software isn't licensed though, the contract only applies to the copyright system in general.
but you keep ignoring the fact that the copyright extending cartels have broken their side of the contract long before the public at large had infringed.
all copyright law says is that the content "producer" has the right to exclusive distribution. anything that has been tacked onto the copyright law, is from lobbyists who want to imbalance the original intent. if the lobbyists want those terms, fine. let them have it, so long as someone who doesn't want those terms, can easily say no. but then the corrupt bought and paid for system would break down if just anyone could refuse to be shackled beyond just the distribution clause.
nice try but human nature and good judgement rules out business trickery. you can try to force weird laws down the peoples throat... making people abide by "license terms" that are anything but reasonable, all that will do is make people not respect the law.
try in the future to do business honestly and ethically, even if the bribed-laws allow for you to gain more money through underhanded means. be good to your customers and they will give you their business. and you can even attain the respect of people like me.
because copyright is for the benefit of the public that's why. it originally lasted for 14 years in the US.. but in the age of information, it should be less than that, not more!
you can pass as much of the money you make from copyright on to your kids. you just can't transfer the copyright to your kids, at least not under the original copyright laws.
the right for you to sell software is ordained by copyright law, not an inherent law of nature. copyright is a man-made concept. before this perversion, information and knowledge belonged to all, freely. it upset the rich and powerful that people could distribute what they wanted to a great number of people, hence the sudden (relativel to human history) change of owning information.
make as much money as you can in the reasonable time alloted to you by the public through the copyright system. it doesn't matter to me or anyone else if you make a million or a billion, just that you make it in a short amount of time, not 90 years plus the life of the author and extending it every 20 years.
it's in the best interest of everyone, that we conduct all types of commerce, honestly and respectfully. if you stomp on the public, they will bite back and i won't blame them too much.
either we can have a system that benefits the public and authors , or we can have a system that benefits only the authors at the expense of the public. remember, copyright is a contract between the public and the authors... when one side breaks the contract, the other side will respond. and so far, the authors (cartels) have not only broke, but spit on, shitted on, burned and peed on the contract. the ball is firmly in the court of the authors to fix this mess or the public will fix it for them.
if copyright's scope and duration were reasonable, people would have far less contempt for copyright and the cartels behind it.
why are elvis' songs still under copyright? he died over 25 years ago. for example.
copyright cannot be transferrable... otherwise we get into even more hot water.
as to your last paragraph... yes copyright does protect it... but by your reasoning, anything "intangible" needs to be protected forever. do you think it's right that the producer of said content, who gained the knowledge and understanding through human culture, be allowed to keep that under lock and key and profit from it multiple times?
if you contract with a person, for example to fix a part of your home, which is intangible work, should that person be paid over and over? in the same way, copyright is a contract between the public and private individuals... they get to profit for a LIMITED TIME in order to get people to contribute back to society what they reaped from it. that pro-copyright people forget that... seems too convenient. there is a middle ground but no one on the cartel and pro side even remotely want to acknowledge it.
it's either become reasonable quick or abolish copyright. it no longer serves its purpose (and hasn't for a very long time).
since copyright lasts forever, you expect to be paid forever.
you could afford to live on copyrights if they only lasted 5 years. that you expect to be paid in perpetuity, means you're misinformed as to what copyright is really for.
it is not primarily for the profit of the content "producers", it's firstly for the benefit of the public and progress of science+arts. that the producers are to profit from it is a good way to achieve that public benefit.
when you lose sight of that, then copyright, a man-made structure loses even that minor benefit that allows it to exist.
wanting to control one's "content" other than distribution also goes against the laws of nature and just plain honest commerce. when a customer buys a copyrighted product, they buy the right to use that product any way they see fit. when producers want to dictate how and when they use it, i begin to lose even more respect for the copyright system (which is hard to do, i have so little respect for it now).
brush up on why copyright exists and don't quash the rights of the public... they are the ones that allow copyright to exist at all.
copyright is an abomination. the only reason people tolerate it is because they are uneducated about it's ills. it started off as a tool for the british monarchy's attempt to legally censor information they didn't want distributed. that's ignoring that information isn't owned by anyone and that to prohibit it at all is against the fundamental rights of mankind.
but i guess capitalism wouldn't exist if there were honest commerce around... hence capitalists despise "free trade".
only people who consider information and knowledge as property feel that way. the rest of the civilized and non-greedy human race feel otherwise and have felt that way unbeknownst to them, for millennia.
or you know, make copyright duration last less than the time it takes the universe to collapse on itself.
DRM has nothing to do with "fair use". DRM takes away rights you were supposed to get under the original copyright system. this is a common misunderstanding people have and is greatly repeated every day here on/. you could always do what you wanted with your copy of a work, as long as it wasn't be distributed. the fact that people even cite "fair use" just means most people have forgotten that it was always a RIGHT of the purchaser.
plus "fair use" only really refers to things like citing short sections of a work for education, satire and the like.
blocking what you can do with your copy, is not only downright disgusting, it was originally against the law. thanks lobbyists, our congress would be so much poorer without you.
effective at noon today, blacks will no longer be publicly hanged, they will be shot in the back of the head, execution style. this is progress, so applaud.
for evil to triumph, good people must remain quiet and applaud small steps back from the edge of oblivion.
if you check out the specs and do a reasonable analysis , you would see that pc's already surpass the next gen systems.
multiprocessor systems with 1 gf7800 (sli available) with 2 GB of ram and a very large, fast Hard drives and extremely high resolution output are available now.
consoles are already stillborn. by this time in 2006, the current high end system described above, will be a mid range pc and the next high end system will far surpass it.
face it, you're paying a ton of money for computing technology, no matter which platform you care for.
pssst buddy, i hear pc gaming is cheaper. and talk about backward compatibility. hoo boy and those abandonware sites will keep you busy for years with fun.
thei business model is of no one's business but theirs.
to prevent people using their own property, is illegal and immoral.
the law doesn't make it ok when lobbyists bribe congress to change them in favor of corporations. the law needs to be put back where it belongs.
there is no LOCKED property. that sony and other manufacturers refuse to let the owner have the key to their own property, is something that is insidious. i don't and no one else gives a damn what their "business model" is. when you buy something, that becomes YOUR property. that they don't give you the key to your property, means they are in breach of the contract (commerce). the price has NO bearing on this argument. i'm saying it's illegal to not give the owner the keys. which is just what is going on.
there is no single business model that is justifed in locking down property that does not belong to the manufacturer anymore(which is what happens when you buy something). the fact that this is hardware should be easier for non-techie folks to understand. somehow they're not getting the picture.
they can lock down all the pieces of hardware in their factories and warehouses but once money exchanges hands and the hardware is in my possession, by definition , the manufacturer no longer has a say in how the customer can use the product. sure they can deny warranty if you misuse it, etc but that's all. to prevent you from using it in any way, is breach of some law not to mention just plain dispacable and unethical. (no i'm not a lawyer but the world would be better off if people like me were).
copyright extends to infinity, hence the right of the public to take back what lawfully belongs to them. the laws that "lobbyists" bought and paid for are not for the benefit of the public and society, hence the laws are naturally offensive.
Slashdot Mirror
software isn't licensed though, the contract only applies to the copyright system in general.
but you keep ignoring the fact that the copyright extending cartels have broken their side of the contract long before the public at large had infringed.
all copyright law says is that the content "producer" has the right to exclusive distribution. anything that has been tacked onto the copyright law, is from lobbyists who want to imbalance the original intent. if the lobbyists want those terms, fine. let them have it, so long as someone who doesn't want those terms, can easily say no. but then the corrupt bought and paid for system would break down if just anyone could refuse to be shackled beyond just the distribution clause.
nice try but human nature and good judgement rules out business trickery. you can try to force weird laws down the peoples throat... making people abide by "license terms" that are anything but reasonable, all that will do is make people not respect the law.
try in the future to do business honestly and ethically, even if the bribed-laws allow for you to gain more money through underhanded means. be good to your customers and they will give you their business. and you can even attain the respect of people like me.
because copyright is for the benefit of the public that's why. it originally lasted for 14 years in the US.. but in the age of information, it should be less than that, not more!
you can pass as much of the money you make from copyright on to your kids. you just can't transfer the copyright to your kids, at least not under the original copyright laws.
the right for you to sell software is ordained by copyright law, not an inherent law of nature. copyright is a man-made concept. before this perversion, information and knowledge belonged to all, freely. it upset the rich and powerful that people could distribute what they wanted to a great number of people, hence the sudden (relativel to human history) change of owning information.
make as much money as you can in the reasonable time alloted to you by the public through the copyright system. it doesn't matter to me or anyone else if you make a million or a billion, just that you make it in a short amount of time, not 90 years plus the life of the author and extending it every 20 years.
it's in the best interest of everyone, that we conduct all types of commerce, honestly and respectfully. if you stomp on the public, they will bite back and i won't blame them too much.
either we can have a system that benefits the public and authors , or we can have a system that benefits only the authors at the expense of the public. remember, copyright is a contract between the public and the authors... when one side breaks the contract, the other side will respond. and so far, the authors (cartels) have not only broke, but spit on, shitted on, burned and peed on the contract. the ball is firmly in the court of the authors to fix this mess or the public will fix it for them.
if copyright's scope and duration were reasonable, people would have far less contempt for copyright and the cartels behind it.
why are elvis' songs still under copyright? he died over 25 years ago. for example.
copyright cannot be transferrable... otherwise we get into even more hot water.
as to your last paragraph... yes copyright does protect it... but by your reasoning, anything "intangible" needs to be protected forever. do you think it's right that the producer of said content, who gained the knowledge and understanding through human culture, be allowed to keep that under lock and key and profit from it multiple times?
if you contract with a person, for example to fix a part of your home, which is intangible work, should that person be paid over and over? in the same way, copyright is a contract between the public and private individuals... they get to profit for a LIMITED TIME in order to get people to contribute back to society what they reaped from it. that pro-copyright people forget that... seems too convenient. there is a middle ground but no one on the cartel and pro side even remotely want to acknowledge it.
it's either become reasonable quick or abolish copyright. it no longer serves its purpose (and hasn't for a very long time).
since copyright lasts forever, you expect to be paid forever.
you could afford to live on copyrights if they only lasted 5 years. that you expect to be paid in perpetuity, means you're misinformed as to what copyright is really for.
it is not primarily for the profit of the content "producers", it's firstly for the benefit of the public and progress of science+arts. that the producers are to profit from it is a good way to achieve that public benefit.
when you lose sight of that, then copyright, a man-made structure loses even that minor benefit that allows it to exist.
wanting to control one's "content" other than distribution also goes against the laws of nature and just plain honest commerce. when a customer buys a copyrighted product, they buy the right to use that product any way they see fit. when producers want to dictate how and when they use it, i begin to lose even more respect for the copyright system (which is hard to do, i have so little respect for it now).
brush up on why copyright exists and don't quash the rights of the public... they are the ones that allow copyright to exist at all.
copyright is an abomination. the only reason people tolerate it is because they are uneducated about it's ills. it started off as a tool for the british monarchy's attempt to legally censor information they didn't want distributed. that's ignoring that information isn't owned by anyone and that to prohibit it at all is against the fundamental rights of mankind.
but i guess capitalism wouldn't exist if there were honest commerce around... hence capitalists despise "free trade".
only people who consider information and knowledge as property feel that way. the rest of the civilized and non-greedy human race feel otherwise and have felt that way unbeknownst to them, for millennia.
the only way you can "control" "your" software is if it's GPL or similar. anything else by definition, is not under your control.
this one aspect will become more and more relevant to users of software in the coming years and decades.
so a member of the RIAA/MPAA does !some! good things...
such as what?
or you know, make copyright duration last less than the time it takes the universe to collapse on itself.
/. you could always do what you wanted with your copy of a work, as long as it wasn't be distributed. the fact that people even cite "fair use" just means most people have forgotten that it was always a RIGHT of the purchaser.
DRM has nothing to do with "fair use". DRM takes away rights you were supposed to get under the original copyright system. this is a common misunderstanding people have and is greatly repeated every day here on
plus "fair use" only really refers to things like citing short sections of a work for education, satire and the like.
blocking what you can do with your copy, is not only downright disgusting, it was originally against the law. thanks lobbyists, our congress would be so much poorer without you.
the british have been exporting their "way of life" for many centuries.
but i digress. we should all be willing to give upstart evil doers a chance to break into the business. it's only fair after all.
attention:
effective at noon today, blacks will no longer be publicly hanged, they will be shot in the back of the head, execution style. this is progress, so applaud.
for evil to triumph, good people must remain quiet and applaud small steps back from the edge of oblivion.
no you're thinking about western punishment. in the east, they'll treat you like a criminal, not give the prison industry a financial boost.
why would you need a kit?
you already own the physical chips and hardware when you buy a ps3.
people can't even wrap their heads around the fact that owning property aint what it used to be.
begging for the ability to use the chips you bought = pityable and shameful.
wake up people, it's time to fight back!
i'm glad people aren't able to program the computer chips they paid good money for.
i mean what would happen to the world if people could just ingore companies' business models? the world would suck shi* if people could own property.
what part of "property rights" didn't you comprehend?
you already own the device but are eager to let sony (ms, nintendo) tell you exactly what you may or may not do with your property.
if you cannot help yourself, let someone else try.
an in-order ppc core with 8 memory-starved simd units.
i find it hard to believe they spent billions bolting on a set of vector processors to a non-out of order ppc cpu.
maybe they spent most of the money on marketing and writing the software/apis.
you own it. that's the part of "because you can".
... why do you find that offensive?
do you let ford/toyota tell you where and when you can drive? do you let panasonc tell you when and how you can watch tv/use the display device?
there is NO contract. they are locking you out of your own property and people don't even understand the situation.
fighting for your rights to use property how and when and where
ironic that you waved your willy at the end of your post.
:)
i hear it's all the rage with kids nowadays.
if you check out the specs and do a reasonable analysis , you would see that pc's already surpass the next gen systems.
multiprocessor systems with 1 gf7800 (sli available) with 2 GB of ram and a very large, fast Hard drives and extremely high resolution output are available now.
consoles are already stillborn. by this time in 2006, the current high end system described above, will be a mid range pc and the next high end system will far surpass it.
face it, you're paying a ton of money for computing technology, no matter which platform you care for.
pssst buddy, i hear pc gaming is cheaper. and talk about backward compatibility. hoo boy and those abandonware sites will keep you busy for years with fun.
but you'd do business with MPAA + RIAA member, Sony?
why do business with any evil company in the first place (if you can help it).
i guess any death can also be considered natural selection.
darwin, coming to a death near you.
thei business model is of no one's business but theirs.
to prevent people using their own property, is illegal and immoral.
the law doesn't make it ok when lobbyists bribe congress to change them in favor of corporations. the law needs to be put back where it belongs.
there is no LOCKED property. that sony and other manufacturers refuse to let the owner have the key to their own property, is something that is insidious. i don't and no one else gives a damn what their "business model" is. when you buy something, that becomes YOUR property. that they don't give you the key to your property, means they are in breach of the contract (commerce). the price has NO bearing on this argument. i'm saying it's illegal to not give the owner the keys. which is just what is going on.
there is no single business model that is justifed in locking down property that does not belong to the manufacturer anymore(which is what happens when you buy something). the fact that this is hardware should be easier for non-techie folks to understand. somehow they're not getting the picture.
they can lock down all the pieces of hardware in their factories and warehouses but once money exchanges hands and the hardware is in my possession, by definition , the manufacturer no longer has a say in how the customer can use the product. sure they can deny warranty if you misuse it, etc but that's all. to prevent you from using it in any way, is breach of some law not to mention just plain dispacable and unethical. (no i'm not a lawyer but the world would be better off if people like me were).
in other words, you support the right of manufacturers to deny customers the ability to fully use what they buy.
glad to know which side some people are on.
roms from 10-15 years ago.
copyright extends to infinity, hence the right of the public to take back what lawfully belongs to them. the laws that "lobbyists" bought and paid for are not for the benefit of the public and society, hence the laws are naturally offensive.