I still do not see what is so hard to understand about this.
Because I stated in my original that it's a patched vulerabilitiy. Patched is not current. Got that? Patched is not current, and I clearly stated it was patched. If you don't get that because it's in bold, perhaps I should type it slowly for you.
I did not specify a release, just Vista, as the parent poster had. We were discussing vulnerabilities over time. The parent asked for references to exploits for Vista. I provided two links. One of them is not current. This was perfectly clear to anyone who read my post. The other link is to exploits being sold less than two months ago. Both the linked articles have dates on them. I used the article headline as text to link to it. I didn't realise there were any morons reading my post that wouldn't realise that patched=not current. If I was trying to mislead someone, I wouldn't give them a link to accurate information. Indeed, you have not needed to link to another site to make your point (unless you include definitions of former and latter), everything you've said about it was information that was prominent at the page I linked to and/or my post.
In addition to that, my point has not been changed or refuted in the least part by the fact that one of the exploits was not current. The only claim I made was that there were Vista exploits, one of which had been already patched. The links I gave were entirely consistent with what I wrote and the point I made.
So, in other words, Richard Stallman's "Four Freedoms" should be re-written to include "these freedoms do not apply if we don't like you or disagree with you".
Or they could rewrite it to say something like:
"You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."
or
"if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
or
"The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns."
Hypocritical radical fanatics, applying a license to their software, and expecting people to abide by it. No wonder people use Microsoft.
Microsoft says it's a security update for Vista, you say it's not. I didn't claim it was current, I linked to an article about the patch. I'll leave it at that.
It is standard industry practice to enforce license conditions on code you supply. The Novell/MS deal is an obvious attempt to get around the GPL via a loophole. Closing the loophole is not an extraodinary action. Nobody would raise an eyebrow except that the FSF requires GPL compliance rather than license fees.
And frankly, the fact if the FSF is really even considering this casts a bit of a shadow on Linux and Enterprise Support in general: Is it FSF sanctioned businesses only?
Novell's business model involved distributing licensed code. Normally, this would involve paying license fees to the supplier. The FSF has opted to require GPL compliance rather than license fee payments for the use of their code. It's that simple. Why do none of the people who think FSF is radical or fanatical for requiring GPL compliance think that proprietry software companies are fanatical for requiring payment? Why would an NDA, for example, be considered by the business community ok to enforce, but the GPL not? What makes anyone think they can base a business on a product licensed from someone else, violate the suppliers express intention in the licence, and still have a product to sell?
If you think of the FSF as suppliers of licensed code, rather than a fringe group of radicals, it'll make a lot more sense to you. They chose the license conditions because of their (RMS's) philosophy, but requiring compliance is standard industry practice.
So now I understand, you think I was misleading. Well, since I acknowledged in my original post that it was already patched, and the download page at Microsoft is titled "Security Update for Windows Vista December CTP (KB912919)" I hardly think I was misleading about it. If Microsoft says it's a security update for Vista, I believe them.
I am aware of the first one there, and the second only works in beta so we have one.
I thought this quote: "The Microsoft confirmation comes hard on the heels of a claim by anti-virus vendor Trend Micro that underground hackers are selling zero-day exploits for Windows Vista at $50,000 a pop." would have been enough to make it clear. If you'd followed the link in the story, you would have found this: "The Windows Vista exploit--which has not been independently verified--was just one of many zero-days available for sale at an auction-style marketplace infiltrated by the Tokyo-based anti-virus vendor." Well, they haven't been independently verified, but you wouldn't expect that with illegal code being sold for tens of thousands of dollars. One of many.
(I'm not denying nor would I ever deny that no exploits for Vista exist - only that past exploits for an OS that is 12 years old cannot sensibly be included against Vista - that is ridiculous).
I repeat: "As for why to mention old windows exploits, it seemed to be the point was to show how ludicrous Bill's challenge was. Try to get one a month? 140,000 in the last 12 years averages over 10,000 a month. Are we to beleive that Vista is so much better that this number will drop to less than 1/month? This does not seem likely to me at all."
It's not saying that the 140,000 exploits will work on Vista. It's saying "You've averaged about 10,000 a month for the last 12 years, it's a joke that you think you can get that to less than one a month with this release." Bill's challenge is marketting speak, nothing more. Nobody is claiming that there are 140,000 exploits current for Vista right now.
Perhaps you noticed the word and at the beginning of my post, indicating that I did realise that the example in my question was different from the one in your post. Look for definition 7 on the reference, if that will help.
To make it easy for you: To be fair, the latter patch was for Beta 1; the exploit isn't present in the RTM, and the exploits being sold? They are apparently current, and the service pack acknowledges current issues as well. Happy now?
and the exploits being sold? No, I don't know either, but if they're going for amounts like $50,000, my guess is that they are current, effective and soon to be widespread. In any case http://apcmag.com/5098/microsoft_kick_starts_vista _sp1 vista has "high impact issues" including security issues according to Microsoft.
Vista Exploit Surfaces on Russian Hacker Site: The Microsoft confirmation comes hard on the heels of a claim by anti-virus vendor Trend Micro that underground hackers are selling zero-day exploits for Windows Vista at $50,000 a pop.
Microsoft Ships First Vista Security Patches: A Microsoft spokesperson told eWEEK that the Vista patches address the same vulnerability that led to the WMF (Windows Metafile) malware attacks earlier this month.
There you go, Vista exploits, even acknowledged (and patched) by MS. I have no idea if there are actually more than on BeOS.
As for why to mention old windows exploits, it seemed to be the point was to show how ludicrous Bill's challenge was. Try to get one a month? 140,000 in the last 12 years averages over 10,000 a month. Are we to beleive that Vista is so much better that this number will drop to less than 1/month? This does not seem likely to me at all.
When it really doesn't work, you just have to re-install Windows.
s/re-install Windows/take it to the repairer/
[Anecdote warning] I think my mother would be typical of many computer users, ie: uses a few applications, other than that, no clue about computers. She buys her computer with the OS preinstalled. If she buys software, she likely gets the seller to install it. She will follow my instructions to download and install firefox etc. If she has a problem, she gets it fixed by the people at the shop, end of story. No re-installing, no editing files or registry. It makes absolutely no difference to her what her OS is as long as:
1 - she can do what she wants (www, email, write documents, make some simple home movies)
2 - the guy at the shop can fix any problems.
When I showed her my linux box I said "You click here for the internet, here for email, here for writing a letter" and opened firefox, evolution and OOo. Her comment "It's exactly like windows"
In short, Windows is at the shop, the guy at the shop can fix it and it can do what they want (applications). Do these three things and people will use it. Miss any one and they wont. Advocacy is not enough and linux misses on all three of these for many people. If the applications are good enough for many, they still can't get in installed at the shop and supported at the shop.
Micheal Savage... was explaining to his millions of listeners... that it's sheer impudence to imply that mere man can cause such a global condition.
Actually, it's biblical to say that man can cause such a global condition, and unbelief to say he can't. The bible specifically states that the earth is under man's authority and power.
My point was, if we are going to tell people, "We appreciate your interest in Linux, but we just can't help you unless you convince the CIO of your company to redo all of their backoffice.", how are we going to grow Linux's userbase? We need to convert the IT and the business people, but lets not neglect the users while we're doing it.
Target new businesses, more than converting existing businesses. Same with individuals. If you know someone getting their first computer and you think linux would be good for them, offer to help them. Help them choose hardware that works, recommend and install a distro for them, configure any third party software repositories for them. Everything it takes to get it ready for them to use.
For people starting businesses, vendor lock in is easy to explain. Monopoly prices on commodities are easy to explain. Business case for why companies release software Free/Open Source is easy to explain (tie in to vendor lock-in effects) and is necessary so the FOSS makes sense to them so they're not suspicious. The fact that they don't have existing IT infrastructure makes a lot of things easier. There are many businesses that don't need to exchange MS Office files at all, such as many tradespeople, handymen, small shops etc. http://www.linuxcanada.com/ has an accounting package called quasar which I haven't had time to test yet, but looks promising.
Or perhaps copying software is not fundamentally dishonest, and their basing their business model on a level of social manipulation that has not been accomplished?
If I understood the parent properly, he wasn't saying that if you like SS you have to accept gonzales speech, it's that to have SS, you either have to change the constitution or override/ignore it. If you choose the override/ignore option, there is then nothing to stop those in power from doing the same with any part of the constitution they find inconvenient. So if you override the constitution for SS, you are powerless against the gonzales of the world. If you change the constitution to implement SS, then the constitution can still be effective, and you don't have to put up the gonzales. It's in his second last paragraph "We can change the constitution if we think the feds should have more power. We just don't bother."
To be honest, recorded music is probably the least of my priorities as far as copyright goes. I can see why this would be different for you as your post seems to indicate that you are a professional musician. My wife and I listen to recorded music very rarely as she plays guitar and sings and I sing (though not professionally). My wife used to sing professionally, my daughter plays the keyboard.
I see various arguements of the positions on copyright, and there are some good points made on all sides. I will tell you some things that bother me though:
1. Copyright versions of the bible. How can something be the word of god and an innovative work by the copyright holder at the same time? I think of the people who gave their lives or risked their lives so that people could have the bible in their own language. Imagine trying to explain to one of them that you had translated the bible, had the capacity for unlimited distribution, but had decided to create artificial scarcity so that you could get paid. I could understand if they made them available for non-commercial reproduction for free but required royalties on sales I suppose.
2. Computers are the new means of production. Software, once created, is by nature unlimited in quantity. How can we justify creating artificial scarcity of the means of production, and distribute it on the basis of who already has money? It seems to me that this is an outrageous violation of any decent ethical principle, but software writers do need to be paid somehow of course.
These, in my mind, are far more important issues than whether or not people can download music for free. Obviously some people are working effectively to solve these problems without destroying copyright law but they highlight to me that there are some problems associated with copyrights that could potentially be outweighing the benefits. If some industries need to get smaller or disappear to solve these problems, it needs to be taken into account but is not necessarily a deciding factor on what should be done.
By the way, on a (sort of) unrelated topic, have you considered doing a live recording? I don't know how viable that would be for most bands or for you personally, but some people seem to do it profitably. Certainly you could do it for less that $24,000, and you would be doing it while you were getting paid for a show. Even without the free music utopia arriving (tounge in cheek) this could perhaps be worthwhile for you.
In the case of copyright (and other IP laws), what the law defines is the ownership. Because of ownership and other rights granted under the law, copyright violations can then fall under the language definition of "stealing", despite the fact that the word "stealing" does not directly include or reference copyright laws.
Except I've read the previous thread again and you are very specific that the "creation" and copies of it are yours regardless of copyright law, therefore taking it is stealing it regardless of the law. You are quite clear that it is stealing whether the law agrees or not. Now you have been very specific that "It's stealing only because it has been made unlawful".
You have directly contradicted yourself on a major point of your arguement. The major point. It doesn't matter if you acknowledge it or not, because anyone else who reads this can easily see that you have by following the two threads from here and here
Nevertheless, most people think of communism that way. I think you create unecessary opposition for yourself by calling your ideal communism if you don't want violent revolution, because people will think that's what you want, even if you dont
Well, I think we would probably agree on a lot of things. Many times when you post, though, it seems to say the opposite of what you said before, which makes it diffucult for me to understand what you really think. As an example:
It's stealing only because it has been made unlawful
but in this post you wrote in another thread:
Of cause it's stealing, because the words "theft" and "stealing" are -not- defined as "that which is covered by particular law xxx".
So in one post, you say it's only stealing because of the law, when previously you have stated that it's stealing regardless of what the law says. Of course, you may have simply changed your mind, or recieved new information. After all, the other post of yours I linked to is 2 months ago. But since you claim:
The stance I take is to represent the truth, and any unfortunate consequences that may come of it would be dwarfed by the alternative. ... then it would seem that either you have new information yourself which has caused you to change your mind or that you are able to consistently hold these seemingly contradictory statements. Maybe I've misunderstood, if I have, I'm open to hearing about it.
Please explain either
1. what new information you have recieved the past two months that has caused you to change from believing that copying is stealing regardless of the law, to copying is stealing only because of the law.
or
2. How copyright is simulateously only stealing because of the law and stealing regardless of law.
If you can't explain either, you might think about being a little quieter about how closely you adhere to the truth and how others standards are not high enough.
As for absolute truth about copyright, copyright law in the US, at least, is based on the constitution. The wording of the constitution clearly states that copyrights are implemented only to secure a desired outcome. Therefore it is certainly appropriate, when deciding how to view copyrights, to consider the consequences of the viewpoint taken. Copyrights are not an absolute truth.
Why put all that effort into changing how people describe reality, when you can put that effort into changing the reality where the faults actually lie?
Because people act on things according to what they think, and they think about things according to the way they describe them. Most people think of stealing as being absolute. Copyrights are not absolute. For most people to think of changing the law, and copyright terms in favor of the public, they need to think of it as not being an absolute right, therefore as not stealing.
in common use, and common understanding, from kids to adults.
Well, it seems that common understanding is that it is ok to copy. You might want to check out the internet, if you're not sure. And it's very easy to demonstrate to people outside of slashdot that it's not theft, using the MPAA's own examples. I think you will find that common understanding is becoming very different to the absolute "truth" you claim to "know" (with your knower?) and common use will change with it.
Of course if artists didn't give away all rights but instead signed away rights for as long as the publisher promoted them (or something) then we wouldn't get in this mess... I guess you'd need a consensus of nearly all musicians though.
I know someone who signed with a major label recently. She required substantial changes to the contract, including a much larger percentage of royalties. Much larger. They know they are not really needed anymore, and are prepared to negotiate terms with people who demand a better deal. She also did not give them sole distribution rights, I don't know the details more than that.
Slashdot Mirror
Who wants to risk going with a vendor who's at risk of being tied up by a bunch of lawyers they've never heard of?
If Novell had never heard of FSF it would be stange. FSF is one of Novell's biggest suppliers.
I still do not see what is so hard to understand about this.
Because I stated in my original that it's a patched vulerabilitiy. Patched is not current. Got that? Patched is not current, and I clearly stated it was patched. If you don't get that because it's in bold, perhaps I should type it slowly for you.
I did not specify a release, just Vista, as the parent poster had. We were discussing vulnerabilities over time. The parent asked for references to exploits for Vista. I provided two links. One of them is not current. This was perfectly clear to anyone who read my post. The other link is to exploits being sold less than two months ago. Both the linked articles have dates on them. I used the article headline as text to link to it. I didn't realise there were any morons reading my post that wouldn't realise that patched=not current. If I was trying to mislead someone, I wouldn't give them a link to accurate information. Indeed, you have not needed to link to another site to make your point (unless you include definitions of former and latter), everything you've said about it was information that was prominent at the page I linked to and/or my post.
In addition to that, my point has not been changed or refuted in the least part by the fact that one of the exploits was not current. The only claim I made was that there were Vista exploits, one of which had been already patched. The links I gave were entirely consistent with what I wrote and the point I made.
So if I understand...
Apparently you don't.
So, in other words, Richard Stallman's "Four Freedoms" should be re-written to include "these freedoms do not apply if we don't like you or disagree with you".
Or they could rewrite it to say something like:
"You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."
or
"if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
or
"The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns."
Hypocritical radical fanatics, applying a license to their software, and expecting people to abide by it. No wonder people use Microsoft.
Microsoft says it's a security update for Vista, you say it's not. I didn't claim it was current, I linked to an article about the patch. I'll leave it at that.
It is standard industry practice to enforce license conditions on code you supply. The Novell/MS deal is an obvious attempt to get around the GPL via a loophole. Closing the loophole is not an extraodinary action. Nobody would raise an eyebrow except that the FSF requires GPL compliance rather than license fees.
And frankly, the fact if the FSF is really even considering this casts a bit of a shadow on Linux and Enterprise Support in general: Is it FSF sanctioned businesses only?
Novell's business model involved distributing licensed code. Normally, this would involve paying license fees to the supplier. The FSF has opted to require GPL compliance rather than license fee payments for the use of their code. It's that simple. Why do none of the people who think FSF is radical or fanatical for requiring GPL compliance think that proprietry software companies are fanatical for requiring payment? Why would an NDA, for example, be considered by the business community ok to enforce, but the GPL not? What makes anyone think they can base a business on a product licensed from someone else, violate the suppliers express intention in the licence, and still have a product to sell?
If you think of the FSF as suppliers of licensed code, rather than a fringe group of radicals, it'll make a lot more sense to you. They chose the license conditions because of their (RMS's) philosophy, but requiring compliance is standard industry practice.
So now I understand, you think I was misleading. Well, since I acknowledged in my original post that it was already patched, and the download page at Microsoft is titled "Security Update for Windows Vista December CTP (KB912919)" I hardly think I was misleading about it. If Microsoft says it's a security update for Vista, I believe them.
I am aware of the first one there, and the second only works in beta so we have one.
I thought this quote: "The Microsoft confirmation comes hard on the heels of a claim by anti-virus vendor Trend Micro that underground hackers are selling zero-day exploits for Windows Vista at $50,000 a pop." would have been enough to make it clear. If you'd followed the link in the story, you would have found this: "The Windows Vista exploit--which has not been independently verified--was just one of many zero-days available for sale at an auction-style marketplace infiltrated by the Tokyo-based anti-virus vendor." Well, they haven't been independently verified, but you wouldn't expect that with illegal code being sold for tens of thousands of dollars. One of many.
(I'm not denying nor would I ever deny that no exploits for Vista exist - only that past exploits for an OS that is 12 years old cannot sensibly be included against Vista - that is ridiculous).
I repeat: "As for why to mention old windows exploits, it seemed to be the point was to show how ludicrous Bill's challenge was. Try to get one a month? 140,000 in the last 12 years averages over 10,000 a month. Are we to beleive that Vista is so much better that this number will drop to less than 1/month? This does not seem likely to me at all."
It's not saying that the 140,000 exploits will work on Vista. It's saying "You've averaged about 10,000 a month for the last 12 years, it's a joke that you think you can get that to less than one a month with this release." Bill's challenge is marketting speak, nothing more. Nobody is claiming that there are 140,000 exploits current for Vista right now.
Perhaps you noticed the word and at the beginning of my post, indicating that I did realise that the example in my question was different from the one in your post. Look for definition 7 on the reference, if that will help.
To make it easy for you: To be fair, the latter patch was for Beta 1; the exploit isn't present in the RTM, and the exploits being sold? They are apparently current, and the service pack acknowledges current issues as well. Happy now?
and the exploits being sold? No, I don't know either, but if they're going for amounts like $50,000, my guess is that they are current, effective and soon to be widespread. In any case http://apcmag.com/5098/microsoft_kick_starts_vista _sp1 vista has "high impact issues" including security issues according to Microsoft.
Vista Exploit Surfaces on Russian Hacker Site: The Microsoft confirmation comes hard on the heels of a claim by anti-virus vendor Trend Micro that underground hackers are selling zero-day exploits for Windows Vista at $50,000 a pop.
Microsoft Ships First Vista Security Patches: A Microsoft spokesperson told eWEEK that the Vista patches address the same vulnerability that led to the WMF (Windows Metafile) malware attacks earlier this month.
There you go, Vista exploits, even acknowledged (and patched) by MS. I have no idea if there are actually more than on BeOS.
As for why to mention old windows exploits, it seemed to be the point was to show how ludicrous Bill's challenge was. Try to get one a month? 140,000 in the last 12 years averages over 10,000 a month. Are we to beleive that Vista is so much better that this number will drop to less than 1/month? This does not seem likely to me at all.
When it really doesn't work, you just have to re-install Windows.
s/re-install Windows/take it to the repairer/
[Anecdote warning] I think my mother would be typical of many computer users, ie: uses a few applications, other than that, no clue about computers. She buys her computer with the OS preinstalled. If she buys software, she likely gets the seller to install it. She will follow my instructions to download and install firefox etc. If she has a problem, she gets it fixed by the people at the shop, end of story. No re-installing, no editing files or registry. It makes absolutely no difference to her what her OS is as long as:
1 - she can do what she wants (www, email, write documents, make some simple home movies)
2 - the guy at the shop can fix any problems.
When I showed her my linux box I said "You click here for the internet, here for email, here for writing a letter" and opened firefox, evolution and OOo. Her comment "It's exactly like windows"
In short, Windows is at the shop, the guy at the shop can fix it and it can do what they want (applications). Do these three things and people will use it. Miss any one and they wont. Advocacy is not enough and linux misses on all three of these for many people. If the applications are good enough for many, they still can't get in installed at the shop and supported at the shop.
Micheal Savage ... was explaining to his millions of listeners ... that it's sheer impudence to imply that mere man can cause such a global condition.
Actually, it's biblical to say that man can cause such a global condition, and unbelief to say he can't. The bible specifically states that the earth is under man's authority and power.
My point was, if we are going to tell people, "We appreciate your interest in Linux, but we just can't help you unless you convince the CIO of your company to redo all of their backoffice.", how are we going to grow Linux's userbase? We need to convert the IT and the business people, but lets not neglect the users while we're doing it.
Target new businesses, more than converting existing businesses. Same with individuals. If you know someone getting their first computer and you think linux would be good for them, offer to help them. Help them choose hardware that works, recommend and install a distro for them, configure any third party software repositories for them. Everything it takes to get it ready for them to use.
For people starting businesses, vendor lock in is easy to explain. Monopoly prices on commodities are easy to explain. Business case for why companies release software Free/Open Source is easy to explain (tie in to vendor lock-in effects) and is necessary so the FOSS makes sense to them so they're not suspicious. The fact that they don't have existing IT infrastructure makes a lot of things easier. There are many businesses that don't need to exchange MS Office files at all, such as many tradespeople, handymen, small shops etc. http://www.linuxcanada.com/ has an accounting package called quasar which I haven't had time to test yet, but looks promising.
When you couple your misunderstanding with an unsubstantiated character attack, you get blamed. It's the old "Do unto others..." thing in action.
Or perhaps copying software is not fundamentally dishonest, and their basing their business model on a level of social manipulation that has not been accomplished?
beagle will search by the info in id3 tags
If I understood the parent properly, he wasn't saying that if you like SS you have to accept gonzales speech, it's that to have SS, you either have to change the constitution or override/ignore it. If you choose the override/ignore option, there is then nothing to stop those in power from doing the same with any part of the constitution they find inconvenient. So if you override the constitution for SS, you are powerless against the gonzales of the world. If you change the constitution to implement SS, then the constitution can still be effective, and you don't have to put up the gonzales. It's in his second last paragraph "We can change the constitution if we think the feds should have more power. We just don't bother."
To be honest, recorded music is probably the least of my priorities as far as copyright goes. I can see why this would be different for you as your post seems to indicate that you are a professional musician. My wife and I listen to recorded music very rarely as she plays guitar and sings and I sing (though not professionally). My wife used to sing professionally, my daughter plays the keyboard.
I see various arguements of the positions on copyright, and there are some good points made on all sides. I will tell you some things that bother me though:
1. Copyright versions of the bible. How can something be the word of god and an innovative work by the copyright holder at the same time? I think of the people who gave their lives or risked their lives so that people could have the bible in their own language. Imagine trying to explain to one of them that you had translated the bible, had the capacity for unlimited distribution, but had decided to create artificial scarcity so that you could get paid. I could understand if they made them available for non-commercial reproduction for free but required royalties on sales I suppose.
2. Computers are the new means of production. Software, once created, is by nature unlimited in quantity. How can we justify creating artificial scarcity of the means of production, and distribute it on the basis of who already has money? It seems to me that this is an outrageous violation of any decent ethical principle, but software writers do need to be paid somehow of course.
These, in my mind, are far more important issues than whether or not people can download music for free. Obviously some people are working effectively to solve these problems without destroying copyright law but they highlight to me that there are some problems associated with copyrights that could potentially be outweighing the benefits. If some industries need to get smaller or disappear to solve these problems, it needs to be taken into account but is not necessarily a deciding factor on what should be done.
By the way, on a (sort of) unrelated topic, have you considered doing a live recording? I don't know how viable that would be for most bands or for you personally, but some people seem to do it profitably. Certainly you could do it for less that $24,000, and you would be doing it while you were getting paid for a show. Even without the free music utopia arriving (tounge in cheek) this could perhaps be worthwhile for you.
In the case of copyright (and other IP laws), what the law defines is the ownership. Because of ownership and other rights granted under the law, copyright violations can then fall under the language definition of "stealing", despite the fact that the word "stealing" does not directly include or reference copyright laws.
Except I've read the previous thread again and you are very specific that the "creation" and copies of it are yours regardless of copyright law, therefore taking it is stealing it regardless of the law. You are quite clear that it is stealing whether the law agrees or not. Now you have been very specific that "It's stealing only because it has been made unlawful".
You have directly contradicted yourself on a major point of your arguement. The major point. It doesn't matter if you acknowledge it or not, because anyone else who reads this can easily see that you have by following the two threads from here and here
Nevertheless, most people think of communism that way. I think you create unecessary opposition for yourself by calling your ideal communism if you don't want violent revolution, because people will think that's what you want, even if you dont
Well, I think we would probably agree on a lot of things. Many times when you post, though, it seems to say the opposite of what you said before, which makes it diffucult for me to understand what you really think. As an example:
... then it would seem that either you have new information yourself which has caused you to change your mind or that you are able to consistently hold these seemingly contradictory statements. Maybe I've misunderstood, if I have, I'm open to hearing about it.
It's stealing only because it has been made unlawful
but in this post you wrote in another thread:
Of cause it's stealing, because the words "theft" and "stealing" are -not- defined as "that which is covered by particular law xxx".
So in one post, you say it's only stealing because of the law, when previously you have stated that it's stealing regardless of what the law says. Of course, you may have simply changed your mind, or recieved new information. After all, the other post of yours I linked to is 2 months ago. But since you claim:
The stance I take is to represent the truth, and any unfortunate consequences that may come of it would be dwarfed by the alternative.
Please explain either
1. what new information you have recieved the past two months that has caused you to change from believing that copying is stealing regardless of the law, to copying is stealing only because of the law. or
2. How copyright is simulateously only stealing because of the law and stealing regardless of law.
If you can't explain either, you might think about being a little quieter about how closely you adhere to the truth and how others standards are not high enough.
As for absolute truth about copyright, copyright law in the US, at least, is based on the constitution. The wording of the constitution clearly states that copyrights are implemented only to secure a desired outcome. Therefore it is certainly appropriate, when deciding how to view copyrights, to consider the consequences of the viewpoint taken. Copyrights are not an absolute truth.
Why put all that effort into changing how people describe reality, when you can put that effort into changing the reality where the faults actually lie?
Because people act on things according to what they think, and they think about things according to the way they describe them. Most people think of stealing as being absolute. Copyrights are not absolute. For most people to think of changing the law, and copyright terms in favor of the public, they need to think of it as not being an absolute right, therefore as not stealing.
in common use, and common understanding, from kids to adults.
Well, it seems that common understanding is that it is ok to copy. You might want to check out the internet, if you're not sure. And it's very easy to demonstrate to people outside of slashdot that it's not theft, using the MPAA's own examples. I think you will find that common understanding is becoming very different to the absolute "truth" you claim to "know" (with your knower?) and common use will change with it.
Of course if artists didn't give away all rights but instead signed away rights for as long as the publisher promoted them (or something) then we wouldn't get in this mess ... I guess you'd need a consensus of nearly all musicians though.
I know someone who signed with a major label recently. She required substantial changes to the contract, including a much larger percentage of royalties. Much larger. They know they are not really needed anymore, and are prepared to negotiate terms with people who demand a better deal. She also did not give them sole distribution rights, I don't know the details more than that.