Except that it isn't. Where do you get this BS from? Every copy of software sold has support and accounting overheads. Downloaded software requires servers to run.
Also, the marginal cost of labor is zero - does that mean you should work for free? Or are you just being completely hypocritical in your ideology? If you inherit something, should you give that away for free, because it didn't cost you anything?
And copyright IS a government granted monopoly.
No, it's not.
It's a monopoly that says only the copyright holder can produce that particular software.
Ummm, that's not what a monopoly is. A monopoly is when a single entity has excessive control over a particular segment of the economy, not their own product. If you're going to argue something, at least get basic terminology right.
Your argument is like saying I have a monopoly because I own my house, and nobody else is allowed to sell my house.
That's fucking retarded. Software does not cost $0 to make. It doesn't just write itself. And copyright is not a government-granted monopoly. It's a government-granted right of exclusivity, or temporary ownership. It doesn't guarantee you a monopoly.
Tell me, are trademarks wrong, too? After all, it costs basically zero to create a trademark, and it is government-granted exclusivity - yet companies make a lot of money from them.
Is paying for human labor wrong? After all it costs you $0 to perform work, and if it wasn't for government protections, you'd just be working as a slave to somebody.
Although you are trying to ignore this fact, there is a difference between having competitors in a market, and that market being competitive. It's a subtle difference, but it is there.
OK, so what is it? The claim that software is an uncompetitive market is absurd, any way you look at it. Would you please demonstrate this claim?
I mean, it's not like software is the the only field that has patents, every field has patents. And there are plenty of other markets less competitive than software, and it's not due to patents. Patents are a pretty minor issue in software development, not something that's stifling the industry.
We will have that balance the moment our social and governmental attitude towards the media companies consists of: "adapt your business model to the 21st century and create an online product that people want to buy, or go bankrupt.
No, it wouldn't change. People would still be bitching over the slightest cost, or even the idea that businesses exist. This is easy to see online - for example, the people who bitch over iPhone applications that are either free or cost 99 cents. Or the people who claimed they would buy downloadable music if it didn't have DRM, but then found something else to complain about when Amazon and iTunes released DRM-free downloads. Plenty of companies have adapted to the 21st Century, but the world is never short of retarded fuckwads who like to whine. I'm afraid that self-important bitches are a universal constant of human civilization. For another example, see Slashdot.
Nobody is representing your interests if you call yourself "consumer", other than the companies that want to sell to you. A consumer's interest is only to consume, so why would a consumer have any problem with meetings like this? After all, the aim is to benefit the companies that feed the consumers.
As we said early on, and have continually been proven right, Information just wants to be free.
When was this proven? Information is not a sentient entity, therefore, it can't "want" anything. Perhaps when you say "proven right" you mean "downright stupid"?
Without wanting to drift too far off topic, you only have to look at how companies use their overly broad and vague software patent portfolios to stifle competition.
And this makes the software market anti-competitive... how? If it wasn't competitive, they wouldn't have competitors to stifle, would they?
If patents were specific to a particular implementation and not overbroad, I might be able to agree,
That's how they are supposed to be.
effectively removing competition by raising the barrier to entry due to the threat of expensive patent litigation.
And yet, new competitors enter the software market every day, and it is one of the markets with the lowest barriers to entry. A market where massive companies are constantly threatened by tiny start-ups. Your argument just doesn't add up. It's only about the most competitive market on the planet you're claiming is uncompetitive.
OK, care to explain how software patents make software an uncompetitive field? It's an absurd claim, anyone can see that software is highly competitive, particularly in areas contended by patents.
The "by government fiat" argument is weak, because the whole market is created by government fiat - it's the government that prints the currency, and it's the government that enforces laws against theft, fraud, trademark, etc.
Expectations are such that consumers are willing to pay more for non-essential "gadgets" in relation to "tools". A person will buy a $2000 dollar laptop but wouldn't dream of buying a $2000 push mower (outside of premium or elite marketing).
That's an odd statement, because for most modern people, a laptop is a much more essential tool than a lawnmower. How many people outside the suburbs even have lawns? Even if you do have one, you could just pay someone to mow the lawn.
You must openly build on standards as the need arises, e.g. SD -> mini SD -> Micro SD
And that makes the standard less useful. As in your example, I have a large collection of standard sized SD cards, so it's annoying to come across a device that uses a mini or micro variant.
For those too lame to Google the words they don't understand in TFA.
So, now the solution to everything is Google? And people who expect articles to be written in a coherent manner so they don't have to use Google to understand it are "lame"?
Hmmmm.... I thought this whole "Information Technology" thing was supposed to make things easier and more efficient, not create extra work for us.
Slashdot is getting really fucked up. Do you really have such a bee in your butt over "intellectual property" that you're willing to equate fraud and attempted murder with copyright infringement? Yeah, this is going to convince people that IP laws should be banned.
I've always thought that people buy vinyl because it's just a bit more romantic. Or they're fucking idiots.
DJs buy vinyl because it's a better user interface for mixing. "Scratching" on a CD player is just not the same. Also, many rare tracks come out on vinyl that don't come out on CD (well, this used to be the case).
P.S.: There needs to be a "meta" tag, independent of mod-points. It should be able to be applied by the post's creator, and it should be one of the filterable tags.
I'm sure the overlords who "run" slashdot will get right on that.
That's particularly surprising on Slashdot, with a technical crowd who should be much more aware than the masses of how information can be gathered, used, and abused
That hasn't been true for quite some time now. Slashdot these days is essentially Digg with a slightly more informed user base.
How can a document be both confidential and copyrighted?
That's pretty easy. Works are automatically copyrighted at the time of creation. If you don't disclose the work, then it's both copyrighted and confidential. Did you try putting even two seconds of thought into it before you asked that question? It's not very difficult.
No, I said they were different. That's the opposite of equating them.
No, you didn't. You said that a copy of information was more like the concept of that information, than it was a copy of the information.
What you're talking about there is not copies of information. You don't download a copy of Ubuntu onto your hard drive by writing it or applying non-obvious human labor and intellect
What the hell? I was not talking about downloading Ubuntu when I wrote that, I was talking about the process of writing original software.
Someone who holds the copyright on a piece of software claims to own the concept of arranging bits in the sequence that makes up that program,
You obviously have no understanding of copyright law. The copyright owner is not claiming rights over the "concept of arranging bits in sequence," they are claiming rights over a particular creative work.
Someone who holds a patent claims to own the concept of putting parts together in a certain arrangement to make a working device, and they use the law to prevent anyone else from arranging those parts in that way.
No, someone who holds a patent claims rights over a certain arrangement of parts to make a particular working device. They don't claim the concept of putting parts together to make a working device.
You obviously have no understanding of copyright or patents.
If you're talking about information at all, you must either be talking about the abstract concept of that information (the number 1234567890123456) or a physical copy of it (a card with that number printed on it). There is no third state of information!
No, I'm talking about the information itself, not "the concept of information" or the physical medium it is stored on, but the information itself. Apparently, you don't believe that exists. That's OK, but it makes you either insane or stupid. Information actually exists. It is not the same as the concept of information, or the medium it is stored on.
Slashdot Mirror
The marginal price of software IS 0.
Except that it isn't. Where do you get this BS from? Every copy of software sold has support and accounting overheads. Downloaded software requires servers to run.
Also, the marginal cost of labor is zero - does that mean you should work for free? Or are you just being completely hypocritical in your ideology? If you inherit something, should you give that away for free, because it didn't cost you anything?
And copyright IS a government granted monopoly.
No, it's not.
It's a monopoly that says only the copyright holder can produce that particular software.
Ummm, that's not what a monopoly is. A monopoly is when a single entity has excessive control over a particular segment of the economy, not their own product. If you're going to argue something, at least get basic terminology right.
Your argument is like saying I have a monopoly because I own my house, and nobody else is allowed to sell my house.
That's fucking retarded. Software does not cost $0 to make. It doesn't just write itself. And copyright is not a government-granted monopoly. It's a government-granted right of exclusivity, or temporary ownership. It doesn't guarantee you a monopoly.
Tell me, are trademarks wrong, too? After all, it costs basically zero to create a trademark, and it is government-granted exclusivity - yet companies make a lot of money from them.
Is paying for human labor wrong? After all it costs you $0 to perform work, and if it wasn't for government protections, you'd just be working as a slave to somebody.
Although you are trying to ignore this fact, there is a difference between having competitors in a market, and that market being competitive. It's a subtle difference, but it is there.
OK, so what is it? The claim that software is an uncompetitive market is absurd, any way you look at it. Would you please demonstrate this claim?
I mean, it's not like software is the the only field that has patents, every field has patents. And there are plenty of other markets less competitive than software, and it's not due to patents. Patents are a pretty minor issue in software development, not something that's stifling the industry.
We will have that balance the moment our social and governmental attitude towards the media companies consists of: "adapt your business model to the 21st century and create an online product that people want to buy, or go bankrupt.
No, it wouldn't change. People would still be bitching over the slightest cost, or even the idea that businesses exist. This is easy to see online - for example, the people who bitch over iPhone applications that are either free or cost 99 cents. Or the people who claimed they would buy downloadable music if it didn't have DRM, but then found something else to complain about when Amazon and iTunes released DRM-free downloads. Plenty of companies have adapted to the 21st Century, but the world is never short of retarded fuckwads who like to whine. I'm afraid that self-important bitches are a universal constant of human civilization. For another example, see Slashdot.
Who is representing the consumer's interests?
Nobody is representing your interests if you call yourself "consumer", other than the companies that want to sell to you. A consumer's interest is only to consume, so why would a consumer have any problem with meetings like this? After all, the aim is to benefit the companies that feed the consumers.
As we said early on, and have continually been proven right, Information just wants to be free.
When was this proven? Information is not a sentient entity, therefore, it can't "want" anything. Perhaps when you say "proven right" you mean "downright stupid"?
Without wanting to drift too far off topic, you only have to look at how companies use their overly broad and vague software patent portfolios to stifle competition.
And this makes the software market anti-competitive... how? If it wasn't competitive, they wouldn't have competitors to stifle, would they?
If patents were specific to a particular implementation and not overbroad, I might be able to agree,
That's how they are supposed to be.
effectively removing competition by raising the barrier to entry due to the threat of expensive patent litigation.
And yet, new competitors enter the software market every day, and it is one of the markets with the lowest barriers to entry. A market where massive companies are constantly threatened by tiny start-ups. Your argument just doesn't add up. It's only about the most competitive market on the planet you're claiming is uncompetitive.
OK, care to explain how software patents make software an uncompetitive field? It's an absurd claim, anyone can see that software is highly competitive, particularly in areas contended by patents.
The "by government fiat" argument is weak, because the whole market is created by government fiat - it's the government that prints the currency, and it's the government that enforces laws against theft, fraud, trademark, etc.
Expectations are such that consumers are willing to pay more for non-essential "gadgets" in relation to "tools". A person will buy a $2000 dollar laptop but wouldn't dream of buying a $2000 push mower (outside of premium or elite marketing).
That's an odd statement, because for most modern people, a laptop is a much more essential tool than a lawnmower. How many people outside the suburbs even have lawns? Even if you do have one, you could just pay someone to mow the lawn.
Laptop batteries all use a standard cell which is slightly larger than AA.
That's not true at all. Some laptop batteries use flat-packed lithium polymer cells, not cylindrical cells.
You must openly build on standards as the need arises, e.g. SD -> mini SD -> Micro SD
And that makes the standard less useful. As in your example, I have a large collection of standard sized SD cards, so it's annoying to come across a device that uses a mini or micro variant.
Of course as soon as you are talking software, the market is by government fiat not competitive.
Errr, what? how is the software market "by government fiat" and how is it "not competitive"?
For those too lame to Google the words they don't understand in TFA.
So, now the solution to everything is Google? And people who expect articles to be written in a coherent manner so they don't have to use Google to understand it are "lame"?
Hmmmm.... I thought this whole "Information Technology" thing was supposed to make things easier and more efficient, not create extra work for us.
Did you even read his post? Because it certainly doesn't look like it.
Why? Would you care to elaborate?
Slashdot is getting really fucked up. Do you really have such a bee in your butt over "intellectual property" that you're willing to equate fraud and attempted murder with copyright infringement? Yeah, this is going to convince people that IP laws should be banned.
I've always thought that people buy vinyl because it's just a bit more romantic. Or they're fucking idiots.
DJs buy vinyl because it's a better user interface for mixing. "Scratching" on a CD player is just not the same. Also, many rare tracks come out on vinyl that don't come out on CD (well, this used to be the case).
Your mother's shack has a basement? Ooooh, laa-dee-daaa. Be careful not to spill your caviar into your Dom Perignon.
No tool should ever assume that it is smarter than me.
It probably is, but it's hard to argue with ego.
P.S.: There needs to be a "meta" tag, independent of mod-points. It should be able to be applied by the post's creator, and it should be one of the filterable tags.
I'm sure the overlords who "run" slashdot will get right on that.
That's particularly surprising on Slashdot, with a technical crowd who should be much more aware than the masses of how information can be gathered, used, and abused
That hasn't been true for quite some time now. Slashdot these days is essentially Digg with a slightly more informed user base.
If someone leaked that the USPS was steaming open letters for the government for $40 or whatever people would be going ape-shit.
Yes, they would. But what does that have to do with this story?
How can a document be both confidential and copyrighted?
That's pretty easy. Works are automatically copyrighted at the time of creation. If you don't disclose the work, then it's both copyrighted and confidential. Did you try putting even two seconds of thought into it before you asked that question? It's not very difficult.
Nonsense. There's nothing I enjoy more after a hard day's work than lying in bed, firing up the electron microscope and doing a little light reading.
he's a leading innovator in the grey-hat cracking scene.
Nobody's taking that seriously, either. Perhaps in your little world of w4nk3rs it's a big deal, but nobody else cares.
No, I said they were different. That's the opposite of equating them.
No, you didn't. You said that a copy of information was more like the concept of that information, than it was a copy of the information.
What you're talking about there is not copies of information. You don't download a copy of Ubuntu onto your hard drive by writing it or applying non-obvious human labor and intellect
What the hell? I was not talking about downloading Ubuntu when I wrote that, I was talking about the process of writing original software.
Someone who holds the copyright on a piece of software claims to own the concept of arranging bits in the sequence that makes up that program,
You obviously have no understanding of copyright law. The copyright owner is not claiming rights over the "concept of arranging bits in sequence," they are claiming rights over a particular creative work.
Someone who holds a patent claims to own the concept of putting parts together in a certain arrangement to make a working device, and they use the law to prevent anyone else from arranging those parts in that way.
No, someone who holds a patent claims rights over a certain arrangement of parts to make a particular working device. They don't claim the concept of putting parts together to make a working device.
You obviously have no understanding of copyright or patents.
If you're talking about information at all, you must either be talking about the abstract concept of that information (the number 1234567890123456) or a physical copy of it (a card with that number printed on it). There is no third state of information!
No, I'm talking about the information itself, not "the concept of information" or the physical medium it is stored on, but the information itself. Apparently, you don't believe that exists. That's OK, but it makes you either insane or stupid. Information actually exists. It is not the same as the concept of information, or the medium it is stored on.