IP law should not be for the people but for the person.
The person (inventor) should be rewarded for his or there hard work. An inventor does not have to be an employee but it is most likely in his best intrest do be an employee or he would not be one. Take the example of Steven King. He has decieded that he no longer needs to be an employee he can do it him self, most people can not.
If you were to elimate IP the companies would not longer find it profitable to hire inventors.
"What if painting had been patented, or perspective, or any other great leap forward? How about fire??"
For a few years one person or company would get rich off of selling fire, they deserve it fire is a big deal. Then after a few years, when the patent expired everyone, would sell fire.
Why should we try to stop progress in the name of profit for the few?
It is not about stopping progress it is about trying to encourage it. What if the people who invent went on strike or decided not to invent any more? Who would invent? You? Lets try to keep the inventors happy.
Now I don't know much about the gimp but what does it use for it's image backend. Imlib? Would the new Imlib2 effect it's speed any? I find that the GIMP kind of chokes on large images (over 70mb). Thanks Will
How would an artest live if they got no money from there song. Most artest are not as rich as Matalica most are middle class.
The sales of there music is a source of income it gives them more time to write good music. Take that away and the artist will for the most part go away.
Sharing and stealing are diffrent. If the artest wanted you yo trade there MP3's for free (and a lot do) that is sharing but if you take it with out the person who created it telling you you can that is stealing.
You spean like Marx did and communisum failed. Why? Because the incentive to work was gone and the government had to force people to work.
In a free economy (not a mixed one like we have to day) Monopolies are impossibable. The only thing that can create a true monopoly is the government. The government can use force to create a monopoly no one else can. (by force I mean physical).
Look at the rail roads in the US. This is one of the few examples of monopoly. The government was involved in the building and did not allow anyone else to do that same.
Microsoft is not stoping anyone from selling another OS. Be, Linux,QNX, they exist. People dont buy them. Why? They are not a good (by good I mean a lot of things avablity is one of them so is compatiblity).
Your logic is flawed and stupid. Get a grip and stop trying to start shit.
This is the same thing that happened to the early railroads. The government "gave" land to a rail was and gave them exclusive rights to it. And what happened? The bigest monoply of US history.
Let the market take care of it's self. It will work it's self out. The worst thing that could happen is that the government get involved.
Think about it. If ONE company is the only company (or one of the few) that can provide access to the people and is supported by the government and the court system. That would make M$ look like a small business.
The government should stay out! The market WILL take care of it's self. This is no diffrent than the rail roads only a diffrent meaden.
You can learn alot about the future by looking at our past. The past shows the facts.
First of all relax. Just because I don't believe the same thing you do does not make me evol (well maybe it does ). I do believe in a grey area just not the same one you do.
I am not even going to justify your "aryan" remark. That has nothing to do with the topic and you were using it to start flame.
Is an ISP a BASIC service? If the pore man gets it for free but I pay for a private company, do I still have to pay the taxes for that service? You bet I do. Is that wright? Why is the pore man more important than me?
Relax man lets try to have an intelligent conversation with out being mean.
I personally feel that the rights of the individual are more important than the benefits of the group.
This is bad in three ways 1) Eliminates chose. The government is the worst monolopy of them all. 2) Allows for government control in the privat sector. If the government if providing it they can filter it who is to stop them? The government? 3) Kills private business This takes away my freedom. If I want to be an ISP it would be very difficult to do it in this system
NOTHING is free. In this system people pay for it weather they want it or not. Some people pay for it more than others. The people that have more pay more taxes. What if your ISP said to you " Well you make 80k so we are doing to charge you $60 a month for your service if you made 40k you would only have to pay $30"? It would probably make you mad.
I _never_ use windows. And I never felt forced in anyway to use it. I took a job that does not use windows, don't use windows at home, my girl friend does not use windows, and even at my school Library I use a terminal instead of windows.
I don't play many games so I guess that helps but as far as I know there are a lot of games avable for Mac(I happen to love Macs but I love Linux more).
So there are more games for Windows (again I don't play games so I am just guessing on this one) what if there were more games for Linux. Should that not be allowed? What is your point? Force is a strong word you should use a word more like encourage.
If Linux is so great why does it not have more games for it? Easy! Because up until recently it did not make that good of a desktop OS but thanks to our good friends at KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment (and the list goes on) it is now becoming an option.
If you don't like it don't use it, Simple.
Hey most of us here think that Windows is not all that good, give it time Linux will catch up and thats when my mom will be using it, and you will be able to play all your games in it.
I agree with a lot of points in the article. I think that the article should have spent more time explaining his points of view instead of bashing others.
I am an Objectivist (www.aynrand.org) and because of that for a long time I strugled with the idea of the GPL and if it would be moraly right for _me_ to endorse it (I don't want to be a hypocrate). In the end I came to a conclusion, the GPL is ok.
In the folowing I will outline some of the points of Objectivism and how they apply to free software. I will then add some comments about free software.
1 Reason When someone sets out to write a piece of software they have goals. That goal might be to make a good piece of software to better server them selves. If your goal is to say, create a great window manager, it could be a daunting task to do all by your self. A person must use reason to achieve his goal. This person's goal was never to make money off this piece of software. If this person could pool the resources of lots of WILLING people who also want to receive the same goal and by doing so would produce a better application faster reason would direct them to the GPL. The GPL allows for this modal of development if the goal is a better piece of software and not monitary.
2. Self-interest When a person sets out to develop a piece of software they are most likely are doing it out of self-interest. The GPL allows for this self-interest. The developer might want a better piece of soft ware and not a monetary reward. Most people(if not all) license a piece of software under the GPL for selfish reasons, they want to be able to use a better piece of software(a return) for the least amount of time (there investment).
3. Mutual Consent NO one is being forced into the GPL. Personal chose is the basis of a free society, free software, capitalism, and objectivism. Everyone who partakes in the software must agree to the terms.
If you feel that GPL software is communistic you are off base. Communism is a system of enforced rules in which the community comes before you. In a communistic society personal choice and freedom are NULL and self-interest is considered a bad word. In a communism the powers that be can take everything from you, with the GPL no one can EVER take it from you. They can add to it, they can change it, they can make it better, but they can NEVER take it from you. When I speak of the GPL I speak of Reason (to make a better product with the least amount of investment), self-interest (to have a better product) and mutual consent (to agree to the license and hold to it). That is why I chose to make MY software GPL.
Yes, you are a victim. You are a victim because you are being played as pawn in Sony's game for a future where they and their kin control the very freedom and integrity of your online existence. You are a victim because you are mindlessly giving up freedoms in cyberspace which you would not have dreamed for a second of compromising in the world which you are used to.
Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?
What are you proposing? that Sony not be allowed to sell these things? wouldn't the be an attack on freedom.
No one is forcing anyone to buy it no one is forcing you to use it. That is what freedom is all about.
This is not about being anti-capitalistic..
Yes it is. You sir you are the one that wants to destroy freedom you are the danger not Sony. Free Trade is the backbone of a free society by limiting it you are limiting MY freedom.
This is about a cancer to capitalist society that has gone to far, and that is threatening the very freedom that capitalism exists ONLY to support
Let me remind you the capitalism is an economic issue not a social one. By limiting trade you would be taking away MY fredom.
It is a shame that people are not yet aware enough of the importance of electronic freedom to realize that they MUST reject the intrusion of electronics into their homes that is serving somebody else's agenda rather than theirs.
Have you lost your mind. People want this thing it is not an intrusion. You sir you are trying to intrude into my home by telling me not to buy something. You have no right!!!
Most humer is tragic thats what makes it funny I don't know why but it is. Look at all these home video shows. They are full of people getting hit in the nuts and falling; they are kind of funny.
Slashdot Mirror
I consulted with my pineal gland and it thanks you for the recommendation
Will
IP law should not be for the people but for the person.
The person (inventor) should be rewarded for his or there hard work.
An inventor does not have to be an employee but it is most likely in his best intrest do be an employee or he would not be one. Take the example of Steven King. He has decieded that he no longer needs to be an employee he can do it him self, most people can not.
If you were to elimate IP the companies would not longer find it profitable to hire inventors.
Will -sorry for my spelling it is late
For a few years one person or company would get rich off of selling fire, they deserve it fire is a big deal. Then after a few years, when the patent expired everyone, would sell fire.
It is not about stopping progress it is about trying to encourage it. What if the people who invent went on strike or decided not to invent any more? Who would invent? You? Lets try to keep the inventors happy.
Will
Communism takes from the middle class!
Who do you think the bourgeoisie were?
The middle class.
Will
Now I don't know much about the gimp but what does it use for it's image backend. Imlib? Would the new Imlib2 effect it's speed any? I find that the GIMP kind of chokes on large images (over 70mb). Thanks Will
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
,QNX, they exist. People dont buy them. Why? They are not a good (by good I mean a lot of things avablity is one of them so is compatiblity).
How old are you 12?
How would an artest live if they got no money from there song. Most artest are not as rich as Matalica most are middle class.
The sales of there music is a source of income it gives them more time to write good music. Take that away and the artist will for the most part go away.
Sharing and stealing are diffrent. If the artest wanted you yo trade there MP3's for free (and a lot do) that is sharing but if you take it with out the person who created it telling you you can that is stealing.
You spean like Marx did and communisum failed. Why? Because the incentive to work was gone and the government had to force people to work.
In a free economy (not a mixed one like we have to day) Monopolies are impossibable. The only thing that can create a true monopoly is the government. The government can use force to create a monopoly no one else can. (by force I mean physical).
Look at the rail roads in the US. This is one of the few examples of monopoly. The government was involved in the building and did not allow anyone else to do that same.
Microsoft is not stoping anyone from selling another OS. Be, Linux
Your logic is flawed and stupid. Get a grip and stop trying to start shit.
Will
-damn I can't spell
Don't do it.
This is the same thing that happened to the early railroads. The government "gave" land to a rail was and gave them exclusive rights to it. And what happened? The bigest monoply of US history.
Let the market take care of it's self. It will work it's self out. The worst thing that could happen is that the government get involved.
Think about it. If ONE company is the only company (or one of the few) that can provide access to the people and is supported by the government and the court system. That would make M$ look like a small business.
The government should stay out! The market WILL take care of it's self. This is no diffrent than the rail roads only a diffrent meaden.
You can learn alot about the future by looking at our past. The past shows the facts.
Will
-damn I can't spell
First of all relax. Just because I don't believe the same thing you do does not make me evol (well maybe it does ). I do believe in a grey area just not the same one you do.
I am not even going to justify your "aryan" remark. That has nothing to do with the topic and you were using it to start flame.
Is an ISP a BASIC service? If the pore man gets it for free but I pay for a private company, do I still have to pay the taxes for that service? You bet I do. Is that wright? Why is the pore man more important than me?
Relax man lets try to have an intelligent conversation with out being mean.
Will
I personally feel that the rights of the individual are more important than the benefits of the group.
This is bad in three ways
1) Eliminates chose. The government is the worst monolopy of them all.
2) Allows for government control in the privat sector. If the government if providing it they can filter it who is to stop them? The government?
3) Kills private business This takes away my freedom. If I want to be an ISP it would be very difficult to do it in this system
NOTHING is free. In this system people pay for it weather they want it or not. Some people pay for it more than others. The people that have more pay more taxes. What if your ISP said to you " Well you make 80k so we are doing to charge you $60 a month for your service if you made 40k you would only have to pay $30"? It would probably make you mad.
Will
I _never_ use windows.
And I never felt forced in anyway to use it.
I took a job that does not use windows, don't use windows at home, my girl friend does not use windows, and even at my school Library I use a terminal instead of windows.
I don't play many games so I guess that helps but as far as I know there are a lot of games avable for Mac(I happen to love Macs but I love Linux more).
So there are more games for Windows (again I don't play games so I am just guessing on this one) what if there were more games for Linux. Should that not be allowed? What is your point? Force is a strong word you should use a word more like encourage.
If Linux is so great why does it not have more games for it? Easy! Because up until recently it did not make that good of a desktop OS but thanks to our good friends at KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment (and the list goes on) it is now becoming an option.
If you don't like it don't use it, Simple.
Hey most of us here think that Windows is not all that good, give it time Linux will catch up and thats when my mom will be using it, and you will be able to play all your games in it.
Thanks
Will
If you use Win95 OSR2 or any windows after that, you are forced to use IE,
.....
Who is forcing you to use Windows? IE is part of Windows. If you don't like it run Linux, or FreeBSD, or BeOS, or QNX, or
Microsoft never used physical force (as far as I know) against anyone. They did not _force_ anyone to use anything.
Now if they were beating up store managers that would be a different story all together.
Will
I agree with a lot of points in the article. I think that the article should have spent more time explaining his points of view instead of bashing others.
I am an Objectivist (www.aynrand.org) and because of that for a long time I strugled with the idea of the GPL and if it would be moraly right for _me_ to endorse it (I don't want to be a hypocrate). In the end I came to a conclusion, the GPL is ok.
In the folowing I will outline some of the points of Objectivism and how they apply to free software. I will then add some comments about free software.
1 Reason
When someone sets out to write a piece of software they have goals. That goal might be to make a good piece of software to better server them selves. If your goal is to say, create a great window manager, it could be a daunting task to do all by your self. A person must use reason to achieve his goal. This person's goal was never to make money off this piece of software. If this person could pool the resources of lots of WILLING people who also want to receive the same goal and by doing so would produce a better application faster reason would direct them to the GPL. The GPL allows for this modal of development if the goal is a better piece of software and not monitary.
2. Self-interest
When a person sets out to develop a piece of software they are most likely are doing it out of self-interest. The GPL allows for this self-interest. The developer might want a better piece of soft ware and not a monetary reward. Most people(if not all) license a piece of software under the GPL for selfish reasons, they want to be able to use a better piece of software(a return) for the least amount of time (there investment).
3. Mutual Consent
NO one is being forced into the GPL. Personal chose is the basis of a free society, free software, capitalism, and objectivism. Everyone who partakes in the software must agree to the terms.
If you feel that GPL software is communistic you are off base. Communism is a system of enforced rules in which the community comes before you. In a communistic society personal choice and freedom are NULL and self-interest is considered a bad word. In a communism the powers that be can take everything from you, with the GPL no one can EVER take it from you. They can add to it, they can change it, they can make it better, but they can NEVER take it from you.
When I speak of the GPL I speak of Reason (to make a better product with the least amount of investment), self-interest (to have a better product) and mutual consent (to agree to the license and hold to it). That is why I chose to make MY software GPL.
Yes, you are a victim. You are a victim because you are being played as pawn in Sony's game for a future where they and their kin control the very freedom and integrity of your online existence. You are a victim because you are mindlessly giving up freedoms in cyberspace which you would not have dreamed for a second of compromising in the world which you are used to.
Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?
What are you proposing? that Sony not be allowed to sell these things? wouldn't the be an attack on freedom.
No one is forcing anyone to buy it no one is forcing you to use it. That is what freedom is all about.
This is not about being anti-capitalistic..
Yes it is. You sir you are the one that wants to destroy freedom you are the danger not Sony. Free Trade is the backbone of a free society by limiting it you are limiting MY freedom.
This is about a cancer to capitalist society that has gone to far, and that is threatening the very freedom that capitalism exists ONLY to support
Let me remind you the capitalism is an economic issue not a social one. By limiting trade you would be taking away MY fredom.
It is a shame that people are not yet aware enough of the importance of electronic freedom to realize that they MUST reject the intrusion of electronics into their homes that is serving somebody else's agenda rather than theirs.
Have you lost your mind. People want this thing it is not an intrusion. You sir you are trying to intrude into my home by telling me not to buy something. You have no right!!!
Most humer is tragic thats what makes it funny
I don't know why but it is.
Look at all these home video shows. They are full of people getting hit in the nuts and falling; they are kind of funny.
Please excuse my spelling
-evol
I love xmms.
I also listen to geeks in space so...
How about xmms playing Geeks in Space.
-ev0l
[will@may will]$ telnet www.armed.net 80
Trying 208.141.56.223...
Connected to www.armed.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
get foo
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:19:41 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 87
Who would download a linux dist from an NT server?
Something is not right here.
Be afraid Be very afraid.
ev0l
Do not download Netscape 4.7 glibc.
I downloaded it and it will not...
1. quit you have to kill -9 it
2. Load al lot of pages ie. slashdot.org, themes.org
I am using a RH 6 box
I downloaded the libc version and it worked fine.
Ev0l