executives would be over, but ultimately this is why Free Software is bound to become the standard.
There is noone in the world today who will pay an architect to design a building and would accept not receiving the plans to the building. This is exactly what software is.
There will still be a need for programmers and those that understand the software, just as there is a need for facilities people who understand the buildings systems. There will even still be large software companies. They just won't be Microsoft or Oracle large.
Perhaps the software industry will become more like the law or accounting. Like it or not, software is more akin to these industries than to automobiles or steel. Money will be made by selling service and support, but not in the way that we currently think of it in the software industry, but more like in the law and accounting.
Creative works must be allowed to be copyrighted, or anyone could copy War and Peace and sell it as his own. I think you're confusing copyrights (creative works) and patents (ideas) - I will agree with you that software patents are bad, bad, bad - but were talking about forcing a business to give up it's actual product, not some design technique. Were talking about stealing, plain and simple.
We'll just have to disagree as far as copyrights is concerned. I am fully aware of the differences between copyright and patents. I am not talking about the validity of either copyrights or patents, I believe that they have their place. However, I don't believe that they should be treated as "property". You believe that they should be.
That's a loaded question - using the word "public" in regards to the ownership of MS is a misnomer, even though it's done all the time - it is in fact a privately owned company. Just because a company has more than one owner, does make it "public". Microsoft is owned by all of those people who were inclined to purchase a piece of it's stock, not the public-at-large.
There are only two types of companies that I would consider truly private, as an extension of the individuals. All others are statutory, (creations of the government, which in turn is a creation of the "public"), and therefore are public. The two exceptions: Sole Proprietorships that are not incorporated, and general partnerships that don't enjoy the benefits of limited liabilty. I suppose that certian types of co-ops would also fit under this category. Again, we can simply disagree on these definitions if we want to.
I am not ignoring definitions, rather I am asking a question with regards to how we define these words. I understand the definition of "Publically Held Company" and "Private Property" and I know that legally a public company can hold private property. I am challanging the notion that any company, especially those that are in the public trust, can claim the same rights to privacy and property ownership as an individual.
Any company is a creation of the government and exsists because the government allows it to. In contrast, individuals are not dependent on the government for their existence rather it is the other way around.
Perhaps my question would be better worded "How can a statutory creation (public company) claim inalienable rights (to hold private property)?"
Not everyone agrees or beleives that ideas and creative works are equivilent to and can be treated the same as physical property.
Besides that, how can a "public" company ever hold "private" property?
Trent
I used to know what I was talking about.
It isn't so much that I would like to see MS lose, rather, I'm not sure that we could trust anything that Microsoft is WILLING to do. As far as the forced lisencing of the source code - I think that this would only be effective if it were made publically available and not able to be made proprietary by Microsoft again, ala GPL. Otherwise you end up with incompatabilities in standards once the next version of Windows is released. As for the arguement that MS makes that they shouldn't be allowed to innovate, Microsoft's very exsistence is a creation of statute. Likewise, the ability to "innovate", ie. Intelectual Property, is a creation of statute. The government has every right and responsibility to monitor the behavior of corporations. Forcing Microsoft to give up it's intelectual property is a very valid way of keeping them in check.