Recently there was a lot of commotion about a murder case here in Belgium. The end result was a 1 year sentence for the killer. Yes, that is 1 (one) year.
Where is your sense of proportion now?
Do you want another example? Ok, I have one right here. A guy (drunk) crashes his car into a building at high speed, kills one bystander. Previously, they have taken away his license three times for drinking and driving, speeding and reckless behaviour. End result? One year in prison. Please put him in jail with that Swede, I think they have a lot in common (sarcasm overdose).
and it ranges between 'no DRM' and 'no DRM whatsoever'.
The reason? Because you have less rights as a buyer than as someone who just downloads the movie/song/whatever.
And that is IMHO the big problem with for example the recording industries: they treat their customers as criminals.
On each and every CD I have bought the last couple of months, there's a bit DON'T COPY MUSIC notice, while I'M THE ONE BUYING IT! Please do not point out that it would be rather hard to reach the downloaders this way, but hopefully you get my point.
As long as there is no proof of their existence, sending stuff equals wasting a lot of money.
IMHO, we'd better use that money to do some other stuff that actually helps people on our planet.
I have actually never understood how this whole GPL stuff works. The bit I find difficult to understand is the whole legal part - how can you enforce your rights? There is no signed contract, hence no agreement.
My company and I have looked at open source opportunities before, but it's precisely for this reason that we kept away from OS - even though we felt we could use it and contribute to it... Can somebody please explain this to me, or provide me with a clear link?
14 year old boy to his peers: "you know, yesterday when I was downloading pictures all of a sudden I got redirected to some sort of research site. I mean, good gravy, what's the net coming to these days?"
Call me ignorant, but why would any company NOT want to stop competition?
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but I'm getting a bit tired of the whole "it's Microsoft so it must be evil" mindset.
If my company saw a(n) (legal) opportunity to stop or hinder the competition, we'd grab it with both hands and do whatever we could to exploit that opportunity.
Was it addiction then that caused them to smoke the first cigarette? Nope - it's the ye olde "I know best" and "what the (insert swear) do I care" routine.
So for every 1 million users of a free OS, the community has donated the equivalent of $100 million.
By stating this, you automatically assume that each and every one of those users WILL donate that $100 to whatever charity cause. I guess the numbers that donate will be "a bit" lower.
While I'm not Bill Gates' biggest fan, I still applaude his example. It's easy to say that, because he is so rich, it's easy for him to donate a lot of money. But you still have to do it.
Most people I know would never donate that (or any) amount of money, no matter how rich they were. And to be honest, nor would I.
Slashdot Mirror
SkyNet is still evil - it's a national ISP here in these parts.
Where is your sense of proportion now?
Do you want another example? Ok, I have one right here. A guy (drunk) crashes his car into a building at high speed, kills one bystander. Previously, they have taken away his license three times for drinking and driving, speeding and reckless behaviour. End result? One year in prison. Please put him in jail with that Swede, I think they have a lot in common (sarcasm overdose).
The reason? Because you have less rights as a buyer than as someone who just downloads the movie/song/whatever.
And that is IMHO the big problem with for example the recording industries: they treat their customers as criminals.
On each and every CD I have bought the last couple of months, there's a bit DON'T COPY MUSIC notice, while I'M THE ONE BUYING IT! Please do not point out that it would be rather hard to reach the downloaders this way, but hopefully you get my point.
That still does not justify throwing money away on lost causes...
As long as there is no proof of their existence, sending stuff equals wasting a lot of money. IMHO, we'd better use that money to do some other stuff that actually helps people on our planet.
What, no porn?
My company and I have looked at open source opportunities before, but it's precisely for this reason that we kept away from OS - even though we felt we could use it and contribute to it... Can somebody please explain this to me, or provide me with a clear link?
14 year old boy to his peers: "you know, yesterday when I was downloading pictures all of a sudden I got redirected to some sort of research site. I mean, good gravy, what's the net coming to these days?"
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but I'm getting a bit tired of the whole "it's Microsoft so it must be evil" mindset.
If my company saw a(n) (legal) opportunity to stop or hinder the competition, we'd grab it with both hands and do whatever we could to exploit that opportunity.
Was it addiction then that caused them to smoke the first cigarette? Nope - it's the ye olde "I know best" and "what the (insert swear) do I care" routine.
Yes, but how many darts does it take to launch that stationwagon?
Sorry for you, "dude", but that is not a universal truth. Here in Belgium for example, it IS legal to make a copy of something you already own.
By stating this, you automatically assume that each and every one of those users WILL donate that $100 to whatever charity cause. I guess the numbers that donate will be "a bit" lower.
While I'm not Bill Gates' biggest fan, I still applaude his example. It's easy to say that, because he is so rich, it's easy for him to donate a lot of money. But you still have to do it.
Most people I know would never donate that (or any) amount of money, no matter how rich they were. And to be honest, nor would I.