Why do people have to be so black-and-white on this issue? Pirates think everything should be free and argue like they're entitled to steal. Argue with them, and they point to illegal MediaSentry tactics and DRM as justification.
The truth is both sides are wrong. The MPAA, RIAA, ESA, etc. forge huge numbers of loss, not pointing to money that shifted to another market. Pirates aren't entitled to steal, but people who produce IP shouldn't be entitled to harass their customers either.
If you really want to solve the issue it is quite simple.
Put out a convenient product, instead of a DRM-ladened one, and people will but it. People will even accept DRM if it isn't too obnoxious. People are buying music and video legally over the internet. Digital distribution is the future and the big boys better embrace it rather than fight it.
Next, if you want to see were the real theft is, it isn't 12-year old girls downloading Rhianna albums, but rather rampant pirating in places like China and Russia, where pirates mass-produce your material and resell it illegally.
The US economy would be vastly better off if they received money from the IP they produced globally. The entire world watches our shows, movies, listens to our music, uses our software, plays our games, etc.
A real international force (unlike the UN) should be able to enforce sanctions against nations who do nothing to crack down on massive piracy. Allowing pirated DVDs to be sold on the street is not acceptable.
Next, consumers in China often have less money to spend than their US counterparts (though that may change) and they are used to cheap prices on pirate goods.
The MPAA should HIRE the guys doing the best bootleg releases over there to turn around quick, legal, localized releases and sell them cheap to compete with the pirate market.
The sad thing is that pirate releases are sometimes vastly more convenient, and better than commercial releases. Check out pirate Windows XP CDs loaded with new drivers, pre-loaded apps, simpler installers, etc.
His website echos what I've seen him state several times, that like most other issues, he isn't a fan of government regulation in business. I've yet to see him say he is anti-net-neutrality, or that he wants government regulation.
Obama was very pro-net-neutrality, so he gets points for that, except the stance disappeared from his website, so the promise is less clear. This is also a guy who promised to vote against the FISA bill over and over again, even the day before the vote, and then voted for it.
Google developed their own power supply, and open-sourced the hardware, saying it saves them tons of energy and the rest of the world should use it. Mind you, it is DC, and it means a total DC data center, but really that isn't a bad idea.
Virtualization is also the way to go to save power. Fewer servers.
Except he said many times in interviews that Eidos wouldn't allow him to make a game he wanted, and forced many decisions on him. He washed his hands of that game. His name was used, but he didn't design the game.
Planescape Torment was critically acclaimed by the few who played it. Many called it the best PC game ever. Yet so few bought it, we'll never see another game like it.
Look most people here think either you're 100% free or you're not, and not being free is evil.
First off, it is debatable whether or not BSD or GPL is more free. GPL will keep future code open, but BSD has less restrictions. Is a restrictive license free, or is it free because you better protect future code?
Next, the project is under BSD. The original license allows a proprietary fork. So why is this evil?
Lastly, it seems like the original OSS team isn't getting the job done, where as now you'll be paid to make a working product. Wasn't that the initial goal of creating the project, to put out something working and feasible? It could be this is the best shot at putting out a product for a specific need.
The IT industry isn't all that great these days. Take a paying job when you can get it. If you really feel bad, I'd contribute OSS code to other non-competing projects under a secret pseudonym to ease you conscience.
IBM made up the litany of complaints from technology boards around the world? Afraid not, since those are confirmed and I've been reading those first hand from the boards complaining.
IBM made up Microsoft replacing seats on various boards to push this?
IBM made up ISO fast-tracking a huge document that is impossible to implement?
You know what, I just shouldn't respond to ACs. The only FUD and lies here in your post.
Honestly, PJ should forward all data related to the ISO/OOXML scandal and these latest actions to the DoJ and request they open another antitrust case. I'm not sure there has ever been a more clear-cut case of anti-competitive behavior from MS.
Any protocol they opened for developers, you can write OSS for without fear of patent reprisal.
Again, this is what the EU demanded in their ruling. Microsoft must comply or they face fines, and the possibility of not being able to sell software in the EU.
Re:Subtle political trolling
on
Google, Circa 2001
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It isn't a dig against Obama. It merely contrasts how the results back then are completely different from today's results. How is that slandering him?
The Mono group own all the copyright on all the Moonlight code, and part of the EU agreement is Microsoft agreeing to develop some interoperability projects. Rolling back on the specific pledges they made in regards to Mono and Moonlight would likely bring down EU fines.
Microsoft is likely to remain largely closed off in other regards, but I don't know if they are going to suddenly try to close off Silverlight to block Moonlight users. Even they tried, it isn't like they can close off the source code for Moonlight, given that they don't own it. The Mono team can continue to support Moonlight so long as they choose to.
Is this a web-based back end for hosting apps on a server? Is it an online platform of application infrastructure? Is it a toolkit/API for writing apps like Ruby-on-Rails?
Except people do already. And that isn't the point that RMS made. I'm shocked. I expected him to go off on a privacy rant, instead he simply said that this is all gibberish and won't happen.
Except it already did. Web apps are a very large part of today's internet.
Except, the market has already spoken. Services like Gmail are becoming more popular all the time. Browsers are all focusing on javascript speed at the moment for precisely this reason.
End-user cloud computing is being oversold. I doubt any of us will fully go to a web-os, but web-based apps become more important with every year, and are already so exceedingly popular that only a fool would dismiss them and call them gibberish, precisely like RMS did.
Just as actualization is saving my company lots of money today, I'm sure in the future cloud computing will do the same. To an extent, cloud computing for the big business is a natural extension of actualization. For the consumer, getting rid of their OS and depending fully on the web is likely a pipe dream.
Bush proposed it. I don't know if it is fair to say that Republicans tried to push it through, when by percentages they have been the ones most opposed to it.
(BTW, I agree with you on principle, but certain opinions always get modded up or down, based on whether or not people agree with this opinions, and it has nothing to do with how the person presented those opinions. For instance, try suggesting that Windows is superior to Linux in every way, or that Apple sucks. See how you get modded.)
Slashdot Mirror
Why do people have to be so black-and-white on this issue? Pirates think everything should be free and argue like they're entitled to steal. Argue with them, and they point to illegal MediaSentry tactics and DRM as justification.
The truth is both sides are wrong. The MPAA, RIAA, ESA, etc. forge huge numbers of loss, not pointing to money that shifted to another market. Pirates aren't entitled to steal, but people who produce IP shouldn't be entitled to harass their customers either.
If you really want to solve the issue it is quite simple.
Put out a convenient product, instead of a DRM-ladened one, and people will but it. People will even accept DRM if it isn't too obnoxious. People are buying music and video legally over the internet. Digital distribution is the future and the big boys better embrace it rather than fight it.
Next, if you want to see were the real theft is, it isn't 12-year old girls downloading Rhianna albums, but rather rampant pirating in places like China and Russia, where pirates mass-produce your material and resell it illegally.
The US economy would be vastly better off if they received money from the IP they produced globally. The entire world watches our shows, movies, listens to our music, uses our software, plays our games, etc.
A real international force (unlike the UN) should be able to enforce sanctions against nations who do nothing to crack down on massive piracy. Allowing pirated DVDs to be sold on the street is not acceptable.
Next, consumers in China often have less money to spend than their US counterparts (though that may change) and they are used to cheap prices on pirate goods.
The MPAA should HIRE the guys doing the best bootleg releases over there to turn around quick, legal, localized releases and sell them cheap to compete with the pirate market.
The sad thing is that pirate releases are sometimes vastly more convenient, and better than commercial releases. Check out pirate Windows XP CDs loaded with new drivers, pre-loaded apps, simpler installers, etc.
His website echos what I've seen him state several times, that like most other issues, he isn't a fan of government regulation in business. I've yet to see him say he is anti-net-neutrality, or that he wants government regulation.
Obama was very pro-net-neutrality, so he gets points for that, except the stance disappeared from his website, so the promise is less clear. This is also a guy who promised to vote against the FISA bill over and over again, even the day before the vote, and then voted for it.
There would never be a game bug so bad it erases everything, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_of_Radiance:_Ruins_of_Myth_Drannor
Google developed their own power supply, and open-sourced the hardware, saying it saves them tons of energy and the rest of the world should use it. Mind you, it is DC, and it means a total DC data center, but really that isn't a bad idea.
Virtualization is also the way to go to save power. Fewer servers.
Except he said many times in interviews that Eidos wouldn't allow him to make a game he wanted, and forced many decisions on him. He washed his hands of that game. His name was used, but he didn't design the game.
It is called an element of strategy. Making different choices gives the game replay value than a standard FPS game wouldn't have.
Planescape Torment was critically acclaimed by the few who played it. Many called it the best PC game ever. Yet so few bought it, we'll never see another game like it.
The original had Warren Spector involved, a truly visionary designer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Spector
The sequel, and part 3 as well, have nothing to do with Spector.
Look most people here think either you're 100% free or you're not, and not being free is evil.
First off, it is debatable whether or not BSD or GPL is more free. GPL will keep future code open, but BSD has less restrictions. Is a restrictive license free, or is it free because you better protect future code?
Next, the project is under BSD. The original license allows a proprietary fork. So why is this evil?
Lastly, it seems like the original OSS team isn't getting the job done, where as now you'll be paid to make a working product. Wasn't that the initial goal of creating the project, to put out something working and feasible? It could be this is the best shot at putting out a product for a specific need.
The IT industry isn't all that great these days. Take a paying job when you can get it. If you really feel bad, I'd contribute OSS code to other non-competing projects under a secret pseudonym to ease you conscience.
IBM made up the litany of complaints from technology boards around the world? Afraid not, since those are confirmed and I've been reading those first hand from the boards complaining.
IBM made up Microsoft replacing seats on various boards to push this?
IBM made up ISO fast-tracking a huge document that is impossible to implement?
You know what, I just shouldn't respond to ACs. The only FUD and lies here in your post.
Honestly, PJ should forward all data related to the ISO/OOXML scandal and these latest actions to the DoJ and request they open another antitrust case. I'm not sure there has ever been a more clear-cut case of anti-competitive behavior from MS.
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/principles/osspatentpledge.mspx
Any protocol they opened for developers, you can write OSS for without fear of patent reprisal.
Again, this is what the EU demanded in their ruling. Microsoft must comply or they face fines, and the possibility of not being able to sell software in the EU.
It isn't a dig against Obama. It merely contrasts how the results back then are completely different from today's results. How is that slandering him?
Does Harry Potter get a Windows Nimbus 2000 in the special edition?
Honestly, I assumed resources were being pulled away from that to focus on Windows 7, but I do remember reading up on the project.
I think you're right however.
The Mono group own all the copyright on all the Moonlight code, and part of the EU agreement is Microsoft agreeing to develop some interoperability projects. Rolling back on the specific pledges they made in regards to Mono and Moonlight would likely bring down EU fines.
Microsoft is likely to remain largely closed off in other regards, but I don't know if they are going to suddenly try to close off Silverlight to block Moonlight users. Even they tried, it isn't like they can close off the source code for Moonlight, given that they don't own it. The Mono team can continue to support Moonlight so long as they choose to.
I think that is a very good guess. A full client would be Windows only, however Silverlight-in-a-browser could mean Linux supported via Moonlight.
Is this a web-based back end for hosting apps on a server? Is it an online platform of application infrastructure? Is it a toolkit/API for writing apps like Ruby-on-Rails?
Except people do already. And that isn't the point that RMS made. I'm shocked. I expected him to go off on a privacy rant, instead he simply said that this is all gibberish and won't happen.
Except it already did. Web apps are a very large part of today's internet.
Except, the market has already spoken. Services like Gmail are becoming more popular all the time. Browsers are all focusing on javascript speed at the moment for precisely this reason.
End-user cloud computing is being oversold. I doubt any of us will fully go to a web-os, but web-based apps become more important with every year, and are already so exceedingly popular that only a fool would dismiss them and call them gibberish, precisely like RMS did.
Just as actualization is saving my company lots of money today, I'm sure in the future cloud computing will do the same. To an extent, cloud computing for the big business is a natural extension of actualization. For the consumer, getting rid of their OS and depending fully on the web is likely a pipe dream.
openSUSE 11 is pretty incredible, and light years better than 10. You should check it out.
Bush proposed it. I don't know if it is fair to say that Republicans tried to push it through, when by percentages they have been the ones most opposed to it.
You must be new here.
(BTW, I agree with you on principle, but certain opinions always get modded up or down, based on whether or not people agree with this opinions, and it has nothing to do with how the person presented those opinions. For instance, try suggesting that Windows is superior to Linux in every way, or that Apple sucks. See how you get modded.)
Libertarians smoke pot.