I really have nothing better to do than respond to long-winded Slashdot posts, so here goes!
Half of my lawn died and need to be replaced with fresh sod. I need it before it deteriorates further causing damage to my property. But I can't afford that right now. Should I sneak out into a nursery and take the sod I need?
The problem with this analogy is that with pirate software you are not "taking" anything, you are copying.
And by copying you are "taking" an intangible property that provides revenue to the maker of the software. Property can either be tangible or intangible. The notion of intangible property is an ancient, time honored one.
To begin, you immediately compare copying and taking. As mentioned previously, these are two entirely different acts. In order to take, something must be deprived. Basic economics, now. If it were a rival good, then it would be required for the original possessor to have lost it in order for you to have gained it. As it's not, this is not a pre-requisite for both people to possess it. Hence, copying.
In your example you deprive the nursery of some sod, but when copying software you don't deprive anyone of physical property.
Again, property does not be to be physical to be qualified as such.
Again, you can't own information. You can possess mediums upon which information is listed. You can own the disc. You can purchase a license. You can say that you are the sole proprietor over a piece of information as granted by the government. But to say that one owns information is just absurd.
At best they loose a potential sale.
And there is nothing wrong with that, right?
Imagine the recipe for Pepsi Cola was leaked on to the internet, and you decided to make your own instead of buying actual Pepsi. I'm sure Pepsi would argue that they have lost something of value to them but it would be hard to accuse someone of stealing Pepsi if they made their own.
But you are forgetting that to get the recipe, Pepsi invested millions in term of payroll, research, equipment, infrastructure and product development to create something that is unique and for which they built a customer base and generate revenue. That is, they created an intangible property.
Leakage of that over the internet would be a break in the law and it would cause potential harm to the company (and thus its shareholders, employees and 3rd party companies that have business deals with it.)
You taking that recipe and using it to make profit (or even just to use it for your own) is no different from me taking your car and use it (either to make profit as a delivery boy or for pleasure to drive me to disneyland or a strip club.)
These are what we refer to as "trade secrets". They don't get government protection. In fact, their entire basis of working revolves around maintaining secrecy. But really, if the was government alloted protection on this, the company would still be fucked if anything got out. In your examples, please set up scenarios that relate to the discussion.
Computers and the internet are good at copying stuff.
Photocopiers are good at copying stuff. I can copy a book using my copier or someone else and not pay what I should morally and legitimately should.
There's not even an argument here. You just call paying for a copyrighted work to be moral and legitimate. I'll give you that it's legitimate as our current laws provide control over works. But to call it immoral is to deny the basic facets of morality and how they interact with our culture. Stop being baseless.
You need to build your business model around that.
Or we can throw away this whole "competition" thing and start working more towards a "cooperative" situation. Oh wait, am I expecting people to agree and work together? Sorry about that. Must have lost my head.
Most of the "community" (see: people actually on the IRC channel) are well aware of the situation. The community you're referring to also sounds like the same community that can't be bothered to acquire information from anything other than second hand sources.
Are you not even paying attention to that issue? Google sent the C&D because Cyanogen was distributing applications that are sold with the Google Experience. It's not so much that the users aren't allowed to download it as much as it is the distributor lacks a method for verifying that the users have the appropriate license to acquire such content. In fact, some Google employees are assisting with the project at this point.
But that 55 cents is being used to pay the people that sort it, carry the letter, etc. Those SMS messages are being tacked on to a part of the protocol that wasn't even in use. In short, it costs them NOTHING extra (mild power costs?) to send your "lol no u?" That's where the issue lies on this one, sir.
Maybe people should go around hacking Wifi connections and downloading illegal content of all sorts? It seems obvious that the legislators don't understand technology. So it seems necessary to show them where they're mistaken.
If you report all of the people anonymously, something is going to OBVIOUSLY be amiss after enough false accusations. Will people get hurt via this framing? Certainly. But the fact that they can means that there is something wrong with the current system.
I love how you capitalized "Unlimited" as if it really were "Unlimited" I doubt in the dictionary it states the definition of Unlimited to mean "Without limit, except in the case of a 5gb limit"
If memory serves, for Sprint's Simply Everything plan (as opposed to the "data" plans which definitely carry a 5gb average monthly usage soft limit), the definition of "unlimited" is a lot closer to the dictionary definition than your 5gb definition.
Really? What is this bullshit? Perhaps you have a better suggestion on what we should do in order to bring these books back from the dead. Be fucking happy that Google is a pro-competitive company and stop being a damned douchebag.
And before you decide to fire back, how many companies do you know of with the spare resources, manpower, or motivation to do this thing properly?
One could easily argue that by disconnecting the world from their primary source for these materials would follow along the same lines. Simply put, nothing good can come from China stopping trade on these goods.
And the entire world can CHOOSE to seek war against China. You assume ownership is an inherent right granted by the Universe. But I have news for you. Organisms fight. Organisms try to obtain resources. China doesn't "own" shit and if they decide not to play nice then they'll have to suffer the consequences. And if you disagree with me, then please prove that ownership is a concept that wasn't developed by people.
Do you propose Google leave the country to prevent themselves from hemmorhaging billions when they get sued in some stupid but somehow "legitimate" (that word really extends as far as the law lets it) lawsuit?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this analogy is that with pirate software you are not "taking" anything, you are copying.
And by copying you are "taking" an intangible property that provides revenue to the maker of the software. Property can either be tangible or intangible. The notion of intangible property is an ancient, time honored one.
To begin, you immediately compare copying and taking. As mentioned previously, these are two entirely different acts. In order to take, something must be deprived. Basic economics, now. If it were a rival good, then it would be required for the original possessor to have lost it in order for you to have gained it. As it's not, this is not a pre-requisite for both people to possess it. Hence, copying.
In your example you deprive the nursery of some sod, but when copying software you don't deprive anyone of physical property.
Again, property does not be to be physical to be qualified as such.
Again, you can't own information. You can possess mediums upon which information is listed. You can own the disc. You can purchase a license. You can say that you are the sole proprietor over a piece of information as granted by the government. But to say that one owns information is just absurd.
At best they loose a potential sale.
And there is nothing wrong with that, right?
Imagine the recipe for Pepsi Cola was leaked on to the internet, and you decided to make your own instead of buying actual Pepsi. I'm sure Pepsi would argue that they have lost something of value to them but it would be hard to accuse someone of stealing Pepsi if they made their own.
But you are forgetting that to get the recipe, Pepsi invested millions in term of payroll, research, equipment, infrastructure and product development to create something that is unique and for which they built a customer base and generate revenue. That is, they created an intangible property.
Leakage of that over the internet would be a break in the law and it would cause potential harm to the company (and thus its shareholders, employees and 3rd party companies that have business deals with it.)
You taking that recipe and using it to make profit (or even just to use it for your own) is no different from me taking your car and use it (either to make profit as a delivery boy or for pleasure to drive me to disneyland or a strip club.)
These are what we refer to as "trade secrets". They don't get government protection. In fact, their entire basis of working revolves around maintaining secrecy. But really, if the was government alloted protection on this, the company would still be fucked if anything got out. In your examples, please set up scenarios that relate to the discussion.
Computers and the internet are good at copying stuff.
Photocopiers are good at copying stuff. I can copy a book using my copier or someone else and not pay what I should morally and legitimately should.
There's not even an argument here. You just call paying for a copyrighted work to be moral and legitimate. I'll give you that it's legitimate as our current laws provide control over works. But to call it immoral is to deny the basic facets of morality and how they interact with our culture. Stop being baseless.
You need to build your business model around that.
Though this is true, this argument i
Read amendment 10 - states control elections because we're a confederation just like the EU.
You know, I think most Americans seem to miss this subtlety of our government.
That's my favorite song to kill to!
Or we can throw away this whole "competition" thing and start working more towards a "cooperative" situation. Oh wait, am I expecting people to agree and work together? Sorry about that. Must have lost my head.
Truthfully, hyperdrive is less about propulsion and more about warping time and space.
75% isn't an effective monopoly?
For: stranglehold, see: monopoly. Thank you.
Doesn't Apple have a stranglehold on the digital MP3 market with iTunes?
Most of the "community" (see: people actually on the IRC channel) are well aware of the situation. The community you're referring to also sounds like the same community that can't be bothered to acquire information from anything other than second hand sources.
Dude, I'm totally hypothesizing a bake-out right now, too. It's like the scientists and I are totally on the same wavelength, man.
Are you not even paying attention to that issue? Google sent the C&D because Cyanogen was distributing applications that are sold with the Google Experience. It's not so much that the users aren't allowed to download it as much as it is the distributor lacks a method for verifying that the users have the appropriate license to acquire such content. In fact, some Google employees are assisting with the project at this point.
For the better, of course. Who needs all that witch-burning hooey?
But that 55 cents is being used to pay the people that sort it, carry the letter, etc. Those SMS messages are being tacked on to a part of the protocol that wasn't even in use. In short, it costs them NOTHING extra (mild power costs?) to send your "lol no u?" That's where the issue lies on this one, sir.
Actually, Google bought Android. Is anyone really keeping score these days?
Completely. How does one maintain exclusive possession of an idea?
Oh, sir. You tickle me graciously.
Man.. kiddy porn seems to REALLY ruin careers in this world. Just sayin'.
If you report all of the people anonymously, something is going to OBVIOUSLY be amiss after enough false accusations. Will people get hurt via this framing? Certainly. But the fact that they can means that there is something wrong with the current system.
I love how you capitalized "Unlimited" as if it really were "Unlimited" I doubt in the dictionary it states the definition of Unlimited to mean "Without limit, except in the case of a 5gb limit"
If memory serves, for Sprint's Simply Everything plan (as opposed to the "data" plans which definitely carry a 5gb average monthly usage soft limit), the definition of "unlimited" is a lot closer to the dictionary definition than your 5gb definition.
Math called, they want their indeterminates back.
Last I checked, that's not how one would go about defining a monopoly.
Really? What is this bullshit? Perhaps you have a better suggestion on what we should do in order to bring these books back from the dead. Be fucking happy that Google is a pro-competitive company and stop being a damned douchebag.
And before you decide to fire back, how many companies do you know of with the spare resources, manpower, or motivation to do this thing properly?
One could easily argue that by disconnecting the world from their primary source for these materials would follow along the same lines. Simply put, nothing good can come from China stopping trade on these goods.
And the entire world can CHOOSE to seek war against China. You assume ownership is an inherent right granted by the Universe. But I have news for you. Organisms fight. Organisms try to obtain resources. China doesn't "own" shit and if they decide not to play nice then they'll have to suffer the consequences. And if you disagree with me, then please prove that ownership is a concept that wasn't developed by people.
I don't know any geeks like that. Maybe you're different?
Do you propose Google leave the country to prevent themselves from hemmorhaging billions when they get sued in some stupid but somehow "legitimate" (that word really extends as far as the law lets it) lawsuit?